《FOW CoE：2024漂浮式海上風電共址共存的機遇與挑戰研究報告（英文版）（75頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《FOW CoE：2024漂浮式海上風電共址共存的機遇與挑戰研究報告（英文版）（75頁）.pdf（75頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND CO-LOCATION AND CO-EXISTENCERISKS AND OPPORTUNITIESPublic Summary ReportAuthors:Caroline Whalley,Claire Greig,Luke EatoughSupported byDisclaimerWhilst the information contained in this report has been prepared and collated in good faith,ORE Catapult makes no representation or

2、warranty(express or implied)as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein nor shall we be liable for any loss or damage resultant from reliance on same.Floating Offshore Wind Co-Location and Co-ExistenceRisks And Opportunities Public Summary ReportAuthors:Caroline Whalley,Cl

3、aire Greig,Luke EatoughDate:25/01/2024Cover photo courtesy of Principle Power.Artist:DOCK90 List of Figures iv List of Tables iv Nomenclature vi Executive Summary viii1 BACKGROUND 11.1 Context 11.2 Project Overview 11.3 Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence 21.4 Project Partners 42 STAKEHOLDER

4、 ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 52.1 Key Stakeholders 63FOWCO-LOCATION&CO-EXISTENCEPRIORITYINTERACTIONS74FOWCO-LOCATION&CO-EXISTENCEPRIORITYINTERACTIONS DISCUSSION&ROADMAP114.1 Aquaculture 124.2 Carbon Capture&Storage 274.3 Defence 344.4 Oil&Gas 414.5 Subsea Cables 485CONCLUSIONS58 6 REFERENCES 59CONTENTSFIGU

5、RESTABLESFigure 1 Project Structure 2Figure 2 Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence Industry Partners 3Figure 3 Project Steering Group Members 4Figure 4 Stakeholder Engagement Structure 5Table 1 Interaction Priority Matrix 6Table 2 Interaction Priority Scores 6Table 3:High,Medium and Low Prior

6、ity Potential Interactions Between Floating Offshore Wind and Other Sea Users 8Table 4:Interaction A1 12Table 5:Interaction A2 13Table 6:Interaction A3 14Table 7:Interaction A4 15Table 8:Interaction A5 16Table 9:Interaction A6 17Table 10:Interaction A7 18Table 11:Interaction A8 19Table 12:Interactio

7、n A9 20Table 13:Interaction A10 21Table 14:Interaction A11 22Table 15:Recommended Activity Categories 23Table 16:Floating Offshore Wind and Aquaculture Interaction Roadmap 23Table 17:Interaction CCS1 27Table 18:Interaction CCS2 27Table 19:Interaction CCS3 28Table 20:Interaction CCS4 28ivTable 21:Int

8、eraction CCS5 29Table 22:Interaction CCS6 29Table 23:Interaction CCS7 30Table 24:Interaction CCS8 30Table 25:Recommended Activity Categories 31Table 26:Floating Offshore Wind and Carbon Capture&Storage Interaction Roadmap 31Table 27:Interaction D1 34Table 28:Interaction D2 35Table 29:Interaction D3

9、35Table 30:Interaction D4 36Table 31:Interaction D5 36Table 32:Interaction D6 37Table 33:Interaction D7 38Table 34:Recommended Activity Categories 39Table 35:Floating Offshore Wind and Defence Interaction Roadmap 39Table 36:Interaction OG1 41Table 37:Interaction OG2 42Table 38:Interaction OG3 42Tabl

10、e 39:Interaction OG4 43Table 40:Interaction OG5 43Table 41:Interaction OG6 44Table 42:Recommended Activity Categories 45Table 43:Floating Offshore Wind and Oil&Gas Interaction Roadmap 45Table 44:Interaction SC1 48Table 45:Interaction SC2 48Table 46:Interaction SC3 49Table 47:Interaction SC4 50Table

11、48:Interaction SC5 51Table 49:Interaction SC6 51Table 50:Interaction SC7 52Table 51:Interaction SC8 52Table 52:Recommended Activity Categories 53Table 53:Floating Offshore Wind and Subsea Cables Interaction Roadmap 53vNOMENCLATURECCSACarbon Capture and Storage Association CCUSCarbon Capture,Utilisat

12、ion&StorageEMFElectromagnetic FieldESCAEuropean Subsea Cables Association FADFish Aggregation DeviceFOWFloating Offshore WindFOW CoEFloating Offshore Wind Centre of ExcellenceGWGigawattINTOGInnovation and Targeted Oil&GasLCOELevelised Cost of EnergyMoDMinistry of DefenceMWMegawattNSTANorth Sea Trans

13、ition Authority O&GOil&GasO&MOperations&MaintenanceOREOffshore Renewable EnergyPEXAPractice and Exercise AreasSEPAScottish Environment Protection AgencySUDGSeabed User&Developer GroupUXOUnexploded OrdinanceViviiEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe recent launches of the ScotWind and Round 5 leasing processes marked

14、 the beginning of the leasing and development process for large scale floating offshore wind(FOW)in Scotland and the Celtic Sea,respectively.Both leasing processes incorporated an extensive and iterative consultation process in order to anticipate and mitigate a range of possible sectoral conflicts.

15、Nevertheless,the potential remains for future offshore wind developments in the UK to have some form of impact on other sea users,and given the early commercial status of FOW technology relative to fixed wind,the exact nature of these potential impacts are currently unclear.With this in mind,the Flo

16、ating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence(FOW CoE)launched the Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project.The aim was to facilitate a stakeholder engagement process that would identify potential interactions between future commercial-scale FOW farms and a rang

17、e of other sea users,and to assess the associated challenges and potential opportunities.The principal objective was to develop a roadmap outlining a portfolio of activities which,if carried out in a timely manner,could deliver benefits that coincide with commercial-scale FOW deployment over the cou

18、rse of the next decade,and would support constructive engagement between the two sectors both throughout this period and beyond.The FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project is intended to accompany the previous FOW CoE study,the Floating Offshore Wind and Fishing Interaction

19、Roadmap,the findings of which were published in November 2021.As such,both projects follow a similar approach and format.The scope of the FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project principally focusses on the following maritime industries:aquaculture,carbon capture and storage,

20、defence,oil and gas,and subsea cables.To avoid duplication with the FOW and Fishing Interaction Roadmap,and the FOW CoEs Floating Offshore Wind Navigational Planning and Risk Assessment project(published in September 2023),the fishing,maritime navigation,and aviation industries were excluded from th

21、e scope of this project.The findings of the FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project are set out within this document,with a discussion of priority interactions and a roadmap of recommended actions set out in Sections 3 and 4.viiiFloating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-exis

22、tence Risks and OpportunitiesThroughout this roadmap,the term“interaction”is used to reflect any potential interface between the FOW industry and other sea users that could result in some form of impact,either positive or negative.A number of key considerations should be borne in mind when assessing

23、 these interactions,and when reviewing the roadmap in general:Each interaction has been identified on a hypothetical basis by the projects stakeholder participants.Given the FOW industrys early commercial status,it remains to be seen whether a given interaction will be borne out in practice as the i

24、ndustry commercialises;The interactions were prioritised based on the input of a broad range of stakeholder organisations.Where an interaction has been marked as high priority,this may reflect:the potential impact of its occurrence;the perceived likelihood of its potential occurrence;and/or the abil

25、ity of key stakeholders to intervene in order to mitigate the associated challenges or exploit an opportunity;On an individual level,each interaction is considered to be possible in principle.However,in certain cases,the occurrence of one interaction would impact the likelihood of another taking pla

26、ce.With this in mind,each interaction has been addressed within this roadmap on a case-by-case basis;Due to the lack of technology distinction between the static(i.e.buried)section of FOW and bottom fixed offshore wind farm export cables,this FOW farm subsystem was excluded from the projects scope f

27、rom the outset.In disseminating the outputs of the FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project through this report,the FOW CoE intends to deliver an accessible reference document that maps some of the key considerations of co-existing with other sea users within the UK.The ambit

28、ion is that this resource will provide a foundation for coordinating a programme of further activities that address these risks and opportunities and will ultimately help to support collaborative relationships with other maritime industries over the course of the next decade and beyond.ixFloating Of

29、fshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities1 BACKGROUND1.1 ContextThe UK offshore wind industry shares the marine space with a range of other sea users.The operational requirements of these other established maritime industries must be considered and addressed during the develop

30、ment phase of any new wind farm,and as such these other sea users should be regarded as key stakeholders relevant to the offshore wind development and consenting process.The UK has ambitious growth ambitions for offshore wind generating capacity,and it is anticipated that as much as 50%of the 100GW

31、by 2050 target could be delivered by floating offshore wind(FOW).The greater complexity of FOW subsea infrastructure,and the ability of FOW technology to access new areas of the sea with deeper waters,relative to fixed wind,means that FOW developments could be subject to novel consenting risks in re

32、spect of its interactions with these other sea users.Therefore,in order to facilitate a timely and efficient development and consenting process for future commercial-scale FOW developments,and to reduce the risk of delays brought about by uncertainty,the challenges and opportunities associated with

33、coexisting with other sea users should be reassessed in respect of FOW technology.This concern was highlighted in the Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellences(FOW CoE)Floating Offshore Wind Environmental Interactions Roadmap,which recommended that further,targeted work is required in order to ad

34、dress the current knowledge gaps relating to FOW-specific co-location and co-existence challenges and opportunities.To date,the FOW CoE has delivered two projects relevant to this question:Floating Offshore Wind and Fishing Interaction Roadmap,and Floating Offshore Wind Navigational Planning and Ris

35、k Assessment.The outcomes of these two projects have supported the FOW industrys understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with coexisting with the fishing industry,and the maritime and aviation industries,respectively,and will inform the scope of related future FOW CoE activities

36、.However,there remain a number of additional industries including,for example,oil and gas,carbon capture and storage,subsea cables,aquaculture,defence etc.with whom the FOW CoEs engagement to date has been comparably limited.The FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project is the

37、refore intended to specifically address potential consenting risks associated with co-locating with these additional other sea users,and to provide needed clarity on the means by which this might be achieved.1.2 Project OverviewThe FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project uti

38、lised the approach and stakeholder engagement framework previously developed for the Floating Offshore Wind Environmental Interactions Roadmap project.Figure 1 outlines the projects structure and core Work Packages.1Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesFigure 1-

39、Project StructureWork Package 2 facilitated a review of potential other sea users and maritime industries who could potentially present co-location and co-existence considerations for future commercial FOW developments.The input of the projects Focus and Steering Groups(see Section 1.4)was sought du

40、ring this stakeholder review process.Where relevant stakeholders were identified,a review of relevant guidance documents and resources(specific to those other sea users and maritime industries)was undertaken to ensure that the subsequent stages of the project were conducted on as fully informed a ba

41、sis as possible.In Work Package 3,a series of 1-2-1 engagements were undertaken with key stakeholders.Attendees were invited based on the outcomes of Work Package 2.The aim of these engagements was to identify potential interactions between the FOW industry and the other sea users identified in Work

42、 Package 2,assess the potential risks and opportunities associated with those interactions,and to scope relevant future research and project activities to mitigate the identified risks and exploit the potential opportunities.Section 2 outlines the stakeholder engagement framework in further detail.I

43、n Work Package 4,the priority interactions identified and recommendations for follow-on work developed during the workshops were set forth in a Roadmap(Section 4).Work Package 5 oversaw the public dissemination of these findings.1.3 Floating Offshore Wind Centre of ExcellenceThe Floating Offshore Wi

44、nd Centre of Excellence(FOW CoE)was established in 2020 by the Offshore Renewable Energy(ORE)Catapult with the vision:To establish an internationally recognised centre of excellence in floating offshore wind which will work towards reducing the Levelised Cost of Energy(LCoE)from floating wind to a c

45、ommercially manageable rate,cut back development time for FOW farms and develop opportunities for the local supply chain,driving innovation in manufacturing,installation and Operations and Maintenance(O&M)methodologies in floating wind.The FOW CoE is a collaborative programme with industry,academic

46、and stakeholder partners.At the time of writing,the following organisations are Industry Partners in the FOW CoE:Work Package 1Project Management,Integration and ScopingWork Package 3Technical Engagement ProcessWork Package 2Stakeholder MappingWork Package 4Roadmap DevelopmentWork Package 5Dissemina

47、tion2Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesFigure 2-Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence Industry PartnersSince its inception,the FOW CoE has established a number of Strategic Programmes in high priority areas.Included among these is the Environmental Inte

48、ractions Strategic Programme,which was launched in 2022 with the aim of coordinating and delivering a range of activities to address FOW-specific environmental and consenting knowledge gaps.The FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project was delivered under the Environmental Int

49、eractions Strategic Programme.3Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities1.4 Project PartnersThe Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult is the principal delivery partner of the FOW Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities project.In order to facilitate the te

50、chnical input and guidance of the FOW CoEs Industry Partners,a Focus Group of partner representatives with relevant subject matter expertise was established at the outset of the project.This Focus Group included representatives from BP,CIP,EDF,Equinor,ESB,Mainstream Renewable Power,Northland Power,O

51、cean Winds,rsted,RWE,SSE,and TotalEnergies.Additionally,a project Steering Group including Crown Estate Scotland,Defra,Department for Energy Security and Net Zero,Marine Scotland,Natural Resources Wales and The Crown Estate was established in order to provide additional strategic guidance and input

52、during the projects development and delivery.Figure 3-Floating Offshore Wind Centre of Excellence Industry Partners 4Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORKThe identification key FOW co-location and co-existence risks and opportun

53、ities(interactions),and the development of the Roadmap to mitigate and exploit those interactions was directly informed by a series of 1-2-1 structured stakeholder engagement sessions.Figure 4 outlines the approach undertaken in these engagements during Work Package 3,whereby the participants were i

54、nvited to identify potential interactions between the FOW industry and other sea users in the first instance,then assess these in terms of their priority,and then finally develop high-level scopes for relevant future research activities.These engagements were held remotely via Microsoft Teams.Figure

55、 4-Stakeholder Engagement Structure The first step of the stakeholder engagement process focussed on identifying potential interactions between the FOW industry and the other sea users identified during Work Package 2.The identified interactions were grouped into six“types”:Physical&Technology;Opera

56、tions&Navigation;Ports&Infrastructure;Policy&Regulation;Environmental;People&Skills.The second step of the engagement process involved assessing the priority status of the identified interactions.In the case of each interaction,the participants addressed the following questions:1 Assuming no actions

57、 are taken,how likely(i.e.Low/Medium/High)is this interaction to occur,and why?2 What would the likely impact(i.e.Low/Medium/High)be on each stakeholder group?3 What could be done to either mitigate the impact on each stakeholder group,or exploit any potential opportunities?4 Based on these consider

58、ations,should this interaction be a priority area for further project work?1.Identify potential interactions between FOW and Other Sea Users.2.Assess the effect of each interaction,identifying the priority areas.3.Identify relevant research activities,including potential delivery partners.5Floating

59、Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 1 and Table 2 outline how the priority scores were assigned based on a combination of likelihood and impact.The interactions identified,and the priority scores they were subsequently assigned,are summarised in Section 3 of this

60、report.Table 1-Interaction Priority Matrix Table 2-Interaction Priority ScoresThe final step of the engagement process focussed on determining the research activities that would address the potential impacts of the high and medium priority interactions identified in the previous steps.In the case of

61、 each interaction,the participants addressed two key tasks:1 Scope out relevant research activities to help mitigate the impact on each stakeholder group or exploit any potential opportunities.2 Identify,for each activity,potential suitable project delivery partners.The outputs of these engagements

62、were subsequently used to form the basis of the Roadmap set out in Section 4 of this report.2.1 Key StakeholdersThe following external stakeholder accepted invitations to participate in the projects stakeholder engagement process:Aquaculture Industry Wales,Carbon Capture and Storage Association(CCSA

63、),Cefas,European Subsea Cables Association(ESCA),North Sea Transition Authority(NSTA),Ofcom,Scottish Environment Protection Agency(SEPA),Seabed User&Developer Group(SUDG),and Vodafone.Frazer-Nash Consultancy provided input on defence industry considerations.In addition to these external stakeholders

64、,the projects Focus and Steering Group members were invited to participate in the technical engagement process.ImpactLowMediumHigh123LikelihoodHigh336 9Medium2246Low112 3ScorePrioritisation9High64Medium32Low16Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities3 FOW CO-LOCATIO

65、N&CO-EXISTENCE PRIORITY INTERACTIONSThe potential interactions summarised in this section were identified during 1-2-1 engagements with stakeholders from the Aquaculture,Carbon Capture,Utilisation and Storage(CCUS),Defence,Oil and Gas(O&G)and Subsea Cables sectors.Stakeholders were asked to rank the

66、 likelihood and impact of each potential interaction as either high,medium and low.Additionally,stakeholders were invited to comment on possible activities to mitigate impacts and/or exploit opportunities that may result from the interactions between the FOW sector and the specified maritime industr

67、y.Potential interactions for each maritime industry are outlined in Table 3.These have been grouped into six interaction“types”:Physical&Technology;Operations&Navigation;Ports&Infrastructure;Policy&Regulation;Environmental;People&Skills.Section 4 sets out further detailed discussions for the high an

68、d medium priority interactions on an industry-by-industry basis.It is important to note that these interactions have been identified on a hypothetical basis,and it remains to be seen whether a given interaction will be borne out in practice as the FOW industry commercialises.7Floating Offshore Wind

69、Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesAquacultureInteraction TypeInteraction DescriptionPriority ScoreA1Policy&RegulationAbsence of relevant and/or applicable design standards could delay or prevent investment in,and the development of,co-located FOW and aquaculture farms.HighA2Environ

70、mentalAttraction effects due to aquaculture farm draws additional marine life to the area,potentially increasing the risk of interactions with FOW infrastructure.A3Physical&Technology Co-location of aquaculture cages and FOW turbines presents an opportunity for the two industries to share anchors,th

71、ereby reducing CAPEX costs.A4Operations&NavigationScheduling of FOW farm vessel operations presents opportunities to support aquaculture logistics(e.g.,vessel sharing arrangements for co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities).A5 Physical&TechnologyThe potential for storm damage in deep water locations,

72、further from shore,raises the risk profile for co-located projectsA6Policy&RegulationGaps in the regulatory process for co-located FOW-aquaculture farms increase the development risk for these projects.A7 Environmental The installation of aquaculture cages further offshore(as a result of co-location

73、 with FOW turbines)may influence the risk of parasitic pathogens experienced by farmed fish species.MediumA8EnvironmentalThe opportunity to install aquaculture facilities further offshore,as a result of co-location with FOW farms,could help to mitigate potential environmental risks associated with a

74、quaculture effluent.A9Policy&RegulationInterest in aquaculture co-location opportunities leads FOW farm developers to develop internal aquaculture business divisions,thereby limiting collaboration opportunities with traditional aquaculture companies.A10Ports&InfrastructureThe development of a pipeli

75、ne of commercial scale FOW farms,and the portside infrastructural developments that may accompany that,present an opportunity to develop and invest in existing onshore aquaculture processing facilities.A11EnvironmentalPotential environmental interactions associated with FOW technology(for example,re

76、lating to operational noise and dynamic cable electromagnetic field emissions)present possible risks to farmed fish.Table 3-High,Medium and Low Priority Potential Interactions Between Floating Offshore Wind and Other Sea Users8Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportuniti

77、esCarbon Capture&StorageInteraction TypeInteraction DescriptionPriority ScoreCCS1Policy&RegulationDue to the early commercial status of CCUS technology,it is possible that any attempt to co-locate it with other industries will be viewed as inherently high-risk,thereby raising the cost of finance for

78、 co-located projects.HighCCS2Policy&RegulationLack of clarity regarding the appropriate process for navigating the inherent potential challenges and disputes associated with co-location could impact developer and investor confidence in co-located FOW-CCUS projects.CCS3Physical&TechnologyCo-location

79、of FOW and CCUS infrastructure presents opportunity for electrical powering of CCUS facilities.CCS4Operations&NavigationScheduling of FOW farm logistics presents opportunities to support CCUS operations(e.g.,helicopter or vessel sharing arrangements for co-located FOW-CCUS projects).CCS5 People&Skil

80、lsThe joint growth of the FOW and CCUS industries could create competition for skilled offshore workforces.CCS6Physical&TechnologyA FOW loss of station scenario poses potential risk to CCUS subsea and surface infrastructure.Similarly,damaged or lost CCUS equipment/infrastructure could present a sign

81、ificant operational risk to co-located FOW infrastructure.CCS7 Physical&TechnologyThe spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints compared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to seismic monitoring requirements of the CCUS project.MediumCCS8Physical&

82、TechnologyCo-location of FOW and CCUS projects presents potential opportunities for FOW infrastructure to host and/or support additional CCUS seismic monitoring activities.DefenceInteraction TypeInteraction DescriptionPriority ScoreD1Ports&Infrastructure Increased spatial footprint associated with F

83、OW turbine assembly,marshalling and installation could lead to competition for port space,infrastructure and resources between both industries.HighD2Physical&Technology Potential FOW loss of station scenario could create an unforeseen navigational hazard for defence vessels.D3Physical&TechnologyAcou

84、stic emissions of operational FOW farms could have potential implications on the effective range of sonar in the vicinity of FOW sites.MediumD4 Physical&TechnologyPotential risk to FOW infrastructure due to the presence of unexploded ordnance(UXO)on the seabed.D5Operations&NavigationTow to port/tow

85、to site of FOW turbines presents a navigational hazard for MoD vessel activities.D6Policy&RegulationThe presence of established Practice and Exercise Areas(PEXAs)creates spatial planning constraints for future FOW farms.D7Physical&TechnologyFOW turbine heave,roll and pitch motions could interact wit

86、h defence radar coverage to create dead zones.9Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesOil&Gas Interaction TypeInteraction DescriptionPriority ScoreOG1Physical&Technology Increasing levels of co-location of FOW and O&G leads to greater interaction risk between FOW

87、infrastructure and O&G pipelines.HighOG2Policy&RegulationThe limited precent for co-locating FOW and O&G facilities could lead to developer and/or investor uncertainty(due to potential gaps in the regulatory process and associated development risk).OG3Environmental The co-location of FOW and O&G fac

88、ilities presents opportunities to share environmental monitoring responsibilities and data.MediumOG4 Physical&Technology The spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints compared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to the seismic monitoring requireme

89、nts of the O&G project.OG5Physical&TechnologyElectromagnetic field(EMF)emissions from FOW inter-array cables could present a potential risk to O&G pipelines(e.g.,hypothetical risk of pipeline corrosion).OG6Physical&TechnologyA FOW farms multiple anchor and dynamic cable seabed touchdown points prese

90、nts interaction risk with old/abandoned O&G wells and pipelinesLowSubsea CablesInteraction TypeInteraction DescriptionPriority ScoreSC1Physical&TechnologyIntroduction of new subsea cable leases in proximity to existing FOW turbine arrays increases complexity and risk for new cable installations.High

91、SC2Operations&NavigationPotential displacement of fishing vessels from FOW development areas leads to an increase in fishing activity over nearby/adjacent subsea cables,increasing the spatial constraints and risk profile of surrounding waters.SC3Physical&Technology Repair of subsea cables in the vic

92、inity of FOW arrays poses a risk of damage to the wind farms network of mooring and dynamic cable systems.SC4Physical&Technology Installation of FOW anchors and dynamic inter-array cables within the vicinity of existing subsea cables creates the risk of damage to subsea cables.SC5 Physical&Technolog

93、yInstallation,operation and maintenance of FOW farms presents an operational risk for subsea cables.MediumSC6Physical&Technology Potential FOW loss of station scenario could lead to significant asset damage to co-located subsea cables.SC7 Physical&TechnologySubsea cable maintenance vessel operations

94、 lead to potential damage of FOW subsea infrastructure(e.g.due to deployment of emergency anchor onto a FOW mooring line).SC8Physical&TechnologySubsea cables repairs lead to increased complexities of co-location due to the larger seabed footprint of post-repair cable configurations.10Floating Offsho

95、re Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportunities4 FOW CO-LOCATION&CO-EXISTENCE PRIORITY INTERACTIONS DISCUSSION&ROADMAPThis chapter expands on each of the potential interactions identified in Section 3.For each interaction,the key considerations are discussed and a Roadmap proposing a ti

96、meline of recommended actions is set out.These are addressed on a per-industry basis:Aquaculture,CCUS,Defence,O&G,and Subsea Cables.A high-level delivery timeline has been developed to reflect the appropriate order and rate at which these activities are conducted:Short-term Activity that can be deli

97、vered from the outset,in anticipation of commercial-scale FOW arrays;the delivery of work is not dependent on further studies or projects being undertaken beforehand.Medium-term Activity that can be initiated in the short-term,whilst additionally supplemented from lessons learned by the deployment o

98、f early commercial arrays(e.g.100 MW 500 MW).Outputs of these activities are intended to further support the design and development of future,full-scale commercial FOW arrays(e.g.500 MW 1GW and beyond).Long-term Activity that should not be limited to the short-to medium-term and should also coincide

99、 with the development of full-scale commercial FOW arrays(e.g.500 MW 1GW and beyond).Each interaction has been categorised according to the following“types”:Physical&Technology;Operations&Navigation;Ports&Infrastructure;Policy&Regulation;Environmental;People&Skills.In each case,the most relevant or

100、applicable phase of the FOW farm life cycle is also noted,i.e.:Development,Installation,Operational,or Decommissioning(where an interaction might apply generally across all phases,this is denoted as Whole Life Cycle).11Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIntera

101、ction A1 Absence of relevant and/or applicable design standards could delay or prevent investment in,and the development of,co-located FOW and aquaculture farms.IndustryAquacultureTypePolicy&RegulationLife Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundGiven the significant levels of investment that wi

102、ll be required to develop large scale co-located FOW-aquaculture farms,developers and investors will need to be confident in the viability and survivability of the technologies utilised.In the absence of relevant and/or applicable design standards,it is possible that investment in the co-location of

103、 both industries would be regarded as high risk.FOW and commercial aquaculture are nascent industries relative to other more established maritime sectors;therefore,most development and investment opportunities will likely be directed to supporting the growth of the industries individually.A lack of

104、incentive to invest in co-located FOW and aquaculture farms could prevent both industries benefitting from the potential opportunities that co-location presents.For the aquaculture industry,this could mean the loss of opportunities to expand into some deep-water locations alongside FOW farms.For the

105、 FOW industry,reduced co-location opportunities could lead to increased marine spatial planning constraints.Future Activities/ResearchA review of current design standards would determine whether these are applicable to co-located FOW-aquaculture farms,or if there are current gaps in the guidance tha

106、t need to be addressed.Where gaps are identified,engagement with classification societies would be required in order to address these.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;classification societies;marine management organisations;offshore wind developersTable 4-Interaction A14.1 Aquacultur

107、e12Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A2Attraction effects due to aquaculture farm draws additional marine life to the area,potentially increasing the risk of interactions with FOW infrastructure.IndustryAquacultureTypeEnvironmentalLife Cycle Phase

108、OperationalPriorityHighBackgroundThe attraction of marine life to aquaculture farms is a known effect(for example,it is possible to apply for licences to cull seals that target fish farms).The presence of FOW infrastructure could present environmental considerations for key marine species,such as po

109、tential collision risks and noise effects.FOW infrastructure in combination with the attraction effects of aquaculture infrastructure could potentially increase the risk profile to the surrounding environment.If an increased risk to marine life can be demonstrated,then this is likely to increase con

110、senting risk to co-located FOW-aquaculture farms.These effects will to a certain extent be dependent on location,and it is also possible that the installation of aquaculture farms further offshore,as a result of co-location with FOW,may influence whether licences to cull are granted(for example,if t

111、he development is located in a migration route,or an important area for marine life).Furthermore,the potential for FOW turbines to act as fish aggregation devices(FADs)is not fully understood,and it is possible that this effect could present an additional complexity in relation to this interaction(f

112、or example,due to unforeseen in-combination effects).Future Activities/ResearchAn initial review of current research and literature will add clarity regarding the nature and extent of these potential risks.Where required,further research could be undertaken to address knowledge gaps identified by th

113、e literature review.The development of relevant mitigation measures(e.g.the use of acoustic deterrents)may help to address consenting risk.Further,the development of best practice guidance for the environmental monitoring of co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities will help owner-operators to understa

114、nd and manage specific risks.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;consenting authorities,marine research institutes;offshore wind developersTable 5-Interaction A213Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A3Co-location of aquaculture cages an

115、d FOW turbines presents an opportunity for the two industries to share anchors,thereby reducing CAPEX costs.IndustryAquacultureTypePhysical&TechnologyLife Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundThe co-location FOW and aquaculture infrastructure presents a potential opportunity for the sharing o

116、f anchors.This approach has been used for Equinors Tampen floating wind project in the North Sea,in which 19 anchors are used to secure 11 floating wind turbines,thereby demonstrating the practical viability of shared anchor technology.However,there is little-to-no practical experience of utilising

117、shared anchors between FOW turbines and other floating structures,such as aquaculture cages,therefore further work would be required to assess the specific challenges of this application.Whilst anchors do not account for a large proportion of a FOW farms CAPEX,potential cost savings would neverthele

118、ss be viewed as a positive opportunity,assuming that any design challenges and associated risks could be suitably mitigated.Future Activities/ResearchFurther design analysis is required to fully understand the challenges and practical feasibility of shared anchors between FOW turbines and aquacultur

119、e cages.Similarly,an economic analysis of potential solutions would be necessary to understand the extent of any resulting CAPEX reduction,in the form of a techno-economic impact review to explore varying shared anchor configurations to determine cost effective approach to sharing of anchors between

120、 FOW and aquaculture farms.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;offshore wind developersTable 6-Interaction A314Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A4Scheduling of FOW farm vessel operations presents opportunities to support aquaculture

121、logistics(e.g.vessel sharing arrangements for co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities).IndustryAquacultureTypeOperations&NavigationLife Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityHighBackgroundAssuming co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities are developed,it is likely that operational teams would seek to reduce cost

122、s by sharing vessel time whenever opportunities present themselves.The combining of vessel operations wherever possible could present a modest yet meaningful opportunity to reduce operational costs for both industries.Additionally,management of vessel traffic within a given area through vessel shari

123、ng,may help to mitigate potential logistical risks for both industries.Additionally,sharing of vessels would reduce competition between resources that could be operating at peak capacity in the short-to medium-term in order to meet net zero goals.Future Activities/ResearchA more detailed cost analys

124、is would be required to determine the extent of this opportunity,and to enable both industries to understand the scale of the potential cost savings.Additionally,while there may currently be a reasonable understanding of the operational requirements of deep-water aquaculture sites(including the pote

125、ntial split of manual vs automated tasks),further work is required to develop a more detailed overview of this.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;maritime and lighthouse authorities,offshore wind developers.Table 7-Interaction A415Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Ris

126、ks and OpportunitiesInteraction A5The potential for storm damage in deep water locations,further from shore,raises the risk profile for co-located projects.IndustryAquacultureTypePhysical&TechnologyLife Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundIt is likely that a co-located FOW-aquaculture projec

127、t would only proceed in the event that It is likely that a co-located FOW-aquaculture project would only proceed in the event that developers and investors were confident in the survivability of the infrastructure,and that developers and investors were confident in the survivability of the infrastru

128、cture,and that the project was built in accordance with the applicable design standards.Nevertheless,the project was built in accordance with the applicable design standards.Nevertheless,potential damage(e.g.a mooring system failure)can never be fully ruled out.potential damage(e.g.a mooring system

129、failure)can never be fully ruled out.Secondary risks resulting from storm damage to either the FOW or aquaculture Secondary risks resulting from storm damage to either the FOW or aquaculture infrastructure could range from minor asset damage to serious/catastrophic scenarios.infrastructure could ran

130、ge from minor asset damage to serious/catastrophic scenarios.With FOW infrastructure being deployed further offshore,and exposed to more With FOW infrastructure being deployed further offshore,and exposed to more unpredictable/extreme weather windows,this could increase potential incidences of unpre

131、dictable/extreme weather windows,this could increase potential incidences of infrastructure damage for co-located projects.Costs would also be incurred by the infrastructure damage for co-located projects.Costs would also be incurred by the operators,ranging from minor to major,respectively.operator

132、s,ranging from minor to major,respectively.Future Activities/ResearchA review of current design standards would determine whether these would be applicable to co-located FOW-aquaculture farms,or if there are current gaps in the guidance that need to be addressed.Where gaps are identified,engagement

133、with classification societies would be required in order to address these.Developers will need to assess the appropriate level of redundancy in their designs that sufficiently mitigates risk without incurring prohibitively high CAPEX costs.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;classificat

134、ion societies,offshore wind developers.Table 8-Interaction A516Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A6Gaps in the regulatory process for co-located FOW-aquaculture farms increase the development risk for these projects.IndustryAquacultureTypePolicy&R

135、egulation Life Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundThe current lack of precedent for the development of co-located facilities raises the likelihood that specific gaps and/or unidentified risks in the consenting process could present challenges to potential future project applications.The pot

136、ential failure of project applications resulting from development and consenting risks would represent a significant opportunity cost for both sets of stakeholders.Further,the impacted ability to collocate FOW and aquaculture facilities could place additional pressure on the spatial planning process

137、,thereby increasing consenting risk for both industries in the medium-to-long term.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the development and consenting process applicable to co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities would enable both industries to identify specific risks and opportunities.Where gaps are

138、 identified,work should be undertaken to deliver the appropriate guidance.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;consenting authorities,marine management organisations;offshore wind developers.Table 9-Interaction A617Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and Opportuniti

139、esInteraction A7The installation of aquaculture cages further offshore(as a result of co-location with FOW turbines)may influence the risk of parasitic pathogens experienced by farmed fish species.IndustryAquacultureTypeEnvironmental Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundThe impacts of

140、sea lice and other pathogens are a significant source of cost to the The impacts of sea lice and other pathogens are a significant source of cost to the aquaculture industry.The deployment of aquaculture cages in a new environment could aquaculture industry.The deployment of aquaculture cages in a n

141、ew environment could potentially change the risk profile of sea lice infestation.If installation further offshore potentially change the risk profile of sea lice infestation.If installation further offshore helps to mitigate this,potentially as a result of the hydrodynamic conditions found in less h

142、elps to mitigate this,potentially as a result of the hydrodynamic conditions found in less sheltered deeper waters,then the business case for co-located FOW-aquaculture farms sheltered deeper waters,then the business case for co-located FOW-aquaculture farms could be more attractive.could be more at

143、tractive.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the literature on the spatial distribution of sea lice would help to clarify both the likelihood and impact of this effect.It may be necessary to subsequently undertake further environmental research to address any current knowledge gaps identified in t

144、he literature review.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;marine research institutes.Table 10-Interaction A718Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A8The opportunity to install aquaculture facilities further offshore,as a result of co-loca

145、tion with FOW farms,could help to mitigate potential environmental risks associated with aquaculture effluent.IndustryAquacultureTypeEnvironmental Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundCurrently,aquaculture farms are typically installed within more sheltered inshore locations.Currently,

146、aquaculture farms are typically installed within more sheltered inshore locations.This can result in potential concerns relating to the environmental effects of aquaculture This can result in potential concerns relating to the environmental effects of aquaculture effluent.Co-located FOW-aquaculture

147、facilities would likely be installed in deeper waters effluent.Co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities would likely be installed in deeper waters with more dynamic metocean conditions,and it is possible that this could assist with the with more dynamic metocean conditions,and it is possible that this

148、could assist with the dilution of effluent.dilution of effluent.The extent and nature of this effect is currently unclear.However,if it can be The extent and nature of this effect is currently unclear.However,if it can be demonstrated that the installation of aquaculture farms further offshore could

149、 have a demonstrated that the installation of aquaculture farms further offshore could have a positive effect on the environmental risks associated with aquaculture effluent,this could positive effect on the environmental risks associated with aquaculture effluent,this could assist with the consenti

150、ng of co-located FOW-aquaculture farms.assist with the consenting of co-located FOW-aquaculture farms.Future Activities/ResearchAn initial review of current research and literature will add clarity regarding the nature and extent of this potential effect.Where required,further environmental research

151、 could be undertaken to address knowledge gaps identified by the literature review.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;marine research institutes.Table 11-Interaction A819Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A9Interest in aquaculture co-

152、location opportunities leads FOW farm developers to develop internal aquaculture business divisions,thereby limiting collaboration opportunities with traditional aquaculture companies.IndustryAquacultureTypePolicy&Regulation Life Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityMediumBackgroundAt the time of writing,i

153、t is unclear the extent to which FOW farm developers would At the time of writing,it is unclear the extent to which FOW farm developers would typically pursue this strategy.There is nevertheless the potential to see diversification typically pursue this strategy.There is nevertheless the potential t

154、o see diversification within the FOW industry,if there is a compelling business case to do so.within the FOW industry,if there is a compelling business case to do so.In respect of potential impacts on the aquaculture industry,the diversification of FOW In respect of potential impacts on the aquacult

155、ure industry,the diversification of FOW developers into aquaculture operations could represent both a significant opportunity cost developers into aquaculture operations could represent both a significant opportunity cost for established aquaculture companies and an additional source of competition,

156、thereby for established aquaculture companies and an additional source of competition,thereby impacting revenue.impacting revenue.For FOW developers,any project decisions that might negatively impact established local For FOW developers,any project decisions that might negatively impact established

157、local businesses could potentially negatively impact consenting applications.businesses could potentially negatively impact consenting applications.Future Activities/ResearchEarly engagement between the two sectors will be key to ensuring that collaborative co-location opportunities are thoroughly e

158、xplored,understood and exploited wherever it is practically and economically feasible to do so.A detailed understanding of the applicable policy landscape will also be important.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;government departments;offshore wind developers.Table 12-Interaction A920

159、Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A10The development of a pipeline of commercial scale FOW farms,and the portside infrastructural developments that may accompany that,present an opportunity to develop and invest in existing onshore aquaculture pro

160、cessing facilities.IndustryAquacultureTypePorts&InfrastructureLife Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriorityMediumBackgroundThe FOW industry is currently working to determine the scale of the infrastructural The FOW industry is currently working to determine the scale of the infrastructural investment and

161、 development needed to support the marshalling and assembly of future investment and development needed to support the marshalling and assembly of future FOW farms.If FOW and aquaculture farms can be co-located,the portside requirements FOW farms.If FOW and aquaculture farms can be co-located,the po

162、rtside requirements of both sectors must be met.Without a strong strategic approach and relevant support,it of both sectors must be met.Without a strong strategic approach and relevant support,it could be challenging to secure this opportunity.It is possible that onshore infrastructure could be chal

163、lenging to secure this opportunity.It is possible that onshore infrastructure investment is a necessary condition of the expansion of the aquaculture industry into investment is a necessary condition of the expansion of the aquaculture industry into larger facilities,further from shore.larger facili

164、ties,further from shore.Future Activities/ResearchTargeted engagement with the aquaculture sector would be required to understand the extent to which investment in onshore infrastructure is required to facilitate the co-location of the two industries.If such investment is a necessary condition of co

165、-location,active engagement between the aquaculture sector,FOW developers and government/local authorities will likely be required to secure the necessary strategic support.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;government departments,harbour authorities,marine management organisations,off

166、shore wind developersTable 13-Interaction A1021Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesInteraction A11Potential environmental interactions associated with FOW technology(for example,relating to operational noise and dynamic cable electromagnetic field emissions)pre

167、sent potential risks to farmed fish.IndustryAquacultureTypeEnvironmental Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundThere is currently some uncertainty relating to the specific environmental interactions of There is currently some uncertainty relating to the specific environmental interactio

168、ns of FOW technology.While these effects are not fully understood,both in terms of their FOW technology.While these effects are not fully understood,both in terms of their likelihood or the extent of their impact,it is nevertheless possible that they could pose likelihood or the extent of their impa

169、ct,it is nevertheless possible that they could pose risks to the health of farmed fish,thereby impacting the viability of co-located FOW-risks to the health of farmed fish,thereby impacting the viability of co-located FOW-aquaculture projects.aquaculture projects.Future Activities/ResearchFurther re

170、search is required to assess the extent of the risks that FOW technology could pose to the health of farmed fish.In the first instance,a review of existing literature would determine the current understanding of these potential effects.Where the existence of knowledge gaps is confirmed,targeted envi

171、ronmental research would be required to address these.Research StakeholdersAquaculture industry groups;marine research institutes,offshore wind developersTable 14-Interaction A1122Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryAquacultureInteractionTypeDescription

172、PriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)A1Policy&RegulationAbsence of relevant and/or applicable design standards could delay or prevent investment in,and the development of co-located FOW and aquaculture farms.HighReview of applicable design

173、 standards for co-located FOW and aquaculture farms.Where gaps exist,collaboration between key stakeholders to develop appropriate guidance.Technology review and feasibility assessment of co-located FOW and aquaculture infrastructure.Effective engagement between both industries to manage co-location

174、 considerations during co-located FOW-aquaculture project development stage.A2Environmental Attraction effects due to aquaculture farm draws additional marine life to the area,potentially increasing the risk of interactions with FOW infrastructure.HighReview of existing literature to identify and co

175、nfirm further research requirements.Further laboratory monitoring studies(if relevant and required).Environmental monitoring studies within early commercial FOW Aquaculture farms to assess attraction effects.Table 16-Floating Offshore Wind and Aquaculture Interaction RoadmapKeyActivity TypeOperation

176、al risk reviewLicensing/planning reviewEnvironmental monitoring studiesInsurance policy reviewTechnology review and developmentTechnology review and developmentDeveloping best practice and industry guidanceReview of economic opportunitiesTable 15-Recommended Activity Categories23Floating Offshore Wi

177、nd Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryAquacultureInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)A3Physical&TechnologyCo-location of aquaculture cages and FOW turbines presents an opportunity for the

178、 two industries to share anchors,thereby reducing CAPEX costs.HighReview of FOW and aquaculture industry requirements for shared anchors and delivery of initial technical feasibility studies.Assess scale of potential economic opportunity based on both industries deployment pipeline.Develop guidance

179、for FOW and aquaculture industry outlining the requirements and applicable design standards for shared anchors,as well as the potential scale of economic opportunity.A4Operations&NavigationScheduling of FOW farm vessel operations presents opportunities to support aquaculture logistics(e.g.vessel sha

180、ring arrangements for co-located FOW-aquaculture facilities).HighReview logistical and economic feasibility of vessel-sharing between FOW and aquaculture.A5Physical&TechnologyThe potential for storm damage in deep water locations,further from shore,raises the risk profile for co-located projects.Hig

181、hRisk assessment of storm damage for co-located FOW and aquaculture infrastructure.Engage with classification societies to review applicable design standards.Where necessary and appropriate,develop updated standards to address key gaps.24Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and

182、OpportunitiesIndustryAquacultureInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)A6Policy&RegulationGaps in the regulatory process for co-located FOW-aquaculture farms increase the development risk for these projects.HighRevi

183、ew current regulatory process for potential co-located FOW-aquaculture farms.Where necessary and appropriate,engage with regulatory bodies to address risks/gaps in the consenting process.A7Physical&TechnologyThe installation of aquaculture cages further offshore(as a result of co-location with FOW t

184、urbines)may influence the risk of parasitic pathogens experienced by farmed fish species.MediumReview of existing research to identify and confirm further research requirements.Environmental monitoring studies to assess potential attraction effects.A8EnvironmentalThe opportunity to install aquacultu

185、re facilities further offshore,as a result of co-location with FOW farms,could help to mitigate potential environmental risks associated with aquaculture effluent.MediumA review of existing literature and current research to establish the current understanding of this effect.Environmental monitoring

186、 studies to address any current gaps in the literature.25Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryAquacultureInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)A9Policy&RegulationIntere

187、st in aquaculture co-location opportunities leads FOW farm developers to develop internal aquaculture business divisions,thereby limiting collaboration opportunities with traditional aquaculture companies.MediumContinuous engagement and collaboration between both industries to effectively manage exp

188、ectations and monitor co-location opportunities.Engagement with appropriate government departments to ensure that the development and consenting process sufficiently addresses this consideration.A10Physical&TechnologyThe development of a pipeline of commercial scale FOW farms,and the portside infras

189、tructural developments that may accompany that,present an opportunity to develop and invest in existing onshore aquaculture processing facilities.MediumReview of FOW portside requirements,in respect of existing onshore aquaculture processing facilities and associated economic opportunities.Following

190、 an initial review,guidance on the integration of FOW portside infrastructure with existing aquaculture facilities,and engagement with the supply chain to manage these requirements and their feasibility.A11EnvironmentalPotential environmental interactions associated with FOW technology(for example,r

191、elating to operational noise and dynamic cable electromagnetic field emissions)present possible risks to farmed fish.MediumA review of existing research to identify and confirm further research requirements.Environmental monitoring studies within early commercial FOW farms to assess potential noise

192、impacts.26Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 17-Interaction CCS1Table 18-Interaction CCS24.2 Carbon Capture&StorageInteraction CCS1Due to the early commercial status of CCUS technology,it is possible that any attempt to co-locate with other industries wi

193、ll be viewed as inherently high-risk,thereby raising the cost of finance for co-located projects.IndustryCCUSTypePolicy&RegulationLife Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundGiven the relatively early commercial status of FOW technology,and the novel status of CCUS,lenders may view co-located p

194、rojects as risky,at least in the short-to-medium term.Continued uncertainty surrounding this question could ultimately impact developers and investors appetite for supporting co-located FOW-CCUS projects.As marine spatial planning constraints increase,the inability to co-locate the two technologies

195、could represent a significant opportunity cost for both industries.Future Activities/ResearchThe development of targeted guidance would help to address the inherent uncertainty surrounding this issue.Early and targeted engagement between regulators and the FOW and CCUS sectors would be key to facili

196、tating this.Research StakeholdersConsenting authorities;CCUS industry groups;marine management organisations;offshore wind developers.Interaction CCS2Lack of clarity regarding the appropriate process for navigating the inherent potential challenges and disputes associated with co-location could impa

197、ct developer and investor confidence in co-located FOW-CCUS projects.IndustryCCUSTypePolicy&Regulation Life Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundA lack of clarity on the appropriate process for navigating the inherent challenges and potential disputes associated with co-location could impact

198、developer and investor confidence in co-located FOW-CCUS projects.As the marine space continues to get busier,the absence of an appropriate agreement between the two sectors will increase the potential for uncertainty surrounding this issue,which in the worst case scenario could dissuade developers

199、and investors from supporting co-located FOW-CCUS projects.As marine spatial planning constraints continue to increase,the inability to co-locate the two technologies could represent a significant opportunity cost for both industries.Future Activities/ResearchThe development of targeted guidance wou

200、ld help to address the inherent uncertainty surrounding this issue.Early and targeted engagement between regulators and the FOW and CCUS sectors would be key to facilitating this.Research StakeholdersCCUS industry groups;marine management organisations;offshore wind developers27Floating Offshore Win

201、d Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 19-Interaction CCS3Table 20-Interaction CCS4Interaction CCS3Co-location of FOW and CCUS infrastructure presents opportunity for electrical powering of CCUS facilities.IndustryCCUSTypePhysical&TechnologyLife Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriori

202、tyHighBackgroundShould FOW and CCUS projects be co-located,developers may seek opportunities to electrically power the CCUS infrastructure using the on-site FOW turbines.While this opportunity is relevant to both traditional fixed wind and FOW technology,should CCUS projects be developed in deeper w

203、aters beyond the reach of fixed turbines,then the ability for the FOW farm to power the CCUS infrastructure could reduce the reliance of a CCUS site on a long-distance power connection to shore.This in turn could have a significant impact on a co-located projects economic viability.Future Activities

204、/ResearchIn the first instance,a technical feasibility assessment would provide further detail on the practical potential for CCUS infrastructure(including its crewed platform and seabed injection wells)to be powered by an adjoining but inherently intermittent FOW power supply.A subsequent economic

205、analysis would provide clarity on the potential impact on the business case for co-located projects.Further research and development may be required to address technical knowledge gaps identified in the feasibility assessment,and to address potential investor and developer uncertainty.Research Stake

206、holdersConsenting authorities;CCUS industry groups;marine management organisations;offshore wind developers Interaction CCS4Scheduling of FOW farm logistics presents opportunities to support CCUS operations(e.g.helicopter or vessel sharing arrangements for co-located FOW-CCUS projects).IndustryCCUST

207、ypeOperations&NavigationLife Cycle PhaseInstallation;OperationalPriorityHighBackgroundAssuming co-located FOW-CCUS facilities are developed,it is likely that operational teams would seek to reduce costs by sharing vessel time whenever opportunities present themselves.The combining of vessel operatio

208、ns wherever possible could present a modest yet meaningful opportunity to reduce operational costs for both industries.Future Activities/ResearchA more detailed cost analysis would be required to determine the full extent of this interactions impact,and to enable both industries to understand the sc

209、ale of the potential cost savings.Research StakeholdersCCUS industry groups;maritime and lighthouse authorities,offshore wind developers 28Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 21-Interaction CCS5Table 22-Interaction CCS6Interaction CCS5The joint growth of

210、the FOW and CCUS industries could create competition for skilled offshore workforces.IndustryCCUSTypePeople&SkillsLife Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriorityHighBackgroundShould multiple maritime industries expand concurrently(for example,due to the potential co-location of FOW and CCUS projects),this

211、presents possible bottleneck risks in the availability of workforces across those industries.Thereby,a lack of sufficient workforce capacity for either industry could have significant impacts on both the development and delivery of new projects.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the skills landsc

212、ape with respect to the FOW and CCUS industries and their projected growths would help to clarify the nature of any workforce shortfall risk.Support for established,government-led training initiatives,and/or the development of new programmes,may be required in order to address these.Research Stakeho

213、ldersCCUS industry groups;government departments,offshore wind developersInteraction CCS6A FOW loss of station scenario poses potential risk to CCUS subsea and surface infrastructure.Similarly,damaged or lost CCUS equipment/infrastructure could present a significant operational risk to co-located FO

214、W infrastructure.IndustryCCUSTypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityHighBackgroundBoth FOW and CCUS would be designed with the appropriate level of redundancy to minimise the likelihood of these scenarios.However,potential incidents can never be fully ruled out,and the comparativ

215、e novelty of CCUS technology means that operational experience is inherently limited.Future Activities/ResearchA review of current design standards would determine whether these are applicable to co-located FOW-CCUS farms,or if there are current gaps in the guidance that need to be addressed.Where g

216、aps are identified,engagement with classification societies would be required in order to address these.Research StakeholdersCCUS industry groups;marine management organisations,maritime and lighthouse authorities,offshore wind developers29Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks an

217、d OpportunitiesTable 23-Interaction CCS7Table 24-Interaction CCS8Interaction CCS7The spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints compared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to seismic monitoring requirements of the CCUS project.IndustryCCUSTypePhys

218、ical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundCCUS projects require seismic monitoring to be undertaken at the site,both at the project appraisal stage and intermittently throughout the project lifecycle.The surveying process typically involves the towing by boat of long seismic

219、 streamers,which can be multiple kilometers in length,at the waters surface level.As such,a FOW farms complex network of subsea infrastructure could potentially obstruct these operations for co-located FOW-CCUS projects.Potential obstruction effects associated with the complexity of FOW subsea infra

220、structure could feasibly restrict options and limit flexibility for seismic monitoring activities.However,the development of innovative ocean bottom monitoring methods presents an opportunity for an alternative,if less widely demonstrated,approach.Future Activities/ResearchA technical feasibility re

221、view of the use of both surface level streamers and ocean bottom nodes for the seismic monitoring of co-located FOW-CCUS sites would provide greater clarity of the risks and benefits associated with these approaches.If necessary/appropriate,the development of best practice guidelines for monitoring

222、co-located projects could support both regulators and developers.Research StakeholdersCCUS industry groups;marine research institutes;offshore wind developers Interaction CCS8Co-location of FOW and CCUS projects presents potential opportunities for FOW infrastructure to host and/or support additiona

223、l CCUS seismic monitoring activities.IndustryCCUSTypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundAs outlined in above in Table 23(Interaction CCS7),CCUS projects require seismic monitoring to be undertaken at the site throughout the project lifecycle.However,the presence o

224、f FOW infrastructure may obstruct these operations.In addition to the consideration of novel seismic monitoring opportunities,it could be worth investigating whether the deployment and maintenance of FOW infrastructure presents opportunities for hosting or supporting additional seismic monitoring ef

225、forts.Future Activities/ResearchFurther to the recommended activities outlined in above in Table 23(Interaction CCS7),a technical feasibility assessment of the potential for FOW farms to host or support further seismic monitoring activities would help to clarify the nature and extent of this potenti

226、al opportunity.Research StakeholdersCCUS industry groups;marine research institutes;offshore wind developers30Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryCarbon Capture&StorageInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial A

227、rrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)CCS1Policy&RegulationDue to the early commercial status of CCUS technology,it is possible that any attempt to co-locate it with other industries will be viewed as inherently high-risk,thereby raising the cost of finance for co-located projects.HighEngagement wi

228、th insurance and financing stakeholders to determine the nature of any perceived risks,and the development of appropriate guidance and initial mitigative actions to address these risks.Table 26-Floating Offshore Wind and Carbon Capture&Storage Interaction RoadmapKeyActivity TypeOperational risk revi

229、ewLicensing/planning reviewEnvironmental monitoring studiesInsurance policy reviewTechnology review and developmentTechnology review and developmentDeveloping best practice and industry guidanceReview of economic opportunitiesTable 25-Recommended Activity Categories31Floating Offshore Wind Co-locati

230、on and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryCarbon Capture&StorageInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)CCS2Policy&RegulationLack of clarity regarding the appropriate process for navigating the inherent pote

231、ntial challenges and disputes associated with co-location could impact developer and investor confidence in co-located FOW-CCUS projects.HighCollaboration between both industries in order to identify and mitigate potential risks associated with co-location.Development of targeted guidance to address

232、 key uncertainties.CCS3Physical&Technology Co-location of FOW and CCUS infrastructure presents opportunity for electrical powering of CCUS facilities.HighA review to determine the economic and technical feasibility of powering CCUS infrastructure via collocated FOW.CCS4Operations&NavigationSchedulin

233、g of FOW farm logistics presents opportunities to support CCUS operations(e.g.,helicopter or vessel sharing arrangements for co-located FOW-CCUS projects).HighReview logistical and economic feasibility of vessel-sharing between FOW and CCUS projects.CCS5People&SkillsThe joint growth of the FOW and C

234、CUS industries could create competition for skilled offshore workforces.HighReview of skills requirements for both FOW and CCUS,identifying areas where skills are likely to overlap.Following a review of skills required for industry growth,identify opportunities and/or initiatives to support the grow

235、th of a skilled workforce.32Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryCarbon Capture&StorageInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)CCS6Physical&TechnologyA FOW loss of statio

236、n scenario poses potential risk to CCUS subsea and surface infrastructure.Similarly,damaged or lost CCUS equipment/infrastructure could present a significant operational risk to co-located FOW infrastructure.HighRisk assessment of potential loss of station scenarios co-located FOW and CCUS infrastru

237、cture under varying weather conditions.If potential risks are identified,the development of design standards/recommendations(for example,relating to mooring system redundancy)for collocated projectsCCS7Physical&TechnologyThe spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints comp

238、ared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to the seismic monitoring requirements of the CCUS project.MediumEarly engagement between both industries to determine the spatial requirements of CCUS seismic monitoring,and to identify potential practical constraints for collocated p

239、rojects.Identify potential FOW array layout design requirements for facilitating CCUS seismic monitoring.CCS8Operations&NavigationCo-location of FOW and CCUS projects presents potential opportunities for FOW infrastructure to host and/or support additional CCUS seismic monitoring activities.MediumIn

240、itial review to determine the viability of FOW infrastructure hosting CCUS monitoring equipment and/or supporting monitoring equipment.Additionally,this could be supplemented by a technology review to determine the applicable design standards required to make co-location of infrastructure feasible.3

241、3Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 27-Interaction D14.3 DefenceInteraction D1Increased spatial footprint associated with FOW turbine assembly,marshalling and installation could lead to competition for port space,infrastructure and resources between both

242、 industries.IndustryDefenceTypePhysical&TechnologyLife Cycle PhaseInstallation;OperationalPriorityHighBackgroundDuring the installation phase,FOW technology presents the opportunity to undertake a greater degree of turbine and substructure integration within the harbour before the assembled FOW turb

243、ines are towed to the wind farm location and connected to their moorings.This is in contrast to traditional fixed wind,where turbine assembly and integration takes place fully offshore.As such,the assembly,marshalling and installation of FOW may require a larger share of the quayside compared to fix

244、ed wind.Furthermore,FOW tow-to-port maintenance activities,and the potential use of FOW wet-storage sites,could increase vessel traffic and activity within proximity to port.In principle,this additional quayside activity could lead to potential competition between both industries in terms of access

245、to port,infrastructure and resources.If potential conflict is not effectively managed,competition between both industries could lead to delays in operation and idle times could prove costly.It is not clear how the logistics of each industry will be prioritised(i.e.in the interest of managing nationa

246、l security vs energy security requirements).Future Activities/ResearchCoordination between both industries will be key to minimising conflict and developing an understanding of the needs of each industry in order to coordinate shared marine spaces.The development of best practice guidance may also b

247、e beneficial(e.g.addressing the prioritisation of access to ports and infrastructure during weather windows most appropriate for the marshalling and assembly of FOW).Research StakeholdersDefence sector;harbour authorities;offshore wind developers34Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence

248、Risks and OpportunitiesTable 28-Interaction D2Table 29-Interaction D3Interaction D2Potential FOW loss of station scenario could create an unforeseen navigational hazard for defence vessels.IndustryDefenceTypeOperations&NavigationLife Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundA FOW turbine moorin

249、g and anchor system will be designed to minimise the risk of a loss of station keeping situation.However,a potential FOW turbine mooring system failure cannot be completely ruled out.The failure of a mooring line(s)could lead to the drifting of a FOW turbine,and the unknown trajectory of a lost turb

250、ine could pose significant risk to maritime defence vessels.Future Activities/ResearchEngagement between both industries during the project planning process will be key to assessing the nature and extent of this risk.Where relevant,design-based mitigation(e.g.sufficient mooring redundancy)and new/up

251、dated industry guidance may be required in order to limit the extent of the risk.Research StakeholdersDefence sector;maritime and lighthouse authorities;offshore wind developers.Interaction D3Acoustic emissions of operational FOW farms could have potential implications on the effective range of sona

252、r in the vicinity of FOW sites.IndustryDefenceTypePolicy and Regulation Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundFOW sites may have a different operational acoustic profile to traditional fixed turbines(for example,due to coupled frequency effects,mooring line effects and different substru

253、cture designs).It is not clear the extent to which these acoustic emissions will increase as turbines and foundations increase in scale.The acoustic emissions of FOW turbines could hypothetically have implications on the effective range of sonar in the vicinity of FOW farms,which would be a key cons

254、ideration for co-locating FOW with existing Ministry of Defence(MoD)operations.Future Activities/ResearchEarly engagement with the MoD on this topic would be recommended to manage any potential implications on FOW development.Further work would be required to fully characterise the underwater acoust

255、ic profile of operational FOW turbines,and to determine how this might propagate,and could be mitigated,at large(i.e.GW)scale deployments.Research StakeholdersConsenting authorities,defence sector;offshore wind developers.35Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesT

256、able 30-Interaction D4Table 31-Interaction D5Interaction D4Potential Risk to FOWT infrastructure due to presence of unexploded ordnance(UXO)on the seabed.IndustryDefenceTypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseDevelopment;InstallationPriorityMediumBackgroundThe removal of UXOs prior to the developmen

257、t of an offshore wind farm is a requirement for both fixed and floating wind technologies,and is therefore a shared risk.However,FOW can be deployed in deeper areas of sea that would be inaccessible to fixed wind technology.UXO assessments for FOW sites may therefore present additional consideration

258、s in comparison to fixed wind due to increased water depths,differences in seabed terrain and the larger spatial footprints of FOW mooring systems.As such,floating-specific UXO assessments could present additional challenges and complexities which could represent development and consenting risks for

259、 future FOW farms.Future Activities/ResearchEarly engagement with the defence sector and marine management organisations on this topic would be key to identifying potential risks early and mitigating these in order to reduce the potential impact on FOW developments.Research StakeholdersDefence secto

260、r;marine management organisations;offshore wind developersInteraction D5Tow to port/tow to site of FOW turbines presents a navigational hazard for MoD vessel activities.IndustryDefenceTypeOperationsLife Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriorityMediumBackgroundIn principle,vessel-to-vessel navigational haz

261、ards from FOW operations and MoD vessel movements should be no greater than those associated with merchant vessels.However,towing operations for FOW turbines,especially those with deeper drafts(e.g.spar substructures),could present a larger navigational hazard.It is likely that FOW turbine towing op

262、erations will be most frequent during the installation and decommissioning phases,although may also occur during the operational phase.For navigational purposes,defence operations will typically account for the deepest draught vessel operating in that region,therefore any FOW turbine towing operatio

263、ns will need to be taken into consideration.Future Activities/ResearchEarly engagement with defence stakeholders on this topic would be recommended to reduce the impact of FOW towing operations on both sectors.If required,this could include the development of best practice guidance for notifying the

264、 defence sector(and other stakeholder)of planned FOW towing operations.Research StakeholdersDefence representatives;marine management organisations;maritime and lighthouse authorities;offshore wind developers36Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 32-Intera

265、ction D6Interaction D6The presence of established Practice and Exercise Areas(PEXAs)creates spatial planning constraints for future FOW farms.IndustryDefenceTypePolicy&RegulationLife Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityMediumBackgroundGiven the extensive/expansive nature of existing PEXAs,potential co-exi

266、stence with future FOW developments could be a significant consideration.This issue is somewhat technology agnostic(i.e.fixed vs FOW),however FOW will enable the expansion of offshore wind further offshore into areas of deeper water,meaning additional considerations may arise.If not managed correctl

267、y through early stakeholder engagement and clear communication,this could present a meaningful development risk for future FOW farms.The MoD/navy has experience of managing its practice operations in respect of other offshore infrastructure(e.g.O&G,aquaculture),meaning that co-existence is possible

268、in principle.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the consenting process for existing relevant offshore infrastructure would help to determine how this risk has been managed historically and whether there are key lessons learned applicable to FOW.It would also be important to understand how this ri

269、sk may vary between North Sea and Celtic Sea.Furthermore,a review of marine spatial planning process(including,for example,the ScotWind zone mapping process)would support an understanding of the precedent for how this has been approached for FOW.Clear and early engagement with defence sector regardi

270、ng any future FOW developments will also be key.Research StakeholdersConsenting authorities;defence sector;marine management organisations;maritime and lighthouse authorities;offshore wind developers.37Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 33-Interaction D7

271、Interaction D7FOW heave,roll and pitch motions could interact with defence radar coverage to create dead zones.IndustryDefenceTypePhysical&TechnologyLife Cycle PhaseDevelopment;OperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundBottom-fixed wind technology can potentially obstruct radar pathways to create dead zone

272、s.It is currently not completely clear the extent to which radar scatter from FOW technology may differ from bottom-fixed infrastructure due to differences in platform motion and installation location.Without understanding the interaction between FOW motions and radar obstruction/reflectivity,potent

273、ial impacts on defence operations and navigation,and the appropriate mitigations for this,it is possible that this interaction could present a consenting risk for future FOW developments.Future Activities/ResearchEstablishing the potential effect of FOW on radar coverage,either through novel researc

274、h or through support for existing relevant projects or programmes,and exploring opportunities to minimise potential risks.Research StakeholdersDefence representatives;offshore wind developers.38Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryDefenceInteractionTypeD

275、escriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)D1Physical&TechnologyIncreased spatial footprint associated with FOW turbine assembly,marshalling and installation could lead to competition for port space,infrastructure and resources between

276、 both industries.HighEarly collaboration between industries to determine their respective spatial requirements.Review of port requirements for both FOW and defence to identify potential risks and appropriate mitigations.D2Physical&TechnologyPotential FOW loss of station scenario could create an unfo

277、reseen navigational hazard for defence vessels.MediumRisk assessment of potential loss of station scenarios,utilising desk-based simulations where required.Develop new/update existing industry guidance on relevant emergency procedures and,where appropriate,the design of FOW mooring solutions.Table 3

278、5-Floating Offshore Wind and Defence Interaction RoadmapKeyActivity TypeOperational risk reviewLicensing/planning reviewEnvironmental monitoring studiesInsurance policy reviewTechnology review and developmentTechnology review and developmentDeveloping best practice and industry guidanceReview of eco

279、nomic opportunitiesTable 34-Recommended Activity Categories39Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryDefenceInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)D3Regulation&Regulation&P

280、olicy Policy Acoustic emissions of operational FOW farms could has potential implications on the effective range of sonar in the vicinity of FOW sites.MediumMonitoring and characterisation of FOW operational noise profile for various mooring configurations.Simulation of large scale FOW noise emissio

281、ns and identification/development of relevant mitigations.Continued engagement with defence sector and regulators to ensure that this knowledge gap is appropriately managed and addressed.D4Physical&TechnologyPotential Risk to FOW infrastructure due to presence of unexploded ordnance(UXO)on the seabe

282、d.MediumAssessment of relevant risks posed by UXOs for commercial FOW developments,and development of appropriate mitigations.D5Operations&NavigationTow to port/tow to site of FOW turbines presents a navigational hazard for MoD vessel activitiesMediumRisk assessment of tow-to-port operations and imp

283、act on defence operations.Identify potential mitigations.Review and propose potential updates to current guidance/regulations to ensure relevance to FOW tow-to-port operations.Effective engagement between both industries to manage the risks of tow-to-port operations at the FOW farm design stage40Flo

284、ating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryDefenceInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)D6Policy&RegulationThe presence of established Practice and Exercise Areas(PEXAs)creates

285、spatial planning constraints for future FOW farms.MediumReview of relevant marine spatial planning process to determine the precedent for managing this risk for previous offshore wind developments.Early and continued engagement with defence sector and regulators to mitigate potential developmental r

286、isks to FOW farms.D7Physical&TechnologyFOW heave,roll and pitch motions could interact with defence radar coverage to create dead zones.MediumTechnical assessment of FOWs effect on radar coverage.Early and continued engagement with defence sector and regulators to mitigate potential developmental ri

287、sks to FOW farms.Table 36-Interaction OG14.4 Oil&GasInteraction OG1Increasing levels of co-location of FOW and O&G leads to greater interaction risk between FOW infrastructure and O&G pipelines.IndustryOil&GasTypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriorityHighBackgroundIn principle

288、this risk applies equally to both traditional fixed wind and FOW technology,however the greater complexity of FOW subsea infrastructure presents additional considerations.While it is possible to mitigate these risks(e.g.through the use of bridges or mattresses),a degree of practical risk may be unav

289、oidable.There are also hypothetical concerns regarding the potential impact of cable electromagnetic field(EMF)emissions on pipelines(see Interaction OG5,table 40,regarding these potential corrosion effects).Future Activities/ResearchEarly engagement between the two industries regarding potential co

290、-location opportunities will be key to managing this risk.A review of current applicable guidance would enable the identification of potential gaps,and further work could be undertaken to address these.Research StakeholdersMarine management organisations;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers.

291、41Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 37-Interaction OG2Interaction OG2The limited precedent for co-locating FOW and O&G facilities could lead to developer and/or investor uncertainty(due to potential gaps in the regulatory process and associated developm

292、ent risk).IndustryOil&GasTypePolicy&Regulation Life Cycle PhaseDevelopmentPriorityHighBackgroundThe development of the Hywind Tampen project in Norway provides some initial experience of co-located FOW-O&G facilities.However,the lack of experience specific to the UK market means that general uncerta

293、inty remains,and it is possible that specific gaps and/or unidentified risks in the consenting process could present challenges to potential future project applications.In principle this risk applies equally to both traditional fixed wind and FOW technology,however the greater complexity of FOW subs

294、ea infrastructure presents additional complexities and considerations.The potential failure of project applications resulting from development and consenting risks would represent a significant opportunity cost for both sets of stakeholders.Further,the impacted ability to co-locate FOW-O&G facilitie

295、s could place additional pressure on the spatial planning process,thereby increasing consenting risk for both industries in the medium-to-long term.Developer and investor confidence could also be impacted.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the development and consenting applicable to co-located F

296、OW-O&G facilities would enable both industries to identify specific risks and opportunities.This would include initial experience through the Innovation and Targeted Oil&Gas(INTOG)leasing process.Where gaps are identified,work should be undertaken to deliver the appropriate best practice guidance.Re

297、search StakeholdersConsenting authorities;maritime and lighthouse authorities;marine management organisations;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers.Table 38-Interaction OG3Interaction OG3The co-location of FOW and O&G facilities presents opportunities to share environmental monitoring respons

298、ibilities and data.IndustryOil&GasTypeEnvironmental Life Cycle PhaseWhole Life CyclePriorityMediumBackgroundThe ability to share environmental monitoring responsibilities could enable modest yet meaningful cost savings for both industries.Further,if it can be demonstrated that,through collaboration,

299、our knowledge of and ability to protect and enhance the marine environment is strengthened,this could in turn support the consenting process for co-located FOW and O&G developments.Future Activities/ResearchA review of the typical environmental monitoring activities for FOW and O&G developments woul

300、d identify overlaps in the respective responsibilities,which could represent collaboration opportunities.Research StakeholdersConsenting authorities;marine research institutes;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers.42Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTa

301、ble 39-Interaction OG4Table 40-Interaction OG5Interaction OG4The spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints compared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to the seismic monitoring requirements of the O&G project.IndustryOil&GasTypePhysical&Technolog

302、y Life Cycle PhaseDevelopment;OperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundThe seismic monitoring requirements for oil and gas projects are less frequent than for CCS sites.Nevertheless,the complexity of FOW infrastructure presents operational risks for the use of traditional seismic streamers,which can be mu

303、ltiple kilometers in length.Potential obstruction effects associated with the complexity of FOW subsea infrastructure could feasibly restrict options and limit flexibility for O&G seismic monitoring activities.However,the development of innovative ocean bottom monitoring methods presents an opportun

304、ity for an alternative,if less widely demonstrated,approach.Future Activities/ResearchA technical feasibility review of the use of both surface level streamers and ocean bottom nodes for the seismic monitoring of co-located FOW-O&G sites would provide greater clarity of the risks and benefits associ

305、ated with these approaches.If necessary/appropriate,the development of best practice guidelines for monitoring co-located projects could support both regulators and developers.Research StakeholdersMarine research institutes;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers.Interaction OG5Electromagnetic

306、field(EMF)emissions from FOW inter-array cables could present a potential risk to O&G pipelines(e.g.hypothetical risk of pipeline corrosion).IndustryOil&GasTypeEnvironmental Life Cycle PhaseOperationalPriorityMediumBackgroundConcerns regarding potential EMF effects on pipelines have been raised by s

307、ome stakeholders,however there is a lack of consensus regarding the extent of these risks.Despite the uncertainty regarding the risks associated with this interaction,it is still possible that future projects could face challenges at the consenting stage relating to this effect.Future Activities/Res

308、earchA review of relevant literature and/or engagement with subject matter experts would support the development of a stronger shared understanding of any potential risks.If required,follow-on work may be required to address any knowledge gaps or develop potential mitigation solutions.Research Stake

309、holdersMarine research institutes;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers 43Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 41-Interaction OG6Interaction OG6A FOW farms multiple anchor anchors and dynamic cable seabed touchdown points presents interaction risk w

310、ith old/abandoned O&G wells and pipelines.IndustryOil&GasTypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseOperations&Maintenance PriorityLowBackgroundAbandoned O&G infrastructure should be thoroughly mapped,however older data may not be fully accurate.FOW anchors and cables are expected to present a lower ri

311、sk compared to fixed wind monopiles.Future Activities/ResearchShould any persisting concerns present potential challenges to co-located FOW and O&G facilities,further technical engagement between the two industries would support a more detailed understanding of the risk.Research StakeholdersMarine m

312、anagement organisations;O&G industry groups;offshore wind developers.44Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryOil&GasInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)OG1Physical&Tec

313、hnologyIncreasing levels of co-location of FOW and O&G leads to greater interaction risk between FOW infrastructure and O&G pipelines.HighDevelop/update industry best practice to identify potential interactions in order to minimise risk and exploit opportunities.Early and continued engagement with O

314、&G sector and regulators to mitigate potential developmental risks associated with FOW-O&G co-location.OG2Policy&RegulationThe limited precent for co-locating FOW and O&G facilities could lead to developer and/or investor uncertainty(due to potential gaps in the regulatory process and associated dev

315、elopment risk).HighA review of the development and consenting process applicable to co-located FOW-O&G facilities to identify specific risks and opportunities.Where gaps are identified,undertake work to deliver the appropriate best practice guidance.Table 43-Floating Offshore Wind and Oil&Gas Intera

316、ction RoadmapKeyActivity TypeOperational risk reviewLicensing/planning reviewEnvironmental monitoring studiesInsurance policy reviewTechnology review and developmentTechnology review and developmentDeveloping best practice and industry guidanceReview of economic opportunitiesTable 42-Recommended Act

317、ivity Categories45Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustryOil&GasInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)OG3Environmental Environmental The co-location of FOW and O&G facili

318、ties presents opportunities to share environmental monitoring responsibilities and data.MediumReview current environmental monitoring responsibilities of both industries and identify areas of potential overlap and identify synergies.Where relevant,support the development of novel environmental monit

319、oring methods/technologies applicable to deeper water sites further from shore.OG4Physical&TechnologyThe spatial requirements of FOW farms,which have larger mooring footprints compared to traditional fixed wind,could present a practical barrier to the seismic monitoring requirements of the O&G proje

320、ct.MediumEarly collaboration between industries to determine their spatial requirements and assess the practical feasibility of seismic monitoring activities within collocated projects.If required,undertake a technical feasibility assessment of innovative seismic monitoring methods(e.g.ocean bottom

321、nodes)that mitigate any identified practical risks or barriers.Where necessary/appropriate,the development of best practice guidelines for monitoring co-located projects could support both regulators and developers.46Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesIndustry

322、Oil&GasInteractionTypeDescriptionPriorityShort-Term(2024-2025)Medium-Term(Early Commercial Arrays)Long-Term(Full Commercial Arrays)OG5EnvironmentalElectromagnetic field(EMF)emissions from FOW inter-array cables could present a potential risk to O&G pipelines(e.g.hypothetical risk of pipeline corrosi

323、on).cables could have negative consequences on oil and gas pipelines potential risk of corrosion.MediumA review of relevant literature and/or engagement with subject matter experts would support the development of a stronger shared understanding of any potential risks.Follow-on research may be requi

324、red to address any knowledge gaps and/or develop potential mitigation solutions.OG6Physical&TechnologyA FOW farms multiple anchor and dynamic cable seabed touchdown points presents interaction risk with old/abandoned O&G wells and pipelines.LowTechnical engagement between the two industries would su

325、pport a more detailed understanding of the risk,and support the development of relevant mitigations47Floating Offshore Wind Co-location and Co-existence Risks and OpportunitiesTable 44-Interaction SC1Table 45-Interaction SC24.5 Subsea CablesInteraction SC1Introduction of new subsea cable leases in p

326、roximity to existing FOW turbine arrays increases complexity and risk for new cable installations.IndustrySubmarine Cables TypePhysical&Technology Life Cycle PhaseDevelopment;InstallationPriorityHighBackgroundIt is unlikely that new submarine cable licenses would be installed within a FOW farms para

327、meter;rather,they would be routed around the turbine array due to the presence of FOW dynamic inter-array cables,mooring lines and anchors.The requirement to be routed around a FOW farm(rather than taking the most direct route)could have implications associated with the cost and latency of a new sub

328、marine cable installation.The installation,operation and maintenance of subsea cable infrastructure in the vicinity of an existing FOW farm would pose a risk to both the dynamic and buried sections of floating inter-array cables.Further,a FOW arrays mooring and anchor systems would present an additi

329、onal consideration for subsea cables in the vicinity of a FOW farm.Future Activities/ResearchEarly intervention is paramount in addressing the challenges associated with installing new subsea cables in the vicinity of FOW arrays.Engagement between wind farm developers,subsea cable owners,and key sta

330、keholders(e.g.seabed leasing authorities)during the pre-application stage is essential to determine requirements and approach to co-located projects.Research StakeholdersSeabed leasing authorities,subsea cable associations;offshore wind developers.Interaction SC2Potential displacement of fishing ves

331、sels from FOW development areas leads to an increase in fishing activity over nearby/adjacent subsea cables,increasing the spatial constraints and risk profile of surrounding waters.IndustrySubmarine Cables TypeOperations&NavigationLife Cycle PhaseDevelopment;OperationalPriorityHighBackgroundIt is p

332、ossible that the installation of FOW farm infrastructure may have a displacement effect on existing fishing activities,either due to the complete obstruction of fishing operations,or unacceptable operational risk.In an increasingly congested marine space,it is possible that the displacement of fishi

333、ng vessels from new FOW development areas could lead to a relocation,or increase in frequency,of fishing activity within areas of the sea that were previously preferentially avoided,such as submarine corridors.As a consequence,this could lead to a general increase in competition between sea users within areas of the sea outside of FOW developments,and the risk profile of those areas could be incre