Category Archives: Offshore

The Government of Lithuania has settled on the position of the countrys first offshore wind farm, with the capacity of up to 700 MW, in the Baltic Sea.

The government has decided that the wind farm will be built and commissioned by 2030 at the site previously proposed and considered in the draft Government Resolution, which has now been adopted.

The site covers an area of 137.5 square kilometres, with a distance from shore of approximately 29 kilometres, an average water depth of 35 metres, and an average wind speed of approximately 9 m/s.

The tender to select the owner and developer of the wind farm is scheduled to be held in 2023, the government said.

Prior to this period, the approved spatial planning and environmental procedures the special plan, the strategic environmental impact assessment, and the environmental impact assessment will be performed by the Lithuanian Energy Agency.

The project is expected to attract around EUR 1 billion in private investments. Once commissioned, the wind farm is expected to generate up to three TWh of electricity annually, corresponding to one-quarter of the countrys current electricity consumption.

By employing offshore wind, we will achieve ambitious renewable energy targets and reduce electricity imports from other countries. Our goal is to develop offshore wind in the most efficient and competitive way, and at the same time it will be an opportunity to attract world-class investors to Lithuanian energy, said Lithuanias Minister of Energy ygimantas Vaiinas.

Amendments to Law

The government also approved the concept of wind power development in the Lithuanian maritime territory prepared by the Ministry of Energy, which proposes changes in the legal regulation taking into account the recommendations of a working group consisting of state institutions and social partners.

The government instructed the Ministry of Energy to prepare draft laws regulating the support scheme for offshore wind farms by 1 July.

The draft legislation will then be submitted to the interested institutions for coordination, and to start coordinating the proposed support scheme with the European Commission.

In addition, taking into account the experience of foreign countries and the fact that the development of networks for the connection of planned power plants in the maritime area may take up to eight years, the government proposed to the transmission system operator to start preparatory work for the connection of offshore wind farms to the grid.

Go here to read the rest:

Lithuania Selects Where 700 MW Offshore Wind Farm Will Be Built - Offshore WIND

The ScotWind Leasing programme is being run by Crown Estate Scotland in its role as manager of Scotland's seabed. It is the first round of offshore wind leasing in Scottish waters in a decade.

Investors and developers can register their interest in obtaining an 'option agreement' with Crown Estate Scotland through an online portal. Successful applications will be granted leases to build offshore wind farms in one of the areas of seabed that will be identified as suitable in the Scottish government's sectoral marine plan (SMP) for offshore wind, which has been published in draft form.

Crown Estate Scotland is anticipating closing applications between October 2020 and early 2021, depending on when the SMP is formally adopted.

Applicants will be required to prepare and submit a 'supply chain development statement', setting out how they plan to engage with and utilise the supply chain to successfully develop their projects. This statement must include information on the geographical location of supply chain activity and evidence of how the commitments in the plan can be fulfilled.

In their launch summary document (7-page / 156KB PDF), Crown Estate Scotland said that it was encouraging "realistic" supply chain commitments. The ScotWind Leasing process does not impose any requirements on level or location of supply chain impact, but commitments will be incorporated into the final option agreement with contractual remedies possible if the commitments are not met.

"More detail on the supply chain requirements for applicants has been keenly awaited, though this remains a moving target as CES has invited feedback on its supply chain commitment proposals by the end of July," said renewable energy expert Alan Cookof Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law. "Shortly after the adopted sectoral marine plan becomes available, they will publish an addendum to the ScotWind Leasing launch documentation which will confirm final details of their requirements. Although bidders supply chain development proposals are not to form part of the scoring which will determine which applicants for seabed areas are successful, this will nevertheless be an important document and will form the basis for contractual commitments in the option agreements which will be granted to successful bidders and to which bidders will then be held."

"There is a tension for bidders between, on the one hand, addressing the aspirations of politicians and potential local supply chain participants and, on the other hand, developing projects to be as economic as possible in order to be able to bid successfully under the Contract for Difference subsidy regime. New global entrants to the Scottish offshore development market may also feel less of an obligation to be seen to be meeting politicians and unions local supply chain aspirations than existing Scottish/UK-based players. More bullish bidders may even be tempted to submit weak supply chain commitments on the basis that the CES launch documentation makes it clear that this will be irrelevant to the process of awarding options over seabed areas anyway," Cook said.

Energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said that the leasing round "presents an opportunity to help develop our strategic economic response to the Covid-19 pandemic".

"As we emerge from the crisis, we have a chance to re-imagine the Scotland around us and to begin building a greener, fairer and more equal society and economy," he said.

Crown Estate Scotland said that total investment in ScotWind Leasing could ultimately surpass 8 billion and deliver enough electricity to power every home in Scotland, saving over six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

John Robertson, head of energy and infrastructure at Crown Estate Scotland, said: "Offshore wind is currently one of the cheapest forms of new electricity generation and Scotland is perfectly poised to host major new projects, with a well-established energy skills sector as well as some of the best natural marine resources in Europe".

See the original post:

Scotland launches offshore wind seabed leasing programme - Out-Law.com

Canadians have sent more than 2,000 letters of support asking the federal government to invest in Newfoundland and Labradors offshore oil and natural gas industry. The letters from supporters of the offshore were directed to Members of Parliament as well as Minister of Natural Resources Seamus ORegan, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Jonathan Wilkinson and Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Catherine McKenna. Supporters are calling on government to implement changes to the tax regime to support offshore development and exploration so that the industry can be globally competitive and people can get back to work.

The letters are from individuals who know how important the offshore oil and natural gas industry is to the economic success of the region. More than 6,500 people directly rely on the offshore to support their families and pay their bills. That number is thousands more when you include those employed by more than 500 supply and service companies which provide goods and services to the sector. Without an immediate federal investment to support the offshore oil and natural gas industry, all of this is at risk.

The Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry is facing an unprecedented crisis and its future is in jeopardy. I cannot emphasize just how dire the situation has become and I fear for its future without immediate action from the Government of Canada. With more than 2,000 letters written by concerned citizens, our collective voice is calling upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government to support our people, industry and province, by providing incentives for both offshore exploration and development projects to make the industry globally competitive and help thousands of people get back to work, said Charlene Johnson, Noia CEO

The industry is up against tremendous challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting drop in demand for oil and natural gas. This is occurring at a time when the offshore has a critical role to play in the global and domestic market. As markets begin to recover and life returns to normal the world will require more energy and demand will rebound. Global demand for oil and natural gas is expected to grow for decades and as other offshore jurisdictions, including Norway, move to change their tax regimes to attract investment, Newfoundland and Labrador must keep pace or investment will flow to other jurisdictions.

The offshore industry touches every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, either directly through employment or business revenue or indirectly through government revenue which helps pay for hospitals, roads and schools. We urge government to listen to the Canadians who took the time to submit letters, by investing in this industry and helping secure a prosperous future for the province and country, said, Paul Barnes, Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Newfoundland and Labradors offshore industry, with its continued commitment to safety and environmental performance, can supply responsibly produced energy to the world while continuing to bring significant benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. Newfoundland and Labradors light sweet crude oil is considerably below the global oil production average for GHG emissions at extraction.Support for exploration and new developments will help Atlantic Canada continue to grow as a leader in ocean innovation and lead to the development and adoption of new technologies that will benefit all ocean industries. The federal governments actions now can help ensure the offshore industry is in a strong position to compete for investment dollars, enable new projects and jobs in the region, help to restart deferred projects, and continue to contribute to global emissions reduction efforts.

For further information, or to send a letter, please visit:https://www.energycitizens.ca/noia

Did you enjoy this article?

View post:

2,000 letters in support of Canada's offshore | OUR GREAT MINDS - The OGM

Local Blogs

By Sherry Listgarten

E-mail Sherry Listgarten

View all posts from Sherry Listgarten

When you hear about renewable plants being built, you normally hear about the size of the plant in megawatts (MW). For example, our local power providers are building 100 and 200 MW solar plants, and Mountain Views Googleplex gets power from the ~600 MW Altamont Pass Wind Farm. Those numbers reflect how much power the plant can generate at peak. If you multiply that power by time, you get a measure of the maximum amount of energy it can generate over a period of time. So, for example, if you were to run a 100 MW solar plant at full power for a year (that would be impossible because of night and clouds, but just pretend), then it would generate 100 * 365 * 24 = 876,000 MW-hours = 876 GW-hours (GWh) of energy.

In reality, the solar plant would not come close to producing that amount of energy in one year because the sun doesnt shine 24x7. The capacity factor reflects the actual output of the plant compared to the maximum output. On average solar plants in California have a capacity factor of around 28%. That is pretty high for solar California gets a lot of sun. On the east coast, the capacity factor for solar plants is more like 15-20%. (1)

The chart below shows the capacity factors of different types of energy in the US. (2)

This data is sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration

You can see that coals capacity factor (in black) has decreased substantially over the past ten years, despite many plant shutdowns. That is because the remaining plants are running less often as electricity markets prefer to run cleaner plants. This has made coal power more expensive. Gas plants (in red) have picked up some of the slack by running more often. But wind (in green) is also making improvements, and those are related more to technology than to market forces. Wind is becoming a more reliable resource.

You may be wondering how technology can make more wind power from the same wind. Well, computer models can help to better site (position) the turbines to capture more wind. A yaw system can dynamically rotate the turbine to face the wind, while a pitch control mechanism can swivel the blades to pick up more wind. But most importantly, taller turbines pick up higher, more reliable wind, and offshore turbines pick up steadier ocean breezes.

6 MW turbines in heavy seas off of Rhode Islands coast. Source: National Renewable Energy Lab

Turbine improvements have driven big increases in capacity factors for wind farms. Europes onshore wind farms have a capacity factor of 24% because many turbines are smaller and older. The USs wind farms are newer and have a capacity factor of 35%. Offshore wind yields another step up in reliability because the winds are steadier and ocean turbines can be taller. Europes offshore wind farms have an overall capacity factor of 38%, while the UKs more recent offshore farms have a weighted capacity factor of 43%. GE has developed an enormous turbine for offshore use. It is around 60 stories high and almost as wide, with blades as long as a football field. GE claims it will achieve a capacity factor of 63%, and Time magazine named it one of its 2019 Inventions of the Year. That turbine can capture a lot of wind.

European countries have installed 5047 offshore turbines to date, including 502 in just the last year. The UK and Germany are leading in installed capacity. The US also has great potential for offshore wind, as you can see in the map below. Since around 80% of the nations electricity demand occurs in the coastal and Great Lakes states, this offshore power is conveniently situated. (3)

Source: Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Incredibly, the US has only five wind turbines offshore right now, located near Block Island off the coast of Rhode Island. In the last few years, though, the industry has gained momentum in the US, and there are commitments for 20GW of wind (3000+ turbines) in just the next five years.

Offshore wind farms planned in the next 5-10 years. Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

One of the challenges we have on the west coast, and also in Maine, is that the ocean gets deep very quickly, so offshore turbines that are fixed into the ocean floor are not practical. Fortunately, floating turbines are being developed, and quickly, in part because oil and gas companies have considerable experience with this kind of technology. It is amazing to me that these not only work, but can work better than turbines built into the seabed. A journalist spoke with Po Wen Cheng, head of an international research project on floating wind energy at the University of Stuttgart, and relates that Cheng says that: not only are winds in deeper waters more powerful than those closer to shore but the physics of the flexible, suspended rigs enables them to carry larger turbines. Cheng argues that floating turbines could be even taller than todays largest offshore rigs, perhaps with 400-foot blades and towers stretching nearly 1,000 feet into the air as tall as the Eiffel Tower. Turbines of such dimensions could generate three times the electricity of todays most advanced onshore turbines. (4)

Some technologies used for floating wind turbines. Source: Wind Energies Technology Office

This is not just theoretical. A pilot floating wind project has been running very successfully off the coast of Scotland for several years. With five 6 MW turbines, it realized a capacity factor of 56% in its first two years of operation. To put that in perspective, that means each floating wind turbine generated 6 * 365 * 24 * 0.56 = 29,434 MWh of electricity per year. An average California home uses 6552 kWh per year. So a single one of those floating turbines could power 4492 typical California homes. Consider that the UK already has installed about 1900 offshore wind turbines. Suppose California were to install just 1500 turbines along our coast, newer models, say 8 MW on average with a good 50% capacity factor. That 12 GW of offshore wind would yield 53 TWh of energy per year, which is around 20% of Californias annual electricity consumption. That is an enormous amount of renewable energy.

Maine has seen the light and is going ahead with a pilot project of two 6 MW turbines. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management analyzed six potential sites in California, predicting a capacity of 16 GW in just those areas. With the coastal winds coming on strong in the evenings just as our demand is ramping up and the sun is going down, it seems like a great complement to our solar power.

Six potential sites for offshore wind in California. Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

And yet. California, for all its clean energy aspirations, has no pilots for offshore wind. No plans. Just long-lingering hopes. The obstacle is not birds, or marine life, or fishermen, or wealthy coastal dwellers concerned about aesthetics. It is not marine navigation, or even economics. Instead the major obstacle to offshore wind in California is the Department of Defense. According to the San Diego Tribune, The U.S. Navy considers vast portions of California as wind exclusion areas, including the entirety of Southern California. Here is a map that the US Navy released about two years ago showing those areas in red.

US Navy map showing wind exclusion zones off the California coast. Source: Ben Inskeep

The Navy is not leaving much room for offshore wind! A central coast Congressman, Representative Salud Carbajal, has been talking with the US Navy and others for years to find some way to establish offshore wind in his area. It is a great location, especially given ample transmission capacity from the demise of the Morro Bay gas plant in 2014 and (soon) the Diablo nuclear plant. But negotiations are slow going. A recent update from E&E News indicates that the Navy has offered to exchange a small area in return for a ban on many other areas. Among other things, the Navy is suggesting that wind could be built in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Carbajal, on the other hand, is suggesting that it would behoove the Navy to learn how to navigate around wind turbines given that so many other countries, including China, are erecting them along their coasts.

So, well have to wait to see where California ends up with this very promising resource. Northern California may have the best shot in the short term. Change is disruptive, and change of the magnitude we need to see over the next 10-20 years is not easy. We see the tension across all forms of low-carbon energy, however promising they appear on paper. I applaud politicians like Carbajal who are really trying to make it work.

Notes and References0. I will be taking the next few weeks off from this blog to do some summer activities. Happy Fourth of July!

1. The capacity factor of a solar farm is also affected by technology (e.g., whether the panels have tracking capability to better orient towards the sun) and market factors (e.g., how often the plant is called on to operate). Solar plants that need a lot of maintenance will also have lower capacity factors.

2. Nuclear energy is not shown in this chart. Nuclear has the highest capacity factor, at over 90%. Geothermal energy is also high, at around 75%, though there is much less of it.

3. This statistic and others can be found in this top ten list about offshore wind.

4. If you are wondering how such an incremental change in turbine size can make a 3x difference in electricity produced, it is because wind power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Engineers spend a lot of time tuning turbines (orthodontics for wind farms, as one writeup puts it) to increase energy production.

5. You can find a good overview of offshore wind in the US from the American Wind Energy Association. This report from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has lots of information about US offshore wind plans.

6. This report has lots of data about wind energy (including offshore wind) in Europe.

Current Climate Data (May 2020)Global impacts, US impacts, CO2 metric, Climate dashboard (updated annually)

Comment GuidelinesI hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your comment may be moderated:- Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.- Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.- Stay on topic.- In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.

We need your support now more than ever. Can we count on you?

Comments

Thanks for the reply Sherry.

> I know that you are a proponent of nuclear power,

I am uncomfortable being thought of as the "proponent of nuclear power", because I never have been and I would not be pro-nuclear now except for how dishonest I see every other side of the energy competition, how much I have read about nuclear power, and the 60 or so year history the world now has with nuclear and the results, good and bad.

> and one advantage of nuclear power is that it uses less space.

I would just say that this statement strikes me as a bit funny because I guess I don't think anything competes with solar on the issue of space except perhaps wind. Power output of nuclear really has almost nothing to with how much land or space it takes up, so mentioning both types of power generation on a scale of space is a kind of rhetorical device.

Solar ( and wind ) use space because they are exploiting features in the environment that both really depend on the effects of the sun. Solar output is in direct proportion to the area of the earth that it covers up, and it is never mentioned in a solar context but land area on planet Earth is not a renewable resources!

So when I see deficiencies and dishonesties in ( present company excepted, this is not aimed at you or your articles where I do see an effort to be objective ) the energy generations sources I just feel compelled to bring up the contrarian side of things, which at least on this blog no one seems to care about.

That should be a concern to you in a way as it seems to indicated you are pulling in people from your own "silo" so to speak; but you don't seem to be hostile to my comments which to me are not really aimed at "proponenting" for nuclear as they are to put some facts out there that people are often hostile to. I know because before a few years back I had always been anti-nuclear. I have a hard time seeing that I am being pro-nuclear so much as pro-critical thinking and fact finding.

Finally but being objective towards comparatively, on every dimension, looking at nuclear, does not mean I am anti-wind or anti-solar. Far from it, but like most human activities when anything gets to a global scale we often find as in nature that systems behave differently and have different issues at large scale.

> However, some argue we have enough space to meet our needs with renewables.

I am sure "some" do argue that. Part of my questioning effort is to point out some of the things that people don't think about or mention, both good and bad. For example some of what you said seemed to indicate that if we put solar offshore wind generators all over the oceans that we might be able to tamp down on global storms ... a kind of selling point that a I am sure some will take and go off and start to use as a selling point for wind. But my feeling is that like CO2 or plastics all over the oceans, when we do anything at a scale like that it almost universally turns out to have some other catastrophic effect to the planetary system we have evolved and lived under all of human exists - and still have not learned is not infinite, or linear.

So I mention that if the world got the majority or even the marginal amount of energy from solar, what happens if there is a global phenomenon that affects the sunlight falling on Earth? Like we have another Krakatoa where a volcano goes off and emits enough ash to reduce the world energy production by 10 to 50 % or even more. Or we have an asteroid impact, or limited nuclear war that gets close to nuclear winter? These ideas seem to be like everything else we humans do, if there is an immediate way to "profit" in some way we look to dismiss any criticism of it. I've mentioned these things a few time and no one has ever picked up the discussion, except to attack me on it. So them it looks like this is not so much a discussion but chorus of believers.

> I haven't looked into it too much, but land use is certainly an important issue.

Indeed. People make the snap judgement that in order to generate all the power we use today it would only take so many square miles of solar panels in the desert and it seems like bargain, but that is desert land that would basically be dead to the biosphere. Also, when we say we can generate all the energy we use today, what about converting cars, trucks, airplanes to electricity? What about the 6 hours a day duty cycle of solar. What about storage? What about terrorist disruption of the energy grid .... but mostly what about energy growth? I think the world needs far more energy than we have today in order to separate human activities from natural ones to save the environment.

There is significant space here for massive failure to millions or hundreds of millions of people. Nuclear just does not have any of that liability of worldwide failure. Also, how would solar or wind factor in to military defense. If we have centralized solar farms how easy would it be for a terrorist or enemy state to crash the country by attacking that infrastructure. Tiny weak North Korea could bring us to our knees with a lucky hit and probably destroy this country for decades or for good because once destroyed and the people in turmoil how would we rebuild that solar capacity?

Thought centralized, nuclear plants are hardened to attack. After 9/11 it is generally accepted that they should at least be able to withstand an airplane strike

> Finally, you may be interested in this just-released policy report from Berkeley that suggests that the plummeting prices of solar, wind, and storage mean we can get to 90% clean by 2035. Their report does incorporate substantial nuclear energy. The land use aspects are covered in Appendix 4, which isn't published yet.

Like any sane person, which I flatter myself that I am, I am scared of nuclear - mostly because of the incredible stupidity of humans when anything is done for profit, status, political power or control. Nuclear should have answers to these questions just as solar, wind or whatever should cover all its bases.

I am sad that no one but I have stood up to the constantly repeated criticism of cost of only a specific nuclear company and plant. If people on this side were honest they be willing to, even if they were wind and solar maniacs should still have the integrity to question arguments just as nuclear should be questioned. Look at the first solar panels and how expensive they are, and then look at what we have today because of solar R&D.

Even if cost was the main issue with nuclear power there is no reason why nuclear or any other technology should not develop and have costs lowered over time just as computers, solar, internal combustion, or anything else. So, I would brand myself as a universal skeptic who tries to keep an open mind about things rather than simply a nuclear proponent, because what I think is not helpful is polarizing black and white thinking in any field or endeavor.

Thanks for the links I will take a look at them.

View original post here:

Is Offshore Wind a Reliable Renewable? | A New Shade of Green | Sherry Listgarten - Palo Alto Online

Dive Brief:

Federal regulators on Thursday announced they would hold two technical conferences based on issues raised by stakeholders one on carbon pricing and one on whether current grid operator frameworks are suitable for offshore wind integration.

Transmission development company Anbaricfiled a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against the PJM Interconnection last November, asking the commission to find that PJM's transmission interconnection procedures deny meaningful access to offshore wind and similar remote generation technologies. FERC dismissed the complaint, but agreed to hold a technical conference to explore the issue more.

The commission also announced it would host a commissioner-led technical conference on carbon pricing, in response to a request from competitive power suppliers, clean energy advocates, the gas industry and others. "When such a broad group of voices asked the commission to convene an exchange of ideas, I think it's important that we do so," FERC Chair Neil Chatterjee said during the meeting.

Commissioners were broadly in consensus on the importance of the offshore wind and carbon pricing conferences during Thursday's monthly open meeting.

"The fact that we're going to be having a technical conference on how to develop offshore wind and the transmission issues involved with it is very important," Commissioner Bernard McNamee said during the meeting, echoing comments from Commissioner Richard Glick, the lone Democratic appointee on the commission.

Glick said he agreed with the commission's decision to dismiss the Anbaric complaint, but said key questions related to offshore wind and transmission "warrant further investigation." Specifically, he pointed to Anbaric's argument that transmission planning under the eastern regional transmission operators' jurisdiction and elsewhere should plan transmission ahead of offshore wind deployment, to avoid expensive and inefficient development.

"Offshore platform transmission projects, where the transmission is built in anticipation of generation, may be the most efficient approach for accommodating the growth of offshore wind," said Glick. "I commend Chairman Chatterjee for noticing a technical conference to explore whether existing RTO [and]ISO frameworks can accommodate this anticipated growth."

As more eastern states set large offshore wind goals, having a system to minimize costs as well as environmental harm to the ocean, and maximizing efficiency is essential, Anbaric argued in its complaint. On land, the grid already exists and is relatively easier to connect to, but things are "very different" with the ocean, Theodore Paradise, senior vice president of transmission strategy and counsel at Anbaric told Utility Dive.

"We're talking about tens of gigawatts across the Atlantic seaboard to start to meet some of these targets in the near term, not really that many years out," he said. "You can't just run a radial to each wind farm. It's super expensive, that's a ton of cables, kind of spaghetti on the ocean floor, as some people describe it. environmentally, it's kind of a disaster which is ironic because that's what you're trying to avoid."

Overall, the company is pleased with the commission's decision to hold a technical conference, and Paradise says it could lead to a rulemaking process that would address their initial complaints with PJM. "Getting to the technical conferences is a really good outcome from today," he said. Offshore wind advocates were pleased with the move as well.

"FERC's initiative to take a holistic look at how offshore wind can be better integrated in organized markets is forward-thinking, given the significant growth expected for the U.S. offshore wind industry in the near future," Laura Morton, senior director of policy and regulatory affairs for offshore at the American Wind Energy Association, said in an email to Utility Dive.

Offshore wind stakeholders have also criticized the commission for its December order directing PJM to adopt a minimum offer price rule for all new generation that receives a state subsidy, which most analysts agree is likely to raise the prices for offshore wind and make it more difficult for the resource to compete in the wholesale capacity market.

Chatterjee on Thursday told reporters that the decision to hold the technical conference was directly related to the anticipated growth of offshore wind, but that the two issues are related in that the conference and the MOPR "are similarly forward looking."

"I've always been a big believer in renewables and their ability to compete in the marketplace if given the chance. But if you don't have a competitive marketplace then all generation types, including renewables, will be harmed in the long run," he said.

FERC also announced it would examine carbon pricing more closely through a technical conference, as was requested by a diverse array of stakeholders, including NextEra Energy, Vistra Energy, Calpine, the American Council on Renewable Energy, the Natural Gas Supply Association, Advanced Energy Economy and others. The coalition applauded the commission's move in a statement.

"Carbon pricing in organized markets could be a powerful and cost-effective tool to drive down emissions and achieve state policy goals while preserving the benefits of competition," the group said. "There is overwhelming support for a FERC-led conference on carbon pricing from all corners, including state regulators."

The group first wrote to FERC in April, asking the commission to examine more closely how the policy could help states reach their clean energy goals. Chatterjee said he expects the conference to be a "lively exchange," and will likely include discussions over whether FERC even has the legal authority to implement carbon pricing.

"Certainly some of my colleagues will be raising those questions," he said.

The staff-led offshore wind technical conference will be held Oct. 27 and the commissioner-led carbon pricing conference will be held Sept. 30.

See the rest here:

FERC schedules technical conferences on carbon pricing, offshore wind integration challenges - Utility Dive

Liam Brooke and Tim Gordon the directors of collapsed peer-to-peer platform Lendy have had their assets frozen while administrators investigate suspicious payments to an offshore account.

In the latest investor update, Lendy administrator RSM revealed that it was looking into 6.8m in payments made to entities registered in the Marshall Islands.

Although the money was said to have been spent on marketing services, RSM said that it is the administrators positionthat these payments were ultimately for the benefit of Liam Brooke and Tim Gordon.

On 1 June 2020, RSM applied for a worldwide freezing injunction to be granted over the assets of both Brooke and Gordon, as well as proprietary injunctions on the properties owned by companies linked to the directors RFP Holdings Limited and LP Alhambra Limited. The injunction was granted three days later.

Read more: Lendy investors face prolonged recovery process

Proceedings have now been commenced against Liam Brooke, Tim Gordon, RFP Holdings Limited and LP Alhambra Limited, RSM confirmed in the latest administrators update.

Owing to the nature of these claims, the joint administrators are unable to provide further information at this time. The joint administrators are continuing to investigate the affairs of the company.

RSM also revealed that it has now interviewed Brooke and Gordon, as well as carrying out reviews of the companys books and records, performing detailed analysis of the companys bank statements and reviewing the results of key word searches of approximately 480,000 company emails.

Read more: P2P administrations face delays due to Covid-19

These investigations have revealed a number of discrepancies in the companys accounts. Solicitors Pinsent Masons have been advising RSM on any legal action that may be required.

Earlier this year, RSM received court approval to extend the Lendy administration process by three years, due to the complex nature of the administration process and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the period covered since appointment, the joint administrators have incurred significant time costs in managing the wind down of the loan book, said RSM in the latest update.

As previously advised, the loanbook has proved to be in a considerably worse state than was immediately apparent on our appointment.

As a result, the process to realise secured assets has been more complex, difficult and time-consuming than was first envisaged. It has become apparent there were significant issues in Lendys underwriting and administration processes, which has contributed significantly to the complexity of the wind down and directly led to an increase in costs. As an example, on multiple cases there is a range of litigation directly linked to the historical Lendy practices.

Lendy went into administration on 24 May 2019 with a loanbook valued at 152m. Just under 17m has been realised to date.

Read more from the original source:

Lendy bosses have assets frozen amid offshore investigation - P2P Finance News

The CEOs of two of the biggest names in global renewable energy headed for the door this week.

First to announce his departure was Henrik Poulsen of Orsted, who will leave the offshore wind giant by February next year at the latest.

The resignation of the fossil-to-wind trailblazer prompted an outpouring of tributes from normally hard-bitten financial analysts, who hailed his transformational role at the Danish group.

Poulsen was non-committal over his future plans, but confirmed they don't include leading the energy transition of another oil and & gas group.

The second high-profile exit was Markus Tacke at Siemens Gamesa "by mutual agreement". Unlike Poulsen, Tacke won't be hanging around until a successor is found the turbine OEM immediately named offshore chief Andreas Nauen as his replacement.

Recharge spent the latter part of last week providing comprehensive coverage of US Offshore Wind 2020 Virtual, as official news provider to the high-profile industry event.

You can read all the great news, analysis and interviews from the conference at our special virtual newsletter page here.

But Recharge kicked-off the proceedings in style with two exclusive in-depth articles a long-read interview with Thomas Brostrm, the North America chief of Orsted, and a feature on the transmission challenges facing US offshore.

Hydrogen is never far from the energy transition headlines, with global players descending on the emerging sector from all directions.

This week it was the turn of utility giant RWE, which said it may kit-out a new LNG terminal to accept green hydrogen, and oil & gas player Repsol, which wants to use the gas in synthetic fuels.

Even the nuclear sector is getting in on the act, and a report from a UK government-backed agency warned that the nation may need nuclear hydrogen to hit its stretching net-zero ambitions.

More:

Green giants exit, US offshore tradewinds and hydrogen steps on the gas - Recharge

On April 29, 2020, Volvo Construction Equipment (CE) signed a memorandum with the government of Pudong New District, Shanghai, which signaled the official movement of Volvo CEs Asia headquarters from Singapore to Shanghai. This is believed to be a result of Shanghai Free Trade Zones (FTZ) endeavors to promote offshore trade businesses.

Offshore trade, or documentation processing trade, refers to a trade model in which the goods are transferred directly from the exporting country to the importing country without entering the border of the middle country where the contracts, payments, logistics, insurances, financial arrangements, as well as other trading documentations are processed in.

For example, in 2019, Volvo CE shipped two excavators to Nigeria directly from its manufacturing subsidiary in South Korea. In this transaction, the equipment did not enter China, but Volvo CEs Shanghai subsidiary handled all the paperwork, including accepting the order and signing the contract, getting the deposit and the final payment, arranging the production and the later logistics, insuring the goods and settling the tax, etc.

In offshore trade, the subsidiary in the middle country actually plays the role of centralizing and allocating the resources of the supply chain, which in not only good for improving the host countrys role in global trade, but also implies greater tax benefits. Meanwhile, the huge capital turnover in offshore trade can nourish the financial sector and make it more prosperous.

Given this, offshore trade has always been welcomed by major free trade hubs, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. However, it was underdeveloped in Shanghai and other mainland cities, mostly due to the strict regulatory controls.

The customs and the foreign exchange authorities had long held on to the idea that it is hard to determine the authenticity of offshore trade, considering the exporting and importing parties are located outside of China, and the goods, capital, and trade documentation are all separate from each other under this trade model. As fabricated transactions can be very harmful to a countrys economic order and foreign exchange market squeezing the capital from real economy, accelerating the imbalance of international payments, and encouraging unreasonable investments in foreign exchange authorities in China tended to be very cautious and strict towards offshore trade transactions.

In fact, since 2012, Chinas State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) has released several administrative documents to exert greater control to foreign exchange in offshore trade and combat fake transactions. In particular, in 2016, the SAFE issued the Notice on Further Facilitating Trade and Investment and Improving Authenticity Check (Huifa [2016] No.7), requiring the bank to review the contract, invoice, transportation documents, and the ownership license of the offshore transactions one by one. Enterprises who failed the reviews would not be able to receive money or make payments.

This strict scrutiny made it hard to do offshore trade business in China where payments and settlements were slow. In the past, many well-established companies engaged in offshore trade have had to shift to Singapore or Hong Kong.

The development of offshore trade is in line with Shanghais ambition to play a bigger role in global finance and become an international trade center.

After years of strict control, offshore trade was brought back into attention again when China planned to build Shanghai FTZ into a first-class free trade port.

In 2017, when the draft plan of Shanghai free trade port was released, offshore trade was listed as one of the top targets to promote.

On October 31, 2019, Shanghai FTZ announced seven preferential policies for offshore trade companies, at a conference about promoting the development of offshore trade business.

Some of the above policies have already been put into practice.

On April 13, 2020, the Shanghai Free Trade Zone Offshore Trade Service Center was officially launched in Waigaoqiao Bonded Area, Shanghai, which signified that the development of offshore trade has entered the fast track.

So far, 47 companies are reported to have enjoyed preferential foreign exchange policies in offshore trade businesses.

According to the official news, the next step is to put the financial support into place and reduce the tax burden on offshore trade businesses.

In the current promotion of offshore trade in Shanghai FTZ, more and more companies engaging in offshore trade are expected to set up as a legal entity in the zone or move their regional headquarters here, like Volvo CE.

However, companies are still advised to get themselves familiar with Chinas regulatory environment and pay close attention to the policy changes now and in the future. In this way, they can stay agile while avoiding compliance and financial risks. For further information orassistance in China, please email us atchina@dezshira.com.

About Us

China Briefing is written and produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The practice assists foreign investors into China and has done so since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. Please contact the firm for assistance in China at china@dezshira.com.

We also maintain offices assisting foreign investors in Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, The Philippines, Malaysia,Thailand, United States, and Italy,in addition to our practices in Indiaand Russia and our trade research facilities along the Belt & Road Initiative.

Here is the original post:

What has Shanghai FTZ Done to Support and Revitalize Offshore Trade? - China Briefing

Offshore Oil and Gas Market report is segmented on the basis of type, service type, application, and region & country level. Based upon type, offshore oil and gas market is classified into liquefied natural gas, heavy crude oil, and light crude oil. On the basis of service type, the market is classified into directional drilling, logging while drilling, measurement while drilling, offshore contract drilling, and subsea production and processing. On the basis application, the market is classified into a deep water drilling, shallow water drilling, and ultra-deep water drilling.

Offshore Oil and GasMarket is valued at USD 86,900 Million in 2018 and expected to reach USD 151.851 Million by 2025 with CAGR of 8.3% over the forecast period.

Get Sample Copy of This Premium Report https://brandessenceresearch.com/requestSample/PostId/392

**The sample pages of this report is immediately accessible on-demand.**

Market Analysis ofOffshore Oil and Gas-

Offshore oil and gas is the extraction and drilling process of natural gas and oil from below the oceans floor. Natural gas and oil are extracted through the wells and then transferred by pipelines and ships to refineries. In 2013, the industry has faced a downfall in the price due to major environmental disasters which have taken place in Mexico in 2014 i.e. Oil Spill in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Of Mexico. However, it has been observed that the oil & gas sector is recovering. The global infrastructure and economies highly depend on the petroleum-based products which have led to an increase in the worlds dependence on oil and gas. It has been estimated that the world production of oil and gas is expected to increase because of growing demand which may result in the shrinking of the global economy and availability of oil.

The developing countries like China, Russia, and Brazil are increasing production and exploration efforts. However, geopolitical deliberations such as the ongoing dilemmas in Iran, Qatar, and Venezuelas exit from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will hugely influence oil and gas supply. The trend of alternative and renewable energy is another threat to traditional oil and gas companies coupled with the rise in governmental pressure and pro-eco legislation has the industry is under more scrutiny than ever. Electricity producing from offshore wind and solar power plants has increasingly become cost-effective and cheaper. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, over 80% of newly commissioned renewable energy will be cost-effective and cheaper than new natural gas and oil sources. These factors are expected to hamper the growth of offshore oil and gas market.

The regions covered in this offshore oil and gas market report are North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World. On the basis of country level, the market of Offshore Oil and Gas is subdivided into U.S., Mexico, Canada, U.K., France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, India, South East Asia, Middle East Asia (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) GCC, Africa, etc.

Key Players

The major players operating in the offshore oil and gas market are BP, ExxonMobi, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Petrobras, Statoil, CNOOC and Others.

The Reduction in Price of Crude Oil and Recovery of Offshore Sector are the Major Factors Driving Factors for the Growth of this Market

The oil and gas industry will continue to manipulate the politics and international economics, particularly in the U.S. the level of employment in the sector as more than 10 Mn jobs, are supported and depend on the oil and gas industry. Recently, there has been a recovery in the industry as it enters its third year. The growth is predicted to increase at a significant rate due to increased upstream production which will continue to have a positive effect for midstream businesses. The crude price has also become stable at around $50/barrel. Additionally, 1 million jobs are estimated to be made in 2019 and the number of active drilling rigs has increased to more than 780 as compared to previous years which were 591 in the U.S. The UK offshore sector is also expected to recover as there are planned 16 greenfield projects with recognized development plans and around 29 greenfield projects is estimated to start production between 2019 and 2025.

Middle East and Africa is expected to be the Most Prominent Market for the Offshore Oil and Gas.

Geographically, Offshore Oil and Gas Market report is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World. The Middle East and Africa are expected to grow at the fastest CAGR during the forecast period. The increasing growth is mainly because this region has the highest production of natural oil and gas which export to the other region and countries as well. It has been estimated that around 30 Bn barrels are consumed each year, globally, mainly by developed economies. Oil also accounts for major energy consumption share regionally, Europe and Asia account for 32%, North America with 40%, Africa with 41%, and South with 44% and the Middle East with 53%.

Key Benefits for Market Report

Market Segmentation:

By Type:

By Service Type:

By Application:

Get Full Report: https://brandessenceresearch.com/energy-and-mining/offshore-oil-and-gas

About us: Brandessence Market Research and Consulting Pvt. ltd.

Brandessence market research publishes market research reports & business insights produced by highly qualified and experienced industry analysts. Our research reports are available in a wide range of industry verticals including aviation, food & beverage, healthcare, ICT, Construction, Chemicals and lot more. Brand Essence Market Research report will be best fit for senior executives, business development managers, marketing managers, consultants, CEOs, CIOs, COOs, and Directors, governments, agencies, organizations and Ph.D. Students. We have a delivery center in Pune, India and our sales office is in London.

Contact usat: +44-2038074155 ormail usat[emailprotected]

Go here to read the rest:

Offshore Oil and Gas Market Research Report Insights and Forecast 2020 to 2025 - Cole of Duty

O

ffshore jurisdictions remain popular for all manner of businesses. Holding companies, asset management, iGaming, blockchain and bitcoin, and even forex are popular sectors for offshore incorporation and operation. But how do you go about picking the right one? It is not as simple as choosing which one you think, superficially, is the best option. You need to dig deep and take a considered decision as to which will be the best fit for you, your company, and your ongoing requirements.

How much will it cost?

One of your key considerations is likely to be how much it will cost you to operate in an offshore jurisdiction. First, you need to take into account the setup costs and then any fees for ongoing maintenance. Additionally, if you are setting up a company you should note additional expenses such as compliance with permanent establishment and/or economic substance requirements. These are just some of the things you need to ascertain before making any concrete decisions on where you will base your business.

Is it a stable jurisdiction?

When choosing the right location, you should aim for one that is politically, socially, and economically stable. It is all very well and good enjoying fiscal benefits and low operating costs but if the economic outlook is poor and the political system is volatile, you will soon encounter issues.

Being in an unstable jurisdiction can make it difficult to conduct short and long term planning. It can also impact relationships with partners and third parties. Choosing a location with a good all-round climate facilitates strategic planning and the smooth running of your business. An additional bonus of stability is not having to worry about currency fluctuations or issues when it comes to remitting profits and revenue elsewhere.

What about Tax?

How much tax you will pay in your jurisdiction of choice is a very important matter. This will directly impact how much of your business income remains yours and how much you can remit elsewhere.

The best-case scenario is to find a place with a zero or low-rate of tax that is not blacklisted. Many jurisdictions have favourable fiscal incentives but are still in line with international best practices.

Is it reputable?

If you pick a jurisdiction with a bad reputation or that is blacklisted, it will severely impact your ability to conduct business. Your reputation is worth more than the money you could save on a zero tax rate or cutting corners. Finding a jurisdiction that has a good reputation and offers you the benefits you want is attainable, with some professional guidance.

Is my confidentiality protected?

Different jurisdictions have different levels of confidentiality that are afforded to those operating there. Information sharing, details of Ultimate Beneficial Owners, and annual or periodic filings are just some things that vary depending on where you are located.

Depending on your business and requirements, you need to decide what level of privacy you want and then pick a jurisdiction accordingly. However, in our view, all jurisdictions will become transparent eventually.

Is it suitable for my needs?

Not every offshore jurisdiction is suitable for every business. As an example, not all are geared up for efficient tax planning and some dont have legislation to properly handle asset management. Furthermore, some might be good for tax and assets, but may not be good for the nature of your business.

Before deciding, you need to consider several factors including filing obligations, capital requirements, tax, nominee and disclosure requirements, audits, incorporation times, and other regulations, statutes or policies. This list is not exhaustive and there are many other considerations you should be aware of before taking the plunge.

Can I find the right professional partner?

Not all corporate service providers are created equally. Some are better than others and have different priorities when it comes to working with clients. You should look for a provider that has experience in all of the jurisdictions you consider, and that works with a large network of international partners. Experience in your industry or sector is also important.

It is also recommended to ask for detailed quotes when inquiring about company formation services as many service providers won't even include the most basic incorporation documents to offer you an incredibly low price. However, you will need to pay those additional/hidden fees later on. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Beware of hidden fees and unnecessary charges and instead opt for custom turn-key packages that are designed to incorporate all of your needs.

The last word

Offshore incorporation and other business activities is not a matter to be taken lightly. After all, it can impact every aspect of your business. Taking the advice of a professional with an extensive track record of working in the offshore sector is the first step towards ongoing success.

Read the original post:

Things to consider when looking for an offshore jurisdiction - Yogonet International