A standoff between Orsted and BP over access to part of the North Sea where both have been given development rights is laid bare in submissions to the UK government, with the global renewables giant claiming the oil supermajor is taking a “draconian approach” to exclude its offshore wind turbines from an area also earmarked for carbon capture.
A stalemate over deploying wind turbines on top of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) infrastructure highlights the potential for conflicting interests in an increasingly crowded North Sea, with both parties claiming their massive projects are essential to UK government decarbonisation goals but would become uncompetitive if the other gets its way.
The problem centres on a 150 square km overlap zone between Orsted’s proposed 2.6GW Hornsea 4 development and BP-led plans for a huge subsea CO2 storage facility off northeast England under the Northern Endurance Partnership (NEP) that also includes a clutch of other oil & gas majors and forms part of the East Coast Cluster plan to decarbonise heavy industry.
Both projects hold lease agreements from UK seabed landlord the Crown Estate and spent several years looking at options for co-location under an ‘interface agreement’ process between the two parties. But BP said in its latest submission to UK planning authorities considering the consent of Hornsea 4 that “after extensive work and analysis, BP and its co-venturers in NEP have concluded that unfortunately co-existence across the entirety of the overlap zone [now reduced to 110 square km] is not feasible for delivering the East Coast Cluster plan”.
BP – which with its partners hopes to reach a final investment decision on NEP next year – cited issues including interference with seismic monitoring of the Endurance Store CO2 reservoir and access to its infrastructure, adding that losing the overlap zone would make the project unviable.
'Coexistence possible'
For its part, Orsted’s submission to the UK’s National Infrastructure Planning authority claims “there is no need for such a draconian approach”, arguing that excluding its turbines runs counter to UK government policy that targets rapid offshore wind expansion to meet national decarbonisation goals. Hornsea 4 is among a clutch of projects seen as crucial to helping the UK quadruple offshore wind capacity to 40GW by 2030.
The Danish offshore wind giant – which already has 5GW operating, in construction or consented across three projects in the Hornsea zone – claimed the schedules of Hornsea 4 and NEP leave “timeframes for exploring various initiatives to coexist” with “an opportunity to deploy the most suitable technology for the specific needs of the [overlap zone] prior to construction”.
Orsted was unimpressed by what it said was BP’s suggestion to use “fewer, larger turbines”, pointing out that losing the overlap zone would bar access to 25% of Hornsea 4’s developable area.
“The largest current model commercially available is 14MW. Vestas have announced a 15MW wind turbine which may be commercially available. However even based on the 15MW turbine [Orsted] still requires 180 turbines to build out the secured grid capacity of 2.6GW once transmission losses are factored in.
“A 25% reduction in turbine numbers would mean a loss of 45 turbines resulting in a project capacity of 630MW to 675MW depending upon whether a 14MW or 15MW turbine is deployed.”
It added that wake losses resulting from a re-modelled deployment would “make the project uncompetitive and potentially result in a failure to achieve full grid capacity of 2.6GW. The impact upon Hornsea Four will impact the government’s wider drive towards net zero”.
The parties said they are willing to keep talking in an effort to break the impasse.
BP – which is separately emerging as a major offshore wind developer in its own right – said in a statement sent to Recharge: “We are committed to finding a resolution to this issue and a mutually acceptable outcome through the ongoing commercial discussions.”
Increasing conflict
The Crown Estate acknowledged last year the increasing potential for conflict between offshore wind and carbon storage when it and other key stakeholders launched the Offshore Wind and CCUS Co-location Forum, tasked with “identifying the key challenges and opportunities” presented by the co-location of sea-based wind and CCUS infrastructure.
“As suitable space on the seabed is limited, and as capacities for both will need to increase to meet this target, it is anticipated that that there will be a number of areas that will require infrastructure in the same location,” the Crown Estate said in a statement.
It added risks were already foreseen over “a lack of clarity over how issues associated with overlap, such as development planning and precedence” and the ability to “physically perform” CCUS monitoring surveys on an operational offshore wind farm and its power infrastructure.
