Construction and Deployment

European Union
European Regional
Development Fund
Investing in your future
Irish-Scottish Links on Energy Study (ISLES)

Construction and Deployment Report
www.islesproject.eu
April 2012
ISLES Construction and Deployment Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 1
2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2
3 OUTLINE OF OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ....................................................................... 3
3.1 FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED) STUDIES ....................................................................................... 4
3.2 GEOPHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................ 5
3.3 OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT............................................................................................... 10
3.4 SHORE AND SHALLOW WATER CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 16
3.5 COMMISSIONING AND TESTING .................................................................................................................. 28
3.6 CONCLUSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT PROCESS ............................................................. 29
4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................................................................................................... 30
5 GENERATION OF PRELIMINARY ISLES ROUTE PLAN..................................................................... 33
6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR OFFSHORE CABLE LAYING OPERATIONS ............................ 34
7 EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION METHODS ON THE COST OF OFFSHORE CABLE INSTALLATION35
7.1 SCOPE OF W ORK...................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 36
7.3 LOCATION OF THE ISLES CONSTRUCTION PORT ......................................................................................... 37
7.4 RESULTS OF THE COST MODEL ................................................................................................................... 38
7.5 OVERVIEW OF OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION COSTS....................................................................................... 39
7.6 CONSTRUCTION SCENARIOS ..................................................................................................................... 41
7.7 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR CABLE COLLECTION USING A CHEAP TRANSPORT BARGE COMPARED TO A CABLE
LAY SHIP 44
7.8 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS FOR LAY AND BURIAL OF BIPOLAR CABLES IN A SINGLE TRENCH ............... 45
7.9 IMPACT OF A VESSELS CABLE LAY CAPACITY ............................................................................................. 48
8 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES ...................................................... 51
8.1 CURRENT CONSTRAINTS REGARDING OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ................................... 51
8.2 REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY LIMITS ............................................................................................................... 53
8.3 DEPTH OF BURIAL REQUIREMENTS AND ITS EFFECT ON CONSTRUCTION SPEED............................................. 55
8.4 PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR CABLES BASED ON HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS ......... 56
8.5 PROJECT RISK IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................. 62
8.6 ADVANCEMENTS AND INNOVATION IN CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES: UPGRADE THE TECHNOLOGY TO SPEED UP
LOAD OUT, LAY AND TRENCHING............................................................................................................................ 64
MDR0707Rp0028 i Rev F01

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: ISLES construction, deployment and maintenance activities 3
Figure 2. Reproduced from a presentation titled Importance of metocean data at marine renewable energy
[1]
sites. James Parker Gardline Environmental Ltd. 2010 5
[2]
Figure 3. Survey vessel with Multibeam echo sounder 7
[2]
Figure 4. Side scan sonar - SSS 7
Figure 5. Typical scope of geophysical survey for an offshore platform, reproduced from Reference [3] 7
Figure 6.Typical scope of geotechnical survey for an offshore platform, reproduced from [3] 8
Figure 7. Typical scope of geotechnical survey for offshore pipeline routes, reproduced from [3] 9
Figure 8. Tubular steel jacket foundation structure - Suited to HVDC platform 11
Figure 9. Jacket delivery by transport barge 12
Figure 10. Jacket lift from transport barge 12
Figure 11. platform topside transport to offshore site with cargo barge and tug. 13
Figure 12. Rambiz floating crane vessel installing a platform topside onto a foundation. 13
Figure 13. platform topside float over with crane barge. 13
Figure 14. platform topside ready to be lowered onto jacket 13
Figure 15: Construction of Gun fleet Sands and installation of Offshore Substation 13
Figure 16: Jack up Crane Vessel during foundation Installation 13
Figure 17. Digging an open trench from headland to the beach 16
Figure 18. Robert Donaghy Cigre Cock Harbour 2010, ESB International 17
Figure 19. Image of HDD rig courtesy of Land and Marine. 17
Figure 20. Open sheet pile trench 17
Figure 21. Auger boring 17
Figure 22. Cable being placed into beach duct from lay barge 18
MDR0707Rp0028 ii Rev F01

Figure 23. Cable going into HDD duct - Exit of HDD duct showing cable duct seal. 18
Figure 24. Cable plough being used to bury export cable directly from the beach. 19
Figure 25. Fall pipe vessel 20
Figure 26. Side dumping vessel 20
Figure 27. Protective concrete mattresses in a mattress installation frame 20
Figure 28. IHC EB Seatrac Subsea Rock cutting machine 21
Figure 29. Simec Castor 2 21
Figure 30. LD travocean concrete casting machine 21
Figure 31. Grapnel used for Pre-Lay Grapnel Run. Image courtesy of Denholm Offshore 22
Figure 32. Subsea excavator Carrera 4 used for seabed levelling, and cable deburial image courtesy of
Seatools. 22
Figure 33. North Ocean 102 cable lay vessel, used to lay Britned cable link 23
Figure 36: Schematic of the Post lay burial. 25
Figure 37: Schematic of Simultaneous lay and burial. 25
Figure 38. Cable plough 25
Figure 39. Hard soil trencher 25
Figure 40. Pipeline plough 25
Figure 41. PL3 Pipeline plough IHC Engineeering Business 27
Figure 42. Prototype SCAR plough, Ecosse Subsea 27
Figure 43: Typical cable repair vessel Sea Spider 31
Figure 44: Typical damaged cable where a flash-over occurred. 31
MDR0707Rp0028 iii Rev F01

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Inputs to the Costing Structure ............................................................................................................... 37
Table 2: HVDC Link Cable Data........................................................................................................................... 37
Table 3: ISLES power cable network installation cost outlay ............................................................................... 38
Table 4: Cable protection scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 41
Table 5: Cost outcome for different protection methods ...................................................................................... 41
Table 6: Naples cable load out costs.................................................................................................................... 42
Table 7: Hartlepool cable load out costs .............................................................................................................. 43
Table 8: Transit cost from Naples using a barge.................................................................................................. 44
Table 9: Costs for separate laying and trenching of bundled bi-pole cable in a single trench. ............................ 45
Table 10: Costs for simultaneous lay and burial .................................................................................................. 46
Table 11: Costs for separate lay into a pre cut trench with pipeline plough...................................................... 46
3
Table 12: Cost of the project using cable lay vessels with 4000m / 10,000t Carousel ....................................... 49
Table 13: Cost using cable lay vessel with 2,500t Carousel ................................................................................ 50
Table 14. Technology limits.................................................................................................................................. 53
Table 15. Depth of burial and its effect on construction speed ............................................................................ 55
Table 16. Types and sources of subsea cable installation risks .......................................................................... 62
Table 17: Operating speed scenarios................................................................................................................... 64
Table 18: Fast operating speed and its effect on cost outlay............................................................................... 65
Table 19: Equipment upgrade speed and its effect on cost outlay ...................................................................... 65
MDR0707Rp0028 iv Rev F01

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From a construction and deployment perspective, this study finds that the ISLES project is feasible to
construct and a preliminary cable network design has been developed.
Existing offshore construction vessels, trenching equipment and methods would be employed on this
project, all of which have a successful track record in delivery of similar projects. The availability of
vessels is such that if ISLES were to be constructed in the same time frame as Round 3 offshore
windfarms then cable lay vessel availability would be a tight constraint. Availability of vessels is also
highly dependant on the time allocated to build all links of the ISLES network.
The environmental implications of construction have been included within this report. In conclusion the
overall environmental impact of building the offshore network remain inline with existing offshore
construction developments are low consequence and are not deemed to make a case against the
development of ISLES.
In terms of technology innovation, this study identifies the following two areas which would benefit
from further development. The first topic aims to reduce the risk of cable damage during deployment,
while the second aims to reduce the costs of cable installation.
1. A technical review of simultaneous burial of bundled bi-pole power cable with a plough or
trencher, compared to pre-cutting a trench with a pipeline plough. Currently subsea trenching
and lay of bundled cable is a challenging operation.
2. A technical review of the speed of spooling to the vessel at the cable factory and whether
automatic systems could be employed to speed up this process.
It is recommended that in order to further progress the ISLES project the following activities are
undertaken in order to reduce project risk and to enable a more accurate assessment of the cost and
schedule for offshore construction.
3. Metocean data study
4. Geotechnical Desk top study
MDR0707Rp0028 1 Rev F01

2 INTRODUCTION
This report has been arranged into five sections:
1. Outline of offshore construction process
2. Operations and maintenance requirements
3. The proposed offshore cable installation route
4. Cost sensitivities to cable construction and deployment options
5. Construction and installation technology issues
The first section details the main work scopes that would be carried out during the planning stages
and construction stages of the offshore network.
The second section outlines the operations and maintenance requirements of the subsea cable
network.
The third section discusses the proposed route, seabed conditions and basic trenching implications.
Detailed route charts for the proposed route are located in Appendix A.
The fourth section details the cost implications of carrying out different construction methodologies to
illustrate the various financial pros and cons.
Finally, the last section of the report describes the feasibility of constructing the offshore network,
highlights the challenges and equipment limits and indicates where technology innovation may assist
by improving the business case or reducing the overall project risk.
In writing this report the authors would like to express their thanks to the following offshore contractors
and companies who have been contacted or consulted in relation to this study
1. Subocean / TPG
2. CTC Marine projects
3. Seacore Fugro
4. VSMC
5. Global Marine Systems Ltd
6. Scaldis
7. Offshore Marine Management
8. Van oord
9. ABB
10. Prysmian
11. Nexans
12. JDR cables
13. International Cable Protection Committee
14. IMCA
MDR0707Rp0028 2 Rev F01

3 OUTLINE OF OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
1. Front End Engineering & Design Studies.

(a) Design study route & location
(b) Metocean data study
2. Site investigations
(a) Desk top study
(b) Geophysical survey
(c) Geotechnical survey and lab testing
(d) Additional geophysical and/or geotechnical
surveys and/or laboratory testing as
required.
3. Generation of route plan
4. Offshore Construction & Deployment 5. Onshore Construction & Deployment

(a) Foundation & Installation (a) Shore Approach
(b) Offshore Substation Installation (b) Cable Burial
(c) Cable Laying (c) Onshore Substation Installation
(d) Cable Protection
6. Commissioning and Testing

(a) Cable termination
(b) Continuity checks
(c) Power transmission
7. Operations and Maintenance

(a) Cable route inspection annual survey
(b) Offshore platform structural inspection
(c) HVDC transmission hardware
inspections
(d) Cable fault repairs
8. Decommissioning
(a) Platform topside removal
(b) Jacket removal
(c) Pile cut off & removal
(d) Cable burial or removal
(e) Final survey
Figure 1: ISLES construction, deployment and maintenance activities
MDR0707Rp0028 3 Rev F01

3.1 FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED) STUDIES
3.1.1 Offshore Network Design Study
This study phase is carried out by the network developers in advance of commencing any construction
activities. Its purpose is to:
1. Develop the detailed design of the network in terms of initial cable lay route corridor selection,
substation foundation type, shore approaches and grid connection methods.
2. Establish a more accurate project budget and project schedule.
3. Identify any technical issues which require further investigation or design work.
The results of the FEED study would provide sufficient information to enable the network developer to
specify survey locations and to define the scope of work for the survey.
3.1.2 Metocean data review
A metocean data review will research the currently available meteorological and oceanographic data
for the region, covering:
Wind
Wave
Currents / Tides
Weather and sea conditions in the region influence the duration of work that can be carried out by
offshore construction vessels and the associated downtime waiting for good weather. Occasionally,
cable lay vessels may be required to abandon the cable lay and burial process as a consequence of
adverse weather conditions.
Wave, wind and high tidal current combinations impose limits to a vessels position keeping ability.
Even though ISLES is deemed to be predominantly constructed with vessels fitted with automatic
computer controlled Dynamic Positioning (DP) systems, the position keeping ability remains of
constant concern to the vessel captain.
Metocean data provides much of the input and operational information necessary for the design of
offshore platforms. Wave, tide and current combinations will affect seabed scour around platform legs
and the base of other subsea structures. The data gathered will indicate extreme conditions and it will
allow assessment of the anticipated fatigue life of the platform structure.
The data is also of importance in determining operational availability for maintenance, renewable
resource assessment and estimation of future operating costs. In addition, the contractors insurance
requirements during construction and in service are governed, to some degree, by the metocean
characteristics of the region.
The chart reproduced in Figure 2 indicates the metocean data requirements throughout the lifecycle of
a marine renewable site.
MDR0707Rp0028 4 Rev F01

Figure 2. Reproduced from a presentation titled Importance of metocean data at marine renewable energy sites.
[1]
James Parker Gardline Environmental Ltd. 2010
3.2 GEOPHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS

The sea bed topography and soil characteristics of the proposed offshore cable route and substation
locations need to be accurately determined at the pre-construction phase. This will allow cable
trenching contractors to choose the correct burial machine, to estimate the rate of burial and
determine the required burial depth. The cost of installation is a function of these parameters.
In addition, the same information is required by the substation foundation designers to allow them to
engineer the most appropriate substation foundation which, in turn, impacts on the cost of the
foundation installation work.
3.2.1 Geotechnical and geophysical desk top study
The desk top study is the first phase of a site investigation, bringing together existing or researched
information and identifying potential areas of information conflict or deficiency.
The desk top study should include a review of all sources of appropriate information and should collect
and evaluate all relevant data for the site, including for example:
Existing bathymetric information.

Existing geological information and foundation experience in the region.
Information and records of seismic activity.
MDR0707Rp0028 5 Rev F01

3.2.2 Geotechnical and geophysical site investigations
Primarily, the site surveys take the form of separate geophysical and geotechnical surveys carried out
along the cable route, though in practice these can be carried out from one integrated vessel.
However, it is advantageous to carry out a separate geophysical survey to determine the best route
before proceeding to carry out the geotechnical survey. The main reason for this is that the results of
the geophysical survey will impact on the final route choice. It is therefore cost efficient to only carry
out the geotechnical survey once the best route has been established.
The way in which foundations of offshore structures are designed to interact with the seabed will vary
according to the type, strength and depth of soil, or the type of rock on which they are to be located.
This detailed information must therefore be determined before the design phase.
Contractors such as Fugro Survey, Deep Ocean, GEMS and Gardline have a fleet of vessels capable
of carrying out this work.
3.2.3 Geophysical survey
Geophysical surveys are non-intrusive, and the purpose is to record bathymetry, map the seabed
topography and identify metallic objects, pre-existing infrastructure or hazardous areas on the sea
floor. The geophysical surveys are carried out by a survey vessel fitted with a range of survey
equipment (Figs 3 and 4).
The vessel or vessels would carry out multiple passes of the route to establish the seabed profile for a
cable route corridor with a width of 500m to 1000m.
On a 150m wide side scan sonar range, parallel survey lines would be spaced 125m apart. For a
750m route corridor, this would require 6 survey lines. Survey lines would need to be oriented to tidal
flow directions.
It would be usual to carry out the geophysical survey in the seasons before the construction campaign
commences to avoid it being on the critical path of any construction activities.
It should also be noted that the data processing would take a considerable time for the ISLES project
and if the results of the survey indicate that the initial cable route should be modified to avoid certain
seabed features then a second geophysical survey may be required.
MDR0707Rp0028 6 Rev F01

[2]
Figure 3. Survey vessel with Multibeam echo Figure 4. Side scan sonar - SSS
[2]
sounder
3.2.3.1 Scope of work for geophysical survey for offshore platforms
The typical survey scope of work required for offshore platforms is reproduced below from [2].
Figure 5. Typical scope of geophysical survey for an offshore platform, reproduced from Reference [3]
3.2.4 Geotechnical survey
Geotechnical surveys are carried out to gather detailed information about the site specific soil
conditions.
Data acquisition methods for geotechnical site investigations along a pipeline or cable route include:
Cone penetration testing.

Gravity / drop coring (very soft to firm clays).
MDR0707Rp0028 7 Rev F01

Vibrocoring (sand).
Grab sampling (sand / gravel).
The spacing of soil sampling and the need for any in-situ testing along the cable installation route will
depend on the variability of soil conditions and the presence of anticipated or known geo-hazards.
Minimum laboratory testing should consist of geotechnical classification testing for basic physical
properties.
Following the results of the surveys, the ability of a plough or trencher to bury the cable can then be
more accurately determined.
Detailed guidelines for survey testing and sample frequency can be found in Reference [3].
3.2.4.1 Scope of work for geotechnical survey for offshore platforms
The typical geotechnical survey scope of work for offshore platforms is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6.Typical scope of geotechnical survey for an offshore platform, reproduced from [3]
MDR0707Rp0028 8 Rev F01

3.2.4.2 Scope of work for geotechnical survey for offshore pipeline routes
The typical geotechnical survey scope of work for offshore pipelines is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Typical scope of geotechnical survey for offshore pipeline routes, reproduced from [3]
Surveys Potential Environmental Impacts
Seismic and acoustic surveys generate marine noise. The repeated noise emissions generated by the
seismic energy source can result in environmental effects such as:
Physical damage to animals close to the source.

Direct behavioural effects through avoidance.
Indirect behavioural effects by impairing / masking the ability to navigate, find food or
communicate, or through affecting the presence of food sources.
The main concerns associated with acoustic emissions from seismic surveys and, to a lesser extent
[4]
acoustic surveys, are potential impacts on plankton, fish and fisheries, and marine mammals.
Acoustic surveys use much lower strength emitters and therefore have considerably less impact,
however, they are still in excess of background marine noise and can cause changes in behaviour or
temporary avoidance by marine life.
Additional potential impacts include the physical presence of the survey, which can include a number
of vessels and the streamer array.
MDR0707Rp0028 9 Rev F01

Borehole sampling to identify platform locations can involve the locating of a jack up barge or suitable
vessel on a site to carry out geotechnical investigation. Vessels operating bore holing operations are
held in place using Dynamic Positioning systems and thrusters. These increase the noise emission
from the vessel in the area and both jack up rigs and DP vessels have a longer physical presence
onsite.
Both survey and DP vessels can collide with larger marine mammals and DP vessel thrusters can
cause injury to marine life. However, such events are very infrequent.
All three jurisdictions have specific guidance relating to the operation of these surveys, with conditions
such as the presence of Marine Mammal Observers to minimise their environmental impact. These
operations are carried out on a routine basis for a number of other industries and applications within
the ISLES concept area. Further information on these impacts and their mitigation is outlined in the
ISLES Environmental Constraints Report.
3.3 OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT
3.3.1 Construction port
The base port (or ports) in the region will form a logistics hub (or hubs) for the offshore construction
and deployment activities of the project. The general requirements of a suitable quayside facility for
cable lay and heavy lift vessels can be listed as:
Sufficient quayside length to accommodate vessels of length up to 150m with high load
bearing capacity and adjacent access.
Water access to accommodate vessels up to 45m beam and 6m draft with no tidal or other
access restrictions.
At least 4 hectares suitable for pre-assembly of substation modules and for cable storage.
Overhead clearance to sea of 100m minimum to allow vertical shipment of platform module
decks.
Primary ports with large shipyard facilities in the region are:

Liverpool Cammell Laird
Belfast Harland and Wolff
Glasgow Govan yard (BAE systems)
Secondary ports which may be of importance to the ISLES region are:

Dublin Port of Dublin
Glasgow King George V Dock (Clydeport)
Larne - Port of Larne
Port of Mostyn
Londonderry Port
Holyhead Port
MDR0707Rp0028 10 Rev F01

It is anticipated that platform top side modules and jacket structures may be deployed directly to the
ISLES sites from their respective fabrication facilities without using the construction port. Alternatively,
the jackets and top side modules may be delivered to the base port and subsequently deployed from
there. The preferred strategy would be subject to economical analysis during the tender stage, with
construction contractors determining the most attractive commercial strategy.
3.3.2 Offshore platform foundation type
Jacket platform structures remain the most common offshore structures used for oil and gas drilling
and production in the North Sea. It is anticipated that this design would be the most suitable for High
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) platforms and Voltage Source Converters (VSC) hubs for ISLES.
Fixed jacket structures consist of tubular steel members

interconnected to form a frame. These structures usually have
four legs to achieve stability against overturning in waves, though
designs with just three, or up to eight legs are also available.
Main piles, which are tubular members, are usually carried with
the jackets and driven through the jacket legs into the seabed to
anchor the structure to the seafloor.
These platforms generally support a superstructure having 2 or 3

decks.
The use of these platforms is generally limited to a water depth of

about 150~180m in the North Sea. A typical wave of 30m would
be considered as the maximum design wave height.
Figure 8. Tubular steel jacket

foundation structure - Suited to HVDC
platform
3.3.3 Offshore platform jacket installation
The process for deployment of the offshore platform jacket is generally as follows:
1. Jacket transport from fabrication site to offshore location by tugs and cargo barge (Fig. 9).
2. Jacket lift and lay down by floating crane barge (Fig 10)
3. Pile installation & concrete grouting or swaging.
The jackets would be fabricated onshore and transported to the offshore project site by a cargo barge,
or directly by a heavy lift floating crane barge such as the Scaldis Rambiz (Fig 12).
MDR0707Rp0028 11 Rev F01

For rocky sea bed conditions, where piles would need to be drilled, accurate installation of the piles
may require the use of a specially designed subsea template positioned on the seabed to guide the
piles and drill into the correct location. Once drilled, the piles would normally be grouted in place with a
cement grout. Accurate measurement of the installed position of the piles would be found by carrying
out a pile top positioning survey using an ROV. The jacket legs can then be lowered into position on
the piles by the crane.
Assuming the heavy lift floating crane barge would be anchored on location, it would then lift a jacket
from the cargo barge. After one jacket is lifted off the cargo barge, the cargo barge is towed outside
the construction area and the crane barge would position the jacket on, and into, its pre-installed
foundation piles.
Figure 9. Jacket delivery by transport barge Figure 10. Jacket lift from transport barge
A survey ROV monitors the jackets position in relation to the pre-installed piles while, at the same
time, two ROV systems under water monitor the legs that are being lowered into the piles. After
set-down on the seabed, the structure is released from the crane. The crane barge retrieves her
anchors and moves to the next location, where the cargo barge with the next jacket is manoeuvred
underneath the cranes on the crane barge again for the next installation.
For softer soils and sandy seabeds, it would be normal to install piles with the jackets, and vibrate the
piles and hammer them to the required depth by using an IHC Hydrohammer.
When the crane barge has completed the jacket set down, a grouting support vessel would then move
in to connect grout injection equipment to the grout connection points on the jacket. The space
between jacket legs and foundation piles is filled up with cement grout to fix the jacket into position
and to help it to withstand the wind, waves and tidal currents in the Irish Sea.
An alternative method of connecting the jacket to the piles is to use a swaging process instead of the
grouting process. This method deforms the jacket sleeve to create a tight frictional joint between the
pile and the jacket sleeve.
3.3.4 Offshore substation topside installation
The outline process for deployment of the offshore platform topside is generally as follows:
1. Topside transport from fabrication site to offshore location by tugs and cargo barge (Fig 11).
2. Topside float-over and lay down onto jacket by floating crane barge (Figs12-15).
MDR0707Rp0028 12 Rev F01

Once the platform topside has been laid down, it is then ready for cable pull in and mechanical and
electrical termination.
Figure 11. platform topside transport to offshore site Figure 12. Rambiz floating crane vessel installing a platform
with cargo barge and tug. topside onto a foundation.
Figure 13. platform topside float over with crane barge. Figure 14. platform topside ready to be lowered onto jacket
Figure 15: Construction of Gun fleet Sands and Figure 16: Jack up Crane Vessel during foundation
installation of Offshore Substation Installation
MDR0707Rp0028 13 Rev F01

3.3.5 Environmental Impacts of offshore platform construction and deployment
Platform Environmental Impacts
The construction and presence of a platform has a number of potential environmental impacts which
need to be considered and mitigated against where possible.
The platform, regardless of construction technique, will have a footprint on the seabed. Whilst this is a
relatively small area, this impact does mean the siting of the platform should avoid sensitive habitats.
In addition the platform will have water column effects which must be assessed to minimise any
hydrodynamic impact by its siting. The platform has a presence above the water and should be sited
with consideration of visual sensitivities and avoid sensitive sites of ecological importance such as
adjacent to seal haul outs etc.
The platform and construction operations will occur 24hrs a day. As a result, noise and lighting
operation will occur at night. Lighting can attract seabirds and cause fish to aggregate at the platform.
It is assumed that any platform siting would be within the site boundary of a renewable energy field or
adjacent to one. These areas would be subject to extensive environmental impact assessment for
suitability prior to the Isles infrastructure development. It is therefore likely that the findings of these
pre-existing assessments could be reapplied to gauge the impact of the ISLES projects platform
sitings.
Pre-installation and transport to site
The platform, its jacket structure, its equipment, as well as construction shipping, etc. will need to be
mobilised from a suitable port to the site. Especially during the construction phase, it is anticipated that
there will be increased shipping and transits caused by the transport of this equipment and
infrastructure. Vessels operating for this phase will need to adhere to best practice in terms of
operations, ballast water control, retention of waste, etc. to minimise any potential impacts. Ship
transits will need to ensure avoidance of collision with marine life and Marine Mammal Observer
guidance should be followed, especially for any vessels onsite required to maintain Dynamic
Positioning. Given the level of shipping in the ISLES concept area the relative number of vessels
required for these operations is very small and any impacts will be minimal.
Piled Platforms
The main environmental impact anticipated during the construction of a piled structure is the marine
noise generated by driving the piles. Pile-driving noise during construction is of particular concern as
the very high sound and pressure levels can potentially affect fish and marine mammals. This can
cause temporary exclusion of an area through avoidance.
For fish this can prevent species from reaching breeding or spawning sites, finding food, and
acoustically locating mates. Whilst the effects caused by construction of the platforms are temporary,
there is the possibility of a cumulative effect if associated with the construction of a wind farm using
the same method. Long term avoidance reactions might also result in displacement away from
potential fishing grounds and lead to reduced catches or changes in fish distribution. However,
reaction thresholds and therefore the impacts of pile-driving on the behaviour of fish are thought to be
[5]
highly localised and the piling for the platform will be of short duration.
[6,7]
Marine mammals are particularly sensitive to marine noises and therefore pile driving . The following
is from a study of the sound field surrounding the installation of two 5MW wind turbines of NE Scotland
with the use of impact pile driving. The turbines were in relatively deep water (>40m), 25 km from a
Conservation area with a protected population of bottlenose dolphins.
MDR0707Rp0028 14 Rev F01

Pile driving noise at ranges from 0.1 to 80km measured during pile driving operation ranged from a
peak of 205 dB re 1Pa, to being indistinguishable from background noise. Noise levels across
frequencies were detectable above background levels to about 70km. Noise levels related to
suggested noise exposure criteria for the bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, minke whale, and
harbour and grey seals have been assessed. Based on updated hearing impairment thresholds, these
measurements suggest no risk of hearing impairment at distances greater than 100m (Bailey et al.,
[26]
2010) . A number of other studies have indicated similar results. The monitoring of the pile driving
installation of foundations at the Horns Rev II windfarm in the North Sea, has an extended piling
period of 5 months for construction. During this period monitoring showed that harbour porpoise may
have a particular sensitivity with lower recorded numbers during constriction and effects detected up to
2km away, however, assessment was based on hydrophone detection and there is currently
inconclusive as to whether the species move away or change behaviour as a response to prolonged
[8]
piling (i.e. cease clicking)
Mitigation
There are a number of mitigation measures that can be put in place should site surveys of the platform
locations indicate that there may be sensitive fish habitats or marine mammals in the area.
Seasonal timing: Construction can be scheduled to not coincide with sensitive times of year
such as mating seasons etc.
Bubble curtains (confined / unconfined): Placing air bubbles around a pile (bubbles can be
confined or unconfined) can act as a means to prevent sound propagation based on the
[9] [10]
difference in density between air and water. Up to a 15 dB reduction can be achieved.
Ramp-up / Soft start: Gradually increasing hammer energy levels over time. The goal of this
technique is to allow animals in the vicinity to experience a reduced level of sound and
[11]
evacuate the area before maximum levels are achieved.
Cushion blocks / Caps: Materials (wood, micarta, nylon) placed atop piles during impact pile
driving activities to reduce source sound levels. Typically sound reduction can range from 4 up
[10]
to 26 dB.
Temporary Noise Attenuation Pile (TNAP) design: A hollow walled air-filled or foam-lined steel
pile casing is placed around the pile being driven. Noise levels can be reduced by between 8
[10]
and 14 dB.
Acoustic deterrents can be used to ensure marine mammals avoid piling activity during the
[12]
short construction duration.
Gravity Based Platforms
Gravity based platforms have a greater benthic (seabed) footprint than piled systems. The base is
usually reinforced concrete or a steel chamber sunk as a single item or as a series of support
structures. As a result the platform may have a significant seabed footprint that will be covered during
the life of the platform. The construction operation has few marine impacts except those outlined in
relation to vessel activity.
The content of the ballast material should be assessed for ecological impact at the construction stage
[13]
as historically there have been issues with materials used.
Gravity based systems provide a relatively inexpensive and low impact method of platform
construction, though they are constrained by suitable siting and oceanographic conditions.
MDR0707Rp0028 15 Rev F01

3.4 SHORE AND SHALLOW WATER CONSTRUCTION
The connection of the offshore power network to the onshore transmission starts near the shore where
the cable lay vessel reaches its operational limit due to depth limitations.
The cable landing on the beach and foreshore is usually constructed by one of the following methods:
1. Digging an open trench through the land adjacent to the beach, and down the beach to the
low water mark (Figs 17 and 18).
2. Horizontal Directional Drilling under existing infrastructure and the beach to the low water
mark (Fig 19).
3. Auger boring under existing infrastructure and the beach to the low water mark (Fig 21).
Figure 17. Digging an open trench from headland to the beach
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is often used as an effective means of installing a duct for cables
under the surf zone and intertidal zone of a beach. HDD and Auger boring methods are preferred to
the digging of open trenches in environmentally sensitive areas.
With HDD, the angled drill rig is set up on the shore and drills and lines the hole with pipe casing until
a sufficient depth is reached where soil stability can be maintained. A drilling fluid aids the cutting
process and flushes the excavated soil out of the hole. Slurries that are biodegradable and do not
contaminate the water are available. This method has been widely used for shore connection of
subsea cables, river crossings and coast line crossings.
The depth of soil cover required for adequate protection using HDD methods are reported in
Reference 1.
MDR0707Rp0028 16 Rev F01

Figure 18. Robert Donaghy Cigre Cock Harbour 2010, Figure 19. Image of HDD rig courtesy of Land and Marine.
ESB International
Figure 20. Open sheet pile trench Figure 21. Auger boring
3.4.1 Connecting the first end of the offshore cable
The first end of the offshore cable is generally installed from the offshore vessel by floating in the
cable and pulling it in with a winch or tracked vehicle located on the shore. A pre-installed pull in wire
allows the cable to be drawn up a pre-installed beach duct (Figs 22 and 23) which would typically have
its outlet below the low water mark and beyond any surf zone.
Alternatively, the cable may be floated in and pulled directly up the beach and foreshore before then
being buried by cable plough down the beach.
MDR0707Rp0028 17 Rev F01

Figure 22. Cable being placed into beach duct from lay barge
Underwater installation of the cable in the beach duct can be a time consuming activity and a major
area of difficulty if the entrance to the duct has not been designed well or if it is not free from debris
and seabed sediments.
Figure 23. Cable going into HDD duct - Exit of HDD duct showing cable duct seal.
Image courtesy of Global Marine Systems Ltd
In summary the shore landing of the cable generally consists of the following operations:
Clearing of the end of the duct, where the directional drill section ends on the beach.
Pulling of the cable ashore and guiding the cable into the duct.
Handling and positioning of the burial tool over the cable from beach duct.
MDR0707Rp0028 18 Rev F01

Closing of the trench once burial is completed and clearing of the beach duct.
For rocky seabeds and shore approaches where it is deemed necessary to protect the cable by burial,
subsea rock cutting machines exist such as the IHC EB Seatrack machine (Figs 28 and 29).
Alternatively, stabilising the cable using rock dumping is a common method which may be more cost
effective depending on the length of protection required.
Figure 24. Cable plough being used to bury export cable directly from the beach.
3.4.2 Rock dumping
Rock dumping can be carried out by a fall pipe vessel (Fig 25) or a side dumping vessel (Fig 26). The
fall pipe vessel has the capacity to typically carry a payload of up to 20,000t of rock and it has a large
working window as the rock can be accurately placed on its target by a remotely operated fall pipe
duct. A fall pipe vessel has a maximum rock size of about 400mm diameter. Deposition of rock with a
fall pipe vessel is efficient as the pipe can be placed directly above the cable route to ensure good
coverage and minimal wastage.
MDR0707Rp0028 19 Rev F01

Figure 25. Fall pipe vessel Figure 26. Side dumping vessel
In contrast, the side dumping vessel literally pushes rock overboard with the consequence of less
accurate rock placement and higher losses. The side dumping vessel also has the disadvantage that
its payload capacity is much lower than a fall pipe vessel, typically 2000t. However, it has the ability to
handle rocks of a much greater size.
Concrete mattresses are used to lay over exposed cables and pipelines where local levels of
protection are required, for example to prevent scour around platform J-tubes and to protect cable
crossings. These mattresses can be installed by a multipurpose vessel or cable lay vessel. This
approach avoids the costly mobilisation and demobilisation of a dedicated rock dumping vessel for
small and specific locations.
Mattresses can be installed using a crane (Fig 27) to compensate for the vessel heave motions to
ensure exposed cables or pipelines are not damaged during lay down.
Various mattress designs exist to suit a variety of seabed soil conditions and flow regimes. Mattresses
can also be supplied with fronds to encourage sediments to gather and deposit, thus forming artificial
sand banks.
Figure 27. Protective concrete mattresses in a mattress installation frame
MDR0707Rp0028 20 Rev F01

Another example of a cable protection method is a subsea vehicle from LD Travocean which is
capable of continuously casting a concrete protection structure (Fig 30).
Figure 28. IHC EB Seatrac Subsea Rock cutting machine
Figure 29. Simec Castor 2 Figure 30. LD travocean concrete casting machine
MDR0707Rp0028 21 Rev F01

3.4.3 Cable lay operations
Before cable laying, a route clearance operation would commence. This would typically be a Pre-Lay
Grapnel Run (PLGR) where an anchor handling vessel or multipurpose construction vessel would
drag a grapnel (Fig 31) along the route to drag out debris such as old wires, fishing nets, chains, etc
There may also be seabed levelling operations to flatten sandwave regions or other steep gradients
prior to stabilising any loose seabed soils with rock if required.
Figure 31. Grapnel used for Pre-Lay Grapnel Run. Image Figure 32. Subsea excavator Carrera 4 used for seabed
courtesy of Denholm Offshore levelling, and cable deburial image courtesy of
Seatools.
The laying of the offshore power cables for the ISLES network requires a DP operated cable lay
vessel with a large capacity cable storage carousel and specialised burial plough and trenching
ROVs. The cables are buried to a depth depending on the soil conditions and perceived risk of cable
damage. There is a limit to the burial depth imposed by the heating effect of the ground conditions.
The heating effect of burial at greater depths leads to limitations of power transmission efficiency, as
discussed in greater detail in the Technology Roadmap Report. .Section 4.2 discusses the burial
depth requirements in more detail.
MDR0707Rp0028 22 Rev F01

Figure 33. North Ocean 102 cable lay vessel, used to lay Britned cable link
For the Isles region, where water depths are greater than 50 metres and the project is of considerable
size (in terms of km of cable to be laid), the use of a cable lay barge for the whole project would be
slow and inefficient. This is because the forward progress of a cable lay barge is dictated by speed of
anchor winches, and the constant re-mooring operations required to advance the barge to allow the
cable lay to progress.
In addition to their limited speed, the station keeping ability of a barge is insufficient in areas with
higher tidal flows of close to 5 knots, such as the area close to the Mull of Kintyre and near Rathlin
Island. This would likely necessitate the use of pre-installed concrete anchor blocks in certain
locations because drag anchors may not provide sufficient holding force during periods of inclement
weather.
Cable barges could be used to great effect for long, shallow beach approaches as draught limitations
would prevent DP cable lay ships from working close to the shore.
It is anticipated that the cable lay speed of a lay barge would be of the order of 200 m/hr, for
comparison the cable lay speed of a DP vessel would be in the order of 750 to 1000m/hr, i.e. 4 to 5
times quicker than the barge.
Cables are anticipated to be laid as a bi-pole bundle (Figs 35 and 36) and buried in a single trench.
This requires the cables to be stored on the vessel turntable as a pair (Fig 34).
The offshore cable laying campaign would commence with the vessel transiting to the cable factory to
loadout (spool) the full vessel payload of cable. For a 7000t payload it typically takes 15 to 20 days to
load on the cable. An important part of the spooling operation is the inspection of the cable to check
for defects. This inspection process is typically a manual operation and it limits the spooling speed and
hence determines the time required to carry out the operation.
MDR0707Rp0028 23 Rev F01

Once the vessel has spooled the cable onto the vessel turntable at the cable factory it would then
transit to the ISLES region to be joined by a full cable lay crew before transiting to the offshore work
site.
Figure 34. Bundled bipole cable on vessel turntable stored as a pair.
Figure 35. Bundled bipole cable being deployed from stern chute of vessel
The first operation is to handover the cables individually from the vessel to pre-installed messenger
wires which are used to pull the cable up the platform J-tube. (A J-tube is a tube in the form of a J
which houses and protects the cable between the seabed and the platform topside. The messenger
wires are strong cords routed through the J-tube and looped back onto the topside to allow them to be
easily accessed and attached to the cable.) Once pulled up to the platform topside the cable can be
mechanically connected. The cable lay vessel will then proceed to lay the cable on the seabed before
placing the other end of the cable adjacent to the next platforms J-tube. A remotely operated vehicle
is then used to connect this free end of cable to the pre-installed messenger wires so the cable can be
pulled in and connected.
MDR0707Rp0028 24 Rev F01

The decision whether to lay the cable and bury it afterwards (post lay burial Fig 36) or to bury the
cable simultaneously as it is laid (simultaneous lay and burial Fig 37) would be made following the
preliminary site study work and after further discussion with offshore contractors.
Figure 36: Schematic of the Post lay burial. Figure 37: Schematic of Simultaneous lay and burial.
Image courtesy of IMCA Image courtesy of IMCA

http://www.imca-int.com/divisions/marine/reference/intro05.html http://www.imca-int.com/divisions/marine/reference/intro05.html
3.4.4 Cable burial techniques and protection strategies
The main construction options available for cable burial are:
1. Separate cable lay and burial campaigns cable buried by cable plough or trencher after it
has been laid on the seabed (post lay burial) (Fig 47).
2. Simultaneous lay and burial with cable plough or trencher.
3. Separate trenching and burial campaigns trench pre-cut by a large pipeline plough and
cable laid into an open trench followed by backfill by plough or rock dumping.
Figure 38. Cable plough Figure 39. Hard soil trencher Figure 40. Pipeline plough
MDR0707Rp0028 25 Rev F01

Problems with bundled cable
Burial of a bundled bi-pole cable is more difficult than single cables due to unequal cable tensions, and
the risk of the cable becoming separated on the seabed. Differential cable tensions are often induced
during the laying process and can cause the cable to twist or spiral unpredictably, leaving sections
unable to pass through a trenching machine or cable plough.
Spiralled cables, where the cable can adopt a form that resembles a coiled telephone cord rather than
a uniform co-linear cable bundle, can cause severe problems with the passage of the cable through a
cable plough or trencher. There is no remedy for this effect and it can lead to damaged and / or
unburied cable.
Cable separation, where the ties between the two cables are broken and the cables separate on the
seabed, may require the subsea trencher to disengage the cable and reposition ahead of the
unbundled length. This causes severe disruption to the cable burial campaign and significantly
increases the probability of cable damage during installation.
Both cable separation and spiralling would typically require reburial with a smaller, free flying, jetting
ROV or additional protective cover provided by rock dumping.
Separate lay and burial cable plough or trencher
There is a risk of damage to the unburied cable due to the time between lay and burial operations.
The plough or trencher can induce tensions into the pre-laid cable due to cable friction as the cable
travels through the machine. This can lead to free spans in sandwave areas. In addition a kink can
develop in the cable ahead of the machine. This kinking ahead of the trenching machine occurred on
Britned and caused time delays to the burial schedule as the trencher had to put the cable down,
move ahead of the kink, recommence trenching and the kink had to be buried afterwards by a different
machine.
The excess of cable which develops ahead of the plough is difficult to manage, but opportunities exist
to minimise this by driving the burial machine in a curved path on a straight route. However, the
success of this approach is not well documented.
Operational risks are always present surrounding launch and recovery of the burial machine from the
vessel, especially in high sea states.
Landing the machine on the seabed safely over the cable can also be a challenging operation in
energetic seas.
Simultaneous lay and burial cable plough or trencher
This approach offers immediate protection to the cable and cable tension can be managed by the
cable lay system as the cable enters the plough or trencher. The cable catenary can be monitored by
ROV during the process.
MDR0707Rp0028 26 Rev F01

Separate lay and burial pipeline plough
Laying the cable into a pre-cut trench may offer a low risk construction method, whereby a pipeline
plough is used to create a large V-trench, carrying out the aggressive soil cutting without the presence
of the cable bundle.
The cable bundle can then be laid into this wide trench and back filled by a second pass with a backfill
plough. This approach would mean that the risk of damage to the cable is much reduced compared to
the post lay burial technique and the simultaneous lay and burial technique
Figure 41. PL3 Pipeline plough IHC Engineeering Figure 42. Prototype SCAR plough, Ecosse Subsea
Business
A comprehensive report into cable burial techniques was written in 2008 for BERR, titled Review of
[3]
cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry . The
cable burial techniques proposed in this report remain equally applicable to the ISLES project, as such
there is no added value in repeating essentially the same review within this report:
Based on the limited soil and seabed information available at this stage, cable burial by cable plough
is the anticipated primary protection strategy for the subsea cable for the ISLES project. Where the
cable cannot be buried by plough or trencher, it has been assumed that the cable would be protected
by rock dumping.
3.4.4.1 Environmental effects of cable Installation
Cables and rock armour provide artificial hard substrates in sedimentary areas. Organisms such as
anemones colonise the cable and are more abundant than in the surrounding soft sediment sites. If
cables are shallow buried, rows of anemones can occur where the cable is located. Echinoderms and
sponges can also colonise cables and rock armour.
The cable may also subtly affect local hydrodynamic conditions that concentrate shell gravel and or
drift material near the cable.
Long-term impacts of leaving the cable on the seafloor are likely to include:
MDR0707Rp0028 27 Rev F01

Continued abrasion of nearshore rock outcrops by the cable.
Potential for additional organisms to colonise the cable.
Potential impacts of cable-repair operations.
Potential snag hazard for fishing gear[33].
Cables on the surface of the sediments can cause scour in certain hydrodynamic conditions, clearing
epifauna in rocky habitats or resuspending sediments in sedimentary habitats.
Burying cables can have localised environmental impacts as trenching disturbs the seabed. However,
impacts are often short term as sediments are rapidly recolonised after operations.
In general, cables have short term, highly localised impacts during laying or burying.
3.5 COMMISSIONING AND TESTING

It is usual for the substation to have undergone a factory acceptance test prior to being installed
offshore, thus minimising the risk of a subsystems failure.
Offshore commissioning consists of electrical termination of the cables at the platform and continuity
checks from link to link. An extensive onshore and offshore substation testing programme would follow
final electrical hook up of the network.
Environmental Impacts
During commissioning and testing there may be additional transit vessels providing technicians and
supplies to the platforms. In addition, there may be additional lighting and night working which can
cause aggregations of marine life or minor noise impacts.
There will be associated risks of increased grey waste etc from these activities. It is anticipated that
these activities, as all proposed activities in the ISLES construction and operation, will be controlled by
Health, Safety and Environmental management systems whish will minimise any such effects.
MDR0707Rp0028 28 Rev F01

3.6 CONCLUSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT PROCESS
From a construction and deployment perspective the study finds that the ISLES project is feasible to
construct with existing offshore construction vessels and trenching equipment. Standard methods
would be employed on this project, all of which have a successful track record in delivery of similar
projects.
The availability of vessels is such that if ISLES were to be constructed in the same time frame as
Round 3 offshore windfarms then cable lay vessel availability would be a tight constraint. Availability of
vessels is also highly dependant on the time allocated to build ISLES itself.
Challenging sea states and tidal flows in the region may lead to a short summer offshore construction
season. It is anticipated that a minimum 30% bad weather downtime should be allowed for in the
planning of the project.
A significant proportion of very hard seabed conditions and exposed bed rock will be encountered
along the route of the Northern ISLES network which will make cable burial uneconomical, as such
either protection by rock dumping or additional cable armouring should be considered.
MDR0707Rp0028 29 Rev F01

4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

4.1.1 Cable maintenance
Cable fault probability
The operational expenditure for cable maintenance on the Isles network has been based in part on the
anticipated number of cable faults occurring over the 854 km network of the route. It is estimated that
a fault rate of between 0.1 to 0.2 annually (i.e. one fault every 5 to 10 years) is realistic based on the
analysis of historical figures and taking into account the length of the network and its location in water
[4]
depths less than 1000m. This is inline with published resources . The average fault rate is
0.1 faults per 1000km per year for water depths less than 1000m, with most faults occurring in water
depths less than 200m.
Once a cable fault has been identified, the metocean conditions strongly influence the time required to
facilitate cable repairs. Timescales to complete the repair can vary from a few weeks to many months
depending on the weather conditions and accessibility to the cable fault.
o
The ambient temperature required to handle the cable is ideally more than 5 C. Therefore, if a
fault occurs during the winter season the repair process usually has to wait until a suitable
temperature is reached.
The prevailing tidal currents and wind speed are also deciding factors in planning the effective
repair process in deep waters. The ideal work conditions are considered to be when the wind
speed is 12 m/s (26 m.p.h) or less.
The use of several different vessels depending on the activities listed below allows some mitigation of
the delays due to inclement weather.
Locating the cable fault

Mobilisation and demobilisation of cable repair vessel
Cable de-burial
Cable jointing
Cable testing
Cable lay down and subsequent cable protection
Post repair survey
However the cable jointing process requires a good weather forecast of approximately 5 clear days for
a cable vessel, such as the Sea Spider (Fig 43) to successfully carry out the repair.
MDR0707Rp0028 30 Rev F01

Figure 43: Typical cable repair vessel Sea Spider
Figure 44: Typical damaged cable where a flash-over Figure 45: Cable suspended inside the repair container
occurred. on board the cable repair vessel
Environmental impacts of subsea cable maintenance

The maintenance of the cable will involve a vessel (or vessels), which may include the use of Dynamic
Positioning to locate the vessel over the cable.
Using a grapple, the cable is then retrieved from the seabed. The retrieval is likely to remove any
settled organisms on the cable. It may cause some localised impacts to the seabed, such as
damaging nearby epifauna and redistributing local sediments. The effects are highly localised in the
area of lifted cable and therefore not considered to be of concern.
Once repaired the cable is dropped to the seabed and armoured with rock dumping. Rock armour
smothers the immediate biology on a very localised level. In sediment habitats it creates a reef like
substrate, which is then often colonised by sponges and anemones, as mentioned in the cable
installation section. In rock habitats, dumped rock covers the existing epifauna but is highly likely to be
recolonised.
MDR0707Rp0028 31 Rev F01

When the cable is dropped it may be in a slightly different position to before. The exposed area will be
recolonised as will the rock armour in the new area. The distance of displacement is often quite small
due to the nature of the cable.
4.1.2 Operational activities and ongoing network surveys
Another operational cost outlay, in addition to cable fault repair, will be the requirement to survey the
cable network at regular intervals. The network owners will seek to minimise the risk of damage and
prevent downtime by ensuring that the cable remains suitably protected during the life of the
infrastructure.
Ongoing, proactive cable maintenance is favoured over a reactive, fault repair maintenance strategy
for cost and network availability reasons. The Offshore Transmission Owner (OFTO) would typically
sign agreements with generators on the percentage availability of the network, with excessive
downtime incurring lost revenue and financial penalties.
A cable survey contract would typically be placed following the completion of the construction work
and would comprise a survey vessel, with inspection or work ROV and possibly a trencher to allow
reburial of any exposed cables.
The final route as-built survey would highlight and record:
any lengths of unburied cable

free spans
sections of shallow cable
mobile sediments and scour
The scope of the survey and maintenance activities would typically be established on the basis of the
as-built route. The as-built survey record then serves as a known benchmark.
Areas of mobile seabed and energetic seas would require more frequent survey intervals than well
protected deeply buried cable in a hard soil area.
For the ISLES network the as built survey of the full route is estimated to take around 100 offshore
days. This gives an indication of the survey vessel time that would need to be budgeted for ongoing
surveys of the complete route.
MDR0707Rp0028 32 Rev F01

5 GENERATION OF PRELIMINARY ISLES ROUTE PLAN

The preliminary route for the northern ISLES network has been chosen to minimize depth changes
and to avoid known navigation and installation hazards. The route will require further refinement to
avoid some environmentally sensitive areas as well as commercial and navigation areas such as
tanker anchorages.
The seabed conditions vary from hard basaltic rocks to the mud and fine sand of the estuaries and
locks. A full geotechnical investigation with frequent sampling will be required as part of the final route
assessment. The preliminary route description is located in Appendix A, along with the route plan list.
It is tentatively estimated that between 40% and 60% of the routes will be trenchable if so required for
example, on seabed stability, trawl/anchor protection, and landfall/shallow water protection. The
remaining sections of the route may require further armouring to protect the cable in rocky areas.
In addition, there may be a requirement to carryout protective rock / gravel dumping over the cable in
those areas where the cable may be especially vulnerable to external forces / actions, or will require
additional stability/protection.
There are three potential cable crossing points over the Hibernia A Telecommunications Cable. In
addition, in the Firth of Clyde there are potential crossings of the Linis-3 and Sirius North cables,
giving a total of four crossings in this area.
In terms of feasibility of construction, the development of the network does not pose any significant
adverse construction and deployment issues, other than vessels operating in strong tidal currents in
certain places and needing to work a short summer construction season due to relatively adverse
metocean conditions.
The receipt of full geotechnical and geophysical information would enable a more informed trenching
assessment to be carried out.
MDR0707Rp0028 33 Rev F01

6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR OFFSHORE CABLE LAYING

OPERATIONS
The offshore cable laying and burial process forms the majority of the costs of the offshore campaign.
A cable lay and burial project schedule for the Northern Isles network has been developed in
discussion with offshore contractors and can be found in Appendix B.
It can be noted that the longest of the 12 links that form the route may typically take around a year to
complete. This indicates that if the rest of the network was constructed in parallel there would be
demand for approximately 10 cable installation vessels for one summer season. Alternatively, the
construction of the network would take up to ten years with one vessel.
MDR0707Rp0028 34 Rev F01

7 EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION METHODS ON THE COST OF

OFFSHORE CABLE INSTALLATION
In this section a cost estimate has been developed for the installation of the offshore power cable and
various construction scenarios for cable installation have been explored and discussed.
7.1 SCOPE OF WORK

The development of the capital expenditure estimate has been built up from the sequence of steps
required for cable laying and installation based on the transmission architecture for the Northern
ISLES network (Fig 46).
Figure 46. Northern ISLES network architecture
MDR0707Rp0028 35 Rev F01

The scope of work that has been considered for the cost estimate is listed below.
Cable lay and trenching vessel mobilisations and demobilisations

Port transits
Power cable load outs from cable manufacturing location
Site transits (in field)
Pre-lay surveys
General offshore cable installation set up activities
Power cable lay (including cable pull in at platforms and beach landings)
Trenching (burial) of the cable
Protection of unburied sections of cable and remedial works by rock dumping with a fall pipe
vessel.
Post installation survey
Electrical termination of power cables at each offshore substation platform.
The above mentioned steps are considered in detail and the complete program of work can be found
in Appendix C. It should be noted that the cost estimate does not include the following activities:
Development and consent costs.

Cable and cable joint procurement costs.
Substation build and installation costs.
7.2 ASSUMPTIONS
The costs presented in this section are based on 2011 costs. In order to establish a reasonable cost
basis, the following assumptions have been made as discussed below and outlined in Table 1:
The sea bed conditions in the Northern ISLES region have been investigated by RPS Group
and it is considered to be 50 % trenchable by plough or trencher. The proportion of cable that
can be buried by the plough is a key parameter in the development of the cost estimate for
ISLES. As such the cost sensitivity of this assumption has been explored and discussed later
in the chapter.
Protection by rock dumping by fall pipe vessel has been considered to bury the remaining
50% of the cable and to cover the cable at joints, crossings, J-tube approaches, cable
transitions and shore landings.
The overall speeds listed in Table 1 have been based on industry experience with technology
limitations of laying and burying bi-polar cable in a single trench. This is generally applicable
for power cable lay with the Nexans Skagerrak, Prysmian Guilio Verne and North Ocean 102
vessels. Speed of lay is deemed an overall average, taking equipment downtime and other
adverse factors into consideration.
The vessel fuel costs remain susceptible to fluctuations. The price considered in Table 1 is the
price at the time of writing this report.
The vessel considered for the study is a generic DP power cable lay vessel with approximately
3
1800 m of product storage volume and 5000 tonnes of cable storage capacity.
MDR0707Rp0028 36 Rev F01

Table 1: Inputs to the Costing Structure

General
The cost estimate has been developed considering 50% burial of bipolar bundled cable in a single trench.
Rock dumping by fall pipe vessel has been considered for the protection of the remaining un-trenched lengths of cable as well
as for cable protection at transitions, cable joints and cable crossings.
Variables
Vessel economical transit speed (knots) 13
Pre lay survey speed (m/hr) 800
Post installation survey speed (m/hr) 500
Average cable lay speed including equipment downtime (m/hr) 200
Trenching speed (m/hr) 175
Spooling speed (m/hr) 300
Weather allowance 30 %
(proportion of project duration spent waiting for clear weather)
Fuel and cost (MGO) ( per tonne) 651[7]
Day rate for high spec 5000t cable lay and trenching DP vessel inc: per day 155,000
WROV spread inc crew
Online and offline survey crew
Back deck crew
Cable lay crew
Plough / Trencher crew
Navigation / comms data costs
Day rate for a low spec cable transport barge, two tugs and tug crew per day 60,000
The ISLES transmission network is constructed with 500 MW and 1000 MW capacity links, the
properties of which are listed in Table 2. The cable and carousel loading capacity has been calculated
accordingly.
Table 2: HVDC Link Cable Data

Transmission Outer Diameter Mass/Meter Carousel Approximate Single Loading
Capacity (mm) (kg/m) Capacity carousel Capacity (k.m.)
Volume (m3) capacity (Tonne)
500 MW 117 40 1800 5000 125

1000 MW 145 60 1800 5000 80
7.3 LOCATION OF THE ISLES CONSTRUCTION PORT

The geographical location of the construction port has been considered for efficient provision of project
support activities in terms of cable storage, infrastructure load out and for minimal vessel transit to and
from the offshore site.
Specific to the ISLES project, the base port considered is an unnamed generic port accessible to the
Irish Sea region irrespective of the actual facilities available. It is not in the scope of this study to
evaluate the pros and cons of various port facilities in the region or to state a preferred base port for
ISLES.
MDR0707Rp0028 37 Rev F01

7.4 RESULTS OF THE COST MODEL
This section discusses the results of the cost model and the effect of various construction scenarios.
Table 3: ISLES power cable network installation cost outlay
Method of construction:
Bundled bipolar cables buried in a single trench
Separate lay and trenching operations
Item Construction Element Cost Outlay Proportion Remarks
This is inclusive of a bad weather

1 Route Clearance 2.2m 0.5% allowance (30%)

2 Lay & Trenching 260m 66.3% allowance (30%)
This includes transits and cable

3 Jointing 11.1m 2.8% spooling cost at the port.

4 Rock Dumping (1) - Cable (50%) 107m 27.3% allowance (30%)
Rock Dumping (2) - at fixed This is inclusive of a bad weather

5 locations 5m 1.3% allowance (30%)
Shore Landing cost has been

6 Shore Landing (5 landfalls) 5m 1.3% considered as 1 million/ landing.

7 Cable terminations 2m 0.5% allowance (30%)
Total Cost: 392m
Table 3 shows an estimated cost of 392 million for installation of the ISLES power cable network on a
total route length of 854 kilometres, integrating renewable resources of 2300 MW present in the
northern ISLES region. This gives an installed cost of 459k / km. For comparison, this is below the
lower range of 600 750k / km proposed by the national grid in the offshore development
[6]
information . It is important to note that the cost of 459k / km excludes the following activities:
1. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys.
2. Materials cost.
3. Ancillary vessels cost.
MDR0707Rp0028 38 Rev F01

7.5 OVERVIEW OF OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

This section provides an outline of the main activities involved in the offshore cable installation
process with their contribution to the total cost:
Survey
Route Clearence Shore Landing Jointing
Vessel on DP ops 10%
1% 1% 3%
22%
Rock Dumping Terminations
Fixed Locations 1%
Vessel in port
1%
20%
Rock Dumping
50 % Cable
27%
Weather
Allow ance
19%
Lay & Trenching
66% Vessel in transit
Vessel trenching 20%
9%
Figure 47. Offshore cable installation cost breakdown Figure 48. Offshore cable lay and trenching cost
breakdown
Laying, trenching and cable load transits are the most time consuming tasks involved in the
offshore installation of power cables. In the case of the ISLES project these activities account for
approximately 66% of the total offshore campaign cost. It should be highlighted here that the laying
operation and burial operation have been considered as separate activities. This assumption leads to
a higher cost implication as compared to the option of simultaneous lay and burial. These cost
differences are discussed further in section 7.8.
Cable collection and load-out from the cable factory is a major contributor to cost outlay in terms of
time spent in transit or in port. These two activities account for 40% of the offshore cable lay and
trenching campaign. This cost has been developed taking into consideration Pyrsmians, Arco Felice
cable factory near Naples which is the loading port furthest from the ISLES region. This cost takes into
consideration the transit of the cable lay vessel to and from the ISLES base port to the cable factory
and the time alongside at the quay required for spooling on the cable.
A cheaper method of cable load out has also been presented in the following sections by means of a
separate offshore barge fitted with cable storage turntables, which can be towed by tugs. This vessel
offers a reduced day rate in comparison as highlighted in Table 1.
The cost of cable collection and load-out is a significant part of the offshore campaign and leads to the
question of whether any technical innovation could create a step change increase in the speed of
cable loading. This has been discussed in section 8.6.
Rock dumping is an alternative and complimentary cable protection strategy to subsea cable burial
by ploughing and is necessary at certain locations. Rock dumping is proposed for 50% of the cable
route length where the cable cannot be buried due to rocky sea bed conditions. It is also included near
foundations, cable joints and cable crossings, where ploughs and trenchers cannot operate. This
activity accounts for approximately 27% of the total cable installation cost.
MDR0707Rp0028 39 Rev F01

Cable jointing is the process of joining two cables to complete the length of cable link on a particular
route. The need for jointing arises because of insufficient cable length on the cable laying vessel due
to the inherent limit of the onboard cable storage capacity. Since the subsea cable jointing process
can take more than 5 days and require the forecast of a clear weather window, the route needs to be
suitably planned to minimise the number of joints. In the ISLES project base case, 8 cable joints have
been planned over the 854km cable route. This jointing process will cost of 11 million (excluding the
cost of the joint hardware itself)
Shore landing and shore approach work is the stage of the cable laying process where the cable is
floated to the beach or landfall and pulled up to the beach manhole to connect the cable to the land
based transmission network. This process starts as close to shore as the cable installation vessel can
safely reach considering the vessels draught limitations. Support equipment in the form of pulling
winches, cable rollers and other plant is required to pull the cable further onshore. Depending on the
location, directional drilling machine may be used to install pipes or ducts to bring the cable under the
beach or shore. In consultation with construction contractors, the five shore connections that have
been planned are estimated to cost 1 million per shore connection.
Downtime caused by weather or metocean conditions falling outside of equipment limits has been
estimated to account for 30% of the project duration. This equates to 19% of the overall project costs.
Once an offshore cable lay and trenching campaign is underway, the client would be charged for any
downtime caused by inclement weather. For the Northern ISLES region, the metocean conditions are
also expected to lead to a short summer offshore construction season with challenging conditions and
energetic sea states. This downtime cost of approximately 41million provides a tangible incentive to
improve equipment operational limits through technical and operational innovation.
Other costs in the form of initial route clearance and cable terminations are expected to cost
4 million and contribute 1% of the total project cost outlay. Route clearance is an activity which takes
place before the cable laying process to clear debris in the cable installation route corridors. Cable
termination relates to the process of electrically terminating the cable at each substation platform into
the switchgear unit.
MDR0707Rp0028 40 Rev F01

7.6 CONSTRUCTION SCENARIOS

The cost model allows a range of cost scenarios to be explored by altering the model variables. This
enables the cost implications of differing construction strategies and circumstances to be examined.
The following construction scenarios have been considered:
7.6.1 Proportion of the cable that can be successfully buried.
The case of 50% cable burial has been considered as the base case. However, without undertaking
geotechnical site surveys and an in depth burial assessment study of the proposed route, it is not
certain that this can be achieved in practice. The cost model has been modified to reflect the cases as
shown in Table 4, with any remaining cable protection being provided by rock dumping.
Table 4: Cable protection scenarios

Scenario Burial Rock Dumping
1 100% 0%
2 75 % 25 %
3 (Base Case) 50 % 50 %
4 25 % 75%
5 0% 100%
The cost of 50% rock dumping of the cable equates to a cost of 107 million for 427 kilometres. This is
reflected in scenario 3 of Table 4 where the contribution from cable lay and burial is 260 million. This
outlines the total cost of protecting the bipolar cable laid over the route length of 854 km.
Table 5: Cost outcome for different protection methods

Scenario Cable protection by burial Cable protection by Total Cost (Million)
(plough) rock dumping
1 100 % 0% 289
2 75 % 25 % 327
3 (Base Case) 50 % 50 % 367
4 25 % 75 % 405
5 0% 100 % 444
Examination of Table 5 indicates that if 75% trenching can be achieved in the ISLES region, the cost
of installing the cable can be reduced by 40m, which is a reduction of 11% from the base case.
By contrast, if we assume the region to only be 25% trenchable, then the cost will rise by 38m, or just
over 10% form the base case.
The range in the cost of the cable laying campaign between the best case (100% cable burial) and the
worst case (100% rock dumping) is 155m.
This clearly demonstrates how rock dumping, as an alternative strategy to cable burial, increases the
project cost. This cost increase supports the case for a technological advancement in trenching
techniques and detailed planning to maximise the length of cable that can be buried successfully in
the seabed.
MDR0707Rp0028 41 Rev F01

7.6.2 Cost implication of the location of cable manufacturing facilities.
As was shown in Figure 48, vessel in transit accounts for 20% of the offshore campaign, thereby
making it an important element to be considered in more detail. The ISLES project is scheduled to be
delivered circa 2020 with no definite cable supplier shortlisted for the project. There are a number of
HVDC cable manufacturers located in the EU region as shown in Figure 49.
Nexan ABB
(Halden)
(Karlskrona)
JDR
(Hartlepool)
NKT
(Cologne)
Prysmian
(Arco Felice)
Figure 49: Offshore Cable Manufacturers and Supply Route
To investigate the transit cost implications, the furthest port of cable loading in Naples (Prysmian) and
nearest available cable loading port in Hartlepool (JDR) have been considered for developing the
costs as detailed in Tables 6 and 7. This gives an insight into the transit costs involved and their effect
on the overall cost estimate. This in turn leads to the question of whether savings in vessel transit
costs could provide economic justification for building a new cable factory local to the ISLES region.
Table 6: Naples cable load out costs

DP cable lay ship with 1800m3 5000t cable storage capacity
Transits between ISLES base port and Arco Felice, Naples (Prysmian cables)
Carousel No. of Cost of one load
Cable Type Total length Cost
Capacity Loadings out
500 MW 1242km 125km 10 6.3m 63m
1000 MW 484km 80km 6 5m 30m
Total Cost: 93m
MDR0707Rp0028 42 Rev F01

Table 7: Hartlepool cable load out costs

DP cable lay ship with 1800m3 5000t cable storage capacity
Transits between ISLES base port and Hartlepool, UK, (JDR cables)
Carousel No. of Cost of one load
Cable Type Total length Cost
Capacity Loadings out
500 MW 1242km 125km 10 4.2m 42m
1000 MW 484km 80km 6 2.9m 17.4m
Total Cost: 59.4m
The distances to Naples and Hartlepool from a base port in the ISLES region are approximately
2265 NM and 552 NM respectively. Comparing the total load out cost from these two cable
manufacturers yields a cost difference of 33.6 million. This demonstrates that the location of the
cable manufacturers load out facility has a significant impact on the cost of the project.
In the Technology Roadmap Report, the cost of building a new cable manufacturing facility in the
ISLES region was estimated to be 34m. Compared to the value of the contract for supplying the
quantity of cable required for this project, this is a relatively small sum and may be considered, by a
cable manufacturer, to be a worthwhile investment if it ensures that this contract is secured by their
company.
Consideration should be given to the fact that, while the transit cost saving to the ISLES project of
procuring cable from a more local manufacturer is significant, a relatively small percentage change in
the purchase cost of the cable could easily cancel this saving out. It is therefore entirely possible that a
more distant manufacturer, such as Prysmian, may prefer to reduce their margin slightly to be cost
competitive, rather than taking the potentially more risky decision to build a new facility.
It should also be noted that a project of ISLES scale may be completed in several phases. This could
weaken the perceived Return On Investment (ROI) potential for any new manufacturing facility
established for ISLES alone. This, combined with the relatively modest savings to be made in transits
compared to cable factories on the North Sea (estimated to be approximately 3m), means the
proposition of building a new factory may only be attractive to a new entrant into the European market.
From the point of view of the ISLES projects management, it is likely to be a policy decision whether
to offer any incentive to a cable manufacturer, possibly a new entrant into the European market, to
build a factory in the ISLES region. While any attempt to reduce transit costs is very sensitive to the
cost of the cable, there are numerous potential benefits of a more local manufacturer. The first is
sheer convenience and a reduction in the time required to complete the cable laying process. This
could be particularly important if the availability of cable lay vessels becomes a constraint in the future.
An associated advantage of this would be a reduction in the real terms cost impact of any increase in
the vessel day rates which may occur in the event of increased demand for cable lay vessels.
A second benefit occurs if a new entrant into the European HVDC cable market were to bid for the
cable supply contract, based on a proposal to build a new factory in the region. This would lead to an
increase in competition which would help to ensure a good price for the cable. This is especially
important because of the large quantity of cable required for this project and the small number of
suppliers.
A third set of benefits would be associated with the legacy of this manufacturing site. A local cable
manufacturer would be in an advantageous position to supply cable for future renewable offshore
power generation projects in the area. While this may not be a direct benefit to the construction of
ISLES, it would improve the chances of the network being well utilised and hence make it a more
attractive proposition to an OFTO. Furthermore, a range of associated services and expertise may
naturally build up in the area, offering the chance to develop a local hub of knowledge and skills of
great value to any future offshore projects in the area.
MDR0707Rp0028 43 Rev F01

It has been suggested that another possibility for Prysmian, or other cable manufacturers currently
located further afield, would be to establish a cable storage facility local to the ISLES region. This may
allow the cable manufacturer to compete more strongly with cable factories already located in
Northern Europe. A cable storage facility would also allow stock levels of cable to be produced in
order to prevent the slow production rate at the factory from being a construction bottleneck. However,
the cost of transporting the cable to such a storage facility must also be considered which will greatly
diminish the appeal of such an option. It should also be noted that any investment from a cable
manufacturer in such a facility would undoubtedly require some form of financial commitment from the
project developers in order to provide the necessary incentive and commercial security.
7.7 COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR CABLE COLLECTION USING A CHEAP

TRANSPORT BARGE COMPARED TO A CABLE LAY SHIP
The previous section shows that cable collection accounts for 20% of the cable lay and trenching
campaign cost. In this section, rather than using a DP cable lay vessel, we consider using a barge
towed by two tugs to collect the cable from the factory and to transport it back to the ISLES region.
As shown in Table 8, using this method the cost of cable from Naples is reduced by over 26 million
from the figure of 92 million given in Table 6. This is nearly 8 million more expensive than the cost
of collecting the cable from Hartlepool by DP vessel as detailed in Table 7.
The combined market day rate for a large transport barge with twin tugs and cable loadout crew of
60 k is much reduced in comparison to the DP vessel day rate but transit speed by barge is slower.
Additionally, using a barge as a support vessel for transit of cable load out from a cable factory
requires the cable to be transferred to the DP cable lay ship in the ISLES region.
This re-spooling onto the DP vessel, combined with the slower speed of cable spooling to a barge at
the factory, leads to 34 days of additional cable spooling. This results in an additional cost of 2 million
for each cable loadout. This scenario provides a viable alternative to the DP vessel in terms of cable
loadout and transit from the cable factory to the ISLES port and it may help be used as an
intermediate cable storage strategy to reduce production bottlenecks, however it involves double
spooling and this is unattractive since the risk of cable damage will be higher than single spooling.
Table 8: Transit cost from Naples using a barge

Cable type Total length Cost of tugs One cable Cost per cable Total cost
and barge per collection and collection and
day transit (Days) transit
500 MW 1242km (10 loading) 60,000 64 3.84m 38.4m
1000 MW 484km (6 loading) 60,000 45 2.7m 16.2m
Mob/Demob Cost 2m
Capital Expenditure
on cable carousel 10m
Total Cost: 66.6m
MDR0707Rp0028 44 Rev F01

7.8 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS FOR LAY AND BURIAL OF BIPOLAR
CABLES IN A SINGLE TRENCH
7.8.1 Separate lay and burial
As shown in Figure 48, as a proportion of the 260 million cable lay and trenching campaign,
trenching and laying account for 9% and 22% of the cost respectively. As previously stated, a key
factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that this costing has been developed for separate
cable laying and trenching operations. The next section will consider the cost implications of using a
simultaneous cable lay and burial method.
Table 9: Costs for separate laying and trenching of bundled bi-pole cable in a single trench.
Single trench and bundled bipolar cable
Component cost summary for Northern ISLES network Duration (Days) Proportion
Survey 122 10%
Vessel in port 240 20%
Vessel in transit 249 20%
Vessel trenching 105 9%
Weather allowance 225 18%
Laying operations 275 23%
Total Duration 1216 Days
Total Cost 260m
7.8.2 Simultaneous lay and burial
If the construction of the ISLES network were to be carried out using a simultaneous cable lay and
burial operation this could offer a cost saving, due to a reduced number of days offshore. Although
there are a number of projects that have been constructed using this method, there are certain
technical challenges associated with this approach as discussed in section 3.4.4.
Figure 50: Simultaneous lay and burial
MDR0707Rp0028 45 Rev F01

At 230 million (Table 10), simultaneous lay and burial construction has been estimated to cost
approximately 30 million less than the 260 million estimated for use of a separate lay and burial
construction method (Table 9).
Table 10: Costs for simultaneous lay and burial
Summary for cost schedule of Northern ISLES Duration (Days) Proportion
Survey 122 11%
Simultaneous cable lay and trenching 276 26%
Total Cost 230m
7.8.3 Pre-cutting a trench using a pipeline plough
A third construction method which has been considered is to pre-cut a V-trench using a pipeline
plough and to lay the cable into the trench afterwards. A separate pass with a backfill plough would
return the displaced soil on top of the cable, or for any unburied areas, the cable can be directly
protected by rock dumping.
The advantage of this approach is to carry out the aggressive trench cutting without the cable being
present. This offers a low risk solution compared to trenching bundled cable with a cable plough.
Calculations indicate that this would increase the cost compared to separate lay and burial by
approximately 15 million. This represents an increase of 2% on the cost of separate lay and burial.
By comparison with the costs for simultaneous lay and burial, this is an increase of over 35 million
which is an approximate increase of 15%.
Table 11: Costs for separate lay into a pre cut trench with pipeline plough
Trenching speed: 500 m/hr, Backfill speed: 250 m /hr Duration (Days) % Proportion
Survey 122 9%
Vessel trenching (1 pass to cut trench, 1 pass to backfill) 209 16%
Vessel for cable lay 276 20%
Total duration 1353
Total Cost 266m
MDR0707Rp0028 46 Rev F01

It should be noted that the speed considered for the bipolar cable lay operation has been
conservatively estimated as 200 m/hr for cable lay and 175 m/hr for cable burial respectively. It is
important to note that this is the total average lay rate inclusive of vessel downtime for maintenance
etc.
This is considered by installation contractors to be approximately half the speed typically achievable
for cable burial and installation of a single cable in a single trench. This assumption has the effect of
adding an extra 10% to the cost of the offshore campaign. These results lead to the following
conclusions:
Technology limitations and operational risks associated with achieving simultaneous lay and burial for
bi-polar cable in a single trench is mitigated by a low burial speed. This leads to a high installed cost.
Therefore, it could be argued that a business case exists for a cable laying company to work towards
new technology and innovations in burial machines for bundled cable installation in order to gain a
competitive advantage over their rivals. This advantage would be due to an increase in the burial
speed and hence a reduction in the cost of their method of construction.
Another argument which arises from the above discussion is the alternative approach of burying two
cables in separate trenches, which can improve the power transmission efficiency. However, analysis
and input from industry suggest this method would be costly in comparison to single trench
installation. Taking into account the broad factors of exposure to environmental conditions, additional
route clearance and varied seabed conditions, the viability of this strategy is questionable and the
overall construction risk is deemed to be higher.
MDR0707Rp0028 47 Rev F01

7.9 IMPACT OF A VESSELS CABLE LAY CAPACITY
The cost estimate for the ISLES offshore cable laying campaign has been based on the available
3
cable storage capacity of the cable laying vessel being 5,000 tonnes/1,800 m . This choice is based
on this being the largest capacity of storage widely available in the market. This capacity storage
implies an upper limit on the length of HVDC cable of 125 km for a single link while in bipolar cable
configuration it leads to a maximum link length of 62.5 km cable. See Figure 51.
Figure 51. 5000t cable carousel on an offshore vessel, laying HVDC bipole bundled cable
It is estimated that in the time frame of 2015-2020 the construction of integrated electrical transmission
activity similar to ISLES Project, such as Round 3 North Sea wind farms, could increase the demand
[14]
to 5 - 10 installation vessels for export and array power cable laying. This future demand for power
cable installation vessels naturally leads to two questions:
3
1. Would utilising a larger DP vessel with a 4,000 m / 10,000 tonnes cable storage capacity
drive down installation costs? The quantity of jobs available for a vessel of this size may be
limited, and future vessel availability may become a constraint.
3
2. Would utilising a smaller DP vessel with 1000 m / 3000 tonnes cable storage capacity drive
down costs? The market for a vessel of this size is already buoyant, for both the telecoms and
oil and gas sectors. There are some technical issues to be addressed with some of these
vessels in order to make them capable of laying the type of power cables required for ISLES,
notably bend radius limits and whether cables are coilable or not. Non-coilable cable would
require a rotating turntable rather than a static cable tank.
MDR0707Rp0028 48 Rev F01

The cost model has been based on cable installation by DP vessels available in the market with cable
3
storage capacity of 1800 m / 5000t. These vessels have completed some major subsea power cable
laying projects including Britned and Norned, covering subsea distances of 494 km and 500 km
respectively to form a mono link between two points.
New build cable lay vessel with 10,000 t cable capacity
The majority of cable lay vessels available have been built for offshore oil and gas or
telecommunications cable lay operations. There are comparatively very few large vessels in operation
dedicated to large subsea power cable laying projects. This leads to the question of whether industry
investment in the manufacture of power cable laying vessels with a carousel capacity of
3
4000 m / 10000 t is warranted.
Such a vessel would be a market leader in terms of the length of cable that can be loaded on to it. For
current state of the art vessels, this length is limited to about 62.5 km for bi-pole power cable of
3
maximum outer diameter of 145 mm. A 4000 m / 10000 t vessel could lay double this length of cable
route distances, cutting the number of transits to and from the cable factory and decreasing the
number of cable joints. The tentative cost schedule using such vessel for ISLES has been developed
as shown in Table 12. This assumes parallel upgrade of shore side cable storage and load out
equipment at manufacturing sites.
3
Table 12: Cost of the project using cable lay vessels with 4000m / 10,000t Carousel
Day rate for high spec 10,000t cable lay and trenching DP vessel: 185k / day inclusive of:
WROV spread inc crew
Online and offline survey crew
Back deck crew
Cable lay crew
Plough / Trencher crew
Navigation / comms data costs
1 Route Clearance 2.2m 0.6% Inclusive of 30%

bad weather
allowance
2 Lay & Trenching (50%) and Transits 254m 66.7%
3 Jointing 5.5m 1.5%
4 Rock Dumping (1) - Cable (50%) 107m 28.1%
5 Rock Dumping (2) - at fixed locations 5m 1.3%
6 Shore Landing (5 landfalls) 5m 1.3%
7 Cable terminations 2m 0.5%
Total Cost: 381m
MDR0707Rp0028 49 Rev F01

Comparison of Tables 12 and 3 suggests that it is reasonable to assume that ISLES, along with
Round 3 windfarm development, makes a sound case for constructing a new build, market leading
cable lay vessel of 10,000t capacity.
This conclusion is based on the strategic advantage of bringing to the market a vessel capable of
installing a network which requires fewer cable joints and which therefore gives improved reliability
and availability over the life of the network. The cost difference for installing the network using such a
vessel rather than the base case vessel, estimated to be a saving of 11m, isnt a sufficient reason on
its own.
It should also be noted that the ISLES project is large, but is not large enough to provide the required
ROI for a new vessel of this size in isolation.
Existing cable lay vessels with 2,500 t cable capacity
The economics of using vessels has been investigated, since there are significantly larger numbers of
3
vessels available with a cable tank or turntable of 1000 m / 2500 t capacity.
The downside is that only half the cable length can be accommodated when compared to a vessel
with a 5000 t cable capacity. It would therefore require twice the number of cable loadouts from the
production facility and twice the number of cable joints. The anticipated costs of the project based on
the use of these smaller vessels are detailed in Table 13.
The standard industry day rate for these vessels is circa 75,000/day.
The number of days associated with other elements of the project remains the same, as indicated in
Table 13. The total cost outlay for the lay and trenching process is 244 million which is 16m less in
comparison to the cost outlay with currently available 5000 tonne vessels.
The number of cable joints is assumed to double from the base case of the 5000t capacity system,
thus increasing the cable jointing costs. Overall the total cost for project is reduced by 4.5m to
387.5 million.
This approach is not without its own technical and operational issues in terms of reliability risks
associated with the increase in cable joints.
Table 13: Cost using cable lay vessel with 2,500t Carousel
Day rate for high spec 2,500t cable lay and trenching DP vessel: 155k / day
1 Route Clearance 2.2m 0.6% Inclusive of 30%

bad weather
allowance
2 Lay & Trenching (50%) and Transits 244m 62.9%
3 Jointing 22.3m 5.8%
4 Rock Dumping (1) - Cable (50%) 107m 27.6%
5 Rock Dumping (2) - at fixed locations 5m 1.3%
6 Shore Landing (5 landfalls) 5m 1.3%
7 Cable terminations 2m 0.5%
Total Cost: 387.5m
MDR0707Rp0028 50 Rev F01

8 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
8.1 CURRENT CONSTRAINTS REGARDING OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION AND

MAINTENANCE
8.1.1 METOCEAN CONDITIONS
Tidal flows
Accurate cable lay is challenging in areas with high tidal currents and energetic sea states. For the
North Irish Sea and the western isles of Scotland, this results in a short summer season for offshore
pre-construction survey and construction work.
Of particular note, survey vessels, ROV systems along with cable lay and trenching operations may
need to stop and start during peak tidal flows around the Mull of Kintyre and Rathlin Island due to tidal
currents and overfalls which are outside the equipment operational limits. Please see Appendix D and
also Figure 52 below for information on the tidal streams in the region.
Figure 52. Tidal Currents in the ISLES region
Cable burial can be very difficult or impossible in areas which feature high tidal current speeds. This
problem is caused by the frequent presence of an exposed rocky seabed in these areas and the
constant movement of sediment caused by such powerful flows.
MDR0707Rp0028 51 Rev F01

The cook straight in between the North and South Islands of New Zealand is an example of this
(Fig 53). Here, cable protection relies on a regularly patrolled fishing exclusion zone. Even so, fibre
optic cables were displaced by illegal fishing prior to full time boat patrols of the zone, when such
incidents ceased.
Reproduced from [5]
Figure 53. Cables laid in the Cook Strait between the North and South Island of New Zealand, arrows indicate where
cables have been displaced.
Wave heights
Significant wave heights in the North Atlantic are expected to exceed 2m for approximately 50% of the
time and 3.5m for 30% of the time. A wave scatter diagram is located in Appendix D.
Wave periods of between 8 and 10 seconds excite the natural frequency of heavy lift vessels and
should be avoided during the installation of platforms. These wave periods are present 50% of the
time in the North Atlantic.
Conclusion for ISLES
For the ISLES project, the metocean conditions in the region are likely to significantly reduce the
offshore construction season. Local tidal effects such as those around the Mull of Kintyre will make
cable lay and burial very challenging and may require new techniques or equipment to be developed
to improve the process.
It is anticipated that between 20% and 40% of project construction days for the offshore campaign will
be spent waiting for suitable weather conditions. This cost will need to be taken into account by the
project developers.
MDR0707Rp0028 52 Rev F01

8.2 REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY LIMITS

The following table highlights the limits of the main construction equipment and vessels used in the
offshore cable installation process.
Table 14. Technology limits

Component Limits
SURVEY
Survey ship speed of side scan survey The speed of survey vessel is limited to 4 knots. Assuming 6 passes on the route
corridors, the geophysical survey would take about 40 consecutive days for the
1000km route (24hr working). Considering a bad weather allowance of 30%, this
survey may take 4 months to carry out.
Survey ship limiting sea state Wave height: survey work can take place up to 2m significant wave height* before
data quality deteriorates.
*Average height of highest 33% of waves
2m wave height is exceeded 50% of the time in the North Atlantic (Appendix 3)
JACK UP VESSEL
Jack Up foundations seabed soils Where the soil is extremely hard or calcareous. In these cases, the penetration of
strength the spud-can will be minimal allowing only a portion of the spud-can bottom plate
to be in contact with the seabed. In this condition, only that part of the spud-can
structure in contact with the soil will be supporting the environmental loads,
deadweight and operational weight of the Jack Up. It is extremely important to
verify that such partial bearing will not cause damage to the spud-can structure.
In cases like these, an adequately reinforced tip on the spud-can may be
advantageous compared to flatbottomed footings.
HEAVY LIFT VESSEL
Heavy lift vessel limiting sea state Wave periods of between 8 and 10 seconds can excite the natural frequency of
the vessel and should be avoided. These wave periods are present 50% of the
time in the North Atlantic
CABLE FACTORY
Cable production factory load out speed Speed of loadout generally limited by the visual inspection process required to
ensure that the power cable is in good condition.
Cable storage capacity 5000 7000t
DP CABLE SHIP
Cable lay ship cable storage capacity 3000t, Many ships available
5000t Various ships available
7000t Few ships available
Cable lay ship speed of lay 1000 m/hr
Cable lay ship limiting sea state for cable Sea state 5
lay Significant wave height 4m
CABLE JOINTING
Cable jointing sea state Sea state 1 -2
Cable jointing temperature Above 5C
Cable jointing wind speed 12m/s
CABLE LAY BARGE
Speed of cable lay 200m/hr
ROV
Tidal current which ROV can operate 2 knots (1 m/s)
DIVING OPERATIONS
Water depth for air diving operations 40-50m
Maximum on bottom time due to tidal 20-30 mins
currents > 0.5 knots
TRENCHING VESSEL
Trenching vessel speed Up to 1000m/hr ploughing
Up to 200m/hr trenching machine
MDR0707Rp0028 53 Rev F01

Trenching vessel limiting sea state Trencher can be launched and recovered up to sea state 5.
Plough can be launched and recovered in sea state 7.
SUBSEA CABLE PLOUGH or
TRENCHER
Near shore cable burial / beach landing Plough can be brought through air water interface and can be used to plough
straight from the beach.
Trenching machines require a positive head of about 10m of water above the
jetting pumps, so have a shallow water limitation of a minimum of 15m water
depth to operate.
Seabead topography which limits Slopes which are more than 15 0 and / or side slopes exceeding 10 0
operations
Typical working soil undrainded shear Must be >5 kPa and < 100 kPa
strength
ROCK DUMPING VESSEL

Side dumping vessel capacity 2000t.
Side dumping rock size 100mm to 1m.
Fall pipe vessel payload capacity 20,000t.
Fall pipe rock size Up to a maximum of 400mm diameter.
MDR0707Rp0028 54 Rev F01

8.3 DEPTH OF BURIAL REQUIREMENTS AND ITS EFFECT ON

CONSTRUCTION SPEED
The depth to which anchors or fishing gear can penetrate the seabed depends on the soil type and
cable burial is the primary protection strategy against this threat.
The burial depth and soil type define the trenching speed at the offshore site and hence, the number
of vessel days required to install the cable is calculated from these figures. As such, the accurate
selection of the burial depth is a critical factor which greatly influences the cost of cable laying and
affects the long term maintenance needs and costs.
Industry has widely accepted the adoption of the Burial Protection Index as a common methodology to
quantify the required depth of burial of a cable or pipeline in a range of soil types, subjected to a range
of threats. For a more detailed discussion of selection of burial depth, burial equipment and
geotechnical aspects of burial, please refer to [34] and [35]
Table 15 below provides an indication of the typical burial depths in differing soils. In addition, the
performance of burial machines in a variety of soil types has been indicated.
Table 15. Depth of burial and its effect on construction speed
Typical Burial
Sea Bed Type Depths for Typical burial speed Machine Notes
power cables
Exposed Bed
0.0 Untrenchable Untrenchable Untrenchable
Rock
Chalk 0.0 0.6 25-75m/hr rock cutter
Plough 350 to 750m/hr Hard soil trencher may achieve

Hard soil trencher /
Stiff Clay 0.4 0.8 better burial where hard clay is
Mechanical cutter 150 to 250 m/hr (Plough)
at seabed
Plough 250 to 750m/hr Hard soil trencher may achieve

Hard soil trencher /
Clay 0.6 1.2 better burial where hard clay is
Mechanical cutter 150 to 250 m/hr (Plough)
at seabed
Gravel 0.4 1.0 Plough 200 to 500m/hr Plough / Trencher
Plough 200 to 500m/hr Trencher not as efficient as

Coarse Sand 0.4 1.0 Plough / Trencher
Jetter 100 to 300m/hr plough in sand
Plough 50 to 150m/hr Plough / Jetting

Silty Sand 0.6 1.2
Jetter 100 to 400m/hr ROV
Subject to soil conditions and max slope in

Sand Waves 0.0 3.0 Plough
the order of 10 to 15
Intertidal Mud Subject to bearing capacity of seabed, Plough / Jetting

0.6 3.0
Flats currents and water depth ROV
Subject to plough method and availability of

Beach Sand 1.0 2.0 Plough
tow force
The choice of cable burial tool is defined by the geotechnical characteristics of the seabed and the
depth of burial capabilities of the machine. Figure 54 provides an indication of the capabilities of
various burial machine types.
MDR0707Rp0028 55 Rev F01

For the ISLES project, proper selection of burial machine type cannot be made until the results of
geotechnical site surveys are carried out.
Figure 54, table courtesy of CTC marine projects
8.4 PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR CABLES BASED ON HAZARD

IDENTIFICATION AND SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS
The subsea cable protection strategy for the ISLES network will strongly influence the cost of
construction activities. The cable needs to be protected from the risk of damage due to various
offshore activities like fishing, anchorage or other natural hazard. It is most economical to bury the
cable into the seabed where possible to a depth which protects the cable. This burial depth is
therefore a key installation design parameter.
Cable protection by burial in the seabed has developed from the 1970s as a viable cable protection
strategy. This approach has led to decline in cable faults 3.7 / 1000 km / year in 1979 to
0.44 / 1000 km / year in 1985 and moreover it significantly reduces the cost of additional steel
[15]
armouring by the cable manufacturer.
Where it is not possible to bury the cable other methods, such as rock dumping, concrete mattressing,
or cable pinning with grouted anchor bolts, can be carried out as part of the offshore construction
campaign. Also, additional steel armouring layers can be incorporated into the manufacture of the
cable to further enhance protection if required in rocky areas but this increases costs.
The seabed type, strength and topography in the ISLES region will dictate how much of the cable
length can be successfully buried. Detailed geotechnical seabed surveys would be carried out during
the pre-construction phase to identify where the sea bed is rocky or hard, or where steep inclines may
prevent direct burial by a trenching machine. The final choice of cable protection strategy for each
section of cable would then be determined by geotechnical specialists with the chosen protection
method being based on hazard identification and site specific factors.
The following sections define these hazards in general and discuss the common protection strategies
that are employed to mitigate their risks. Additionally, the ISLES site specific hazards and protective
measures are noted.
MDR0707Rp0028 56 Rev F01

This report considers the following hazards:
Fishing
Anchors
Dredging activities
Seabed topography
Dropped objects
Figure 55 highlights the main causes of submarine cable faults and shows that a high proportion of
damage is thought to be caused by fishing activities. It should be noted that these proportions have
more recently been modified by observations from members of the ICPC (International Cable
Protection Committee) and their figures are shown in Figure 56. This more recent finding states that
anchor damage is now understood to be a far more frequent cause of damage than thought in earlier
years. This conclusion was the result of the use of a more sophisticated approach to monitoring
vessel traffic data at the time of a fault occurring on a subsea cable.
Figure 55. Trends in submarine cable system faults. Reproduced from Reference [16]
Figure 56. Trends in subsea cable damage as modified by use of AIS observation in 2007. ICPC.
8.4.1 Fishing
Description of risk to cable
Fishing by the trawling method is still considered to be a major contributing factor to subsea cable
damage. Specifically, the trawl boards tend to run along the surface of the seabed and can dig in to a
depth which depends on the type of fishing gear used and the seabed soil characteristics (Fig 57).
Fishing weights can also snag on exposed subsea cables.
MDR0707Rp0028 57 Rev F01

Figure 57. Schematic of beam trawler and damage to a snagged cable. (Images courtesy of KIS-CA)
Fish bites are less frequent, but remain an occasional source of natural damage to exposed cables
which can lead to the plastic or bitumous outer serving being compromised, exposing the inner sheath
and allowing water to penetrate the steel armouring. This can leave the cable vulnerable to corrosion.
Cable protection strategy
To overcome the threat from fishing, burial to an appropriate depth is considered to be the primary
protection. If burial to the required depth is not possible, then rock dumping is usually considered a
viable option which can prevent the penetration of the trawler board or deflect the hit by the trawler,
thereby protecting the subsea power cable.
By creating a rock berm to protect the cable from fishing activities the rock installation contractor
should make provision for:
Depositing enough rock to sufficiently withstand the penetration depth of the trawl board.
Creating gradual slopes in order to allow the trawl board to pass over the berm without
snagging
Providing a suitable grade of rock (size of rock) to pass through fishing nets without damaging
them.
Rock dumping installation contractors include: Van Oord, Boskalis Westminster, Dredging
International and Tideway.
Implication for ISLES construction:
Commercial fishing occurs throughout the ISLES region, therefore protection against damage is a
primary design and installation requirement.
8.4.2 Interaction with dragged or dropped anchors
Description of risk to cable
Since 2007, it has been thought that the primary contributing factor causing cable damage is anchors
either being dragged over, or dropped on, the power cable (Fig 58).
MDR0707Rp0028 58 Rev F01

Figure 58. Damage to subsea cables from dragged Figure 59. Rock berm designed to protect cable from
anchors. (ICPC) anchors
(Image courtesy of Van Oord NV)
Vessels suffering engine failure or loss of steering may choose to drop anchor, or drag an anchor to
slow down in an emergency situation. The likely effect of the dragged anchor will be worst if it occurs
in stormy or inclement weather, with the possible result being the dragging of a partially penetrating
anchor through several kilometres of seabed. The damage to a subsea cable can stretch to many
hundreds of metres.
This hazard is mitigated by burial of the cable to an appropriate depth, just as is the case for fishing.
For cases where burial is not achieved as per requirements then rock dumping is again considered a
viable option.
Anchor penetration in different sea bed soil types can usually be predicted, leading to a cable burial
depth requirement. Rock berms intended principally to protect against anchor strike would be
designed in such a way as to lift the anchor out of the seabed before it can contact the cable.
This leads to a high and wide rock berm, which would be created with a rock size which would
encourage the anchor to walk over the berm as opposed to dragging through it. See figure 59.
Implication for ISLES:
Commercial shipping movement occurs throughout the ISLES region, therefore protection against
damage is a primary design and installation requirement.
8.4.3 Dredging activities
Description of risk to the cable
Dredging for aggregates occurs in offshore areas where construction sand and gravel is easily
obtainable. If subsea power cables are buried in regions where this practice occurs, it can be exposed
or snagged due to the ongoing activity. This poses a serious threat to any buried cable.
MDR0707Rp0028 59 Rev F01

Shell fish dredging would also pose a similar risk to the cable.
Ideally prevention of this activity offers the best protection for the cable. To overcome concerns of
damage in such regions the subsea cable route should be planned taking dredging activities into
consideration. Concerned authorities will also need to issue formal restrictions against dredging
activities in the vicinity of the cable route.
No dredging for aggregates currently takes place in the ISLES region.
8.4.4 Exposure of cable due to seabed variations and mobile seabeds
Description of risk to the cable
Seabed variations are caused by naturally occurring phenomenon, such as wave and tide action,
which cause the movement of sediments from one area to another. This sediment mobility either adds
to or removes any soil covering the product laid in that area.
This action can create large areas of sand ripples or sand waves (Fig 60) to a height of several
meters, and can lead to the movement of dunes across the seabed, thereby potentially exposing and
re-burying sections of the subsea cables in the process.
Any exposed sections of cables would then be prone to additional risk of damage from flow induced
vibrations, and over tension. A common failure regime would then be fatigue failure of the cable.
Figure 60. Power cable spanning sand waves (reproduced by permission of KIS-CA)
Burial of the cable to a depth where the underlying seabed is stable would provide an adequate
protection strategy in a mobile seabed. However, this depth may be impractical for certain types of
burial machine. Analysis would need to be undertaken to properly determine the long term depth of
scour.
In addition, the sandwave area could be flattened by pre-sweeping the cable route
Depending on the nature of the flow regime, and flow speed, the use of rock or gravel dumping may
locally stabilise the seabed and be used to bury the cable.
MDR0707Rp0028 60 Rev F01

Figure 61. Rock berm designed to support a freespan Figure 62. Illustration of dropped object on cable
Image courtesy Van Oord NV Image courtesy Van Oord NV
No major sandwave areas are found in the ISLES region. Undulating seabed topography leading to
unsupported cables would need to be addressed if encountered during the route survey.
8.4.5 Other dropped objects
The development of the ISLES region to harness the indigenous renewable resource will require a
multitude of offshore construction vessels to build the infrastructure. Dropped objects from heavy lift
vessels, cable lay ships and survey vessels all pose a threat to the subsea cable.
Dropped objects from commercial shipping lines, or fishing vessels operating in the same waters
would remain an ongoing risk.
MDR0707Rp0028 61 Rev F01

8.5 PROJECT RISK IDENTIFICATION
The offshore construction and deployment of the ISLES offshore network requires a huge capital
investment which would involve placing many contracts into a complex supply chain. To deliver a
project of this nature, the main contractor needs to identify, assess, and manage the project risk in
order to achieve both a commercial and operational success.
A summary of the risks inherent in an offshore cable installation project are captured in Table 16
below:
Table 16. Types and sources of subsea cable installation risks
Type of
Sources Mitigation
Risk
Generic Poor design and pre survey report. Employ experienced

Poor geotechnical report. consultants to carry out
comprehensive review of
design, geotechnical and
pre-survey reports.
Operational Unreliable operations and O&M agreements must have
maintenance team benefits or benefit reduction on
Poor machinery and equipment O&M company
installation Trenching specification needs
Poor technical feasibility reports and to be carefully written. Most
design contractors only work on a
Depth of lowering of the cable within reasonable endeavours basis,
the trench not achieved in certain i.e. no contractual agreement
places usually exists to bury the cable.
Commercial Wrong financial assumptions Consult financial consultant for
Major terms not included in contract verifying financial report of the
Variation according to time and project.
economic condition not provided. Compare contract with proven
Poor feasibility study contract
Consult legal advisor familiar
with industry in drafting
contract.
MDR0707Rp0028 62 Rev F01

Seabed Conditions
It is usual for the cable lay contractor and trenching contractor to base their price and equipment
selection on the bathymetric and soil condition data or trenchability statement developed by their client
company. This information is provided by the pre-trenching survey of the cable installation route.
This information is used by the cable lay contractor and trenching contractor to select the equipment
and burial depth, and to estimate the performance of the equipment. Therefore, if the actual trenching
operations are affected due to the deviations in the information present in the preliminary trenching
assessment, it would be usual for the contractor to charge their client for any delay caused at an
appropriate vessel day rate.
To minimise such risks, the pre-trenching survey needs to be comprehensive. Also, the offshore scope
of work, along with the commercial arrangements, should be detailed enough to include provision for
delays or deviations to allow these to be quantified appropriately.
Cable Protection / Cable Crossings
Where threats are present, an unburied cable remains at risk of failure. Similarly, protection is
necessary for any cable crossings on the route. Protection by rock dumping or by the placing of
concrete mattresses would normally be carried out after the trenching campaign and after review of
the post installation survey.
In order to minimise the risk to unprotected cables, the main contractor should schedule this work to
immediately follow on from the main cable lay campaign.
Equipment Trials
Trials for vessels and trenching equipment should be budgeted for by the OFTO if required. This is
often overlooked.
Trenching and Cable Lay Equipment
The proper working geometry and operation of the equipment needs to be checked regularly during
the offshore cable laying and trenching campaign. This should be recorded by the offshore technicians
and accepted by the client representative.
Sea Bed Slopes
The angle of seabed slope for some sections of the route may be outside the capabilities of the
trencher, In these instances the cable may need to be buried by a different device or protected by rock
dumping.
MDR0707Rp0028 63 Rev F01

8.6 ADVANCEMENTS AND INNOVATION IN CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES:

UPGRADE THE TECHNOLOGY TO SPEED UP LOAD OUT, LAY AND
TRENCHING
8.6.1.1 Cable loading speed at the cable factory.
An area of significant time and hence cost expenditure occurs when all of the cable contained on the
vessel has been laid and the vessel must return to the cable manufacturer to reload its turntable. In
the case of Prysmian in Naples, it is estimated that the downtime in laying operations can be between
18-25 days with approximately 9-10 of those days required to re-spool the turntable at the
manufacturers site. In the re-spooling process, cable is transferred from one turntable on the quayside
at the manufacturing site to the empty turntable on the vessel. Cable is visually inspected by workers
as it is fed onto the vessel.
Cable transfer time could be decreased by increasing the spooling speed. However, if spooling speed
becomes too fast then inspection quality may be compromised. It may be worthwhile to investigate the
use of an automatic defect monitoring video camera system.
Another option to reduce down-time caused by spooling could be to allow cable baskets to be
interchangeable. For example, an empty basket could be lifted from the vessel deck in dry dock by an
overhead crane (Fig 63). A pre-spooled basket could then be lifted onto the vessel to replace the
empty one. This is likely to require significant investment in order to construct the dry dock and
overhead crane needed to allow such an operation. Another factor which needs to be considered is
the ownership of the basket and at what point liability for damage to cable or basket transfers from the
cable manufacturer to the vessel operator. For example, if the cable was damaged during spooling
from the factory due to a fault with the basket, it becomes unclear who would be liable for the cost of
repair. Should it be the owner of the basket (the vessel operator) whose property was at fault or the
company who were responsible for operation of the basket at the time (the cable company)?
The speed of cable laying, spooling and trenching have a considerable impact on the costing of the
overall project which supports the case for upgrading current equipment technology. The various
speed scenarios have been highlighted in Table 17. This can be compared to the basis of the current
cost structure detailed in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 17: Operating speed scenarios

Activity units Slow operations case Fast operations case Equipment upgrade
(Base case) case
Bundled cable lay speed (m/hr) 200 400 1200

Bundled cable trenching speed (m/hr) 175 350 800
Spooling speed (m/hr) 300 600 1000
The slow operations case led to the overall cost of cable laying, spooling and trenching being
260 million which is 22% and 33% more in comparison to the fast operation and equipment upgrade
cases, as shown in Tables 18 and 19 respectively. This again points to the possibility that a company
could gain a competitive advantage by working towards increasing the speed of cable installation as
this can lead to considerable savings on projects of ISLES scale.
MDR0707Rp0028 64 Rev F01

Table 18: Fast operating speed and its effect on cost outlay
Cable lay speed = 400 m/ hr

Trenching speed = 350 m/hr
Spooling speed = 600 m/hr Duration (Days) Proportion
Survey 122 13%
Weather Allowance 186 20%
Vessel on DP ops 191 20%
Total Cost 203m
Table 19: Equipment upgrade speed and its effect on cost outlay
Single Trench and Bipolar Cable
Cable lay speed = 1200 m/ hr

Trenching speed = 800 m/hr
Spooling speed = 1000 m/hr Days % Proportion
Survey 122 16%
Weather Allowance 161 20%
Vessel on DP ops 135 17%
Total Duration 783
Total Cost 173m
MDR0707Rp0028 65 Rev F01

Figure 63. Quick turntable change over of pre-spooled cable
MDR0707Rp0028 66 Rev F01

1 APPENDIX A ROUTE DESCRIPTION
Admiralty Charts reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationary Office and the
[17]
UK Hydrographic Office
Coleraine Hub to Hunterston (2 x 1000MW HVDC Cables)
Section Conditions
Overview Water depths vary from 26m at Coleraine to 120m in the North Channel to the west of
the Mull of Kintyre. In the Firth of Clyde, the depths range from 60 to 40 metres until
landfall at Farland Head. Landfall at Harland head was chosen as there are two power
cable landfalls in this area Landfall should take place between Farland Head and
Ardrossan.
The route was chosen to keep clear of the Hibernia A telecom cable.
Between the Hub and the Mull of Kintyre the seabed is predominately gravel, mud,
shells, pebbles and sand with occasional rock outcrops.
South and East of the Mull of Kintyre the seabed is gravels, sand, shells with weeds
and kelp, becoming mud and sand in the Firth of Clyde.
Construction and Deployment Report 67 Rev F01

Section Conditions
1 to 5 The chosen site for the Coleraine Hub lies in an area of rocks and overfalls. The
seabed appears to be predominately gravels, mud, shells, pebbles and sands in the
deeper sections below the 50m contour. The shallower depths comprise of rock
outcrops, requiring a degree of armouring for the HVDC cables. Careful routing will be
required in the vicinity of Point 4 due to the steepness of the cross slope.

Section Conditions
5 to 9 Water depths vary from 60 metres at Point 5 to 120 metres in the North Channel,
shallowing again to 45 metres in the Firth of Clyde. The seabed soils vary from sand,
shells and pebbles near Point 5 to mud, fine sand and shells in the deeper parts of the
North Channel. As the seabed shallows, the soils composition becomes gravelly sand
and shells with kelp and weed south of Sanda Island (Point 8). There are significant
overfalls between Points 6 and 8, indicative of a rocky seabed and strong currents.
Between Points 8 and 9, there is little seabed information other than indications of
sand and mud with isolated rock outcrops.

Section Conditions
9 to Farland Between Points 9 and 10, the water depths lie between 45 and 52 metres, with a
Head seabed changing from sands and muds with rock outcrops, to mud and muddy sands.
The route in this Section crosses the Linis-3 and Sirius North Telecom cables in order
to remain in reasonable water depths and avoid the 100m deep trench on the east side
of the Isle of Arran
Between Points 10 and 13, the route traverses a muddy sandy seabed whose depths
vary between 50 and 60 metres. Occasional rock outcrops are expected. It is
expected that the shoal areas less than 50m in depth are rock outcrops.
The route re-crosses the Linis-3 and Sirius North telecom cables between Points 11
and 12. At Point 13 the route lies parallel to the proposed route of the Anglo-Scottish
HVDC cable.
The seabed conditions between Point 13 and the landfall are similar to the previous
section with water depths ranging from 50 to 74 metres before shoaling at the landing.
The soils become mud, pebbles and rocks closer to the shore.

Argyle Hub to Hunterston (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview Water depths vary from 20m at the Argyle Hub to 80m 5 miles south of Skerry Vore,
rising to 26m at the Coleraine Hub. Thereafter the route parallels the Coleraine to
Hunterston 1000MW power cable route with the same conditions
Between the Argyle Hub and the Coleraine Hub, there is little in the way of soils
information. The seabed appears to consist predominately of shells, sand, gravel,
pebbles and mud in the north, becoming shelly sand and rock out crops in the south.
For the remainder of the route see the conditions for the Coleraine to Hunterston
1000MW cable routing.

Section Conditions
1 to 3 The site chosen for the Argyll Hub lies in 10.5 metres of water in an area of rocks and
overfalls. Stevensons and Mackenzies Rock lie close by. The cable between the hub
and the 50m contour line will require armouring and protection. Below the 50m
contour the seabed is predominately sand and shells, with rocky outcrops. Above the
50m contour in the vicinity of Point 2 the seabed is expected to be shelly sand with
rock outcrops.
Between Points 1 and 2 the depths vary from 86m south of Mackenzies Rock to 50m
at Point 2. Between Points 2 and 3 the depths vary between 38m at its shallowest to
50m at its deepest.

Section Conditions
3 to 5 Between points 3 and 4 the seabed rises from 55 metres at Point 3 to 24 metres at
Point 4 (close to the proposed Islay Wind Farm location). In this section the nature of
the seabed is expected to be rockier, possibly requiring the cable to be armoured and
protected. The expected length of additional armouring is 10 kilometres.
Between points 4 and 5, the seabed deepens to 65 metres before shallowing again at
the Coleraine Hub. The seabed is expected to be shelly sands below the 50m contour
and rocky above. Additional armouring may be required between the 50m contour
and the Coleriane Hub, which amounts to an estimated length of 10.5 kilometres.
5 (Colleraine The 500mW cable route parallels the Coleraine Hub to Hunterston 1000mW cable
Hub) to routes. The seabed conditions will be the same.
Hunterston.

Argyle Hub to Coleraine Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview Water depths vary from 20m at the Argyle Hub to 80m 5 miles south of
Skerry Vore, rising to 26m at the Coleraine Hub.
Between the Argyle Hub and the Coleraine Hub, there is little in the
way of soil information. The seabed appears to consist predominately
shells, sand, gravel, pebbles and mud in the north becoming shelly
sand and rock outcrops in the south.
The conditions along this route have already been described for Points
1 to 5 of the Argyle Hub to Hunterston 500mW HVDC cable route.

Location C OWF to Argyll Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Overview Water depths vary from 20m at Location C to approximately 200m, 10NM south of
Barra Head, rising to 20m at the Argyle Hub.
The shallow areas at Location C and the Argyle Hub are predominately rocky.
Between Barra Head and Skerry Vore, the seabed in the deeper water appears to be
mud, sand and shells.

Section Conditions
1 to 4 Water depth at the proposed wind farm location is approximately 30m, with rocky
outcrops in a shelly, sandy seabed. Between Location C and Point 2 the depths vary
between 25 and 30m. The seabed is sand and shells with rock outcrops in the north
becoming weed and shells with rock out crops at Point 2. The water depths vary from
30m to 53m between Point 2 & 3. The seabed becomes increasing rocky in the
deeper water. The depths increase to the south west to 115m at Point 4. The cable
may require armouring over this section between the location and Point 4, some 45.6
kilometres of cable.

Section Conditions
4 to Argyll Between Points 4 and 5 the water depths increase to approximately 200m before
Hub shoaling again to 100m at Point 5. The nature of the seabed becomes mud, sand and
shells, with patches of gravels. The route continues to shoal from 100m to 54m at
Point 6. The seabed becomes increasingly rocky as shallow water is reached. At the
Argyll Hub the seabed is a rocky area with frequent overfalls close to the hub location.
Water depths varying from 10 to 20m. The cable may need armouring above the 50m
contour for a length of 7.3 kilometres.
The route passes through a laden tanker and radio reporting zone between Points 3
and 5.

Islay Wind Farm to Coleraine Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview This short route has water depths ranging from 25m at each location to 70m, a mile or
so south of the Islay Wind Farm.
At the wind farm and hub locations the soil conditions are expected to be rocky with
some sand and shells. The deeper water seabed is likely to be sands, gravels,
pebbles and weeds (possibly kelp).
The cable may require armouring in those areas above the 50m contour.

Coolkeeragh Hub to Coleraine Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview Water depths vary from 36m at the Coolkeeragh Hub to 70m, 5 NM north of Turbot
Bank. The greatest depth is 110m, some 3 NM south west of the Coleraine Hub,
where the water depth is 25m.
For the first half of the route the seabed is predominately rocks, gravels and fine sands
with some mud and shells. For the remainder of the route, in the deeper waters to the
north east of the Turbot Bank, the seabed appears to be weed, gravels, shells, pebbles
and sands, becoming rocky at the Coleraine Hub.
The route crosses the Hibernia A telecom Cable at approximately 55 30.36N 6

59.46W.

Section Conditions
1 to 3 The Coolkeeragh Hub lies in a Rocky area with a depth of 36 metres. The route
shoals to 30m at Point 2, increasing in depth to 70m at Point 3. The seabed changes
from being rocky in the west to sand, stones and shells in the east. The route crosses
the Hibernia A submarine telephone cable just after Point 3.
Armouring of the cable should be considered in depths of less than 50m. This would
be a length of approximately 39 kilometres in this section.

Section Conditions
3 to Between Points 3 & 4 the depths vary between 57 and 70m. The last part of the
Coleraine section is along a ridge with depths of 121m on the north west side and 134m on the
Hub south east side. Alternative routing may be required to go around these trenches.
Between Points 4 and 5 the depths shallow from 65m to 23m, with depth varying
between 23 and 27m up to the Coleraine Hub. There are significant overfalls in
between Point 6 and the Hub. Water depth at the hub is 26.5m
In the west, the seabed is predominately gravels, shells, pebbles, and sand with weed
(possibly kelp). The seabed becomes rocky above the 50m contour. The area
between Point 5 and the Coleraine Hub suffers from overfalls. The cable may need to
be armoured in depths of less than 50m, an estimated length of 6.5 kilometres

Coleraine Hub to Coleraine Land Fall (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview Water depths vary from 26m at Coleraine to 130m, 3 NM SSW of the hub. The depths
along the majority of the route vary between 70 and 50 metres until a point 3 NM north
of Ranmore Head when the seabed shallows to the landfall. The landfall to the west of
Ranmore Head was chosen as Hibernia A telecom cable spur comes ashore at this
point.
The route crosses the Hibernia A telecom Cable at approximately 5525.92N 6

46.62W.
Along the majority of the route the seabed is predominately gravel, mud, shells,
pebbles and sand, becoming rockier when approaching the landfall.

Section Conditions
1 to 5 Water depth at the Hub is 26.5m in a rocky area with frequent overfalls. Water depths
increase to 70m at Point 2 which is just to the east of a 134m deep trench. Between
Points 2 and 3 the seabed gradually shelves to 55m. The route crosses the Hibernia A
submarine telephone cable just before Point 3. The depths between Points 3 and 5
average around 55m, shoaling to 30m at Point 5.
Between the Hub and the 50m contour the seabed is expected to be predominately
rock. Below the 50m contour the soils change from rock to gravels, shells, pebbles,
and sand with weed (possibly kelp). The seabed gradually becomes shelly sand in the
vicinity of Point 3. There are rock outcrops to the east of the route. The seabed is
predominately sand and shells becoming pebbles, gravels and sands in the shallower
water around Point 5
Consideration should be given to armouring the cable between the Coleraine Hub and
the 50m contour to the SSW, a length of 1700 metres.

Section Conditions
5 to Landfall Between Points 5 and 7 the depths shoal gradually from 30m to 25m at Point 6, then
(Portrush) shoal rapidly to 0m at the landfall. The seabed in this section appears to consist of
pebbles, gravels, and shells with patches of fine sand. The route follows the Portrush
Spur of the Hibernia A submarine telephone cable.

Location K OWF to Coleraine Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Water depths vary from 22m at Location K to to 70m, 5 NM north of Turbot Bank. The
greatest depth is 110m, some 3 NM south west of the Coleraine Hub. At the Coleraine
Hub, the water depth is 25m.
The shallow areas at Location K and the Coleraine Hub are predominately rocky. In
the deeper waters to the north east of the Turbot Bank, the seabed appears to be
weed, gravels, shells, pebbles and sands.
The route crosses the Hibernia A telecom cable at approximately 55 30.3N 6

58.74W.
Section Conditions
1 to 3 The water depth at the Location K VCS is approximately 20m. The VCS is located on
the edge of Hamptons and Turbot Banks which are rock outcrops. Between the
Location K VCS and Point 2 the depths deepen to 36m. The water depths deepen
along the section to 57m at Point 3
By the VSC, the seabed is sand with stones and shells becoming stoney, shelly sand
at Point 3.
3 to
The route information is the same as Points 3 to the Hub for the Coolkeragh Hub to
Coleraine
Coleraine Hub routing.
Hub

Location J OWF to Coolkeeragh Hub (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview This short route has water depths ranging from 27m at the windfarm location to 36m at
the Coolkeeragh Hub.
The route lies in a predominately rocky area with some fine sandy areas. Cable
armouring should be considered for this 7.1km route

Coolkeeragh Hub to Coolkeeragh Landfall (500MW HVDC Cable)
Section Conditions
Overview The 34 kilometre route follows the centre of Lough Swilly from the Coolkeeragh Hub,
some 8 NM offshore to a landfall at the southern end of the lough.
Coolkeeragh Hub is situated in a Rocky area with a depth of 36 metres. The route
shallows to 25m at Point 2, and further shallows to 20m at the entrance to Lough
Swilly.
It is expected that soils will vary from rock and sand pockets at the hub to silty soils at
the landfall. Little is known of the soils in this area.

Route Planning Lists
For
1000MW and 500MW
HVDC Cables
(excludes A/C cables from OWF locations to VSCs)

Point Long_DD Lat_DD LAT_DMmm LONG_DMmm Azimuth Kms CumKm Note Comments
Coleraine Rocky area with frequent overfalls close to the hub

1 -6.650000 55.640000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 114.749 11.306
Hub location. Water depths varying from 26.5m to 70m
2 -6.487122 55.597377 5535.843'N 629.227'W 122.254 13.813 11.306 Depth generally around 70m rising to 59m south west of
the Mull of Oa and then deepening to 70m. Strong
currents and races off the Mull of Oa. Rocky to the north
3 -6.302136 55.531027 5531.862'N 618.128'W 108.465 8.094 25.119 Mull of Oa west becoming Gravel, Mud, Shells, Pebbles and Sand
with occasional rock outcrops towards the Mull of
4 -6.180634 55.507941 5530.476'N 610.838'W 120.859 11.042 33.212 Kintyre.
5 -6.030801 55.456975 5527.418'N 601.848'W 146.766 25.114 44.255

Water depths vary from 60m in the north west
deepening to a maximum of 120m in the North Channel
Mull of before shallowing to approximately 60m at the start of
6 -5.814271 55.268095 5516.086'N 548.856'W 111.099 7.332 69.369
Kintyre the Firth of Clyde. Soils vary from Sand, Shells, Pebbles
in the north west through Mud, Fine Sand and Shells in
the North Channel to Gravels, Sand, Shells and Kelp at
7 -5.706721 55.244339 5514.660'N 542.403'W 093.047 8.384 76.701
the entrance to the Firth of Clyde. Strong currents,
eddies and overfalls can be found off the Mull of Kintyre
Sanda and Sanda Island
8 -5.575106 55.240265 5514.416'N 534.506'W 068.606 21.267 85.085
Island
9 -5.263278 55.309548 5518.573'N 515.797'W 084.570 7.238 106.352 Depths vary between 50m and 60 metres. The soils are
predominately sands and muds with occasional rocks.
The route crosses the LANIS-3 And SIRIUS NORTH
10 -5.149786 55.315648 5518.939'N 508.987'W 055.688 14.270 113.590 telecom cables between Points 9 & 10 and again
between Points 11 & 12. The new cable route would
11 -4.963802 55.387762 5523.266'N 457.828'W 007.532 11.826 127.860 Kildonan Pt parallels the proposed Anglo-Scottish HVDC Cable from
Point 13 onwards.
12 -4.939275 55.493069 5529.584'N 456.357'W 017.966 2.832 139.687

13 -4.925446 55.517266 5531.036'N 455.527'W 358.890 6.193 142.519
14 -4.927348 55.572881 5534.373'N 455.641'W 005.699 6.423 148.712
15 -4.917223 55.630286 5537.817'N 455.033'W 011.811 4.552 155.135

Depths vary from 50m at Point 13, with a deepest depth
of 74m near Ardrossan, with the landfall at Farland
16 -4.902415 55.670306 5540.218'N 454.145'W 036.266 1.043 159.687 Head. The mean depth is around 60 metres and the
seabed consists mainly of mud and sand with some
pebbly areas.
17 -4.892605 55.677862 5540.672'N 453.556'W 009.109 1.898 160.730
18 -4.887827 55.694691 5541.681'N 453.270'W 162.628 Farland Hd
RPS ISLES Provisional 1000mW HVDC Export Cable Route Coleraine Hub to Hunterston Landing - Cable 01
Point Long_DD Lat_DD LAT_DMmm LONG_DMmm Azimuth Kms CumKm Note Comments

1 -6.650000 55.640000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 115.815 11.335
3 -6.303649 55.529557 5531.773'N 618.219'W 107.883 8.131 25.101 Mull of Oa
west becoming Gravel, Mud, Shells, Pebbles and Sand
4 -6.181184 55.507071 5530.424'N 610.871'W 121.144 10.985 33.232 Kintyre.

5 -6.032575 55.455948 5527.357'N 601.955'W 146.668 25.132 44.217

6 -5.815336 55.267146 5516.029'N 548.920'W 110.766 7.381 69.349
Kintyre the Firth of Clyde. Soils vary from Sand, Shells, Pebbles
in the north west through Mud, Fine Sand and Shells in
the North Channel to Gravels, Sand, Shells and Kelp at
7 -5.706835 55.243593 5514.616'N 542.410'W 093.416 8.368 76.730
the entrance to the Firth of Clyde. Strong currents,
eddies and overfalls can be found off the Mull of Kintyre
Sanda and Sanda Island
8 -5.575517 55.239043 5514.343'N 534.531'W 071.974 21.276 85.098
Island
9 -5.438575 55.264414 5515.865'N 526.315'W 056.013 7.323 106.374
10 -5.031216 55.419947 5525.197'N 501.873'W 038.607 14.342 113.697 Depths vary between 50m and 60 metres. The soils are
11 -4.950690 55.477199 5528.632'N 457.041'W 022.204 11.866 128.039 Kildonan Pt telecom cables between Points 9 & 10 and again
between Points 11 & 12. The new cable route parallels
the proposed Anglo-Scottish HVDC Cable from Point 13
12 -4.922048 55.517010 5531.021'N 455.323'W 356.737 2.848 139.905 onwards.
13 -4.925741 55.553733 5533.224'N 455.544'W 000.659 6.238 142.753
14 -4.925350 55.573009 5534.381'N 455.521'W 005.590 6.435 148.991
15 -4.915397 55.630535 5537.832'N 454.924'W 011.913 4.483 155.427

of 74m near Ardrossan, with the landfall at Farland
16 -4.900691 55.669930 5540.196'N 454.041'W 036.557 1.036 159.909 Head. The mean depth is around 60 metres and the
seabed consists mainly of mud and sand with some
pebbly areas.
17 -4.890886 55.677401 5540.644'N 453.453'W 005.706 2.015 160.945
18 -4.887700 55.695410 5541.725'N 453.262'W 162.960 Farland Hd

RPS ISLES Provisional 1000mW HVDC Export Cable Route Coleraine Hub to Hunterston Landing - Cable 02
Point LongDD Lat_DD LAT_DMmm LONG_DMmm Azimuth Kms CumKm Note Comments
Rocky area with frequent overfalls close to the hub

1 -7.200000 56.300000 5618.000'N 712.000'W 158.005 44.633 Argyll Hub
location. Water depths varying from 10 to 20m.
Depths very from 20m just south of the hub to 50m at

Point 2. Maximum depth along the route is around 80m.
2 -6.932574 55.928028 5555.682'N 655.954'W 118.644 14.107 44.633 once away from the Argyll Hub, the soils vary from shelly
sand to shells, sand, gravel, pebbles and mud in the
deeper waters becoming sand and shell again at Point 2.
The cable route passes over a ridge of shelly sand with a

3 -6.734824 55.867132 5552.028'N 644.089'W 160.965 10.485 58.740 minimum depth of approximately 35 metres. The depths
at Point 4 are around 55m.
Depths vary from 55m in the north to 27 metres at the

Coleraine Hub. The route passes over a rocky ridge with
a minimum depth of 26 metres to the north of the Islay
4 -6.680330 55.778101 5546.686'N 640.820'W 170.843 15.369 69.225 Windfarm location. The route passes through a 60m
trench to the south of the windfarm location. The
shallower sections above the 50m contour appear to be
rocky ridges.


5 -6.641488 55.641816 5538.509'N 638.489'W 115.011 10.953 84.593
7 -6.301396 55.533083 5531.985'N 618.084'W 109.164 8.244 109.274 Mull of Oa
west becoming Gravel, Mud, Shells, Pebbles and Sand
8 -6.178139 55.508711 5530.523'N 610.688'W 120.531 10.975 117.519 Kintyre.
9 -6.028708 55.458543 5527.513'N 601.723'W 146.834 25.094 128.494

10 -5.812734 55.269669 5516.180'N 548.764'W 110.976 7.307 153.588
Kintyre the Firth of Clyde. Soils vary from Sand, Shells, Pebbles in
the north west through Mud, Fine Sand and Shells in the
11 -5.705463 55.246127 5514.768'N 542.328'W 092.706 8.295 160.895 North Channel to Gravels, Sand, Shells and Kelp at the
entrance to the Firth of Clyde. Strong currents, eddies
and overfalls can be found off the Mull of Kintyre and
Sanda Sanda Island
12 -5.575196 55.242540 5514.552'N 534.512'W 068.822 21.172 169.190
Island
13 -5.264283 55.310850 5518.651'N 515.857'W 084.768 7.264 190.362
Depths vary between 50m and 60 metres. The soils are

14 -5.150340 55.316746 5519.005'N 509.020'W 055.747 14.171 197.627
15 -4.965520 55.388249 5523.295'N 457.931'W 007.315 11.775 211.797 Kildonan Pt telecom cables between Points 13 & 14 and again
between Points 15 & 16. The new cable route parallels
the proposed Anglo-Scottish HVDC Cable from Point 17
16 -4.941799 55.493155 5529.589'N 456.508'W 016.894 3.020 223.573 onwards.
17 -4.927906 55.519108 5531.146'N 455.674'W 358.869 5.981 226.593

18 -4.929777 55.572815 5534.369'N 455.787'W 005.817 6.469 232.573
19 -4.919367 55.630624 5537.837'N 455.162'W 012.239 4.529 239.043

of 74m near Ardrossan, with the landfall at Farland Head.
20 -4.904108 55.670378 5540.223'N 454.246'W 035.028 1.063 243.572
The mean depth is around 60 metres and the seabed
consists mainly of mud and sand with some pebbly areas.
21 -4.894411 55.678195 5540.692'N 453.665'W 012.702 1.883 244.635
22 -4.887827 55.694691 5541.681'N 453.270'W 246.517 Farland Hd
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Argyll Hub to Hunterston Landing


1 -7.200000 56.300000 5618.000'N 712.000'W 160.803 0.878 Argyll Hub
2 -7.195336 56.292550 5617.553'N 711.720'W 158.268 43.815 0.878 Depths very from 20m just south of the hub to 50m at
Point 3. Maximum depth along the route is around 80m.
once away from the Argyll Hub, the soils vary from shelly
3 -6.935813 55.926738 5555.604'N 656.149'W 118.712 14.161 44.693 sand to shells, sand, gravel, pebbles and mud in the
deeper waters becoming sand and shell again at Point 3.
The cable route passes over a ridge of shelly sand with a

minimum depth of approximately 35 metres. Amrouring
4 -6.737440 55.865476 5551.929'N 644.246'W 161.054 10.309 58.854
may be required over this ridge due to the rockier nature
of the seabed The depths at Point 5 are around 55m.
Depths vary from 55m in the north to 27 metres at

Coleraine Hub. The route passes over a rocky ridge with
a minimum depth of 26 metres to the north of the Islay
5 -6.684103 55.777892 5546.674'N 641.046'W 172.037 15.501 69.163 Windfarm location. The route passes through a 60m
trench to the south of the windfarm location. The
shallower sections above the 50m contour appear to be
rocky ridges, and the cable may require armouring.

6 -6.650000 55.640000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 84.664
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Argyll Hub to Coleraine Hub

Coolkeeragh Rocky area with a depth of 36 metres, shallowing to

1 -7.650000 55.350000 5521.000'N 739.000'W 159.042 6.173
Hub 25m at Point 2.
2 -7.615238 55.298215 5517.893'N 736.914'W 164.237 11.723 6.173
3 -7.565228 55.196864 5511.812'N 733.914'W 147.285 6.522 17.896
4 -7.509945 55.147561 5508.854'N 730.597'W 169.523 6.443 24.418 Water depths gradually shallowing to 20m at the
entrance to Lough Swilly and 0m at the landfall. The
seabed is expected to become more silty in the Lough.
5 -7.491596 55.090650 5505.439'N 729.496'W 145.197 1.558 30.861 Very little soils information is available in this area.
6 -7.477677 55.079161 5504.750'N 728.661'W 097.224 1.259 32.418
7 -7.458118 55.077737 5504.664'N 727.487'W 33.678 Landfall
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Coolkeeragh Hub to Coolkeeragh Landfall

Coolkeeragh Rocky area with a depth of 36 metres, shoaling to 30m

1 -7.650000 55.350000 5521.000'N 739.000'W 059.728 23.994
Hub at Point2.
The route increases in depth to 70m at Point 3 and the

2 -7.322444 55.458206 5527.492'N 719.347'W 076.600 20.546 23.994 seabed changes from being rocky in the west to sand,
stones and shells in the east.
The route crosses the Hibernia A submarine telephone

cable just after Point 3. The depths are between 70
and 65m. The last part of the section is along a ridge
with depths of 121m on the north west side and 134m
3 -7.006173 55.500567 5530.034'N 700.370'W 056.320 18.608 44.540
on the south east side. Alternative routing may be
required to go around these trenches. The seabed is
predominately gravels, shells, pebbles, and sand with
weed (possibly kelp).
Between Points 4 and 5 the depths shallow from 65m

4 -6.760573 55.593007 5535.580'N 645.634'W 033.974 3.604 63.148 to 23m. The seabed becomes rocky above the 50m
contour. This area suffers from overfalls.
The depths in the section vary from 23m to 27m. The

5 -6.728605 55.619849 5537.191'N 643.716'W 065.591 5.436 66.752
seabed is rocky.

6 -6.650000 55.640000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 72.187 Coleraine Hub
location. Water depth at the hub is 26.5m
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Coolkeeragh Hub to Coleraine Hub


1 -6.65000 55.64000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 171.982 6.594 Coleraine Hub
location. Water depth at the hub is 26.5m
Water depths increase to 70m at point 2 which is just

to the east of a 134m deep trench. Below the 50m
2 -6.63542 55.58135 5534.881'N 638.125'W 209.678 19.694 6.594
contour the soils change from rock to gravels, shells,
pebbles, and sand with weed (possibly kelp).
Between Points 2 and 3 the seabed gradually shelves

to 55m. The seabed gradually becomes shelly sand in
3 -6.78943 55.42756 5525.654'N 647.366'W 161.041 10.327 26.288 the vicinity of Point 3. There are rock outcrops to the
east of the route. The route crosses the Hibernia A
submarine telephone cable just before Point 3.
4 -6.73655 55.33982 5520.389'N 644.193'W 165.855 9.813 36.615 The depths between points 3 and 5 average around
55m, shoaling to 30m at Point 5. The seabed is
predominately sand and shells becoming pebbles,
5 -6.69885 55.25435 5515.261'N 641.931'W 177.897 3.901 46.428 gravels and sands in the shallower water.
6 -6.69660 55.21933 5513.160'N 641.796'W 141.330 2.993 50.329 Between Points 5 and 7 the depths shoal gradually
from 30m to 25m at Point 6, then shoal rapidly to 0m
at the landfall. The seabed in this section appears to
consist of pebbles, gravels, and shells with patches of
Landfall
7 -6.66723 55.19834 5511.900'N 640.034'W 53.322 fine sand. The route follows the Portrush Spur of the
(Portrush)
Hibernia A submarine telephone cable.
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Coleraine Hub to Coleraine Landfall

Rocky area with a depth of 17 metres rapidly

1 -7.100000 56.400000 5624.000'N 706.000'W 232.472 2.628 Argyll VSC
deepening to 37m at Point 2.
Between Points 2 and 3 the depth is fairly constant at

2 -7.133735 56.385621 5623.137'N 708.024'W 220.498 5.985 2.628
37 metres with a sandy seabed.
The seabed rise from 37m to 10m at the hub location.

3 -7.196594 56.344730 5620.684'N 711.796'W 182.424 4.985 8.613
The seabed becomes more rocky at the hub.

4 -7.200000 56.300000 5618.000'N 712.000'W 13.598 Argyll Hub
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Argyll VSC to Argyll Hub

Location C Water depth approximately 30m, rocky outcrops in a

1 -7.750000 56.930000 5655.800'N 745.000'W 179.223 16.975
OWF shelly sandy seabed.
Between Location C and Point 2 the depths vary

between 25 and 30m. The seabed is sand and shells
2 -7.746236 56.777581 5646.655'N 744.774'W 228.647 12.047 16.975 Barra Head
with rock outcrops in the north becoming weed and
shells with rock out crops at Point 2.
The water depths vary from 30m to 53m at Point 3.

3 -7.893874 56.706019 5642.361'N 753.632'W 135.436 16.530 29.021 The seabed becomes increasing rocky in the deeper
water.
The depths increase to the south west to 115m at

4 -7.705033 56.600115 5636.007'N 742.302'W 131.702 23.695 45.551
Point 4. The seabed remains rocky.
Between Points 4 and 5 the water depths increase to

approximately 200m before shoaling again to 100m at
Point 5. The nature of the seabed becomes mud, sand
5 -7.418081 56.458219 5627.493'N 725.085'W 145.859 10.665 69.246
and shells, with patches of gravels. The route passes
through a laden tanker and radio reporting zone
between Points 3 and 5.
The route continues to shoal from 100m to 54m at

6 -7.321196 56.378907 5622.734'N 719.272'W 139.482 11.549 79.911 Point 6. The seabed becomes increasingly rockier as
shallow water is reached.

7 -7.200000 56.300000 5618.000'N 712.000'W 91.460 Argyll Hub
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Location C VSC to Argyll Hub

The VSC is in a rocky area with a depth of 24m. The

1 -6.70000 55.77000 5546.200'N 642.000'W 167.726 14.811 Islay VSC
route passes through a trough with a depth of 70m
before shoaling again to 26m at the Hub. In the
shallow areas at each site the seabed is expected to be
rocky. In the deeper section the seabed is expected to
2 -6.65000 55.64000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 14.811 Coleraine Hub be pebbly, gravelly sand with some weeds (possibly
kelp).
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Islay VSC to Coleraine Hub
1 -7.760000 55.340000 5520.400'N 745.600'W 080.891 7.067 Location J VSC The VSC is in a rock and sand area with a depth of
27m. The seabed is reasonably level around 33 metres
Coolkeeragh over the route length. The depth at the hub is 36m .
2 -7.650000 55.350000 5521.000'N 739.000'W 7.067 The seabed is expected to be fairly rocky
Hub
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Location J VSC to Coolkeeragh Hub

Location K Water depth approximately 20m, on the edge of

1 -7.000000 55.440000 5526.400'N 700.000'W 023.379 1.180
VCS Hamptons and Turbot Banks
Between Location K VCS and Point 2 the depths

2 -6.992598 55.449731 5526.984'N 659.556'W 359.580 5.480 1.180 deepen to 36m. The seabed is sand with stones and
shells..
The water depths deepen along the section to 57m at

3 -6.993233 55.498952 5529.937'N 659.594'W 054.940 18.053 6.660
Point 3. The seabed becomes stoney, shelly sand.
The route crosses the Hibernia A submarine telephone

cable just after Point 3. The depths are between 70
and 65m. The last part of the section is along a ridge
with depths of 121m on the north west side and 134m
4 -6.758852 55.591874 5535.512'N 645.531'W 033.698 3.654 24.713
on the south east side. Alternative routing may be
required to go around these trenches. The seabed is
predominately gravels, shells, pebbles, and sand with
weed (possibly kelp).
Between Points 4 and 5 the depths shallow from 65m

5 -6.726671 55.619178 5537.151'N 643.600'W 064.326 5.357 28.368 to 23m. The seabed becomes rocky above the 50m
contour. This area suffers from overfalls.
The depths in the section vary from 23m to 27m. The

seabed is rocky with frequent overfalls close to the
6 -6.650000 55.640000 5538.400'N 639.000'W 33.725 Coleraine Hub
Point 5 and the hub location. Water depths at
location is 26.5m.
RPS ISLES Provisional 500mW HVDC Export Cable Route Location K VSC to Coleraine Hub

2 APPENDIX B SUBSEA CABLE LAY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

3 APPENDIX C TIDAL FLOWS IN THE ISLES REGION

[18]
Reproduced by permission of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc from the Reeds Nautical Almanac.
Neville Featherstone, Edward Lee-Elliott, Reeds Nautical Almanac and Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Neville Featherstone, Edward Lee-Elliott, Reeds Nautical Almanac and Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Neville Featherstone, Edward Lee-Elliott, Reeds Nautical Almanac and Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Neville Featherstone, Edward Lee-Elliott, Reeds Nautical Almanac and Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

4 APPENDIX D WAVE HEIGHT SCATTER DIAGRAM
[19]
Figure 51: Wave scatter diagram reproduced from DNV RP205 Environmental Conditions.

5 REFERENCES
[1] Importance of metocean data at marine renewable energy sites. James Parker, Gardline
Environmental Ltd, (Presentation) 2010.
[2] Explore the Seafloor http://ets.wessexarch.co.uk
[3] Geotechnical and geophysical investigations for offshore and nearshore developments, Written
and produced by technical committee 1, International Society for soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering, September 2005
[4] Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia - the findings of an
independent scientific review. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Swan, J. M., Neff, J. M.
and Young, P. C. (eds.). 1994 Sydney. 696 pp.
[5] Mueller-Blenkle, C., McGregor, P.K., Gill, A.B., Andersson, M.H., Metcalfe, J., Bendall, V., Sigray,
P., Wood, D.T. & Thomsen, F. (2010) Effects of Pile-driving Noise on the Behaviour of Marine Fish.
COWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08, Technical Report 31st March 2010
[6] Gedamke J and Scholik-Schlomer A (2011) Overview and Summary of Recent Research into the
Potential Effects of Pile Driving on Cetaceans, International Whaling Proceedings Scientific
Committee, Ref SC/63/E11 prepared by NOOA
[7] Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken, and P.M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing
underwater noise levels during piled riving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine
mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:888-897.
[8] Brandt, M.J., A. Diederichs, K. Betke, and G. Nehls. 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile
driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 421:205-216.
[9] Reyff, J.A. 2009. Reducing underwater sounds with air bubble curtains. TR News 262:31-33.
[10] Caltrans Report. 2009. Final Technical Guidance for Assessment & Mitigation of the
Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth &
Rodkin, Inc. for: California Department of Transportation. 298p.
[11] Robinson, S.P., P.A. Lepper, and J. Ablitt. 2007. The measurements of the underwater radiated
noise from marine piling including characterisation of a soft start period. Proceedings of IEEE
Oceans 2007, Aberdeen, June 2007.
[12] Kastelein, R., L. Hoek, N. Jennings, C. De Jong, J. Terhune, and M. Dieleman. 2010. Acoustic
mitigation devices (AMDs) to deter marine mammals from pile driving areas at sea: Audibility &
behavioural response of a harbour porpoise & harbour seals. COWRIE, Ltd
[13] Health and Safety Executive, 2003 Decommissioning offshore concrete platforms. HMSO London
[14] www.renewableenergy.com, (01-10-2010).
[15] Trends in submarine cable system faults, Suboptic 2007 Shapiro et al (1997)
[16] Trends in Submarine Cable System Faults. 2006, Maurice E. Kordahi, & Seymour Shapiro,
Gordon Lucas
[17] Admiralty charts: Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office
and the UK Hydrographic Office (www.ukho.gov.uk)
1121 Irish Sea with Saint George's Channel and North Channel
1127 Outer Approaches to the North Channel
2635 Scotland - West Coast
2722 Scotland West Coast, Skerryvore to Saint Kilda
2723 Western Approaches to the North Channel
2724 North Channel to the Firth of Lorne
[18] REEDS Nautical Almanacp643, p661. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

[19] DNV RP205 Environmental Conditions

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Towards the development of horizontal directional drilling depth of cover guidelines, Jason S. Lueke,
MSc.,E.I.T. Samuel T. Ariaratnam, PhD.P.Eng. Donald A F. Colwell, E.I.T
[33] Irina Kogan1,2, Charles K. Paull1, Linda Kuhnz1, Erica J. Burton2, Susan Von Thun1, H. Gary
Greene1, James P. Barry1 (2003)Environmental Impact of the ATOC/Pioneer Seamount Submarine
Cable NOAA Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, Calif.,93940
[34] Allan PG and Comrie RJ, The Selection of Appropriate Burial Tools and Burial Depths, SubOptic
2001 Kyoto, May 2001
[35] Allan, PG. Geotechnical Aspects of Submarine Cables IBC Conference on Subsea Geotechnics,
Aberdeen, November 1998
[] Review of cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm
industry 2008 BERR
[5] Transpower new Zealand, Seaworks and NIWA
[6] http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk
[7] www.bunkerworld.com vessel fuel cost reference
[9] Teleconference call / email with GMSL
[10] Teleconference call / email with ABB
[11] Teleconference call / email with CTC Marine Projects
[12] Teleconference call / email with Offshore Marine Management
[13] Teleconference call / email with Tennet
[14] Teleconference call / email with Van oord
[15] Teleconference call / email with Technip (TPG)
[16] Teleconference call / email with Scaldis
[17] Teleconference call / email with VSMC
[18] Teleconference call / email with Fugro Seacore
[21] Ports of Scotland, Maritime publications ltd.

Construction and Deployment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction and Deployment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Union

Irish-Scottish Links on Energy Study (ISLES)

LOAD OUT, LAY AND TRENCHING............................................................................................................................ 64

MDR0707Rp0028 i Rev F01

Figure 1: ISLES construction, deployment and maintenance activities 3

Figure 8. Tubular steel jacket foundation structure - Suited to HVDC platform 11

Figure 9. Jacket delivery by transport barge 12

Figure 10. Jacket lift from transport barge 12

Figure 13. platform topside float over with crane barge. 13

Figure 14. platform topside ready to be lowered onto jacket 13

Figure 16: Jack up Crane Vessel during foundation Installation 13

Figure 17. Digging an open trench from headland to the beach 16

Figure 19. Image of HDD rig courtesy of Land and Marine. 17

Figure 20. Open sheet pile trench 17

Figure 21. Auger boring 17

MDR0707Rp0028 ii Rev F01

Figure 25. Fall pipe vessel 20

Figure 26. Side dumping vessel 20

Figure 27. Protective concrete mattresses in a mattress installation frame 20

Figure 28. IHC EB Seatrac Subsea Rock cutting machine 21

Figure 29. Simec Castor 2 21

Figure 30. LD travocean concrete casting machine 21

Figure 36: Schematic of the Post lay burial. 25

Figure 37: Schematic of Simultaneous lay and burial. 25

Figure 38. Cable plough 25

Figure 39. Hard soil trencher 25

Figure 40. Pipeline plough 25

Figure 41. PL3 Pipeline plough IHC Engineeering Business 27

Figure 42. Prototype SCAR plough, Ecosse Subsea 27

Figure 43: Typical cable repair vessel Sea Spider 31

Figure 44: Typical damaged cable where a flash-over occurred. 31

MDR0707Rp0028 iii Rev F01

Table 2: HVDC Link Cable Data........................................................................................................................... 37

Table 3: ISLES power cable network installation cost outlay ............................................................................... 38

Table 4: Cable protection scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 41

Table 5: Cost outcome for different protection methods ...................................................................................... 41

Table 6: Naples cable load out costs.................................................................................................................... 42

Table 7: Hartlepool cable load out costs .............................................................................................................. 43

Table 8: Transit cost from Naples using a barge.................................................................................................. 44

Table 10: Costs for simultaneous lay and burial .................................................................................................. 46

Table 14. Technology limits.................................................................................................................................. 53

Table 17: Operating speed scenarios................................................................................................................... 64

MDR0707Rp0028 iv Rev F01

3. Metocean data study

4. Geotechnical Desk top study

MDR0707Rp0028 1 Rev F01

1. Outline of offshore construction process

2. Operations and maintenance requirements

3. The proposed offshore cable installation route

4. Cost sensitivities to cable construction and deployment options

5. Construction and installation technology issues

MDR0707Rp0028 2 Rev F01

3 OUTLINE OF OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

1. Front End Engineering & Design Studies.

3. Generation of route plan

4. Offshore Construction & Deployment 5. Onshore Construction & Deployment

6. Commissioning and Testing

7. Operations and Maintenance

Figure 1: ISLES construction, deployment and maintenance activities

MDR0707Rp0028 3 Rev F01

3.1 FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED) STUDIES

3.1.1 Offshore Network Design Study

2. Establish a more accurate project budget and project schedule.

3.1.2 Metocean data review