Towards a model for European Seas Observatory Network Implementation Michael Gillooly, Glenn Nolan...
-
Upload
josephine-cunningham -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Towards a model for European Seas Observatory Network Implementation Michael Gillooly, Glenn Nolan...
Towards a model for European Seas Observatory Network Implementation
Michael Gillooly, Glenn Nolan and ESONIM team
A Specific Support Action funded under EC FP6
ESONET NoE All Regions Workshop
Barcelona, Sept. 5-7th 2007
ESONIM
ESONIM is a Specific Support Action (SSA) funded by FP6 that builds on the EU FP5 Project
ESONET (The European Seafloor Observatory Network)
The main aim is to facilitate the establishment of a European Seafloor Observatory Network (ESONET)
by providing EU Member States with generictechnical, legal and financial models and cases
to establish one or more pilot cabled seafloor observatories.
Participant Contact Country
Marine Institute – Lead M.Gillooly/G.NolanCSA Group Ltd N.O’NeillIFM-GEOMAR O. Pfannkuche
IFREMER J.F. Rolin
Alcatel (ASN) N.HazellUniversity of Aberdeen I.G. Priede
Goodbody Ltd C. O’RourkePhilip Lee Solicitors P. LeeUniversity of Göteborg P. Hall
ESONIM Project Partners (Authors)
WP1: Project Management
Define the ESONIM project’s management structure and reporting procedures.
WP2: Scientific Justification
To provide the over-arching specification of user needs and justification for the establishment of a European seafloor observatory network
WP3: Engineering Design
To identify the most appropriate technical design and engineering solutions for a cabled ocean observatory. The opportunities for industry involvement in the design, manufacture, deployment and operation of the system will be addressed in this work package.
WP4: Financial Model
To produce a 10 year cash-flow forecast for a cabled seafloor observatory with the European Seafloor Observatory Network (ESONET).
WP5: Legal Framework
To provide the overall legal context and framework for the implementation of a cabled seafloor observatory.
WP6: Implementation Model
To analyse and integrate the results of Work Packages 2-5 to develop a technical and financial project appraisal for a test case seafloor observatory that meets the criteria established by lending institutions.
WP7: Dissemination & Promotion
To disseminate the information and knowledge gained within ESONIM to the widest possible audience using multiple communications methods.
European Seafloor Observatory Network Implementation Model (ESONIM)
IMAGE SOURCE: GEBCO NORTH EAST QUADRANT 7
Hovland Md
BENGAL
Belgica Md
Canyon
BIOTRANS
Science Users by category (questionnaire):
Identified data end users by category
15%
17%
15%24%
2%
14%
4%9%
Government DepartmentsPublic InstitutesState Sponsored BodiesResearch OrganisationPrivate ConsultancyPrivate IndustryIndustry OrganisationCharitable Organisation
CeltNet Route (indicative)
Cable route designed using Irish Seabed Survey Data
Scientists defined sites
Route engineers joined the dots!
Engineering design: (CeltNet example case)
CeltNet Cable lengths (Courtesy ASN)
Indicative Budget: (CeltNet example case)
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL AND ESTIMATES FOR CELTNET TOTAL FOB
EurosSection 0 Engineering studies and survey 4 000 000 Section 1 Engineering & Project Management / System Acceptance & Commissioning 6 423 563 Section 2 Backbone Submarine Cable 12 802 552 Section 3 Backbone Wet Plant (Repeaters & Equalizers) 3 945 940 Section 4 Backbone Marine Operation (without survey) 10 096 297 Section 5 Land Cable + Civil works + Shelter with energy 2 686 506 Section 6 Shore Station Equipment (excluding Telecom Equipment) 2 214 894 Section 7 Telecom Shore Station Equipment + Network Management System 1 297 057 Section 8 Training and Documentation 224 652 Section 9 Wet plant & Marine operation from BU to TRF (non-equipped node) for 4 sites (less than 3500 water depth) 9 678 574 Section 10 Node equipment for 4 nodes (less than 3500 water depth) 12 434 477 Section 11 Wet plant & Marine operation from BU to TRF (non-equipped node) for 2 sites (more than 3500mwd) 3 600 000 Section 12 Node equipment for 2 nodes (more than 3500 water depth) 4 500 000 Section 13 J unction boxes (J B) for 6 nodes (3 per node) 2 228 571 Section 14 Marine operations for secondary junction boxes for 6 nodes and 3 J B per node 2 214 286 Section 15 Generic instrumentation 11 285 714 Section 16 Marine operation for generic instrumentation 1 857 143
TOTAL FOB Price 91 490 226
ESONIM Business Model• MS Excel based software tool• Allows user to input realistic capital and operating costs for their
observatory site• Allows user to profile schedule of node deployment• Different grant aid scenarios• Cost of Servicing debt (built-in function)• Compare required and potential revenue over lifetime of the
observatory• Generates balance sheet• Examine viability of the observatory over its lifetime
• Assists with lobbying for Observatory funds
ESONIM Model Screen Grab
Infrastructure Capital costs (indicative)Unit Quantity Rate (€) Total (€) VAT Rate Cap Allowance
Engineering & Project Mgt / System Acceptance & Commissioning 6,423,563 17.5% NBackbone Submarine Cable 12,802,552 17.5% YBackbone Wet Plant (Repeaters & Equalizers) 3,945,940 17.5% YBackbone Marine Operation (without survey) 10,096,297 17.5% YLand Cable, Civil Works & Shelter with energy 2,686,506 17.5% YShore Station Equipment 2,214,894 17.5% YTelecom Shore Station Equipment & Network Mgt System 1,297,057 17.5% YTraining & Documentation 224,652 17.5% Y
Wet Plant & Marine Operation from BU to TRF Sites 5 2,419,643.40 12,098,217 17.5% Y
Sub-total 51,789,678
Contingencies 15% 7,768,452 17.5% Y
Total 59,558,130
Infrastructure Capital Costs
Indicative cost ~ €60M
Node Deployment Costs
Deploy Date Depoly Year End Total (€) VAT Rate Cap AllowanceNode 1 (less than 3,500m water depth) 01-Dec-09 31-Dec-09 3,000,000 17.5% YNode 2 (less than 3,500m water depth) 01-Dec-09 31-Dec-09 3,000,000 17.5% YNode 3 (less than 3,500m water depth) 01-Dec-10 31-Dec-10 3,000,000 17.5% Y
Node 4 (less than 3,500m water depth) 01-Jun-11 31-Dec-11 3,000,000 17.5% Y
Node 5 (less than 3,500m water depth) 01-Dec-11 31-Dec-11 3,000,000 17.5% YNode 6 (more than 3,500m water depth) 01-Sep-12 31-Dec-12 5,000,000 17.5% YNode 7 (more than 3,500m water depth) 01-Dec-12 31-Dec-12 5,000,000 17.5% Y
Total 25,000,000
Days per Node Deployment 10Deployment Vessel cost per day (<3,500m) 25,000Deployment Vessel cost per day (>3,500m) 65,000Deployment Cost per Node (<3,500m) 250,000Deployment Cost per Node (>3,500m) 650,000
Node Deployment Costs
Indicative Cost €25M
Cost of finance (debt)Start of Construction Jan-08Period (mths) 24Construction Completed Dec-09
Initial Drawdown Payment 25%Payment on Completion 25%
Facility Arrangement Fee 1.00%Facility Commitment Fee 0.50%
Interest Rate 4.00%IDC Margin 1.00%
IDC Interest Rate 5.00%
Infrastructure Facility
Facility Arrangement Fee 1.00%Facility Commitment Fee 0.50%
Interest Rate 0.00%Deployment Phase Facility Margin 0.00%
Deployment Phase Interest Rate 0.00%
Facility Amount (€) - Infrastructure 3,505,438Facility Amount (€) - Deployment 1,187,272Rebate Period (mths) 3Arrangement Fee 1.00%Commitment Fee 0.25%VAT Facility Margin 0.50%VAT Facility Rate 4.50%
VAT Facility
Node Deployment Facility
Senior Debt % 30%Senior Debt Term (yrs) 20Term Beginning 31/12/2010Swap Rate 4.50%Bank Margin 1.50%Senior Interest Rate 6.00%
Minimum DSCR 1.15x
Grant Aid Payment - Infrastructure 31/12/2007
Senior Debt Facility
Capital Grant
Operating and Maintenance costs
Power Consumption:kW per Node 10Hours per year 8,760Load Factor 50%Cost per kWh (€) 0.10
Telecom: Waterville-Marine Institute (€) 100,000Rental from Marine Institute (€) 20,000Data Archiving & Retrieving (€) 100,000
Alcatel Helpdesk (€) 25,000 31/12/2013
Annual Maintenance Voyage - Backbone:Days at sea 10Cost per day (€) 65,000
Annual Maintenance Voyage - Nodes:Days at sea 10Cost per day (€) 25,000
Operating & Maintenance Costs
Scenario 1: 70% Grant Aid, 30% debt, Scientists fund instruments from project budgets
Required Revenue
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
€
Required Revenue to meet Debt ServiceRequired Revenue to meet O&M Costs
Required vs Potential Revenue
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
€
Required Revenue (Nominal) Potential Revenue (Nominal)
Potential Node Revenue Profile following Deployment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Scenario 2: 100% Grant Aid, No debt, CeltNet funds 30% of instrument costs
Required Revenue
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
€
Required Revenue to meet Debt ServiceRequired Revenue to meet O&M Costs
Required vs Potential Revenue
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
€
Required Revenue (Nominal) Potential Revenue (Nominal)
Potential Node Revenue Profile following Deployment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Legal WP addresses issues including:
•Structures•Procurement•Risk•Environmental and planning•Permits•Contracts•Warranty•IP•Etc..…and has generated legal template documents
National marine agencies and other partners
D+C Contractor Operator
Porcupine SPV
ESONIM Foundation
Marine Institute
Heads of Agreement
Shareholders Agreement(project–specific)
Appointment of Agent
Legal WP: Partnership Structure
Linkage to EU Initiatives: (Individual Implem. Plans)
• ESONIM model– Science/
stakeholders– Engineering design– Financial model– Legal/contracts
ESONET NoE Implementation Plans
– Mediterranean – Atlantic
(CeltNet)– Stand-alone
(acoustically linked site)
EMSO European
Marine Seas Observatory
Core Body
11 ESONET
SitesAvailable September 2007 2007-20082008-2012
Final Thoughts
• ESONET Science and Societal Case Proven• Engineering Solutions available• Significant Europe wide co-operation• Time for incremental step – development of
robust business case and push for national and Commission funding to roll out infrastructure
Thank You
Thank you
Partners
European Commission - particularly Alan Edwards and Witold Cieslikiewicz
Many others who have advised and helped with particular thanks to Chris Barnes, Peter Phibbs and the Neptune Team