about skybox offshore

In a market where the accelerated roll-out of offshore wind reveals supply chain constraints, our strategy is to enable all valuable players in the foundation value chain to concentrate on their core business.

Next to the challenge to accelerate, cost increases caused by raised cost of capital and increased capex levels due to the effects of inflation, combined with human resource constraints open up the window to choose for Skybox.  Converting from “made to measure” to a high quality “pret-a-porter” demands a new mindset for customers that are used to designing their access platform and related secondary steel from scratch each and every project.

The foundation capex savings compared to MP/TP and current TP-less designs are quantified. Please see attached cost sheet. The offshore saving is quantified by Heerema Offshore Services, have a look the reports below:

• Sif Group's Logistical Analysis Skybox;
• MP-TP - Skybox comparison 14-04-2022 Summary for HES P50
• MP-TP - Skybox comparison 14-04-2022 Summary for HES P90

The standard “blueprint” Skybox design is at the basis of every project. Next to manufacturability (by good accessibility for welding and NDT, whilst enabling robotic welding), the secondary steel is “designed to coat” whereby a DFT within a small bandwidth ensures no internal stresses in the coating system that might evolve in cracks in due time.

The boat landing is replaced by a GUS (Get Up Safe) system, enabling capex reduction and eliminating the HSE risks related to the CTV-boat landing transfer. With monopiles being deployes further out at sea, the main access platform is often raised to reduce the wave run-up loads. This results in ever longer ladder climbs when using a boat landing. GUS caters for a safe transfer at higher wind speeds compared to a boat landing transfer. Questions about GUS? Please have a look at their FAQ, GUS Gx2 Introduction, Introduction to Pict and GUS system.