Offshore Wind Round 3: On your marks… Get set…

The allocation of the Crown Estate’s Round 3 zones is nearly upon us.

After what seems like a life-time of anticipation, the commercial negotiations are now going on between the Crown Estate and the wind energy consortiums, to finalise the allocation of offshore zones in Round 3 of the UK’s offshore development. I have spoken to a number of contacts in the industry this week, who confirmed that things are very close to kicking off. Now is the time to fasten your seatbelts, we are about to get very busy!

Massive demand for Development Skills.

Everyone to whom I speak acknowledges the fact that, should they be successful in securing a link in the supply chain towards delivering a new round of offshore wind, they will need to build their teams accordingly to make sure that they can deliver upon their commitments. From EIA specialists, to planning and consents analysts, and technical due diligence engineers, there is all of a sudden going to be a massive demand for talented individuals who can help to turn an allocated area of the sea into a massive power generating asset.

I was speaking to a specialist in Environmental Impact Assessments for Offshore Wind farms yesterday. He has been involved since Round 1 of offshore developments, and is known as one of the few real experts and heavy hitters in that arena. He is already very busy, and is anticipating his work load only to increase as time develops. Immediately the best of the best in this industry, those that have lived and breathed offshore wind already, are going to be seriously in demand.

How will you attract the best?

In a question of weeks and months, there are going to be up to 9 consortiums suddenly competing to secure the best teams in a short period of time. All of these groups of companies currently have key players already on board, but the development of a multi-MW wind farm demands significant resource and expertise. Employers, have you thought about how you are going to attract further players to your team? I’ve spoken to several people in the last few months who have claimed “we know who we want to hire already”, but have you considered that other people want to hire the same experts?

How will you create and implement a hiring strategy which allows you to identify quickly and efficiently the right people for your company, and then ensures that you are able to attract them without going through unnecessary to-ing or fro-ing, and most importantly without entering into a bidding frenzy?

How will you retain the best?

Have you also considered that other companies out there may have identified members of your existing team as the people they want to hire? How will you ensure that you retain your key players? Retention means ensuring that they are 100% comfortable where they are, and will not start to entertain your competitors’ flirtations of promotion, better benefits, more money, or increased responsibility?

Head-hunters are going to be all over this space. And whilst some of us do so with discretion, and with the best interests of all parties at heart (i.e. we have more values and ambition than just to make a quick buck), I warn you now that there are many who don’t.

You need to make sure that you have a strategy in place to hire the right people, and to retain the right people.

If you would like to discuss how you are going about this, please don’t hesitate to give me a call on 0845 241 4810 or email clare.buxton@ecosearchglobal.com.

By Clare Buxton

Wind Energy Sector Lead, EcoSearch

Follow @CEBUX on Twitter

Leadership For A Sustainable Future

This post is from a consultant placed by Debby Lloyd last year. It is our privilege to place “the best of the best” in the market. They then become the heart of influence on some of the most strategic and complex carbon management programmes in global industry today. Their insight into the challenges faced is unique. We are delighted to give them a platform for their personal views – which let’s face it in consulting can rarely be aired or discussed to maintain that fine line of objectivity on a project. So we cherish their input, give them a platform and respect their anonymity … but we know they welcome hearty debate so do comment!

With climate and sustainability scientists becoming increasingly gloomy, do we need to see more leadership and less haggling over policy detail in order to achieve a sustainable future?
The Climate Safety Report, written by the Public Interest Research Centre and released in November 2008, reviewed research published the IPCC’s report of October 2007 including:  

• 2008 was the year of minimum Arctic summer ice volume—70% below the 1979 volume. It is clear that that Arctic sea ice is disappearing much faster than the IPCC’s end of century prediction. Pen Hadow’s Catlin Survey, advised by EcoSearch and now underway, will provide the detailed data to measure permanent Arctic ice thickness. 
  
• As the Arctic melts, increased warming in surrounding regions will be seen up to 1500 km inland into area of continuous permafrost. This permafrost contains twice as much carbon as previously thought—double the amount currently in the atmosphere. The effect of this warming permafrost is not presently incorporated in any global climate models.
  
• Greenland’s 2007 melt was 60% greater than the next highest year of 1998.
  
• While the IPCC predicted sea level rise of 0.5m to 1.4m by 2100, James Hansen, of NASA, in taking long term feedback mechanisms into account, predicts a rise of 0.5m by 2050.
  

While the UK and the EU have certainly demonstrated leadership over the past years in setting policy and drivers to reduce carbon emissions, changes are implemented slowly, very slowly.
DEFRA recently announced that UK greenhouse gas emissions (2% of global emissions) had fallen by 1.7% from 2006 to 2007 and in total by 21.7% from 1990 to 2007 . Laudable indeed, but the UK Climate Change Committee recently set a 2020 target reduction of 34% or 42% if there is a global deal to cut emissions--almost doubling the average annual reductions the UK have achieved over the past 17 years.

In the EU, there seems to be a tendency to attempt to achieve consensus through endless consultation and in some cases, near-perfect standards and targets. Jonathan Porritt has been decried for raising the issue of population growth as the elephant in the room. Plans for a third runway at Heathrow have been approved. Leadership seems to falter.

Okay, so the UK could try harder, but at least the UK and the EU have been trying for the last 17 years. The Americans have a massive challenge, their greenhouse gas emissions (representing around 20% of global emissions) have risen by 16.7% from 1990 to 2007.  

So far, President Obama seems to be supporting two targets for the USA: cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, and an 80 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. While the second is in line with the UK’s targets, the first, while ambitious for America (and by the way, matching the annual reductions achieved by the UK over the past 17 years), doesn’t meet the expectations of the rest of a hopeful world placing enormous environmental expectations on the new President. Nonetheless, while the Americans are coming late to the party, watch out, EU. Americans have shown repeatedly throughout history that once they “get” a concept, their focus, drive, pragmatism and energy enables them to leap frog the slow, steady results achieved by others.  

And certainly, Obama has the charisma, persuasiveness and intelligence (in sum, leadership) to cut through the treacle, set ambitious targets and motivate the interests of his country and others to achieve them. Sometimes, it is about simplicity and not being distracted by too much detailed policy.  

And as the Climate Safety Report concludes, we need to convey a hopeful and viable future vision which is coherent and compelling. We need big asks. We must challenge political “realism”. We also must start the tough debates about population control and what sustainable consumption actually looks like. In short, we need leadership to achieve a sustainable future, and we must not be distracted by our short term commercial and political interests—even in tough times.

Image by nick_russill