UKC

ww.thetimes.co.uk/article/artificial-island-to-power-europe-g8vfgwn3f

Another failed EU project in the making

In reply to icnoble:

So according to the article, building an island in the middle of the North Sea to support green energy for 80 million people will cost less than 40 miles of new motorway.
Sounds like something worth trying to me.

In reply to stevieb:


I have a great bridge you may like to purchase!!

In reply to Big Ger:


It's not a daft plan at all, just the way the UK press wants to write about anything to do with the EU. They want to make a small artificial island on top of Dogger Bank as a service base for wind farms which are planned for the North Sea. Same thing as the Chinese are doing on reefs in the Pacific but on a smaller scale.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yes you do the sensible thing, 40 miles of road for your billion, dream big

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I didn't say it was a daft plan, did I?

I just think that anyone who believes a massive undertaking like this will come in on budget is dreaming.

"The Court of Auditors, the official body which inspects the EU’s finances, has raised concerns about the spending of structural funds. In the summer it published a critical report into the £54 billion spent on road building schemes across the EU since 2000. The court concluded that “insufficient attention was paid to ensuring cost-effectiveness of the projects”. It found that motorways were being built where regular “express” roads would have sufficed.
Out of 24 road schemes audited, only seven were built at the original contract price. In almost half, the costs overran by at least a fifth."

In reply to Big Ger:
I know, Imagine having people like the dutch involved. What history and experience do they have with reclaimed land. It beggars belief really...


Those idiots in the EU. They have no idea how to manage a project of this scale. http://www.portfinanceinternational.com/categories/finance-deals/item/872-m...

In reply to icnoble:

I couldn't see anything in the article you (mis)linked or in the Independant article to say that this was an EU project.

Energy companies are forming a consortium, presumably to raise capital as much as anything. I imagine it'll be commercial loans etc., perhaps they'll try and get a grant from the EU as well.

I wonder what the law is like on archeology when building on what is now a maritime environment? The costs must be prohibitively expensive.

In reply to icnoble:


I don't get it, why and in what way do you think this will fail?
jk

In reply to icnoble:


Which others were you thinking of?

Only this weekend I was noticing at the recently repaired dry stone walls and restored mill buildings supported by the EU we have locally.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Who said anything about the Dutch?

But to illustrate their "financial competence" you link to an article in which they over budgeted by €150 million, that is quite a hoot.

In reply to Big Ger:

Coming in under budget is a bad thing?

In reply to thomasadixon:

It depends on your perspective and the contract terms, if a consultant comes in under the proposed budget on an emerging price contract it means there is a smaller amount of profit than forecast, however if the job is fixed price they're in the money, not sure how the contract terms are typically negotiated for big construction projects.

In reply to spenser:

You'd expect a fixed price to be used for something well scoped and a known entity, so a one-off extension to a port doesn't sound like that. In the UK you'd more likely see an agreed target cost contract (NEC3 Option C or similar), with the unspent target cost and remaining contingency at the end of the project being split between client and contractor, probably modified by KPIs for safety, timeliness, innovation etc. Not using *any* of the contingency says to me that they weren't only good, but also got quite lucky. I imagine they threw a party after that one.