MARIBE Pitch Deck Teardown: Analyzing Multi-Use Platforms

Introduction and Project Scope

Slides 1-3: The Horizon 2020 Framework

The presentation opens by identifying MARIBE (Marine Investment for the Blue Economy) as a Coordination and Support Action Project under the European Union's Horizon 2020 programme. Slide 1 introduces Mike Blanch of BVG Associates as the lead on financial modelling. The core thesis is presented as a question: "Can Combining with Other Blue Sectors Further Reduce Offshore Wind's LCOE?"

Slide 3 clarifies the project's administrative status, noting it falls under "Societal Challenges BG 5: Preparing for the future innovative offshore economy." It explicitly states that the findings are intended to inform future EU Commission funding calls. The project timeline is noted to end in August 2016, placing this deck as a late-stage summary of research outcomes rather than a preliminary proposal.

Strategic Combinations

Slides 5-7: Defining MUS and MUP

Slide 5 distinguishes between two types of integration: Multiple-use of space (MUS) and Multi-use platforms (MUP). MUS involves separate structures sharing a geographical area, such as mussel farming within the Dutch windpark Borssele tender. MUP refers to integrated structures, such as JJ Campbell’s wind and wave platform or EcoWindWater’s wind and desalination platform.

Slide 7 provides geographic context, displaying maps of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Baltic, and Caribbean regions. The maps include depth ranges (0m to -200m+), which are critical for determining whether fixed-bottom or floating offshore wind technology is applicable. This slide establishes the global ambitions of the research, looking beyond European waters to the Caribbean.

Methodology and Stakeholder Engagement

Slides 9-13: The Selection Process

Slide 9 outlines the approach, which involved identifying companies with "most promise," developing financial models, business plans, and risk assessments. This indicates that while MARIBE is a research project, it utilized private-sector business planning tools to evaluate viability. Slide 11, marked with a large "DONE!" stamp, notes that 22 combinations were initially identified and narrowed down to 9 based on technological, environmental, socio-economic, financial, and commercial viability criteria.

Slide 13 lists the members of the advisory panel for sessions held in June 2016. The list is prestigious, including the International Energy Agency, the Scottish Investment Bank, DNB Norway, Ernst & Young, and The Crown Estate. This level of institutional involvement lends significant weight to the project's findings and suggests that the resulting business cases were vetted by industry experts.

Project Deep Dives

Slides 15-19: Mussel Farming and Fixed Wind

Slide 15 details the "Next Steps" following the advisory sessions, including sharpening financial models for pilots and compiling a final report by the end of August 2016. Slide 17 visualizes the 9 potential projects, grouping them by sea basin. For example, Wave + Aquaculture is slated for the Mediterranean, while Aquaculture + Fixed Offshore Wind is targeted at the Baltic and North Sea.

Slide 19 focuses on Project 1: Mussel farming and offshore wind. It highlights a feasibility study for the Dutch Borssele wind farm. The technical setup involves "double long lines" attached to anchors, allowing turbine access between separate structures. The annual production target is cited as 5.5 million kg of mussel seed. This is a clear example of MUS (Multi-use space) where the primary synergy is the efficient use of the seabed.

Slides 21-23: The CúNaMara Wind and Wave Platform

Slide 21 introduces the CúNaMara platform by JJ Campbell & Associates. This MUP combines 8 MW of wind power with 16 MW of wave energy. The expected output is 77.5 GWh per annum, which the slide equates to the consumption of 21,000 typical homes. Slide 23 provides the economic reality check: a predicted LCOE of 178 €/MWh for a 480 MW commercial farm. The slide admits this is currently too high, highlighting the gap between current technical feasibility and commercial competitiveness.

Slides 25-29: Floating Wind, Wave, and Desalination

Slide 25 illustrates a floating offshore wind and wave combination (P80). The design uses a semi-submersible platform based on oil and gas components. It is designed for water depths exceeding 45 meters. The integration is high, with all components placed indoors on a single platform that passively turns into the primary wave direction to maximize power capture.

Slides 27 and 29 cover the EcoWind Water project, which combines floating wind with desalination. A 35 kW prototype is shown in Slide 27. The strategic focus here is on islands that currently rely on delivered potable water and face salinisation risks. The roadmap includes a 0.8 MW pilot followed by a 2 MW commercial unit. This represents a niche market where the high cost of energy might be offset by the even higher cost of water scarcity.

Economic Synergies and Shortlisted Projects

Slides 31-35: Synergies and Conclusion

Slide 31 discusses the combination of aquaculture and floating offshore wind. It claims a 10% increase in economic performance for the fish farm due to O&M (Operations and Maintenance) synergies. Other benefits include CCTV security to prevent robbery and the "green" image boost for the project. This slide is one of the few to offer a specific percentage for economic improvement.

Slide 33 lists other shortlisted combinations, such as a "Security Port" in Ireland involving LNG and wave energy, and a multi-use terminal in French Guiana for shipping, oil and gas logistics, and aquaculture. The deck concludes on Slide 35 with contact information for Mike Blanch and links to the MARIBE website and social media. There is no "Ask" slide, as the project is grant-funded and its primary output is information and strategic recommendations.

What Works and What is Missing

What Works: The deck is exceptionally strong on technical feasibility and geographic specificity. By categorizing projects into MUS and MUP, it provides a clear framework for understanding how different marine sectors can interact. The inclusion of the advisory panel (Slide 13) provides high credibility, showing that the models were not created in a vacuum but were reviewed by major financial and energy institutions. The use of specific LCOE projections (Slide 23) and production targets (Slide 19) provides the kind of hard data that energy investors require.

What is Missing: As a research report, the deck lacks the urgency and salesmanship of a startup pitch. There is no discussion of the competitive landscape for these specific MUP designs versus traditional standalone offshore wind. While it mentions O&M synergies, it does not provide a detailed breakdown of the CAPEX savings achieved by sharing a platform. Most importantly, it lacks a clear path to commercialization for the technologies that currently have an LCOE of 178 €/MWh—acknowledging the cost is high is good, but a slide detailing the specific levers to bring that cost down to market rates (e.g., ~50-70 €/MWh) is absent.

Founder Lessons

Founders in the deep-tech or renewable energy space can learn from MARIBE's approach to geographic validation . Instead of claiming their technology works everywhere, MARIBE mapped specific combinations to the basins where they make the most sense (Slide 17). This shows a sophisticated understanding of environmental and regulatory constraints.

Another lesson is the transparency regarding LCOE . Founders often try to hide high early-stage costs. MARIBE’s willingness to state a high LCOE while identifying it as a challenge to be solved (Slide 23) builds more trust with sophisticated energy investors than unrealistic, overly optimistic projections. Finally, the concept of O&M synergies (Slide 31) is a powerful value proposition. Founders should always look for ways their product reduces the operational burden of the existing infrastructure it attaches to, as this is often a more immediate win than long-term energy production increases.