I've said repeatedly that offshore wind should be done by State owned companies under a long range coherent plan with the corresponding industrial policy.

'State-owned company' might IMHO better be a partnership with State participation, but the rest is self evident, and none of it anything to do with my point.

Jerome a Paris:

That will not eliminate the technical complexity of the industry and the need to understand and allocate the underlying risks properly.

Agreed. But that was not my point. My point is that a partnership framework is probably an optimal way of allocating risks, which is why they are emerging in use. Upon the subject of risk, having been a director of a global exchange and for many years closely involved with the complexities of cross-border international clearing and settlement, I think I have some understanding.

Jerome a Paris:

Project finance bankers and associated parasites have brought discipline to projects on that front, but whatever

When have I ever said otherwise? I have never objected to bankers or professionals who add value and I certainly would not criticise rewards commensurate with skills and experience.

The more complex and difficult it is to bring these transactions together, the fewer the people capable of them; the more valuable their skills; and the more in demand they will be.

Would a simpler contractual framework be in their interests? Good question, and I suspect the answer is a trade off between financial reward and quality of life.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson