I had the opportunity to join the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC)‘s APAC Offshore Wind & Green Hydrogen Summit. I’m going to share with you some industry context, a 101 on offshore for beginners, a deep dive into the Financing Offshore Wind Session, and mix it in with a bit of creative love for the enormity of the oceans, human engineering and endeavour.
Before we get going, you may want to begin with the 2023 Global Offshore Wind Report, launched at the summit. It’s excellent, click here for it.
Offshore Wind 101
It’s a thing in Europe, the first offshore wind farm was built in Vindeby, Denmark in 1991, though to quote TGS 4C Offshore;
“.. Australia has 56 offshore wind farm projects of which none currently operating, none where construction has progressed enough to connect the turbines and generate electricity, none are in the build phase, and none are either consented or have applied for consent.” – 1 Jan 2023
So not so much down under, yet!
In some ways being at the conference felt like the early days of solar with AMTIL and Manufacturing Week a decade ago, except because it costs billions of dollars to set up an offshore wind farm, and takes an entire muti-national supply chain, this wasn’t so much small booths with innovative ‘maybe’ technologies, and more so enthusiastic and hardened industry professionals.
They were representing massive European firms such as Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, Iberdrola, Shell (.. Royal Dutch, if you go back a few years), and then locally, Macquarie Group and Corio Generation, which is the Macquarie Green Investment Group’s play at creating ‘one of the world’s largest specialist offshore wind developers’.
A number of other windfarm developers and supply chain providers were on the scene including Parkwind, Saitec Offshore Technologies, Hengtong Group, DNV, ERM and the HunterNet Co-operative.
I’m working to reduce 3LA/4LA’s in my writing (three and four-letter acronyms), so check out this handy ‘Glossary Guide to an Offshore Windfarm’.
Go big or go home
The thing about the ocean is it’s extraordinarily vast, powerful and in many ways, untamed (.. aside from overfishing it, we’ve done a great job at that).
And when it comes to offshore wind, we’ve got an extremely mature oil and gas industry that can take what they know, and put turbines on them!
And those turbines are huge, and often subject to “an arms race to increase size, whilst their production lines on previous model don’t get fully realised, and then manufacturing issues creep in” as it was quoted to me in the exhibition hall.
Have a look;
And here Goldwind recently install the world’s first 16MW Offshore Turbine –
As GE put it relatively succinctly in the video below, the considerations of a turbine, or a field of turbines, relate to the GWh (gigawatt hours) they can generate annually, the overall AEP (annual energy production) relative to other choices, Balance of Plant (BoP) costs, which is a power engineering term referring to all of the supporting components and auxiliary systems required to deliver energy – like the cable from the windfarms to the shore – Capital and Operational Expenditure (CapEX, OpEx), Installation and Time at Sea costs for maintenance..
Whilst ‘go big or go home’ is sometimes a useful philosophy, considerations like bigger turbines being further offshore and requiring longer to get to for maintenance, having floating accommodation with the farms so crews stay offshore for extended durations, the manufacturing and consistent retooling of production environments to build bigger scale are all considerations, and on it goes –
“German renewable energy developer BayWa has unveiled plans to use massive 20MW turbines in what it says will be the world’s first subsidy-free floating offshore wind project off the coast of Portugal…” – RenewEconomy, October 22
Other considerations include all the things to do with permitting, not least of which is application times which can be several years, and that permits require the stipulation of the intended energy generation so that modelling for connection to the grid can be undertaken and what that increased output will mean.
If it takes up to 9 years to get your permit (a figure quoted to me), your technology is out of date.
Then you’ve got environmental impacts, biodiversity loss and Nature implications, particularly with a growing awareness of things such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, which I discussed in detail last month, mainly related to the new ISSB IFRS standards with the Head of Climate Risk for the United Nations, David Carlin, presented here as a somewhat aside;
And if you haven’t considered the challenges of marine environments, this video gets a regular run when it comes to ‘wow the ocean’ – imagine this with a giant fan on top in the case of floating off-shore production;
It’s the Borgholm Dolphin Installation, around 230 kilometres east of Aberdeen in the North Sea.
I’ve also been a fan of watching footage from ships moving through the Drake Passage for years on YouTube, which is the shortest route to Antarctica, running between South America’s Cape Horn in Chile, to the South Shetland Islands.
The drake passage? Definately not the ideal place for a wind farm, though where would you put one, ideally, in Australia? For that we turn to Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy;
The Hon. Chris Bowen MP, Victoria & Australia
“Twelve months ago we announced the first steps in creating a new renewable energy industry, with the announcement of six proposed regions with world-class offshore wind energy potential.
I have declared the first two zones. Gippsland and Hunter.
We’ve begun consultation on the next two zones – Illawarra and the Southern Ocean region. And today, I’m pleased to announce the next steps.
Firstly – the Bass Strait region, off the Tasmanian Coast.
Consultation for this region will start at the beginning of October. Secondly, the Perth/Bunbury region off the coast of Western Australia.
***
I’m providing this roadmap today because I know it will give the industry certainty about the immediate path ahead.
It will also give visibility to communities about the conversations coming up…”
Q. What does this consultation look like? How will they determine who gets to put what, where? How will licensing work? How do they determine which of the several, massive developers will get to participate in some, most or all of it?
Interesting times!
Thanks to BlueFloat Energy Australia for the following two graphics;
This was backed by the announcement by the Global Offshore Wind Alliance (GOWA), an alliance of Denmark, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the GWEC, that the State of Victoria was joining as its first sub-national member.
CEO of the GWEC, Ben Backwell, Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources, Lily D’Ambrosio MP and the Danish Ambassador to Australia, Pernille Dahler Kardel.
“.. Australia represents the second-biggest offshore wind pipeline in the Asia-Pacific region, behind only China, with 50 GW planned. The State of Victoria has been clear with its ambitions targets of at least 2 GW by 2032, a total of 4 GW by 2035, and reaching 9 GW of offshore capacity by 2040 – and the support and resources from other markets and key industry groups that GOWA can provide will be crucial to these goals being met..”
This fits into a broad and compelling narrative about the massive national Australian transition that is underway, known as ‘Rewiring the nation’ –
“.. Rewiring the Nation is our program to make clean energy more accessible and affordable across Australia. This program is investing $20 billion to modernise our electricity grid and infrastructure. This is a centrepiece of the Australian Government’s Powering Australia plan. Together, these will lower power prices and provide renewable energy across the nation.
Many of Australia’s energy assets, like power stations, are ageing. That’s why we need to invest in essential upgrades and new projects to ensure we have a reliable power supply..”
Financing Offshore Wind in Australia
I only had one day at the conference and particularly chose this session to detail.
It was mentioned to me in the exhibition that “Ultimately finance is the lever by which all of this succeeds or fails” and I couldn’t agree more, particularly in my work as a strategic consultant to investment firms, where I work with Executive Teams and Boards to define, articulate and then document stakeholders throughout the project decision cycle, so we can make change happen, at scale!
Moderated by Mark Hutchinson, and working to the left we have Melissa Keane, Partner at Allens, Iain Melhuish, Head of Debt Capital Markets for Macquarie Group, Kimberly Cram M.B.E., Co-Founder of KIMAenergy, Thomas Wibe Poulsen, Partner at Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Daniel Nugent, Head of Portfolio Development at EnergyAustralia and Patrick Gjelstrup Rosenquist, Senior Vice-President at EKF Denmark’s Export Credit Agency.
The following notes are interpreted and not word-for-word direct quotations
Patrick Rosenquist:
There are a lot of experiences from Europe that we have to draw on in the market. There’s a buildup of a stable and clear pathway:
What kind of projects are we looking into? What scale are we venturing into? What kind of offtake are you getting? What kind of grid connections are you securing?
The clarity that Europe has been providing in different markets has led the way for offshore wind expansion in Europe.
And now, recently, we’ve seen Taiwan doing something similar with a clear tariff structure that’s enabled them to get the local supply chain going.
And I guess that’s the key point, and it will be a recurring topic on this panel: that clarity of feed-in tariff systems and supply chain is really what’s created the market offshore in other regions.
Daniel Nugent:
When we look in the Australian context, it’s really important to consider the options and the off-take structure. It’s vital to examine lessons learned from overseas and what we can apply to Australia.
Clearly, these projects need to be project-financed and require very stable revenue to deliver the lowest cost of capital. Ensuring that we get the balance of the allocation through those revenue structures is key.
There is the need to be credit-worthy, but there should also be an appropriate risk allocation to customers, retailers, or the government that enables the projects to reach financial close.
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
Looking at what’s been said already, clarity and visibility from the market to developers to the supply chain are vital. Everyone needs to understand risks and get started.
There’s a need for milestones: by this date, you can participate in these auctions, by this date we want you to have first power. It’s essential to see progress and a clear path through all steps.
As an aside at this point, I quote Angela Macdonald-Smith, Senior resources writer in the Financial Review, August 21st;
EnergyAustralia has joined the ranks of major electricity suppliers seeking to elbow into the country’s offshore wind sector, taking a stake in a project proposed off the coast of Victoria that could replace ageing coal generators.
The country’s third-biggest electricity and gas retailer is one of five partners in the Elanora Offshore venture, which wants to develop a five-gigawatt wind project off the Gippsland coast – Australia’s first declared offshore wind zone – that could cost as much as $25 billion when fully developed.
Importantly, the consortium includes major offshore wind contractor Boskalis, which owns a fleet of over 650 specialist vessels and which would help the venture overcome what are expected to be significant challenges for the nascent industry to source the materials and resources required.
I add that because our next speaker Kimberly Cram, is part of the Elanora Offshore consortium with Energy Australia.
Kimberly Cram:
My background includes developing projects in the UK and Thailand for the last six years. One consistent factor across European, American, and APAC markets is the need for consistency, whether that’s in the framework or the supply chain. The viability of the market hinges on fundamental aspects.
Do we have sound policy? Australia has been doing a good job of providing visibility on the framework. Beyond that, the question is how attractive the market is.
I believe Australia is incredibly appealing, especially from a financing perspective. There are many lenders here who have yet to venture into offshore wind in Australia but have been very active in Europe. Hence, there’s already knowledge of the markets and what it takes to deliver successful projects.
However, there’s also an awareness of challenges, such as projects that get operational but then face curtailments. There are challenges with offshore wind, say in Thailand, where projects have experienced delays. There are numerous lessons to learn.
If we’re looking at expertise and the skills required for offshore wind projects, there’s still a gap in Australia, but we aim to bridge that with local expertise. It’s great that we’re having this discussion now, considering aspects like financing, risk applications, and supplier selection.
Iain Melhuish:
From a financing perspective, risk allocation is critical. Many offshore projects perhaps haven’t fully grasped all risks. It’s essential to ensure all risks are understood and allocated appropriately to provide clarity and safety. It’s crucial to ensure that the financing markets can support these projects.
Mel Keane:
One thing I’ve learned, even over the last couple of days, is that consultation is key. Proper forums for discussions are vital. Bringing financiers in early, not just developers, to determine what’s needed is crucial to getting projects off the ground.
Mark Hutchinson (Moderator):
Earlier, we discussed state support. It’s hard to imagine offshore wind thriving in Australia without state support. Most global markets start with some state support. Can we discuss what that looks like, how long it should last, and how it should evolve as the market matures and costs reduce?
Mel Keane:
Jonathan Cole captured it well yesterday: timing is everything. Victoria’s recognition of the need for state support has been promising, especially with the anticipated implementation statement three later this year. Yet, transparency throughout the process is vital.
In New South Wales, the challenge for the Hunter applicants is the lack of visibility on state support. Clarity on offers ensures people can devise effective market strategies without unnecessary complications.
Iain Melhuish:
Providing that support is essential, especially in the beginning, to ensure a financial proposition.
We’re about to get technical on CfDs aka Contract for Difference – you can read about them via the Low Carbon Contracts UK website or watch this video;
Kimberly Cram:
In the early days of offshore wind in the UK, we transitioned from a “Field of Dreams” tariff – Those who recall will remember that once your project was built, you received a nice tariff. Then came the CFD, which initially seemed attractive.
However, soon it became clear there was an auction process attached, which I believe surprised many of us in 2014. This also impacted some very credible projects. But now that we’ve adjusted to this regime, it’s crucial to have clarity about its parameters and timing. Going in too early without thorough due diligence can be problematic.
How well have you explored the market? Do you understand your costs? Have you engaged with lenders to grasp your capital costs?
If you’re constructing something like a CfD without a solid business case, it’s challenging to ascertain your position. But if you delay too long, advancing the project’s development becomes difficult. If you’re investing hundreds of millions, you want assurance that it’s worthwhile. So, discussing a potential CfD is okay as long as we’re clear about its timing and criteria, allowing us to plan accordingly.
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
The CfD structure is apt for such products. Looking at the most mature offshore market, the UK, they employ a CfD mechanism. Even though they’re the most advanced market, they continue using CfD to realise their projects for various reasons. Relying solely on other models might risk projects not materialising.
So the central question is whether the main goal is to bring these projects to fruition or simply to provide developers with options. Some recent cases in Europe raise questions about the viability of certain projects.
Daniel Nugent:
The role of state and government support depends on the project phase. During the developmental phase, the government’s role is pivotal in granting approvals and licenses. When the execution phase begins, the industry evolves.
The initial projects might be pricier with more uncertainties and execution risks. So there might be a need for some state or government support to manage these risks.
But when we discuss revenue and support, it’s essential not to shift all the risks to the government, which ultimately means the taxpayers. Retailers and customers have roles to play. Collaborating with our vast customer base to present an appealing proposition that mitigates risks is crucial.
With customer needs in mind and some backend government support, we believe we’ve found a model that provides project certainty.
Patrick Rosenquist:
Adding to the initial question about the duration of state support, some technologies need support until they become competitive. This was the case with wind and solar technologies.
Today, onshore wind and solar are among the most competitive resources in Australia. This achievement shows how renewables now strongly support the country’s energy mix.
Offshore wind needs similar state support until it establishes itself as an independent, low-cost electricity generation sector. Building a supply chain takes time. Europe has been at it since 1992, and now they have a mature offshore sector.
If Australia is to succeed, it needs a long-term vision to support the industry until it becomes self-sufficient.
Mark Hutchinson:
A question from the audience: How can financing for offshore wind learn from onshore renewables, and what are the primary differences observed between offshore and onshore practices?
Considering the significant penetration of onshore wind and solar in an area with a relatively small load spread over a vast area, especially when compared to Europe or North America, and the limited number of players, are there lessons from onshore that apply to offshore?
Iain Melhuish:
The capital market is familiar with the EPC* wrap for contracts in onshore, which is simpler with one entity managing all risks. This is not the case for offshore.
Mark Hutchinson:
Could you elaborate on the difference between the two?
Iain Melhuish:
Certainly. For onshore, typically one entity manages everything. For offshore, multiple entities are involved, creating interfaces between them. Understanding this difference will be a challenge for the financing markets here.
*EPC = Engineering, Procurement and Construction, as Mark says above, under a “full wrap” or “turnkey” model, the EPC contractor will fully provide all the detailed engineering designs of the project, procure all the equipment and materials necessary for the project, and then construct and deliver a functioning facility to their client.
Kimberly Cram:
In my view, while technology is a factor, the fundamentals of delivering and funding a project remain the same.
Offshore wind is more complex, but if we focus on core aspects such as a proper framework, understanding the energy mix, market routes, and grid infrastructure, we can find solutions. One of the main challenges is that onshore wind projects have faced significant tailoring, which influences risk assessment and lenders’ confidence in getting repaid.
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
One more thing about multi-contracting versus the EPC: offshore hasn’t seen an entity that can manage all risks because it would be prohibitively expensive. It’s essential to know that risks remain regardless of wrapping. Banks should focus on who delivers the projects and manages the interfaces between contracts.
Patrick Rosenquist:
Another difference between onshore and offshore wind is the sheer size. Offshore wind projects are larger, demanding more clarity on the revenue stream. This often means that offshore wind projects are financed with full project finance for their entire lifespan, whereas onshore projects in Australia typically involve refinancing after a few years.
Mark Hutchinson:
Another question revolves around supply chain challenges faced by suppliers, especially when most of their costs are in US dollars. Over the last few years, they’ve suffered significantly due to supply chain disruptions, logistical challenges, and price fluctuations between quoting and delivery.
Now, they’re pushing these risks onto the developers.
Given that the offtake is in Aussie dollars and the capital cost of much of the equipment is in US dollars, how do you envision these initial projects will be structured, especially concerning foreign exchange risk hedging?
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
Well, as a developer, you bear the FX exposure all the way to financial close. But you also have commodity exposures, which are a significant part of your development clarity. It’s essential to understand what you’re committing to.
Hedging is typically used, mainly because lenders require it and sponsors seek it. All the CapEx will be hedged into the currency of the opex. Historically, we’ve engaged with hedging instruments well in advance of financial close to ensure certainty.
Kimberly Cram:
To add to that, a significant portion of the cost originates from the supply chain. The source of manufacturing matters. Typically, you’re dealing with a mix of Euro, USD, or other currencies. Local content also plays a role. For instance, the Taiwanese government aims for 60% local content. This approach can inflate costs—sometimes by up to 300%—due to guaranteed work for local suppliers.
Additionally, by mandating local content, you restrict choices, further impacting debt costs. If you cannot work with Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) from Korea, Japan, or Europe, it becomes even more challenging.
Daniel Nugent:
I believe government support is crucial. Governments stand to benefit from decarbonization, job creation, and content. They should assist in managing these risks. If there’s a genuine desire from governments, they should consider mechanisms to address these challenges, especially since transitioning from initial bid pricing to actual project implementation can be tough.
Kimberly Cram:
Reflecting on the UK and Taiwan, the UK’s CfD indexation plays a vital role. In contrast, Taiwan’s initial PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) lacked indexation. Things have evolved. Many now believe that indexing should be incorporated into corporate PPAs. We can learn from various markets and adapt accordingly.
Daniel Nugent:
Importantly, it’s not viable for developers to price in all risks from the outset. It boils down to proper risk allocation from development through investment decisions and construction.
Mark Hutchinson:
Since this is the offshore wind and green hydrogen summit, I have to ask:
Do any of you believe that hydrogen will play a significant role as an offtake for offshore wind projects in the next decade?
Patrick Rosenquist:
Not in Australia, but possibly in Europe. Due to electricity oversupply at certain times, Europe might be a perfect match for green hydrogen.
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
I agree. In North Europe, during periods of low prices, hydrogen production makes sense. Although immediate implementation is unlikely, these considerations are mature in the North European market.
Mark Hutchinson:
Does anyone have views on the state support differences between fixed and floating infrastructures, and should that dictate the delivery priorities for supporting systems like the grid?
Thomas Wibe Poulsen:
Floating technology will be crucial for offshore wind in many markets. However, in Australia, it might not be the first choice. Floating tech is maturing, but fixed should be prioritized in Australia due to numerous suitable sites.
Mel Keane:
Australia’s federal system makes it unique compared to parts of Europe. Here, state support happens at the state level. For instance, the Gippsland area will predominantly support fixed bottom structures.
New South Wales might lean towards floating, which might necessitate higher state support due to the industry’s nascency. One topic of interest is whether floating technology eases vessel supply chain challenges compared to fixed bottom structures.
Kimberly Cram:
The logistics are a work in progress. Transitioning from 2,000-tonne steel jackets to 4,000-tonne fixed structures significantly impacts costs. A consolidated foundation design approach would drive down costs. Rapid adjustments in grid infrastructure and ports are essential. Although floating tech might lessen vessel constraints, challenges persist, especially with current vessel availability.
Daniel Nugent:
I would add that the value of a megawatt-hour produced on a fixed versus a floating system is essentially the same.
So, when considering which should be prioritized first, it’s entirely logical that fixed bottom receives the priority. This is evident with Gippsland being granted the first feasibility license.
Clearly, the industry will develop and evolve, but it’s prudent to first work with technology that offers cost advantages.
Patrick Rosenquist:
We participated in financing our first floating wind project in France, known as the EFGL project. One key takeaway from that project reinforces Thomas’s point: the supply chain requirements remain consistent, with some additional components for floating technologies.
Before Australia establishes a local supply chain for aspects like sensor stations and grids, you must consider the supplementary needs for floating projects, which introduce added costs and requirements.
Mark Hutchinson:
There’s mention of C&I (Commercial and Industrial) customers. In Europe, there’s a significant shift towards offshore wind feeding into corporate PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements). Would this be applicable here? I’m aware that onshore solar wind projects often rely on corporate PPAs. Will this be relevant in Australia soon, or is it a long-term consideration for off-take financing?
Daniel Nugent:
Regarding that, there’s been an evolution in the onshore space in Australia. However, when discussing C&I customers, especially in Australia, we must consider the duration they’re willing to contract. The C&I market here typically looks at five to ten-year terms.
When financing these projects, there’s a need for greater certainty beyond just five to ten years. That’s where companies like EnergyAustralia could step in, bridging the gap between mass market and C&I customers to ensure longer-term deals, perhaps with some government support. While they could play a direct role, the challenge with C&I customers concerning project finance will be the term lengths they’re ready to commit to.
Iain Melhuish:
If we’re talking about corporates engaging in corporate PPAs, many of the earlier agreements sought diversity in supply. For one of the options, a significant part of a company’s energy needs would have to depend on a single project, which is risky. With the onshore market, large utilities took these initial risks due to their diverse generation assets.
However, for a corporate entity to depend on 75% of their energy from one project is a precarious position.
It might take some time, possibly when there’s a decline in government support, for larger corporations to see the viability of such ventures. This is especially true given several offshore projects have experienced delays, causing uncertainties around power delivery.
Kimberly Cram:
In my opinion, a blend of merchant and CFD (Contract for Difference) PPAs will be essential. However, discovering the perfect blend of factors to entice a good off-taker is challenging.
A potential off-taker would need consistent capacity, desire it round-the-clock, and expect competitive pricing, among other considerations. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company serves as a notable example, though finding such a combination will be crucial.
Mark Hutchinson:
To Kimberly’s point, TSMC in Taiwan represents the world’s largest corporate PPA.
They draw 920 megawatts from a single project, financing the entire endeavour. Yet, they don’t require round-the-clock energy. If 24/7 energy were a necessity, the situation would be considerably more complex.
Closing out the session, Mark put it to the panel;
Q. When will we see our first Financial Investment Decision in Australia?
2028..
2027..
Given that we haven’t gone through consenting yet which will take 3 years, and two years beyond that to close, so five years, yeah 2028..
2028 to 30..
So there you have it folks. Lots to do. If you look back to the 2023 Global Offshore Wind Report that I mentioned at the start of this article, you’ll see we have 380 GW of offshore capacity predicted to come online in 32 markets in the next 20 years, with 200 of those Gigawatts in China.
Additionally, supply chain bottlenecks are predicted in the next few years in every region except China, which holds the majority of that supply chain!
And the real kicker, how does Australia attract the companies, talent and developers necessary in a constrained market, going up against the American Inflation Reduction Act?
Whatever happens, “Beyond all things is the sea” – Seneca 🙂
The Women of OffShore Wind (WOW)
A shout out to Mary Barry, who won the Innovation in Energy Transition Business Award for 2023, and is the Founding Director of the recently established Women of Offshore Wind.
“.. Whether your background is in engineering, environmental science, business and commerce professional, project and stakeholder management, finance or any other part of the industry, WOW brings together a diverse network of trailblazers, innovators, and visionaries who are shaping the future of offshore wind..”
– https://womenofoffshorewind.com.au/
I’m a huge fan of similar organisations, having previously worked with Hacia Atherton, CPA and Empowered Women In Trades (EWIT) Group, interviewed and promoted with International Chamber House and Global Victoria around International Women’s Day events, and generally being inspired by the work of Marita Cheng AM and Robogals Global.
It takes a village
A big thanks to everyone at the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), I didn’t meet the whole team though I got to have lunch with Mark Hutchinson, see Alex Bath cranking the comms through and Feng Zhao and Rikke Gørup Povlsen ensuring everything was on the move!
I hope you enjoyed this dip into Offshore Wind!
If you’re a business in the industry and don’t have your stakeholder and investor engagement strategy rock solid, ensuring the successful delivery of your business strategy, consider taking 5 minutes to figure out your next steps using my free Investor Trust Score:
Lastly (being as this is my weekly newsletter, don’t forget to subscribe) on Monday my fiancé Nicole Stewart announced her Free 14 Day Guided Meditation Journey for Ambitious Women that we’re producing together.
Click to read more about the 14-day Guided Meditation Journey 🙂
Thanks for liking, commenting and sharing, it not only keeps me inspired to bring you more writeups like this, it makes the internet robots take notice and spread the word!
