Sharper judgement where wind resource evidence meets bankability.
OBRAVEN helps developers, investors, and advisory partners decide what to measure, what to trust in the evidence, and whether the revenue case will hold under bankability scrutiny.
Founder
Founded by Stan Herasymenko. 17+ years in wind energy across DNV and Mainstream Renewable Power – spanning measurement strategy, energy analysis, and technical-commercial advisory. At Mainstream, Stan led the Energy Analysis Group across a multi-GW wind and solar portfolio. His direct measurement experience covers 110+ met masts across 30+ countries, including floating LiDAR campaigns. OBRAVEN exists to bring that depth to decisions as an independent – free to focus on the proportionate scope the decision actually needs.
Core capabilities
- Wind resource measurement strategy and procurement support – onshore and offshore, including floating LiDAR
- Independent challenge of energy yield assumptions, loss factor estimates, and bankability logic – across consultant reports, resource assessments, and seller or sponsor cases
- Technical-commercial review at decision gates – connecting resource evidence, layout, turbine choice, and financing readiness
Engagement model
- Defined-scope project advisory
- Independent owner-side or investor-side review
- Specialist subcontract support to advisory firms and diligence teams
How should the offshore campaign be structured?
Hidden risk
Offshore wind resource measurement campaigns can be over-scoped, under-designed, or badly sequenced – leaving clients with either wasted spend or data that will not stand up when bankability matters.
How we help
We design offshore measurement strategy from the decision backward – floating LiDAR scope, sequencing, campaign design, procurement support. The campaign comes out sized to what it must actually prove, and built to hold up at finance stage.
Will the evidence stand up at finance stage?
Hidden risk
A campaign can look compliant on paper yet still fail through weak supplier obligations, QA, maintenance, monitoring, or escalation.
How we help
We help teams set up and govern measurement programmes so that RFPs, contracts, supplier scope, maintenance expectations, review rhythms, and escalation paths are aligned to one objective – a robust finance-grade evidence base at proportionate cost.
Do we need a measurement campaign at all?
Hidden risk
Projects often default to new measurement spend before anyone proves the decision really needs it.
How we help
We assess whether the right route is a full new campaign, a reduced scope, a different evidence base, or no new measurements at all – protecting decision quality without buying unnecessary work.
Are the energy yield assumptions decision-fit?
Hidden risk
Optimism in seller and consultant cases tends to hide in the loss factors, not the base-case yield. Gross energy is hard to manipulate when the analysis is done well; loss assumptions are easier to quietly nudge in a favourable direction.
How we help
We pressure-test yield assumptions, loss factor estimates, and uncertainty framing against the real investment or acquisition decision – and help clients true up aggressive cases before they become expensive mistakes.
Do the key workstreams add up?
Hidden risk
Technical studies can all be completed and signed off, yet still fail to add up to a financeable, decision-ready project.
How we help
We connect outputs across energy yield, layout, noise, turbine choice, and related disciplines so the combined picture is judged against bankability, deliverability, and technical-commercial consequence – not just report-by-report completion.
What should we procure or rely on?
Hidden risk
Measurement, monitoring, plant design, and energy assessment tools or services are often chosen through habit or legacy preference rather than fit for purpose.
How we help
We scope the real need first, then compare relevant tools or services on fitness for purpose, integration, downstream use, and commercial logic – rather than inertia or internal preference.