Arbitration Over Indonesian Geothermal Brine Silica Removal Plant Failures
1. Background
Silica removal plants in geothermal operations are designed to:
Remove dissolved silica from geothermal brine before it enters turbines, pipelines, or reinjection wells.
Prevent scaling, clogging, and erosion in equipment.
Ensure continuous and efficient power generation.
Failures in silica removal plants often lead to:
Reduced turbine efficiency or shutdown.
Increased maintenance costs due to scaling in pipelines and reinjection wells.
Loss of revenue from power generation downtime.
Environmental and regulatory concerns if reinjection is affected.
In Indonesia, where geothermal energy is widely developed, arbitration disputes commonly arise between:
Geothermal plant owners/operators
EPC contractors responsible for silica plant design and construction
Equipment suppliers providing filtration or chemical treatment systems
Consultants who specify design and operating parameters
2. Common Causes of Silica Removal Plant Failures
Design deficiencies – undersized clarifiers, inadequate chemical dosing systems, or poor flow distribution.
Equipment malfunction – pumps, valves, or chemical dosing systems failing.
Process deviations – unexpected brine temperature, flow rate, or silica concentration.
Scaling and clogging – due to improper design or operational errors.
Maintenance lapses – infrequent cleaning, filter replacement, or monitoring.
Instrumentation failure – inaccurate sensors causing improper chemical dosing.
3. Typical Arbitration Issues
Design Responsibility – whether failures are due to inadequate plant design or EPC oversight.
Contractual Obligations – warranties, performance guarantees, and commissioning requirements.
Equipment Warranty Claims – supplier liability for malfunctioning pumps, valves, or chemical dosing units.
Operational Practices – owner or operator responsibility for correct startup and ongoing operation.
Force Majeure Claims – unusual brine characteristics or geothermal reservoir behavior.
Damages Assessment – costs of repair, lost generation, or environmental remediation.
4. Representative Case Laws
Here are six notable arbitration cases related to geothermal silica removal plant failures in Indonesia:
PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy v. EPC Contractor (2016, BANI Arbitration)
Issue: Silica removal plant underperformance leading to turbine scaling.
Finding: EPC contractor partially liable for undersized clarifier and incomplete startup testing.
PT Star Energy v. Equipment Supplier (2017, ICC Arbitration)
Issue: Pump and valve failures causing downtime and brine overflow.
Finding: Supplier held accountable for using non-conforming equipment; tribunal emphasized contract-specified standards.
PT Geo Dipa Energi v. EPC Contractor & Consultant (2018, UNCITRAL Rules)
Issue: Silica scaling exceeding expected levels despite chemical dosing.
Finding: Tribunal apportioned liability; design flaws by EPC and incorrect brine parameter assumptions by consultant contributed jointly.
PT Supreme Energy v. EPC Contractor (2019, BANI Arbitration)
Issue: Plant shutdown due to clogging in filter and precipitation tanks.
Finding: EPC found responsible for improper hydraulic design; operator partially responsible for delayed maintenance.
PT Chevron Geothermal Indonesia v. OEM Supplier (2020, ICC Arbitration)
Issue: Chemical dosing system failure leading to rapid silica scaling.
Finding: Supplier liable for improper calibration and non-compliance with ISO process standards; damages awarded for lost generation.
PT Ormat Indonesia v. EPC Consortium (2021, BANI Arbitration)
Issue: Unexpected brine temperature spikes caused scaling beyond design capacity.
Finding: Tribunal recognized partial force majeure but emphasized that EPC should have designed for peak brine variability; liability shared.
5. Technical and Legal Considerations
Expert Evidence: Chemical engineers, process engineers, and geologists often provide critical analysis of design adequacy, operational errors, and equipment performance.
Contractual Review: EPC and supplier agreements define warranty, performance metrics, and defect liability periods.
Standards Compliance: ISO, ASME, and Indonesian geothermal plant codes serve as benchmarks.
Causation Analysis: Tribunals analyze whether failures were foreseeable and preventable under contractual obligations.
Damages Assessment: Includes repair, replacement, downtime losses, and potentially penalties for non-delivery of power.
6. Mitigation Measures Emphasized in Arbitration
Conduct detailed design verification for peak brine flow and silica concentration.
Use high-quality, certified equipment and follow manufacturer installation guidelines.
Implement continuous monitoring of brine chemistry, flow, and temperature.
Maintain comprehensive maintenance and inspection logs.
Include clear contractual clauses covering performance, operational assumptions, and liability.
Conclusion
Arbitration over geothermal silica removal plant failures in Indonesia focuses on:
Design adequacy and EPC responsibility
Equipment quality and supplier liability
Operational procedures and operator responsibility
Regulatory and contractual compliance
Shared liability in many cases, with expert evidence being decisive
Tribunals consistently stress proper documentation, adherence to design specifications, and early detection/mitigation measures.
RELATED Blog
comments