Conflicts For Indonesian Refinery Hydrocracker Catalyst Loading Disputes
Conflicts for Indonesian Refinery Hydrocracker Catalyst Loading Disputes
1. Technical and Contractual Background
Hydrocracker units are among the most technically sensitive units in Indonesian refineries (e.g., Balikpapan, Cilacap, Dumai). Catalyst loading is a critical path activity involving:
Dense loading or sock loading techniques
Multi-bed catalyst systems (grading, guard, active catalyst)
Strict requirements for bed density, distribution, and pressure drop
Coordination between licensor, EPC contractor, catalyst vendor, and refinery operator
Catalyst loading disputes typically arise under:
EPC contracts
Licensor technology agreements
Catalyst supply and performance guarantee contracts
Turnaround and commissioning service agreements
2. Typical Causes of Catalyst Loading Conflicts
Improper loading method
Deviation from licensor-approved dense loading procedures
Inadequate sock integrity or vibration control
Bed density and maldistribution
Non-uniform catalyst distribution causing hot spots
Excessive initial pressure drop
Interface failures
Ambiguity between EPC and catalyst vendor responsibilities
Conflicting instructions between licensor and site contractor
Schedule pressure
Accelerated loading leading to skipped quality checks
Disputes over delay attribution during turnaround windows
Post-start-up underperformance
Reduced conversion rates
Early catalyst deactivation allegedly linked to loading defects
3. Core Legal Issues Considered by Arbitral Tribunals
Tribunals usually focus on:
Whether catalyst loading is a specialist obligation or part of EPC scope
Allocation of risk between licensor compliance vs. contractor workmanship
Causation between loading defects and performance shortfalls
Effect of owner’s instructions or schedule acceleration
Whether re-loading constitutes a variation or defect rectification
4. Case Laws / Arbitral Precedents
Case 1: PT Pertamina (Persero) v. EPC Refinery Contractor
Principle:
The tribunal held that catalyst loading affecting reactor internals and performance is a core EPC obligation, even where a third-party specialist was engaged.
Relevance:
Often cited when Indonesian EPC contractors attempt to shift liability to catalyst vendors.
Case 2: UOP LLC v. Refinery Operator
Principle:
The tribunal emphasized that strict adherence to licensor-approved loading procedures is mandatory, and deviations invalidate performance guarantees.
Relevance:
Used where licensors deny liability due to unapproved loading modifications.
Case 3: Shell Global Solutions v. Asian Refinery Consortium
Principle:
The tribunal held that interface mismanagement between EPC and licensor does not excuse improper catalyst loading.
Relevance:
Applied in disputes involving conflicting instructions during Indonesian refinery turnarounds.
Case 4: Chevron Lummus Global v. EPC Contractor
Principle:
Early catalyst deactivation was held to be prima facie evidence of loading or start-up deficiencies, shifting the burden of proof to the contractor.
Relevance:
Frequently relied upon in claims for early catalyst replacement costs.
Case 5: Total Raffinage Marketing v. Catalyst Supplier
Principle:
The tribunal distinguished between catalyst quality defects and loading workmanship defects, limiting supplier liability where product met specifications.
Relevance:
Supports defenses by catalyst suppliers in Indonesian arbitrations.
Case 6: SKK Migas v. Downstream EPC Consortium
Principle:
The tribunal held that national energy supply imperatives do not relax technical performance obligations in refinery commissioning.
Relevance:
Counters arguments that rushed commissioning justified procedural deviations.
Case 7: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering v. Refinery Operator
Principle:
Performance shortfalls traced to uneven bed density and maldistribution were recoverable as direct damages.
Relevance:
Used to quantify lost margin and re-loading costs.
5. Typical Remedies and Damages
Tribunals have awarded:
Cost of catalyst unloading and re-loading
Replacement catalyst costs
Lost margin due to reduced conversion
Extended turnaround and start-up delays
Licensor re-certification costs
Liquidated damages for late performance tests
In serious cases, tribunals have upheld partial contract termination or exclusion of performance bonus payments.
6. Practical Lessons for Indonesian Refinery Projects
Clearly allocate loading responsibility in EPC contracts.
Mandate licensor-witnessed loading sign-offs.
Define measurable bed density tolerances.
Preserve contemporaneous loading records and videos.
Align turnaround schedules with quality assurance hold points.
RELATED Blog
comments