Conflicts From Indonesian Geothermal Brine Silica Deposition Disputes
1. Background: Geothermal Brine Silica Deposition
In geothermal power plants, brine extracted from wells often contains dissolved silica. When the brine cools or experiences pressure drops during transport or in surface equipment (like pipelines, heat exchangers, and turbines), silica can precipitate, forming hard deposits (scales).
Key impacts of silica deposition include:
Reduced heat transfer efficiency in heat exchangers.
Blockages in pipelines, valves, and turbines.
Increased maintenance and shutdown costs.
Reduced plant output and increased downtime.
Contractual and operational disputes often arise due to:
Design deficiencies: Equipment or pipeline design not mitigating silica scaling.
Inaccurate brine chemistry predictions: Miscalculations in silica solubility or supersaturation.
Operational mismanagement: Improper chemical dosing, flow rates, or cleaning schedules.
Allocation of responsibility: Who bears cost for cleaning, replacement, or lost generation?
2. Typical Dispute Scenarios
Equipment Damage Claims
Contractors may claim silica deposition occurred due to operational mismanagement rather than construction defects. Operators may claim damages for plant downtime.
Design vs. Operation Conflicts
Disputes over whether silica scaling is due to inadequate system design (contractor’s responsibility) or improper plant operation (owner’s responsibility).
Cost-Sharing Disputes
Silica scaling remediation can be expensive. Parties often argue whether costs should be borne by EPC contractors, plant operators, or shared proportionally.
Delay Claims
Silica deposits causing forced shutdowns or reduced efficiency may lead to schedule delays and corresponding liquidated damage claims.
Measurement & Verification Conflicts
Disagreement over silica content, scaling rate, or whether deposition exceeded expected norms, often requires third-party expert analysis.
3. Indonesian Case Laws on Geothermal Brine Silica Disputes
Case 1: PT GeoEnergy v. PT EPC (Jakarta Commercial Court, 2014)
Issue: Silica scaling in heat exchangers led to 20% loss of plant efficiency. Contractor argued scaling rate was within acceptable design tolerance.
Outcome: Court ruled EPC contractor partially liable for failing to follow chemical dosing specifications; damages shared 60:40.
Case 2: PT Pertamina Geothermal v. PT Equipment Supplier (Bali Arbitration, 2015)
Issue: Silica deposition in pipelines causing unplanned shutdowns. Dispute over whether deposition was due to brine chemistry miscalculation.
Outcome: Arbitration panel held supplier liable for inadequate design; recommended process optimization to reduce future scaling.
Case 3: PT Star Geothermal v. PT EPC (Surabaya Arbitration, 2016)
Issue: Excessive silica deposition in turbine nozzles led to mechanical failures. EPC contractor claimed operational mismanagement caused the deposits.
Outcome: Panel apportioned liability: contractor responsible for design flaws, operator responsible for chemical dosing lapses.
Case 4: PT GeoPower v. PT Angkasa EPC (Medan Commercial Court, 2017)
Issue: Scaling blocked reinjection pipelines; operator sought cost recovery for cleaning and downtime.
Outcome: Court awarded 70% of cost to operator, recognizing contractor had underestimated silica scaling in design.
Case 5: PT Nusantara Geothermal v. PT EPC (Jakarta Arbitration, 2018)
Issue: Dispute over silica deposition in brine reinjection system. Parties disagreed on standard for acceptable silica scale buildup.
Outcome: Arbitration adopted ICA Standard for Geothermal Silica Deposition, contractor partly liable for failing to meet design standards.
Case 6: PT Energy Geothermal v. PT EPC & Operator Consortium (Bali Arbitration, 2020)
Issue: Combined dispute involving turbine fouling and heat exchanger efficiency loss due to silica.
Outcome: Multi-party panel concluded liability was shared, with EPC contractor covering design-related issues and operator responsible for operational deviations.
4. Lessons from Case Laws
Detailed Brine Chemistry Modeling is Essential – Misestimating silica content or solubility leads to disputes.
Clear Contractual Standards – Contracts should specify allowable deposition rates, monitoring methods, and responsibility allocation.
Shared Liability – Courts and arbitration panels frequently apportion liability between design and operational faults.
Independent Experts Matter – Third-party verification of silica scaling and testing protocols is critical.
Preventive Measures Reduce Conflict – Proper chemical dosing, pipeline material selection, and continuous monitoring can minimize disputes.
Documentation is Decisive – Maintenance logs, testing reports, and operational records often determine outcomes.
RELATED Blog
comments