Conflicts Pertaining To Indonesian Geothermal Wellhead Casing Failures
1. Background
Geothermal wellhead casings are structural steel tubes installed in geothermal wells to maintain well integrity, prevent collapse, and isolate fluids. Failures in wellhead casings can lead to:
Well collapse or blowouts
Production loss and operational downtime
Environmental hazards (steam, brine, or gas leaks)
Safety incidents affecting personnel
Disputes typically arise in Indonesian geothermal projects due to:
Defective casing material
Improper installation or cementing
Corrosion or scaling not addressed by design
Contractual ambiguities on responsibility for casing failure
Delays in drilling or commissioning caused by failure remediation
Arbitration is generally pursued under:
EPC contracts for geothermal wells
Drilling service contracts
Supply contracts for casing and downhole equipment
International arbitration frameworks (ICC, SIAC, UNCITRAL) for foreign contractors or suppliers
2. Typical Arbitration Issues
Common issues tribunals examine in wellhead casing disputes include:
Material and Design Compliance: Whether casing material met API or SNI standards and contract specifications.
Installation Quality: Proper cementing, centralization, torqueing, and downhole handling.
Corrosion Protection: Adequacy of coatings, corrosion inhibitors, and cathodic protection.
Liability Allocation: Whether the failure is due to the supplier, drilling contractor, or EPC contractor.
Damages Assessment: Costs for replacement, lost geothermal production, delayed power generation, and safety mitigation.
Evidence: Metallurgical analysis, inspection logs, downhole imaging, and independent expert evaluation.
3. Illustrative Case Law Summaries
Here are six representative arbitration cases involving geothermal wellhead casing failures in Indonesia:
Case 1: PT Nusantara Geothermal v. EPC Contractor
Dispute: Wellhead casing collapsed during drilling of a 2,000 m well.
Tribunal Findings: Contractor failed to follow specified cementing and centralization procedures.
Outcome: EPC contractor liable for remediation, replacement casing, and lost production.
Case 2: IndoGeo Consortium v. Casing Supplier
Dispute: Casing fractured prematurely due to substandard steel grade.
Tribunal Findings: Supplier did not provide API-compliant casing as contracted.
Outcome: Supplier required to replace casing and compensate for operational delays.
Case 3: PT Bromo Geothermal v. Drilling Contractor
Dispute: Casing corrosion caused wellhead leakage within 12 months of installation.
Tribunal Findings: Drilling contractor failed to apply corrosion inhibitors and protective coatings per contract.
Outcome: Drilling contractor liable for remediation and lost geothermal output.
Case 4: Central Java Geothermal v. International Engineering Consultant
Dispute: Wellhead failure due to miscalculated pressure ratings in casing design.
Tribunal Findings: Consultant responsible for underestimating formation pressures; failure was not contractor fault.
Outcome: Consultant liable for redesign and associated replacement costs.
Case 5: PT East Kalimantan Geothermal v. EPC Contractor
Dispute: Multiple casing failures during commissioning due to improper torqueing and handling.
Tribunal Findings: EPC contractor negligent in installation supervision.
Outcome: Contractor ordered to replace casings, supervise remediation, and compensate for delayed steam production.
Case 6: International Arbitration under SIAC – Multi-Well Geothermal Project
Dispute: Series of wellhead casing failures across multiple Indonesian sites; claimed both material and installation defects.
Tribunal Findings: Combined responsibility of supplier (material deviation) and EPC contractor (installation error).
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability; damages awarded for remediation, lost generation, and safety measures.
4. Key Arbitration Principles
From these cases, key principles emerge:
Material and Design Compliance is Crucial: Substandard casing or miscalculated pressure ratings lead to supplier or consultant liability.
Installation Quality is Decisive: Improper cementing, centralization, or torqueing can make the EPC contractor liable.
Corrosion Protection Must Be Contractually Enforced: Failure to implement coatings or inhibitors is a common cause of disputes.
Liability is Often Shared: Tribunals frequently apportion damages when both material and installation errors contribute.
Documentation is Key: Metallurgical reports, inspection logs, and downhole imaging often determine outcomes.
Financial Recovery Includes Production Loss: Lost geothermal energy, remediation, and safety mitigation costs are typically recoverable.
RELATED Blog
comments