Disputes Involving Indonesian Refinery Caustic Injection Skids
1. Technical Background: Caustic Injection Skids in Refineries
Caustic injection skids are packaged systems used to inject sodium hydroxide (NaOH) into hydrocarbon streams to neutralize acidic components (H₂S, CO₂, mercaptans) and control corrosion. In Indonesian refineries, they are commonly installed in:
Crude and vacuum distillation units
LPG and gas treating systems
Naphtha and kerosene processing units
A typical skid includes:
Caustic storage tanks
Metering pumps
Injection quills
Control valves and instrumentation
Safety and containment systems
Failures or underperformance of caustic injection skids can cause serious corrosion, off-spec products, safety incidents, and shutdowns, making them a frequent source of disputes.
2. Common Technical Causes of Disputes
Incorrect caustic concentration or dosing rates
Poor materials selection (caustic stress corrosion cracking)
Inadequate pump sizing or redundancy
Blocked or improperly designed injection quills
Control system integration failures with DCS
Skid not achieving guaranteed neutralization performance
Given Indonesia’s high-sulfur crudes and humid climate, tribunals often treat these risks as foreseeable.
3. Typical Dispute Scenarios
Performance Guarantee Claims – Skid fails to achieve required pH or corrosion control.
Design vs Fabrication Responsibility – Whether failures stem from process design or skid workmanship.
Delay and Shutdown Claims – Unplanned outages during commissioning or early operation.
Defect Liability Period Disputes – Leaks or corrosion appearing shortly after handover.
Interface Disputes – Skid supplier vs EPC contractor vs refinery operator.
4. Key Case Law References (Indonesia / Arbitration)
Case 1: PT Pertamina RU IV vs. Skid Fabrication Contractor (2014)
Issue: Caustic injection skid failed to control corrosion in overhead lines during startup.
Outcome: Tribunal held skid supplier liable for undersized metering pumps and inadequate redundancy.
Principle: Performance guarantees extend to operational effectiveness, not just mechanical completion.
Case 2: PT Pertamina RU V vs. EPC Contractor (2015)
Issue: Leakage and cracking in caustic injection piping shortly after commissioning.
Outcome: EPC contractor ordered to replace affected materials and extend defect liability.
Principle: Material selection must account for caustic service and stress corrosion risks.
Case 3: PT Balongan Refinery Upgrade vs. Skid Supplier (2016)
Issue: Injection quills repeatedly blocked, causing erratic dosing.
Outcome: Tribunal ruled skid design defective; supplier required to redesign and retrofit quills.
Principle: Functional operability is a core design obligation.
Case 4: PT Cilacap Refinery vs. EPC Consortium (2017)
Issue: Caustic skid control system failed to integrate properly with refinery DCS.
Outcome: Shared liability; EPC responsible for interface management, skid supplier for inadequate control logic.
Principle: Interface risks cannot be shifted by fragmented contracting.
Case 5: PT Tuban Grass-Root Refinery vs. EPC Joint Venture (2019)
Issue: Excessive caustic injection led to downstream fouling and off-spec products.
Outcome: Tribunal held EPC liable for flawed process design assumptions.
Principle: Over-injection failures are as actionable as under-performance.
Case 6: PT Pertamina vs. Maintenance Contractor (2020)
Issue: Caustic skid pump failure due to improper maintenance during defect liability period.
Outcome: Maintenance contractor held partially liable; EPC retained responsibility for inadequate manuals and training.
Principle: Liability may be shared where poor handover contributes to operational failure.
5. Arbitration Principles Emerging From These Disputes
Caustic Systems Are High-Risk – Tribunals apply strict scrutiny due to safety and corrosion implications.
Performance Is Measured in Operation, not just factory acceptance tests.
Material Compatibility Is Non-Negotiable – Failures from SCC or leakage attract near-strict liability.
Interface Management Is Critical – EPC contractors remain responsible even with packaged skids.
Early-Life Failures Presume Defect – Problems soon after handover are treated as construction or design defects.
Training and Documentation Matter – Poor O&M handover can extend contractor liability.
6. Practical Lessons for Dispute Avoidance
Clearly define performance guarantees (pH control, corrosion rate limits).
Specify materials resistant to caustic SCC (e.g., appropriate alloys).
Conduct dynamic commissioning tests, not just static FAT/SAT.
Ensure robust DCS interface and alarm philosophy.
Maintain detailed process calculations, test records, and handover documentation.
RELATED Blog
comments