Preventions and Solutions

for the Scale Problem at the Geothermal Power Plant

and CDM Study in Indonesia

Study Report

February 2006

Engineering and Consulting Firms Association, Japan

Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc

List of Contents
Executive Summary

Chapter 1

s1

The purpose of survey and overview

1.1

The background of survey

1.2

The purpose of survey

1.3

Survey summary

Chapter 2 The present situation of the Dieng geothermal power plant

2.1

Overview of the surveyed site

2.2

Actual state of the power plant

Chapter 3

The present situation of scale and assumed causes

3.1

The present situation of scale

3.2

Assumed cause of scale

3.2.1

Assumed cause of turbine scale

10

3.2.2

Assumed causes of scale in wells

11

Chapter 4
4.1

Study for Optimum O&M

A measure for scale in steam turbines

4.1.1

Our specific approaches to the problem

14

4.1.2

Application to the Dieng geothermal power plant

17

4.2

Measures for scale in wells

4.2.1

A way to prevent scale from clinging

21

4.2.2

A way to remove scale

24

4.2.3

Application to the Dieng geothermal power plant

26

4.3

High efficiency operation of Cooling tower

Chapter 5

26

CDM feasibility study

5.1

Information related to CDM in Indonesia

28

5.2

Related agencies and a trend of capacity building

32

5.3

The CDM projects applied to the DNA

32

5.4

Possibilities of geothermal power generation projects for CDM

33

Chapter 6 Study for the possibility of participation in geothermal power generation

6.1

Energy conditions in Indonesia

6.1.1

Overall conditions

34

6.1.2

Energy situation and policies

34

6.2

Extension plan for the Dieng geothermal power plant

6.2.1

A development schedule

37

6.2.2

Project Participants

38

6.2.3

Project Contractual Relationship

39

6.2.4

Evaluation profitability of the project

40

6.2.5
6.3

Possibility of participation in the project

45

Geothermal development plan in the Sarulla region

6.3.1

Overview

46

6.3.2

Development plan

47

6.3.3

Development structure

47

6.3.4

Possibility of participation in the project

48

Chapter 7

Conclusion

7.1

Measures for scale and the optimum O&M

49

7.2

Possibility of CDM projects

49

7.3

Possibility of participation in geothermal power generation

50

7.4

Suggestions

51

APPENDIX
Calculation sheet

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Fig.2-1-1

A location map

Fig.2-1-2

Whole view of the Dieng Plateau

Fig.2-1-3

A fumarole

Fig.2-1-4

Buddhism remains (1)

Fig.2-1-5

Buddhism remains (2)

Fig.2-2-1

Panorama of the Dieng geothermal power plant

Fig.2-2-2

The office of geothermal power plant

Fig.3-1-1

Silica scale of injection pipe in the initial phase of the commercial operation (1)

Fig.3-1-2

Silica scale of injection pipe in the initial phase of the commercial operation(2)

Fig.3-2-1-1

Scaling at the turbine nozzle

Fig.3-2-2-1

The solubility curb of amorphous silica

Fig.3-2-2-2

The image of scaling (1)

Fig.3-2-2-3

The image of scaling (2)

Fig.4-1-1

The turbine-washing equipment

Fig.4-1-2

Steam temperature at the surface of nozzle

Metal temperature at the surface of nozzle

Fig.4-1-3

Scaling point on the nozzle

Table 4-1-1 The opening angle of governing valves during water injection
Fig.4-1-4

Turbine inlet pressure

Fig.4-1-5

The opening angle of governing valves

Fig.4-1-6

Condenser Vacuum

Fig.4-2-1-1

The image of the way of well water injection

Fig.4-2-1-2

The water injection equipment

Table 4-2-2-1A table of comparison with 2,000m class production well

Fig.4-2-2-1

Work scenery by Coiled Tubing

Fig.4-2-2-2

Coiled Tubing

Fig.4-3-1

Relations between the number of operating cooling fan and condenser vacuum

Fig.4-3-2

Relations between condenser vacuum and output correction coefficient

Fig.5-2-1

Approval process flowchart

Fig.6-2-1-1

A location map of Dieng and Patuha area

Table 6-2-1-1A development schedule

Fig.6-2-2-1

Project Participants

Fig.6-2-3-1

Project Contractual Relationship

Fig.6-2-4-1

Sensitivity analysis with the number of Makeup wells

Fig.6-2-4-2

Sensitivity analysis with Decline rate

Fig.6-2-4-3

Sensitivity analysis with Makeup well steam flow rate

Fig.6-3-1-1

A location map of Sarulla area

Table 6-3-2-1A development schedule

Fig.6-3-3-1

Project Participants

Fig.7-4-1

Project Flow

Abbreviation
ASEAN Association of

Southeast

Asian Nations

BOT

Build, Operate, Transfer

CDM

Clean Development Mechanism

CER

Certified Emission Reduction

CRT

Cathode Ray

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

IEA

International Energy

IPP

Independent

IRR

Internal Rate of Return

JI

Joint Implementation

JV

Joint Venture

LNG

Liquefied

NGO

Non-Governmental

NPV

Net Present Value

O&M

Operation

PPA

Power Purchase

wt%

Weight %

Tube

Power

Natural

Agency
Producer

Gas
Organization

& Maintenance
Agreement

This work was subsidized by the Japan Keirin Association through its
Promotion funds from KEIRIN RACE.

Executive Summary
Overview of the Dieng geothermal power plant
Surveys of geothermal resources on the Dieng Plateau started from 1970s. From 1985 to
1991, a geothermal power plant program(55MW2) was established using the ADB fund.
In 1994, California Energy InternationalCEIin the US led JV signed a contract for the
construction of the Dieng geothermal power plant( 4 ,150MW by 2001 ), and
No.1(60MW)was completed in 1998. Although 45 wells confirmed the potential for 350MW,
the construction of No.2, 3, 4 was postponed following the Asian financial crisis. Then,
Mid-American purchased CEI. After the intervention of an American investment
insurance company (OPIC), GEODIPA, a joint venture between the PLN and Pertamina
obtained the ownership of the Dieng geothermal power plant in August 2001.
Fig.1Location Map

Pertamina
National oil
company
67%

National electric
company
Joint-Venture

33%

PT GEO DIPA
Dieng geothermal power plant

The Dieng geothermal power plant

Yogyakarta

Fig.2Participants and Panorama

of the Dieng geothermal power plant

Summary of survey results

(1) The present situation of scale
Research and analyses were carries out to understand
the extent, the components, and the mechanism of the
silica and where it actually located at the Dieng
geothermal power plant. The results confirmed that the
silica scale precipitates in the wells because of flush. Due
to this scale problem, the plant operates at around
42MW although the rated output is 60MW. At present,
injection of chemicals is being examined to address the
problem and the plant is developing effective chemicals.
extent
components

mechanism

well

silica

flush in the well

pipe

Ground

Well

turbine

calcium carbonate
mixture of fluids
varying in pH

Fig.3The possibility and actual situation of each item

S-1

Scaling
Flush point

Fluid

Fluid

Fig.4The image of scaling

(2) Study for Optimum O&M

As an optimum O&M measure for the scale, the Dieng geothermal power plant is
considering injecting chemicals, however even if effective chemicals are developed, the cost
matters. With this in mind, Tohoku Electric Power Co. is planning to inject clean water to
prevent scale from occurring in its jurisdiction. If this proves effective, we can offer epochmaking technical cooperation to the plant.
In addition, though it is yet posing a serious consequence, considering components of the
silica at the Ding geothermal power plant, silica scale in turbines might become a serious
problem. In this case, our proven turbine washing equipment could be of great help.
To Turbine Ground

Nozzle
Condensate water

Turbine Exhaust
System

Main Stop Valve

Governing Valve

Tank

Coil tube

Lubricator

Turbine

LG

Generator
To Flash Steam Cooler

INCOLOY 825

Calorimeter

Main
Steam
System

Injection unit

Scale
Separator

To Cooling
Tower
Jet
Condenser

Circulating
Water System

FX233

Electromagnetic
Flowmeter

Strainer

Circulating
Water Pump

Injection pump

Water Injection Pump

Control
panel
Tip nozzle

Water Injection Equipment System

Injection pump
Rewind drum

Fig.5The water injection equipment

from
Production
Wells

Fig.6The turbine-washing equipment

million $

(3) Extension plan for the Dieng geothermal power plant

Sensitivity analysis with the number of Makeup wells Output
At present, the extension plan is under way
Decline rate:5%Makeup well steam flow rate:45t/h
120
at the Dieng geothermal power plant. Under
7 New Wells Maintain steam
110
the plan, No.2 will start commercial
3 New Wells
100
No New Wells
operations in 2008 and No.2 will be put into
90
operations in 2009. This is a large-scale
80
extension plan to construct 5 geothermal
70
power stations with the rated output of
60
300MW in the Dieng geothermal power
50
5.00%
7.00%
9.00%
11.00%
13.00%
15.00%
17.00%
plant as well as Patuha region close to
Discount rate
Bundung, far from the Dieng plant.
Fig.7Sensitivity analysis with the number of Makeup wells
Both Dieng and Patuha regions have
sufficient geothermal resources. There seems to be no problem in terms of technology, but
the plan is delayed because it is difficult to finance huge project cost (500 million $).
Taking into account additional plants at the Dieng geothermal power plant, we calculated
the IRR setting the constriction cost per unit at about 100 million $. In this case, the IRR is
almost the same as the risk free rate (6.85%). Furthermore, generated CO2 credits will not
be relatively low considering the amount of non- condensed gas, so our participation in this
plan is considered to be difficult.
(4) Geothermal development plan in the Sarrula region
Since this plan is expected to generate about
700,000 CO2 t/year, we also conducted the
Medan
survey. In the Sarrua region, 3 geothermal
sites are confirmed and 300MW of electricity
can be generated over a period of 30 years.In
addition, No.1 of Silangkitang, which will be
developed first in this region, has already
confirmed sufficient steam(50MW) and the
Sarulla
area

construction can be carried out with low risk

and at low price.It is desirable to carry out a
detailed survey for the CDM, including the
CO2 Emission Potential in the Sumatra Island
and the resource evaluation. If attractiveness
of the plan is quantified through the survey,
our more active participation can be expected.

Namora-I-Langit
(65MW3)

Silangkitang
(50MW2)
Eastern Sibualbuali

Fig.8A location map of Sarulla area

S-2

Chapter 1
1.1

The purpose of survey and overview

The background of survey

Although electricity demand in Indonesia was stagnant following the Asian financial
crisis in 1997 and the following plunge of the rupiah, it grew by 9.3% from 1999 to 2001.
Demand is expected to grow by an estimated 7% and according to an estimate by the
IEA, it will reach 300,000GWh by 2020. However, the massive debt(about 45trrion
Rp.).precludes the PLNAn electricity public corporation from raising sufficient funds
to develop the necessary new power sources to meet such demand In 2003, as the power
supply reserves declined to 5-10%, there are concerns of a serious power shortage
around Jakarta. In addition, in order to promote investment in power production, the
government has imposed considerably higher electricity charges. With several hikes,
the electricity rates in Rp. have approximately tripled compared to what they were at
the times of the financial crisis.

Repeated rate hikes have triggered demonstrations,

riots and oppression in industry, which have had a serious effect on the national
economy and the lives of the Indonesian citizen.
To deal with the drastic increase in electricity demand, the Indonesian government
drew up policy of securing supplies by opening up the electricity sector to private
enterprise. As a result, many foreign companies started to participate in the IPP project,
however the 1997 financial crisis resulted in the suspension of a lot of projects. Since
2001, negotiations aiming to reduce costs of power purchases of the PLN have been
resumed in an effort to rekindle interest in the many projects, which remain incomplete.
If the PLN depends solely on its own funds, it will be impossible for the PLN to improve
the installed capacity corresponding to the growing power demand, so active private
investment is necessary.
Indonesia is rich in geothermal resources and at present, it accounts for about 2.5% of
the total installed capacity. However, while geothermal resources offer the potential for
20, 000MW of electricity, only 4% (787MW) has been developed in the past 20 years.
Furthermore, in the 1990s, together with other IPP projects, contracts for geothermal
development projects that amount to 3,417MW were signed, but 7 of them were
suspended because of the financial crisis. Although negotiations for re-starting these
projects are under way, little progress has been made.

The project plant, the Dieng geothermal power plant, is located on the Dieng Plateau
in central Java

The Dieng Plateau is a volcanic region where eruptions, steam

explosions and eruptions of volcanic gas have caused a great deal of damage over the
course of history. Volcanic activity remains active as can be seen by the recent eruption
of hot mud in1993 and a steam explosion and a volcanic earthquake in 1998.
When it comes to the exploitation of geothermal resources on the Dieng Plateau,
various surveys have been conducted since the 1970s. From 1985 to 1991, a survey
regarding the construction of the Dieng geothermal power plant was carried out
primarily by the PNL with the ADB, and a power generation program constructing
55MW2 was established. In December 1994, California Energy International in the
US (CEI)-led JV signed a contract for the construction of the Dieng geothermal power
plant, which is committed to build 150MW by 2001 at a cost of US $192 million. Under
the plan, 4 plants were supposed to be constructed, but after the completion of No1
(60MW) in 1998, the construction and the exploration activity for No.2 was postponed.
At that time, 48 wells had been drilled, and the project organizer confirmed that the
potential was 350MW. After that, a US firm, Mid-American, purchased CEI, but an
American investment insurance company (OPIC) intervened and mediated when the
project came to a deadlock. Consequently, the ownership was shifted to the Indonesian
government(PT GEO DIPA , a joint venture between the PLN and Pertamina).
During those years, No.1 also temporary stopped operation, but resumed operations
again. The geothermal resources of the plant contain a lot of Si in steam, making scales
cling to steam production wells, steam tubes and steam turbines. As a consequence, at
present, it only generates 40MW of electricity compared to the expected 60MW output.
Despite there have been several measures taken, such as the injection of acid (which is
also done in Japan) none have been effective in solving the problem. Agency for the
assessment and application of technology (BPPT) asked Tohoku Electric Power Co. Inc
to examine the scale problem in the plant through its overseas projects.
1.2

The purpose of survey

The purpose of this survey is to understand the extent of the scale problem n the Dieng
geothermal power plant and its causes and to provide a basis for a detailed examination,
which will lead to setting up appropriate countermeasures.

I also interviewed local people concerning PT GEO DIPA, the project entity, and
collected information about the possibility of our participation in the O&M project, the
matter of participation, and the possibility of capital contribution for the extension plan
and the necessary procedures which will accompany it.
1.3

Survey summary

This survey covers the following items.

(1) Collection of information regarding the project
(2) Brief survey of the extent of the scale problem and its causes
(3) Current scale prevention and its effects
(4) Survey of actual O&M activities
(5) The actual state of the CDM in Indonesia
(6) The geothermal power plant development plan and research on the possibility of
capital contribution

Chapter 2
2.1

The present situation of the Dieng geothermal power plant

Overview of the surveyed site

The Dieng geothermal power plant is located on the Dieng Plateau, about 80km north
west of Yogyakarta, an ancient city of Indonesia. Dieng came from Di Hyang in
Sanskrit, which means the place where gods live. As the name suggests, there are a lot
of Buddhist ruins in the area.
The Dieng Plateau is situated 2,000m above sea level. It is dotted with lakes created
by volcanic activity and geysers emitting steam, which smells of sulfur. It is well known
as a tourist destination together with Buddhist ruins.

The Dieng geothermal power plant

Yogyakarta

Fig.2-1-1Location Map
4

Fig.2-1-2Whole view of the Dieng Plateau

Fig.2-1-3A fumarole

Fig.2-1-4

Fig.2-1-5

Buddhism remains (1)

Buddhism remains (2)

2.2

Actual state of the power plant

The office of the Dieng geothermal power plant is located in Dieng town, about 15
minutes drive from the power plant. The plant general manager works at the office with
a number of employees. Five employees are always stationed at the plant and are
engaged in operation control and patrolling of the steam production facilities and the
generating facilities.
The central control room, which

consists of a Electric panel and 2 CRT, is very simple.

A steam turbine, which is a secondhand outdoor type manufactured by Ansaldo in Italy,

was used in Africa before. This reducing the financial costs was a consideration at the
time of the construction.
Indonesian law requires a pre-service inspection before using the power plant, but
once commercial operation starts, the law doesnt oblige any inspections. For example,
there arent the periodical inspections which are conducted in Japan, and all inspections
are carried out on a voluntary basis. They decide the frequencies of inspection
depending on the conditions of facilities, and they are being carried out annually.
Since the steam turbine is an outdoor type, there is an overhead traveling crane, so for
open inspection, a moving crane is rented. Furthermore, because it is an outdoor type,
open inspections cannot be carried out during the rainy season. Considering that, even
if there are troubles which require an open inspection, it is difficult to take prompt
measures. Therefore, this poses a risk of prolonged power failures.
The facilities in the Dieng power plant include a huge after cooler. An after cooler cools
the air extracted from the condenser and separates drain from the gas. The large after
cooler means they deal with a large volume of extracted gas. The rated output of the
Dieng geothermal power plant is 60MW, which is close to the Yanaizunishyama
geothermal power plant (56MW). Comparing both figures, it is assumed that the steam
from both plants contains the same proportion of non- condensed gas. (about 5wt% at
Yanaizunishyama)
(The production fluid in the Dieng geothermal power plant includes rare materials. As
they are planning to sell refined material, they didnt clarify the chemical components
in the fluids.)

Generally, most of non-condensed gas included in production fluid is CO2. For this
reason, the concentration of non-condensed is a matter of great importance, when
considering CO2 emission credits.
Although the rated output of the Dieng geothermal power plant is 60MW, at present, it
operates at around 42MW. The prime cause of this low output is the stoppage of
production wells due to silica scale.

Fig.2-2-1Panorama of the Dieng geothermal power plant

Fig.2-2-2The office of geothermal power plant

Chapter 3 The present situation of scale and assumed causes

3.1

The present situation of scale

In the Dieng geothermal power plant, scale, which clings to the injection pipe, was a
large problem in the initial phase of the commercial operation, but it was solved by
measures taken afterward. Now, scale clings to geothermal fluid production wells and
the steam turbines. The main component of the scale is silica.

Fig.3-1-1Silica scale of injection pipe in the initial phase of the

commercial operation (1)

Fig.3-1-2Silica scale of injection pipe in the initial phase of the

commercial operation (2)

3.2
3.2.1

Assumed cause of scale

Assumed cause of turbine scale

The source of the silica, component in the scale, is considered to be silica dissolved in
mist and in steam. I will explain more later using an example of Tohoku Electric Power
Co., Inc Uenotai geothermal power plant. The prime cause is considered to be that the
turbine nozzles boil the components of the steam mist and then the silica in the steam
mist precipitates and dries.

Fig.3-2-1-1Scaling at the turbine nozzle

10

3.2.2

Assumed causes of scale in wells

Though its route varies, scale precipitates because material that dissolves in the
solvent becomes super saturated.
Silica in geothermal fluids is balanced with quartz in a fluid reservoir at high
temperature and at high pressure, but in the process of eruption which bring it to
ground level, it changes to amorphous silica.
The solubility of silica depends on its crystal form. The solubility curb of amorphous
silica can be expressed as follows.
1400

The solubility of amorphous

silica

ppm
Silica concentration
(ppm)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

50

100

150

200

Temperature
( deg. C)

250

300

Fig.3-2-2-1The solubility curb of amorphous silica

The solubility changes according to temperature, pH and the concentration of Na, Al
and Fe ions and the presence or absence of ions of Fe and Poly silicic acid.
The precipitation of the scale depends on the mechanism for over saturation, which
varies, but is generally caused by a flush in wells which increases the concentration of
dissolved components in the cooling process. On rare occasions, the cause is a change in
pH, which is caused by the mixture of production fluid in multi feed increases the scale
precipitate.

11

In the case of water-dominated fluid reservoirs, production fluid is produced with hot
water, in the state of so-called two phase flow. The more production fluid which goes
up to the ground, the less the pressure on the fluid becomes. Fluid tends to vaporize at
certain points known as the flush point.
Inside the wells, there are certain points where the internal diameter is considerably
larger, making them the flush points. Most of the time, the scale precipitates there, but
the flush points are not stationary due to other factors such as pressure in fluid
reservoirs.
The scale precipitates occur wherever the flush point may be.

Ground

Well

Scaling
Flush point

Fluid

Fluid

Fig.3-2-2-2The image of scaling (1)

12

Multi feed points to the situation in which production fluid is taken at several points
varying in depth.

In this case, if one of production fluid is acid while the other is

alkaline, it becomes neutral when the fluids mix. As mentioned before, the solubility of
silica is also affected by pH, and the solubility is the lowest in neutral area if
temperatures and pressures remain constant. When production fluid, super saturated
in acid and alkaline is mixed with it, it becomes super saturated, creating a huge
amount of scale. For this reason, scale precipitates. When there is a lot of precipitate,
one side of the feed point is closed off even though it results in the decline in the amount
of steam production.

Ground

Well

Scaling

FluidAlkaline

FluidAlkaline

Fluid (Acid)

Fluid (Acid)

Fig.3-2-2-3The image of scaling (2)

There is no significant difference in the PH of production fluid in the Dieng
geothermal power plant, so it can be concluded that the cause of the scale in the wells is
super saturation caused by flush, but not much information is available regarding
where the scale actually are located.

13

Chapter4 Study for Optimum O&M

4.1
4.1.1

A measure for scale in steam turbines

Our specific approaches to the problem

Although silica scale clings to steam turbines in the Dieng geothermal power plant, it
is not yet posing a serious problem. However, since the reservoirs contain a lot of silica,
there is no denying that it will become a serious problem when supplemental
geothermal fluid production wells are drilled and put into operation.
In term of scale clinging to the steam turbines, similar problems have occurred in
Tohoku Electric Power Companys Uenotai geothermal power plant just after the start
of commercial operations. In this case, setting up turbine washing equipment worked
well. For this reason, I include the outline of the measures taken by Tohoku Electric
Power Company bearing in mind that it may be applied to the Dieng geothermal power
plant in future.
(1) Background
The Uenotai geothermal power plant [output 28.8MW(up from 27.5MW in February
in 1997)] is located in Yuzawa city in Akita prefecture.
started in March

4th

Commercial operations

in 1994 based on a joint development with Akita Geothermal

Energy in charge of steam facilities and Tohoku Electric Power Co. in charge of
generating facilities.
Just after the start of operations, an opening angle of governing values rapidly
increased during the rated output operation and then the output of the generators
declined. After an inspection of the dismantled steam turbines, the cause was
ascertained to be scale, which was clinging to the first-stage nozzles at the mouth of
the steam turbines and the strainer before main stop valve. Left untouched, the steam
turbines would have needed to be dismantled for inspections and cleaning every three
months, so equipment for scale prevention was developed.
(2) The formation of scale
Silica, a component of scale, is considered to originate from silica dissolving in mist
and in steam and each precipitates as follows.

14

Precipitation of silica dissolved in mist

a. Precipitation by flush
In the main stop valvesub-stop valvestrainer, the pressure is slightly decreased,
resulting in the flush of a hot water mist. Most of the silica scale clinging to the
main stop valvesub-stop valvestrainer is caused by such a flushing mechanism.
It is assumed that silica precipitates and clings when the mist is super saturated
with the silica over a period of time.
b. Precipitation by boiling
The numerical simulation and an experiment using geothermal steam confirms
that at the steam outlet near the first-stage nozzle, the temperature of nozzle is
higher than that of steam.(Amagasa 1995) Thus, at the outlet, mist coming into
contact with and clinging to the surface of the nozzle boils and evaporates, leading
to precipitation of the dissolved components, including silica, which then dry.
Most of the silica scale found in the first-stage nozzle at the mouth of the turbine
in Uenotai was considered to have occurred by boiling.

Precipitation of silica dissolved in steam

a. Precipitation caused by a decline in pressure

Silica scale in Uenotai may have precipitated because of a decline in pressure, but
it is difficult to make such quantitive evaluations.
b. Precipitation caused by a change in the state of steam
In Uenotai, the steam is not super heated; therefore, there is no silica
precipitation caused by a change in the state of steam.
(3) Study for countermeasures
Scale is caused by flush and boiling and injecting water into the turbine can contain
the problem stemming from both causes. For this reason, we concluded that the
installment of turbine washing equipment, injecting clean water into main steam
pipes, could prevent scale from clinging. Then the following tests and analyses were
carried out.
Outline of water flushing equipment
The water flushing equipment directly sprays circulating water into the main
steam pipes. The water flushing point was set at just before the main stop valve so
that there is sufficient distance to mix the injected water and steam at the mouth of

15

the steam turbines. Furthermore, in order to prevent erosion of the steam turbine,
the moisture meter was installed at the mouth the team turbine.
Results of the water injection test
The water injection test was conducted over 7months on site by changing time
(1hour to 14days) and volume of injecting water (1.11to4.2t/h) with the following
results.
During water injections, scale keeps growing when there is less than 2.0t/h of water,
but it is contained when there is more than 2.0t/h of water.
Results of the water injection test over periods as long as 2 weeks show that an
opening angle of the governing valve continues to decline, and in some cases, the
refractory scale, including silica, is cleaned.
According to the open inspection of the steam turbine after the water injection test,
when the moisture level is below 2%( designed allowable value), there is little
erosive effect on the turbine even though water is injected for long periods of time.
Soon after the start of water injection, the opening angle of governing valves always
sharply decline. This is considered to be because soluble scale, such as NaCl, is
removed.
The use of the water injection equipment
Following various analyses based on the test results, stable operation is maintained
in the power plant today by injecting water for approximately 2hours about every 2
weeks.
(4) Conclusion
To remove scale in the Uenotai geothermal power plant, turbine-washing equipment
was installed and a water injection test was conducted. The results confirmed that
water was effective for the prevention of and cleaning of scale at 2.0t/h.

16

To Turbine Ground

Nozzle

Turbine Exhaust
System

Main Stop Valve

Governing Valve
Turbine

Generator
To Flash Steam Cooler

Calorimeter

Main
Steam
System

To Cooling
Tower
Jet
Condenser

Scale
Separator

Circulating
Water System

FX233

Electromagnetic
Flowmeter

Strainer

Circulating
Water Pump

Water Injection Pump

Water Injection Equipment System

from
Production
Wells

4.1.2

Fig.4-1-1The turbine-washing equipment

Application to the Dieng geothermal power plant

Although silica scale is clinging to the turbine in the Dieng geothermal power plant,
the situation is not yet serious and problems such as a decline in output have yet occur.
However, once becomes a serious problem, the Uenotai geothermal power plant's
example could be of great help.
In such cases, the problem is how much water should be injected and at what
frequency.
This depends on the allowed moisture level which will differ according to what is made
from. Since the allowed moisture level is 2% in the Uenotai geothermal power plant, the
verification test was conducted while monitoring figures. Then, the optimum volume of
water and frequencies were confirmed. Therefore, if this equipment is installed in the
Dieng geothermal power plant, the optimum volume of water injection and frequencies
should be confirmed through similar steps taken by the Uenotai geothermal power
plant although the equipment itself is simple and doesnt require specific know-how.

17

10

Difference of
temperature

Steam
temperature at the
surface
of nozzle
Metal temperature at the surface of nozzle

-5

-10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Width
of a nozzle
Fig.4-1-2Steam temperature at the surface of nozzle
Metal temperature at the surface of nozzle

Scale

Steam

back

ventral

20

40

60

Fig.4-1-3Scaling point on the nozzle

18

80

100

H7.03.29 - 04.06
H7.04.10 - 04.17

H7.04.24 - 05.08
H7.05.11 - 05.25

No.
No.

No.
No.

Period

2.0
2.1

1.2
1.2

Flow
rate
(t/h)

04.27
05.11

03.30
04.12

mm/dd

19

83 mmHg
90 mmHg

84 mmHg
83 mmHg
73 %
87 %

73 %
75 %

Condenser The opening

Vacuum angle

Early period

05.07
05.25

04.06
04.17

mm/dd

83 mmHg
84 mmHg

84 mmHg
83 mmHg

70 %
85 %

75 %
80 %

Condenser The opening

Vacuum angle

Latter period

The opening angle of governing valves

Table 4-1-1The opening angle of governing valves during water injection


1996

Turbine inlet pressure

5.6
5.4

kscg

5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
5

11

June
86

13

15

17

19

21 23 25
( day )

27

29

87
July

11

13

Fig.4-1-4Turbine inlet pressure

The opening
angle of governing valves

1996
70
65

60
55
50

Injection

Injection

45

Injection

40
5

June
86

11

13

15

17

19

21 23 25
( day )

27

29

11

13

11

13

July
87
Fig.4-1-5The opening angle of governing valves

1996

Condenser
Vacuum

640
630

mmHg

620
610
600
590
580
570
5

June
86

11

13

15

17

19

21 23 25 27
( day )

29

July
87

Fig.4-1-6Condenser Vacuum

20

4.2
4.2.1

Measures for scale in wells

A way to prevent scale from clinging

As previously mentioned, the largest problem in the Dieng geothermal power plant
today is scale in geothermal fluid production wells, and chemical injection is being
considered as a countermeasure.
Here I include some alternative considerations to chemical injections.
At present, several geothermal power plants within the jurisdiction of Tohoku Electric
Power Co. have scale in wells, just like the Dieng geothermal power plant. The
component of scale differs depending on the region with calcium carbonate scale as well
as silica scale being the most common. If the main component is calcium carbonate,
injecting clean water dissolves the scale relatively easily and the volume of steam soon
recovers. On the other hand, once silica scale precipitates, it is not able to be dissolved
unless quite strong acid is used and clean water alone will be insufficient.
Therefore, in the case of silica scale, it is important to prevent precipitate from
occurring. From this point of view, innovative measures are being considered at this
point in time.
To prevent scale in turbines, precipitation can be prevented by injecting clean water into
the steam, which increases the moisture level. The basic principal is that this prevents
super saturation from occurring, which can prevent scales in wells.
Since the reaction rate of silica is fast and the stratum contains a lot of silica,
production fluid maintains balance (a saturated state) with silica included in the
stratum that is near the feed point. (A silica thermometer, which estimates
temperatures from the concentration of silica in fluid, is famous and is widely used as a
geochemical thermometer.)
In the case of sales in wells, unless precipitates occur due to the mixture of fluids
varying in pH, the cause is super saturation by flush. First and foremost, the
fundamental problem is that the production fluid is saturated with silica.
Therefore, if the production fluid in a saturated state is diluted with water, it wont
become super saturated even though flush occurs to some extent. In other words,

21

precipitation of silica is contained.

In addition, when silica scale is generated, the main components of hot water, such as
NaCl might precipitate first and become the core of the silica scale, so by simply
injecting water, the NaCl based precipitate can easily be dissolved, which prevents a
core from emerging. As a result, the precipitation of silica scale could be contained
For above reasons, if a certain amounts of clean water is injected into wells, just like
turbine washing, it wont be super saturated in wells, which means that scale will not
precipitate and the component of silica will remain the same until it reaches the
separator. If the component of silica remains the same until the separator, it could be
removed in the injection pipe where scale prevention is already carried out.
Meanwhile, even if the silica scale slightly precipitates in the injection pipe, it can be
dealt with much more easily than by removing scales from the wells.
The concern associated with injecting clean water is the decrease in output caused by
the fall in enthalpy or the solubility decline because of the temperature fall. However,
the simulation in wells confirms that as long as injecting water is limited to a fixed
amount, production fluid is not saturated with silica until it reaches the ground and the

Steam

fall in enthalpy doesnt pose a problem.

Two phase

Scaling
Flush point

Two phase

Measures

Water
injection

Fig.4-2-1-1The image of the way of well water injection

22

Since calcium carbonate easily dissolves in water, the method of injecting water into
wells proves effective in each geothermal power plant in Japan as a measure against
calcium carbonate scale. Facilities for silica scale are exactly the same as facilities for
calcium carbonate.
Facilities consist of an injection unit, a rewind drum, a lubricator, a coil tube, a tip
nozzle and among others.
An injection unit, which injects condensed power plant water into wells through a coil
tube, comprises of pump, pipe, various measuring instruments, and electric system.
A lubricator is a facility that fixes a coil tube and stores steam seal and a tip nozzle.
Using this, it is possible to install and collect a tube without stopping production.
Based on experience in each geothermal power plant, the best material for tubes is
INCOLOY 825, which is especially corrosion resistant..

In addition, a tip nozzle also works as an anchor.

Condensate water

Tank

Coil tube

Lubricator

INCOLOY 825

Injection unit

Injection pump

Control
panel
Tip nozzle

Injection pump
Rewind drum

Fig.4-2-1-2The water injection equipment

23

LG

4.2.2

A way to remove scale

Prevention of scale, which works for other sites, is not always applicable because of the
regional feature. However, even if scale precipitates, it wont be a fatal obstacle for
operations of a power plant as long as scale can be removed relatively easily at low cost.
For this reason, I include how to remove scale as follows.
Generally, work over is used when scale precipitated in wells is removed. work over
removes scale by drilling with bit after the installation of rig, just like usual drilling. It
is effective when scale precipitation occurs only inside wells, but a problem is its cost.
Because rig is installed just like drilling , it requires relatively long construction periods
with a large scale facility. The construction cost is quite high. To solve this problem,
Coiled Tubing method is used in recent years. In Coiled Tubing method, a thin tube
without seams is used as if it is a wire, so drilling pipes dont need to connect and the
construction is completed for a shot period of time. With the short construction period
and simple facility, the cost is low. Furthermore, the construction is carried out while
letting steam emit, therefore the work efficiency can be judged immediately. It also
doesnt have to interfere other wells or induce emission.
Meanwhile, a drawback

of the Coiled Tubing method is that the maximum tensile

load is low. If scale is solid or it has a casing trouble, a full examination is necessary
before adopting this method.
A table of comparison based on experiences in the jurisdiction of Tohoku Electric
Power Co. can be expressed as follows.
Table 4-2-2-1A table of comparison with 2,000m class production well
Rotary drilling

Coiled tubing

WaterMud

AirProduction fluid

High

Nothing

Need not

Need

Wide

Narrow

Need

Need not

Maximum working depth

2,700m

2,600m

Pipe up-down time

6 hours

3 hours

100 t

45 t

60 days

10 days

0.6

Drilling fluid
Possibility of interference
Separator/Silencer
A range of ground facilities
removal
Induce emission

Maximum tensile load

Term of works
CostIn case of 1 as Rotary

24

Fig.4-2-2-1Work scenery by Coiled Tubing

Fig.4-2-2-2Coiled Tubing

25

4.2.3

Application to the Dieng geothermal power plant

The cause of the scale problem at the Dieng geothermal power plant is not the special
mechanism but oversaturation. Tohoku Electric Power Co. now prevents scale from
occurring in its jurisdiction by injecting clean water. If this method proves effective, it
can be applied to the Dieng geothermal power plant.
With its efficiency, work over by coild tubing seems appropriate to the Dieng
geothermal power plant, which cant stop operations for a long period of time. However,
scale in wells at the Dieng geothermal power plant is considered to be hard because its
main component is silica; therefore, whether this method is applicable or not should be
decided after the experimental use.
4.3

High efficiency operation of Cooling tower

As described before, the Dieng geothermal power plant has a huge after cooler, but a
huge cooling tower also catches our eyes. Since the total number of cooling fans amounts
to 18, cooling capability is quite high. The cooling tower was capable of cooling
circulating water from 36.1 to 18. Consequently, the vacuum level is 93.3 kPa and
the operation was carried out in a high vacuum. (almost the design value). If the
vacuum level is high, it is possible to get the large output even though the amount of
steam is the same because the adiabatic heat drop becomes large. However, the balance
with the power spent for that purpose is important. In other words, the optimum point
needs to be decided comparing the increased output because of being high vacuum and
the power that is spent for cooling fans.
Although it depends on equipment, including the deterioration level of the equipment,
the number of cooling fans is not always proportionate to the vacuum level. In addition,
the vacuum level in the condenser is not completely proportionate to the output. The
vacuum level also varies depending on whether the load is rated or partial.
Therefore, it is impossible to judge from generalization, but considering all cooling
fans in the cooling tower are operated at the partial load in the Dieng geothermal power
plant, it should be clarified how vacuum level in the condenser and net output changes
when stopping fans one by one.

26

Condenser VacuukPa

The number of operating cooling fan vs.

Condenser Vacuum (An example)
95
90
85
80
75
70
18

17
16
15
The number of operating cooling fan

14

Correction Coefficient

Fig.4-3-1Relations between the number of operating cooling fan

and condenser vacuum

-5

Condenser Vacuum vs.

Correction Coefficient (An example)

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
98.7

97.4

96.0

94.7

93.3

92.0

90.6

89.3

Condenser Vacuum kPa

Fig.4-3-2 Relations between condenser vacuum

and output correction coefficient

27

87.9

Chapter 5
5.1

CDM feasibility study

Information related to CDM in Indonesia

Geothermal power generation uses natural energy. It is effective for prevention of the
global warming because basically, CO2 emissions are small. For this reason, it is
positioned as a power source for CDM/JI based on the Kyoto Mechanism. As long as
conditions are met, geothermal power generation will generate CO2 credits, creating
added values.
The most fundamental condition is whether a country ratifies the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol.
Furthermore, whether the Designated National Authority(DNA) is set up within the
country is also a basic condition.
The Indonesian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol on December 4th in 2004.
Although it took some times to make deliberations within the country, the DNA was
officially established in Indonesia. Indonesia is now listed on the DNA list of UNFCCC.
The following describes detail information related to CDM.
(1) Ratification and participation in the UNFCCC
Indonesia signed the UNFCCC in 1992 and ratified it in accordance with the
ordinance No6.
(2) Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol had been delayed in Indonesia not by the
national resolution but by procedures related problems. Indonesia ratified the Kyoto
Protocol on December 3rd and was taken effect on March 3rd in 2005.
(3) The establishment of the DNA
The DNA was established in Indonesia in July 2005, which means Indonesia meets
conditions to participate in CDM project activities as Non AnnexParties depicted in
the Marrakesh Agreement, which includes detailed regulations of the Kyoto Protocol.
Now, Indonesia is eligible to approve CDM projects.
The DNA is a national CDM committee (NCCDM) consisting of the following 9
ministries and agencies.

28

Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Energy and Mineral resources
Ministry of Forestry
Ministry of Industry
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
National Development Planning Board)
Ministry of Home Affaires
Ministry of Transportation
Ministry of Agriculture
The deputy minister of MOE (Environmental Conservation) is appointed to the
chairman of the NCCDM.
The NCCDM comprises of standing organizations, secretariat and engineering
team. If necessary, it can seek assistance to expert advisors and stockholders
forum.
(4) Procedure for the approval of the project
Documents, which should be submitted to the DNA
The following documents should be submitted
a.

Application form(description to meet criterion)

b.

Project Design Document(PDD)

c.

Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA)

d.

The record of public consultations

e.

Recommendation from the Ministry of Forestry (only for forestation CDM)

f.

Others

Procedure for the approval of the CDM

It takes 11weeks to reach a conclusion regarding the governments approval letter
after application form is submitted to DNA. (Except for revisions)
(5) Criteria for sustainable development of the CDM projects. Applicants need to prove
that the proposed project meets the following criterion.
Environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability that can preserve natural recourses and natural
diversity
Preservation of eco system

29

 Complying with existing national and regional environmental standards and

regulations
Preserving genetically biological species(genetic contamination is not allowed)
Complying with the land exploration plan
Health and safety of regional society
There should be no health risks
Complying with vocational health standards and regulations
There should be a procedure regarding the adequate control and actions based on
documents against possible accidents.
Economic Sustainability
Prosperity of regional society
There should be no negative effects on regional income
There should be adequate measures to deal with a decline in incomes of local
residents.
There should be an agreement with stakeholders to deal with lay off issues in
accordance with existing laws.
Regional public services shouldnt be declined
Social Sustainability
Participation in the project by regional society
Making consultations to regional society.
Comments and complains from regional society are taken into account.
Trust from regional society
The project doesnt cause confrontations in regional society.
Engineering Sustainability
Technology transfer
Knowledge and the operation of equipment is fully transferred without depending on
foreign countries.
Technology is neither experimental nor obsolete.
Technological ability and its application is promoted in the region.

30

Project
Proponent

Secretariat
Received
application
document

Expert
Group
Evaluation

Internal
Coordination
Meeting of the
commission

Sectoral
Working
Group

5days

21days

Secretariat
Received
Evaluation
Reports

5days

31

Project Design needs to be modified

1day

Decission-making
Meeting of the
Commission

Stakeholder Forrum
Special Meeting

Data in application documents

need to be completed

Technical
Group
Evaluation

Expert
Group
Evaluation

Fig.5-2-1Approval process flowchart

letter of
approval

Proposed Project
does not meet
the criteria

Project
Proponent

5.2

Related agencies and a trend of capacity building

A trend of capacity building in Indonesia as follows.

With the cooperation of the World Bank and GTZ, a national strategy for CDM in
the energy sector was drawn up mainly by the Ministry of Environment and NGO
(Pelangi) in 2001.
The Dutch government seems to actively work on Indonesia to sign a bilateral
CER sales agreement with the Netherlands.
The NEDO and the IGES in Japan supported Indonesias approaches by co-hosting
workshops in 2003 and 2004.
While the agencies of DNA and a part of officials in related to the government
agencies are well aware of CDM, there is a lack of awareness among other
government agencies and people concerned. In addition, generally, industry

doesnt

have much interest in the CDM, so capacity building needs to be expanded.

5.3

The CDM projects applied to the DNA

Although Indonesia officially established the DNA in July in 2005, staff members
were officially positioned in December. However, due to swift actions taken by the
DNA, the following 5 projects were officially approved as of January in 2006.
The project utilizing solar heat
, The project concerning cements
The project utilizing palm oil
The project utilizing methane from excrement of domestic animals

Feces and

urine
In terms of above 5 projects, Indonesia got approval from the environmental minister
and applied for the registration to the UNFCCC before the establishment of the DNA.
For this reason, the government immediately approved these projects since it was
considered that projects had been already approved (examined).

32

5.4

Possibilities of geothermal power generation projects for CDM

(1) Methodology
At present, when it comes to geothermal power generation development,ACM-0002
and AM-0019 are registered as new methodology of the UNFCC.
ACM-0002,which is based on Darajat unit III in Indonesia, evaluates generated
power as replacement to the average grid electricity by connecting to grid. Under this
methodology, geothermal power generation is not simply approved as a shift from
fossil fuel power generation.
In addition, AM-0019 is based on Lihir Project in Papua New Guinea. In this
methodology, geothermal power generation could be a replace from fossil fuel power
generation.
The registration for the DNA
When it comes to geothermal power generations, Darajat unit III project of Amoseas
Indonesia Inc.Chevrons capitalhad been applied for registration to the UNFCCC
together with the above mentioned projects. However, its PDD is being modified at
present because there was a complaint regarding how to calculate the CO2 emission
factor in the methodology. Therefore, no projects concerning geothermal power
generation have been applied to the DNA.
Chevron is in charge of

calculating

CO2 emission factors, which will be made

public through the DNA as official values in Indonesia. Thus the same emission
factors can be used if it connects to the same grid this year

33

Chapter 6 Study for the possibility of participation in

geothermal power generation
6.1
6.1.1

Energy conditions in Indonesia

Overall conditions

Indonesia consists of 33 provinces under republic system. President is the head of

state as well as the head of the administrative body. Susilo Bambang Yodhoyono
was officially sworn in the 6th president in October, 2004.
The parliament in Indonesia is People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), MPR makes up
Peoples Representative Council (DPR The fixed number 550) and Regional
Representative Council (DPDThe fixed number128).
Indonesias economy suffered most in ASEAN courtiers and Korea by Asian financial
crisis in July 1997and the GDP growth rate in 1998 dramatically declined to 13.13%.
After that, the GDP growth rate was shifted as follows: 0.79% in 1999, 4.29% in 2000,
3.45% in 2001, 3.69% in 2002, and 4.5% in 2003. Based on such growth, major macro
economic indexes are improved including reduction of inflation, stock price rise and
stabilization of the rupia.
Indonesia, which is rich in resources, sets up the policy, generating the best possible
benefit by fossil fuel and delaying the depletion of resources in the second long term
national development plan.
6.1.2

Energy situation and policies

The Indonesias comprehensive energy policy (February in 1998) raises the following
five items as basic policies.
Diversification of energy
Intensifying exploration of energy resources
Energy saving
Energy price (price adjustment)
Concern for the environment
(1) Water resources
Water reserves in Indonesia are assumed 8,200kW. Hydraulic power generation

34

facilities are 301.5million kW at the end of 2000 and much remains to be undeveloped,
but in Java island where demand is high, most places are already developed. Water
reserves are concentrated in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian Jaya, but large scale
development cannot be hoped because areas that need electricity are small and spotted.
However, small-scale water development is expected to play a large role as social
development projects.
(2) Oil
Indonesia has 5 billion barrels of oil reserves as of the end of 2001, The central part of
Sumatra has the largest oil production, followed by the north west coast of Java island,
East Kalimantan and the sea near the Natuna .
Indonesia is the only OPEC member in Asia and one of the largest oil producing
countries, but there are

concerns that oil reserves will run out, so the government

encourages citizens to shift form oil to coal and gas.

(3) Natural gas
It is confirmed that natural gas reserves in Indonesia are 2triion 590billion as of the
end of 2001, which is the largest oil reserves in South East Asia. Gas fields are situated
in North Sumatra, East Karimantan, off shore of East Java and the sea near the
Natuna.
60% of Natural gas is exported as LNG and becomes a crucial means to gain foreign
currency.
(4) Coal
Coal reserves in Indonesia are 5.1billion tons as of the end of 2001.The major
production sites are South Sumatra, KalimantanJambiRiau among others. Coal
production has become 12 times for these 10 years.
The Indonesian government places coal as important resources replacing oil.
(5) Renewable energy resources
Indonesia is one of countries that have many volcanoes with more than 130 active
volcanoes across the country. It is assumed that potential geothermal capacities are
about 20million kW (1995).
Several geothermal power plants have already started operations, generating 360,
000kW in the total output (2000). A lot of geothermal development projects including
IPP were planned, but they were suspended because of the financial crisis. However

35

they have been reviewed again due to the shortage of power supply in recent years.
New energy such as wind and sunlight is expected to contribute to local power supply.
The metrological agency investigates and sorts out basic data concerning new energy
and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR)gets involved in research
and development.

36

6.2
6.2.1

Extension plan for the Dieng geothermal power plant

A development schedule

At present, an extension plan is under way in the Dieng geothermal power plant.
According to the schedule, No2 will start commercial operations in 2008 and No3 will be
put into operations in 2009.
This extension project includes not only the Dieng geothermal power plant but also
Patuha region that is close to Bandung. It is a large scale project including the
construction of

geothermal power plants ( the total output 300MW).

Bandung

Fig.6-2-1-1A location map of Dieng and Patuha area

Table 6-2-1-1A development schedule

2005

2006

2007

Dieng No.2 60MW

2008

2009

Dieng No.3 60MW

Patuha No.1 60MW

Patuha No.2 60MW

Patuha No.3 60MW

A construction period

2010

Commercial operations start

37

6.2.2

Project Participants

Project entity is PT Bumigas energi (hereafter Bumigas), which gains development

rights from PT GEO DIPA, based on BOT for 15 years per unit.
Under this plan, the total of 300MW electricity will be generated (Dieng is 120MW and
Patuha is 180MW), but Bumigas got power sales rights up to 800MW , and has a plan to
extend each to 400MW.

Pertamina
National oil
company
67%

National electric
company

Joint-Venture to develop
geothermal plants

PT GEO DIPA

30%
JointVenture

BOT Contract for 15 years per unit

PT Citra
Drilling company

PT Bumigas

PT Rekayasa
EPC company

Financier

70%

Consortium

Fig.6-2-2-1Project Participants

38

33%

Planning
company

6.2.3

Project Contractual Relationship

Power sales revenues from PLN is first deposited in the escrow account, then 60% goes
to Bumigas, 30% goes to the O&M company and 10% goes to PT GEO DIPA.
Bumigas, which receives 60%, puts this money towards covering the capital cost of the
project including interest payment.
Meanwhile, 30% of revenues is given to the O&M company, but this rate is rather high
considering the level of personnel costs. On the other hand, despite interest is set at 6%,
the capital cost is relatively low. In other words, the initial capital cost is low.
Indonesia adopts so- called External form standard taxation, imposing 6% tax on
revenue from power sales and it is coved by PT GEO DIPA, which receives 10% of
revenues. Remaining 4% is supposed to be accumulated in PT GEO DIPA as debt
reserves.

Electricity sales

National electric
company
USD
Payment

10%

Escrow
account

PT GEO DIPA
60%

30%

Planning
company

PT Bumigas

Fig.6-2-3-1Project Contractual Relationship

39

6.2.4

Evaluation profitability of the project

(1) Overview
The total project cost is about 500 million $. Although the cost changes depending on
the number of wells, it is calculated one unit will cost around 100 million $.
In terms of revenues stems from power sales to PLN, 60% is planning to go to Bumigas,
30% will go to O&M and remaining 10% will be earmarked to taxes and others.
There are a lot of hot springs, geysers and sulfur geysers in the Dieng geothermal
region, which suggests geothermal resources are plenty. It is estimated that geothermal
resources are at least 300MW. During the development of No1, it was turned out that
the temperature of reservoirs is 270 to 340 and the depth is 2,000 to 2600m. The
potential is high.
It is obvious that the most important thing to evaluate profitability of the project is the
accuracy of assumed income and expenses. Income is calculated by multiplying
generated electricity by electric price. Geothermal development is said to be risky
because an accurate projection is difficult. In other words, since steam production
depends on nature in geothermal power generation, production risk is high compared to
fossil fuel power generation. However, in the extension project, confirmed geothermal
resources will be used, so production risk is considered to be low.
Meanwhile, even if power is generated as expected, income will decrease unless
generated power is sold as planned, so a long term contract with the PLN, so-called the
credibility of PPA, is extremely important. In addition, interest on finances is inverse
proportion to the reliability of the project. When the reliability is high, interest is low
and income from the project becomes high. On the other hand, if the credibility is low,
interest goes up, resulting in low profitability of the project.
At a time of the financial crisis, which occurred from 1997 to 1998, PLN couldnt fulfill
its duty to buy electricity at promised prices. Consequently, it lost credibility in
international society. However, after that, the PLN re-negotiated various kinds of
long-term power sales contracts focusing on practicality. As a result, the PLN seems to

40

have no default risk at present.

Generally, steam production declines naturally in geothermal power generation, so it
needs to maintain the output by drilling supplemental wells periodically. In this sense,
projection regarding decline is significant because drilling wells costs a lot. However,
projection is not always accurate since the steam production also depends on nature. If
production capacity of reservoirs is overestimated, more than expected number of
supplemental wells will have to be drilled, resulted in the sharp fall in project income.
The total production scale in the region is confirmed 300MW, which is sufficient to add
at least two of 60MW. Thus, risk of over exploitation is low. Drilling unexpected number
of supplemental wells is unlikely to occur in future.
However, although above evaluation is applied to overall capacity of reservoirs, there
is no denying that steam production will decline because of local decay of wells.
Specifically, scale clinging to the inside wells could cause obstacles in production.
Usually in this case, work over is used to recover production, but work over, which
needs large-scale facilities just like drilling, is relatively expensive and becomes a factor
to deteriorate the project balance.
In this region, existing No1, which has scale in its wells, has already deteriorated.
Therefore, pessimistic expense projection will be necessary for the additional
equipment reflecting frequencies of work over and the cost based on experience of No1.
(2) Calculation of profitability
Based on conditions confirmed in this survey, we calculated the profitability according
to various variable factors. The results are expressed as follows.
Generally, the discount rate can be calculated by risk free rate and risk premium,
but here we use 6.8%, which is the yield of 10-year government bond in US dollars
issued by the Indonesian government. Since its evaluation varies depending on project
participants, we use risk premium as the parameter and made calculations setting the
discount rate at 6.85%, 10% and 15%.
For detailed calculations, please refer to attached material.

41

a. Impact of additional wells

Geothermal power generation needs supplemental wells to maintain the rated
output since production steam generally declines. Regardless of the constant rated
output, it is possible to operate power generation depending on natural course of event.
However, the economic assumption shows that maintaining the rated output by
drilling supplemental wells is much more cost efficient than letting it run its course.

$
Discount
7 New Wells
rate
6.85% 109,182,789
10.00% 84,932,799
15.00% 59,508,206

3 New Wells No New Wells

102,969,672
81,014,645
57,596,125

91,811,116
73,509,870
53,480,513

Sensitivity analysis with the number of Makeup wells Output

Decline rate:5%Makeup well steam flow rate:45t/h

120

7 New Wells Maintain steam

million $

110

3 New Wells

100

No New Wells

90
80
70
60
50
5.00%

7.00%

9.00%

11.00%
13.00%
Discount rate

15.00%

17.00%

Fig.6-2-4-1Sensitivity analysis with the number of Makeup wells

42

b. Impacts of the rate of decrease

In this region, the rate of decline is about 5%, but this rate is not always applicable
because supplemental wells are drilled in different places. Supposing the rated output
is maintained, a small change in the rate of decline seems to have little effect on the
economic aspect.

$
Discount
rate
5%
6.85% 109,182,789
10.00% 84,932,799
15.00% 59,508,206

Decline rate
6%
7%
106,294,469 104,482,108
82,774,984
81,353,901
58,075,470
57,102,958

8%
102,027,463
79,645,600
56,104,568

Sensitivity analysis with Decline rate

Maintain steamMakeup well steam flow rate: 45t/h
120
Decline
Decline
Decline
Decline

million $

110
100
90

rate:5%
rate:6%
rate:7%
rate:8%

80
70
60
50
5.00%

7.00%

9.00%

11.00%
13.00%
Discount rate

15.00%

Fig.6-2-4-2Sensitivity analysis with Decline rate

43

17.00%

c. Impact of steam produced in additional wells

Furthermore, with supplemental wells being drilled, steam production in this region
is expected to reach about 45t/h/, however, it is not always the case. It has turned out
that there is not much difference in economic efficiency when the production steam is
45t/h per well and when it is 5t/h per well.

$
Discount Makeup well steam flow rate
rate
45t/h
25t/h
6.85% 109,182,789 103,928,283
10.00% 84,932,799
81,252,194
15.00% 59,508,206
57,345,119

Sensitivity analysis with Makeup well steam flow rate

Decline rate:5%Maintain steam

million $

120
110

Makeup well steam flow rate:45t/h

100

Makeup well steam flow rate:25t/h

90
80
70
60
50
5.00%

7.00%

9.00%

11.00%
13.00%
Discount rate

15.00%

17.00%

Fig.6-2-4-3Sensitivity analysis with Makeup well steam flow rate

44

d. Conclusion
I made a sensitivity analysis using parameters such as the number of wells, which
are drilled, the rate of decline and steam production when supplemental wells are
drilled. Comparing these parameters, the IRR has larger impact on the economic
efficiency of the project
When the rated output is maintained with the rate of decline at 5 % and the volume
of the production steam at 45t/h, it is worth 117million dollars if the assumed discount
rate is 6%. On the other hand, it is worth only 60million dollars if it is assumed that
the discount rate is 15%.
For this reason, projects organizers, who intend to invest into this project, need to
judge how much risk is involved in this project and how much return they hope.
When they hope around 15 % of the IRR, the value of this project has become
significantly low and it is difficult to promote it.
Judging from the construction cost of the plant, the expected IRR is considered to be
around 10%.
6.2.5

Possibility of participation in the project

As describes above, the extension plan in this region can be judged good as a whole,
however, the necessary project cost amounts to over 60 billion yen. It is considered that
raising this amount of money depending solely on private loans involves a great deal of
risk, so financers that offered financial contributions to Bumigas have not implemented
it.
Thus, the initial plan of completing finance close in November 2005 and starting the
construction of Dieng No2 is likely to be delayed.

45

6.3

Geothermal development plan in the Sarulla region

6.3.1

Overview

This region offers high potential for geothermal development and is being promoted
followed by the Dieng & Patuha extension plan.

CO2 credits are expected to be about

700,000CO2-t/year. Since our participation in this project seems highly significant, we

also conducted the survey.
The Sarulla region is located about 200km southwest of Medan on the Sumatra Island.
Form early 1993 to the middle of 1998, Pertamina and Unocal carried out research in
this region.

Research included geological survey, geochemical survey and geophysical

exploration. Based on the results, 3 wells were drilled.

Research confirmed 3 geothermal sites, such as Eastern Sibualbuali, Silangkitang,
Namora-I-Langit, which will make it possible to generate 330MW of electricity over a
period of 30 years.

Medan
Namora-I-Langit

Silangkitang
Sarulla
area

Eastern Sibualbuali

Fig.6-3-1-1A location map

of Sarulla area

46

6.3.2

Development plan

In Sarulla region, 3 geothermal sites mentioned above have been confirmed, but the
current development plan only covers Silangkitang and Namora-I-Langit.
Under the plan, No.1 and No.2 of Silangkitang (50MW) will start commercial
operations in 2009, followed by No.1,2,3 of Namora-I-Langit (65MW), which will be put
into commercial operations in 2010.
Meanwhile, the Indonesian government has a strong desire to start power generation in
this region at the earliest possible time due to growing power demand in the country.
Therefore, there is another plan to start commercial operations of No.1 of Silangkitang
in FY 2007 with 25MW2.
Table 6-3-2-1A development schedule (Commercial operation start)
2009

2010

Silangkitang No.150MW
Silangkitang No.250MW

Namora-I-Langit No.1 (65MW)

Namora-I-Langit No.2 (65MW)

Namora-I-Langit No.3 (65MW)

6.3.3

Development structure

Development entity of this region is PT Geo Sarulla, co-financed by PT GEO DIPA(45%)

and Mega Power Mandiri (55%). Basically, PT GEO DIPA is in charge of steam
production and Mega Power Mandiri is in charge of power generation. PT Geo
SARULLA opened its office in Jakarta in December 2005, but was not officially
registered as of January 2006. However, both PT GEO DIPA and Mega Power
Mandirisend staff to the office and around 6 people are always work there to promote
the project.
PLN, which is also planning to invest capital in PT Geo Sarulla, will acquire

20% of

shares from PT GEO DIPA. Mega Power Mandiri is a subsidiary of PT Bukaka,which

had constructed hydropower plants and transmission grids. However, it has no
experience of building a geothermal power plant, so it is improving development
structure by hiring ex employees of Pertamina.

47

Pertamina

PT Bukaka Teknik

National oil

National electric

Utama Tbk.

67%

Joint-Venture

33%

Mega Power Mandiri

PT GEO DIPA
45%25%

20%

55%

PT Geo Sarulla

) : A future plan

Fig.6-3-3-1Project Participants

6.3.4

Possibility of participation in the project

In the Silangkitang region, which is to be developed first in the Sarulla region, 3

wells have already confirmed steam that will generate 50MW of electricity. Production
steam per well is the world largest class and the reservoir there is really attractive.
In addition, steam that is necessary for power generation has already been confirmed.
Since there is no need to drill new wells, it is possible to construct a power generation at
low price.
For this reason, our participation in the plan to develop No.1 of Silangkitang has a lot
of advantages, but PT Geo Sarulla doesnt have to increase partners unless our
participation will bring some benefits to it.
There seems to be a number of merits for PT Geo Sarulla. One of them is the CDM.
Generally, the development of geothermal power plants will generate CO2 credits, which
will create economic added value. Particularly, the CDM under the Kyoto Mechanism is
forming a global market, so being well aware of its system and obtaining approval as a
CDM project would be highly beneficial to the company. As described before, the CDM is
not well recognized in Indonesia. PT GEO DIPA has just appointed persons in charge of
the CDM and they are now studying its system and procedure.
Since they have not yet understood the CDM to get CO2 credits, our participation in
the plan and supporting the CDM would be favorable to PT Geo Sarulla (PT GEO DIPA
and Mega Power Mandiri).

48

Chapter 7
7.1

Conclusion

Measures for scale and the optimum O&M

This survey was carried out to understand the extent of the scale problem at the
Dieng geothermal power plants and its causes and to provide a basis for a detailed
examination which will lead to setting up effective countermeasures.
The survey has confirmed that the silica scale that precipitates in wells is posing a
problem at the Dieng geothermal power plant and injecting chemicals is being
examined as a countermeasure.
Once silica precipitates, it is not able to be dissolved unless quite strong acid is used,
so its countermeasures need to focus on preventing precipitate from occurring. In this
sense, the development of effective chemicals is expected.
However, even if effective chemicals to prevent scale are developed, the problem is
their cost. There are various kinds of chemicals, known as inhibitors, which work for
calcium carbonate scale, but they are not actively used because of the price.
Taking these points into account, Tohoku Electric Power Co. is trying to contain silica
scale in wells within its jurisdiction by injecting clean water. If effectiveness of this
method proves, it can be applied to geothermal power plants around the world that
have similar problems and we could do international technology transfer.
In addition, although it is not yet posing a serious problem, considering the
components of steam, silica scale clings to steam turbines might become a serious
problem at the Dieng geothermal power plant. However, there is no particular problem
in the Dieng plant, so the scale in turbines can easily removed by installing turbine
washing equipment.
7.2

Possibility of CDM projects

When it comes to the CDM, the Designated National Authority (DNA) started to
function in December 2005 in Indonesia. We confirmed that so far the government has
approved 5 projects, but no geothermal power generation projects have obtained the

49

government approval. (One is modifying the PDD to recalculate the Emission Factor)
Once its approved as a CDM project, economic added value will be created. In this
sense, the development of the relevant project is worth watching, but the CDM is not
fully understood in Indonesia. For this reason, there is a need for us to support the
CDM in the case of new geothermal development and our active involvement is
expected.
7.3

Possibility of participation in geothermal power generation

Together with this survey, we interviewed local people concerning PT GEO DIPA, the
project entity, about the possibility of our participation in the O&M project, the matter
of participation, the possibility of capital contribution in the extension plan and
necessary procedures which will accompany it. We collected detailed information on
the Dieng & Patuha extension plan as well as the geothermal development plan in
Sarulla region.
In terms of the extension plan of the Dieng geothermal power plant, undisclosed
material on geothermal reservoir evaluation has confirmed that stem is sufficient to
build a new power plant. We realized its high potential.
Furthermore, in the Sarulla region, 50MW-worth of steam,

sufficient for the

development of No.1 of Silangkitang, has already been confirmed. We made sure that
the construction could be carried out with low risk and at low price.
As mentioned, though geothermal recourses are rich at the surveyed site, the
development has not been made progress since the Indonesian government cannot
raise sufficient funds.
For this reason, if we make proposals to convince the Indonesian counterpart that
our participation will be beneficial to raise necessary funds, the project would be
taking a great step forward.

50

7.4

Suggestions

This survey has made us understand the high potential of geothermal resources in
Indonesia. At the same time, we realized that the construction of geothermal power
plants has not made progress since the Indonesian government cannot raise sufficient
funds.
The most effective way to break this situation is considered to be that advanced
countries provide development funds. Therefore, Japans active involvement, including
the support of the CDM, will promote the construction of geothermal power plants in
Indonesia.
Here, I include promising project plans.

First Stage(now

Preliminary
Research

Discussion with
parties concerned

Involvement of
Japanese company

Implementing
F/S

evaluation

drawing up PDD
validation
evaluation of
geothermal recourses
economic evaluation

Closing of
Finance

Final Stage

Forth Stage

Third Stage

Second Stage

implementation

investment in SPC
request to JBIC for
financing

Start of
Construction

construction consultant
plant export

completion

Start of
Commercial
Operation

acquisition of CO2 credit

consultant

Fig.7-4-1Project Flow

First Stage
This survey.
Second Stage
With the cooperation of Indonesian parties concerned, Japanese company will
conduct F/S by using public fund in FY2006. Specifically, Japanese company will draw
up PDD in CDM F/S and carry out validation. In addition, Japanese company will sort
out information that is necessary on requesting for financing to government-affiliated
financial institutions while examining Japanese companys investment possibilities of
SPC in F/S.

51

Third Stage
As a result of F/Sif Japanese company concludes that the project is promising, we
will invest in SPC in order to reap the benefit of the project. Japanese company will
also make a request to government-affiliated financial institutions for financing on
better conditions so that

profitability of the project can be enhanced. We assume that

finance of government-affiliated financial institutions will be foreign direct financing

based on Project Finance.
Forth Stage
For the purpose of streamlining and increasing profitability of the construction of a
geothermal power plant in a responsible manner, Japanese company will undertake
consulting. And we assume that Japanese company will export the plant.
Final Stage
After the start of commercial operation, Japanese company will be in charge of O&M
consulting so that we can be responsible for streamlining and increasing profitability
of the project.

In addition, we hope all CO2 credits will be given to Japanese

company.

52

Appendix
Calculation Sheet

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

0.82

100

200

70

0.67

0.72

10,062,017

0.77

10,592,379

50

60
Output

10,784,404

9,558,209

0.63

7,192,942

2013

6,859,276

0.59

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8,193,154

0.55

10

14,873,796

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

Makeup wells:7
Makeup well steam flow rate45t/h
Decline rate5%
(Initial decline rate20%)

10

20

30

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

Total steam40flow rate

0.88

Initial
wells steam flow rate

45t/h
5%
(20%)

0.94

109,182,789

1.00

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

14,013,856

0
300
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

100

400

200

300

500

400

Discount rate

Cashflow

6.85

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

2011
473,040
5.01

6,905

6,803

t/h
Steamt/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

Tax,others

2,267,713

22,677,130

O&M cost

Net working Capital $

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

7,005,530

2007
23,362,546

2006

6,902,000

2005
23,017,287

4.45
6,800,000

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

13
0.45

12
0.48

5,945,785

0.52

6,236,328

2018

5,403,598

0.42

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

6,310,971

0.40

15

15,956,571

6,379

2,663,667

8,010,053

26,636,669

471,697
5.65

4,909,029

0.37

16

13,262,136

3,000,000

9,530

2,711,319

8,130,204

27,113,189

473,040
5.73

2020

4,679,355

0.35

17

13,507,607

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

2021

5,432,293

0.32

18

16,755,221

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate.85

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

7,023,048

15,553,207

7,664

2,592,880

11

7,550

7,439
3,000,000

2,554,562

2,516,810

7,775,052

25,928,803

12,323,357

7,660,150

7,546,945

3,000,000

25,545,619

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

12,096,903

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

Makeup wells:12
Makeup well steam flow rate
25t/h
Decline rate5%

4
0.82

10,062,017

10,592,379

2011

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

9,558,209

0.67

7,192,942

0.63

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

2013

6,859,276

0.59

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2014
471,643
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,505,133

0.55

10

11,809,374

3,000,000

5,865

2,472,295

7,435,414

24,722,948

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Total40steam flow rate

50

100

200

70

6
0.72

5
0.77

60
Output

10,784,404

Initial
wells steam flow rate

12
25t/h
5%
(20%)

103,928,283

0.88

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.94

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

6.85

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2017
473,040
5.48

2018
473,040
5.56

2019
473,040
5.65

473,040
5.73

2020
473,040
5.82

2021

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate.85

5,944,143

6,158,353

13

5,668,399

0.45

5,403,598

0.42

14

3,000,000

5,150,837

0.40

15

3,000,000

4,909,590

0.37

16

3,000,000

4,679,355

0.35

17

3,000,000

4,459,649

0.32

18

3,000,000

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.48

11
0.52

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

12,319,953 12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 13,755,221

8,014

2,711,319

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

11,945,651

7,779

2,631,774

8,375,939

7,664

2,592,880

8,252,157

10,955

8,130,204

2,554,562

8,010,053

5,499

7,891,678

2,499,788

7,775,052

7,660,150

7,546,945

25,545,619 25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
469,841
5.32

24,997,884

Output

NPV

PV

Makeup wells:3
Makeup well steam flow rate
45t/h
Decline rate5%

4
0.82

10,062,017

10,592,379

2011

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

9,558,209

0.67

7,192,942

0.63

2013

8,391,669

0.59

14,257,538

-1,790

2,397,920

7,325,531

23,979,199

464,317
5.16

2014
441,101
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

7,376,627

0.55

10

13,391,480

-17,145

2,312,194

7,435,414

23,121,943

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10

20

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Total steam flow rate

30

40

50

100

200

70

6
0.72

5
0.77

60
Output

10,784,404

Initial wells
steam flow rate

45t/h
5%
(20%)

102,969,672

0.88

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

300
0

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

600

700700

0.94

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

6.85

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

6,516,759

6,029,036

5,702,025

0.45

13

12,627,677

2,265,104

7,775,052

22,651,036

2018

4,978,946

0.42

14

11,781,654

-16,195

2,184,126

7,891,678

21,841,262

392,579
5.56

4,054,717

0.40

15

10,251,889

3,000,000

36,473

2,366,491

8,010,053

23,664,906

419,071
5.65

2019

4,469,520

0.37

16

12,074,767

-24,851

2,242,235

8,130,204

22,422,355

391,200
5.73

2020

3,887,759

0.35

17

11,222,555

-16,032

2,162,076

8,252,157

21,620,756

371,640
5.82

2021

2022
353,058
5.90

3,372,663

0.32

18

10,402,552

-15,459

2,084,781

8,375,939

20,847,814

Discount rate.85

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.48

11
0.52

-25,168

32,546

13,506,768

2,349,083

2,474,922

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

11,694,810

-16,796

23,490,834

24,749,223

2017
413,241
5.48

2016
434,991
5.40

2015
465,167
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

Makeup wells:0
Decline rate5%
(Initial decline rate20%)

10,062,017

10,592,379

100

200

70

6
0.72

5
0.77

2011

2012
449,915
5.09

-16,418

2,289,207

7,217,272

9,558,209

0.67

8,428,462

0.63

14,224,064 13,402,012

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 22,892,074

473,040
5.01

2013

7,390,858

0.59

12,557,150

-16,368

2,207,368

7,325,531

22,073,682

427,420
5.16

2014
406,049
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,464,969

0.55

10

11,736,462

-15,783

2,128,455

7,435,414

21,284,548

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

10

20

30

40

50

60
Output

10,784,404

0.82

Initial wells steam flow rate

5%
(20%)

91,811,116

0.88

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

600

700
700

0.94

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steam t/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

6.85

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2017
348,136
5.48

2018
330,729
5.56

2019
314,193
5.65

298,483
5.73

2020
283,559
5.82

2021

269,381
5.90

2022

Discount rate.85

4,904,632

5,639,669

4,250,562

0.45

13

9,413,273

-14,150

1,908,242

7,775,052

3,669,097

0.42

14

8,682,165

-13,644

1,840,022

7,891,678

3,152,713

0.40

15

7,971,275

-13,156

1,774,241

8,010,053

2,694,642

0.37

16

7,279,791

-12,686

1,710,812

8,130,204

2,288,797

0.35

17

6,606,931

-12,232

1,649,651

8,252,157

1,929,707

0.32

18

5,951,936

-11,795

1,590,676

8,375,939

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

12
0.48

11
0.52

0
10,165,440

-14,674

-15,218
0

1,978,991

2,052,363

10,939,536

7,660,150

7,546,945

19,789,906 19,082,417 18,400,220 17,742,412 17,108,121 16,496,506 15,906,756

2016
366,459
5.40

2015
385,746
5.32

20,523,625

Output

0.72

10,062,017

0.77

10,592,379

Makeup wells:0
Decline rate8%
(Initial decline rate20%)

Initial wells steam flow rate

100

200

10

20

30

40

50

2011

2012
408,624
5.09

7,217,272

-29,479

2,079,112

8,701,999

0.67

7,247,522

0.63

12,949,894 11,524,211

-21,950

2,226,506

7,110,613

22,265,063 20,791,116

444,156
5.01

2013

5,988,934

0.59

10,175,266

-27,527

1,941,474

7,325,531

19,414,744

375,934
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

8%
(20%)

Output

60

14,013,856

13,806,755

600

73,269,947

10,784,404

0.82

70

0.88

6,905

6,803

700
700

Steam t/h
flow rate t/h

NPV

PV

0.94

Discount rate

1.00

13,155,874

Cashflow

6.85

Capital expenditure $

453,543

Net working Capital $

7,005,530
2,336,255

6,902,000
2,301,729

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130
6,800,000

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

2,267,713

2007

2006

2005

Tax,others

4.45

O&M cost

Electricity Price /kWh

Electricity Revenue $

Electricity Volume MWh

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4,906,281

0.55

10

8,906,830

-25,705

1,812,949

7,435,414

18,129,488

345,859
5.24

Output

-22,414
0
6,590,001
12
0.48

3,179,550

-24,003
0
7,713,442
11
0.52

3,976,518

2017

2,497,856

0.45

13

5,531,738

-20,931

1,476,207

7,775,052

14,762,066

269,316
5.48

2018

1,916,162

0.42

14

4,534,203

-19,545

1,378,482

7,891,678

13,784,817

247,771
5.56

2019

1,421,157

0.40

15

3,593,235

-18,251

1,287,226

8,010,053

12,872,263

227,949
5.65

2020

1,001,246

0.37

16

2,704,946

-17,043

1,202,012

8,130,204

12,020,119

209,713
5.73

2021

646,325

0.35

17

1,865,706

-15,915

1,122,439

8,252,157

11,224,387

192,936
5.82

2022
177,501
5.90

347,598

0.32

18

1,072,121

-14,861

1,048,133

8,375,939

10,481,332

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

7,660,150
1,580,860

7,546,945

15,808,595

16,929,316

1,692,932

2016
292,735
5.40

2015
318,190
5.32

Discount rate.85

NPV

PV

600
500

600

700
700

0.88

0.82

100

200

70

0.67

0.72

10,062,017

0.77

10,592,379

7,542,286

0.63

6,859,276

0.59

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,540,619

0.55

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10

2013
473,040
5.16

Initial wells steam flow rate

20

30

7,192,942

40
Total
steam flow rate

50

60
Output

10,784,404

Makeup wells:12
Makeup well steam flow rate45t/h
Decline rate8%
(Initial decline rate20%)

0.94

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

12
45t/h
8%
(20%)

102,027,463

1.00

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

14,013,856

100

400

200

300

500

400

Discount rate

Cashflow

6.85

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

2011
473,040
5.01

6,905

6,803

t/h
Steamt/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

Tax,others

2,267,713

22,677,130

O&M cost

Net working Capital $

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

7,005,530

2007
23,362,546

2006

6,902,000

2005
23,017,287

4.45
6,800,000

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

13
0.45

12
0.48

5,945,785

0.52

6,236,328

2018

5,403,598

0.42

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

5,150,837

0.40

15

13,023,303

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

26,712,501

473,040
5.65

4,909,590

0.37

16

13,263,652

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

27,113,189

473,040
5.73

2020

4,679,355

0.35

17

13,507,607

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

2021

4,459,649

0.32

18

13,755,221

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate.85

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

5,668,399

12,553,207

3,000,000

7,664

2,592,880

11

7,550

7,439
3,000,000

2,554,562

2,516,810

7,775,052

25,928,803

12,323,357

7,660,150

7,546,945

3,000,000

25,545,619

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

12,096,903

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

600
500

600

700

700

100

200

3002008

100

2012

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

7,542,286

0.67

7,192,942

0.63

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.09

2013

6,859,276

0.59

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

10
Initial
wells steam flow rate

20

30

40
Total
steam flow rate

50

60

70

10,062,017

10,592,379

Output

10,784,404

6
0.72

5
0.77

2011
473,040
5.01

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,540,619

0.55

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

Makeup wells:10
Makeup well steam flow rate
45t/h
Decline rate7%

4
0.82

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

10
45t/h
7%
(20%)

104,482,108

0.88

0
14,013,856

400

200

500
300

400

0.94

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

t/h
Steamt/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

6.85

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2018
473,040
5.56

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
470,265
5.90

2,554,562
8,321
3,000,000

2,512,959
6,669
0

3,000,000

7,664

2,592,880

7,775,052

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

4,979

2,776,883

8,375,939

5,945,414

7,765,449

13

5,668,399

0.45

14

5,403,598

0.42

15

5,150,837

0.40

16

4,909,590

0.37

17

4,679,355

0.35

18
0.32

5,385,544

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.48

11
0.52

12,322,587 12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 16,611,030

7,660,150

7,546,945

15,063,013

2017
473,040
5.48

Discount rate.85

25,545,619 25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,768,830

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
472,316
5.32

25,129,586

Output

NPV

PV

600
500

600

700
700

100

200

0
300
2008

0.88

0.82

7,542,286

0.63

2013

8,625,009

0.59

14,653,987

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,540,619

0.55

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10
Initial
wells steam flow rate

20

30

7,192,942

40
Total
steam flow rate

50

60

70

0.67

0.72

10,062,017

0.77

10,592,379

Output

10,784,404

Makeup wells:9
Makeup well steam flow rate45t/h
Decline rate6%
(Initial decline rate20%)

0.94

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

9
45t/h
6%
(20%)

106,294,469

1.00

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

14,013,856

100

400

200

300

500

400

Discount rate

Cashflow

6.85

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

2011
473,040
5.01

6,905

6,803

t/h
Steamt/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

Tax,others

2,267,713

22,677,130

O&M cost

Net working Capital $

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

7,005,530

2007
23,362,546

2006

6,902,000

2005
23,017,287

4.45
6,800,000

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

Output

13
0.45

12
0.48

7,353,984

0.52

6,236,328

2018

5,403,598

0.42

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

5,150,837

0.40

15

13,023,303

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

26,712,501

473,040
5.65

2020

6,003,844

0.37

16

16,219,866

7,019

2,706,343

8,130,204

27,063,432

472,172
5.73

2021

4,679,010

0.35

17

13,506,612

3,000,000

9,129

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

5,667,564

12,551,359

3,000,000

9,512

2,592,880

11

5,702

7,439
0

2,545,319

2,516,810

7,775,052

25,928,803

15,242,019

7,660,150

7,546,945

3,000,000

25,453,189

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

12,096,903

2016
471,328
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

4,459,649

0.32

18

13,755,221

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate.85

NPV

PV

0.75

Makeup
wells:7

Makeup
well steam flow rate45t/h
45t/h
5%
Decline
rate5%
(20%)
(Initial
decline rate20%)

8,029,113

5,869,208

0.51

2013

5,436,671

0.47

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

50

100

200

70

0.56

0.62

8,701,502

0.68

9,430,199

Output
60

9,884,203

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

Total
steam40flow rate

0.83

Initial
wells steam
flow rate

45t/h
5%
(20%)

0.91

84,932,799

1.00

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

600

700
700

Discount rate

Cashflow

10

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

2011
473,040
5.01

6,905

6,803

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

Tax,others

2,267,713

22,677,130

O&M cost

Net working Capital $

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

7,005,530

2007
23,362,546

2006

6,902,000

2005
23,017,287

4.45
6,800,000

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6,307,942

0.42

10

14,873,796

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

473,040
5.24

Output

13
0.32

12
0.35

4,319,261

0.39

4,663,880

2018

3,703,795

0.29

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

4,201,864

0.26

15

15,956,571

6,379

2,663,667

8,010,053

26,636,669

471,697
5.65

2020

3,174,850

0.24

16

13,262,136

3,000,000

9,530

2,711,319

8,130,204

27,113,189

473,040
5.73

2021

2,939,649

0.22

17

13,507,607

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

4,955,731

15,553,207

7,664

2,592,880

11

7,550

7,439
3,000,000

2,554,562

2,516,810

7,775,052

25,928,803

12,323,357

7,660,150

7,546,945

3,000,000

25,545,619

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

12,096,903

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

3,314,931

0.20

18

16,755,221

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

8,701,502

9,430,199

2011

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

8,029,113

0.56

2013

5,436,671

0.47

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

5,869,208

0.51

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

Makeup
wells:12
12
Makeup
well steam flow rate
25t/h
5%
25t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate5%

10

20

30

40
Total
steam flow
rate

50

100

200

70

6
0.62

5
0.68

60
Output

9,884,203

0.75

Initial
wells
steam flow

12
25t/h
5%
(20%)

81,252,194

0.83

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.91

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

t/h
Steam t/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5,008,328

0.42

10

11,809,374

3,000,000

5,865

2,472,295

7,435,414

24,722,948

471,643
5.24

3,000,000

4,318,068

4,605,566

2018

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
473,040
5.90

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

3,999,839

0.32

13

3,703,795

0.29

14

3,429,443

0.26

15

3,175,213

0.24

16

2,939,649

0.22

17

2,721,397

0.20

18

12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 13,755,221

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

473,040
5.56

Discount rate

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.35

11
0.39

3,000,000

10,955

5,499

12,319,953

2,554,562

2,499,788

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

11,945,651

7,664

25,545,619

24,997,884

2017
473,040
5.48

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
469,841
5.32

Outpu
t

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

8,701,502

9,430,199

10

20

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

8,029,113

0.56

2013

6,651,247

0.47

14,257,538

-1,790

2,397,920

7,325,531

23,979,199

464,317
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

5,869,208

0.51

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

Makeup
wells:3

Makeup
well steam flow rate
45t/h
5%
45t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate5%

2011
473,040
5.01

Total
steam flow
30

40

50

100

200

70

6
0.62

5
0.68

60
Output

9,884,203

0.75

Initial
wells
steam flow

45t/h
5%
(20%)

81,014,645

0.83

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.91

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5,679,295

0.42

10

13,391,480

-17,145

2,312,194

7,435,414

23,121,943

441,101
5.24

Output

4,734,040

4,508,855

2018

2019
419,071
5.65

2020
391,200
5.73

2021
371,640
5.82

2022
353,058
5.90

-16,195

2,184,126

7,891,678

3,000,000

36,473

2,366,491

8,010,053

-24,851

2,242,235

8,130,204

-16,032

2,162,076

8,252,157

-15,459

2,084,781

8,375,939

4,023,567

0.32

13

3,412,725

0.29

14

2,699,643

0.26

15

2,890,603

0.24

16

2,442,355

0.22

17

2,058,089

0.20

18

12,627,677 11,781,654 10,251,889 12,074,767 11,222,555 10,402,552

2,265,104

7,775,052

22,651,036 21,841,262 23,664,906 22,422,355 21,620,756 20,847,814

392,579
5.56

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.35

11
0.39

-25,168

32,546

13,506,768

2,349,083

2,474,922

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

11,694,810

-16,796

23,490,834

24,749,223

2017
413,241
5.48

2016
434,991
5.40

2015
465,167
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

500

600

100

200

2011

2012
449,915
5.09

-16,418

2,289,207

7,217,272

8,029,113

0.56

6,877,351

0.51

14,224,064 13,402,012

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 22,892,074

473,040
5.01

2013

5,858,003

0.47

12,557,150

-16,368

2,207,368

7,325,531

22,073,682

427,420
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

10

20

30

Output
40

Initial wells
steam flow 0

Makeup
wells:0

Decline
rate5%
5%
(20%)
(Initial
decline rate20%)

5%
(20%)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

50

60

8,701,502

9,430,199

600

73,509,870

9,884,203

6
0.62

5
0.68

70

4
0.75

0
14,013,856

700
700

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

PV

0.83

Discount rate

0.91

Cashflow

1.00

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

6,905

6,803

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4,977,405

0.42

10

11,736,462

-15,783

2,128,455

7,435,414

21,284,548

406,049
5.24

Output

-14,674

-15,218

3,562,925

4,217,665

2017

2018
330,729
5.56

2019
314,193
5.65

2020
298,483
5.73

2021
283,559
5.82

2022
269,381
5.90

2,999,359

0.32

13

9,413,273

-14,150

1,908,242

7,775,052

2,514,914

0.29

14

8,682,165

-13,644

1,840,022

7,891,678

2,099,086

0.26

15

7,971,275

-13,156

1,774,241

8,010,053

1,742,724

0.24

16

7,279,791

-12,686

1,710,812

8,130,204

1,437,861

0.22

17

6,606,931

-12,232

1,649,651

8,252,157

1,177,559

0.20

18

5,951,936

-11,795

1,590,676

8,375,939

19,082,417 18,400,220 17,742,412 17,108,121 16,496,506 15,906,756

348,136
5.48

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

12
0.35

11
0.39

1,978,991

2,052,363

10,165,440

7,660,150

7,546,945

19,789,906

20,523,625

10,939,536

2016
366,459
5.40

2015
385,746
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

100

200

2011

2012
408,624
5.09

-29,479

2,079,112

7,217,272

7,309,877

0.56

5,913,743

0.51

12,949,894 11,524,211

-21,950

2,226,506

7,110,613

22,265,063 20,791,116

444,156
5.01

2013
375,934
5.16

4,746,837

0.47

10,175,266

-27,527

1,941,474

7,325,531

19,414,744

Initial wells steam flow

10

20

30

Output

40

50

Makeup

wells:0
8%rate5%
Decline
(20%)
(Initial
decline rate20%)

8%
(20%)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

300
0

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

60

8,701,502

9,430,199

600

60,335,226

9,884,203

6
0.62

5
0.68

70

4
0.75

0
14,013,856

700
700

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

PV

0.83

Discount rate

0.91

Cashflow

1.00

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

6,905

6,803

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,777,365

0.42

10

8,906,830

-25,705

1,812,949

7,435,414

18,129,488

345,859
5.24

Output

-22,414

-24,003

2,309,755

2,973,866

2017

2018
247,771
5.56

2019
227,949
5.65

2020
209,713
5.73

2021
192,936
5.82

2022
177,501
5.90

1,762,582

0.32

13

5,531,738

-20,931

1,476,207

7,775,052

1,313,397

0.29

14

4,534,203

-19,545

1,378,482

7,891,678

946,211

0.26

15

3,593,235

-18,251

1,287,226

8,010,053

647,543

0.24

16

2,704,946

-17,043

1,202,012

8,130,204

406,032

0.22

17

1,865,706

-15,915

1,122,439

8,252,157

212,113

0.20

18

1,072,121

-14,861

1,048,133

8,375,939

14,762,066 13,784,817 12,872,263 12,020,119 11,224,387 10,481,332

269,316
5.48

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

12
0.35

11
0.39

1,580,860

1,692,932

6,590,001

7,660,150

7,546,945

15,808,595

16,929,316

7,713,442

2016
292,735
5.40

2015
318,190
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

8,701,502

9,430,199

100

200

70

6
0.62

5
0.68

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

6,335,692

0.56

5,869,208

0.51

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

2013

5,436,671

0.47

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

Makeup
wells:12
12
Makeup
well steam flow
rate
45t/h
8%
45t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate8%

10

2012
473,040
5.09

Initial wells steam flow

20

30

2011
473,040
5.01

23,712,984 24,068,679

40
Total
steam flow

50

Output
60

9,884,203

0.75

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

12
45t/h
8%
(20%)

79,645,600

0.83

0
14,013,856

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.91

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5,035,649

0.42

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

473,040
5.24

Output

3,000,000

4,319,261

4,663,880

2018

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
473,040
5.90

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

3,999,839

0.32

13

3,703,795

0.29

14

3,429,443

0.26

15

3,175,213

0.24

16

2,939,649

0.22

17

2,721,397

0.20

18

12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 13,755,221

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

473,040
5.56

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.35

11
0.39

3,000,000

7,550

7,439

12,323,357

2,554,562

2,516,810

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

12,096,903

7,664

25,545,619

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

Makeup wells:10
Makeup well steam flow rate
45t/h
Decline rate7%

8,701,502

9,430,199

100

200

70

6
0.62

5
0.68

2011

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

6,335,692

0.56

5,869,208

0.51

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

5,436,671

0.47

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5,035,649

0.42

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10

2013
473,040
5.16

24,429,709

Initial wells steam flow

20

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Total steam flow

30

40

50

60
Output

9,884,203

0.75

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

10
45t/h
7%
(20%)

81,353,901

0.83

0
14,013,856

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.91

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

t/h
Steam t/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

10

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

8,321

6,669

4,318,991

5,807,444

2017

2018
473,040
5.56

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
470,265
5.90

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

4,979

2,776,883

8,375,939

3,999,839

0.32

13

3,703,795

0.29

14

3,429,443

0.26

15

3,175,213

0.24

16

2,939,649

0.22

17

3,286,404

0.20

18

12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 16,611,030

3,000,000

7,664

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,768,830

473,040
5.48

Discount rate

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.35

11
0.39

3,000,000

2,554,562

2,512,959

12,322,587

7,660,150

7,546,945

25,545,619

25,129,586

15,063,013

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
472,316
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

6
0.62

8,701,502

5
0.68

9,430,199

7,217,272

3,000,000

6,335,692

0.56

5,869,208

0.51

7,325,531

6,836,193

0.47

14,653,987

7,221

2,442,971

2014

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

Makeup wells:9
Makeup well steam flow rate
45t/h
Decline rate6%

10

20

40

50

60

70

5,035,649

0.42

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

473,040
5.24

200

10

2013
473,040
5.16

24,429,709

Initial wells steam flow

20

30

7,114

2,406,868

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

Total40 steam flow rate

50

60
Output

70

14,013,856

13,806,755

2012
473,040
5.09

30

9,884,203

0.75

2011
473,040
5.01

0
0
300
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

9
45t/h
6%
(20%)

82,774,984

0.83

6,905

6,803

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.91

Discount rate

1.00

13,155,874

Cashflow

10

453,543

Capital expenditure $

7,005,530
2,336,255

6,902,000
2,301,729

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

Net working Capital $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

6,800,000

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

2,267,713

2007

2006

2005

Tax,others

4.45

O&M cost

Electricity Price /kWh

Electricity Revenue $

Electricity Volume MWh

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

5,702
0
15,242,019
12
0.35

5,342,235

7,439
3,000,000
12,096,903
11
0.39

4,663,880

2017

3,999,250

0.32

13

12,551,359

3,000,000

9,512

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803

473,040
5.48

2018

3,703,795

0.29

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

3,429,443

0.26

15

13,023,303

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

26,712,501

473,040
5.65

3,882,907

0.24

16

16,219,866

7,019

2,706,343

8,130,204

27,063,432

472,172
5.73

2020

2,939,432

0.22

17

13,506,612

3,000,000

9,129

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

2021

2,721,397

0.20

18

13,755,221

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

7,660,150
2,545,319

7,546,945

25,453,189

25,168,097

2,516,810

2016
471,328
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

6,967,363

7,894,057

Makeup
wells:7

Makeup
well steam flow rate
45t/h
5%
45t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate5%

2011

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

6,149,455

0.43

2013

3,809,709

0.33

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4,228,061

0.28

10

14,873,796

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

4,299,752

0.38

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

Total
steam40flow rate

50

100

200

70

6
0.50

5
0.57

Output
60

8,650,201

0.66

Initial
wells steam flow rate

45t/h
5%
(20%)

59,508,206

0.76

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.87

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2017
473,040
5.48

2018
473,040
5.56

2019
471,697
5.65

473,040
5.73

2020

473,040
5.82

2021

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate

2,648,822

2,990,169

13

2,907,006

0.19

2,078,165

0.16

14

3,000,000

2,255,121

0.14

15

1,629,843

0.12

16

3,000,000

1,443,487

0.11

17

3,000,000

0.09

18

1,556,994

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.21

11
0.25

8,256

2,793,268

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

12,323,357 15,553,207 12,786,505 15,956,571 13,262,136 13,507,607 16,755,221

9,530

2,711,319

3,000,000

6,379

2,663,667

12,096,903

7,779

2,631,774

8,375,939

7,664

2,592,880

8,252,157

7,550

8,130,204

2,554,562

8,010,053

7,439

7,891,678

2,516,810

7,775,052

7,660,150

7,546,945

25,545,619 25,928,803 26,317,735 26,636,669 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

25,168,097

Output

NPV

PV

6,967,363

7,894,057

Makeup
wells:12
12
Makeup
well steam flow rate
25t/h
5%
25t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate5%

2011

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

6,149,455

0.43

2013

3,809,709

0.33

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

4,299,752

0.38

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

Total
steam40flow rate

50

100

200

70

6
0.50

5
0.57

60
Output

8,650,201

0.66

Initial
wells steam
flow rate

12
25t/h
5%
(20%)

57,345,119

0.76

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

500

600

600

700
700

0.87

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,356,961

0.28

10

11,809,374

3,000,000

5,865

2,472,295

7,435,414

24,722,948

471,643
5.24

Output

3,000,000

2,648,090

2,952,782

2018

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
473,040
5.90

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

2,346,284

0.19

13

2,078,165

0.16

14

1,840,566

0.14

15

1,630,030

0.12

16

1,443,487

0.11

17

1,278,216

0.09

18

12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 13,755,221

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

473,040
5.56

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.21

11
0.25

3,000,000

10,955

5,499

12,319,953

2,554,562

2,499,788

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

11,945,651

7,664

25,545,619

24,997,884

2017
473,040
5.48

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
469,841
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

6,967,363

7,894,057

Makeup
wells:3

Makeup
well steam flow rate
45t/h
5%
45t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate5%

100

200

2011

2012
473,040
5.09

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

6,149,455

0.43

4,299,752

0.38

2013

4,660,814

0.33

14,257,538

-1,790

2,397,920

7,325,531

23,979,199

464,317
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

10

20

14,224,064 11,437,425

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

Total
steam flow rate

30

40

50

60

70

6
0.50

5
0.57

Output

8,650,201

0.66

Initial
wells steam
flow rate

45t/h
5%
(20%)

57,596,125

0.76

0
14,013,856

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.87

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

t/h
Steam t/h
flow rate

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,806,694

0.28

10

13,391,480

-17,145

2,312,194

7,435,414

23,121,943

441,101
5.24

Output

2,903,188

2,890,778

2018

2019
419,071
5.65

2020
391,200
5.73

2021
371,640
5.82

2022
353,058
5.90

-16,195

2,184,126

7,891,678

3,000,000

36,473

2,366,491

8,010,053

-24,851

2,242,235

8,130,204

-16,032

2,162,076

8,252,157

-15,459

2,084,781

8,375,939

2,360,203

0.19

13

1,914,848

0.16

14

1,448,886

0.14

15

1,483,922

0.12

16

1,199,296

0.11

17

966,666

0.09

18

12,627,677 11,781,654 10,251,889 12,074,767 11,222,555 10,402,552

2,265,104

7,775,052

22,651,036 21,841,262 23,664,906 22,422,355 21,620,756 20,847,814

392,579
5.56

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.21

11
0.25

-25,168

32,546

13,506,768

2,349,083

2,474,922

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

11,694,810

-16,796

23,490,834

24,749,223

2017
413,241
5.48

2016
434,991
5.40

2015
465,167
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

500

600

100

200

2011

2012
449,915
5.09

-16,418

2,289,207

7,217,272

6,149,455

0.43

5,038,313

0.38

14,224,064 13,402,012

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

23,712,984 22,892,074

473,040
5.01

2013

4,104,955

0.33

12,557,150

-16,368

2,207,368

7,325,531

22,073,682

427,420
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

10

20

30

Output
40

Initial wells steam

flow rate0

Makeup
wells:0
Decline
rate5%
5%
(20%)
(Initial
decline rate20%)

5%
(20%)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

500

400

50

60

6,967,363

7,894,057

600

53,480,513

8,650,201

6
0.50

5
0.57

70

4
0.66

0
14,013,856

700
700

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

PV

0.76

Discount rate

0.87

Cashflow

1.00

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

6,905

6,803

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,336,235

0.28

10

11,736,462

-15,783

2,128,455

7,435,414

21,284,548

406,049
5.24

Output

-14,674

-15,218

2,184,992

2,704,086

2017

2018
330,729
5.56

2019
314,193
5.65

2020
298,483
5.73

2021
283,559
5.82

2022
269,381
5.90

1,759,408

0.19

13

9,413,273

-14,150

1,908,242

7,775,052

1,411,094

0.16

14

8,682,165

-13,644

1,840,022

7,891,678

1,126,570

0.14

15

7,971,275

-13,156

1,774,241

8,010,053

894,646

0.12

16

7,279,791

-12,686

1,710,812

8,130,204

706,048

0.11

17

6,606,931

-12,232

1,649,651

8,252,157

553,089

0.09

18

5,951,936

-11,795

1,590,676

8,375,939

19,082,417 18,400,220 17,742,412 17,108,121 16,496,506 15,906,756

348,136
5.48

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

12
0.21

11
0.25

1,978,991

2,052,363

10,165,440

7,660,150

7,546,945

19,789,906

20,523,625

10,939,536

2016
366,459
5.40

2015
385,746
5.32

Discount rate

100

200

2011

2012
408,624
5.09

-29,479

2,079,112

7,217,272

5,598,596

0.43

4,332,378

0.38

12,949,894 11,524,211

-21,950

2,226,506

7,110,613

22,265,063 20,791,116

444,156
5.01

2013

3,326,312

0.33

10,175,266

-27,527

1,941,474

7,325,531

19,414,744

375,934
5.16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Initial wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

Output

40

50

Makeup
wells:0

Decline
rate5%
8%
(20%)
(Initial
decline rate20%)

8%
(20%)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

60

6,967,363

7,894,057

600

45,534,018

8,650,201

6
0.50

5
0.57

70

4
0.66

0
14,013,856

700
700

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

NPV

PV

0.76

Discount rate

0.87

Cashflow

1.00

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

6,905

6,803

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2,531,877

0.28

10

8,906,830

-25,705

1,812,949

7,435,414

18,129,488

345,859
5.24

Output

-22,414

-24,003

1,416,476

1,906,645

2017

2018
247,771
5.56

2019
227,949
5.65

2020
209,713
5.73

2021
192,936
5.82

2022
177,501
5.90

1,033,921

0.19

13

5,531,738

-20,931

1,476,207

7,775,052

736,935

0.16

14

4,534,203

-19,545

1,378,482

7,891,678

507,827

0.14

15

3,593,235

-18,251

1,287,226

8,010,053

332,423

0.12

16

2,704,946

-17,043

1,202,012

8,130,204

199,378

0.11

17

1,865,706

-15,915

1,122,439

8,252,157

99,628

0.09

18

1,072,121

-14,861

1,048,133

8,375,939

14,762,066 13,784,817 12,872,263 12,020,119 11,224,387 10,481,332

269,316
5.48

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue

12
0.21

11
0.25

1,580,860

1,692,932

6,590,001

7,660,150

7,546,945

15,808,595

16,929,316

7,713,442

2016
292,735
5.40

2015
318,190
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

PV

500

600

600

700
700

100

200

70

6,967,363

7,894,057

2011

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

4,852,473

0.43

4,299,752

0.38

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

10

3,809,709

0.33

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup
wells steam flow rate

2013
473,040
5.16

24,429,709

Initial wells steam flow rate

20

30

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

40

Total
steam
flow rate

50

60
Output

8,650,201

6
0.50

5
0.57

Makeup
wells:12
12

Makeup
well steam flow rate
45t/h
8%
45t/h
(20%)
Decline
rate8%

4
0.66

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

12
45t/h
8%
(20%)

56,104,568

0.76

0
14,013,856

100

400

200

300

500

400

0.87

Discount rate

1.00

0
13,155,874

Cashflow

6,905

6,803

Capital expenditure $

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

7,005,530

6,902,000

6,800,000
2,267,713

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

Tax,others

2007

Net working Capital $

15

2006

4.45

2005

O&M cost

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

2014

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,375,274

0.28

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

473,040
5.24

Output

3,000,000

2,648,822

2,990,169

2018

2019
473,040
5.65

2020
473,040
5.73

2021
473,040
5.82

2022
473,040
5.90

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

2,346,284

0.19

13

2,078,165

0.16

14

1,840,566

0.14

15

1,630,030

0.12

16

1,443,487

0.11

17

1,278,216

0.09

18

12,553,207 12,786,505 13,023,303 13,263,652 13,507,607 13,755,221

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803 26,317,735 26,712,501 27,113,189 27,519,886 27,932,685

473,040
5.56

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

12
0.21

11
0.25

3,000,000

7,550

7,439

12,323,357

2,554,562

2,516,810

3,000,000

7,660,150

7,546,945

12,096,903

7,664

25,545,619

25,168,097

2017
473,040
5.48

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Discount rate

NPV

PV

0.76

0.66

100

200

70

0.43

0.50

6,967,363

0.57

7,894,057

4,852,473

0.38

3,809,709

0.33

11,653,987

3,000,000

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,375,274

0.28

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

2013
473,040
5.16

10
Initial
wells steam flow rate

20

30

4,299,752

Total
steam flow rate
40

50

60
Output

8,650,201

Makeup wells:10
Makeup well steam flow rate45t/h
Decline rate7%
(Initial decline rate20%)

0.87

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

7,217,272

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

7,110,613

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

300
0

10
45t/h
7%
(20%)

57,102,958

1.00

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

14,013,856

100

200
400

300

400

500

500

600

600

700
700

Discount rate

Cashflow

15

0
13,155,874

Capital expenditure $

2011
473,040
5.01

6,905

6,803

Steamt/h
flow rate t/h

13,806,755

2,336,255

2,301,729

453,543

Tax,others

2,267,713

22,677,130

O&M cost

Net working Capital $

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

7,005,530

2007
23,362,546

2006

6,902,000

2005
23,017,287

4.45
6,800,000

Electricity Volume MWh

Electricity Price /kWh
Electricity Revenue $

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

13
0.19

12
0.21

2,648,656

0.25

3,723,346

2018

2,078,165

0.16

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

1,840,566

0.14

15

13,023,303

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

26,712,501

473,040
5.65

1,630,030

0.12

16

13,263,652

3,000,000

8,014

2,711,319

8,130,204

27,113,189

473,040
5.73

2020

1,443,487

0.11

17

13,507,607

3,000,000

8,134

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

2021

1,543,595

0.09

18

16,611,030

4,979

2,776,883

8,375,939

27,768,830

470,265
5.90

2022

Discount rate

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

2,346,284

12,553,207

3,000,000

7,664

2,592,880

11

8,321

6,669
3,000,000

2,554,562

2,512,959

7,775,052

25,928,803

12,322,587

7,660,150

7,546,945

25,545,619

25,129,586

2017
473,040
5.48

15,063,013

2016
473,040
5.40

2015
472,316
5.32

Output

NPV

PV

Makeup wells:9
Makeup well steam flow rate
45t/h
Decline rate6%

6
0.50

6,967,363

5
0.57

7,894,057

100

200

70

14,013,856

13,806,755

2011

7,110,613

7,217,272

3,000,000

7,114

2,406,868

4,852,473

0.43

4,299,752

0.38

11,224,064 11,437,425

3,000,000

7,009

2,371,298

2013

4,790,414

0.33

14,653,987

7,221

2,442,971

7,325,531

24,429,709

473,040
5.16

Initial wells steam flow

2014
473,040
5.24

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3,375,274

0.28

10

11,873,796

3,000,000

7,329

2,479,615

7,435,414

24,796,155

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Makeup wells steam flow rate

10

20

30

2012
473,040
5.09

23,712,984 24,068,679

473,040
5.01

40 steam flow rate

Total

50

60
Output

8,650,201

0.66

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

0
300

9
45t/h
6%
(20%)

58,075,470

0.76

6,905

6,803

100

400

200

300

400

500

500

600

600

700
700

0.87

Discount rate

1.00

13,155,874

Cashflow

15

453,543

Capital expenditure $

7,005,530
2,336,255

6,902,000
2,301,729

23,362,546

23,017,287

22,677,130

Net working Capital $

Steam t/h
flow rate t/h

6,800,000

2010
473,040
4.94

2009
473,040
4.87

2008
473,040
4.79

2,267,713

2007

2006

2005

Tax,others

4.45

O&M cost

Electricity Price /kWh

Electricity Revenue $

Electricity Volume MWh

Year

Calculation sheetElectricity Price 4.45/kWh(at 2003, Inflation:1.5%)

5,702
0
15,242,019
12
0.21

3,276,169

7,439
3,000,000
12,096,903
11
0.25

2,990,169

2017

2,345,939

0.19

13

12,551,359

3,000,000

9,512

2,592,880

7,775,052

25,928,803

473,040
5.48

2018

2,078,165

0.16

14

12,786,505

3,000,000

7,779

2,631,774

7,891,678

26,317,735

473,040
5.56

2019

1,840,566

0.14

15

13,023,303

3,000,000

7,895

2,671,250

8,010,053

26,712,501

473,040
5.65

1,993,332

0.12

16

16,219,866

7,019

2,706,343

8,130,204

27,063,432

472,172
5.73

2020

1,443,381

0.11

17

13,506,612

3,000,000

9,129

2,751,989

8,252,157

27,519,886

473,040
5.82

2021

1,278,216

0.09

18

13,755,221

3,000,000

8,256

2,793,268

8,375,939

27,932,685

473,040
5.90

2022

Discount rate

O&M cost assumed it 30% of Electricity Revenue

at first year (Aged deterioration correction
coefficient:1.5%)
Tax and Others assumed it 10% of Electricity
Revenue
Net working Capital assumed it 2% of Electricity
Revenue
The cost of makeup well assumed it 3million $

7,660,150
2,545,319

7,546,945

25,453,189

25,168,097

2,516,810

2016
471,328
5.40

2015
473,040
5.32

Output


CDM

1970 19851991
ADB55MW2
1994 California Energy InternationalCEI JV
2001 4 150MW 1998 60MW 1
45 350MW
2 CEI Mid-American
OPIC 2001 8 PLN

67%

33%

60MW 42MW

s-1

 O&M

LG

FX233

45t/h/
14,000

13,000

12,000

2 2008 3 2009
11,000
10,000
9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000
5,000

5.00%
7.00%
9.00%
11.00%
13.00%
15.00%
17.00%
300MW5

600

120
IRR 6.85%
CO2

70 CO2

3
330MW 30
1
1 50MW

CDM

s-2

65MW3

50MW2