Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

An overview of the Muara Laboh geothermal system, Sumatra T

a,⁎ a a a a
Jim Stimac , Novi Ganefianto , Marino Baroek , Mauliate Sihotang , Irvan Ramadhan ,
Wildan Mussofana, Ridwan Sidika, Alfiadya, Dayinta A. Dyaksaa, Herwin Azisa, Alfianto P. Putraa,
Rudy Martiknoa, Robi Irsamukhtia, Sonny Santanaa, Koji Matsudab, Hideki Hatanakab,
Yoshio Soedab, Laurent Cariouc, Patrick Egermannc
a
PT Supreme Energy, Menara Sentraya, 23rd Floor. Jl. Iskandarsyah Raya No 1A, Jakarta, 12160, Indonesia
b
West Japan Engineering Consultants, Inc., Denki Bldg., Sunselco Annex 8F 1-1-1, Watanabe-Dori, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka, Japan
c
Storengy (Engie group) 12 rue Raoul Nordling, Djinn Building, 92277, Bois-Colombes Cedex, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The Muara Laboh geothermal system is a liquid-dominated, fracture-controlled reservoir showing some char-
Stratigraphy acteristics of both intrusion-related and fault circulation systems. The developed reservoir has moderate to high-
Alteration temperature (230–310 °C) with a long NNW outflow (160–230 °C) extending to the Sapan Malulong boiling
Conceptual model chloride springs. Reservoir fluids generally have low salinity (∼400-1600 ppm Cl) with benign chemistry and
Geochemistry
low non-condensable gas (NCG) content (∼0.5 to 2 wt% in steam). The proven reservoir is divided into distinct
Geophysics
SW and NE sectors. The principal deep upflow zone (270 to 310 °C) is located in the SW and is associated with
Porosity
Permeability Patah Sembilan volcano and satellite vents (Anak Patah Sembilan). The SW upflow is characterized by relatively
low salinity (∼400-600 ppm Cl), whereas fluids in the NE emerge from a second upflow along faults and
fractures at 240–250 °C (1200–1600 ppm Cl) and ascend to an initial-state steam cap near the Idung Mancung
fumarole. The shallow NE part of the geothermal system is hosted mainly by Quaternary to Miocene Age an-
desitic to rhyolitic rocks, whereas the deeper SW part of the system occurs in a Mesozoic to Cenozoic Age
plutonic complex and its host rocks that are cut by younger dikes. Rock porosity and permeability trends can be
related to reservoir age, volcanic deposit type, and alteration history. Fracture permeability is high, whereas
matrix porosity (< 1-7%) and permeability are moderate to low and decrease with depth. The volcanic sequence
is capped by tuffs dated at ∼34,000 to 41,000 years BP, incapsulated in debris flows. This sequence may have
formed during and shortly after likely sector collapse episodes of the Patah Sembilan volcano. The shallow clay
cap of the system wraps around the crater, suggesting that it was excavated during crater formation.
Permeable fracture patterns and their origins differ somewhat between the deep SW and the shallow NE
reservoir. In the deep SW reservoir, fluids ascend along fractured margins of stock and dike intrusions. Steeply
dipping intrusions and open fractures strike from WNW to NNW, subparallel to the main Great Sumatra Fault
trend, with a secondary set of N to NE fractures and intrusions parallel with the inferred maximum horizontal
stress direction (SHMax). In the shallower NE steam cap and outflow, N to NE steeply dipping fractures dominate,
with bounding N to NNW faults. Bulk rock alteration includes shallow argillic and transitional clay zones
overlying phyllic and propylitic zones. High-T propylitic alteration (secondary amphibole) and rare potassic
alteration (secondary biotite) are associated with intrusion. Vein paragenesis in the SW reservoir indicates that
portions of the initially permeable propylitic zone have been sealed by calcite and quartz ± prehnite. Late
calcite veins suggest ingress of steam-heated bicarbonate waters contributed to resealing of the system. These
relationships suggest that the SW system underwent extensive boiling, fluid loss, and inflow of dilute bicarbonate
waters, possibly related to sector collapse and partial excavation of the topseal of the system (now Patah
Sembilan crater).

⁎
Corresponding author at: 4210 Chaparral Rd., Santa Rosa, CA, 95409, USA.
E-mail addresses: sgcgeo00@gmail.com, wsg-advisor@supreme-energy.com (J. Stimac).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.05.008
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 6 April 2019; Accepted 12 May 2019
0375-6505/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
J. Stimac, et al.
1. Introduction
This paper provides a summary of exploration and development
activities at the Muara Laboh geothermal area, and an overview of the
current conceptual model. The Muara Laboh geothermal area is located
in South Solok Selatan Regency, ∼140 km SE of Padang, the capital city
of West Sumatra Province (Fig. 1). The geothermal concession extends
over about 62,300 ha (62.3 km2) at elevations from 450 to 2000 m and
borders the Taman Nasional Kerinci Seblat (Kerinci National Park) to
the west and south. The prospect was identified based on the presence
of fumaroles, mud pools, and hot springs occurring over a wide area
(http://www.supreme-energy.com/company/se-muara-laboh/
location/).
The geothermal area lies within a right stepover of the GSF in an
area of Quaternary volcanism (Mussofan et al., 2018). Detailed de-
scription of the regional geologic setting, stratigraphy, and alteration
history of the area is given in a companion paper (Stimac et al., 2019).
1.1. Early exploration
Abundant thermal manifestations in the lower elevations attracted
geothermalists to Muara Laboh. The earliest reconnaissance surveys
were undertaken by the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia between
1972 and 1979, and geophysical surveys (dc-resistivity, head-on pro-
filing, gravity, and magnetic surveys) were later conducted by
Pertamina and the Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB) group to
further delineate the prospect and trace concealed major faults
(Hochstein and Sudarman, 1993; Santoso et al., 1995). A deep reservoir
of hot fluids, however, could not be confirmed at that time.
Early workers separated low elevation hot springs into two groups
based on location and composition, designating them the North and
South Muara Laboh springs (Figs. 1 and 2). Both spring groups are lo-
cated within what appears to be a narrow fault bounded basin. The
North Muara Laboh spring group occurs at about 400 m elevation
mostly along the western margin of the basin, discharging almost
neutral-pH, dilute sodium-sulfate-bicarbonate water (TDS∼0.8 g/kg)
Fig. 1. Left: Map of Sumatra, the Barisan Mountains, and the Great Sumatra Fault (GSF). Tectonic setting of Sumatra is attributed to oblique subduction of the Indo-
Australian Plate beneath Eurasian Plate resulting in the transcurrent GSF, arc volcanism and associated geothermal systems. Quaternary volcanism occurs
130 ± 20 km above the downgoing oceanic plate (Acocella et al., 2018) and mostly along or astride the GSF within the Barisan Mountain Range. Right: Map of
Muara Laboh area and right stepover of the GSF system resulting in a mature pull-apart basin with young volcanism along its SW margin. Thermal discharge is mainly
along the GSF and in Patah Sembilan Crater.
151
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
with a maximum temperature of 104 °C. These springs have not been
linked directly to the developed Muara Laboh geothermal system al-
though whether they could be distal outflow from the SW sector of the
field is still the subject of ongoing investigation.
The South Muara Laboh spring group discharges boiling, slightly
alkaline NaCl water (TDS of about 2.6 g/kg) at an elevation of about
800 m, pointing to a deep geothermal origin (Fig. 2). Cation geo-
thermometers indicated fluid–rock equilibrium temperatures of
∼230 °C. It is the South Muara Laboh springs, and in particular, Sapan
Malulong (SM) that is considered the main outflow spring of the NE
reservoir sector. The location of the South Muara Laboh springs appears
to be related to the trace of the so-called Suliti segment of the GSF (Sieh
and Natawidjaja, 2000; Figs. 1 and 2). Based on their distribution and
composition, this spring group was inferred by Hochstein and
Sudarman (1993) to be typical of outflow from high-elevation liquid-
dominated system with a long flow path. Santoso et al. (1995) used
gravity and resistivity data to infer that the geothermal system was
associated with interpreted NW to NNW-trending faults extending from
the Idung Mancung (IM) fumarole to the Pakan Salasa hot spring
(Figs. 2 and 3).
Pertamina drilled three shallow temperature gradient wells in the
vicinity of the low elevation thermal features from 1992 to early 1993
(MLB-1, MLB-2, and MLB-3) to depths of 275, 250, and 225 m, re-
spectively (Wisnandary and Alamsyah, 2012). The maximum measured
temperature was 68 °C in MLB-2. These low temperatures suggest that
the wells failed to intersect thermal outflow channels, which may be
confined to discrete fractures and limited in extent. The wells have
since been plugged and abandoned. MLB-2 is located just north of well
C1 (Fig. 3), which also failed to intersect the geothermal system.
Heat flux from the Muara Laboh geothermal prospect was measured
in May 2011 in an area extending from Patah Sembilan (PS) fumarole in
the south to SM hot springs in the north (Sinclair Knight Mertz, 2011).
The total measured heat loss from the Muara Laboh South resource
(purple box in Fig. 2) was calculated to be approximately 104 MWt.
High elevation thermal features including the PS and IM fumaroles
accounted for about 68 MWt, equating to a mass flow of 26 kg/s steam.
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Fig. 2. Map of the main thermal manifestations in the Muara Laboh area compiled on an early geologic map (modified from Rosidi et al., 1996). North Muara Laboh
spring group is highlighted in the upper red dashed box, meanwhile the South Muara Laboh spring group, along with higher elevation fumaroles, are highlighted in
the lower purple dashed box. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Total heat loss from the lower elevation thermal springs was measured quarter of 2019.
at approximately 36 MWt which equated to a mass flow of 108 kg/s of
98 °C water.
2.1. Surface exploration and drilling

2. Project exploration and development chronology
PT Supreme Energy conducted pre-feasibility studies in the “Liki
Pinangawan Muaralaboh” geothermal prospect based on permissions
granted by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in 2008.
Exploration studies integrating preliminary geologic, geochemical and
geophysical surveys were completed within a year. These studies con-
firmed the high potential of the area and allowed reserves assessment of
the concession. Following the tender award of the Muara Laboh con-
cession to Supreme Energy Consortium in early 2010, a geothermal
license was issued to the project company. Power purchase agreements
were signed in March of 2012 clearing the way for exploration drilling.
As described later, an 80 MWe dual flash power station was eventually
tendered and is expected to reach commercial operation by the last
Exploration activities from 2008 to 2013 included geoscience stu-
dies to further characterize the extent and temperature of the ex-
ploitable Muara Laboh resource, followed by drilling of six deviated
exploration wells (A1, B1, C1, E1, H1, H2). These studies defined an
extensive shallow clay layer that was spatially associated with NE and
NW trending faults and the known thermal features. Geochemical
sampling of thermal features confirmed that the reservoir fluid is likely
benign and high enough temperature for exploitation. Gas geochem-
istry validated a model where upflow is likely associated with the PS
volcano or its satellite vents, and outflow reaches the surface within the
Muara Laboh basin along the GSF. The superheated PS fumarole, lo-
cated in the southeasterly crater of the volcano indicated possible up-
flow temperatures of 300–340 °C, whereas IM fumarole and SM
chloride springs indicated temperatures of 270 and 230 °C, respectively.

152
J. Stimac, et al.
The conceptual model after completion and testing of the first six wells
is shown in Fig. 3.
The 10 Ωm contours from 1D and 3D inversions of resistivity data
were used to map the base of the conductor (BOC) which served as a
proxy for the base of hydrothermal smectite clay. The BOC and SM
chloride spring elevation were used to infer a reservoir liquid level at
about 800 m asl and boiling point for depth (BPD) curve in the A Pad
area (Fig. 4). This approach was used to predict the top of reservoir
(TOR) prior to drilling the first wells and design them accordingly
(Dyaksa et al., 2016). The 1D MT inversion tended to exaggerate
changes near discontinuities and to displace them because of dimen-
sional distortion, while 3D inversion shown in the figure smoothed low
resistivity and made the layers extend to greater depth than in the 1D
inversion.
As mentioned, well locations and trajectories were planned based
primarily on the extent of inferred hydrothermal clay and thermal
features. Wells also targeted specific structures that were thought to
play a role in enhancing permeability and supporting fluid flow.
However, permeable zones could not be related to any single inferred
structure or linear trend like in some fault-controlled reservoirs. It was
153
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Fig. 3. Exploration-stage conceptual model. (Top) shaded relief
map shows inferred upflow near the PS fumarole with lateral flow
parallel to the NW-trending GSF until it reaches N and NE
trending faults and fractures formed in the stepover. The purple
shaded area delineated the subsurface region > 230 °C reachable
from the geothermal concession (solid orange line). Blue dashed
lines show the likely maximum temperature at reasonable drilling
depth, and projected beyond the limits of drilling to the south.
Yellow shaded areas are regions of thick clay that mark the
eastern edge of fluid circulation and outflow based on MT and B1
and C1 wells. (Bottom) approximately N–S cross section showing
the conceptual model of Muara Laboh. Arrows in left figure in-
dicate the main directions of lateral flow. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
found that the TOR, as confirmed by temperature and permeability,
conformed to the base of smectite clay inferred from MT data near Pad
A (near IM fumarole), but that it was deeper in the SW where it was
well below the first occurrence of epidote (Dyaksa et al., 2016 and
Fig. 4).
Exploration drilling and well testing confirmed the existence of an
exploitable geothermal reservoir with good permeability and tem-
peratures from 232 to 312 °C (Situmorang et al., 2016; Fig. 3). Well
temperatures and testing, and hydrothermal alteration patterns formed
the basis for revision of the conceptual model (Fig. 3). The highest
temperature (312 °C) was observed to the south in H2, and the lowest
temperature of about 160 °C was to the NNW in well E1, between IM
fumarole and SM springs. Based on well temperature trends, the most
likely upflow area was located within Kerinci National Park near the PS
fumarole (S of the area accessible by drilling). Lateral fluid flow was
thought to be parallel to segments of the NNW-trending GSF in the area
of upflow, primarily N to NE within the stepover and pull-apart basin,
and N to NNW again as it reaches the N outflow of the reservoir (see
arrows in Fig. 3). The A1 well PT profile and flow characteristics also
provided evidence for an initial-state steam cap in that area. Well C1
J. Stimac, et al.
penetrated older basement rocks which were impermeable. Well B1 was
drilled in a thick clay-altered package of andesitic volcanic and volca-
niclastic rocks that forms the eastern margin of the reservoir (Dyaksa
et al., 2016). A numerical model based on these conceptual under-
pinnings indicated that the resource could support at least 60 MWe of
power generation with single flash turbine technology (Situmorang
et al., 2016), and this was upgraded through an EPC tender process to
80 MWe using dual flash condensing plant technology. A second
amendment to the PPA was signed in August 2016, and loan agree-
ments to finance the project were concluded in January 2017.
2.2. Development drilling
A development strategy for 80 MWe of dual flash capacity was fi-
nalized in 2016 that included plans for 11 new wells and two con-
tingency wells to meet production and injection requirements (SEML,
2016). Wells were planned from existing pads A, H, and E, and two new
pads designated D and F (Table 1 and Fig. 5). Production was planned
from pads A, H and F, whereas injection was designated for pads E, D,
and B. Most of the wells were designed as “bigholes” (13-3/8″ pro-
duction casing) to maximize production, minimize drilling problems
and provide flexibility for contingency sidetracks.
The Stage 1 development drilling campaign and other supporting
geoscientific studies were carried out from the end of October 2017 to
May 2018. Well and geoscientific study results were used to develop a
3D geologic model in Leapfrog, and a revised conceptual and numerical
model of the field (Dyaksa et al., 2018; SEML, 2018). The models were
Table 1
Exploration and Development Well Locations.
Notes: Production sectors (NE, SW) are based on well locations, temperatures,
and fluid compositions, as described in more detail below. Reservoir sectors are
so named because they are on the NE and SW sides of the proven production
zone.
154
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Fig. 4. N–S 3D MT profile approximately along trend of the
system outflow (NNW) with exploration wells shown. The BOC
based on 5 Ωm contour (red dashed line), TOR interpretation from
MT at about 7 Ωm and, and actual TOR locally revised from well
data are shown relative to the elevation of the SM chloride spring.
Well C1 is outside the reservoir, and both C1 and E1 are somewhat
out of the plane of the section. (For interpretation of the refer-
ences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
also used as the basis for evaluating expansion opportunities (Stage 2).
Eleven new wells and one redrill of an existing well (H2) were com-
pleted during the development program (Table 1). Four of the original
exploration wells will also be used in Stage 1 (A1, H1 for production;
E1, B1 for injection), providing a total of sixteen wells for project uti-
lization.
2.3. Production capacity
The planned dual flash development will utilize 11 wells for pro-
duction, four for brine injection, and one for condensate injection. Six
producers will tap the shallow NE reservoir, and five will utilize the
deep SW reservoir. Five development wells (A2, A3, A4, H3, and H4)
were sufficiently tested to confirm their capability to flow commercially
to the planned steam gathering system (Fig. 6). Together with the ex-
isting A1 and H1 wells (tested during the exploration program), the new
production wells have an estimated production of 260 kg/s and 40 kg/s
at high pressure (HP; 9.1 bara) and low pressure (LP; 4.5 bara) re-
spectively. This far exceeds required targets of 123 kg/s and 26 kg/s for
HP and LP steam respectively (Ganefianto, 2018). The above mentioned
capacity estimate has been discounted by 20% relative to individual
well tests to account for production interference. This value was con-
sidered appropriate because some nearby wells have feed zones < 200-
400 m from each other. The total mass flow production and enthalpy
values, collected on a daily basis from an atmospheric flash tank using
the James Tube method, were periodically verified using the Tracer
Flow Test method.
Injection wells (E2, D1, and D2) encountered permeability in the
reservoir that together with the existing well E1, will accept about
1300 kg/s of 140 °C separated brine at 20 barg and 30 barg WHP at E
pad and D pad, respectively, well above the estimate of required in-
jection capacity of 420 kg/s. It is worth noting that the E2 injection
capacity was initially low, but significantly improved after being used
for injection of brine produced from A and H wells during the pro-
duction test. Such improvement following a long period of cold brine
injection has been observed in other geothermal wells (e.g., Lovekin
et al., 2017). Plant condensate will be injected into exploration well B1.
3. Reservoir characteristics
3.1. Stratigraphy and geochronology
The stratigraphic section exposed at the surface and penetrated to
about 3100 m MD (about 1300 m bsl) by wells is summarized in Fig. 7.
These sections are generalized from well logs that considered descrip-
tion of cuttings and core, GR logs, and resistivity images of formations
(Baroek et al., 2018). The stratigraphic section was dated by 14C ages at
the surface and U-Pb ages on zircon from subsurface samples and is
described in more detail by Stimac et al. (2019). Ages confirm that
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Fig. 5. Map of all Muara Laboh wells and inferred major structures (blue lines are revised faults using high resolution digital terrain model obtained from LiDAR data,
new mapping and drilling results). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

intrusions of both Mesozoic and Tertiary age host the SW reservoir.

Weakly altered microdiorite dikes that cut these older intrusions were
only sampled from cuttings that could not be dated due to mixing with
other lithologies. Volcanic sequences of likely Mesozoic to Quaternary
age and ranging in composition from rhyolite to basalt were en-
countered. The NE reservoir is largely capped by the PS Andesite for-
mation and hosted primarily by a sequence of dacitic to rhyolitic tuffs of
Plio-Pleistocene age. The deeper SW reservoir is hosted mainly by un-
derlying Miocene and probable Late Mesozoic age mafic to silicic se-
quences cut by the aforementioned intrusions.

3.2. Formation porosity and permeability

Core samples and logs provide data on reservoir petrophysical

Fig. 6. Status of high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP) steam availability
properties. Matrix porosity values measured on core plugs are relatively
based on the testing results. Dashed black lines represent steam requirement for
low, ranging from about 7 to < 1% (Baroek et al., 2018; Table 2 and
HP and LP. Values are discounted 20% from capacities determined by in-
dividual tests.
Fig. 8). As has already been observed in other geothermal fields, there is
a general trend of decreasing porosity with depth, especially for frag-
mental rock types (e.g., Stimac et al., 2004; Siratovich et al., 2016). At
Muara Laboh this results in part because intrusive rock porosities,

155
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Fig. 7. Stratigraphy of selected Muara Laboh wells and likely correlative regional formations. Major units are further described in Stimac et al. (2019). Intrusive units
(INT-D for diorite and INT-GD for granodiorite) crosscut other units as shown on the left.

mostly from mid-Tertiary and Mesozoic age encountered in deep H
wells, are only from 1 to 2% (Table 2). However even these rocks have
structurally enhanced porosity near ubiquitous veins and breccias.
Partially sealed fracture porosity and permeability are not easily mea-
sured using conventional methods, so values from plugs are likely near
the minimum of a wider range. Fig. 8 shows that when multiple plugs
are measured from a given depth, a range of values is observed that
highlights the variability of porosity at the plug scale.
Matrix permeability is low to moderate and varies as a function of
pressure applied during measurement (Table 2). There is no clear re-
lationship between matrix porosity and permeability although all the
higher matrix permeabilities are from samples with > 3% porosity.
Core plugs were generally selected away from open fractures and par-
tially open veins and represent hydrothermally altered primary rock
properties. However, some samples were so pervasively fractured that
veinlets with some remaining open space could not be avoided. Ex-
amination of core plugs shows that the samples with the higher per-
meability include such veinlets, although no veinlet fully transected the
sample in the direction of permeability measurement (Baroek et al.,
2018).
Petrography of open and partially open veins indicates that porosity
near veins has generally been substantially increased by local micro-
fracturing, brecciation, and mineral dissolution. Plagioclase pheno-
crysts commonly show dissolution cavities in which minerals such as
epidote, calcite, and adularia have grown (Baroek et al., 2018). Based
on these observations, we expect that porosity is on the order of 5–15%
near open fractures, providing some local fluid storage, and con-
nectivity of the main fracture pathways to the rock matrix. Since

Table 2
Petrophysical measurements on core plugs.

Notes: Bulk density calculated from grain density and water-saturated pore volume; sample permeability listed at 0.0005 is below
the threshold of measurement. Data from CoreLab (A2, A3, H4) and Geoservices ITB (A1, B1, and E1).

156
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Fig. 8. Core matrix porosity versus vertical depth and by rock type. There is a general trend of decreasing porosity with depth (r2 = 0.6) but a range of values is
observed in a given core interval when multiple plugs are measured.

reservoir rocks are mainly of Mesozoic and Tertiary age in the SW, there be more recent and developed mainly in the stepover between the main
has been ample time for infilling of primary porosity during hydro- GSF segments but have also been found in some wells near the Siulak
thermal alteration events. The shallower NE reservoir is hosted by Plio- fault segment. Interpretation of Bouguer gravity suggests N–S trending
Pleistocene volcanic rocks and retains a higher percentage of its original horsts and grabens have formed within the broader stepover area
primary porosity. (Mussofan et al., 2018). This N–S fracture set is well oriented for ex-
tensional failure in the current stress field and is thought to be im-
portant in controlling permeability and fluid flow in the Muara Laboh
3.3. Reservoir structure and permeability
geothermal system, especially in the NE reservoir (A Pad) and far N
outflow. The NE-SW fault trend is interpreted to be antithetic to the
Structural controls on the Muara Laboh system have been described
GSF. It is considered to be the youngest fracture set based on the field
by Mussofan et al. (2018) and Baroek et al. (2018). The Muara Laboh
mapping data, where examples of NE-SW faults crosscutting the older
geothermal system is a hybrid between magmatic-hydrothermal intru-
NW-SE and N–S structures were observed. Fig. 9 shows effective frac-
sion-related and fault-controlled circulation systems. Shallow perme-
ture orientations interpreted from coupled borehole image and PTS log
ability is related to fault and fracture systems formed in a stepover of
interpretation. Effective fractures are defined as those that support fluid
the GSF, where a large pull-apart basin has formed. Deeper perme-
flow based on drilling losses, well completion, and flow testing data.
ability is related to magmatic-hydrothermal fracturing associated with
Fractures striking NW-SE, N–S and NE-SW are most common, consistent
intrusions emplaced over an extended period of time at a deeper level
with the pull-apart basin setting. A subpopulation of WNW-ESE striking
into the evolving fault and fracture system. Accurate mapping of faults
fractures is present in some deep wells in the SW (F2, H2, H3). The
is however impeded by young volcanic cover and dense tropical vege-
majority of fractures are high angle (> 60°), consistent with a strike-
tation.
slip faulting environment; however, a significant subset of the popula-
Present day in situ stress orientations were determine from borehole
tion dip from 40-60°, indicating that normal faults are also common
breakout and drilling induced tensile fractures. In near-vertical wells
(see Baroek et al., 2018, Fig. 8).
(maximum 30° inclination), the minimum principal horizontal stress
The reservoir clay cap, defined by the MT conductive layer, me-
(Shmin) is parallel to the orientation of borehole breakouts, whereas the
thylene blue analysis (MeB), petrographic analysis of well cuttings, and
maximum principal horizontal stress (SHMax) is parallel to tensile
limited XRD data is found mainly within the Quaternary Andesite
fractures (Baroek et al., 2018). The SHMax and Shmin orientations de-
volcanics of the Patah Sembilan Complex. Smectite clay is most strongly
rived from well D1 are consistent with those determined from modeling
developed within tuff and volcaniclastic layers that originally contained
for exploration wells H1 and H2, where SHMax is NE-SW and Shmin is
abundant glassy material. The shallow steam cap intersected in Pad A
NW-SE (GMI, 2013, 2012). This local in situ stress orientation is con-
wells is associated with the stratigraphic contact between Patah
sistent with some regional in situ stress data in Sumatra based on Tingay
Sembilan Andesite and underlying Undifferentiated Silicic Formation,
et al. (2012) who showed SHMax is commonly NE-SW. However, the
whereas liquid feed zones at Pad A and Pad E are present within the
GSF is a segmented strike-slip fault system that can generate stress
Undifferentiated Silicic Formation and are thought to be related mainly
perturbation due to the stepover mechanism between segments gen-
to steeply dipping faults and fractures. Core samples from A Pad show
erating pull-apart basins and pop-up structures. This can change the
hydrothermal veins and breccias are common, highlighting the inter-
direction of the SHMax locally as shown by the focal mechanism data
play of faulting and episodic fluid overpressure.
from N–S to NNW.
Deep permeability encountered by Pad H wells corresponds mainly
Based on surface mapping and borehole image logs, the dominant
with highly fractured contact zones within a multiple intrusive complex
fault and fracture trends of the area are NE-SW, N–S and NW-SE
composed of dikes, sills and stocks emplaced from Mesozoic to recent
(Baroek et al., 2018). The NW trend (NNW to WNW) is represented
time. Open fractures and dike margins commonly show the same strike
mainly by the GSF and subsidiary structures and is considered a long-
orientations, suggesting that dikes and fractures share a common origin.
lived fault/fracture system. The N–S and NE-SW trends are thought to

157
J. Stimac, et al.
Fig. 9. Stereonets of effective fracture strikes from image logs (from Baroek et al., 2018). The dominant trends are NW-SE, N–S and NE-SW, similar to identified
faults. N is number of fractures.
Petrography suggests that some dikes are weakly altered and post-date
the bulk of hydrothermal alteration (Stimac et al., 2019). The heat
source of the Muara Laboh geothermal system may be related to these
younger structurally controlled intrusions. Their exact locations are
unknown, but the distribution of young vents indicates they are likely
beneath the Anak PS vents and/or the PS volcano sector collapse.
3.4. Reservoir geophysics
The SW extension of the geophysical conductor has been used to
estimate the maximum extent of the reservoir and therefore its upside
potential as shown in Fig. 10. A NW-SE elongated conductive layer in
the eastern part of the system is associated with volcanic sediment
(based on drilling results of B1), interpreted not to be associated with
the current geothermal reservoir. The absence of a conductive layer
inside the PS crater may be in part related to its excavation by sector
collapse or long-term erosion. 14C ages on tuffs associated with surficial
debris flow deposits indicate sector collapse may have occurred as re-
cently as 34 to 41 ka (see Stimac et al., 2019), but is most likely
somewhat older than this. The geothermal system at Lihir Island was
affected by partial removal of its clay cap by sector collapse, however
the system resealed itself and remained extant (White et al., 2010; Rae
et al., 2010). This suggests that a geothermal reservoir extending below
a young sector collapse crater may survive these events, although it
would likely be impacted by cooling. As described above regarding the
exploration-stage conceptual model, the distribution of low resistivity
clay also suggests that geothermal circulation may be ongoing in a
narrow fault-controlled NNW-SSE corridor extending from well H1 to
the E of the PS fumarole (cf. Figs. 3 and 10).
The maximum northern extension of the reservoir is limited by
disappearance of the conductive layer (Fig. 11, left) and interpreted to
be associated with a NE-trending fault (F4). Meanwhile the southern
boundary is still uncertain due to the nature of the clay cap within the
crater. A limit on the eastward extension of the reservoir is defined by
158
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
the low temperature of well B1 and is consistent with a discontinuity in
the MT (1D TE Mode) (Fig. 11, right), and a thickening and plunging of
the conductive layer (3D) to the east. This has been interpreted to be
associated with a prominent N to NNE trending fault (F2). The west
boundary could possibly go as far as F10 as marked by the dis-
appearance of the clay cap.
3.5. Hydrothermal alteration and paragenesis
Bulk rock alteration at Muara Laboh includes extensive shallow ar-
gillic and transitional clay zones that overlie phyllic (quartz-sericite-
pyrite ± adularia ± titanite) and propylitic (epidote-chlorite-quartz-
pyrite) zones that host the permeable reservoir. High-T propylitic al-
teration (amphibole-epidote-adularia ± prehnite-garnet) and rare po-
tassic alteration (biotite-adularia-amphibole) are associated with intru-
sions. Some of this high temperature alteration, especially potassic zones,
now occurs in rocks at < 250 °C and is therefore relict. Phyllic alteration
is more prevalent in silicic rocks, whereas propylitic alteration is domi-
nant in intermediate volcanics and intrusives (Stimac et al., 2019).
Methylene blue analysis conducted on cuttings at the wellsite has
provided a simple and effective means of determining the extent of low-
temperature smectite-rich alteration (Fig. 12).
Vein paragenesis has been described in detail by Baroek et al.
(2018) and Stimac et al. (2019). In general, adularia and epidote were
deposited on fracture initiation and are found in open-space veins in the
system upflows, whereas quartz ± prehnite and wairakite dominate in
the shallow steam cap region and are found as the last minerals to have
formed in open fractures. An episode of cooler steam-heated inflow is
represented by anhydrite ± calcite in the NE. Fluid inclusion data in-
dicate some cooling of the NE reservoir from a maximum of 250–260 °C
to the current temperature of < 240 °C (Stimac et al., 2019). Wairakite
is the dominant vein mineral currently forming in the shallowest part of
the reservoir where temperatures may currently not support formation
of epidote.
J. Stimac, et al.
Vein paragenesis in the SW reservoir indicates that portions of the
initially permeable propylitic zone have been sealed by infilling of
fractures by calcite and quartz ± prehnite. Late calcite veins suggest
downflow of steam-heated bicarbonate waters following infilling of the
higher temperature veins, and resealing of the system. These relation-
ships suggest that the SW system underwent extensive boiling, fluid
loss, and ingress of overlying bicarbonate waters, possibly related to
Fig. 11. MT cross section lines from Fig. 10 (1D – top and 3D – bottom). Left) line A-A’ showing north and possibly south reservoir boundaries. Right) Line B-B’
showing east and possibly west reservoir boundaries.
159
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Fig. 10. 3D MT total conductance to 1000 m
below surface. Section lines A-A’ and B-B’ are
shown in Fig. 11. Inverted triangles are MT
stations. Dashed black line is likely reservoir
extension based on conductor extent. Dotted
black line is a possible reservoir extension be-
yond the conductor provided clay cap has been
partially removed. Black triangles are inferred
volcanic vents based on LiDAR image inter-
pretation.
sector collapse and partial excavation of the topseal of the system (now
Patah Sembilan crater). This process may have also led to formation of
the NE steam cap, but the two areas are now poorly connected. In the
deeper SW reservoir open space veins lined by epidote and adularia
remain with only minor infilling of later minerals. Temperatures mea-
sured in the wells are near the maximum represented by fluid inclusions
in the permeable reservoir below about −200 m elevation. Alteration
J. Stimac, et al.
Fig. 12. Cross section A-B-C along the main axis of the Muara Laboh geothermal system with contoured resistivity (Ωm) methylene blue (MEB) index values from
well cuttings and 3D MT data. Wells B1 and C1 are further from section line and show deeper low temperature alteration (see Fig. 10). Wells E1 and E2 also diverge
from the section line at deeper levels.
history indicates that the distribution of matrix porosity and perme-
ability is tied to the history of fracture formation, infilling, and fluid
sources and temperatures.
3.6. Fluid geochemistry
The distribution of thermal features and related heat flow were
described in Section 1.1. Fumaroles are present at higher elevations
(∼1400 to 2000 m asl) and chloride springs at lower elevations (800 m
asl).
Representative well chemistry is given in Table 3 and portrayed in
Figs. 13 and 14. The data show that fluid produced from the NE area (A
and H1 area) is distinct from fluid produced in the SW area (all other H
wells), suggesting that each compartment has its own deep fluid source.
Measured temperatures are also consistent with poor connection be-
tween these reservoir sectors. Upflow locations were constrained
through iterative initial-state temperature matching during numerical
model construction (Situmorang, pers. comm., 2018). The final upflow
locations implemented in the model are those that provide best initial-
state temperature and pressure match to combined well data.
Upflow temperature of the NE reservoir sector is estimated at
≤250 °C based on fluid geothermometry. This upflow is thought to be
structurally focused but ultimately related to an intrusion heat source
with some magmatic contribution (high-chloride, highest 3He/4He
isotope composition). All A pad wells and H1 have reservoir
Cl > 1200 ppm (Fig. 13) with relatively similar geothermometry (TNKC,
TQtz) ranging from 238 to 250 °C. Geothermometry of well A1 shows the
most equilibrated fluid (TNKC=TQtz = 250 °C), suggesting it is closest to
an upflow. This well is deviated to the SE and has a minor reversal near
bottom. Thus the NE upflow was placed to the west of the well at a
possible fault intersection, rather than near its bottom (Fig. 15).
160
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Meanwhile A3 and A4 geothermometry (Tmeas. < TQtz < TNKC) suggests
that these wells are nearer the reservoir margin. H1 fluid has an NE
upflow composition with some mixing with cooler fluid
(TQtz < Tmeas. < TNKC).
Upflow temperature for the SW reservoir compartment is in excess
of 300 °C, possibly associated with intrusion and young volcanic vents
of Anak PS. Wells completed to the SW (H2RD, H3, and H4) have re-
servoir chloride of 400–500 ppm (maximum in H2OH is 900 ppm)
confirming a different fluid source than A Pad area (Fig. 15). All wells
drilled to the SW have lower geothermometry (except TQtz) than mea-
sured temperatures and inferred major feed zones. The most recent H3
measured temperature, however, is almost equal to geothermometry
(TQtz), suggesting a nearby upflow at ∼300 °C. The low chloride con-
centration and high temperature suggest heating of deeply circulated
meteoric fluid with little or no magmatic input.
During the numerical model matching process, locations of the SW
upflow(s) had to be moved closer to bottom hole locations of H2RD, H3
and H4 to better match measured well temperatures than originally
envisioned in the conceptual model (Situmorang, pers. comm., 2018).
This is geologically reasonable because all H wells drilled SW en-
countered entries related to intrusive damage zones, indicating young
magmatism (Stimac et al., 2019); and the bottom of the wells were
below the relatively young Anak PS volcanic vents.
The current conceptual model of the system is shown in Fig. 15.
Drilling results indicate that reservoir fluid beneath the NE area mainly
outflows to SM springs along deep-rooted structures (narrow corridor
between faults F13 and F2). Limited fluid may also migrate south to H1
based on the chemistry and temperature of this well. Some of the fluid
from the SW sector is assumed to outflow to Pad A through a weak
connection, likely located near H3. That outflowing fluid from the SW
mixes and re-equilibrates with upflow fluid from Pad A.
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Table 3
Representative well fluid chemical data.
Well Date FCV (%) Concentration (brine) NCG (wt% in stm) Sample P (barg) Enthalpy (Kj/kg) Notes

pH TDS SiO2

ML-A1 08 Apr 2018 100 6.87 3820 547 0.45 11.00 1314
ML-A1 14 Apr 2018 100 6.89 3790 533 0.45 10.80 1310 During FPT
ML-A1 15 Apr 2018 30 6.65 3730 530 0.52 14.10 1329
ML-A1 15 Apr 2018 10 6.24 3530 507 0.67 21.00 1714
ML-A2 08 Jul 2017 100 2.10 11.30 2800
ML-A2 07 Jan 2018 100 0.49 8.54 2800
ML-A2 16 Feb 2018 100 0.47 8.46 2800
ML-A3 11 Aug 2018 100 7.27 3680 531 0.90 9.30 1069 During FPT
ML-A3 14 Aug 2018 20 7.19 3790 539 0.94 7.20 1059
ML-A3 14 Aug 2018 3 7.28 4050 593 1.10 2.90 1193
ML-A3 03 Oct 2018 100 7.44 3810 565 0.42 8.80 1084
ML-A3 18 Oct 2018 100 6.36 3840 565 0.48 9.50 1201
ML-A3 09 Dec 2017 100 6.85 3960 553 0.36 9.90 1371 During FPT
ML-A3 10 Dec 2017 25 6.45 3680 514 0.44 18.30 1524
ML-A3 10 Dec 2017 4 5.79 2940 409 0.45 25.10 2568
ML-A3 16 Feb 2018 100 5.95 4040 558 0.20 9.00 1137
ML-A4 12 Sep 2017 100 6.73 3780 542 0.59 10.20 1208
ML-A4 19 Sep 2017 100 7.01 3780 551 0.50 10.20 1213
ML-A4 12 Nov 2017 100 6.50 3760 499 0.48 9.93 2184
ML-A4 25 Jan 2018 100 6.88 3930 570 0.28 10.60 1328 During FPT
ML-A4 27 Jan 2018 20 6.37 3640 478 0.35 18.30 1467
ML-A4 27 Jan 2018 5 6.10 3100 410 0.39 24.80 2500
ML-H2RD 23 Nov 2017 100 8.35 2020 748 0.43 3.51 1612
ML-H2RD 08 Dec 2017 100 8.26 3030 951 0.21 2.24 1920
ML-H3 28 Jan 2017 100 7.36 1900 843 0.29 11.80 1273
ML-H3 10 Jan 2018 100 7.09 1860 816 0.39 11.60 1334
ML-H3 01 Feb 2018 100 7.31 1920 851 0.77 11.70 1287 During FPT
ML-H3 03 Feb 2018 25 6.77 1810 788 0.87 18.40 1268
ML-H3 03 Feb 2018 13.3 6.34 1700 769 0.95 27.50 1250
ML-H4 18 Feb 2018 100 6.63 1930 758 1.00 9.50 1169
ML-H4 07 Apr 2018 100 6.83 2010 974 0.74 12.70 1312
ML-H4 22 Apr 2018 100 6.80 1980 956 0.75 12.60 1303 During FPT
ML-H4 22 Apr 2018 30 6.36 1950 946 0.86 15.80 1283
ML-H4 23 Apr 2018 10 6.09 1770 867 1.25 31.30 1299

Notes: FCV (flow control valve opening), TDS and SiO2 in mg/kg. TDS, total dissolved solids; FCV, flow control valve; NCG, non-condensible gas; FPT, flow
performance test.

Current understanding and interpretation based on the available is indicated by temperature profiles in wells E1, E2, and C1, but these
data suggest that most outflowed fluid from the SW area exits the descending fluids must be separated from the drilled reservoir by sealed
system to the SW instead of S of Pad H, based on the following ob- faults. This infiltration is likely more widespread than shown, but are
servations: 1) distribution of conductive layer (and likely removal of the supported by some well data for these particular locations.
conductor by crater formation); 2) Surface alteration found inside the
crater indicating hydrothermal activity after the collapse; and 3) the
3.6.1. Stable isotopes
characteristics of PS fumarole, located in the south of the field, are
Stable isotope data indicate that meteoric water is the dominant
inconsistent with it being outflow from Pad H fluids (PS fumarole is
component of reservoir fluid, with all well samples plotting near the
higher in N2). But these features do not preclude the existence of ex-
meteoric water line (Fig. 16). The fluid (total discharge) of SW wells
ploitable reservoir in the crater area (see Stimac et al., 2019).
indicates almost no positive oxygen shift, while the fluid of NE wells
The significant topography around Muara Laboh potentially influ-
exhibits a positive shift about 1.5 permil. This small shift is likely re-
ences the patterns of recharge and discharge. Possible sources of in-
lated to a higher degree of water-rock interaction for the NE reservoir
filtrating deep meteoric recharge shown in Fig. 15 include SW of the PS
fluid, also consistent with the higher Cl concentration of this sector. The
Crater, along F10, and E of F2 near well B1. Additional cool infiltration
difference in lithology of reservoir rock, crystalline granodiorite in the

Fig. 13. Cl-SO4−HCO3 ternary plot (left) and B versus Cl plot (right) indicate distinct fluid chemistry between the NE and SW reservoir sectors.

161
J. Stimac, et al.
Fig. 14. Cl-TNKC plot, showing different chloride concentrations between NE and SW sectors.
SW and intermediate to silicic volcanics (probably richer in glassy
material) in the NE, would be one important factor in the difference in
fluid chemistry between these sectors.
3.6.2. Gas chemistry
The helium isotopic composition (R/Ra) in geothermal fluids re-
flects a variation in the heat source, with Average Crust (R/Ra ∼0.02)
as one end-member and the mantle (MORB, R/Ra ∼7-8) as the other.
MORB-like helium isotopic compositions, such as found at The Geysers,
Lassen, Coso, Cerro Prieto, Steamboat, and Long Valley, indicates a
recently or presently active magmatic heat source, whereas lower more
crustal like helium isotopic compositions, such as found at Dixie Valley,
indicates a source of heat that is predominantly crustal (Kennedy,
2002). This suggests more deeply circulated meteoric waters along fault
systems in regions of elevated heat flow.
162
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
The range of helium isotope values (R/Ra) in Muara Laboh is
1.12–3.14 (Mussofan, 2018), rather low compared to other subduction-
related geothermal systems (typically between 4–7) or subduction-re-
lated volcanic gas (typically ≥7). These low He isotopic values may
indicate contributions of near-surface crustal fluids (e.g. He derived
from uranium and thorium decay in crustal rocks). Mixing between
mantle and crustal fluid sources seems reasonable since thick silicic
volcanic and granitic intrusive rocks of Mesozoic and Tertiary ages are
widely distributed in Muara Laboh. The highest He isotope value is
from IM fumarole (3.14) compare to PS (1.95) fumarole. This indicates
that IM has a higher “mantle” component to its gas. SM has a low value
of 1.12 which is consistent with meteoric contributions in outflow
features (Fig. 17). One possible explanation for the higher He isotope
value of IM fumarole is that is it located in an area of recent extension
that lacks or has a thinner underlying Mesozoic to Tertiary basement
Fig. 15. Map view of conceptual model showing reservoir sectors
(SW in green, NE in orange and pink labelled Pad A and H1 (NE)),
proven reservoir area (purple dashed line), likely upflow regions
(red dashed lines), outflows (orange and pink regions with blue
arrows showing flow direction), and recharge locations (light blue
dashed circles) and directions relative to major structures
(number F1 to F20 in dark blue) and volcanic vents (black trian-
gles). SM Cl spring lies N of D1OH off map. MR signifies areas of
known (from well profiles) and inferred downward infiltration of
meteoric water recharge. Question marks indicate a higher degree
of uncertainty with the model element. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)
J. Stimac, et al.
Fig. 16. Stable isotope plot for selected Muara Laboh well samples with World
Meteoric Water Line shown for reference.
Fig. 17. Helium isotope composition of Muara Laboh compared to other geo-
thermal systems.
section relative to the heavily intruded corridor along the southern
strand of the Great Sumatra Fault. Deep fault penetration of this ex-
tended crustal section would allow dike intrusion and gases emanating
from deep mantle contributions to dominate over crustally-derived
gases. Alternatively, there is more recent intrusion with a higher mantle
gas component associated with the NE upflow that is reaching the PS
fumarole.
3.6.3. Tracer test
Liquid- and steam-phase tracer tests were conducted to understand
potential connectivity between injection well E1 and the production
wells A2, A3, and A4 (Alfiady, 2018). The tracers and amounts used
were 100 kg of 1, 6 Naphthalene Di Sulfonate Acid (NDSA) for liquid
and 25 kg of Per-Fluor-Carbon (PFC) for steam. These tracers were in-
jected into well E1 on October 5, 2017, during the period of parallel
production testing of A3 and A4 wells. Tracers were injected using the
PT Thermochem Rapid Injection Pulse Skid to deliver a highly con-
centrated pulse of tracer solution to the reservoir. The vapor tracer,
PFC, was injected as an emulsified solution using a peristaltic pump.
After tracers were injected, samples were taken from A2, A3 and A4
wells during production tests of each well. For the first 10 days after the
tracers were injected, fluid samples were taken from each well every
day. The sampling frequency was reduced to every two days after that.
Monitoring was also conducted in the thermal manifestations, SM
chloride spring, and IM fumarole. Liquid tracer samples were analyzed
by Thermochem laboratory in Santa Rosa USA, whereas the steam
163
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Fig. 18. Liquid tracer return patterns for A3 and A4 versus time. Tracer returns
were detected after 64 days for A4 and 66 days for A3.
Fig. 19. Vapor tracer PFC analyses versus time. No returns of PFC observed in
A3, A4, and A2.
samples were analyzed by the Thermochem laboratory in Bandung.
Well A2 did not have liquid tracer data because it produces 100%
steam. For the steam tracer samples, a total of 28, 31, and 37 samples
were collected from A2, A3, and A4, and four samples from IM, but
there were no returns of the vapor tracer in either the wells or the
fumarole (Fig. 18). Four NDSA samples were collected from SM hot
springs but no tracer returns were detected.
These results show that there is connectivity between production
wells (Pad A) and injection well E1 within the liquid zone. The samples
from A3 yielded one positive tracer return 66 days after tracer injection.
The samples from A4 had the first positive returns 64 days after in-
jection (Fig. 19). The last samples from A3 and A4 have the highest
NDSA concentrations, and the curve does not tail-off, suggesting that
tracer was being produced when the flow test was terminated. Data
available from the test is unfortunately not sufficient to provide a
quantitative analysis. There is an interesting observation that NDSA in
A4 arrived two days earlier than A3 which is closer to injection well E1.
These results confirm that there is connectivity between production
wells (A pad) and injection well E1. However, this is a relatively long
interval for first arrival, indicating that the injected fluid will have time
to thermally equilibrate as it migrates toward the production field.
Experience in other fields has indicated thermal breakthrough (cooling
related to injection returns) is very unlikely in Muara Laboh in the short
term given this return interval (e.g., Vicedo et al., 2008). Additional
longer-term tracer tests are planned once the field reaches full pro-
duction to better assess connectivity between injection wells (E1, E2,
D1, D2) and Pad A producers. Excess brine injection capacity allows
some flexibility in the use of each injector.
3.7. Reservoir pressure, temperature and permeability
Review of well temperature, pressure, and fluid chemistry data in-
dicate the field lies on a single pressure gradient. Injection and pro-
duction PTS and PT surveys provide constraints on well feedzone lo-
cations (Fig. 20). They illustrate that the Pad A area has the shallowest
reservoir top and a thin initial state steam cap from about 800 m to
620 m asl. This fluid level is slightly lower than the SM chloride springs
J. Stimac, et al. Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167

Fig. 20. Feed-zone locations and phase conditions based on well testing. Colored boxes show wells in the steam cap area (red), adjacent NE sector (blue), and deep
SW sector (green). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

of the system interpreted as the main outflow of the system (Fig. 21,
also see Fig. 4). Wells F1ST and H1 appear to be located at the margins
of the A Pad shallow cap and no shallow steam was encountered.
Further to the SW, wells F2 and other H wells encountered limited
permeability until about sea level. Permeability is found in most wells
from sea level to 800 m bsl 1300 m bsl in the deepest well.
4. Reservoir conceptual model
The system conceptual model was revised after development dril-
ling and well testing (Figs. 15 and 22). Most wells drilled from H and F
Pads define the SW sector (Fig. 15 and Table 1) which has more dilute
fluid, a deeper reservoir top, and higher temperature (260 to > 310 °C).
The NE reservoir sector is defined by F1ST, H1, and A Pad wells,
whereas the system outflow is defined by wells drilled from Pad E and
D. The reservoir boundary was confirmed to extend further southwest
and south and to greater depth than previously thought, but to the NE it
was proven to be more restricted than anticipated from exploration.
Review of well temperature, pressure, and fluid chemistry data indicate
that although the field lies on a single pressure gradient, it has two
distinct reservoir compartments in the SW and NE in terms of depth,
temperature, and salinity. In particular, differences in fluid chemistry

Fig. 21. Map and cross section (note bend) of reservoir top (TOR) and temperature distribution based on drilled wells. The SM spring lies out of section to the NNE of
the line. The reservoir boundary to the south is uncertain.

164
J. Stimac, et al.
Fig. 22. NNE-trending slice of 3D model showing temperature isosurfaces, pads and wells, main thermal features, and topography. The system or an adjacent system
probably extends to the PS fumarole but is not shown.
indicate that there is little connectivity between these sectors in its
current state. Further information on this issue will be available as more
wells are simultaneously flowed during plant start-up and operation.
The SW sector is thought to be large in extent and represents the
main area for future development, although its extent to the S and SW is
constrained mainly by geologic and geophysical considerations with
considerable uncertainty. For these reasons, conservative assumptions
regarding reservoir extent and fracture permeability were made in the
undrilled portion of the SW sector. The NE sector hosts a highly
permeable shallow steam cap of limited extent attached to a long liquid
outflow to the NNW. This sector has moderate temperature
(232–245 °C) and salinity and low gas concentration consistent with a
recent loss of steam. The water level observed in the Pad A area is
currently at about 620 m asl and the reservoir top at about 800 m asl.
The distal SM chloride spring, considered the main discharge of the
system, is at about 795 m asl, but other springs in the S Muara Laboh
group range up to 887 m asl. The SW reservoir may outflow to the west
or to the far N Muara Laboh springs, consistent with the deeper re-
servoir top and lower spring elevation (Fig. 2), but this cannot be
confirmed at this time.
5. Discussion
It is likely that many geothermal systems in Sumatra will share some
common features with the Muara Laboh system. Therefore its devel-
opment well data and conceptual model provide useful information for
future explorationists and developers. Sumatra appears to have a higher
fraction of silicic volcanic centers of Quaternary and Pleistocene age
than most other islands in Indonesia that are dominated by andesite.
Silicic intrusive complexes tend to have large volume and locally
shallow magma emplacement that may drive geothermal circulation.
The localization of Quaternary vents of andesitic to rhyolitic composi-
tion along the Siulak segment of the GSF at Muara Laboh potentially
provides a wider distribution of shallow magma emplacement and heat
energy than is typical in areas dominated by andesitic stratovolcanoes
without complex structures or significant satellite vents (Fig. 1). Linear
arrays of volcanic vents and underlying intrusions also encourage de-
velopment of multiple hydrothermal upflows, as appear to occur at
Muara Laboh. Drilling results indicate at least two areas of upflow for
the Muara Laboh system, accounting for difference in fluid chemistry
between the NE and SW reservoir sectors. It is possible additional up-
flow is also occurring to the S or SE of the drilled area.
At Muara Laboh, well stratigraphic evidence confirms the im-
portance of rhyolitic volcanism from the Plio-Pleistocene until about
165
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
0.5 Ma, mostly in the form of ignimbrites that ponded in the developing
basin (Mussofan et al., 2018; Stimac et al., 2019). This indicates that
pull-apart basins do not necessarily inhibit volcanism, as suggested by
Muraoka et al. (2010). Instead the volcanism that occurs there is
commonly silicic, and forms caldera or graben-type depressions rather
than tall edifices. This seems to be true at Ranau (Bellier and Sébrier,
1994) and, possibly Suoh as well. In these cases, dilational jogs at GSF
stepovers have closely associated magmatic systems, both active and
dormant. Once magmatism becomes established in an area of extension,
intrusions may reach a high crustal level and evolve to more silicic
composition with time. This results in heating and softening of the
upper and middle crust, with a concomitant loss of strength. Ductile
deformation and ballooning of narrow fault zones at depth accom-
modates dilation and assures brittle extension above. Meteoric waters
descending from above and along the brittle margins of ductile zones
are heated and ascend nearby as geothermal upflow plumes.
Muraoka et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of pull-apart
basins in hosting Sumatran geothermal systems. The Muara Laboh
geothermal system is localized in one of 13 such pull-apart basins
formed in a right stepover of the GSF (Mussofan et al., 2018). Structures
subparallel to the GSF and oriented roughly perpendicular to it are
locally permeable and provide pathways for fluid circulation in the
basin. Paleozoic basement rocks are present on the NE side of this basin
but have not been documented beneath it. It is therefore possible that
the western edge of the Paleozoic crustal block is located on the eastern
margin of the basin and has remained a zone of weakness and intrusion
since at least Mesozoic time. This zone may have eventually accom-
modated transform faulting and intrusion related to oblique subduction
that has been ongoing since at least the Miocene (Stimac et al., 2019).
The Muara Laboh geothermal system has characteristics of both
intrusive and fault-controlled geothermal systems. Fracturing and high
temperature upflow in the deep SW reservoir seems to be associated
with relatively recent intrusion below Anak PS vents. Relatively dilute
fluid, low gas, and lower temperature (< 240 °C) suggest the im-
portance of fault circulation in the NE sector and its main outflow.
These features underscore the need for cautious resource capacity es-
timation, as permeability may be more localized, limiting reservoir
volume compared to more distributed systems. On the other hand, the
combination of relatively high temperatures and high fracture perme-
ability can deliver unusually high power density like at Silangkitang
(Drestanta et al., 2018).
The open fracture trends observed at Muara Laboh are similar to
those inferred at other geothermal areas in central and south Sumatra.
For example, Nurseto et al. (2015) identified several major lineaments
J. Stimac, et al.
in the Ulubelu geothermal area. According to their interpretation, these
structures trend NW-SE and WNW-ESE, while associated subsidiary
faults trend NNW-SSE. The NW-SE faults are synthetic to the Semangko
fault (dextral sense of slip) and formed prior to the Pliocene or early
Pleistocene. Similar to Muara Laboh wells near the Siulak fault, bore-
hole image logs from wells UBL-3 and UBL-26 indicate open, productive
fractures that strike NW-SE and dip mainly to the SW. A few open
fractures also show NE-SW and N–S strikes (Nurseto et al., 2015).
Based on image log and cuttings interpretation at Muara Laboh, we
conclude that dikes and related fractures play an important role in
permeability in the deep SW reservoir. It is well documented that diking
generates a variety of fractures at the dike tip and along its path that
could locally enhance permeability (Dering et al., 2019). Seismicity
associated with diking events also shows more complex patterns (lo-
cations, focal mechanisms) than would be expected for simple extension
at a dike tip, including shear failure on planes parallel to the inflating
dike (e.g., White et al., 2011). Using detailed mapping of well exposed
dike swarms, Dering et al. (2019) have shown that the number of faults
and joints increases towards the dike swarm indicating they formed in
the same event. They argue that faults and shear fractures form a da-
mage zone around the dikes even though the dikes occupy Mode I ex-
tension fractures. This is consistent with the observation that many
geothermal systems appear to be related to dikes and are elongate in the
most likely direction of dike propagation (e.g., Dubti, Ethiopia – see
Stimac et al., 2014) or are in part above or astride silicic domes that are
likely fed by dikes such as East Salak (Stimac et al., 2008), Wiyang
Windu (Bogie et al., 2008), and Bulalo (Vicedo et al., 2008).
According to Dering et al. (2019), characteristics of damage zones
related to dike emplacement (“dike corridors”) differ from damage
zones related to major faults. The distribution of macrofracture in-
tensity across dike corridors is not organized around a high strain zone
such as a fault core, and there is no large associated fault. Instead, a
relatively broad corridor of increased fracturing is related to the em-
placement of a dike swarm itself (Delaney et al., 1986; Dering et al.,
2019).
Dilute fluid chemistry, low NCG, and 3He/4He ratios suggest that
the heat sources fueling the Muara Laboh geothermal system are mostly
crystallized, and not contributing a significant mass component to fluid
circulation. Instead shallow meteoric and steam-heated bicarbonate
waters, infiltrating along deep faults and fractures and in young basin
sedimentary and volcanic sequences appear to mainly be extracting and
recirculating heat. The NE upflow and shallow culmination of the re-
servoir at about 700 m depth and 237 °C, and its cooler outflow appear
to be controlled by N to NE-trending faults in the central part of the
basin, and possibly along a horst block (Mussofan et al., 2018). This
part of the system bears some features typical of fault-controlled sys-
tems, but fracture patterns and gas chemistry indicate deeper magmatic
controls as well.
The unexpected deepening of the reservoir top in SW Muara Laboh
is related to infilling of fractures with late-stage minerals as the system
evolved and cooled in that area (Baroek et al., 2018; Stimac et al.,
2019). Based on mineral paragenesis, boiling and later ingress of cooler
waters into the system at shallow levels led to deepening of the re-
servoir top. Sector collapse of the PS volcano, probably shortly before
34 to 41 ka tuff eruptions may have played an important role in pres-
sure drop and boil down of the system. A similar sector collapse is
implicated in the extreme boildown of the Karaha Telaga Bodas geo-
thermal system (Moore et al., 2002). In that system, chalcedony was
formed at high temperature and is interpreted as having resulted from
rapid depressurization and boiling. High-temperature chalcedony is
locally present in the sealed propylitic interval at Muara Laboh, but it
does not appear to be widespread. It is therefore possible that sealing at
Muara Laboh took place more gradually and over a longer time interval,
or the system was less well sealed from sources of meteoric recharge.
166
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
6. Conclusions
The Muara Laboh geothermal system has been recently developed
for 80 MWe of power generation, scheduled for commissioning in late
2019. Six exploration wells (one later redrilled) and eleven develop-
ment wells were completed (Table 1), and along with data from surface
exploration and geophysical surveys provide the basis for a revised
conceptual understanding of the exploitable reservoir. The system hosts
two sources of hot upflow with distinct fluid compositions and tem-
peratures. The primary upflow, identified in deep SW wells
(270–310 °C), has a more dilute chemistry. A second upflow with higher
salinity and lower temperature (≤250 °C) feeds a shallow steam zone in
the NE near the IM fumarole. The bulk of outflow is channeled along N-
S to NNW trending structures and reaches the surface at the SM spring.
Additional untapped reservoir may extend from the proven H and F Pad
area further to the SW and S toward the PS fumarole which is located in
a young sector collapse of PS volcano. Alternatively, there could be a
limited zone of reservoir along the F2 fault extending from near the PS
fumarole toward H1 and A Pad based on lower resistivity in this area
(Fig. 10).
Reservoir rocks range in age from Plio-Pleistocene to Late
Cretaceous. Alternating sequences of andesitic lavas and tuff, and silicic
ash-flow tuffs and related deposits filled an expanding tectonic basin that
formed in a right stepover of the GSF. Fractures producing geothermal
fluids are mostly subparallel to the GSF in the SW (NW to NNW), and
mostly N to NE in the basin interior, similar to other pull-apart basins in
Sumatra. Fracture permeability is highest in the shallow steam cap
where formation contacts may also play a role in fluid circulation.
Matrix porosity and permeability are generally moderate to low, varying
as a function of rock type, depth, and sample alteration history.
Hydrothermal alteration assemblages are typical of neutral-Cl geo-
thermal systems, with a phyllic assemblage (illite/sericite-quartz-
pyrite) more prevalent in silicic rocks, and a propylitic assemblage
(epidote-chlorite-quartz-pyrite) in intermediate volcanics and in-
trusives. Sealing of the upper part of the propylitic zone has reduced
permeability in the area of F and H pads, resulting in a reservoir top
that is deeper than would be anticipated from exploration surveys.
Wairakite is the dominant vein mineral currently forming in the shal-
lowest part of the reservoir where temperatures appear to be too low to
support formation of epidote.
The Muara Laboh geothermal system appears to have had a long
history, with the SW and NE sectors being better connected in the past.
Sealing of the upper propylitic zone in the SW and formation of a
shallow steam cap in the NE might both reflect response of the system
to relatively recent sector collapse of the Patah Sembilan volcano,
which excavated the clay cap in that area.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Supreme Energy Muara Laboh and its partners for
permission to publish this work. Discussions with the Resource Team at
Supreme, including Irene Wallis and Anna Colvin were most helpful.
Constructive reviews by David Sussman and Erik Layman are also
greatly appreciated.
References
Acocella, V., Bellier, O., Sandri, L., Sébrier, M., Pramumijoyo, S., 2018. Weak tectono-
magmatic relationships along an obliquely convergent plate boundary: Sumatra,
Indonesia. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 3.
Alfiady, 2018. Muara Laboh Result of Tracer Test (RTT), Unpublished Supreme Energy
Report Dated April 13, 2018.
Baroek, M., Stimac, J., Sihotang, A.M., Putra, A.P., Martikno, R., 2018. Formation and
fracture characterization of the Muara Laboh geothermal system, Sumatera,
Indonesia. Geothermal Resource Council Trans. 42.
J. Stimac, et al.
Bellier, O., Sébrier, M., 1994. Relationship between tectonism and volcanism along the
Great Sumatran Fault Zone deduced by SPOT image analysis. Tectonophysics 233,
215–231.
Bogie, I., Kusumah, Y.I., Wisnandary, M.C., 2008. Overview of the Wayang Windu geo-
thermal field, West Java, Indonesia. Geothermics 37, 347–365.
Dering, G.M., Micklethwaite, S., Cruden, A.R., Barnes, S.J., Fiorentini, M.L., 2019.
Evidence for dyke-parallel shear during syn-intrusion fracturing. Earth Planet. Sci.
Letters 507, 119–130.
Drestanta, Y.S., Soeda, Y., Drakos, P., Astra, D., Lobato, E.M.L., 2018. Building a 3D earth
model of Silangkitang Geothermal Field, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Proceedings 6th
Indonesia International Geothermal Convention Exhibition (IIGCE).
Dyaksa, D.A., Ramadhan, I., Ganefianto, N., 2016. Magnetotelluric reliability for ex-
ploration drilling stage: study cases in Muara Laboh and Rantau Dedap geothermal
project, Sumatera, Indonesia. Proceedings, 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-209.
Dyaksa, D.A., Stimac, J., Baroek, M., Sihotang, A.M., Ramadhan, I., Martikno, R., O’Brien,
J., 2018. An application of 3D temperature modeling during and after development
drilling at Muara Laboh, Sumatera, Indonesia. Proceedings New Zealand Geothermal
Conference.
Ganefianto, N., 2018. Muara Laboh Stage-1 Development Drilling and Well Testing
Report. Unpublished Supreme Report Dated Nov. 2018.
GMI, 2013. Geomechanical Model and Fracture Analysis for ML-H2 Well, Muara Laboh
Field, Unpublished Geomechanics International Report.
GMI, 2012. Geomechanics International: Geomechanical Model and Fracture Analysis for
ML-H1 Well, Muara Laboh Field, Unpublished Geomechanics International Report.
Hochstein, M.P., Sudarman, S., 1993. Geothermal resources of Sumatra. Geothermics 22,
181–200.
Lovekin, J.W., Morrison, M., Champneys, G., Morrow, J.W., 2017. Temperature recovery
after long‐term injection: case history from Soda Lake, Nevada. Trans. Geothermal
Resource Council 41, 2770–2779.
Moore, J.N., Allis, R., Renner, J.L., Mildenhall, D., McCulloch, J., 2002. Petrologic evi-
dence for boiling to dryness in the Karaha-Telaga Bodas geothemal system, Indonesia.
Proceedings 27thWorkshop on Geothermal Energy, Stanford University.
Muraoka, H., Takahashi, M., Sundhoro, H., Dwipa, S., Soeda, Y., Momita, M., Shimada,
K., 2010. Geothermal systems constrained by the Sumatran fault and its pull-apart
basins in Sumatra, Western Indonesia. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress.
Mussofan, W., 2018. Gas Chemistry of the Muaralaboh Thermal Manifestations.
Unpublished Supreme Energy Report, April 5, 2018.
Mussofan, W., Baroek, M.C., Stimac, J., Sidik, R.P., Ramadhan, I., Santana, S., 2018.
Geothermal resource exploration along Great Sumatera Fault segments in Muara
Laboh: perspectives from geology and structural play. Proceedings, 43rd Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University. SGP-TR-213.
Nurseto, S.T., Sardiyanto, S., Koestono, H., Thamrin, M.H., Kamah, M.Y., 2015.
Evaluation of the productive geologic structure in Ulubelu geothermal system.
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Melbourne, 2015.
Rae, A.J., Ramirez, E., Villafuerte, G., Kilgour, G., Milicich, S.D., Fraser, H., Bignall, G.,
2010. Recent exploration drilling at Lihir geothermal Field, PNG: effects of cata-
strophic sector collapse on a magmatic-hydrothermal system. ProceedingsWorld
167
Geothermics 82 (2019) 150–167
Geothermal Congress, 2010.
Rosidi, H.M.D., Tjokrosapoetro, S., Pendowo, B., Gafoer, S., Suharsono, 1996. The
Geology of the Painan and Northeastern Part of the Muarasiberut, Quadrangles
(0814-0714), Systematic Geological Map of Indonesia Scale 1:250000. Geological
Research and Development Centre, Bandung.
Santoso, D., Suparka, M.E., Sudarman, S., Suari, S., 1995. The geothermal fields in central
part of the Sumatra fault zone as derived from geophysical data. Proceedings,
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress. pp. 1363–1366.
SEML, 2018. The Muara Laboh Conceptual and Numerical Models Update & Stage-2
Assessment. Unpublished Report Dated July 2018.
SEML, 2016. Muara Laboh Development Drilling Strategy, Unpublished Report Dated
Feb. 2016.
Sieh, K., Natawidjaja, D., 2000. Neotectonics of the Sumatran fault, Indonesia. J.
Geophys. Res. 105, 28295–28326.
Sinclair Knight Mertz, 2011. Muara Labuh Geothermal Prospect Heat Loss Survey,
Unpublished Report for Supreme Energy, Dated October 2011.
Siratovich, P.A., Heap, M.J., Villeneuve, M.C., Cole, J.W., Kennedy, B.M., Davidson, J.,
Reuschlé, T., 2016. Mechanical behavior of the Rotokawa Andesites (New Zealand):
insight into permeability evolution and stress-induced behavior in an actively utilized
geothermal reservoir. Geothermics 64, 163–179.
Situmorang, J., Martikno, R., Perdana Putra, A., Ganefianto, N., 2016. A Reservoir si-
mulation of the Muara Laboh Field, Indonesia. Proceedings 41st Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-209.
Stimac, J., Armadillo, E., Kebede, S., Zemedkun, M., Kebede, Y., Teclu, A., Rizzello, D.,
Mandeno, E., 2014. Integration and modeling of geoscientific data from the Tendaho
geothermal Area, Afar rift, Ethiopia. 5th ARGeo Conference.
Stimac, J.A., Nordquist, G., Aquardi, S., Sirad-Azwar, L., 2008. An overview of the awi-
bengkok geothermal system, Indonesia. Geothermics 37, 300–331.
Stimac, J.A., Powell, T.H., Golla, G., 2004. Porosity and permeability of the Tiwi
Geothermal Field, Philippines based on continuous and spot core measurements.
Geothermics 33, 87–107.
Stimac, J., Sihotang, A.M., Mussofan, W., Baroek, M., Jones, C., Moore, J.N., Schmitt,
A.K., 2019. Geologic Controls on the Muara Laboh Geothermal System, Sumatra,
Indonesia. Paper to Geothermics in Revision. this issue. .
Tingay, M., Morley, C.K., King, R., Coblentz, D., 2012. Present-day stress Field of
Southeast Asia. Adapted from Oral Presentation at AAPG International Conference
and Exhibition.
Vicedo, R.O., Stimac, J.A., Capuno, V.T., Lowenstern, J.B., 2008. Establishing Major
Permeability Controls in the Mak-Ban Geothermal Field, Philippines. GRC
Transactions 32, 309–313.
Wisnandary, M.C., Alamsyah, O., 2012. Zero generation of muara laboh numerical model:
role of heat loss and shallow wells data on preliminary natural state modeling. GRC
Transactions 36, 825–830.
White, R.S., Drew, J., Martens, H.R., Key, J., Soosalu, H., Jakobsdóttir, S.S., 2011.
Dynamics of dyke intrusion in the mid-crust of Iceland. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 304,
300–312.
White, P., Ussher, G., Hermoso, D., 2010. Evolution of the Ladolam geothermal system on
Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010.