D2P2 Me 000 Rep PMC 00001 - A

Contract No. CS-GDE-D2P2-001 COMPANY Doc No.
D2P2-ME-000-REP-PMC-00001
Dieng Well Requirement Report
Revision: A Status: IFI
Doc Type: REP KKS Code:000 Discipline: ME Doc Type: REP
Originator Doc No. JKTD21047-ME-RPT-001 Page : 1 of 11
DIENG 2 & PATUHA 2 PROJECT
ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
John Ridwan Grant

A 31-Aug-21 Issued for Information AECOM
Bottomley Febrianto Morris
Rev. Date Purpose Issued Checked Approved COMPANY

RECORD OF REVISION
The revision listed below have been incorporated in this document
REV
SECTION PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES DATE
NO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Pilot Plant Test Results ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Technology Types tested ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. Impact on well numbers ......................................................................................................... 6
2.4. Kevin Brown report comments (Review of Pilot Plant Tests – Dieng Final Report, August 2021)
6
3. Well numbers required for various technologies ................................................................................... 7
3.1. Assumptions (from Dieng Feasibility Study Final report, Part B June 2019} ............................. 7
3.2. Technologies Investigated ..................................................................................................... 7
3.3. Power plant performance simulations ..................................................................................... 7
3.4. Results.................................................................................................................................. 7
Appendix A Calculation sheet ............................................................................................................................ 9
1. Introduction
The Dieng 2 project well requirements have, we understand, been based upon the use of Binary Cycle power plant
technology. (Refer to Final Report, Part B Dieng Feasibility, June 2019 ELC.).
“Three main options have been considered, namely a simple single flash steam cycle, the same with an ORC on
brine (combined cycle), a counterpressure steam cycle with an ORC bottoming cycle and a second ORC on brine.
The third configuration has been selected as the most convenient and feasible. In future, two possible extensions
may be implemented: taking the condensate to the wells to dilute the geothermal fluid with a high silica content and
reinject NCG into the condensate stream. These extensions have not been considered at this stage because not
tested yet and their effectiveness and convenience are still uncertain”.
The basis for the number of wells chosen for the Dieng unit 2 is as follows:
Assumptions (based upon Final Report, Part B Dieng Feasibility, June 2019 ELC)
 Size of plant: 55MW net

 Margin required at initial start-up:10%. Therefore, sufficient wells are required for 60.5MWnet
(55+10%=60.5MWnet)
 Enthalpy: 1280Kj/kg
 Technology: Binary Combined Cycle type plant.
 Well flow requirement to supply 60.5MWnet is estimated at: 1157t/h
 Average well output: 235t/h/well at WHP
 Therefore, required Number of Production wells: 1157/235=5 wells.
 Allowing drilling success rate of 80%, spare contingency for failure: 1 well
 Therefore, the total number of production wells: 5+1=6 wells.
 Expected brine + condensate reinjection flowrate:1154t/h
 Ave reinjection capacity: 252t/h GDE (2019a)
 Therefore, the number of injection wells: 1154/252=4.6 wells (rounded to 5 wells)
Therefore, the number of wells expected to be required for Unit 2 is 6 production and 5 injection for a total of 11
wells. We note that no injection well failure contingency has been allowed. (Only one but for production wells).
Note that the number of wells planned is strongly dependent on the power plant technology to be employed.
From the ELC Feasibility Study report we quote (section 2.2, p45):
“As a result of the comparison of different options (see Chapter 5), a configuration with combined cycle with a
backpressure steam turbine and two ORC units fed by condensing steam and separated brines has been chosen
as the optimal one for Sileri field, although it is subject to the confirmation that the high silica supersaturation
occurring at the ORC brine heat exchanger can be conveniently handled by brine acidification”.
Since then, Pilot plant investigations have been undertaken looking at a number of technologies including Binary
Combined Cycle. The purpose of the tests is to investigate each technology with respect to Silica deposition
likelihood and give direction as to the technology most suited to control the silica deposition issue at Dieng.
2. Pilot Plant Test Results

For this Chapter of the report, we reference and draw heavily on the report:
Pilot plant - Dieng PT Geodipa Energi
Design Construction and Testing
Final Report 5692127-000-MRP-0006 Rev2. Dated 26 July 2021
2.1. Technology Types tested

This testing programme tested the following technology types:
 Single flash (21.2 bara,) and hot injection

 Dual flash (21.2 bara and 3.5 bara)
 BCC (separation at 21.2 bara, and brine cooled in the ORC to about 74oC then some dilution of brine by
addition of steam condensate. (69oC final temperature)
All options tested were based on “hot” injection, or at least brine with final temperature well above ambient. Different
brine rejection temperatures were used, but “hot injection” normally refers to injection from separation process or
plant discharge without further cooling to precipitate silica
In all three cases, acidification of the brine using sulphuric acid was used to slow the precipitation of amorphous
silica in pipework and vessels. Acid dosing was applied to keep within corrosion limits of steel pipe: typically not
less than pH 4.6
The results of the testing are as follow
Table 1. Results from Pilot plant Testing
Test
Single flash 21.1 bara Dual flash 21.1 bara, 3.5 BCC flash 21.1 bara, brine out of
and hot injection. Brine bara Brine 137 oC ORC 74 oC
210 oC
Results
Possibly acceptable Failed-high deposition Failed-high deposition
1mm/yr deposition 18-27mm/y 27mm/y after pre-heater
2.2. Conclusions
The conclusions of the tests were that:
 Single flash with high separation pressure and hot separated brine injection, with acidization looked the most
promising, with acceptable deposition rates.
 Dual flash with low second flash (low brine injection temperature) had very high rates of chemical deposition
and therefore failed the test.
 Binary Combined Cycle with low brine ORC exit temperature of 74oC had very high rates of chemical
deposition (both silica, arsenic sulphide and Antimony Sulphide) and therefore failed the test.
 Further tests were recommended looking at dual flash options but with much higher second flash and
consequently much higher brine injection temperatures and possibly at lower pH of brine.
 Further tests may be useful for further understanding the BCC technology but with much higher brine ORC
exit temperature.
 High arsenic content in the brine affects the efficiency of the traditional pH modification method for silica
scaling control.
 For operation of ORC brine process at low brine temperature an alternative scale mitigation method to
acidification is needed. The report concludes that there are currently no commercially available inhibitors that
have been shown to be successful in inhibiting arsenic or antimony sulphide scaling especially at the high
silica concentration in the Dieng brine.
2.3. Impact on well numbers

The number of wells planned for the Dieng 2 project to date, have been based upon BCC type technology with
significant heat extraction from the brine, thereby reducing the brine temperature to below 100oC. The results of
the pilot plant tests have shown that at the process conditions used for the BCC test, this is clearly not a viable
option
As a different technology will be required at Dieng (or a significantly modified BCC technology with much higher
brine rejection temperatures) then this is likely to impact the well numbers which will be required for the project.
The reason for this impact on well numbers is that with more efficient plant, (extracting more heat from the brine
and hence resulting in lower brine temperatures and therefore greater chemical deposition) less geothermal fluid
is required to produce the same level of power generation. As less total geothermal fluid flow is required from the
wells, then less wells are needed.
2.4. Kevin Brown report comments (Review of Pilot Plant Tests – Dieng Final Report,
August 2021)
As this report was being prepared, the final report by Kevin Brown was received relating to the results of the
previous testing.
The salient conclusions from Brown’s report are as follows:
 The severity of the arsenic sulfide scaling would appear to make a conventional ORC binary plant less
desirable than a conventional flash plant. Consequently, future pilot plant testing should initially concentrate
on defining possible flash plant operation parameters.
 It is recommended that tests be conducted to determine the first stage separation temperature above the SST
to enable acid addition to the brine before silica polymerisation commences. These tests should run for at
least one week in order to obtain conclusive results. (Brown believed that scaling in the single flash option,
although small, was due to polymerisation commencing before acidization).
 In separate experiments, determine the lowest separation temperature for second stage separation of
acidified brine that gives acceptable operation for scaling and corrosion. This test will also define the required
pH of the HP brine to produce the test pH in the LP brine.
These comments are in line with our conclusions above. We have recommended that the project team meet with
Kevin Brown shortly to discuss further testing options.
3. Well numbers required for various technologies

3.1. Assumptions (from Dieng Feasibility Study Final report, Part B June 2019}
Dieng Reservoir Enthalpy: 1280kJ/kg
Project size: 55MWnet
WHP: 25.7 bara
Average well output at WHP:235t/h/well
Average injection Capacity per well: 252t/h/well
Well drilling success rate: 80% (failure rate 20%) based on historical average at Dieng
3.2. Technologies Investigated

We have investigated the following technology options. The first three match previous test conditions and help
calibrate the HMB model.
1. Single flash 21.2 bara separation pressure and hot brine injection. This option was the only option to shown
potential in the pilot plant trials.
2. Dual flash at 21.2 and 3.5 bara first flash and second flash. This option was tested in the pilot plant trials and
failed due to high chemical deposition.
3. BCC at 21.2 separation pressure with brine exiting the ORC at 74oC. This option was tested in the pilot plant
trials and failed due to high chemical deposition.
4. Dual flash at 25 and 21 bara first flash and second flash. This option was not tested but was recommended
for trials in the pilot plant test rig (as the brine rejection temperature is 215oC). Quoting from the Pilot plant
Final report 26 July 2021) “We suggest that in next test, dual flash process with primary pressure of 25 bar
abs and secondary pressure of 21 bar abs will be tested with and without downstream condensate dilution”.
The choice of 21 bar second flash is to ensure that the hot brine temperature is kept as close as possible to
a Silica Saturation Index (SSI) of 1.0
5. BCC at 21.2 separation pressure with brine exiting the ORC at 210oC. This option was not tested but we
believe would conclusively demonstrate whether BCC technology can be considered but with a much higher
brine rejection temperature at Dieng. The choice of 210oC brine temperature is to ensure that the hot brine
temperature is kept as close as possible to a Silica Saturation Index (SSI) of 1.0, and therefore avoid
significant deposition.
3.3. Power plant performance simulations

We have performed power plant simulations utilising in-house software to ascertain flow rates required to achieve
gross 60.5MW. The results of these calculations are shown in Appendix A and summarised below.
3.4. Results
The results are shown in Table 2 below:
Options 1, 2, 3 simulate the previous pilot plant test scenarios to help calibrate the HMB model used.
Options 4, 5 examine higher temperature brine rejection for the dual flash and BCC options.
Table 2. Well Number Estimates for Different Technology Options.

Option 1 2 3 4 5
Single flash Dual flash BCC flash 21.2 Dual flash 25 BCC 21.2 bara
21.2 bara and 21.2 bara, 3.0 bara, brine out of bara and 21 with brine out of
hot injection bara ORC 74 oC bara. Brine ORC at 210oC
Brine 137oC 215 oC
Total No. Wells 18 12 13 17 25
including 20%
Failure rate
Pilot Plant test Acceptable. Failed. High Failed. High Not tested Not tested
outcome Low scaling scaling rate scaling rate
rate
Please note the following:

With the BCC option 3, we calculated 13 wells compared to the original figure of 11. This is partially explained by
our allowance of one well failure with the reinjection wells, whereas the original well number estimation of 11 wells
did not allow for any injection well failure. In addition, the earlier estimate of 11 new wells assumed the use of an
existing well.
The single flash high pressure option 1 is not significantly affected by chemical scaling. However, the number of
well requires is 18 (not 11 as currently allowed for). This potential further 7 wells will significantly add to the capital
cost of the project should this technology be adopted for Dieng 2.
The other two potential technology options (dual flash at high second flash and BCC but with higher temperature
brine injection) could potentially be successfully used but will need to be tested for confirmation in the test trig
before serious consideration can be given. Even so, both these options require significantly higher well numbers
(17 for option 4, and 25 for option 5 above). We would recommend that tests be conducted to ascertain the lowest
brine temperature (for BCC) and lowest second flash pressure (for dual flash) before chemical deposition becomes
significant. Any reduction in brine rejection temperature or second flash pressure (if successful) will reduce
expected well numbers.
Appendix A Calculation sheet

Calculations of Number of wells needed for Dieng 2.

Author; John Bottomley
Date: August 2021
Single flash option
Assumptions (From Dieng FS final report, Part B June 2019)
Enthalpy 1280 kJ/kg section 2.2 p43 Thermochem
Size 55 MW net p2, p107 HMB
Gross size 59.6 MW g p107 HMB
WHP 25.7 bara section 2.2 p43 Thermochem
Average well output 235 t/h/well at WHP ref to p2
Average reinjection capacity 252 t/h/well ref to p2
Separation pressure 21.2 bara p21, section 2.2 p43 Thermochem
Well success rate 80% historical at Dieng p44, 45
Thermodynamic Calculations
Net Power Generated 55 MW
Gross power generated 58.85 assume 7% aux power requirement
Pressure drop Sep-PS 1 bara
ST inlet pressure 20.2 bara
Approx. steam rate 5.907036 t/h/MW

Steam supply safety factor 10%
Steam required at day 1 64.735 MW
NCG content 1 %
Condenser p 100 mbara
Exhaust flows 2
mech/elec efficiency 96 %
Isentropic efficiency 85 %
Altitude 1000 masl
Wet bulb 22 Deg C
Turbine exhaust wetness 15.6 % acceptable with turbine condensate drains
Steam required at day 1 382.392 t/h

Sat T at SP 215.336 Deg C
Water enthalpy at SP 922.1705 kJ/kg
Steam enthalpy at SP 2798.373 kJ/kg
Dryness at SP 0.19072
Brine 0.80928
Total flow required 2004.991 cf 1154t/h p2 report

Brine flow 1622.599
Wells required
Prod wells 8.531876
Well failures 1.706375 using success rate above
Total prod wells required 10.23825
Injection wells required 6.438885
Well failures 1.287777 using success rate above

Total Injection wells required 7.726662
Total wells Required 17.96491

Round 18 wells

D2P2 Me 000 Rep PMC 00001 - A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D2P2 Me 000 Rep PMC 00001 - A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contract No. CS-GDE-D2P2-001 COMPANY Doc No.

DIENG 2 & PATUHA 2 PROJECT

Dieng Well Requirement Report

ISSUED FOR INFORMATION

John Ridwan Grant

Rev. Date Purpose Issued Checked Approved COMPANY

 Size of plant: 55MW net

2. Pilot Plant Test Results

Final Report 5692127-000-MRP-0006 Rev2. Dated 26 July 2021

2.1. Technology Types tested

 Single flash (21.2 bara,) and hot injection

2.3. Impact on well numbers

3. Well numbers required for various technologies

3.2. Technologies Investigated

3.3. Power plant performance simulations

Table 2. Well Number Estimates for Different Technology Options.

Please note the following:

Appendix A Calculation sheet

Calculations of Number of wells needed for Dieng 2.

ST inlet pressure 20.2 bara

Approx. steam rate 5.907036 t/h/MW

Steam required at day 1 382.392 t/h

Total flow required 2004.991 cf 1154t/h p2 report

Well failures 1.287777 using success rate above

Total wells Required 17.96491

You might also like