1 / 9

Geothermal in Indonesia – Developers’ Perspective

Geothermal in Indonesia – Developers’ Perspective. IIGCE June 5 2014. Dr. Bret Mattes. The opportunity cost of not developing geothermal in Indonesia is massive. So why has development been allowed to lag…..?. Average lead time for new projects in Indonesia has been > 12 years

perdy
Télécharger la présentation

Geothermal in Indonesia – Developers’ Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Geothermal in Indonesia – Developers’ Perspective IIGCE June 5 2014 Dr. Bret Mattes

  2. The opportunity cost of not developing geothermal in Indonesia is massive. So why has development been allowed to lag…..? • Average lead time for new projects in Indonesia has been > 12 years • Fundamental issue – petroleum-scale capital at risk upstream for a utility rate of return downstream • Is Sarulla the breakthrough project that will give the industry momentum?? • Where does the blame lie – public or private?

  3. What’s holding us back? • Demand issues • Accessibility • Resource quality • Pricing • Industry structure • Finance • ??

  4. Demand • Market is clamoring for base-load electricity • Government has outlined clear electrification and renewable energy targets; but… • Market is distorted – energy subsidies soak up almost 20% of annual national budget • Lack of coordination within government • Risks are not shared equitably • Government guarantee is inadequate • No national database • License rules not rigorously enforced

  5. Accessibility • Extractive mining activity • Cumbersome tender process • IUP commitments that don’t reflect: • Paucity of data • Delays with PPA • Delays with forestry approvals and other consents • High drilling costs • Onerous treatment of drilling cuttings • Land acquisition issues • Limited talent pool • Lack of coordination within government • Exploration Fund is ill-conceived

  6. Resource • Inconsistent definition of resources at time of gazettal • Mix of high/low temperature; deep/shallow • Geography

  7. Pricing • Bidding requires nominal tariff at COD to be specified before resource data is available • National cap versus FIT; avoidable cost versus project-specific B to B outcome • Post-COD escalation reflects inequitable risk sharing

  8. Industry Structure • Single buyer • Also a developer • Can’t choose its suppliers • Plant versus unit commissioning – encourages irresponsible development strategies • Coordination across and between levels of government • Who builds/owns/operates connection infrastructure? • Needed: experienced, persistent developers willing to risk upstream capital • “Fast track” was a rhetorical turn of phrase

  9. THANK YOU

More Related