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