TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Cost of exploration is necessary investment
First and foremost we must further de-risk exploration investment, and use innovative, cost-effective tools which can bridge the gap.
Change Size
Power house: Locals fish in shallow water near an oil refinery belonging to state-owned oil and gas giant Pertamina in Cilacap, Central Java. The facility, which produces up to 348,000 barrels of oil per day, is the biggest of its kind in Indonesia, supplying around a third of the nation’s fuel. (The Jakarta Post/Agus Maryono)
R
ichard Fuller recently published a very interesting article in The Jakarta Post titled “The risk of losing an important asset — natural gas”.
In this article, he mentioned that the cost of 2D, 3D seismic over 10 years would be US$2 billion, a figure that makes one’s eyes water.
It was also stated that by continuing to pursue oil and gas exploration under the historic and current procedures that Indonesia would lose $1.1 trillion in economic benefits, another eye watering figure, even in rupiah, to many of us.
Vice President Jusuf Kalla made a statement at the opening ceremony for the fifth Indonesia International Geothermal Convention and Exhibition (IIGCE) 2017 recently that the cost of exploration for geothermal is quite high, considering the cost of exploration required for the development of one Geothermal Working Area (WKP) is approximately $20-25 million.
We need to bear in mind that one WKP is normally about 40 square kilometers and that the total length of the geothermal arc in Indonesia is 5,100 km.
At the IIGCE conference I stated during my presentation (titled “Exploration requirements to achieve the geothermal development 2025 target”) that speculation should not be a part of the geothermal vocabulary, neither should the common belief that exploration costs are high.
They indeed are if we insist on not accepting or adapting our exploration methods to Innovative Exploration Tools (IET) that do reduce the time, cost and risk of exploration.
