Interventions From Law Enforcement, Geothermal Development In Dieng And Patuha Potentially Moroted

The Legal Attorney Team of PT Bumigas Energi (BGE). (Photo: Didi Kurniawan / VOI)

JAKARTA - The development of geothermal energy in Dieng and Patuha has the potential to be delayed due to prolonged legal issues. In fact, PT Geo Dipa Energi and PT Bumigas Energi actually underwent legal proceedings with a decision from the National Arbitration Agency (BANI) to 1 of 2015 which stated that they would revive the cooperation contracts of the two companies that had stopped.

The attorney for PT Bumigas Energi (BGE) Khresna Guntarto in Jakarta, Thursday, January 26, said that the re-emergence of legal issues between Geodipa and Bumigas began when the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) through one of Pahala Nainggolan, who currently serves as Deputy for Prevention of the KPK, issued a letter of response to the request of the State-Owned Enterprise (BUMN) company, PT Geo Dipa Energi in 2017. The letter is a request for clarification regarding the ownership of PT BGE's account at PT HSBC Hong Kong.

In a letter numbered B / 6004 / LIT. 04 / 10 15 / 09/ 2017 dated September 19, 2017, the KPK stated that PT BGE does not have an account at HSBC Hong Kong.

The letter made by Pahala is related to the obligation to provide data on the first withdrawal of PT Geo Dipa Energi's work contract with PT Bumigas Energi, in a project related to the development of geothermal power plants in Dieng and Patuha.

Based on this letter, the dispute over Geo Dipa and BGE which have been completed continues again with the 2nd BANI which was won by Geo Dipa with the consideration of the KPK letter.

According to Krishna, the actions of the KPK leaders who intervened in this case have the potential to disrupt the geothermal investment climate. BGE itself claims that in accordance with the existing contracts, BGE should have become a partner of the government in geothermal development in Dieng and Patuha.

Geo Dipa Energi involves BGE as a contractor to build five units of Geothermal Power Plants (PLTP), namely PLTP Dieng 2, Dieng 3 and PLTP Patuha 1, Patuha 2, and Patuha 3. On its way, Bumigas was deemed not to have carried out physical construction according to the contract agreement. After five warnings that did not get results, Geodipa filed an arbitration lawsuit for termination of the contract.

Article 55.1 of the Dieng and Patuha Geothermal Project Development Agreement No. KTR 001/GDE/II/2005 between PT GDE and PT BGE on February 1, 2005 (Perjanjian KTR 001/2005), PT. BGE was asked to provide funds in the form of a first drawdown. Therefore, PT. BGE based on letter PT BGE No. 089/2005 on April 29, 2005 has given or submitted to PT Geo Dipa Energi as the provider of the Project in the form of proof of a drawdown, which is proof of disbursement of funds to accounts belonging to PT BGE as an investor, contractor and developer in the KTR.001 Agreement at Bank HSBC (Hong Kong). First drawdown has a total HKD 40,000,000 (fourty million Dollar Hong Kong) which was then equivalent to USD 5,165,000 (five million one hundred and fifty five thousand US Dollars).

Meanwhile, PT Geo Dipa Energi has recognized the availability of first drawdown funds from BGE based on Letter Number: 058/PRESDIR-GDE/V/2005 dated Bandung, May 9, 2005, the subject: First drawdown Dieng 2.3 & Patuha 1, 2, 3 Geothermal Power Projects, from PT Geo Dipa Energi signed by ET. Samsudin Warsa as President Director, to PT Bumigas Energi. However, PT Geo Dipa Energi does not currently recognize and rule out the existence of first drawdown to the BGE account at the HSBC Bank (Hong Kong).

Furthermore, according to Kreshna, there are facts of a follow-up to the provision of first drawdown funds, namely the provision of the next fund (additional drawdown or 2nd drawdown) in 2006 at Bank Panin Indonesia from PT Bumigas Energi which has been shown to PT Geo Dipa Energi worth Rp95 billion or equivalent to US$10,433,827.57. Letter No.: 351/JAS/EXT/19 dated May 29, 2019 from Panin Bank which stated that there was a deposit to the Bumigas account worth Rp95 billion in 2006.

According to Kreshna, the Deputy for Prevention of the KPK as the state administrator was not thorough in examining the state of BGE's banking account at HSBC Hong Kong in 2005 and did not carry out a thorough examination of the banking condition of PT Bumigas Energi at Bank Panin KCU Senayan on August 29, 2006.

"Why Mr. Pahala did not check the Bumigas Energi account at Bank Panin. Obviously, the KPK letter is not careful, engineering and manipulation," he said.

Bumigas itself has reported the former President Director of Geo Dipa Samsudin Warsa for a fraud case because it is suspected of not having a Mining Business License and a Geothermal Working Area. This made Bumigas feel unable to carry out the construction of PLTP for violating Law Number 27 of 2003 concerning Geothermal. At the South Jakarta District Court, Bumigas defeated Geodipa.

The basic problem, said Kreshna, that PT Geo Dipa Energi from the start was that it did not have a Geothermal Business License and Land Heat Authority as referred to in Law No.21/2014 or Law No.27/2003 concerning Geothermal. This has been confirmed by Amar's Decision of the Central Information Commission (KIP) No. 925/V/KIP-PS-A-M-A/2019 dated August 13, 2020.

"The KIP decision states that the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources has never issued IUPs and WKPs for PT Geo Dipa Energi," said Khresna.