Talk:Sidoarjo mud flow

This article is written in American English with IUPAC spelling (color, defense, traveled; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sidoarjo mud flow article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Sidoarjo mud flow is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Mid‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sidoarjo mud flow was the Indonesian collaboration of the week for the week starting on April 2007.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

Does not make sense?

One sentence reads, "... and pressure form crystal like rock which contain up to 400 degrees F. in each molecule. T". The units of "400 degrees F. in each molecule" does not make sense. Should probably be watts, BTUs, calories, or some such.

115.87.216.181 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of the dykes?

According to this article...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23006874-5012775,00.html

...the dykes have failed and it's flooding again. Can any other articles confirm this, and if so, should it be added to the Wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.85.85 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A blog link for source

I found this link: http://hotmudflow.wordpress.com/ I know we can use it as a source, but can we use it for the External Links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calupict (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have added with clear note of its authorship. I think it's okay. — Indon (reply) — 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good site, most of the details are factual. I have not seen any mention yet of the sale of the 32% medco interest in the original BJP1 well? This was sold for USD $100. An Indonesian (Bakrie supported)Company brought the shares, I'll post the data today. Also no mention of the latest on the Police report. Police have confirmed that gross negligence by the drilling contractor directly contributed to the underground blow-out. 13 Lapindo suspects all engineers, will be taken to court on 12 counts Moral obligation 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please becareful to only use the link in the External links section, not to be used as source per WP:RS. — Indon (reply) — 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collab (?)

Where is everybody? Let's aim that at the end of the collab, we will submit this article to WP:GAC, right guys? — Indon (reply) — 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions. I am curious to the substances of the mud, and we need someone to introduce us how a hydraulic vault caused by drilling would emerge such a huge mud volcano nearby. Specifically because it is from so deep, (2700 mtr aprox.), I don't think that would happen without pre-existing faults. This is not clear from the article. The article could delve a bit deeper into the interesting geological mess beneath it, i suspect a real good thing to do would be to dry the stuf as quick as possible so to separate the liquid from the solids.77.248.56.242 12:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrong information?

As far as I know is the sentance "As of 2006, three companies — Santos (18%), MedcoEnergi (32%) and PT Lapindo Brantas (50%) — had concession rights for this area; PT Lapindo Brantas acted as an operator.[4]" not correct. Lapindo Brantas Inc. - registered in Delaware/USA owned this 50 % stake. PT Lapindo Brantas was its sub-contractor responsible for the drilling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.42.135 (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound right?

Just browsing through articles and this one popped up that interested me. This sentence sounds odd though - "After three months at least 50,000 m³ of mud had been disgorged with a daily flow estimated at 7,000–150,000 m³". I would have thought that at the rate of, say the lower, 7,000 cubic metres per day, that after three months there would have been apprx 630,000 cubic metres, not 50,000. Just an observation. Very interesting article though!! Many thanks HelloMojo (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status poorly worded?

Under the "Current Status" heading, there's this statement "Workers helping to relocate families after new hot gas flows began to appear." Then after that is a mention of workers suffering burns. This is poorly written and need some serious rewriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.28.198 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Information on the Investigation

I think this article might be useful. [Scientists show link between exploration well and Indonesia's Lusi mud volcano | http://www.physorg.com/news185141827.html] Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

The title of this article is a bit misleading because it is about a mud volcano, not a mud flow. Renaming it as Sidoarjo mud volcano would be much more accurate. Volcanoguy 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Here's a new article stating that the mud is likely to continue flowing until 2037. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/mud-volcano-set-to-erupt-for-quarter-century-scientists/424867 Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mud eruption chronology

The section on chronology of this event seems to contain inaccurate information, or at least typos or a confusing structure. It begins with talking about what I understand to be the beginning of drilling the well on May 28, 2006 and goes on to talk about an earthquake on 27 May 2006 in the next paragraph. This places the quake before drilling began, even though it is mentioned second. But the next sentence describes a problem in the well just a few minutes after the quake. This seems contradictory to the dates I already listed above, which leads me to conclude that either I am misunderstanding what is written or that something here is wrong. I have tried rereading the section to see if I realize something differently, but have not been able to make sense of it (and as such, I do not feel that I should edit anything to correct this). Am I missing something, or is there an inaccuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.37.87 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2014 GSL meeting

In January 2014 a 1-day meeting to discuss the events surrounding the formation of this mud volcano will be held at the Geological society in London. (Pending work commitments, I hope to attend.) Aidan Karley (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lusi is powered by the volcano, per new JGR paper

Scientists explain world's largest mud eruption, Oct. 17, 2017

Per geologist and coauthor Stephen Miller, "Lusi is a unique hybrid -- the combination of a mud volcano and hydrothermal vent. Unlike other mud volcanoes, Lusi has a more massive thermal engine in the form of a large magma chamber." --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]