Sidoarjo mud flow

Sidoarjo mud flow

The Sidoarjo mud flow or Lapindo
mud (informally abbreviated as Lusi, a
contraction of Lumpur Sidoarjo
wherein lumpur is the Indonesian word
for mud) is the result of an erupting
mud volcano in the subdistrict of
Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java,
Indonesia that has been in eruption
since May 2006. It is the biggest mud
volcano in the world; responsibility for
it was credited to the blowout of a
natural gas well drilled by PT Lapindo
Brantas, although some scientists[1]
and company officials contend it was
caused by a distant earthquake.
At its peak Lusi spewed up to
180,000m of mud per day. By mid
August 2011, mud was being
discharged at a rate of 10,000m per
day, with 15 bubbles around its
gushing point. This was a significant
decline from the previous year, when
mud was being discharged at a rate of
100,000 cubic metres per day with 320
bubbles around its gushing point. It is
expected that the flow will continue for
the next 25 to 30 years. Although the
Sidoarjo mud flow has been contained
by levees since November 2008,
resultant floodings regularly disrupt
local highways and villages, and
further breakouts of mud are still
possible.[2]

Sidoarjo mud flow, October 20, 2009. NASA ASTER satellite image. Red areas indicate
plants in this false-color image

Sidoarjo mud flow, November 11, 2008. NASA ASTER satellite image

Geological setting
Mud volcano systems are fairly common on Earth, and particularly in the Indonesian province of East Java. Beneath
the island of Java is a half-graben lying in the east-west direction, filled with over-pressured

Sidoarjo mud flow

marine carbonates and marine muds. It

forms an inverted extensional basin
which has been geologically active
since the Paleogene epoch. The basin
started to become overpressured during
the Oligo-Miocene period. Some of the
overpressured mud escapes to the
surface to form mud volcanoes, which
have been observed at Sangiran Dome
near Surakarta (Solo) in Central Java
and near Purwodadi city, 200km
(120mi) west of Lusi.
The East Java Basin contains a
The same location prior to the eruption, August 28, 2004. NASA ASTER satellite image
significant amount of oil and gas
reserves, therefore the region is known
as a major concession area for mineral exploration. The Porong subdistrict, 14km south of Sidoarjo city, is known in
the mineral industry as the Brantas Production Sharing Contract (PSC), an area of approximately 7,250km which
consists of three oil and gas fields: Wunut, Carat and Tanggulangin. As of 2006, three companiesSantos (18%),
MedcoEnergi (32%) and PT Lapindo Brantas (50%)had concession rights for this area; PT Lapindo Brantas acted
as an operator.

Mud eruption chronology

On May 28, 2006, PT Lapindo Brantas targeted gas in the Kujung Formation carbonates in the Brantas PSC area by
drilling a borehole named the 'Banjar-Panji1 exploration well'. In the first stage of drilling the drill string first went
through a thick clay seam (5001,300m deep), then through sands, shales, volcanic debris and finally into
permeable carbonate rocks. At this stage steel casing was installed in the borehole to help stabilize it. At 5:00 a.m.
local time (UTC+7) a second stage of drilling began and the drill string went deeper to about 2,834m (9,298ft), this
time without a protective casing, after which water, steam and a small amount of gas erupted at a location about
200m southwest of the well. Two further eruptions occurred on the second and the third of June about 8001000m
northwest of the well, but these stopped on June 5, 2006. During these eruptions, hydrogen sulphide gas was released
and local villagers observed hot mud, thought to be at a temperature of around 60C (140F).
A magnitude 6.3 earthquake occurred in Yogyakarta at ~06:00 local time 27 May 2006, approximately 250
kilometres Southwest of Sidoarjo. Seven minutes after the earthquake a mud loss problem in the well was noted.
After two major aftershocks, the well suffered a complete loss of circulation. A loss of circulation happens when
drilling mudnecessary for maintenance of wellbore stabilitythat is pumped down a shaft does not return to the
surface but is lost into some opening or a fault system. This mud loss problem was finally stopped when loss
circulation material was pumped into the well, a standard practice in drilling an oil and gas well. A day later the
well suffered a kick, an influx of formation fluid into the well bore. The kick appears to have been killed within
three hours. The next day, on 29 May 2006, steam, water and mud began erupting up to 200 meters above the well, a
phenomenon that is now known as the Lusi mud volcano.

Sidoarjo mud flow

Hypotheses on the possible causes

The birth of Lusi was a major disaster for the population living nearby, with loss of their houses, properties and their
livelihood. For the scientific community, however, it was a chance to study the evolving geological process of a mud
volcano. In the past, mud vulcanologists could only study existing or ancient mud volcanoes during dormant periods.
Thus, Lusi is a rare occasion and a unique opportunity to conduct scientific experiments to further our understanding.
It also offers opportunities to study the down hole condition of a mud volcano from the neighboring Banjar-Panji
exploration well lithologies.
To explain what triggered the mud volcano, three hypotheses have been suggested, though none has won universal
support:
Hydro-fracturing of the formation (reflecting a drilling problem)
Fault reactivation (reflecting a natural event)
Geothermal process (reflecting geothermal heating)

Hydro-fracturing of the formation, hence a drilling related problem

From a model developed by geologists working in the UK, the drilling pipe penetrated the overpressured limestone,
causing entrainment of mud by water. The influx of water to the well bore caused a hydrofracture, but the steam and
water did not enter the borehole; they penetrated the surrounding overburden and pressured strata. The extra pressure
formed fractures around the borehole that propagated 12km to the surface and emerged 200m away from the well.
The most likely cause of these hydraulic fractures was the unprotected drill string in the second stage of drilling.
Though steel casing is used to protect the well bore in oil or gas exploration, this can only be applied in stages after
each new section of the hole is drilled; see drilling for oil.
The relatively small distance, around 600 feet (180m), between the Lusi mud volcano and the well being drilled by
Lapindo (the Banjarpanji well) may not be a coincidence, as less than a day before the start of the mud flow the well
suffered a kick. Their analysis suggests that the well has a low resistance to a kick. Similarly, a NE-SW crack in the
surface in the drill site may be evidence of an underground blowout. The well may have suffered an underground
blowout that resulted in a surface breach. Also, a likely contributor is the dissociation of methane hydrates.

Fault reactivation, hence a seismic related natural event

The relatively close timing of the Yogyakarta earthquake, the problems of mud loss and kick in the well and the birth
of the mud volcano continue to interest geoscientists. Was the mud volcano due to the same seismic event that
triggered the earthquake? Geoscientists from Norway, Russia, France and Indonesia have suggested that a major
fault nearby (the Watukosek fault) may have been reactivated, creating a mud flow path that caused Lusi.
They have identified more than 10 naturally triggered mud volcanoes in the East Java province, with at least five
near the Watukosek fault system, confirming that the region is prone to mud volcanism. They also showed that
surface cracks surrounding Lusi predominantly run NE-SW, the direction of the Watukosek fault. Increased seep
activity in the mud volcanoes along the Watukosek fault coincided with the May 27, 2006 seismic event. A major
fault system may have been reactivated, resulting in the formation of a mud volcano.

Sidoarjo mud flow

Geothermal process
Lusi is near the arc of volcanoes in Indonesia where geothermal activities are abundant. The nearest volcano, the
ArjunoWelirang complex, is less than 15km away. The hot mud suggests that some form of geothermal heating
from the nearby magmatic volcano may have been involved. The hot water and steam flowing from the vent, the
location of Lusi near a magmatic volcano complex and its recharge system indicates that Lusi may be a geothermal
phenomenon.

Investigation
Cause
There was controversy as to what triggered the eruption and whether
the event was a natural disaster or not. According to PT Lapindo
Brantas it was the May 2006 earthquake that triggered the mud flow
eruption, and not their drilling activities. Two days before the mud
eruption, an earthquake of moment magnitude 6.3 hit the south coast of
Central Java and Yogyakarta provinces killing 6,234people and
leaving 1.5million homeless. At a hearing before the parliamentary
members, senior executives of PT Lapindo Brantas argued that the
earthquake was so powerful that it had reactivated previously inactive
Mudflow, photo taken on July 21, 2006
faults and also creating deep underground fractures, allowing the mud
to breach the surface, and that their company presence was
coincidental, which should exempt them from paying compensation damage to the victims. If the cause of the
incident is determined to be natural, then the government of Indonesia has the responsibility to cover the damage
instead. This argument was also recurrently echoed by Aburizal Bakrie, the Indonesian Minister of Welfare at that
time, whose family firm controls the operator company PT Lapindo Brantas.
However the UK team of geologists downplayed Lapindo's argument and concluded "...that the earthquake that
occurred two days earlier is coincidental." While it could have generated a new fracture system and weakened strata
surrounding the Banjar-Panji1 well, it could not have been the cause of the formation of the hydraulic fracture that
created the main vent 200m (660ft) away from the borehole. Additionally there was no other mud volcano reported
on Java after the earthquake and the main drilling site is 300km (190mi) away from the earthquake's epicenter. The
intensity of the earthquake at the drilling site was estimated to have been only magnitude 2 on Richter scale, the
same effect as a heavy truck passing over the area.
In June 2008, a report released by British, American, Indonesian, and Australian scientists, concluded that the
volcano was not a natural disaster, but the result of oil and gas drilling.

Legal case
On June 5, 2006, MedcoEnergi (one partner company in the Brantas PSC area) sent a letter to PT Lapindo Brantas
accusing them of breaching safety procedures during the drilling process. The letter further attributes "gross
negligence" to the operator company for not equipping the well bore with steel safety encasing. Soon afterwards
then-vice president Jusuf Kalla announced that PT Lapindo Brantas and the owner, the Bakrie Group, would have to
compensate thousands of victims affected by the mud flows. Criminal investigations were then initiated against
several senior executives of the company because the drilling operation had put the lives of local people at risk.
Aburizal Bakrie frequently said that he is not involved in the company's operation and further distanced himself from
the incident.[citation needed] Even in his capacity as Minister of Welfare, Aburizal Bakrie was reluctant to visit the
disaster site.[citation needed] Aburizal Bakrie's family business group, Bakrie Group, one of the owners of PT Lapindo

Sidoarjo mud flow

Brantas, had been trying to distance themselves from the Lusi incident. Afraid of being held liable for the disaster,
Bakrie Group announced that they would sell PT Lapindo Brantas to an offshore company for only $2, but
Indonesia's Capital Markets Supervisory Agency blocked the sale. A further attempt was made to try to sell to a
company registered in the Virgin Islands, the Freehold Group, for US$1million, which was also halted by the
government supervisory agency for being an invalid sale. Lapindo Brantas was asked to pay about 2.5 trillion rupiah
(about US$ 276.8million) to the victims and about 1.3 trillion rupiah as additional costs to stop the flow. Some
analysts predict that the Bakrie Group will pursue bankruptcy to avoid the cost of clean up, which could amount to
US$ 1billion.
On August 15, 2006, the East Java police seized the Banjar-Panji 1 well to secure it for the court case. The
Indonesian environmental watchdog, WALHI, meanwhile had filed a lawsuit against PT Lapindo Brantas, President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Indonesian Minister of Energy, the Indonesian Minister of Environmental Affairs
and local officials.
After investigations by independent experts, police had concluded the mud flow was an "underground blow out",
triggered by the drilling activity. It is further noted that steel encasing lining had not been used which could have
prevented the disaster. Thirteen Lapindo Brantas' executives and engineers face twelve charges of violating
Indonesian laws.

Current status
2008
As of October 30 2008, the mud flow was still ongoing at a rate of 100,000 m3 per day. By mid August 2011, mud
was being discharged at a rate of 10,000 m3 per day, with 15 bubbles around its gushing point.
One study found that the mud volcano was collapsing under its own weight, possibly beginning caldera formation.
The researchers said the subsidence data could help determine how much of the local area will be affected by Lusi.
Their research used GPS and satellite data recorded between June 2006 and September 2007 that showed the area
affected by Lusi had subsided by between .5 and 14.5 metres (1ft 8in and 47ft 7in) per year. The scientists found
that if Lusi continued to erupt for three to 10years at the constant rates measured during 2007 then the central part of
the volcano could subside by between 44 and 146m (144 and 479ft). They proposed that the subsidence was due to
the weight of mud and collapse of rock strata due to the excavation of mud from beneath the surface. Their study
also found that while some parts of Sidoarjo were subsiding, others were rising suggesting that the Watukosek fault
system had been reactivated because of to the eruption.
A study by a group of Indonesian geo-scientists led by Bambang Istadi predicted the area affected by the mudflow
over a ten-year period. The model simulated the mud flow and its likely outcome in order to find safe locations to
relocate people and affected infrastructures.
After new hot gas flows began to appear, workers started relocating families and some were injured in the process.
The workers were taken to a local hospital to undergo treatment for severe burns. In Siring Barat, 319 more families
were been displaced and in Kelurahan Jatirejo, 262 new families were expected to be affected by the new flows of
gas. Protesting families took to the streets demanding compensation which in turn added more delays to the already
stressed detour road for Jalan Raya Porong and the The Porong-Gempol toll road.
The Indonesian government has stated that their heart is with the people. However the cabinet meeting on how to
disburse compensation was been delayed until further notice. A local official Saiful Ilah signed a statement
announcing that, "The government is going to defend the people of Siring." Following this announcement protests
came to an end and traffic flow returned to normal an hour later.
2010
New mudflows spots begun in April 2010, this time on Porong Highway, which is the main road linking Surabaya
with Probolinggo and islands to the east including Bali, despite roadway thickening and strengthening. A new

Sidoarjo mud flow

highway is planned to replace this one however are held up by land acquisition issues. The main railway also runs by
the area, which is in danger of explosions due to seepage of methane and ignition could come from something as
simple as a tossed cigarette.
As of June 2009, the residents had received less than 20% of the suggested compensation. By mid-2010,
reimbursement payments for victims had not been fully settled, and legal action against the company had stalled. It is
worth mentioning that the owner of the energy company, Aburizal Bakrie was the Coordinating Minister for People's
Welfare at the time of the disaster, and is currently the chairman of Golkar, one of the most influential political
parties in Indonesia.
2011
In 2011, Lapindo Brantas published an independent Social Impact Report.[3]
The Sidojaro mud is rich in rock salt (Halite) and has provided a source of income for the local residents who have
been harvesting the salt for sale at the local market.[citation needed]
2013
In late 2013, international scientists who had been monitoring the situation were reported as saying that the eruption
of mud at Sidoardjo had was falling away quite rapidly and that the indications were that the eruption might cease by
perhaps 2017, much earlier than previously estimated. The scientists noted that the system was losing pressure quite
rapidly and had begun pulsing rather than maintaining a steady flow. The pulsing pattern, it was believed, was a
clear sign that the geological forces driving the eruption were subsiding.[4]

Revived controversy
Out of the three hypotheses on the cause of the Lusi mud volcano, the hydro fracturing hypothesis appeared to be the
one most debated. On 23 October 2008 a public relations agency in London, acting for one of the oil well's owners,
started to widely publicise what it described as "new facts" on the origin of the mud volcano, which were
subsequently presented at an American Association of Petroleum Geologists conference in Cape Town, South Africa
on 28 October 2008 (see next section).[citation needed] The assertion of the geologists and drillers from Energi Mega
Persada was that "At a recent Geological Society of London Conference, we provided authoritative new facts that
make it absolutely clear that drilling could not have been the trigger of LUSI." Other verbal reports of the conference
in question indicated that the assertion was by no means accepted uncritically, and that when the novel data is
published, it is certain to be scrutinised closely.[citation needed]
In 2009, this well data was finally released and published in the Journal of Marine and Petroleum Geology for the
scientific community uses by the geologists and drillers from Energi Mega Persada. It is a common practice in the oil
and gas industry to closely guard their drilling and geologic information, and the company involved is of no
exception. After such release, however, future scientific research on Lusi should have an access to a set of credible
data and not as constraint as early authors were in their limited and questionable quality data to back their claims.
After hearing the (revised) arguments from both sides for the cause of the mud volcano at the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists International Convention in Cape Town in October 2008, the vast majority of the
conference session audience present (consisting of AAPG oil and gas professionals) voted in favor of the view that
the Lusi (Sidoarjo) mudflow had been induced by drilling. On the basis of the arguments presented, 42 out of the 74
scientists came to the conclusion that drilling was entirely responsible, while 13 felt that a combination of drilling
and earthquake activity was to blame. Only 3 thought that the earthquake was solely responsible, and 16
geoscientists believed that the evidence was inconclusive.
The report of the debate and its outcomes was published in AAPG Explorer Magazine. The article stated that the
voting process was a decision by the moderator and only reflected opinions of a group of individuals in the session
room at that time and in no way endorsed by the association. It further cautioned readers not to consider the voting
result in any way as a scientific validation.

Sidoarjo mud flow

On the possible trigger of Lusi mud volcano, a group of geologists and drilling engineers from the oil company
countered the hydro fracturing hypothesis. They suggested that analysis based on the well data showed that the well
was safe and pressure in the well bore was below the critical pressure. It is therefore unlikely that the well was
fractured as charged. Their paper also published data and well information for the first time to the scientific
communities as opinions and technical papers up to that time lacked accurate well data and were forced to rely on a
number of assumptions.
In February 2010, a group led by experts from Britain's Durham University said the new clues bolstered suspicions
the catastrophe was caused by human error. In journal Marine and Petroleum Geology, Professor Richard Davies, of
the Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES), said that drillers, looking for gas nearby, had made a
series of mistakes. They had overestimated the pressure the well could tolerate, and had not placed protective casing
around a section of open well. Then, after failing to find any gas, they hauled the drill out while the hole was
extremely unstable. By withdrawing the drill, they exposed the wellhole to a "kick" from pressurised water and gas
from surrounding rock formations. The result was a volcano-like inflow that the drillers tried in vain to stop.
In the same Marine and Petroleum Geology journal, the group of geologists and drilling engineers refuted the
allegation showing that the "kick" maximum pressure were too low to fracture the rock formation. The well pressure
analysis based on credible data showed that the well is stronger than the maximum pressure exerted on the well. This
implied that the hydro fracturing hypothesis is likely to be incorrect. They further stated that the model developed by
Prof. Davies is much too simplistic by not considering all the available dataset and information in its analysis.
The 2010 technical paper in this series of debate presents the first balanced overview on the anatomy of the Lusi
mud volcanic system with particular emphasis on the critical uncertainties and their influence on the disaster. It
showed the differences in the two hypotheses, the source of water and the current understanding on the subsurface
geology below the mud volcano. More geological field studies and analysis based on factual data need to be done
before any conclusion can be deduced on what actually caused Lusi mud volcano.
In July 2013, Lupi et al proposed that the Lusi mud eruption was the result of a natural event, triggered by a distant
earthquake at Yogyakarta two days before. As a result seimic waves were geometrically focused at the Lusi site
leading to mud and CO2 generation and a reactivation of the local Watukosek Fault. Accoding to their hypothesis the
Fault is linked to a deep hydrothermal system that feeds the eruption.

Gallery

Photo taken of the area of

Sidoarjo destroyed by the mud.

School destroyed by mud flow.

Lake created by mud with

steaming mud flow in
background.

Image shows scale of the mud

hole, with efforts to contain it by
removing the mud and creating
embankments for flood defence.

Sidoarjo mud flow

References
[1] http:/ / www. nbcnews. com/ science/ what-caused-mud-eruption-new-study-favors-quake-over-drilling-6C10701858
[2] Sidoarjo mud flow (http:/ / earthobservatory. nasa. gov/ IOTD/ view. php?id=36111) from NASA's Earth Observatory, posted December 10,
2008. This article incorporates public domain text and images from this NASA webpage.
[3] http:/ / dl. dropbox. com/ u/ 46497355/ lapindo/ Lapindo-LUSI-Report. pdf
[4] Jonathon Amos, ' Mud volcano to stop "by decade's end"' (http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ science-environment-25188259), BBC News
Science and Environment, 13 December 2013.

External links
Internet Portal for Lapindo's Victim (http://korbanlumpur.info/category/berita/c61-english/)
Bakrie & Brothers homepage (http://www.bakrie-brothers.com/)
High format pictures of the mud volcano presented by The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
2008/06/sidoarjos_manmade_mud_volcano.html)
Satellite imagery and Google Earth kml satellite image overlays (http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/coverages/
mudflow) by CRISP/National University of Singapore
The EGU Newsletters, Issue 19 March 2007: Mud volcano in Java, known locally as 'Lusi' may continue to erupt
for months and possibly years. p.5. (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/newsletter/eggs_19.pdf)
Coordinates:
73140S
1124242E
(http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ geohack/ geohack.
php?pagename=Sidoarjo_mud_flow& params=7_31_40_S_112_42_42_E_scale:20000_type:event_region:ID-JI&
title=Sidoarjo+mud+flow)

Article Sources and Contributors

Article Sources and Contributors

Sidoarjo mud flow Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=586133203 Contributors: *drew, A Karley, Addshore, Aesopos, Alex20850, Alexius08, Amritab1, Aphar4, Arifhidayat,
Arima, Axeman89, Aymatth2, Bejnar, Bento00, Billinghurst, Bobo192, Bwmodular, CHJL, Captain-tucker, Card, Cassowary, CesarB, Conrada, Conti, Cpey, Daniel, De Administrando Imperio,
Dotdwillhappenagain, Dr. Blofeld, Ebnat1, EdC, Ekem, Evanherk, Fragrag, Giftlite, Gilgamesh, Glennfcowan, GoingBatty, Gorgo, Gorlash, Griot-de, Gsarwa, Hackwrench, Hans Peter Mitchell,
Hmains, Hugo999, Indon, Inwind, JQF, Jeepday, Jerjozwik, Jesse.l.c, Jimdeseve, Johan Jnsson, Julius.kusuma, KNBDunlop, Kasyapa, Kay Dekker, Kenrick95, Khazar2, Khukri, Ktd3241,
Lestari, Lightmouse, Loren ipsum, LusiDewi, Madan80, Martarius, Matt.T, Merbabu, Mikenorton, Misarxist, Monfornot, Moral obligation, Nabokov, Nekura, Nicklott, Olovni, Only, Other-thing,
Patrick O'Leary, Plasticup, Plazak, Pmccawley, Potomac Oracle, R'n'B, Raeky, Ratiocinate, Rees11, RekishiEJ, Rigadoun, Rjwilmsi, Ross angus, Roxannetheyeti, Ryanbi, SEWilco, Safalra,
Samatict, SatuSuro, Scalziand, Sct72, Seattle Skier, Seegoon, SemanticMantis, SeoMac, Shinkolobwe, Slicing, Sopoforic, Spellcheck, Stemonitis, Stubya, SuperJosh64, Svick, Swingstate, The
Anome, This, that and the other, Tiktuk, Tillman, Tim!, Tony Webster, Unfocused, Vk2tds, Vsmith, Wassermensch, Weasel5i2, Wellstone, Whisk3rs, Wic2020, Widr, Woodshed, Wwoods,
Yellowdesk, Yumenoyuki, ZahrGnosis, 148 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:Lusi Mud Volcano, Indonesia 2009-10-20.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lusi_Mud_Volcano,_Indonesia_2009-10-20.jpg License: Public Domain
Contributors: NASA
File:Sidoarjo Mud Flow.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sidoarjo_Mud_Flow.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: NASA image created by Jesse Allen, using
data from NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and the U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team. Caption by Michon Scott, based on interpretation by Geoffrey S. Plumlee, U.S. Geological Survey
Crustal Imaging and Characterization Team.
File:Pre-Sidoarjo Mud Flow.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pre-Sidoarjo_Mud_Flow.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: NASA image created by Jesse
Allen, using data from NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and the U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team. Caption by Michon Scott, based on interpretation by Geoffrey S. Plumlee, U.S.
Geological Survey Crustal Imaging and Characterization Team.
Image:SidoarjoMudFlowSource.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:SidoarjoMudFlowSource.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5
Contributors: Fragrag, 1 anonymous edits
File:Remenants of Sidoarjo town.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Remenants_of_Sidoarjo_town.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0
Contributors: Hugh e82
File:School destroyed by mud.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:School_destroyed_by_mud.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors:
Hugh e82
File:Lake created by mud with steaming mud flow in background.jpg Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lake_created_by_mud_with_steaming_mud_flow_in_background.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Hugh
e82
File:Mud hole opening.JPG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mud_hole_opening.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Hugh e82

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/