Sidoarjo mud flow 1

Sidoarjo mud flow

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

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

The Sidoarjo mud flow or Lapindomud (informally abbreviated as Lusi, acontraction of Lumpur Sidoarjowherein lumpur is the Indonesian wordfor mud) is the result of an eruptingmud volcano in the subdistrict ofPorong, Sidoarjo in East Java,Indonesia that has been in eruptionsince May 2006. It is the biggest mudvolcano in the world; responsibility forit was credited to the blowout of anatural gas well drilled by PT LapindoBrantas, although some scientists[1]

and company officials contend it wascaused by a distant earthquake.

At its peak Lusi spewed up to180,000 m³ of mud per day. By midAugust 2011, mud was beingdischarged at a rate of 10,000 m³ perday, with 15 bubbles around itsgushing point. This was a significantdecline from the previous year, whenmud was being discharged at a rate of100,000 cubic metres per day with 320bubbles around its gushing point. It isexpected that the flow will continue forthe next 25 to 30 years. Although theSidoarjo mud flow has been containedby levees since November 2008,resultant floodings regularly disruptlocal highways and villages, andfurther breakouts of mud are stillpossible.[2]

Geological setting

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

Sidoarjo mud flow 2

The same location prior to the eruption, August 28, 2004. NASA ASTER satellite image

marine carbonates and marine muds. Itforms an inverted extensional basinwhich has been geologically activesince the Paleogene epoch. The basinstarted to become overpressured duringthe Oligo-Miocene period. Some of theoverpressured mud escapes to thesurface to form mud volcanoes, whichhave been observed at Sangiran Domenear Surakarta (Solo) in Central Javaand near Purwodadi city, 200 km(120 mi) west of Lusi.

The East Java Basin contains asignificant amount of oil and gasreserves, therefore the region is knownas a major concession area for mineral exploration. The Porong subdistrict, 14 km south of Sidoarjo city, is known inthe mineral industry as the Brantas Production Sharing Contract (PSC), an area of approximately 7,250 km² whichconsists of three oil and gas fields: Wunut, Carat and Tanggulangin. As of 2006, three companies—Santos (18%),MedcoEnergi (32%) and PT Lapindo Brantas (50%)—had concession rights for this area; PT Lapindo Brantas actedas an operator.

Mud eruption chronologyOn May 28, 2006, PT Lapindo Brantas targeted gas in the Kujung Formation carbonates in the Brantas PSC area bydrilling a borehole named the 'Banjar-Panji 1 exploration well'. In the first stage of drilling the drill string first wentthrough a thick clay seam (500–1,300 m deep), then through sands, shales, volcanic debris and finally intopermeable 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 2,834 m (9,298 ft), thistime without a protective casing, after which water, steam and a small amount of gas erupted at a location about200 m southwest of the well. Two further eruptions occurred on the second and the third of June about 800–1000 mnorthwest of the well, but these stopped on June 5, 2006. During these eruptions, hydrogen sulphide gas was releasedand local villagers observed hot mud, thought to be at a temperature of around 60 °C (140 °F).A magnitude 6.3 earthquake occurred in Yogyakarta at ~06:00 local time 27 May 2006, approximately 250kilometres 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 whendrilling mud—necessary for maintenance of wellbore stability—that is pumped down a shaft does not return to thesurface but is lost into some opening or a fault system. This mud loss problem was finally stopped when losscirculation material was pumped into the well, a standard practice in drilling an oil and gas well. A day later thewell suffered a ‘kick’, an influx of formation fluid into the well bore. The kick appears to have been killed withinthree hours. The next day, on 29 May 2006, steam, water and mud began erupting up to 200 meters above the well, aphenomenon that is now known as the Lusi mud volcano.

Sidoarjo mud flow 3

Hypotheses on the possible causesThe birth of Lusi was a major disaster for the population living nearby, with loss of their houses, properties and theirlivelihood. For the scientific community, however, it was a chance to study the evolving geological process of a mudvolcano. 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-Panjiexploration well lithologies.To explain what triggered the mud volcano, three hypotheses have been suggested, though none has won universalsupport:•• 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 problemFrom 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 andwater did not enter the borehole; they penetrated the surrounding overburden and pressured strata. The extra pressureformed fractures around the borehole that propagated 1–2 km to the surface and emerged 200 m 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 aftereach new section of the hole is drilled; see drilling for oil.The relatively small distance, around 600 feet (180 m), between the Lusi mud volcano and the well being drilled byLapindo (the Banjarpanji well) may not be a coincidence, as less than a day before the start of the mud flow the wellsuffered a kick. Their analysis suggests that the well has a low resistance to a kick. Similarly, a NE-SW crack in thesurface in the drill site may be evidence of an underground blowout. The well may have suffered an undergroundblowout that resulted in a surface breach. Also, a likely contributor is the dissociation of methane hydrates.

Fault reactivation, hence a seismic related natural eventThe relatively close timing of the Yogyakarta earthquake, the problems of mud loss and kick in the well and the birthof the mud volcano continue to interest geoscientists. Was the mud volcano due to the same seismic event thattriggered the earthquake? Geoscientists from Norway, Russia, France and Indonesia have suggested that a majorfault 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 fivenear the Watukosek fault system, confirming that the region is prone to mud volcanism. They also showed thatsurface cracks surrounding Lusi predominantly run NE-SW, the direction of the Watukosek fault. Increased seepactivity in the mud volcanoes along the Watukosek fault coincided with the May 27, 2006 seismic event. A majorfault system may have been reactivated, resulting in the formation of a mud volcano.

Sidoarjo mud flow 4

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

Investigation

Cause

Mudflow, photo taken on July 21, 2006

There was controversy as to what triggered the eruption and whetherthe event was a natural disaster or not. According to PT LapindoBrantas it was the May 2006 earthquake that triggered the mud floweruption, and not their drilling activities. Two days before the muderuption, an earthquake of moment magnitude 6.3 hit the south coast ofCentral Java and Yogyakarta provinces killing 6,234 people andleaving 1.5 million homeless. At a hearing before the parliamentarymembers, senior executives of PT Lapindo Brantas argued that theearthquake was so powerful that it had reactivated previously inactivefaults and also creating deep underground fractures, allowing the mudto breach the surface, and that their company presence wascoincidental, which should exempt them from paying compensation damage to the victims. If the cause of theincident is determined to be natural, then the government of Indonesia has the responsibility to cover the damageinstead. This argument was also recurrently echoed by Aburizal Bakrie, the Indonesian Minister of Welfare at thattime, 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 thatoccurred two days earlier is coincidental." While it could have generated a new fracture system and weakened stratasurrounding the Banjar-Panji 1 well, it could not have been the cause of the formation of the hydraulic fracture thatcreated the main vent 200 m (660 ft) away from the borehole. Additionally there was no other mud volcano reportedon Java after the earthquake and the main drilling site is 300 km (190 mi) away from the earthquake's epicenter. Theintensity of the earthquake at the drilling site was estimated to have been only magnitude 2 on Richter scale, thesame effect as a heavy truck passing over the area.In June 2008, a report released by British, American, Indonesian, and Australian scientists, concluded that thevolcano was not a natural disaster, but the result of oil and gas drilling.

Legal caseOn June 5, 2006, MedcoEnergi (one partner company in the Brantas PSC area) sent a letter to PT Lapindo Brantasaccusing them of breaching safety procedures during the drilling process. The letter further attributes "grossnegligence" to the operator company for not equipping the well bore with steel safety encasing. Soon afterwardsthen-vice president Jusuf Kalla announced that PT Lapindo Brantas and the owner, the Bakrie Group, would have tocompensate thousands of victims affected by the mud flows. Criminal investigations were then initiated againstseveral 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 5

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, butIndonesia's Capital Markets Supervisory Agency blocked the sale. A further attempt was made to try to sell to acompany registered in the Virgin Islands, the Freehold Group, for US$1 million, which was also halted by thegovernment supervisory agency for being an invalid sale. Lapindo Brantas was asked to pay about 2.5 trillion rupiah(about US$ 276.8 million) to the victims and about 1.3 trillion rupiah as additional costs to stop the flow. Someanalysts predict that the Bakrie Group will pursue bankruptcy to avoid the cost of clean up, which could amount toUS$ 1 billion.On August 15, 2006, the East Java police seized the Banjar-Panji 1 well to secure it for the court case. TheIndonesian environmental watchdog, WALHI, meanwhile had filed a lawsuit against PT Lapindo Brantas, PresidentSusilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the Indonesian Minister of Energy, the Indonesian Minister of Environmental Affairsand 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 haveprevented the disaster. Thirteen Lapindo Brantas' executives and engineers face twelve charges of violatingIndonesian laws.

Current status2008

As of October 30 2008, the mud flow was still ongoing at a rate of 100,000 m3 per day. By mid August 2011, mudwas 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 areaaffected by Lusi had subsided by between .5 and 14.5 metres (1 ft 8 in and 47 ft 7 in) per year. The scientists foundthat if Lusi continued to erupt for three to 10 years at the constant rates measured during 2007 then the central part ofthe volcano could subside by between 44 and 146 m (144 and 479 ft). They proposed that the subsidence was due tothe weight of mud and collapse of rock strata due to the excavation of mud from beneath the surface. Their studyalso found that while some parts of Sidoarjo were subsiding, others were rising suggesting that the Watukosek faultsystem 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 mudflowover a ten-year period. The model simulated the mud flow and its likely outcome in order to find safe locations torelocate 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 familieswere been displaced and in Kelurahan Jatirejo, 262 new families were expected to be affected by the new flows ofgas. Protesting families took to the streets demanding compensation which in turn added more delays to the alreadystressed 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 todisburse compensation was been delayed until further notice. A local official Saiful Ilah signed a statementannouncing that, "The government is going to defend the people of Siring." Following this announcement protestscame 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 6

highway is planned to replace this one however are held up by land acquisition issues. The main railway also runs bythe area, which is in danger of explosions due to seepage of methane and ignition could come from something assimple 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 isworth mentioning that the owner of the energy company, Aburizal Bakrie was the Coordinating Minister for People'sWelfare at the time of the disaster, and is currently the chairman of Golkar, one of the most influential politicalparties 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 havebeen 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 eruptionof mud at Sidoardjo had was falling away quite rapidly and that the indications were that the eruption might cease byperhaps 2017, much earlier than previously estimated. The scientists noted that the system was losing pressure quiterapidly and had begun pulsing rather than maintaining a steady flow. The pulsing pattern, it was believed, was aclear sign that the geological forces driving the eruption were subsiding.[4]

Revived controversyOut of the three hypotheses on the cause of the Lusi mud volcano, the hydro fracturing hypothesis appeared to be theone 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 weresubsequently presented at an American Association of Petroleum Geologists conference in Cape Town, South Africaon 28 October 2008 (see next section).[citation needed] The assertion of the geologists and drillers from Energi MegaPersada was that "At a recent Geological Society of London Conference, we provided authoritative new facts thatmake it absolutely clear that drilling could not have been the trigger of LUSI." Other verbal reports of the conferencein question indicated that the assertion was by no means accepted uncritically, and that when the novel data ispublished, 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 thescientific community uses by the geologists and drillers from Energi Mega Persada. It is a common practice in the oiland gas industry to closely guard their drilling and geologic information, and the company involved is of noexception. After such release, however, future scientific research on Lusi should have an access to a set of credibledata 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 Associationof Petroleum Geologists International Convention in Cape Town in October 2008, the vast majority of theconference session audience present (consisting of AAPG oil and gas professionals) voted in favor of the view thatthe Lusi (Sidoarjo) mudflow had been induced by drilling. On the basis of the arguments presented, 42 out of the 74scientists came to the conclusion that drilling was entirely responsible, while 13 felt that a combination of drillingand earthquake activity was to blame. Only 3 thought that the earthquake was solely responsible, and 16geoscientists believed that the evidence was inconclusive.The report of the debate and its outcomes was published in AAPG Explorer Magazine. The article stated that thevoting process was a decision by the moderator and only reflected opinions of a group of individuals in the sessionroom at that time and in no way endorsed by the association. It further cautioned readers not to consider the votingresult in any way as a scientific validation.

Sidoarjo mud flow 7

On the possible trigger of Lusi mud volcano, a group of geologists and drilling engineers from the oil companycountered the hydro fracturing hypothesis. They suggested that analysis based on the well data showed that the wellwas safe and pressure in the well bore was below the critical pressure. It is therefore unlikely that the well wasfractured as charged. Their paper also published data and well information for the first time to the scientificcommunities as opinions and technical papers up to that time lacked accurate well data and were forced to rely on anumber of assumptions.In February 2010, a group led by experts from Britain's Durham University said the new clues bolstered suspicionsthe catastrophe was caused by human error. In journal Marine and Petroleum Geology, Professor Richard Davies, ofthe Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems (CeREES), said that drillers, looking for gas nearby, had made aseries of mistakes. They had overestimated the pressure the well could tolerate, and had not placed protective casingaround a section of open well. Then, after failing to find any gas, they hauled the drill out while the hole wasextremely unstable. By withdrawing the drill, they exposed the wellhole to a "kick" from pressurised water and gasfrom 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 theallegation showing that the "kick" maximum pressure were too low to fracture the rock formation. The well pressureanalysis based on credible data showed that the well is stronger than the maximum pressure exerted on the well. Thisimplied that the hydro fracturing hypothesis is likely to be incorrect. They further stated that the model developed byProf. 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 Lusimud volcanic system with particular emphasis on the critical uncertainties and their influence on the disaster. Itshowed the differences in the two hypotheses, the source of water and the current understanding on the subsurfacegeology below the mud volcano. More geological field studies and analysis based on factual data need to be donebefore 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 distantearthquake at Yogyakarta two days before. As a result seimic waves were geometrically focused at the Lusi siteleading to mud and CO2 generation and a reactivation of the local Watukosek Fault. Accoding to their hypothesis theFault is linked to a deep hydrothermal system that feeds the eruption.

Gallery

Photo taken of the area ofSidoarjo destroyed by the mud.

School destroyed by mud flow. Lake created by mud withsteaming mud flow in

background.

Image shows scale of the mudhole, with efforts to contain it byremoving the mud and creatingembankments for flood defence.

Sidoarjo mud flow 8

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: 7°31′40″S 112°42′42″E (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 9

Article Sources and ContributorsSidoarjo 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, Cépey, 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 Jönsson, 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, TheAnome, 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 ContributorsFile: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: NASAFile: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, usingdata 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 SurveyCrustal 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 JesseAllen, 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 editsFile: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 e82File: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 e82File: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: Hughe82File: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

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