Sidoarjo mudflow, well blowout identification.

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthyaouw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identification
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Sidoarjo mudflow, also known as the Java mud volcano or Lusi, and the identification of its cause, specifically whether it is a natural phenomenon or a result of a gas well blowout. Participants explore the implications of these positions on accountability and financial responsibility for relief efforts, as well as the potential for using tracers to determine the source of the mudflow.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a well kick fractures surrounding rock and causes a blowout, injected drilling fluids could exit at the blowout site, potentially providing evidence of a link between the eruption and the well.
  • There is a proposal to use tracers, such as radioactive materials or unique chemicals, to confirm or deny the connection between the well and the mudflow.
  • Another participant raises philosophical questions about causality, suggesting that the mechanisms for the mudflow were already present and that the actual trigger may not matter as much as the underlying conditions.
  • Concerns are expressed about the implications of proving the drilling activities triggered the event, particularly regarding the timing of a natural occurrence versus a man-made one.
  • A participant emphasizes that drilling for oil and gas inherently involves risks associated with pressurized fluids and that proper management and procedures are essential to prevent blowouts.
  • There is a discussion about accountability, with one participant questioning the guilt of those who may inadvertently trigger a natural disaster through drilling activities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the causality of the mudflow, with some suggesting it is a natural event waiting to happen, while others argue for the role of drilling activities. There is no consensus on the cause or the implications of accountability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved questions about the feasibility of using tracers and the philosophical implications of causality in natural disasters. There are also limitations regarding the assumptions made about the relationship between drilling activities and natural events.

matthyaouw
Gold Member
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
5
I've been studying the Sidoarjo mudflow / Java mud volcano / Lapindo mudflow / Lusi pretty thoroughly in recent weeks. One of the key issues behind the disaster and relief effort seems to be a question of blame- if the event is natural the money for the relief effort must come from the Indonesian government, and if it is a gas well blowout it needs to come from PT Lapindo-Brantas, the operators of the well near which the eruption is occurring. As you can imagine, the well operators deny all responsibility, but are under a lot of pressure from various groups, possibly just as a scapegoat.

I've read pretty extensively and still can't decide either way exactly what the cause is, but I've had an idea about how it may be possible to find out. Heavy fluids and drilling muds are injected into the well bore to control pressure during drilling. If a well kick were to fracture the surrounding rock and cause a blowout away from the drill rig, some of the injected material would exit at the site of the blowout. Am I right? If so, is there anything contained within the fluid/mud that would not be found naturally and could be used as a tracer to confirm/deny a link between the eruption and the well? If not, could anything be added to it, say a radioactive tracer or a chemical that does not occur naturally?

Does anyone know if this has been attempted or if it would be feasible for drilling in the future?
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
matthyaouw said:
Am I right? If so, is there anything contained within the fluid/mud that would not be found naturally and could be used as a tracer to confirm/deny a link between the eruption and the well? If not, could anything be added to it, say a radioactive tracer or a chemical that does not occur naturally?

Does anyone know if this has been attempted or if it would be feasible for drilling in the future?

Adding http://www.geo.uu.se/luva/personal.aspx?namn=Rajinder&lan=1 for hydrological investigation has been done. But in this case, causality looks a bit more philosophical.

What is the cause of the mud flow? It's the volcano or the overpressured half graben filled with oceanic sediments. So the mechanism was there, waiting to be triggered. Does it matter what actually triggered it? tectonic changes, earthquakes? Seems like a big post-hoc-ergo-proper-hoc fallacy to me. But even if it could be proven that the drill activities triggered the event, how long would it have been before it would have occurred naturally?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andre said:
Adding http://www.geo.uu.se/luva/personal.aspx?namn=Rajinder&lan=1 for hydrological investigation has been done. But in this case, causality looks a bit more philosophical.

What is the cause of the mud flow? It's the volcano or the overpressured half graben filled with oceanic sediments. So the mechanism was there, waiting to be triggered. Does it matter what actually triggered it? tectonic changes, earthquakes? Seems like a big post-hoc-ergo-proper-hoc fallacy to me. But even if it could be proven that the drill activities triggered the event, how long would it have been before it would have occurred naturally?

Thanks for the link.
I agree that even if the event is man-made, it probably would have occurred at some point in the future anyway, though how far along the line I wouldn't like to say. The fact is though that the trigger does matter to those who may have to pay out billions on the relief and clean-up operation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But is the guy guilty who accidentaly tripped the wire of the natural booby trap?
 
Yes is most likely the answer to that one. Hitting pressurised fluid is an unavoidable risk when drilling for oil/gas (and indeed the point of drilling in the first place, as oil and gas are both pressurised fluids themselves). You might say there is one of these natural booby traps anywhere you might chose to drill. There are a great number of procedures, rules and techniques for preventing the uncontrolled release of them (termed blowouts). If it wasn't for all of these then there'd be a blowout on a ridiculous number of wells. It is basically very bad well management to allow one to happen and if a company isn't up to the job of preventing them then they shouldn't be allowed to drill in the first place.
 

Similar threads

Oxygen Enriched Internal Steam Compression Ignition Engine (OEISCIE)
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Graduate BRS: PKI Cryptosystems for SA/Ms: A Tutorial
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K