Talk:Sidoarjo mud flow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sidoarjo mud flow is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the 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. |
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
- I have added with clear note of its authorship. I think it's okay. — Indon (reply) — 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
