Talk:Sidoarjo mud flow

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does not make sense? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Failure of the dykes? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  A blog link for source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Collab (?) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wrong information? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does this sound right? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Status poorly worded? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Information on the Investigation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mud eruption chronology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2014 GSL meeting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lusi is powered by the volcano, per new JGR paper