The Causes and Responses of the Indonesian Government to the Sidoarjo Mudflow Disaster - Case Study Example

Environment and Development in Asia Name Institution Course Tutor Date Environment and Development in Asia Introduction May 29, 2006 remains a somber day in the history of Indonesia that residents of Polong in Sidoarjo district in East Java will never forget. This day marks a large-scale eruption of mudflow that changed the lives of Sidoarjo’s habitants forever. The eruption that occurred near a drilling site belonging to the Lapindo Brantas Company triggered a lot of speculations about Lapindo’s involvement in the emergence of this disaster. For instance, some people argued that the mudflow occurred due to negligent action during Lapindo’s drilling process while Lapindo’s scientists stressed that the mudflow got triggered by occurrence of an earthquake two days prior to this disaster. The same earthquake had hit Yogyakarta two days before the mudflow eruption displacing over 40,000 families. Scientists predict the ongoing mudflow will continue to spread for the next 30 years and even more years to come. Following this disaster the Lapindo Company and the government responded in different ways that saw the victims compensated and relocations programs implemented to settle the displaced families. However, there exist gaps and areas where the people still feel both the PT Lapindo Brantas and the government failed, in the attempt to mitigate the mudflow issue (Schiller & Lucas 2007, p.10). This paper discusses the causes and responses of the Indonesian government to the Sidoarjo mudflow disaster about the political economics of East Java. Causes of the Mudflow Several controversies exist as to the true cause of the eruption; with environmentalists debating whether it qualifies as a natural disaster or not. According to the scientists behind the Lapindo Brantas project, the mudflow resulted from an earthquake that had already happened in May the same year; two days before the mudflow and not from their drilling activities. The birth of the mudflow might exist as a major disaster for the population of Sidoarjo district as the count their losses. Over the years, environmentalists have used three hypotheses to explain the cause of the mudflow disaster though none has received universal support so far. These hypotheses include: Fault reactivation (reflecting a natural event) Hydro-fracturing (pointing towards drilling) Geothermal process (reflecting a natural cause) Hydro-fracturing Looking at this disaster from the drilling point of view, geologists from UK suggested that the mudflow must have resulted from a fracture on the limestone layer of the earth’s crust. These fractures allowed muddy water to penetrate the earth’s surface; especially after continuous drilling. Also the pressure exerted by the fractures extended at least 2km on the surface of the earth and later exploded as the mudflow; 200m away from the drilling well. Therefore, these geological facts imply that the most likely cause of the mudflow emanated from the hydraulic fractures in the unprotected drill string during the second stage of drilling. Hence, the scientific meaning of the above events reflects that the mudflow in Indonesia’s, Sidoarjo’s district came about due to negligent actions during drilling activities of the Lapindo Company. Although steel casing usually gets utilized to safeguard a well during drilling activities, this was not the case for Lapindo’s drilling activities; as each new section of the hole got drilled (Cyranowski, 2007 p.813) On the other hand, Lapindo’s scientist’s argued that the well’s resistance could not hold any drilling pressures; and therefore, the mudflow would have occurred due to this existing underlying factor. The well may have suffered an underground blowout prior to the drilling that resulted in a surface breach and only worsened once Lapindo embarked on drilling the same surface. Additionally, the surface breach resulting from the earthquake that occurred two days before the mudflow may have caused methane hydrates to penetrate the earth’s surface causing the overflow (Davies et al. 2007 p.6). This explanation brings us to the next probable cause of the mudflow; being fault reactivation due to natural causes. Fault reactivation This cause puts the start of the mudflow, relatively close to the timing of the Yogyakarta earthquake, indicating that the mudflow disaster may have been just another natural event. As geoscientists continue to ponder over whether the mudflow resulted from natural causes which caused the earthquake, geoscientists from the neighboring countries have equally suggested that the area had an already existing fault. Therefore, drilling in the same affected area only contributed to reactivating the fault; that then created a flow path causing the Sidoarjo mudflow. Following this revelation, the government invested in two re-known Dutch geoscientific experts to find the cause of the problem once and for all. These scientists came up with a new revelation that pointed other volcanoes in the history of East Java; which had resulted from natural causes. Their causes resembled the same fault that led to Sidoarjo’s mudflow; implying that the entire region had always been prone to the mud volcano effect. They also revealed the connection between the existing surface cracks and the Watukosek fault; that shows the mudflow occurred along the Watukosek fault coinciding with earthquake incidence. Therefore, it is clear that the shift in the earth’s tectonic plates may have contributed to the pressure reactivation of the existing fault; hence causing the mud explosion. Geothermal process Indonesia has a record of geothermal activities that is abundant enough to cause a volcano. Arjuno–Welirang falls among the volcanoes that exist just 15km away from the disaster region. Research has proven that geothermal heating can also cause the same effects of a mud volcano. Therefore, the mud that erupted in the East of Java suggests some form of geothermal heating that may have emanated from the nearby magmatic volcano. A further analysis of the environment and geological aspects constituting the eruption clearly showed that; the mudflow may have occurred as a form of a geothermal phenomenon. Although there existed a controversy behind the true facts about the mud eruption, the PT Lapindo Brantas Company still got found in violation of some of laws regarding drilling. According to PT Lapindo Brantas, they still stood firm that the effects from the previous earthquake must have caused the eruption, and not the drilling. Indeed, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake had struck Java and other provinces in Yogyakarta two days before the mudflow causing immense deaths and major displacements. Consequently, PT Lapindo Brantas used this basis to argue before the parliamentary hearings that the magnitude of the powerful earthquake had reactivated inactive faults previously. Hence this aspect created deep underground fractures; that hence allowed the mud to breach the surface; causing the eruption. The fact that their company was conducting drilling activities at that particular time was purely coincidental. For this reason, they should, therefore, get exempted from paying the stipulated compensations to the mudflow victims (Mazzini et al. 2007, p.381). The government and other related political parties then decided then that if the scientists managed to certify the mudflow occurrence as a natural event; then the government of Indonesia would assume the responsibility of covering all damages instead. The minister of welfare in Indonesia also voiced out his arguments supporting the natural event idea as the main cause of the mudflow disaster. However by June 2008, UK geologists overruled the argument above, stating that the previous earthquake was only a mere coincidence. Although the seismic activity could have caused a shift in the tectonic plates generating a new fracture in the region, which could not suffice as the main cause of the hydro-fracture that formed on the earth’s strata leading to the mud explosion. Additionally, there existed no other mud volcanoes in the area especially after the earthquake and since the drilling site’s location was far away from the earthquake origin; this aspect rules a natural cause out of the picture. Science stresses that the intensity of the earthquake’s effect at the drilling site had a very minimal reading that could not, in any way cause a mud explosion. Therefore, such an effect was more or less negligible given that a heavy truck passing over the area would impose the same effect. Subsequently, the British, American, Indonesian, and Australian scientists came to a conclusion that, the volcano did not qualify as natural disaster in any way. Instead, it emerged as the result of Lapindo’s oil and gas drilling activities (Ashcroft & Cavanough, 2008 p.340). The Government Response The government has effortlessly tried to mitigate the several impacts caused by the mudflow since the time in happened in May 2006. To contain the problem and avoid further loss of property or lives, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made a major declaration in September 2006. The declaration stated that the 400 hectare piece of land in Sidoarjo district was disaster area and further went ahead to warn the public that the area was not fit for human habitation. This step has achieved very little as more spills continued to threaten the villagers of Sidoarjo and the neighboring districts. Following the severity of the situation, the president approved mud- pumping into the river; however, this strategy proved futile because of the mud’s viscosity level. Also, the eruption vents subsidence and the low level of the flow gradient towards the sea impeded the success of this strategy. After the president and other political leaders in Indonesia discussing the basis and containment strategy for the disaster, the president issued a decree in 2007 for the victims of the disaster to get compensated. The drilling company response for the disaster, PT Lapindo Brantas had to ensure they fully compensated all the victims in the affected four villages. The PP 48/2008 decree followed after that in 2008, to compensate an additional three villages, also affected by the mudflow (Harsaputra 2006 p.1). The government agreed that they would also help with the compensation but only for a fraction of the affected people (Nurhayati, 2006 p.1). This compensation program continued into mid-2007 where the drilling company had a massive compensation debt amounting to millions of rupees to pay the affected families and to facilitate the efforts of halting the mud flow. However, the process has been rather slow with the victims reporting not receiving any payments. Following this grievance, the Minister in charge of the public works went ahead and announced that the national government had planned to allocate some money aside from the national budget trillion; to cater for the mitigation of the mud disaster issue. The government finance spokesman disputed this announcement and stated that the government would only release its funds once the Lapindo Brantas Company had covered their end of the compensation plan; as per the stipulated decrees. Lapindo went ahead and fulfilled its compensation obligation; as victims reported having received their 20% compensation payments by the end of 2008. On the other hand, Lapindo still stresses that they did not cause the initial eruption, claiming that scientific analysis shows a link to the tectonic activity after the Central Java earthquake two days before the mud flow. Following this new stance at the end of 2008, the company refused to continue with the compensation payments and the government as well seemed not to do anything towards this issue. The people of Sidoarjo continued to voice out their grievances in the hope that some help would come their way soonest (Tampubolon, 2013 p.1). Looking at the infrastructure rehabilitation, the National Development Planning Agency has finalized the recovery blueprint but, the large-scale construction work has not yet begun. Until now the input from the foreign donors, the government, academic institutions and the UNEP remains frozen as the government response plans have come to a halt (UNEP, 2008). The government sponsored mudflow handling agency based in Sidoarjo has gone ahead and identified land estimated at 12kilometres west to the mudflow. The land would promote the construction of a new toll road, gas line, and railroad infrastructures. The Sidoarjo Mudflow Handling Agency seems willing to utilize the available resources but the government still believes that the cost for reconstruction should come from no other place but the Lapindo Brantas Company. The government has also proposed new mediums for transportation to coordinate movement between the estates of Tarik and Polong West. Conclusion In conclusion, the government officials at the provincial level and planners still look into obtaining foreign assistance. This assistance targets to boost and help mitigate the mud flow issue, reconstruction of roads, houses as well as restoring the livelihood for the community. However, it is rather unlikely that any donor would want to invest in such a situation where even the government itself has failed miserably. List of References Ashcroft, V. and Cavanough, D 2008, Survey of recent developments, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 44 (3): 335–63. Cyranowski, D2007, Muddy waters: how did a mud volcano come to destroy an Indonesian town? Nature 45: 812–14. Davies, R.J., Swarbick, R.E., Evans, R.J. and Huuse, M 2007, Birth of a mud volcano: East Java, 29 May 2006, GSA Today 17 (2): 4–9. Friends of the Earth International, 2007, Lapindo Brantas and the mud volcano, Sidoarjo, Indonesia, June, Background paper, accessed May 22, 2015 at . Harsaputra, I 2006, .Lapindo again ordered to pay up, Jakarta Post, 29 December. Mazzini, A., Svensen, H., Akhmanov, G.G., Aloisi, G., Planke, S., Malthe-Sørenssen, A. and Istadi, B 2007, Triggering and dynamic evolution of the LUSI mud volcano, Indonesia, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 261 (3–4): 375–88. Nurhayati, Desy. 2008, Mudfl ow victims, govt agree to settle compensation, Jakarta Post, 12 March. Schiller, J., & Lucas, A 2007, Learning from the East Java mudflow: Disaster politics in Indonesia.p.10. Tampubolon, H 2013, March 5. Mudflow erupting after 7 years. The Jakarta Post, p. 10. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/05/mudflow-erupting-after-7-years.html UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) 2008, Evaluation of Mud Flood Disaster Alternatives in Sidoarjo Regency, Draft final report, UNEP, Jakarta, June. Read More