In contrary to the previous scenario, According to Manga (2007), the Epicentral distance

between the center of the Yogyakarta earthquake and the Lusi mud volcano was exceeded to the
maximum potential destruction distance caused by 6.3 magnitude earthquake. The seismic
energy density of the Yogyakarta earthquake was only 0.0043 J/m 3, which is less than a quarter
of the minimum 0.019 J/m3 seismic energy density that has ever been inferred to trigger other
mud eruptions [1]. Also, there were earthquakes greater than 6,3 Mw and were closer to the Lusi
mud volcano in 1976 and 1998. However, fault reactivation and mud eruption did not happen
back then [2]. New evidence discovered that no increase in emissions of subsurface gases was
measured in the 24 hours after the earthquake. When a large gas release via exsolution or
compaction would be expected caused by clay liquefaction after an earthquake occurred [3].
The underground blow out is the hypothetical cause of Lusi mudflow caused by drilling
operation in the Banjar Panji-1 well [4][5]. This hypothesis begins with the main mistake
intentionally carried out which was drilling from 1091 m to 2834 m without a casing. The
uncased section of 1743 m is vulnerable to kicks and losses. A series of drilling mud losses were
reported on 27 May 2006, two days before the Yogyakarta earthquake. The complete loss of
drilling mud is a serious incident and is often a precursor to a blow out. Hence, efforts were
made to remove the drill string to cement casing and increase the structural integrity of the
borehole. However, early on 28 May 2006, while pulling out of the borehole, the well took
partial losses followed by a kick. The blow out preventers at the rig site were closed to prevent
more fluid and gas coming to the surface. However, based on Davies et al. calculation, the
calculated pressure in the wellbore would be greater than the maximum estimated leak off the
pressure. This condition could cause a hydraulic fracturing on the uncased section and
propagated to the surface. Then, the mud eruption was initiated [4].
[1]Tingay, M., Manga, M., Rudolph, M. L., & Davies, R. (2018). An alternative review of facts, coincidences and
past and future studies of the Lusi eruption. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 95, 345–361.
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.12.031 
[2] Manga, M. (2007). Did an earthquake trigger the May 2006 eruption of the Lusi Mud volcano? Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 88(18), 201–201. doi:10.1029/2007eo180009 
[3] Tingay, Mark & Rudolph, Maxwell & Manga, M. & Davies, Richard & Wang, Chi-yuen. (2015). Initiation of
the Lusi mudflow disaster. Nature Geoscience. 8. 493-494. 10.1038/ngeo2472.
[4] Davies, R. J., Brumm, M., Manga, M., Rubiandini, R., Swarbrick, R., & Tingay, M. (2008). The East Java mud
volcano (2006 to present): An earthquake or drilling trigger? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 272(3-4),
627–638. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.05.029 
[5] Tingay, M., Heidbach, O., Davies, R., & Swarbrick, R. (2008). Triggering of the Lusi mud eruption: Earthquake
versus drilling initiation. Geology, 36(8), 639. doi:10.1130/g24697a.1