International Conference on Environment and Health, 22-23 May 2013, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia
238
the surface in periodic time then stuck at the end.
This situation occurred before the earthquake in Yogyakarta on May 27, 2006, so a new
speculation came up that the mud spurt caused by underground blow out or gas blow up
beneath the surface which triggered over preasure. The volume of mud exceed the lost
mud in the drilling, it led to shale and water formation, here known that in 9000 feet depth,
Lapindo BrantasEMP did not assemble 9 58 inches case which was the drilling safety
standard. Besides negligent, the geologist found slump
layer – unstable moving shale indicator around
the operation area of PT Lapindo Brantas. If this layer were penetrated vertically, would
lead to hot mud eruption. Experts suggested slant drilling to avoid the slump layer
contained in the geology of Brantas block, unfortunately this was ignored by Lapindo
Brantas. Besides, the Lapindo did not anticipate the fault zone.
From the beginning, Lapindo never socializes its operation to the residents around the site.
Even, Lapindo deceived the residents that the land acquisition used for animal feed
company. When hot mud erupted, even, the Lapindo did not provide any explanation with
information on what actually happened in the drilling neither in technical nor in solution.
3. VIOLATION OF LAW
1. Permission on Oil exploration that close to
residential and public facilities is violation of
Law 231997
on Environmental
Management article 41 and 42 and Law 72004 on Water Resources Article 94
2. Untransparent land acquisition
3. No
Environmental impact
analysis AMDAL.
3.1 Law and Politic Accountability
As reported that the East Java Police investigated 7 suspects related to Lapindo hot
mud, and expanded the investigation for 2 persons of Vice President DSS Drilling Share
Service PT. Energi Mega Persada, the primary company of Lapindo Brantas Inc. and
Director of PT Medici Citra Nusa on the suspicions 1 the negligent that lead to
mudflow article 187 and 188 Criminal Act KUHP as well as article 41 and 42 Law on
Environmental Management; 2 the negligent, not stopping the drilling; 3 should know the
difference of contract provided by Lapindo from the drilling program. Refer to the three
suspicions, there were 9 suspects in the case.
3.2 Civil Accountability
Drilling site in Banjar Panji-1 located in Brantas block is Lapindo BrantasEMP
concession based on Production Sharing Contract PSC with Oil and Gas Regulatory
Special Task Force BP Migas. The Drilling project is the task of drilling department of
LAPINDO, and sub-contracted to other party namely PT. Medici Citra Nusantara MCN.
International Conference on Environment and Health, 22-23 May 2013, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia
239
The shareowners of Brantas block are PT. EMP 50 and the remaining is jointly
owned by Santos LTD, PT. Medco Energi Tbk and Lapindo BrantasEMP Inc. It means that
there are four parties directly related to drilling operation in Brantas block, PT Lapindo
Brantas, PT Energi Mega Persada Tbk, PT Medco Energi Tbk, and Santos LTD.
3.3 Criminal Accountability
Theoretically, Tumbuan, 1988:3 in Siaran Pers Bersama. August 14, 2006 that instead of
people, legal entities can only do what is explicitly or implicitly allowed by law and the
charter. Many studies Hamdan, 2000: 63 in Siaran Pers Bersama. August 14, 2006 stated
that violation of law in which be applied to corporation are: violations of administrative
law, pollution, finance, labor, manufacturing, and trade competition. The first two may be
applied to the owner of Brantas block as the subject in criminal case, since the widespread
negative impact on every part of people lives.
3.4 Political Accountability
