And we knew that all along.

BP concedes Gulf oil spill is bigger than estimate

Of course, they still won't say just how bad it is and won't allow anyone else to make estimates.

Bump.


(Great minds and links and such. )

They won't say because they're not intelligent enough to really figure it out.

On a positive note, this gives us good reason to invade England. Too bad the food sucks.

They won't say because they're up to their barristers' powdered wigs in liability. Sun ain't never gonna shine on the British Petroleum empire again. Which is only right.

Actually, Sarge, I've been to over there and I kinda liked the food. But I grew up in a trailer park, so there's that.

Best Indian food outside of India

BP had already qualified their 5,000 barrels a day estimate in a statement to Congress on 5 May as being only one-twelfth of the potential spill so I have to say that the article doesn't really make any startling new revelations.

km

But they stuck with that 5K figure 'til they had no choice but to fess up. Give it a rest, amateur. You've failed the exam. Again.

What's worrisome is that if BP really doesn't know the rate how can they possibly formulate an effective response? I would think there's a difference between trying to control a 5k bpd emission and one twelve times larger (or far more, if you listen to some outside estimates) ...

The trouble is that BP seems to be trying to cover their asses as much as possible while trying to deal with this thing, and I'm not sure that's not getting in the way of a more effective solution.

That's not how I read it... when they started siphoning oil into the tanker which they were able to measure they were in a better position to assess the spill rate. They had already announced that it could be as much as 60,000 barrels a day which was within the range suggested by independent assessors.

km

Well, their job is to formulate the best response they're able to on the information they have - they can see the spill even if it's impossible to precisely measure it.


As I understand it BP has voluntarily accepted the initial responsibility for all response costs so I don't think they have much to gain by downplaying the scale of the calamity. I should imagine that their insurers will be looking to bounce that commitment or most of it onto Transocean once the full costs are known.

km

Please do not attempt to cast BP as the hero now. The overriding issue is that the explosion could have been prevented had they embraced all safety regulations and followed industry best practices. They did neither. So taking the financial hit is the least they can do. They brought it upon themselves. They could have repaired the seal on the BOP when they were told it had been damaged. They could have made sure their blueprints and schematics were consistent with the equipment in play. They could have given in to TransOcean's argument to cap the well in a safer, albeit, more time-intensive manner.

No one here is providing cover for TransOcean or Haliburton, or even our own Federal bureau who gave BP a pass and never demanded verification of their false statements during the lease application process. They are all responsible in one way or the other. But in terms of overall management, this is BP's mess. They own it. Of course they should pay for it. But paying for it does not mitigate their dishonesty, negligence, and arrogance.

And this just featured on Countdown. BP has been given 72 hours to replace the chemical dispersant it's been using because it's so toxic that it's banned in Britain! And it's never been tested on a slick of this scope. Ah, but it's not their "garden", so no worries, mate.

Oh, and several top BP executives (Exxon, too) sit on the board of directors of the dispersant manufacturer.

Yeah, these guys are my heros.

Well, different countries have different regs so the idea is to comply with those pertaining in the territory where you're operating.

km

Well, here we go again. So why did BP not make this fact known to the U.S. gov't? Why did they not say outright that they were going to use a chemical so toxic that they can't use it in their "garden", and that they've had no experience using it in such large quantities? Why didn't BP share the specs of this dispersant with the U.S. and ask if it's in compliance with our guidelines?

Explain, please.

I think it's time to declare BP a terrorist organization.

Oh no. Now km's defense will grow even more fervent!

Not Pointed at anyone

Lets not forget certain facts along the way - Like Anderson Cooper who keeps pushing an issue that was already answered .

1 - 5,000 barrels was first reported via satellite imaging when the leak first happened - BP went with that figure , it is certainly not BP estimates .

2 - Flow estimates; example 70,000 barrels are velocity measurements <-- heres the big one , it could be 50% gases and 50% oil = 35,000 barrels not 70,000 .

3 - What oil BP already recovered said they have already burned off Thousands of cubic meters of methane gas <-- Sooooo the leak does contain a large volume of gas as well as oil

Now I can understand that BP wants to down play , to the media because bumb arse Alarmist would be jumping off bridges . Fox News , Rush , yada yada

Still BP should have every single expert scientist , government officials yada yada free access to any and all information

Well obviously the reason they don't use it in our garden is that they're not allowed to - doesn't mean they agree with the regulation. Instead of just criticising all the time it's about time you started showing some sense of appreciation for the enormous energy and skill that BP is investing into the response effort.

km

Ahh

Part of the problem is (km) BP has not even been close to providing a response to the effort .

Are you watching only Al-Gahzeera again ? or whatever that Bias site is called just wondering you seem to be really detached from the real world on this incident ?

Well, they're now collecting as much oil as was originally estimated to be escaping but of course they're aware that the plug hasn't provided a 100 per cent seal and that some oil is still getting into the ocean. There has to be some recognition of just how difficult the situation is - perfection and instantaneous solutions are not always available.

km

Tell me, Slick, what part of this do you not understand?

Yeah, I'm eternally indebted to BP.

In your opinion do you think Obama is doing enough in this crisis with BP? There has to be a solution to this problem before things are really screwed up everywhere.J

I think Obama is doing what he can given that he's playing with a previously stacked deck. I'm not convinced that Salazar was the best choice for Sec. of the Interior. At the very least, I think Obama should have pushed him more emphatically and with more urgency to start cleaning up a compromised bureau. Especially the obviously corrupt MMS, which, starting in the Bush administration, was in bed — literally — with big oil.

I don't think anyone — not BP, not their subcontractors, not the administration — was prepared for a catastrophe of this scope. And I fault them all for not being prepared. Negligence, complacency, corruption, greed, and politics have all played a role. And what's maddening is that things like this keep happening, followed by outrage and posturing and vows to "fix the system so this never happens again". And then six months, a year, five years later, it happens again.

Heh, I love mexican/thai/any other kind of spicy food so the food there to me is rather.. well bland.

Instead of just criticising all the time it's about time you started showing some sense of appreciation for the enormous energy and skill that BP is investing into the response effort.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


You wouldn't have to make such a ludicrous suggestion if British Petroleum hadn't willingly screwed this our pooch from the get go. Rabbit on. You know as well as we do ~ this is pretty much the end of British Petroleum as a global entity. They may not go down in the next 6-12 months, but seriously. British Petroleum's share price will f'n implode when criminal charges are filed.

Oh. Wait. Do you own shares?

What Rachel Maddow calls a Head On Desk Moment.

To all who it may concern:

I've read that it's an accepted idea in quantum physics that when you measure —in that realm— a part of a system it produces a disturbance in the whole that leads to an error or uncertainty in the unmeasured part.

It's true that the measurement in this case is not a quantum measurement but BP's solution has introduced the 'disturbance' with the "siphoning" pumping tube into the out-coming flow of high-pressure crude-petroleum-and-gas, thus modifying the flow equation that existed before.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out in the future (and i'd bet we will), that BP's "solution" (plan B? Or is it plan F?) made the problem worse because the increase in the rate of flow from siphoning brings about —according to this (my) hypothesis—, an increase in the volume of fluid escaping within the uncaptured flow of the exit tube and consequently, it increases the quantity escaping into the open ocean. The harder they pump fluid up to the tanker, the bigger the spill-out to the gulf.



[not sure about all this!]

To your point, when this "straw" or "siphon tube" was first broached, I read that the once the pipe was in place and drawing crude and gas, the next step is to seal the well breach around the siphon, which would mitigate the problem you've described, and stabilize the flow to the tankers above. I've heard/read nothing about that second step being initiated yet.

I'm guessing that this is another process that's manageable at depths of one or two hundred feet, but never attempted or tested at a mile down. Hell, even the Coast Guard has just stated that they don't yet know how they're going to assume the spill rate measurement task at that depth!

More evidence that BP is literally in over their heads without a clue or contingency plans.

Yeah that won't apply in this case because they're not pumping but siphoning.

km

No, day one he should have ordered the military in to seize control, and had the army corps of engineers working on solutions above and beyond anything BP was thinking of doing.

The same Army Corps of Engineers that botched the levees around NO?

Mile-long tube finally draining oil from busted pipeline in Gulf of Mexico

"In the first technical success toward taming a gushing oil leak on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, engineers Sunday began pumping oil to a waiting ship through a mile-long collection tube inserted into the breached oil pipeline."

BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells said:

"Ultimately, it's a winning game that we out-pump the well"

I think you're right.

From what i'm reading their recent record is full of errors, inefficiencies, carelessness, and dereliction of duty.

To be fair, it's also referred to as siphoning in a lot of other news sources. But even siphoning requires pumping to start the process. Basically, a siphon works on the principle of a liquid seeking it's own level, but I don't know how that might apply when you consider the distance btwn the two levels is a mile, and the liquid is thick and viscous. I guess we're gonna find out.

BP has the worst safety record in the industry. They've already been criminally charged in the Texas City incident a few years ago, and may face criminal charges for this one. At least they're consistent.

Well that looks like bad journalism rather than bad science... they don't need to pump because oil is lighter than water and is already under tremendous pressure to get to the surface - about 2,000 lbs psi at that depth. The narrower the siphon the greater the pressure which is why I recommended a pipe of about 6" diameter.

km

I could never get used to beans and greasy sausages for breakfast !!

I guess the term "gassing up" has a different meaning in the UK !!

Amen to that Sarge - their food is rather bland. I'm with you- Mexican, Thai, spicy Indian, hot Chinese, etc. are my favorites. The spicier and hotter the better (well . . . to a point - jalapenos yes, habeneros - No!)

I agree, not exactly to 'seize control' because they would have been (literally) out of their depth but to be a sort of 'think tank' to put forward ideas for consideration by the BP team.

km

Mexican? We use that to calm down the senses after lamb or chicken vindaloo.

km

There is loss of psi per vertical foot. For water, it's .434 psi/ft. which means 2000psi is not enough pressure to lift water up a mile long pipe against gravity, much less a more viscous liquid like oil. You see, not only do you lose pressure due to gravity, but you also lose pressure due to viscosity. P = V x Q ÷ 18,300 D4 where P is pressure loss, V is SSU viscosity at temp, Q is GPM flow and D is diameter of pipe.

Secondly the term siphon is use figuratively, as the true definition of siphon is a device that draws fluids downhill using stored potential energy provided by gravity.

Like it or not, there is going to be a pump involved.

ACoE didn't botch the levees, it was unwillingness to spend more money to rectify the situation.

Oh yeah? Well 89X3/(+u8708÷28)=PSI/sq.ft[50-0-8u]\12 to you, bubbah!

]:p

Thanks for the clarification.

Kat post does makes sense

However in this case - pumping -vs- siphoning has very little to do with it at all.

Consider what BP did was simply placed a Cork in a bottle if you will , with a straw in the middle .

Now if the Cork was a good seal <-- there would be no leak right ! ! but since the pipe is damage and not perfectly round , the leak persist .

Remember water hoses with a trigger end , they always leak after a period of time and when you press the trigger the leak slows down greatly but still leaks somewhat .

Anyway
Under current plan B - the only way to stop that leaking Cork is to pump out the oil at a greater rate than the pressure the oil is at -- there is no pump on earth that can pump that fast of volume .

That would be true if the pipe was in open air but in this case it's in the ocean. Since oil is lighter than water its always coming to surface and will come out of the pipe at the same pressure it goes in. When it hits the surface gravity wins and the oil stays at sea level. Escaping oil will sit on the surface of the sea and piped oil will collect in the tanker. You can see this effect in the kitchen - pour a teaspoon of olive oil into a glass of water - what happens to the oil? That's right, the oil comes immediately to the surface and is kept there by force of gravity.

I agree that 'siphon' has been used figuratively but I would also point out that using a pump would be otiose in the context of this operation i.e. they're collecting oil in the tanker for environmental reasons not commercial. The oil in the well is going to be extracted and sold in any event so the object is to stop the spill. If your theory were correct and there was not enough pressure to bring the oil all the way up the pipe so it stopped half way, that would be object achieved because it would nevertheless contain the spill. Obviously there's a leak at source but they planned for a perfect seal not a partial one so they'd only use a pump if they were thinking outside the box.

km

You are right about Salazar he really is kind of wimpy no push behind him at all. This is a terrible situation and hopefully it gets resolved asapJ

Oil in a pipe is not in the ocean, it's in a pipe. The oil does not care if the pipe is in air or water. If the pipe is sealed off, there is no water for the oil to be buoyant on. Oil doesn't float up pipes to drilling rigs, it's pumped.

Easy there, Sarge. You're blinding him with science.

Oh. Wait. You're just whipping him with common sense right now, but your earlier post? Definitely. Science.

So what? If you put an air filled balloon at the bottom of the ocean it rises to the surface... if you put an oil filled balloon at the bottom of the ocean it rises to the s... you got it!


Like I said, if the pipe is sealed off, they don't need a pump.

km

What happens if we put a lawyer-filled balloon at the bottom of the ocean?

Hint: What digestive byproduct also floats?

Now hold on thar, gal. Who would know science better than a science project?

The pipe is not sealed. The pipe is BROKEN. That's why there's an oil spill. The original Pressure is lost.

The oil is under very tremendous pressure when it's underground. Out of the ground the pressure is less even though it's very deep. The buoyancy of the oil is what is left.

According to what i've seen or read on the internet, after exiting the tube, the oil seems to be very slowly ascending at the deepest parts. At a certain depth it moves faster up, i imagine it's because it expands. Then it continues up until it gets to the surface. At some moment in this journey it loses the natural gas and what remains is, i suppose, the crude oil etc..

Can all these changes happen inside the mile long, 4" diameter, siphon tube so that the oil and gas still get to the surface relying only on buoyancy?

If you want to get GAS to sea level where you can collect it, you need to plug the leak first, then, put in place the oil and gas collecting platform, connect a new mile long pipe to the plugged leak, wait for the pressure to build and continue as usual, since you have fixed the problem.

If BP wants to get crude oil to the surface they have to fix the problem, collect the natural gas in one container so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere, then pump up the oil to a different container or whatever the process is.

This is Not the end yet…

Now we need to investigate the causes of the spill, the amount of crude oil released into the sea, asses the damage done to the ocean, the coasts, jobs lost… etc.… et¢.… et£.… et$.…

I'm neither scientist nor engineer. But as a layman, I'm guessing Sgt's information is based on fact or even experience. The formula he posted may be gibberish to some of us, but I don't think he's trying to get over on us the way you are — unsuccessfully, of course. So, here's that old and oft unanswered challenge for you. Post a link or a credible source that supports your take on suction vs. siphon and what floats under what conditions (and no, the little 6th grade ditty about olive oil in a glass of water doesn't count). Once again, Slick, we ask you to backup your improvised claims with hard evidence. Or, you know, we'll know you're just winging it. Still.

Also, oil at different densities and temperature will stratify in layers beneath the surface. The stuff making it to the surface is only a fraction of the total leakage/spewage.

Just heard that many acres of wetlands have been damaged beyond recovery. They may have to actually burn them.

The "so what" bit there is that if the oil is in a pipe, it's not at the bottom of a column of water anymore, it's at the bottom of either a column of air or a column of itself (if the pipe is airtight), neither of which is the oil more buoyant than -- which takes buoyancy out of the equation.

In that case, in the pipe it's just the upward pressure of the flow of oil vs. the downward pressure of what's above it. If the upward pressure isn't by itself greater than the downward pressure, the only way to get stuff moving up is to relax the downward pressure by creating a vaccuum of sufficient size at the other end of the pipe. Which basically describes what a pump does.

I actually forget what the actual question is that's trying to be answered here, but the physics is kind of fun anyways ;-)

In some ways it would be better if nothing came out of the pipe because then they'd be able to release the tanker.

km

That's why we've tried to keep it simple, well, some of us have. What you're doing is cherry-picking statements that suit your prejudicial stance and bypassing those you find inconvenient. For example carp said "there is no pump on earth that can pump that fast of volume" so where are your links or diagrams of the pump that proves him wrong?


Oh yeah, and waste about two days dealing with you trying to deny it's there. I've pointed out that BP's containment objective would be fulfilled even if the flow of oil stopped halfway up the riser so it's up to the pump lobby to explain the benefits of collecting it in the tanker.


Why not? Practical experiments are the perfect antidote to ignorance.

km

That should have been the "plan" from the very beginning rather than trying to save a tiny bit of profit by siphoning a few barrels off first.

No that's wrong - pressure operates on what's inside the pipe which if lighter than water will bring it to the surface. You can test this at home:

01. Cut around the neck of a plastic bottle to widen the aperture and fill with water;

02. A Highland Spring bottle would be ideal but any similar receptacle will do;

03. Half fill a small balloon with cooking oil.

04. Olive oil is fine, I used grape seed oil because its quite dark in colour;

05. Take a bottle of kitchen spray, or similar; and snip off the transparent tube inside;

06. Insert the tube into the balloon and seal the join to make it watertight;

07. I used an elastic band and wrapped it around the neck of the balloon many times.

08. Attach a weight or claw to the balloon to assist with emersion;

09. I used a spring-loaded plastic clamp which worked perfectly;

10. Now you're ready to go;

11. Emerse the contraption into the water;

12. Ensure that only a section of the plastic tube is above the water line;

13. Watch the oil rise up through the tube;

14. Slowly lift the contraption out of the water;

15. Watch the water fall back down the tube;

16. Experiment complete - oil in a subaquatic well rises up a tube without a pump.

Illustration 1 - Equipment Used



km

In all actuality, this oil is under so much pressure that it would flow unchecked no matter the length of the pipe. Had the rig not sank, it still would have spewed out at the surface.

More diversionary tactics. More refusals to put your money where your mouth is. More irrelevant improvisation.

We've all noticed, BTW, that throughout all the threads relating to BP's spill; throughout all of your denials; throughout all of your smokescreens and attempts to shift blame away from BP — because it's a British company — and your utterly ludicrous claim that we should express our appreciate for BPs "energy and skill"... you've not once expressed any empathy for the families of the eleven workers (not Englishmen, after all); for the thousands in the region who's livelihoods have been decimated (also not British subjects, so screw 'em); for the economic and environmental damage that that will take decades, if ever, to recover (not your "garden", not your problem).

In general, you routinely demonstrate more concern for Al Qaeda, the Taleban, and other terrorist groups than for ordinary people who've had their lives all but destroyed by the negligence and irresponsibility of a single corporation.

Not one word. Not one iota of empathy or understanding. Vacuum. But a veritable gusher of excuses, lies, blind accusations, fabricated "facts", and instant faux "expertise" in fields and disciplines you know nothing about.

Cue the sophomoric line-by-line rebuttals — absent the proof you've been asked to provide, naturally.

You're making it far more complicated than you should. No need for complicated formulas, that is what is leading you astray.

Keymaker is right and his simple straw and ballon shows it. You would need far more complicated math to do it by equation because you would have to express what pressure is on the oil at each spot in the pipe. But far easier to just think about it.

Oil at the bottom of the pipe. Pressure from below is higher than the pressure of the oil from above. The oil will rise. It does not matter if there was an opening, a leak, or not. The pressure in the surrounding water is exactly the same as the pressure inside the pipe except for the pressure upwards from the oil wanting to get out from under the mantle. Viscosity only comes into play if it is physically impossible to move. But it isn't. The oil is quite fluid.

Oil at the middle of the pipe a half mile up. In or outside the pipe the pressures cancel each other out. The oil thus has only an upward pressure.

Oil at the top of the pipe. All pressures in and outside the pipe cancel out except for the upward pressure. No matter if the pipe is a mile long or if the pipe is the length of a soda straw or if the pipe is a mile wide or the diameter of a soda straw, the oil will rise. Oil is lighter than water. There is pressure working on the oil because of the tremendous pressure of the mantle. Haven't you ever seen a Hollywood movie where the well blows? Think of that happening but the well is under water except for the very top. Don't you think the oil would shoot out of the top? In this case it even shoots higher because the water pressure outside of the pipe contains the oils and has no reason to seek a less pressurized environment. The only less pressurized environment is straight up.

No pump necessary. The only time this oil is not coming directly to the surface is when, because of the velocity of escape, the oil creates micro-encapsulated bits of oil surrounded by seawater. This type of plume will eventually reach the surface but it might take weeks because the surface area of the small bit of oil is large compared to the volume of oil creating drag so it will take weeks or months to rise. A frothy milkshake takes a while to settle.

This thread is about as inane as it gets. The only one speaking any sense is keymaker and he is being personally attacked because why? Past wrongs? You people have to get a friggin' grip. But you won't. Some of you cannot help yourselves. So pick away.

01. I find it delightfully comic that you insist your cute little kitchen experiment applies at depths of one mile, surrounded by strong currents, extreme pressures and temperatures, and all the other factors that are still not fully understood. Maybe you should put on your swim fins and take your balloon and straw down to the leak site and see how well it works.

02. You're beating this pump/siphon/oil/water/blah blah blah issue to death because you're still trying to move the debate away from the fact that we wouldn't even be having the debate at all had BP not habitually and willfully ignored it's responsibilities.

03. 02 has failed. But thanks for playing.

Like I said: It would be a gusher no matter what. The BOP was damaged and failed. BP apparently knew that and proceeded drilling anyway. Instead of focusing on recovery methods, they should have employed the junk shot/cap option from the beginning. BP wants the oil more than any environmental concerns.

How could you, BP, or anyone know that the junk shot cap option is/was the viable option? Not even in hindsight can anyone say that. It might be the best option but I don't think it is obvious to anyone that it was the smartest thing to do. I personally think that a 15kiloton nuclear bomb set off directly on top of the leak would seal it. The radioactive fallout would be minimal compared to the far reaching devastation of the oil. The mantle would collapse on top of it and seal it forever. Or it might make it worse. No one is going to make that call since the lawsuits from three eyed fish would go on for eternity.

"BP wants the oil"?? Do you really think that BP is in this right now to capture a little bit of oil? The environmental problem they have right now is going to cost them billions. Even if they were heartless devil worshippers they would be trying as hard as possible to contain the environmental disaster because that is what is going to cost them in the long run. Way more than some measly amount of oil they are going to get from this one rig.

Their actions seem to indicate that they are more interested in capturing the oil rather than simply stopping it. All of their "solutions" have been focused on that so far. The junk shot/cap option has been discussed for several weeks and has not been tried. BP is sunk by their own actions/inaction. At a minimum, they are guilty of negligence.

If you're right about the science, I'll eat my words on that subject. I have no problem being corrected by any source qualified to support any given set of facts. So give your pal a bag-full of I told you so to play with, if in fact it's due.

But just so you can get a grip of your own:

Past wrongs — if you're mean km's — have nothing to do with why his POV is under assault. If you're referring to BP's past wrongs, they have everything to do with the debate.

The only insanity in this and all the other related threads is that only one person here unconditionally refuses to acknowledge the scope and rational application of BP's culpability in this catastrophe. No one denies the role TransOcean, Haliburton, and the MMS have played in this. No one is attempting to mask their responsibility. Yet because "British" is part of a corporate name, one here cannot help himself in his vigorous denial that BP is the principal offender.

So yes, we will pick away. But not for arbitrary reasons or personal prejudices. Rather because of an irrational rejection of what is virtually impossible to miss.

Welcome back.

That's nice, but it's not complicated at all. It's fairly simple. Pressure is like horsepower, which translates into how much work you can do. You can put balloons in a glass of water all you like, but a straw doesn't scale into a pipe over a mile long with heavy thick crude oil in it.

Parts of my studies was figuring out how much pressure was needed to pump concrete to various levels for building projects. Pressure has to be adjusted to raise the slurry to the proper level. Not enough, and the mixture doesn't make it to the top of the pipe. Too much, it's bad for the slurry. It doesn't matter if there is a thousand pounds of pressure at the pump, the fluid loses pressure along the way. Which means it loses energy along the way, and it's ability to do work.

Here's an experiment you can try. Get a small aquarium pump. Now attach several hundred feet of hose and raise the end. Put the pump in water and turn on the pump. What will happen? The water will travel partly up the hose... and then stop. Why? According to your comments the water should be able to travel to infinity, after all the pressure at the end of the hose is zero, and there is pressure on the back end, right?.

I'll tell you why. Pump generates X amount of pressure. Pressure = power available to do work (raise fluid). Power available must be enough to overcome weight of *entire* column of fluid up the pipe. I don't really see where it's all that complicated.

But you are looking at it bass ackwards. Your examples of pumping concrete and the aquarium pump are wrong because you are working on the wrong end.

Yes indeed, if I had to put a pump on the bottom end of a pipe and pump it vertically a mile above the pump I would say that is an epic fail. That is why a pump can have nothing to do with it. You are talking about pressure when instead you should be talking about vacuum. Because that is what you would instantly have if you put a pump on a boat and tried to pull any sort of liquid up vertically one mile. The liquid would immediately cavitate if it did not have an assist from below. In this case it would not cavitate because the pump would be spinning like a top without even being plugged in.

Keymaker's straw is correct. If he could make it to 33 feet and one atmosphere pressure it would work even better. Shoot, go get twenty straws and duct tape them together. Stick them vertically in water with your thumb on the top or not. The water will still go right up to sea level. If you have a tremendous pressure caused by the mantle plus you are dealing with lighter than water fluid the liquid will shoot out.

If there is a pump involved in what BP is doing it is only to get it off one collection boat and over to another.

Don't think about pressure or vacuum. Only think about one local chunk of oil and think where does it want to go. In this case, that would be up. I have not even made it complicated by knowing that as that liquid rises it will expand and become lighter. That nitrogen, helium and natural gas will tend to outgas and very quickly. It is the cause of nitrogen narcosis, the bends and also exploded lungs by untrained scuba divers.

This is all taken with a grain of salt because none of us have a clue what the conditions are on the top, bottom or insides of BPs pipe. That is why whining about them not doing the right thing is about as absurd as it gets.

If anyone thinks BP is not doing all they can do to stop the oil then you must also think that Bush flew the planes into the WTC. Because at the end of the day you have to ask yourself, for what possible reason would they be doing what some are claiming?

Oh wait, BP is undermining everything so their reputation is toast because you think keymaker is an aßßhole. Got it. I read the whole thread. Pard me while I go fishing instead.

Where exactly did I ever say that? KM and I are simply having a discussion about fluid dynamics. Don't lump me in with others who might be doing it. I disagree with KM, and am giving pretty good and valid reasons why. If anyone needs to chill, it's you.



Exactly. If water is working under the oil, the oil will rise. No sh!t. However, if BP has closed off the pipe to water, then it becomes a matter of work, not buoyancy, which is where my examples come in. The pressure of the well head becomes the pump in my examples - and is subject to phenomenon like head loss.

You are right and I apologize if that comment seemed pointed at you. Which since I was replying to you was a pretty good assumption. I wasn't. I was replying to the the thread and I guess pretty much every thread that keymaker is in which always ends in personal pot shots at keymaker. But it's also ridiculous of me in pointing out the obvious. He doesn't need any defending as he does a pretty good job doing that himself.





If you equate well head pressure as equivalent to a pump then you make complete sense. It does agree with pretty much everything keymaker has said so I take that as my time to bow out.

What BP is or isn't doing now, the science or dumb luck of it, and when what should have been done and how as a response are all secondary at best to the source of everyone's outrage toward them. Had BP been responsible, had they slowed down just enough to improve the safety of the operation, and had they been more diligent in their contingency planning, these threads would have never materialized.

If this had been caused by a U.S. oil company, the outrage here would be just as intense. Had this been some other country's shores, the outrage here would be just as intense. But we're seeing an indefensible defense rationale based on a nationalistic bias accompanied by a total disregard for the poor schmucks who've been hosed or killed as a result of BP's negligence. But no outrage. Ahole-like behavior, wouldn't you say?

Enjoy your fishing. The folks along the Gulf won't be so lucky for the foreseeable future. But that's not km's concern.

The great and powerful Oz has spoken.

Poly dealt with that in his reply to Bozo when he posed the question: "How could you, BP, or anyone know that the junk shot cap option is/was the viable option? Not even in hindsight can anyone say that."


Their contingency planning seems to have been spot on to be honest - you don't seem to know much about exactly what they've put in place.


You're just being ridiculous with that. Nationalism has nothing to do with it and Bozo's post is about the scale of the spill not the victims of the blowout. He didn't touch upon the human cost so that's obviously not the discussion he was inviting. Everything you've posted on this subject has been ill thought out in my opinion and prejudiced against BP. The explosion however goes back to a hidden defect in a gasket which Transocean ought to have discovered and cured before delivery of the rig.

km

Hey, no problem remember I'm an F'n Jerk

Anyway thing to remember - the oil well is located below the water, under bedrock. Pressure is created because of weight of water pressing down upon the rock, not because of buoyancy.

Instead of a balloon at the bottom of a glass, is more analogous to a bunt pan filled with water pressing down on a ziplock bag of oil with a tube sticking up through the hole in the middle. The weight of the water rises the oil up the tube.

That of course depends on how well the pipe is sealed off.

The container itself doesn't matter... it's because the oil is under water that it rises up the through the pipe.

km

Speaking of "can't help yourself..."

And apparently you can't or don't want to read, because I've posted links or referrals to my sources for the information I've posted — such as TransOcean bringing the damaged gasket to BP's attention and BP's decision not to repair it. Just like their refusal to follow TransOcean's request to cap the well following a slower, safer process.

Regarding your unaffected and uncaring attitude toward the people who have been most undeservedly impacted by this event, if you have to wait for someone else to bring it up first, that just proves that you don't give a crap a/b anything other than trying to wash the blood off of BP's shoes. If this had happened to Exxon off the coast of England, you'd be calling for every head within reach. And you know it.

Your hypocrisy is epic in it's scope.

Transocean did discover that little problem, but BP chose to ignore it.

The investigation will undoubtedly expose errors and violations by TransOcean and Haliburton. But as of now we have three documented incidents where BP willfully ignored or rejected standard safety measures, at least two of which were argued for by TransOcean, and overridden by BP: one being the issue of the damaged gasket; another being the refusal to take the safer route to capping the well; and a newer revelation that BP sent an entire inspection crew home the day before the explosion. One of that crew's tasks was to inspect the cement plugs that are inserted in the well shaft prior to the capping process, and it is believed that at least one of those plugs failed (which would be on Haliburton), leading to the explosion. Had that crew been allowed to stay on and do their job, the flawed plug(s) may very well have been detected.

Now, that's a lot of "believed to be's" and "may haves" and "should haves". But one thing that is certain, is that if all of those issues had been addressed according to industry standards, the rig would have been enroute to its next location, eleven crewmen would be alive today, the Gulf waters and it's inhabitants would be as vibrant as ever, and the environment and economy of the region would be conducting business as usual.

But some people are just happier with their own "facts".

BTW, km, all you have to do is Google Countdown on MSNBC, and look up last Friday's broadcast to view the report about the premature dismissal of the inspection crew. And I've already posted the Rachel Maddow report which covered the broken gasket and BP's insistence on rushing the closure of the well. So spare us the "support your points" baloney. Done. And done.

No I knew about that but it doesn't relieve TO of liability or transfer it to BP... for the reasons to which poly has drawn attention.


No, you've been taken in by over-emotional reporting and one-sided misinformation. Compare the statement of CEO Tony Hayward that "safe and reliable operations are the number 1 priority for BP and the company has a very strong record of safe and reliable operations in the Gulf of Mexico".


No that's you... what victims and their families want is truth, not bias, hate and propaganda.


Oh I see... you get the science wrong but still can't give up so you have to try another tack.


Not really - every case has to be considered on its merits.

km

So what the victims get instead from BP is indifference, cover-ups, and blame-shifting.

Well, I said I'm neither scientist not engineer. And I also said that I don't mind being corrected by anyone that knows what they're talking about. If what poly explained is correct, then you can tell me I told you so 'til your tongue gets numb. But only on the issue of the science, because I stand firm on everything else I've said.

Gawd, this line-by-line stuff is tedious. I can see why you embrace it. to you, too, Slick.

Not to mention the 60 Minutes interview I posted......

Which one? I saw that but it didn't make any difference because it was mainly speculation that was already contradicted by what BP were saying. What you've got is amateurs trying to contradict the experts and getting it wrong... and then you lot all lapping it up like you did over Iraq because of programmes like 60 Minutes - oh, and by the way there aren't any weapons of mass destruction over there posing a threat to national security, and there never were.

km

No kidding, Sherlock. Except that very few here bought the Bush/Cheney line about WMD (and I readily admit that I was one of the very few who did at first), and we're still screaming for their heads today. I don't hear anyone defending them, do you? Wanna try a relevant analogy, now?

speculation <---?

That was an I witness account you to funny , not to mention he is an Oil Man , so call that a Professional Eye Witness .

Now if he was the Pizza delivery guy then you could call that speculation

It was an eye witness, an engineer who was working on the platform when it exploded. Not speculation. So now, an oil company engineer is an amateur? You're a pompous @ss.

That might be a different one then, pompous @ss So the eyewitness said what, exactly?

km

BP chose to ignore the damaged BOP and opted to ignore the other safety issues we've been posting about. We don't make this stuff up, you know.

Amateurs?
Amateurs?
Amateurs?
Amateurs?
Ahhhhh. The PROFESSIONALS!

Good grief, man. snap out of it!

That's what you said over Iraq... they didn't ignore anything, they took everything into account.

km

And I never bought into the propaganda over that.

Your smoke machine has gone belly up.

Well I clicked on the first link which was about BP's association with several oil exploration accidents... and that's what happens when you're involved in high risk endeavours like oil extraction at the boundary of human capability. You're comfortable with one astronaut dying for every ten missions which I think is too high given that there's hardly any of 'em there in the first place - don't worry, just replace 'em, right?

km

And the 27 that have died due to BP's negligence? Are they replaceable, too?

Your comparison to NASA is desperate, and your callous refusal to acknowledge the blood on BPs hands speaks volumes about you as a person. It's sickening, and I'm done wasting my time on you.

You've missed the point. Steve.... my comments about BP and NASA have been equally measured - yours haven't. You've got nothing whatsoever to say about NASA and yet you go on and on ad nauseam about BP's 'negligence' as though it were an established fact - it's not. You even thought they were using a pump when they didn't need to and your defence of that was something to behold - a case study in irrationality. A little more scepticism rather than knee-jerkism is what's needed on your side of the discussion, if I may say so.

km

You do realize that experiment has nothing to do with buoyancy and everything to do with pressure, right? There's a reason a balloon is used: water pressure squeezes the balloon forcing the oil inside the balloon up the tube ...

In this case the oil isn't rising in the tube because it's lighter than water, but because the water pressure pushing on the balloon is enough to counter the air pressure in the tube pushing down on the oil ... here's a couple things to try with your experiment to test this:

Repeat the experiment, but instead of oil this time use something heavier than water -- let's say mercury (because it's fun and toxic!). The same thing will happen as with the oil: the mercury will rise in the tube when the balloon is immersed in the water ... not because it is buoyant in water (it obviously isn't), but because of the same pressure that pushed the oil up the tube ...

Repeat the experiment with oil again, but this time remove the balloon completely and just use the tube. Seal the bottom of the tube, put in a bit of the oil and immerse in the water as before. Stand in amazement as the oil just sits there ... not because it isn't buoyant in water (it obviously is), but because there's no pressure pushing it up the tube ...

In all of these cases, including the original experiment, buoyancy isn't a factor since the oil and mercury aren't interacting with water but with air, in which neither are buoyant.

In the case of the spill in the Gulf, once you've inserted the pipe into the well, you've presumably sealed-off the ocean from the oil inside the pipe, so you're removing buoyancy and water pressure as factors and it becomes more a matter of air pressure vs. oil pressure. So the question is wether the pressure of the oil (and let's not forget the millions of metric f*cktons of natural gas that's mixed-in, which *is* lighter than air *and* than the oil and introduces interesting additional interactions) is greater than that of the mile-or-so column of air above it (or, assuming the tube gets filled completely with oil, with the weight and pressure of the mile-or-so column of oil above it) ...

MacBozo theorizes the oil would gush to the surface in this circumstance. He might be right. But there's a LOT of pressure a mile down. Either way, there are tremendous forces at work to consider ...

No like I said to Sarge the container doesn't matter... place the oil in a wine glass and seal the top with cellophane making it water tight by wrapping an elastic band around the bowl of the glass. Insert the tube through the cellophane and immerse the the unit into water. The oil rises up through the tube to the reach the water level. Lift the unit out of the water and watch the oil fall down the tube.

km

You haven't actually tried this, have you?

If the subject is buoyancy, your experiment is too complex -- you don't need cellophane or a tube. Simply try this:

- Take the wine glass and fill it 1/4 full with oil
- Immerse the wine glass 3/4 of its way into the water

Does the oil in the glass rise to the water line? If buoyancy is at work, it should, right?

Now, if you like, go ahead and place the tube in the oil -- essentially replicating your above experiment without the cellophane bit. Does the oil in the tube rise to the water level?

In either case, the oil doesn't rise due to buoyancy because it isn't in water in the first place -- there's nothing in the container, be it wine glass or tube, for the oil to be lighter than. Again, they didn't use a balloon in your first experiment just by chance. They used it to show the effect of water pressure pushing on the balloon to force the oil upwards in the tube. Without the balloon (or something with similar characteristics), that experiment doesn't work =)

Yeah, I tried it before answering Sarge... I've never used the word 'buoyancy' in this discussion by the way.

km

I find it difficult to believe that if the results were as you described they would be attributable to oil being lighter than water ...

[edit]
KM replied as I changed this. The original text here was:

"And were the results as you described? I find it hard to believe the celophane would provide a reliable seal ..."

Apologies for the ninja edit ;-)
[/edit]


Good for you.

Yeah I posted what I observed... the cellophane remained surprisingly watertight even with the tube inserted.

km

Emersion, emergent, emerge mean the opposite of what you're trying to say. —— "to rise from or as if from an enveloping fluid : come out into view -a diver emerging from the water-"

Emerse doesn't exist, or i can't find it in the dictionary. Emersed is an adj. which is related to emerge.

You must mean immerse. —— "to plunge into something that surrounds or covers; especially: to plunge or dip into a fluid". Right?

***

As you can see, your experiment is not clear enough for others to follow to confirm or reject your results. [it's unscientific]

There remains confusion on point 11, where you immerse the "contraption". For the experiment, as i understand it, to maybe be relevant to the issue of siphoning through a 1 mile vertical pipe, without a pump, but solely by "buoyancy" —— a the tendency of a body to float or to rise when submerged in a fluid b: the power of a fluid to exert an upward force on a body placed in it; also : the upward force exerted (i accept that i introduced the word in the conversation) —— you would need to let the water into the "small balloon with cooking oil" and the attached "transparent tube". Did you?

Frankly, i don't understand if water gets into the tube or not.

To me, if there's no water and oil contact —which six of one pointed out—, this is an irrelevant conclusion to explain the siphoning pipe "solution" that BP masterminded to reduce the spill in the oil spill. In any functioning well, subaquatic or not, the oil may come out initially by pressure alone, after that they pump the well. Even later, they may pump water down another well connected to the same oil deposit to push the oil up into reach so it can be pumped out through the first well.

I don't think yours is a valid experiment.


Or is it just another one of those "jokes" you make up?

I suspect diversionary tactics. Sorry, i hope you're not offended, but that's what it seems to me, that you're playing here, there, and over there, spreading confusion when you wish; Unstable, unreliable.

At the end you put a photo of the "experiment's" equipment (what's the wine cup for?), but not of the "experiment" itself showing your point. Seems to me that all you have is contempt for some or all of us.

katpablo [ signed ]

I will agree that pumping is not necessary, and will speculate that they are pumping. I hope i'm getting it right.

This is the situation that i believe, maybe is, appears to be, could be, the situation with BP and the siphoning pipe. I have to speculate because BP is not telling nor i have been able to find a source of what exactly this type of siphoning is. If anyone has any reliable information about what that siphoning process consists of i would appreciate if it could be posted if possible.

***

Let's assume that the oil inside the pipe can reach the tanker by it's own buoyancy. [ —— a the tendency of a body to float or to rise when submerged in a fluid b: the power of a fluid to exert an upward force on a body placed in it; also : the upward force exerted —— ]

The top end of the pipe is connected to the bottom of the tanker, through the hull, to a container full of water that, being heavier, would seep down into the pipe as the oil seeps up into the tanker container.

The lower end the siphon pipe is also open so the oil can get in the siphon as it gushes out of the broken well pipe. The other reason for this side to be open is so the water displaced by the lighter oil as it goes up the pipe can get out.

I'm hoping we're assuming that it works!* Great! No pump!

*I cannot consider potential benefits nor difficulties that may exist in this example since i'm no expert. I'll list, as an aid, other factors that may be involved: the expansion and degassing due to depressurizing of the oil; the "micro-encapsulated bits of oil surrounded by seawater" that polymerase suggested in the post above; "different densities and temperature will stratify in layers beneath the surface" as MacBozo points out; differences in salinity in the sea water surface compared to the deep ocean floor that influence vertical displacement in the siphon; others(?)….

However… since both sides of the siphoning pipe are open the level of water inside the tanker can only reach the level of its floating line. This means you can't fill the container with oil any higher than that floating line…

No problem!We pump the oil out of the container into a "collection boat". That's it. I'm not sure if from time to time adding more water will or will not be necessary to maintain the flow of oil coming up(?).

***

Well,… i would believe that if I were going to have to use a pump i might as well attach the pump to a interchange tank on the same pipe and transfer the oil directly to the "collection boat". and let water into the pipe. It's easier and cheaper.

Better still, pump up with that same pipe, all the the oil that you can, even if part of it is water, you can separate the gasses, oil, and water on the tanker or in the collection platform even better. It's an active faster method instead of a passive siphon while an emergency is raging.

I'm not sure if all that's convenient technically but…

BP Senior Executive Vice President Kent Wells said:
"Ultimately, it's a winning game that we out-pump the well", according to UK Reuters
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN15214537.




Maybe they're not pumping!

I think that probably, if that's all they have, they'll have to keep on pumping.

Sorry for so much speculation… SF…

That's why I'm done, it's all just a game to him. We all nudge each other once in a while in fun, but all the allegory all the time gets old. And we all show respect for each others opinion sometimes, not so with km. Can't remember the last time any serious respect or acknowledgement was given to anyone else's opinion. is right.

It doesn't matter whether there is water or not. It has little to do with the pressure on the oil. That pressure is coming from the bottom of the well which is 13,000 ft below the sea bed. Drill a well 18,000 feet deep on land and the results will be the same - gusher.

No I don't agree with that... I tend respect considered opinions but disrespect wrecking or malicious comments dressed up as opinions - especially when they're wrong.


Well, higher up the thread for example when I endorsed Poly's observation:

"How could you, BP, or anyone know that the junk shot cap option is/was the viable option? Not even in hindsight can anyone say that."

or carp's:

"there is no pump on earth that can pump that fast of volume.

KM

Exactly. I've seen a lot of fancy formulas and such but that's the only logical answer I've seen, I didn't follow the whole thread though. The pressure on the oil doesn't start at 5000 ft, it starts 2.5 miles below even that. And the earth is pretty heavy, there's a lot of pressure on the oil. Pressure and heat is how it formed if my science classes were right in high school.

The stuff is under tremendous pressure 3.5 miles down, pop a hole in it and "thar she blows."

Correct, that was a spelling mistake.


No I think most people have followed it and indeed most have accepted the results. It was a scientific experiment because it showed that oil in subaquatic well rises to the surface through a tube without the assistance of a pump.

Your 'buoyancy' comments are misconceived in that I wasn't dealing with oil in water but oil in a pipe because it mirrored the procedure adopted by BP. Their aim is to keep water out of the riser but as Bozo has pointed out "it doesn't matter whether there is water or not" the oil is still coming to the surface.


No, the tube is connected to the 'well' or reservoir and the top end of it is sticking out of the water as does BP's riser when it funnels oil into the tanker. Sorry, if said "watch the water fall back down the tube" that was supposed to be "watch the oil fall back down the tube".


Try it for yourself then. In all material respects it's the same as what as what BP is doing but on a smaller scale. As poly has pointed out, the physics work even better on a larger scale i.e. with even deeper water.


In the picture it was a receptacle to keep the tube upright to stop the oil flowing out of it before immersion. Later I on I used it to prove that oil would rise up the tube from a solid subaquatic container as well as flexible one.

km

If the siphon picks up 15% to 20% of the flow it would be lucky to trap 15% to 20% of the gusher pressure. The original riser pipe is broken —in several places (three?)—; the pressure is spilt,

The above percentage of captured gusher energy means that 80% to 85% of the pressure is spilling out into the gulf with the oil. The longer it gushes, the more pressure is lost.

Except, the oil is under so much pressure that it would take a very long time for it to equalize and stop spewing forth. Also, the visual image of the spill cam indicates that much heavier crude has now begun pouring out based on the much darker color.

All of your experiments are irrelevant. What about Michael's observation that the oil is already under great pressure as it's over 3.5 miles down, with the weight of the earth on it?

Does all that pressure mysteriously dissipate at 5000 ft?

He was using that figuratively of course because they only need to match the well not outperform it. What he meant was that for environmental reasons they have to funnel as much oil into the tanker as was coming out of the damaged riser. 'Siphoning' has been the usual word to distinguish the procedure from pumping although that's also figurative in that the fluid extracted is not collected at a lower level than the source.

km

If you rewrite the experiment with all the complete instructions and the results i should get i would consider it. Sorry, but i'm not going to lose my effort on an experiment that right now, as i see it, doesn't make any sense. If anyone could follow it, i'm amazed!


Visit if you please: My take on the BP siphon —up till now.

This circle jerk is pretty much moot at this point. The siphon/pump/soda-straw-in-a-wine-glass business has been largely ineffective. Now (or in the next day or so) supposedly comes this top-kill procedure. If that doesn't work, BP says they'll try the containment dome again. And if that doesn't work — again — maybe they'll hire a shaman to throw a few chicken bones in the Gulf and do a happy dance.

In the meantime, they continue spraying (with a hearty fukkyou, EPA) the highly toxic, banned-in-England dispersant that they were ordered to stop using.

I'll bet if they air-dropped a few top BP execs into the Gulf waters, their arrogance would repel the oil out of the ocean and past the Moon!

You wrote:



Then you wrote:



Then you wrote:



All of which are descriptions of buoyant effects ...

Then you wrote:



And now you write:



Which amazingly is an almost exact paraphrase of what Sarge wrote in the first place:



And seemingly directly contradicts examples you provided previously:




At this point, I honestly have no idea what forces you believe are at work here ...

It always was moot -- nothing we say here really matters anyways in a practical sense. I'm still in this thread mainly for the entertainment value ;-)

Instructions are already in the thread.

Alternatively, think about what BP is doing and how you can simulate it in your own home experiment. They have oil in a well underneath the ocean. Because it's been spilling into the sea out of a broken riser pipe, they've plugged the breach with a Riser Insertion Tube Tool (RITT) and attached 5,000 foot riser pipe to bring the fluids to the surface.

Simulation

1. The 'oil well'

I poured oil into a wine glass so it was about one third full and sealed the top with cellophane made watertight by an elastic band wrapped around the bowl of the glass.

2. The 'RITT and riser pipe'

I inserted a plastic tube into the cellophone so that the lower end was immersed into the oil and the top end sticking out a few inches above the rim of the wine glass.

3. 'Siphoning to the surface'

I immersed the wine glass into a plastic bottle three quarters full of water so that the oil was deep beneath the waterline but the tube was sticking out into the air above the waterline. Oil rose all the way up through the tube to reach the waterline.

In all material respects the experiment simulates what BP has done.

km

Gravity and pressure, I should have thought that was quite obvious. All of my statements are consistent, by the way.

km

It's all just wishful thinking on his part; that they could out-perform the spill by pumping back into captivity all the oil as it is let out of the broken rise.

That is, of course, impossible.

If that were possible it would be, for everybody, "Ultimately" (in the last analysis), "a winning game" (the best that could happen given the circumstances).

Wishful thinking that would be nice for BP, and for all, yes.

I wouldn't agree with that:

Kent Wells <---.

I would agree that it hasn't completely stopped the spill because they couldn't achieve a perfect seal with the RITT - nothing like as good as the one I got.

km

So this whole business of oil being lighter than water has nothing to do with it anymore?



Things like:



vs.



Seem pretty inconsistent to me ... but oh well ...

Well, I made that point in relation to experiment 1 when I poured oil into water in a wine glass and it rose to the surface, which simulates the spill, of course. Since there's more pressure on water than on anything lighter than water such as oil it comes to the surface from a subaquatic source even through a pipe - that's what my experiments 2 and 3 prove.

km

What? You want to throw slime at slime?

That doesn't support the pump theory - it detracts from it.

km

You would have to have one helluva pump to reverse that flow. These wells, when tapped under such pressure, don't use pumps. They use valves to control the flow at the head on the well platform. The best comparison is an artesian water well which also flows freely unless it is controlled with pressure valves.

The pump lobby aren't trying to reverse the flow of course but to ADD to it.

km

Here's the explanation:

Blowout (well drilling) - From Wikipedia

In all material respects your experiment reflects the characteristics of subaquatic well in a perfectly good condition, while the well BP is focused on has, at the ocean bottom surface, in a lower pressure environment than that of the mantle, a leak or spill —into the ocean— of 5000 barrels a day ("Oil Siphon Doubles Capacity"), as its Riser Insertion Tool captures another 2000 barrels a day.

If the Riser Insertion Tool picks up 30% of the flow it would be lucky to trap 30% of the gusher pressure. The original riser pipe is broken —in several places (three?)—; the pressure is spilt.

The above percentage of captured gusher energy means that 70%+ of the pressure is spilling out into the gulf with the oil. The longer it gushes, the more pressure is lost.

I see a big difference between one and the other and can't understand your equating in your experiment a ruptured well and an intact one.

Isn't this all about the oil spill? Yet, you choose to ignore it in your model?

If your garden hose had a gash 10 inches from the water pipe faucet, and it was spilling 70% of the water through it, would the pressure at the head of the hose 50 feet away be unaffected?

Okay, so let's say your experiment 1 proves that oil is lighter than water and will rise when the two are mixed ... I'm not sure that really needed proving ... but okay ...

Your experiment 2 doesn't really prove anything in regards oil being lighter than water since the use of a balloon introduces the influence of water pressure on the balloon as the more probable cause of the oil rising in the tube ...

Your experiment 3 seems nonsensical to me in that I really have a hard time believing the results you report are due to the oil being lighter than the water -- since there isn't any water in the tube for the oil to rise in -- and not some other factor. I'm still looking around the house for something a little more secure than celophane rubber-banded to the wine glass -- that seems to me to be a point of weakness in the experiment.

Ideally, you'd want to use a vessel that can be stoppered with one of those rubber lab plugs with a hole in it that will allow a tube to be inserted while maintaining an airtight seal ... I may actually go out and find such equipment, since although it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe ;-)

You talk like you have experience in Geology.

Controlled conditions would mean you have to place your equipment in a partial vacuum to scale back hydrostatic pressure, and also have the equipment dropping to scale back gravity to account for the reduced weight of the fluid column you're using.

BP aimed for a complete sealing of the ruptured pipe using a series of rubber baffles around the RITT pipe so there'd be no loss of oil into the ocean. The design of their siphoning procedure which aimed for a watertight seal is therefore the same as mine except I achieved it and they didn't. Their problem wasn't that water got into the riser but that oil escaped into the sea therefore letting water into wine glass would not have simulated their conditions. Although piercing the cellophane with a tube may have produced a breach to let water in that didn't in fact happen but even if it had the oil would still have risen to the surface as Bozo has pointed out. Experiment 3 is a fair simulation in that BP's procedure kept water out of the RITT and riser and I kept it out if my plastic tube.

km

Hence the reason I said *more* controlled =D

Plus, I'm merely looking to reproduce KM's home experiment with something more substantial than the cellophane, not to reproduce the actual environment of a wellhead a mile or so under the sea ;-)

What you proved is a balloon can squeeze oil up a short straw, which does not in any way translate into pressure required for lifting oil up a designated length of pipeline and dealing with head loss.

You've confused head, buoyancy and pressure. You've made completely false statements such as



which is mathematically impossible. It is a complete violation of the laws of physics for a fluid column to have the same pressure at higher altitude than it does at lower altitude.

Oil is also not lighter than water. One pound of oil weighs the same as one pound of water, which weighs the same as one pound of feathers. Oil has less density than water. As I explained already, the oil does not give two craps if water is around the pipe, if bricks are sitting on it, or Hugo from Lost is sitting on it. The working force is pressure, not buoyancy.

This entire discussion was raised because you pulled a number from your butt:



I simply replied that 2000psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile.

The math is easy.

One issue we have however is the density of the crude oil. It can vary anywhere from .87 (Texas) to .97(Mexico). Even though it's probably heavier, I'll be generous and use .9, which gives us pressure loss of .3906psi/ft

Multiply .3906 * 5280 and you get 2062.368 psi is required to lift oil exactly one mile -> however that is without factoring in major loss due to friction and turbulence of the fluid. Add several hundred more psi because I really don't feel like explaining it to you.

2062.368 psi is greater than 2000 psi.

Math doesn't lie, 2000 psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile, at best with no loss it would raise it 5120 feet, and at the top of the column of oil, the pressure will always be zero psi.

I can see you thinking of ways to twist this around now. However my statement of "like it or not, a pump is going to be involved" is unchanged and still true. Oil platforms have pumps for a reason.

There wasn't enough oil in the balloon for the squeezing effect you're thinking of. The fact that I got the same result using a solid container makes your squeezing theory the least, not most, probable cause.


There doesn't need to be water in the tube. The oil and gas come up to the surface because the pressure on the water outside the tube is greater than that on the oil and gas inside it.


No, that was watertight - I'm afraid you're proceeding from the false premise that I've misdescribed my experiments.


Well, when the wine glass was immersed into the water I observed that the cellophane remained watertight and that no water got past it.


You could save yourself a lot of trouble by repeating my experiment which took a couple of minutes instead of trying to improve upon it.


They wouldn't be more controlled - If you achieved a watertight seal with different equipment that would be equally controlled.

km