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.