Talk:Ghawar Field

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Matt Simmons 'twilight of the desert' book

Dan Simmons in his book 'twilight of the desert' casts considerable doubt on the figure of 5 mbpd the Saudis claim for this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.231.176 (talk • contribs)

I agree, the lack of data on the oil field should be noted.

Matt Simmons, not Dan Simmons. Dan Simmons is a science fiction author, Matt Simmons was an advisor to George Bush during his presidential campaign and is an energy investment broker and analyst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.107.63.66 (talk • contribs)

Units

See User_talk:Lightmouse#History of the petroleum industry in Canada

Oil Field

Listed as Category:Oil field disputes but the dispute (?) is over production (?) not between two countries both claiming it! Hugo999 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I looked at the coordinates given for the field (27°28′12″N, 48°31′12″E) on Google Maps, and they seem to be too far north. (Godagast (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have given Ghawar field coordinates corresponding to the oasis of Al-Ahsa, which in turn corresponds with the Uthmaniyah production area of the field. These are more accurate coordinates than the previous ones that were given in the article. (Godagast (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Flag icons

WP:MOSFLAG says:

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons.

Therefore, instead of flag icons the country name in text format should be used for this infobox. Beagel (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted the guidelines, what it really means is that editors should avoid the use of flag icons in infoboxes which may break up the continuity of the text, thus, distracting the readers. For example, in biographies, if you use flag icons in the fields of birthplace or residence (say Born Sydney,

New South Wales,

Australia; Residence London,

England,

United Kingdom), it will create a distraction to the readers. For this article, however, the use of flag icons is okay. Because this article is about a Saudi Arabian oil field, something belong to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, like an asset or property. In fact, the use of flag icons here will promote a sense of national pride, which is important. Hadi Payami (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are quite clear about usage of flag icons. There are certain exclusions when flag icons are used; in all other cases, if they don't have any added value to the text, they should be avoided. Also, nobody disputes that this oil field belongs to Saudi Arabia. This is said by the text in the infobox. I think that every reader of Wikipedia is able to read and understand this without any flag icon. I fully agree that usage of a flag icon here will promote a sense of national pride. However, this is exactly what should be avoided in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghawar cumulative production

I would like to pimp the german article about Ghawar. Especially the cumulative production of 65 billion barrels over 18 months ago. But the reference (nr. 7) is an old text with numbers from maybe 2000 or so, but in the article its written April 2010. The refs all seem to be older? Just one link (seems to be arabian) doesn't work for me, no error message or so just nothing, usually he asks if I would like to install arabian or chinese stuff... Is there are ref or where is this figure from? Google didn't bring results too. -- Kilon22 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source, not the best because it doesn't give any information about the older estimates but it contains the April 2010 figure with 65 billion barrel.

http://www.epcengineer.com/projects/details/1444/ghawar-field , if the ref is dead all the time. Maybe its a temporary problem from my (german) provider or so... -- Kilon22 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one is live for me, but gives no cites or sources --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on updating the article, and getting up to speed on Ghawar

I've been updating and adding a bit to the article, and thought a few notes might be of interest to others wanting to learn more about the "Elephant of Elephants." My experience and background is in exploration and mining geology, but I grew up in Oklahoma & Texas, so I've always had an interest (but no real experience) in oil geology and the oil business.

If you are interested in the history of Arabian oil, a good place to start is at Max Steineke, the Stanford-trained chief geologist of Aramco in the early years of exploration and discovery there. Here's his award citation from AAPG:

"The methods he [Steineke] developed in the area probably resulted in the discovery of greater reserves than any other geologist."

For a quick and readable up-to-speed introduction, the two articles by Rasoul Sorkhabi are first-rate and fairly recent, and the 2005 Explorer article is also good. Beyond that, the "Oil Drum" series we link is worth browsing through. In particular, Five Easy Leases: Ghawar's Discovery Wells is worth reading for its interesting deconstruction of the confusing information Saudi Aramco has released about Ghawar. Have fun, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghawar Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/01jan/ghawar.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghawar Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813190446/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

71 million barrels in place

I noticed it states 71 million barrels in place. This suggests Ghawar will run out of production capacity in 14 days at 5 million barrels per day of production. Is it supposed to be 71 billion barrels? I can't imagine they will run out in 14 days from today (Jan 12 2017). Maybe someone can double check this?

Infobox actually says estimated 71,000 million barrels (or 71 billion bbl) oil in place. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghawar Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102203244/http://oilpatchasia.com/2013/10/top-ten-highest-producing-oil-fields/ to http://oilpatchasia.com/2013/10/top-ten-highest-producing-oil-fields/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need better "map"

The map used for this article is kind of silly. It points pretty much to the terminus of all the pipelines _coming from_ the Ghawar field, rather than a map of the extent of the field itself. I'll try and see if I can find a copyright-friendly map of the actual field somewhere, but I'm betting I won't. It would be great if we could find one. Anastrophe (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a day later, my frustration bore fruit. Traced the outline of Ghawar and surrounding area from other sources, and made my own. I've no skills at this - I encourage any other editors who may be better at it to take my copyright-free version, and improve upon it. Anastrophe (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still would be better to show the full size of the field (also) in the map "Location of Ghawar Field", where it is still a small point.Meerwind7 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that that particular type of map, as part of an infobox, is an immutable shortcoming, which is a shame. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]