Talk:Ghawar Field

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oil Field 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: WP:MOSFLAG says:
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)
replies: text: 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, ; Residence London, , ), 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: 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)
replies: text: That one is live for me, but gives no cites or sources --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghawar cumulative production 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notes on updating the article, and getting up to speed on Ghawar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ghawar Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: 71 million barrels in place

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need better "map"