Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Moderator: Pops

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby tita » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 07:55:21

The best answer of this thread.
And now for some hair splitting about. I have an oil field producing 10,000 bopd in Jab 2017. As it depletes production drops to 900 bopd on Jan 2018. Thus the field's PO date is Jan 2017. But during Feb 2018 oil prices crash so by March 2018 I crank my pumps up to 1,100 bopd. That's well above the MER...Maximum Efficient Rate. That's the production rate above which one MIGHT reduce ultimate recovery and perhaps even damage the wells.

But I need the f*cking revenue to pay my bills. So is Jan 2017 the PO date for the field or is it now March 2018. Statistically it's March 2018 but if one takes that info to imply that I will recover more oil from the field you would be wrong. In fact, it might even imply a decrease in ultimate recover. This is a real aspect of current situation and not theoretical: seen it done numerous times in my career.

But the impossible answer is to what degree has happened due to new wells being drilled? IOW how much of the recent oil production increase is from newly discovered reserves and how much from pumping old reserves harder? No way to tell. But the good news: again it still isn't important. Virtually every other factor in the POD has much greater potential impact on our lives then the GPO date. So for Dog's sake stop the f*cking arguments. LOL.


We struggle to keep pumping enough oil to feed the demand. Not that it was easier before, but it was certainly less complex. Technically, geopotically, economically, ecologically. And the complexity is increasing.
User avatar
tita
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 09:57:28

rockdoc123 wrote:What I said was each and every igneous or for that matter crystalline basement rock that has produced oil is juxtaposed (that means beside not beneath) the source rock to which it has been typed. Hence why I said lateral migration. Do a search for Bach Ho and you will find a picture of this relationship?


Now that you're feeling a bit more confident you've dropped your wall of jargon defence, and I can make sense of what you say.
Is this the sort of formation you mean?
Image
So the sediment source rock leaks oil into the higher basement rock where it gets trapped. Seems consistent. But I notice the source rock is itself above fracture basement rock, so I think thats where its getting its oil. But your lot wouldn't bother to check if the sediment rock is itself being supplied with oil from lower rocks cos it would discredit your theory.


Well how about the paper presented by J.R. Catano in Stockholm in 1992.

their analysis, by the way, points out that the so-called oil Gold claimed to have recovered was water mixed with gases comprised 98% of C1 and 2% of C2 and C3. No oil whatsoever.


Gold claimed C1 to C5 in 15 tonnes of oil. Even if it was something other than oil, c1 to c5 is good enough for me, and clearly good enough for conventional geologists, including you because it prompted them to asserting that an ancient sediment layer got into the cracks and saturated them with hydrocarbon. Up till then the Siljan crater had been thought to be strictly devoid of hydrocarbon bearing sediment material.
So make up your mind, is there no significant hydrocarbon in the Siljan crater, or do you need your ancient sediment to explain the hydrocarbon there?

In general, hydrocarbon gas shows in the Siljan crater are minor, except in the Solberga well. As water in the Siljan area normally contains small amounts of hydrocarbon gas of bacteria origin (marsh gas), it is difficult to separate this background gas from observed gas in the boreholes. A number of gas shows are considered to be of bacterial origin. In the Solberga well two basically different hydrocarbon gasses were found: one, a “wet” gas, is clearly related to the oils in the sedimentary rocks, while the other “dry” gas could be originating from a different source. No carbon isotope data were available to indicate the type and origin of this gas. It is purely speculative to assume it is abiogenic. Varying quantities of hydrogen gas were found in the Siljan area. These could have originated from several different sources, such as: oxidation of ferrous oxide, reactions between surface and formation water, solid state reactions in minerals, and association 6 with organic matter and or petroleum. Sufficient evidence is lacking to define the different sources.

Not a refutation of abiotic oil theory. It says there's unexplained hydrocarbon in Siljan, but the biotic oil trained geologists don't explore abiotic theory, but dismiss it as speculation. Why? The experiment was to test abiotic theory, yet they don't explore it. Its like dropping a ball to test gravity and saying, "there was an unexplained motion of the ball to the ground, it is purely speculative to assume it was gravity.". It is profoundly unscientific to dismiss theory this way.

Are they running scared of what they might find?


And perhaps we should point out that Gold doesn’t provide any analysis either other than his observations.


His analysis is here :
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogs ... apers.html

Wrt to the Tiber oil field, ok i accept what you say. Actually it doesn't matter to abiotic oil theory if oil is not present below 9000m. As it rises from the upper mantle, it condenses or drops out of solution at some depth, perhaps around 9000m. That's consistent with abiotic theory.

Your take on it was worth reading though, thanks. You are helping me sharpen my understanding of abiotic oil theory.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 10:26:08

sparky wrote:.
The best argument against a sizable Abiotic generation of hydrocarbon is the fact
that it is not found in newly solidified Earth crust .

I wouldn't mind , one could speculate on the influence of extremophile organisms occupying the lithosphere
they have been found in quantity down to 4,000m and could be present down to 7.000m

Ultimately , would Abiotic generation , if any , amount to a collectable quantity ?
I doubt it


Well we assert practically all mineral oil is abiotic, so it created the world's oil reserves, so the answer is yes.

'newly solidified Earth crust'
Image
What does cooled lava look like? Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon. ( yes this is a photo of cooled lava, not heavy oil, they look so similar )
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:32:37

pow.....are you a Truther? I'm being serious.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:35:39

truther wrt what? Don't go off topic, we have enough on the table to discuss
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Yoshua » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 12:28:50

The economy dominates and forces the oil producers to pump more. If high oil prices wont do the trick, then low oil prices will. No matter if that causes reservoir damage and destroys future production, the only thing that matters is now and what the economy demands. The economy is the freaking terminator.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 12:30:52

Gold claimed C1 to C5 in 15 tonnes of oil. Even if it was something other than oil, c1 to c5 is good enough for me, and clearly good enough for conventional geologists,


No he did not. this is what he said:
During the drilling with a water based drilling fluid, good measurements were obtained of hydrogen, helium, methane, and the other hydrocarbon gases up to pentane.

Up to pentane does not mean it contained pentane it means it contained C1 - C4. Again he shows no chemical analysis. Also any "oil" recovered happened after they started to use diesel additives ...essentially an oil based mud system. That is why the Castano paper points out the results are difficult to analyse. I've been involved in many wells drilled with oil based fluids...in not one did we trust any of the shows or returns while drilling. Indeed the information was not complete until a full blown DST was run for a long enough period to remove all drilling fluid invasion.
And in any event I showed you two publications that indicated there was nothing but methane and small amounts of CPG and not only that they made up a mere 2%....that is methane not oil.

So make up your mind, is there no significant hydrocarbon in the Siljan crater, or do you need your ancient sediment to explain the hydrocarbon there?


First of all you do not understand enough about what the term hydrocarbon means and what the term oil means. You continually confuse oil with gas, the two are not the same. It is well established that methane is generated in the mantle. We see it in volcanic outflows and in geysers that have a connection to the upper mantle. What we don’t see is oil. You are arguing for abiotic oil and then saying that finding methane and a miniscule amount of CPG proves the theory and it does not in the least. I am astounded that you want to continue to demonstrate a level of thickness that is to my mind unsurpassed by anything I’ve seen on this site for the past decade

Not a refutation of abiotic oil theory. It says there's unexplained hydrocarbon in Siljan, but the biotic oil trained geologists don't explore abiotic theory, but dismiss it as speculation. Why? The experiment was to test abiotic theory, yet they don't explore


Its dry gas i.e. methane you dolt. All they did not do was to complete a full isotopic analysis of the methane gas to see what the delta C13 was which would help to define its source. They didn’t bother for two reasons…it was all essentially methane and there wasn’t a lot of it and there was ample source for it all around the crater. Once again there was no oil…why is that so hard to understand?

His analysis is here :
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogs ... apers.html 


There is no place in that large amount of verbage that has any chemical analysis of gases recovered from boreholes at Siljin crater…none. It’s a bunch of theory, some of which is nearly childlike in it’s understandings of whole earth geophysics and geology. Gold should have stuck to his area of expertise.

Actually it doesn't matter to abiotic oil theory if oil is not present below 9000m. As it rises from the upper mantle, it condenses or drops out of solution at some depth, perhaps around 9000m


Again you are applying magical thinking. When a liquid is cracked to gas at extremely high temperatures the molecular structure of the hydrocarbon chains is completely destroyed it becomes nearly pure methane and does not behave like a retrograde condensate which can drop liquid out from the gaseous state as pressure drops (noting that condensates still maintain a significant proportion of C5 and higher). This does not happen to hydrocarbons that have been exposed to extreme heating where all of the complex chains have been broken and all that is left is methane and small amounts of butane and propane. A simple phase diagram explains why that cannot form a liquid again, it remains in the gaseous state and you cannot somehow find all the material around to magically form complex long hydrocarbon chains and somehow combine it with the methane even if the enormous energy required to drive an exothermic chemical reaction backwards was somewhere available. If this were possible we would never see gas reservoirs, they would have all converted to oil.

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics. You are not bringing anything here that either is possibly correct or makes you somehow look intelligent. On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 13:29:39

you know me Rock, I'm not disregarding the various points you've made, but to me, this is a pivotal and surprising point coming from you :
RockDoc wrote: It is well established that methane is generated in the mantle. We see it in volcanic outflows and in geysers that have a connection to the upper mantle.


!!
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.

Perhaps now all we need is the condition to strip off 2 hydrogen atoms, and let the carbons bond. This is the reaction that you are hyping up to be impossible. However, whatever is producing the methane in the mantle could well be producing larger hydrocarbons without the intermediate step of methane. That might cheer you up since I sense you are going to insist methane can't be converted into longer carbon chains.
Now might be a good time to explain conventional theory on how kerogen, a carbon based substance which is deficient in hydrogen, gets hydrated into oil.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:06:25

A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


what part of

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.


and

On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.


did you not understand?

I'm done. :x
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:29:35

tita wrote:We struggle to keep pumping enough oil to feed the demand. Not that it was easier before, but it was certainly less complex. Technically, geopotically, economically, ecologically. And the complexity is increasing.


Absolutely correct. The first transition to more complexity hit in 1901, and during the next 5 or 6 cycles of more complex development it hasn't let up. The good news being, no one has ever yet quantified the number of remaining cycles, so we might still be good for at least the next 6 or 8 as we create peak demand, which will hopefully limit the number of those we need to actually deploy.
AdamB
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:39:50

peakoilwhen wrote:truther wrt what? Don't go off topic, we have enough on the table to discuss


Indeed. Starting with the obvious, that regardless of how much a certain type of cooling magma looks like oil, it most certainly is not.
AdamB
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:46:42

Yoshua wrote:The economy dominates and forces the oil producers to pump more.


Really? I would love to know how the economy can force more gas out of the ground when my oil wells have casing pressures at 0 psi. Can you perhaps explain how the economy can reinvigorate the in-situ differential pressure to help me make more oil, because myself, and perhaps tens of thousands of others who have fought to manage the physics of pressure depletion for decades now would love to know.

Yoshua wrote: If high oil prices wont do the trick, then low oil prices will. No matter if that causes reservoir damage and destroys future production, the only thing that matters is now and what the economy demands. The economy is the freaking terminator.


The economy is the economy. Arnold was the Terminator. While you are quite a bit dramatic with your descriptions, perhaps reducing the basics to a simple graph and how these relationships work would be better?

Image
AdamB
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:54:45

peakoilwhen wrote:!!
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


You are amazed by basic and well known facts of physics and geology? Why would you not see methane coming? You have been talking about oil, and the physical processes available in the geologic world do not make oil from methane, but rather the other way around.

peakoilwhen wrote:Perhaps now all we need is the condition to strip off 2 hydrogen atoms, and let the carbons bond.


Perhaps because the reaction takes the place in the other direction is why you are confused?

peakoilwhen wrote:This is the reaction that you are hyping up to be impossible. However, whatever is producing the methane in the mantle could well be producing larger hydrocarbons without the intermediate step of methane. That might cheer you up since I sense you are going to insist methane can't be converted into longer carbon chains.


of course methane can be converted into longer hydrocarbon chains. Shell does it in a refinery, and sells the results on the store shelves at Walmart. Please demonstrate that the reaction generated artificially in a refinery can be duplicated naturally.

peakoilwhen wrote:Now might be a good time to explain conventional theory on how kerogen, a carbon based substance which is deficient in hydrogen, gets hydrated into oil.


Why? Do you not know how to use google? Or is it confusing to you that said oil, under the conditions contained in the pressure and temperature contained within the mantle, becomes methane? We dare you, go get some oil, and subject it to some decent temperatures such as that magma is exposed to for a nice century or five, and then stand back and be amazed that you don't have any more oil.
AdamB
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:21:03

rockdoc123 wrote:
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


what part of

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.


and

On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.


did you not understand?

I'm done. :x


What do you want from me rock? To respond in kind to your insult? I'm not frustrated enough to do that yet.
I'll tell you this though, I've just linked this thread to my fb group, so they could watch us 2 debate. You are the final boss of PO.com. Instead of a interesting exchange, they've just seen me reduce you to insults and an appeal to consensus. I've never seen u do that b4. For them you will just appear to be another clueless layman. So they won't realise this as the special victory it is.

If we leave it here, my group has learnt how to defeat you in just 2 words.

Kerogen hydration.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:12:10

peakoilwhen,

"Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon."

Evidence?
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:20:28

If we leave it here, my group has learnt how to defeat you in just 2 words.


look f%^$nuts.....kerogen does not exist anywhere except in sedimentary rock. Kerogen is completely converted to hydrocarbons at specific temperature/time relationship which means below a certain depth in the sedimentary pile all of the existing kerogen has been converted. There is no kerogen deep in the crust and certainly not in the mantle. And there are many places in the world where kerogen has not been converted simply because it hasn't been exposed to enough heat and temperature.

as to whatever message board you subscribe to if they believe you actually know anything then I'm afraid it must indeed be a board comprised of blithering idiots or drooling lunatics.

honestly can you please just shut the f$%$ up and go away? It is clear you don't want to learn the science necessary to understand any of this so please don't waste our time any longer. I'm sure your board will enjoy your inane banter, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. :roll:

and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5091
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Cog » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:26:07

If abiotic theory had any validity, there should be oil wells all over Hawaii and Japan.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8602
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 21:50:18

look f%^$nuts.....kerogen does not exist anywhere except in sedimentary rock. Kerogen is completely converted to hydrocarbons at specific temperature/time relationship which means below a certain depth in the sedimentary pile all of the existing kerogen has been converted. There is no kerogen deep in the crust and certainly not in the mantle. And there are many places in the world where kerogen has not been converted simply because it hasn't been exposed to enough heat and temperature.


If you say so.
I'm interested in the bit where kerogen goes from a hydrogen carbon ratio of roughly 1:1 to 3:1 or higher.

Are you ok with free hydrogen gas in the mantle? That's what was found in the kola superdeep borehole.

honestly can you please just shut the f$%$ up and go away? It is clear you don't want to learn the science necessary to understand any of this so please don't waste our time any longer. I'm sure your board will enjoy your inane banter, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. :roll:



Since you seem in need of some mud wrestling I'll play a bit. I'm human too, and I crack sometimes, but not yet, I'm only writing this to give u some relief : but, for sure, the words have been in my head, I just choose not to write them.
---
Why should my perspective annoy you? If I'm making a fool of myself you should be laughing all the way. That was RGR's attitude with peakers. I've accepted your points on Tibers, I understood your lateral shift of oil from sediment rock to basement rock, I even backed down some wrt Thomas Gold's experiment. Seems like I was getting schooled. But now with mantle methane and hydration of kerogen you can't handle the banter? I've seen you argue with retards for a decade on this forum and until now you have maintained disposition.
wrt the land of the blind comment : that's richly hypocritic coming from one whose led the gullible for 12 years with a myth - PO. Since your failed prediction for PO has been and gone, whats your next move there? Joining the 'any day now' brigade?

...and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.


You're losing your grip. I doubt there's anything against copy pasting stuff from this forum, and anyway, I've copied nothing. I've just linked. You must be pretty desperate to be reaching for help from the mods with a trumped up charge like that.

You are smart enough to know that if the deep Earth can make methane, then it should be able to make ethane, if ethane, then propane and so on. It makes oil out of hydrogen deficient kerogen. The mantle has plenty of carbon and hydrogen and is an anoxic high pressure chemical reactor. The burden of proof is therefore on rockdoc to show what limits this hydrocarbon production process to only methane, but also contradictingly how it makes long chains from kerogen.

Your reaction to this : Well, I expected to get schooled, just like every other time between you an me, and every other time between you and 12 years of laymen on this site.
But today, it didn't happen. Instead you flipped. So I'm claiming checkmate.

You're right, I'm not a chemist or a geologist. But somehow I've defeated you in your area of expertise. Physics is the king of science, and physicists overrule geologists and chemists, we can root out the weaknesses in theory. You made it easier by getting angrier as I got nearer the truth. Like a game of hotter colder.
You are good, but you are mortal, and all mortals one day meet their match, at the hands of another mortal. Deal with it.

So I think I'm justified in having a figurative victory parade. Only I found your weakness. You were a tough nut to crack, but after a 12 year reign, the king is dead, long live the new king - me.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 22:16:59

Synapsid wrote:peakoilwhen,

"Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon."

Evidence?


I passed it right under your nose, but you missed it. You have to be more alert. It was that photo of dried lava that looked like heavy oil. Rock can't look like that unless it has a high carbon content or is composed of some unusual mineral.

Science works better by looking for refuting evidence. I haven't found any yet to refute the claim ' lava is a mix of burnt oil and rock ' but if I find any I'll post it here. I hope others will do the same. Until then, my hypothesis is valid.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 22:37:27

and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.


btw, I'm not scared of being banned from here. I only come here for your criticism of my ideas, but if my questions are too difficult for you then I'll move to another forum where the geo-chemists are more expert. I've reduced you to another toothless layman, who can only hurl abuse and cry when his faith is questioned.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests