1 vues

Transféré par Eilen Nava

definicion de distribucion de fluidos

- ENI - Completion Design Manual
- ENI_-_Completion_Design_Manual.pdf
- formation_damage_processes_reducing_prod.pdf
- ENI - Completion Design Manual.pdf
- IMPACT OF DISPLACEMENT RATE ON RELATIVE PERMEABIILTY AND RESIDUAL SATURATION IN GAS-ASSISTED GRAVITY DRAINAGE PROCESS
- Prob_12b1_P324_06A_Course_Work_(Prob_SPE_09975_Lee).pdf
- heng
- Practical Well Test Interpretation
- [002512]
- spe76752 Establishing Gas Phase Well Performance for Gas Condensate Wells Producing.pdf
- IPR...MS_044_NASS,Maria_Thesis_TAMU_(May_2010).pdf
- JPSE Singh Fevang Whitson Depletion
- SPE-139165-MS-P
- SPE-1518-G.pdf
- CO2 Injection in an Oil Reservoir With Gas Cap
- Reservoir Engineering Properties of Blck Oils
- 2.1 Geology of Petroleum
- Well Performance Equations - R A Wattenbarger.pdf
- Class-45_16-03-2017
- Radiant Exposure Fractal Dimension for Characterizing Shajara Reservoirs of the Permo-carboniferous Shajara Formation

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Defining Fluid Distribution and Fluid Contacts for Dynamically Charged Reservoirs

Fareed Iqbal Siddiqui, SPE, Pakistan Petroleum Limited

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Defining fluid contacts(GWC/OWC/GOC) is one of the major

variables for defining the initial hydrocarbons in place. In

exploratory wells RFT/MDT is often used to define

OWC/GWC. In defining contacts static capillary-buoyancy

equilibrium is assumed. There is ample field evidence that

many of the existing reservoirs are actively being charged from

the source rocks. Under these conditions the assumption of

static fluid distributions may not be valid and dynamic

conditions should be used for defining the fluid distributions

and the contacts.

This paper defines the fluid distributions and fluid contacts

for dynamically charged reservoirs. The method is based on

the recently proposed Dynamic Theory of Hydrocarbon

Migration and Trapping. The results of numerous numerical

simulations show that assuming static saturation profiles may

not be valid for reservoirs having active influx of fluids into

them. This is true even at very small influx rates (10-9 m/s-10-14

m/s). The pressure profiles for the static case (no viscous

forces) are compared and contrasted with the dynamic pressure

profiles. The dynamic pressure drops can be explained on the

basis of Darcys law and relative permeability effects under

extreme saturations. These pressure drops are then used to

calculate the saturation distribution in the hydrocarbon column

and the transition zones. The results show that if the

assumption of static equilibrium is used for the dynamically

charged reservoirs it will lead to the underestimation of the

initial hydrocarbon in place. The non-equilibrium effects can

also explain free water production from zones far above the

transition zone, expected, on the basis of static assumption.

The interpretation of MDT data under both static and dynamic

conditions is also discussed.

Introduction

When exploring for or developing new oil and gas reservoirs,

wells high on a structure may not penetrate the hydrocarbonwater contact. This contact needs to be determined, as soon as

possible to locate delineation wells, plan development drilling,

and, forecast reserves and economics. It is just not enough to

determine the location of hydrocarbon-water contact but it is

also important to determine the saturation distribution above it.

The saturation distribution is used in calculating the original

hydrocarbons in place and is also an input to the reservoir

simulators. As such an accurate determination of the

hydrocarbon-water contact location and the saturation

distribution has a big impact on the development plan and

economics of a field. Therefore, it is very important to

understand the basic physics of fluid distribution in porous

media.

Fluid Contacts (Gas-oil/oil-water/Gas-water) are usually

determined either by using logs or the pressure gradients

determined from some type of downhole formation tester (such

as MDT). In fact, most of the time, both of these methods are

used in conjunction to define the fluid contacts. The basis for

interpreting MDT pressure data is the presence of complete

static capillary-buoyancy equilibrium.1,2 It is assumed that

enough geological time has passed since migration, such that

all the dynamic effects can be neglected. Even in the

interpretation of logs the underlying assumption, at the back of

interpreters mind, is the existence of capillary-buoyancy

equilibrium. We show in this paper that the capillary-buoyancy

equilibrium may not exist for reservoirs that are being actively

charged from the source rock. Many of the existing reservoirs

are being charged by active source rocks, thus preventing the

presence of hydrostatic equilibrium in them. Morrow and

Melrose3 have concluded by comparing, the connate water

saturation data from cores cut with oil-base muds, with the

mercury injection data, that many of the present day reservoirs

may not be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Morrow and Melroses

observations can be explained on the basis of active charging

of these reservoirs.

This paper takes a more fundamental view of the problem

and considers the determination of fluid contacts and

saturation distribution, to be a corollary of the hydrocarbon

migration and trapping phenomenon. The fluid contacts and

dynamic theory of hydrocarbon migration and trapping.4 It is

shown here that for reservoirs actively being charged from the

source rocks, the fluid distributions may be quite different

from the distribution under static conditions.

In this paper, a brief overview of hydrocarbon migration

and trapping process is presented first and then a summary of

the fundamental equations governing the migration and

trapping process is presented. The method of defining the

saturation distribution, based on the static equilibrium

assumption, is then discussed. Then it is shown that how,

under dynamic conditions, the pressure gradients can be

significantly different from those under static conditions. The

saturation distributions are defined on the basis of the dynamic

pressure gradients and the dynamic theory of migration. In the

end the interpretation of MDT data for the static and dynamic

reservoirs is discussed.

Background

As discussed earlier, the problem of determining the fluid

contacts and fluid distribution is the end result of the migration

and trapping process. Therefore, a brief discussion of the

migration and trapping process is given here first:

Hydrocarbons are formed in the organic rich source rocks that

are usually low permeability (usually shales) and migrate

through high permeability rocks to traps or seals.5-7 A seal is

some low permeability rock which stops the further migration

of hydrocarbons. Source rocks produce hydrocarbons under

particular temperature and pressure conditions called oil and

gas generation windows. Once these conditions are not present

or when all the organic matter is exhausted the charging of

hydrocarbons into the reservoir stops. A dynamically charged

reservoir is one that has an active source rock feeding fresh

hydrocarbons into it at the present time. In our usual treatment

of reservoirs it is assumed that in the geologic time, complete

capillary-buoyancy equilibrium has been achieved. This

assumption may not be true if the reservoir has active charging

from the source rock.

Fundamental Equations. Migration of hydrocarbons into

reservoirs is governed by the general equations of multiphase

flow in a permeable media. The fundamental equations

describing the multiphase flow in permeable media are

discussed in standard texts8 and are summarized below:

Darcys law

k k ro P o

(1)

+ o g sin

uo = o x

uw = Continuity

k k rw P w

+ w g sin

w x

S o

u o

+

= 0

t

x

S w

u w

+

= 0

t

x

(2)

SPE 56513

and x and t are space and temporal variables, respectively. x is

positive in the vertical upward direction. k ro and k rw in the

above equations are oil and water relative permeabilities and

are considered to be functions of saturations alone. Capillary

pressure (Pc) is defined as the difference in pressure between

the non-wetting and the wetting phases. For an oil-water

system, assuming water to be the wetting phase, Pc = Po- Pw.

The assumptions used in driving the above equations are:

(1) One dimensional flow (2) Isothermal flow (3) No

adsorption or chemical reactions (4) Incompressible fluids and

rock (5) Two phase flow of oil and water (6) No partitioning

between the phases. Expressing uo in terms of Pc we get for

Eqs. (1) and (3):

P

uo = fut + fkrw g fkrw c

(5)

x

S

P

(6)

o + f ut + f k rw g - f k rw c = 0

t

x

x

where f = ro

fractional

and water relative mobilities, respectively. Equation (6) is the

general equation that describes the unsteady state flow of two

phases in one dimension. This is also the equation that

describes a one dimensional migration and trapping problem.

Most of the migration occurs initially vertically upward and

then along the top of the carrier bed, both of which can be

considered a one dimensional flow. Once the basic physics of

the migration problem is understood in one dimension it can

be easily extended to three dimensions. The solution of the

above equation, with proper initial and boundary conditions,

would give the location of trapped hydrocarbons, the length of

hydrocarbon column and the saturation distribution within the

hydrocarbon column. Equation (6) is a non-linear parabolic

partial differential equation that is difficult to solve

analytically and numerical techniques are needed to solve it.

However, when certain terms in it are neglected it can be

solved analytically.

Pressure and Saturation Distribution in Static Reservoirs.

Most of the time in our consideration of the migration problem

the full form of Eq. (6) is not solved and a static form is used.

In the static form it is assumed that, at the present time,

complete static equilibrium has been achieved and the fluids

are completely segregated. This means uo = u w = 0 at each

point in the reservoir. With this assumption the solution of Eq.

(6) reduces to the solution of Darcys equation and gives:

(3)

Po

= - o g ;

x

(4)

and

Pc

= g

x

Pw

= - w g

x

(7)

(8)

SPE 56513

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

Pc=0, to give capillary pressure as a function of height in the

reservoir.1,2,10

Pc = gh

(9)

h in the above equation is the height above the free water level

(FWL). The free water level is usually determined by using the

MDT pressure points. It should be noted that the free water

level is not the same as the 100% water saturation level,

usually known as the OWC. Once a capillary pressure profile

is available some type of capillary pressure-saturation (Pc-So)

relationship is required to get the saturation distribution. One

of the most commonly used Pc-So relationship is that proposed

by Leverett.11

Pc =

cos

j ( So )

k

(10)

experimental data is available the form of j function that fits

it best should be used.

Migration of hydrocarbons is a drainage process. Figure 1

shows a typical Pc-So curve for drainage which shows that a

threshold pressure is required to initiate the injection of the

non-wetting phase into a permeable medium. This threshold

value of capillary pressure is called the displacement pressure,

Pd . This phenomenon causes the OWC ( Pc = Pd ) to be

different from the free-water level ( Pc =0). The height of

OWC above the free water level (do) can be calculated as

d o = Pd g and, as is shown later, this distance can be

significant for moderate to low permeability reservoirs. Figure

1 shows that the Pc curves becomes asymptotic at the

irreducible water saturation (Swi). In this paper the BrooksCoreys12 drainage form of the capillary pressure-saturation

relationship has been used even though other forms can be

used.

j ( S ) = (1 - S ) n Pc

S=

(11)

S o - S or

1 - S or - S wr

paper So is used for the normalized saturation instead of S.

According to equations (10) and (11) the displacement

pressure Pd is given by cos k . n Pc in Eq. (11) is a

positive number that characterizes the distribution of pore

throat sizes in the permeable medium and is usually

determined by fitting the experimental data to Eq. (11). Figure

2 (right axis) plots the height of the 100% water level

(OWC/GWC) above the free water level as a function of

permeability for typical values of oil and gas interfacial

tensions. It is obvious from the figure that for moderate to low

permeability reservoirs (less than 100 md) the difference is not

negligible.

heights are converted into saturations. Figure 3 is a schematic

showing the pressure and saturation distribution in a static

reservoir. Capillary pressure is zero at the FWL and increases

linearly in accordance with Eq. (9). Both oil and water

pressures follow their respective static gradients above the

FWL. Oil saturation remains at zero until Pc=Pd, this point

defines the OWC. As the capillary pressure increases above

the OWC, the water saturation decreases gradually in

accordance with the Pc-So relationship (Fig. 1). The saturation

continues to decrease until it reaches the irreducible water

saturation, Swi. The region where water saturation varies from

100% water to Swi is called the transition zone. Both oil and

water phases are mobile in the transition zone. Above the

transition zone there is no change in the water saturation with

the increase in capillary pressure. The capillary pressure in this

zone keeps on increasing with height above the Free-WaterLevel (FWL) in accordance with Eq. (9) but the saturation

does not change because the capillary pressures lie in the

asymptotic region of the Pc-So curve. This is the main oil zone

for a static reservoir, water in this region is considered to be

immobile and water free production is expected from this

zone.

Another corollary of the static pressure distribution is the

definition of the maximum hydrocarbons that can be trapped

under a given seal. The capillary pressure at the top of

reservoirs should be less than or equal to the displacement

pressure of the seal (PdS in Fig. 3). When the pressure at the

top of reservoir becomes equal to or greater than the

displacement pressure of the seal, the hydrocarbons will start

to leak into the seal. Thus the maximum hydrocarbon column

that can be trapped in a reservoir is defined as:4,6,7

hstatic =

PdS Pd

g

(12)

contrast to this dynamically charged reservoirs have the ability

to transiently trap hydrocarbon columns greater than hstatic.6

Dynamically Charged Reservoirs. Many of the reservoirs are

actively being charged from the source rock and the validity of

static saturation distribution assumption may not be valid for

them. Morrow and Melrose3 have concluded, by comparing,

the connate water saturations for the cores cut with oil based

mud, with the mercury injection residual saturations, that

capillary-buoyancy equilibrium may not be present in many of

the reservoirs. Attainment of capillary equilibrium may take

long time because of relative permeability effects, as discussed

in this paper, and also because of film flow phenomenon at

low wetting phase saturations.

Dynamic Pressure Profiles. The static pressure profiles as

shown in Eqs. (7) and (8) are the limiting case of the general

pressure gradient equations based on the Darcys law. We can

use Eq. (5) to express the oil and water pressure gradient

pressures. For the sake of simplicity we assume the regional

ground water flow, ut, to be zero, then from Eq. (5):

dPc S o

- g )

dS o x

- og

krw + kro w

o

(13)

dPc S o

)

dS o x

- wg

kro + krw o

w

(14)

w

o

uo

Pc

= +

(

) + g

k

k

k

x

1 4 4 4 4 rw

2 4 4 4ro 4 3

(15)

Po

=

x

Pw

=

x

krw (

kro ( g -

Dynamic Effect

effects while the second terms are the static effects. Static

effects are independent of the movement of fluids and are not a

function of time. The dynamic effects however are, a function

of both the flux rates of the phases and time. The contribution

of these effects changes as the saturations in the system

change. The dynamic effect is a combination of both the

viscous and capillary effects. Viscous effects are a result of the

drag caused by the movement of fluid elements against each

other and the walls of the pores. They are a function of the

viscosity and saturation of the fluids. Capillary effects are a

function of saturation and heterogeneity and cause the

dissipation of sharp fronts. According to Eqs. (13)-(15), in the

regions where either hydrocarbon or water relative

permeabilities are close to zero, the dynamic effect may not be

negligible even for small flux rates (uo).

A large number of numerical simulations at low influx

rates (10-9 m/s-10-14 m/s) have been conducted and the results

show that the resultant pressure profiles are much different

from the static profiles. Some pure segregation cases were also

conducted, in which the reservoir was allowed to segregate

under the influence of gravity from an initial uniform

saturation. Even in these cases long after when 98% of the

segregation was complete the dynamic effects in the pressure

gradients was not negligible. The results of these simulations

are presented in Reference 14.

Dynamic vs. Static Reservoirs. All the dynamically charged

reservoirs may not show dynamic pressure profiles. According

to the dynamic4 theory of migration and trapping every

reservoir-seal system can be categorized as either static or

dynamic. For the sake of convenience, these will be

abbreviated as static or dynamic reservoirs (instead of static or

dynamic reservoir-seal system). In static reservoirs the

pressure distribution follows the static gradients (defined by

Eqs. (7) and (8)), even if they are actively being charged from

the source rock. While in dynamic reservoirs the pressure

SPE 56513

by Eqs. (13)-(15). Whether a particular reservoir will behave

as dynamic or static is a function of the relative permeability

vs. saturation behavior of the reservoir and the seal, the

capillary pressure function of the reservoir and the seal, and

the influx rate from the source rock. Reference 4 presented an

approximate solution for the migration and trapping problem

using the method of characteristics (MOC) solution technique.

The effect of capillary pressure was partly accounted for by

including the continuity of capillary pressure as one of the

boundary conditions. The method of characteristics solution is

based on the flux-saturation relationship with the capillary

pressure term neglected in Eq. (6). Neglecting the capillary

pressure term reduces Eq. (6) from a parabolic to a hyperbolic

partial differential equation solvable by the method of

characteristics. The hyperbolic form of the diffusivity equation

is:

1 duo S o

S o

+

= 0

t

dS o x

According to the method of characteristics the specific

velocity of a constant saturation So is given by the slope of the

flux-saturation ( uo S o ) curve at that saturation:8,13

1 du ( S )

dx

v So =

= o o

dS o So

dt So

(16)

certain conditions causes shocks to develop from the

continuous waves. The specific velocity of the shock is given

by:

v shock =

1 u o

1 u o- - u o+

=

S o

S o- - S o+

(17)

where (uo- , S o-) and uo+ , S o+ are the points upstream and

downstream of the shock, respectively. Equation (17) suggests

that v shock is the slope of the chord joining the points

(uo- , S o-)

and

(uo+ , S o+)

seal, depending on their absolute permeability and their

relative permeability functions. Trapping is explained as a

result of reflection and refraction of saturation waves from the

reservoir-seal boundary. The capillary pressure term in the flux

expression (Eq. (5)) is only important when Pc x is large

and that only occurs near a heterogeneity boundary or around

the shock fronts. In the regions away from shocks and the

heterogeneity boundary the MOC solution can be applied.

Below the criteria for defining static and dynamic reservoirs is

described on the basis of, the continuity of flux and continuity

of pressure conditions, and the method of characteristics.

Figure 4(a) shows the flux-saturation function for a

reservoir which is actively being charged from the source rock

SPE 56513

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

this flux on the higher oil saturation flank of the uo S o

curve. It is also the minimum saturation for which the injected

flux, uoJ , in the MOC solution, can produce a reflected wave

into the reservoir. Figure 4(b) shows the capillary pressuresaturation (Pc-So) function for a reservoir and two seals. The

condition of continuity of capillary pressure dictates that a

minimum saturation S* (S1* or S2*) is established in the

reservoir before any hydrocarbons can leak into the seal. For

saturations less than S* the Pc at the top of the reservoir is less

than the displacement pressure of the seal. Therefore, S* is

defined such that Pc(S*) = PdS.

The behavior of a particular reservoir, whether static or

dynamic, will depend on the relationship of SA with S* of the

seal associated with it. If S* for a seal is greater than SA , then

the reservoir is termed as a dynamic reservoir (shown by S1*

in Fig. 4(b)). In a dynamic reservoir the dynamic terms in the

pressure gradient equation (Eqs. (13)-(15)) are not negligible.

Under these conditions the oil and water pressure gradients in

the reservoir and the seal correspond to the dynamic pressure

gradients defined by Eqs. (13)-(15). However, if S* is less

than SA then the seal is termed as a static seal (shown by S2*

in Fig. 4(b)) because in this case the dynamic terms in the

pressure gradient equation are negligible. The pressure

behavior for such reservoir-seal systems corresponds to the

static pressure profile defined by Eqs. (7) and (8). The

saturation and pressure profiles for the static case have been

discussed earlier and the method of defining the saturation and

pressure distribution for the dynamic reservoirs is presented

next.

Pressure and Saturation Profiles for Dynamic Reservoirs.

The method of characteristics solution technique can be used

to determine the saturation profile for a dynamic reservoir.

Figure 5 is a schematic showing the solution for a dynamic

reservoir on a uo S o diagram. The reservoir is initially

completely saturated with water (point I in Fig. 5). An

injection of flux, uoJ , results in an upward moving shock

wave with saturation S J1 and a specific velocity given by the

slope of chord I-J1. Figure 6(b) shows the solution on a timedistance diagram. The shock with saturation S J1 reaches the

reservoir-seal boundary ( x1 ) at time t. From Fig. 4(b) no oil

can flow into the seal until the saturation at x1 becomes equal

to S1*. This results in the trapping of hydrocarbons beneath the

reservoir-seal boundary and the oil saturation at the top of

reservoir starts to build up. At time t L the saturation at the top

of the reservoir becomes equal to S1* (Fig. 6(b)) and the

continuity of capillary pressure upstream and downstream of

the boundary is satisfied. This starts the leakage of

hydrocarbons into the seal. The continuity of flux condition

defines the flux at the boundary to be uo(S*) = uJ2. The

downstream of the boundary in the seal. The difference

between the injected flux and the leaking flux, ( uoJ - uoJ 2 ) ,

continues to accumulate in the reservoir. This is the reflected

shock wave shown by the chord J1-T1 in Fig. 5. The

hydrocarbon saturation in this reflected wave is high (S1*) and

is identified as oil column in Fig. 6(a), which shows the

saturation profile at time t1. S1* in Fig. 5 is shown to be

artificially low to illustrate the construction of the MOC

solution.

The line representing the shock in Fig. 6(a) is curved

between t and tL because of the interaction between the

reflected waves and the upward moving waves from the lower

boundary. The length of the hydrocarbon column continues to

increase after t L even though a part of the flux is leaking into

the seal. The saturation upstream and downstream of the

different fronts are shown in Figs. 6. Figures 6 also shows that

dynamic reservoirs can trap hydrocarbon columns greater than

hstatic (Eq. 12).

The time-distance diagram of Fig. 6(b) can be used to

define the saturation distribution in the reservoir at any time.

These saturations can then be used in conjunction with the PcSo relationship to get the solution in terms of pressures. Figure

6(a) is the saturation profile based on the MOC solution at

time t1 and shows that the reservoir can be divided into two

zones: an oil zone formed because of the reflected shock with

constant saturation S1* and a water zone below the shock with

constant saturation SJ1. These shocks are moving at specific

velocities and are thus changing the constant saturation

regions.

The method of characteristics solution described above

includes the effect of capillary pressure for the determination

of the saturations and velocities of the reflected shocks but

does not include the dissipation effects caused by the capillary

forces. According to Eq. (5) the effect of capillary forces is

proportional to Pc / x . Therefore, the inclusion of capillary

effects, the solution given by the method of characteristics and

shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), has to be modified in the regions

where Pc / x is not negligible. Pc / x is negligible in most

of the reservoir except at the reservoir-seal boundary

(where k / x = ) and at the shock front (where S o / x = ).

Capillary pressure will cause the sharp saturation jumps

(shocks) to disperse around their mean position. With the

dissipation regions included the saturation and pressure

profiles in the dynamic reservoirs can be divided into four

regions as shown in Fig. 7. The presence of these four regions

has also been confirmed by the results of a large number of

numerical simulations run at low influx rates(10 -4-10-9 m/s).14

The differentiating characteristics of each of these regions are

discussed below.

Region I.

The saturation in this region is constant at

SJ1 and is dictated by the saturation of the shock formed

because of the influx, uoJ, from the source rock. For practical

slightly higher than zero (considering migration to be a

drainage process). Therefore, in this region S w 1 , k rw 1,

k ro 0 with S o / x = 0 which gives

Po Pw

=

= w g

x

x

and

Pc

=0

x

Thus in this region both oil and water phase pressure gradient

will be equal to the static water gradient ( w g ).

Region III. This is the main hydrocarbon zone of the

reservoir. It is produced by the reflected shock with saturation

S1* shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The saturation in this region is

constant at S1* and S o x = 0 . Constant saturation implies

the capillary pressure to be constant in this region and

therefore, putting Pc x =0 in Eq. (13) and (14) we get for

the pressure behavior in this region:

Pw Po

=

=

x

x

k rw g

o g

k rw + k ro w

o

(18)

both oil and water pressure gradients will be equal and will in

general vary between o g and w g . The actual pressure

gradients in this region can be calculated by using So=S* in

Eq. (18). For good seals PdS is high which results in the water

saturation in this region to be close to the residual water

saturation (Swi). At these saturations k rw 0 and the water

production from the zone would be minimal. The pressure

profiles under these conditions reduce to

Po Pw

=

- o g

x

x

Therefore, in the oil zones of reservoirs with good seals, the

pressure gradient in both the oil and the water phase will be

equal to the oil static gradient. This is in contrast to the

pressure profiles for static reservoirs where both oil and water

pressures will follow their respective static gradients.

Now let us have look at a poor seal with low PdS

(comparatively higher permeability), which results in a lower

value of S* (say 50%). Figure 4 shows that at low influx

rates such a seal will result in a static reservoir with a small

hydrocarbon column equal to hstatic given by Eq. (12).

However, at higher influx rates the same reservoir will act as a

dynamic reservoir which for continuous influx from the source

rock will trap much more hydrocarbons than hstatic. However,

the saturation S* in the shock will be lower and the water

saturation in the hydrocarbon column will be much higher than

the residual water saturation. Under these conditions the water

relative permeabilities will be high and free water production

will be observed from this zone. Therefore, the production of

free water from wells drilled high on the structure much above

the transition zone can be attributed to the reservoir being

charged at high rates with a high permeability seal. This

SPE 56513

saturations zones should selectively be perforated and high

water saturation layers should be avoided, even if they lie on

the crest of the structure.

Region II.

This region is caused by capillary dispersion

of the reflected shock forming Region III with saturation S*.

As shown in Fig. 7(a) capillary pressure causes the shock to

spread around its mean position defined by the MOC. The

saturation in this region varies from S* to SJ1. This region

constitutes the transition zone in dynamic reservoirs. The

length of this zone is very small and can be neglected for

making initial hydrocarbon in place calculations.

Region IV. This is a very small region immediately

below the reservoir-seal boundary and capillary pressure term

is dominant here because of k /x = . When the initial shock

with saturation SJ1 reaches the boundary, it can not pass on

into the seal, as initially, the Pc in the reservoir is less than PdS.

The saturation at the top of the reservoir then starts to build up

and continues to build until it reaches S*, such that

Pc(S*)=PdS. The saturation at the top then becomes constant

and the hydrocarbons start to leak into the seal with a very low

saturation (SJ2 in Fig. 6) with a flux rate given by uo(S*)=(uoJ2).

The Pc x in this region can be calculated from Eq. (15)

with So=S*. The length of this region is also very small.

Experimental Evidence of Dynamic Pressure Profiles. The

pressure gradient behavior in the oil zone (region III Fig. 7)

seems to be counterintuitive but, as shown earlier, is a result of

the dynamic pressure drops. A literature search indicated that

pressure profiles similar to those shown in Fig. 7, have been

reported, although not identified as such, in the experimental

studies in the hydrology literature.15,16

Figure 8 shows the capillary pressure from Scott and

Coreys15 water drainage experiments. They introduced water

at the top of a soil column and let it drain because of gravity

through a column saturated with air initially. Air is the nonwetting phase and water the wetting phase.

Figure 8(a) shows the results for a homogeneous layer

while Fig. 8(b) shows the results for a two layer sand with the

low permeability layer at the bottom. Water moves down into

the sands leaving the low water saturation regions at the top.

Figures 8(a) and (b) show that in the low wetting phase

saturation regions capillary pressure becomes constant,

i.e., Pc x =0. This is similar to the gradients in the oil zone

(region III Fig. 7) for the dynamic reservoir. Static pressure

profile would require capillary pressure to increase in

accordance with Pc x = w g (air 0) which is not what is

recorded during the experiments.

Dynamic pressure profiles have also been reported in the

results of several numerical simulation studies.17,18 Lujan17

showed such pressure profiles for the drainage of oil spills

through soil layers. Fetsy and Van Gold-Racht18 have also

reported similar profiles for gas gravity drainage in fractured

reservoirs.

SPE 56513

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

Dynamic Reservoirs. As shown in Fig. 3 the hydrocarbon

zone in a static reservoir can be divided into two regions: a

transition zone, where the hydrocarbon saturation varies from

0, at the OWC, to 1-Swi, at the end of the transition zone, and;

a region of irreducible water saturation. In comparison, the

hydrocarbon column in a dynamic reservoir can be combined

into just one zone (Region III in Fig. 7). The saturation in this

zone is constant at So=S*. The transition zone because of

capillary dispersion and the zone at the reservoir-seal

boundary are very small and can be neglected.

Figure 9 compares the fluid and pressure distribution for a

given oil reservoir in the case if it was acting as a dynamic

reservoir vs. a static reservoir. Figure 9(a) compares the

saturation profiles and 9(b) compares the capillary pressure

profiles. The reservoir is 100 m thick. Other rock and fluid

properties are as follows:

0.20

k

100 md

10 dynes/cm

ow

0.85 g/cm3

o

0.95 g/cm3

w

The capillary pressure dependence is given by the BrooksCoreys form of j function (Eq. (11)) with nPc=0.3 and an

irreducible water saturation of 0.20. The capillary pressure

versus saturation for this reservoir is plotted in Fig.1 and is

used to convert the capillary pressures into saturations. As

shown in Fig. 9(b) the capillary pressure in the static reservoir

increases linearly above the FWL with a slope of -g, in

accordance with Eq. (9). Pd for the reservoir is about 2.1 psi,

which gives the distance of the OWC from the FWL to be 14

m. In Fig. 1 the Pc curve becomes asymptotic at a pressure of

8-9 psi. This is the capillary pressure at the end of the

transition zone and gives a transition zone of about 42-49 m

above the OWC. Above the transition zone there is about 40 m

of oil column with So=1-Swi.

The saturation distribution for the case if the reservoirs

were dynamic is also shown in Fig. 9. In contrast to the static

reservoir, a dynamic reservoir will have just one continuous oil

zone and the oil saturation in it is defined by the threshold

pressure of the seal. Let us suppose that the threshold pressure

for the seal is 60 psi. At a Pc of 60 psi the oil saturation is

0.8 (1-Swi) from the Pc-So curve for the reservoir. This would

give a 86 m oil zone with a saturation of So=0.8 as compared

to 40 m if the reservoir were assumed to be static.

MDT Measurements. It is obvious from the discussion above

that the pressures and pressure gradients in the dynamic

reservoirs can be significantly different from those of the static

reservoirs. Let us see at the implications of these observations

on the interpretations of the pressure data collected by the

wireline formation testers, such as MDT. These tools measure

the in-situ pressures at different depths in a reservoir. These

of fluid and the fluid contacts in the reservoir.

In our usual interpretations of the MDT data we implicitly

assume that the permeable medium is occupied with single

phase only. The transition zone is assumed to be small and the

capillary pressures in it are also assumed to be small (assumed

to be in the range of the accuracy of the pressure gauge, which

is 2 psi for the MDT tool). Figure 2(a) and (b) (left axis) plot

the capillary pressures at the GWC vs. permeability for both

gas and oil reservoirs for a range of interfacial tensions. It is

obvious from Figs. 2(a) and (b) that the capillary pressures

may not be negligible even at the start of the transition zone.

The basic question with regard to the pressures measured

by the MDT probe is that, to which phase does this pressure

correspond to? The question is not important in the regions

where only one phase is mobile, the other phases being at their

residual saturations. It however becomes important in the

transition zone or regions where more than one fluid is mobile.

This is important because it is the pressure gradients and not

the absolute value of pressure that are used for determining the

type of fluid and the FWL. The pressure gradients are greatly

affected by which phase the probe is responding to.

One of the possibilities is that it measures the pressure in

the phase dominant at the point of measurement. It is not clear

how to define the dominant phase in the transition zone, one

possible definition would be the phase with higher relative

mobility at the point of measurement. The other possibility is

that the probe measures the pressure of the phase that wets it.

In this case, if the well is drilled using a water based mud than

the probe will record the pressures in the water phase all the

time. The effect of this discrepancy has not been discussed in

the literature which, as is shown below, will effect the

interpretation of the MDT data.

MDT Tools Response in a Static Reservoir

Figures

10(a) and (b) show a schematic of the possible responses of an

MDT tool in a static reservoir for the different possibilities

discussed above. Figure 10(a) gives the response for the case

when the probe is responding to the wetting phase pressure.

Pressures measured by the tool are indicated by *. Above the

transition zone water is assumed to be immobile and the

measured pressure will be that of the oil phase and in a static

reservoir the gradient through the recorded points will be equal

to the static oil gradient (Eq. (7)), line AB in Fig. 9(a).

However, in the transition zone and in the water zone below it,

the probe will record the pressure in the water phase, assuming

water to be the wetting phase. For a static reservoir, the water

phase pressure gradient in the transition zone, and in the 100%

water zone, would be equal to the static water gradient. In this

case the transition zone will be interpreted as water zone based

on the establishment of water gradient through it. If during the

survey no pressure points were recorded in the oil zone

(irreducible water saturation zone), the presence of

hydrocarbons will be missed by the usual interpretation of the

MDT data. In the case when pressures were measured in the

oil zone the extension of oil gradient will intersect the water

points falling on the water gradient line above the FWL would

cast doubts on the validity of a perfectly valid interpretation.

Figure 10(b) shows the response for the case when the

probe is responding to the pressure of the dominant phase. As

in the previous case, above the transition zone oil phase

pressures will be measured and the gradient established would

be equal to the static oil gradient. The probe will continue to

read in the oil phase up to some point into the transition zone

(point B in Fig. 10(b)) where water becomes the more mobile

phase. In a static reservoir the pressures measured until this

point will continue to follow the static oil gradient line. Below

this point in the transition zone and into the 100% water zone

the probe will record the pressure in the water phase. This

would result in a drop in pressure from point B to C (Fig.

10(b)). For a static reservoir the measured pressures will

establish a gradient equal to static water gradient. As in the

previous case the intersection of the oil and water gradient

lines would intersect at the correct FWL, however the

interpretation will be doubted because of points above the

FWL falling on the water gradient line. In the light of above

discussion for a static reservoir the oil and pressure gradient

lines should be extended to locate the FWL and the pressure

points on the water gradient line above FWL should be

interpreted as the transition zone.

MDT Tools Response in a Dynamic Reservoir. Figures

11(a) and (b) show a schematic of the possible MDT tools

responses for a dynamic reservoir. In a dynamic reservoir the

oil saturation in the hydrocarbon column is S* and the water

saturation is in general greater than Swi. Even for the case of a

good seal when Sw is close to Swi, the water phase exists as a

continuous phase and is mobile. Figure 11(a) gives the

response for the case when the probe is responding to the

wetting phase pressure. The probe will read the pressure in the

water phase both in the oil zone and in the water zone below it.

Pressures measured by the tool are indicated by *. The

pressure gradient through the measured points will however

not be constant, as shown in Fig. 11. As discussed earlier, for a

dynamic reservoir the pressure gradient in the oil zone will be

different from the gradient in the water zone. The pressure

gradient in the oil zone will, in general, be between the static

water gradient and the static oil gradient (Region III, Fig. 7). If

the reservoir has a good seal overlying it, the pressure gradient

in this zone will be equal to the static oil gradient, even though

the pressures measured are in the water phase. This may

mistakenly be interpreted as the pressures in the hydrocarbon

phase. In the transition zone (which is very small) and in the

water zone below it, the measured points will follow the static

water gradient. The intersection of the two gradient lines will

establish the end of the shock zone or the start of the transition

zone for a dynamic reservoir. Since for a dynamic reservoir the

transition zone is very small, the end of the shock will be

termed as the OWC for a dynamic reservoir. In a dynamic

reservoir the oil saturation below the OWC is not at residual

SPE 56513

but is equal to SJ2, which is defined by the influx rate from the

source rock.

Figure 11(b) shows the response for the case when the

probe is responding to the pressure of the dominant phase. In

the oil zone and up to some point in the transition zone(point

B in Fig. 10(b)), the probe will record the pressure in the oil

phase. For a dynamic reservoir the gradient established will in

general vary between the static oil and water gradients. And if

the seal associated with the reservoir is good the gradient will

be closer to the static oil gradient. Below the point in the

transition zone where water becomes the dominant phase and

into the water zone the probe will record the pressure in the

water zone. This is represented by the jump in pressure from

point B to C in Fig 11(b). The gradient established through the

points below point C will be equal to the static water gradient.

From Fig. 11(b) we can see that the oil and water gradient

lines intersect at a point below the OWC, inside the water

zone. Thus, in this case, the true OWC can not be established

by using the MDT pressure data.

Conclusions

1. The pressure and saturation distribution in a dynamically

charged reservoir can be quite different from the usually

assumed static distribution.

2. Assuming static saturation profiles for dynamically

charged reservoirs will result in the underestimation of the

initial hydrocarbon in place.

3. In dynamic reservoirs high water saturation layers well

above the transition zone will produce free water and

should not be perforated.

4. MDT pressure profile interpretations can be quite

different for dynamic and static pressure cases.

5. It may be possible to detect whether a particular reservoir

is dynamic or static if tools that respond to the pressures

in a particular phase are designed.

*

Nomenclature

* [=] means has units of, 'L' is a length unit, 'F' is force, 'm' is

mass and 't' is time.

g

h

j

k

krj

nPc

P

Pc

Pd

Sji

t

u

v

x

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Hydrocarbon column length [=] L

Leverett j-function

2

Absolute permeability [=] L

Relative permeability to phase j

Capillary pressure exponent

2

Pressure [=] F/L

2

Capillary pressure [=] F/L

2

Displacement pressure [=] F/L

Irreducible saturation of phase j

Time [=] t

3

Volumetric flux [=] L /t

Specific wave velocities

Distance, positive in the upward direction[=] L

Inclination angle of the medium from the horizontal

SPE 56513

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

Difference operator

Porosity

3

Mobility [=] L t/m

Viscosity [=] m/L-t

contact angle

3

Density [=] m/L

2

Interfacial tension [=] m/t

Subscripts

I

= Initial

J

= Injected

o

= Oil

R

= Reservoir

r

= Residual or relative

S

= Seal

t

= Total

w

= Water

Superscripts

+

= Downstream

= Upstream

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Elsevier, Amsterdam

Berg, B. B.; 1975, Capillary Pressure in Stratigraphic Traps:

AAPG Bull., v. 59, no. 6, p. 939

Morrow, N. M. and Melrose, J.C., 1990, Applications of

Capillary Pressure Data to the determination of Connate Water

Saturation: in N. R. Morrow (Ed.), Interfacial Phenomenon in

Oil Recovery: Marcel Dekker

Siddiqui, F. I. and Lake, L. W.: A Comprehensive Dynamic

Theory of Hydrocarbon Migration and Trapping, paper SPE

38682 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-8.

Tissot, B. P. and Welte, D. H., 1984, Petroleum Formation and

Occurrence: Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Roberts, W. H. III and Cordell, R. T., 1987, Problems of

Petroleum Migration: Introduction: in W. H. Roberts, III and R.

J. Cordell, (Eds.), Problems of Petroleum Migration, American

Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, No.

10: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,

Oklahoma, p. 1

Schowalter, T. T., 1979, Mechanics of Secondary Hydrocarbon

Migration and Entrapment, AAPG Bull., v. 63, no. 5, p. 723

Lake, L. W.,1989, Enhanced Oil Recovery: Prentice-Hall Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Buckley, S. E., and Leverett, M. C., 1942, Mechanisms of Fluid

Displacement in Sands: Trans. AIME, v. 146, p. 107-116

Amyx, J. W., Bass, D. M. and Whiting, R. L., 1960, Petroleum

Reservoir Engineering: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New

York

Leverett, M. C.,1941, Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids:

Trans. AIME, v. 142, p. 152

Corey, A. T., 1986, Mechanics of Immiscible Fluids in Porous

Media: Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO

Rhee, Hyun-Ku, Aris, R. and Amundson, N. R., 1986, First

Order Partial Differential Equations, Vol. I: Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.

Migration and Trapping, Ph. D. Dissertation: The University of

Texas, Austin

15. Scott, V. H., and Corey, A. T., 1961, Pressure Distribution

During Steady Flow in Unsaturated Sands: Soil Science Society

of America, Proceedings, v. 20, p. 270-274

16. Arbhabhirama, A., Kridakorn, C., 1968, Steady Downward

Flow to a Water Table: Water Resources Research, vol. 4, no. 6,

p. 1249

17. Lujan, C. A., 1985, Three Phase Flow Analysis of Oil Spills in

Partially Water Saturated Soils: Ph. D. Dissertation, Colo., State

Univ., Fort Collins

18. Fetsy, S. and Van Golf-Racht, T. D., 1989, Gas Gravity

Drainage in Fractured Reservoirs Through New DualContinuum Approach: SPE Res. Eng., v. 4, no. 3, p. 271-278

10

SPE 56513

50

60

25

30 dyne/cm

45 dyne/cm

20

40

60 dyne/cm

P at GWC (psi)

40

P (psi)

15

30

20

10

30

20

10

10

wi

50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

0

1000

100

k(md)

Oil Saturation, S

system with ow =10 dyne/cm, k=100md, porosity=0.2, npc =0.3.

50

Figure 2(b). Pc at GWC and GWCs above the FWL for different

permeability reservoirs for, for different values of gw, w = 0.95

g/cc and g = 0.11 g/cc.

350

PcPds

30

250

200

150

20

P at OWC (psi)

40

100

Zone

10

50

0

1

10

100

0

1000

k(md)

Figure 2(a). Pc at OWC and OWCs height above the FWL for

different permeability reservoirs, for different values of ow, w =

0.95 g/cc and o = 0.85 g/cc.

Seal

300

5 dyne/cm

10 dyne/cm

15 dyne/cm

20 dyne/cm

Pw

Po

Pc= gh

Transition

Zone

Transition

Zone

OWC

OWC

FWL

FWL

Pd

P

do= d

g

Swi

So

Water

Zone

Pressure

static reservoir.

SPE 56513

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

11

(a)

Oil Flux, uo

Oil Flux, u o

Reservoir

Dynamic Seal

uoJ

J1

uo- = uo+

J2

uoJ

I

0.0

SJ2 SJ1

T1

0.2

SA

0

(b)

0.4

SA

0.6

S1*

0.8

1.0

characteristics solution technique. 14

Seal 1

(Dynamic)

Capillary Pressure, P c

Seal 2

(Static)

Reservoir

t= t 1

Seal

PdS1

So=0

PdS2

So=SJ2

x1

hstatic

PdR

O il C o lu m n

Reservoir

OWC

0.0

0.2

S*

0.4 2

SA

0.6

S1*

0.8

1.0

Figure 4. Classification of reservoirs as static or dynamic based

on the influx from the source rock, uo-So curve for the reservoir

and the Pc-So behavior of the reservoir and the seal.

So=SJ1

0

0

S*1 1

S J2 S J 1

Oil Saturation, So

(a)

t/ tL

t1

Time, t

(b)

dynamic reservoir on: (a) saturation profile, (b) on time-distance

diagram.

12

t=t 1

SPE 56513

100

Po

Pw

D yna m ic

E ffect

x1

R egion III

R egion II

OWC

0

0S

R e se rvo ir

R egion I

Pd

S *o 1

J2 S J1

O il S atu ration, S o

(a )

Pressure

(b)

reservoir on the basis dynamic pressure profiles.

Static

wi

Irreducible Water

Saturation Zone

80

R egion IV

O il C o lum n

1-S

S*

S e al

P ds

60

Dynamic

Reservoir

40

Transition Zone

Static Reservoir

20

d

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

Oil Saturation, S

0.8

dynamic reservoir.

100

P

dS

Irreducible Water

Saturation Zone

80

60

40

Transition Zone

Static Reservoir

20

d

Dynamic Reservoir

0

(a)

(b)

elevation for downward flow (a) through a uniform sand (b)

through a sand into another sand of lower permeability, from

Scott and Correy.15

10

20

30

40

50

Capillary Pressure, P (psi)

60

70

and dynamic reservoir.

SPE 56513

DEFINING FLUID DISTRIBUTIONS AND FLUID CONTACTS FOR DYNAMICALLY CHARGED RESERVOIRS

13

*

*

*

Pw

Sw=Sirr

*

Pw *

*

Po

Transition

Zone

Region IV

Region II

WOC

*

*

FWL

Region III

WOC

Po

Region I

*

*

*

Pressure

Pressure

(a)

(a)

A

*

*

* Po

*

*B

Pw

C*

Pw

Transition

Zone

Apparent WOC

WOC

FWL

C*

Region IV

*

*

Po

*

*

*

*B

*

Sw=Swirr

Region III

Region II

Region I

*

*

*

Pressure

Pressure

(b)

(b)

Figure 10. Possible MDT tools response for a static reservoir (a)

probe recording wetting phase pressure (b) probe recording

dominant phase pressure

(a) probe recording wetting phase pressure (b) probe recording

dominant phase pressure.

- ENI - Completion Design ManualTransféré parJuan Pablo Estikle
- ENI_-_Completion_Design_Manual.pdfTransféré parJuan Pablo Estikle
- formation_damage_processes_reducing_prod.pdfTransféré parLauren Alvarez
- ENI - Completion Design Manual.pdfTransféré parRhuddy Rodrigo Galvez Terrazas
- IMPACT OF DISPLACEMENT RATE ON RELATIVE PERMEABIILTY AND RESIDUAL SATURATION IN GAS-ASSISTED GRAVITY DRAINAGE PROCESSTransféré parari_si
- Prob_12b1_P324_06A_Course_Work_(Prob_SPE_09975_Lee).pdfTransféré parvitaxn
- hengTransféré parapi-423013451
- Practical Well Test InterpretationTransféré parDavid Garcia Navarro
- [002512]Transféré pardanonnino
- spe76752 Establishing Gas Phase Well Performance for Gas Condensate Wells Producing.pdfTransféré parMohamed Saeed
- IPR...MS_044_NASS,Maria_Thesis_TAMU_(May_2010).pdfTransféré parjardelbruno
- JPSE Singh Fevang Whitson DepletionTransféré parAnand Selveindran
- SPE-139165-MS-PTransféré parSergio Andrés Rodríguez
- SPE-1518-G.pdfTransféré parAhmad Faizil
- CO2 Injection in an Oil Reservoir With Gas CapTransféré parNur Syaffiqa Mohamad Ruzlan
- Reservoir Engineering Properties of Blck OilsTransféré parginozky
- 2.1 Geology of PetroleumTransféré parPotten Nick
- Well Performance Equations - R A Wattenbarger.pdfTransféré parAlexis L Huitron
- Class-45_16-03-2017Transféré parMuhammad Fawwad Obaida
- Radiant Exposure Fractal Dimension for Characterizing Shajara Reservoirs of the Permo-carboniferous Shajara FormationTransféré parProfessor Khalid Elyas Mohamed Elameen Alkhidir
- Well Performance EquationsTransféré parFranklyn Frank
- Well Test Tools_pptTransféré parkartikey
- 160285652-ENPE-523-Practice-Midterm.pdfTransféré parEl Molodi
- ResEngModSol.pdfTransféré parweldsv
- 20121205163502065462Transféré parLuiz Cabello
- Class Exercises Chap7(1)Transféré parsprites
- ReservoirTransféré parMiko Paulo Tiotangco
- Pvt ExpressTransféré parAnderson Matos
- Articulo 2Transféré parJulio Duarte
- Back Presure Valve in PCP or SRPTransféré parShubham Gupta

- Formato Plan de NegocioTransféré parChristian Pari
- GelatinaTransféré parEilen Nava
- Plantilla+CajaTransféré parMiriam Burgos Gomez
- Caracterizacion Petrofisica Con Redes NeuronalesTransféré parEilen Nava
- manual shTransféré parSergio Andres Barreiro
- como pintar mariposas en uñas.docxTransféré parEilen Nava
- Ley Regl Ley EjercicioTransféré parKeila Alejandra M
- 41-177Transféré parJhon Mora
- 41-177Transféré parJhon Mora
- Definición de distribución de fluidosTransféré parEilen Nava
- EL JARDÍN NATURALTransféré parestherpolaca
- Fundamentos de Ingenieria de Yacimientos-Fredy EscobarTransféré parwilsonandreszabala
- UntitledTransféré parEilen Nava
- Proceso EducativoTransféré parEilen Nava
- gas liftTransféré parEilen Nava
- Summer Shorts Pattern Plan bTransféré parCamila V Valdebenito
- ELANILLO [Compatibility Mode]Transféré parmissjuliet
- Libro de Simulacion de YacimientosTransféré parpilargomezm2810
- ProgramaTransféré parEilen Nava

- Introduction to LeanPPD.pdfTransféré parFábio Baixia
- Full Manuscript to TJCN- Apccn BANGKOK THAILAND 2011 Ginseng Jawa- Dwi Cahyani Et Al, Fac of Medicine, UGM, Yogya, IndonesiaTransféré parFerdian Iwank Iriyanto
- Tajweed of QuranTransféré parbbatif
- Chapter 13 Theories Strengths and WeaknessesTransféré parkatkid19
- Charter Preference SheetTransféré pargabriellacta
- Electric Energy Scenario in MalaysiaTransféré parAhmed Mohammed
- 고려특수금속(PSV-FLANGED TYPE)[1].pdfTransféré parStanley Peter
- Iso-safety Design of Flat Slabs in Accordance With Eurocode 2Transféré parscegts
- Adams Tutorial Kit for Mechanical Engineering CoursesTransféré parSajjad4434
- ~ HP z400 Workstation - DataSheet (2011.06-Jun)Transféré parJSSmith
- CRT3555_DEH-2800MPTransféré parmosucc
- Advert FAO SuppliersTransféré parSemwanga Godfrey
- SC8_3Transféré parCarol James
- Swamp Cooler Specifications and Parts List - Champion RWC35Transféré parjon_hardy
- MR1018.4.chap2Transféré parsouvik5000
- article1410445280_ObiekezieTransféré parokoro matthew
- tofuyoTransféré parDavindar Singh
- 3M DBI-SALA Flexiguard Catalog Rev ETransféré parMohamed Hassan
- INDIAN STANDARD.docxTransféré parAlvin Smith
- MÃ ĐỀ 020.pdfTransféré parThảo Nguyễn Cla
- Research on injection in ahmedabadTransféré parmunno1
- Reinforcing an aluminum/GFRP co-cured single lap joint using inter-adherend ﬁberTransféré parimudjdnk
- Just Cause 2 PC Instruction ManualTransféré parphroderick
- WheelHorse electric clutch conversion for post 1970 tractors 8-3513Transféré parKevins Small Engine and Tractor Service
- ghana-mining-guide 2014.pdfTransféré parVivek Pandey
- 1895663394h) Day3 Value Based QuestionsTransféré parAditya Bothra
- Atrial Fibrillation and ComorbiditiesTransféré parDalmo Moreira
- Rp Project Report SonalikaTransféré parਸਰਦਾਰ Supreet Singh
- 2010-Arbutin in Marjoram and OreganoTransféré parAna Calmîș
- Algebraic GroupsTransféré parHonghao Gao