reser

© All Rights Reserved

11 vues

reser

© All Rights Reserved

- Depletion Drive Calculations
- ResEngCh10.pdf
- Saturation Notes (Petroleum Engineering)
- SPE-943057-G-P
- Pvt Experiments
- 00028641
- Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands
- anuar...
- Oil&Gas Journal _optimizing Value
- Standard Conditions
- 0002Optimal Oilfield Development of Fields With a Small Gas Cap and Strong Aquifer5353
- 8 Properties of Hydrocarbon
- Sellos y Trampas
- Character
- EGR
- SIMULACIÓN EOR GYC.pdf
- ART -Reinjection Into Geothermal Reservoirs
- Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis
- Quality control in reservoir Sampling
- zqa25

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

D.M. anderson, L. Mattar

Fekete Associates, Inc.

Abstract conventional formulations are only valid for slightly compress-

The use of semi-analytic methods for correcting flow equa- ible fluids with constant properties over a given pressure range.

tions to accommodate changing gas properties with pressure has These models enjoy widespread usage for both history matching

become increasingly common. It is a mainstay of modern pro- and forecasting, and their inclusion of pseudo-time for gas reser-

duction decline analysis, as well as gas deliverability forecasting. voirs is vital.

The use of pseudo-time is one method which enables a time- To illustrate the value of pseudo-time, let us take the simple

based correction of gas properties, honouring the gas material case of a vertical well in the centre of a circular gas reservoir. We

balance within the time-based flow equation. By using pseudo- will assume constant rate production and pseudo-steady-state con-

time, the analytical well/reservoir models, derived for the liquid ditions. Thus, the model that describes the pressure response at

case (slightly compressible fluid), can be modified for gas by re- the well can be reduced to the pseudo-steady-state equation for

evaluating the gas properties as the reservoir pressure depletes. gas(5 3).

These gas correction procedures are well documented in the lit-

2qpi

erature. Also well documented is the iterative nature of the gas p p

pi pwf

=

(cg Z )i Gi

()

f t

properties correction methods, as original gas-in-place is a re-

quired input into the equations. 1.295 Tq re 3

The pseudo-time correction is based on the average reser- +

kh

ln SI units

rwa 4

( )

voir pressure and works very well for boundary dominated flow. ........................................................... (2)

However, when transient flow prevails, the pseudo-time concept The f(t) in Equation (2) is the chosen time function. Figure 1

is not valid and its use can create anomalous responses. This will shows the pressure response plotted against time for two cases:

occur in low permeability systems or in reservoirs with irregular

f(t) = time (t) and f(t) = pseudo-time (ta). Also compared is the

shapes, especially where some of the boundaries are very distant

numerical solution using the same input parameters. Upon com-

from the well.

parison of the solutions, it is clear that pseudo-time has a signifi-

The semi-analytic gas correction has a representative pres-

cant impact on the flow equation for gas. We also note that the

sure at its root, which, in the existing models, is always the

pseudo-time solution appears to be identical to the numerical so-

average reservoir pressure. We propose a straightforward modifi-

lution. Thus, without using pseudo-time, the pseudo-steady-state

cation to the determination of this pressure as follows. The repre-

equation would be incorrect for gas reservoirs.

sentative pressure ought to be based on a radius of investigation

or region of influence (in the case of non-radial systems), rather

than the average reservoir pressure. In the case of a depleting The Trouble With Transient Flow

system, the representative pressure would be the same as the av- In the conventional definition of pseudo-time, the com-

erage reservoir pressure. The following paper outlines the pro- pressibility and viscosity terms in Equation (1) are evaluated at

posed procedure and illustrates its advantages over the existing

method by using synthetic and field data examples.

Flowing Sandface Pressure (psia)

3,000

2,500

Introduction

2,000

Background Pseudo-time

Numerical

Literature on the derivation and usage of pseudo-time is 1,500

prevalent(2 1, 3 2). The definition that will be used in this paper is Time

1,000

shown below:

500

dt

( ) 0 ct

t

ta = ct

i 0

..................................................................................... (1) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time (days)

The above is used in the pseudo-steady-state equation for gas,

FIGURE 1: Pressure responses using time and pseudo-time.

which is at the core of most modern production decline analysis

Peer Reviewed Paper (Review and Publication Process can be found on our Web site)

Pwf vs. time- "Three Boundary" Reservoir

3,500

region of influence)

2,500

pwf (psia)

2,000

1,500

Semi-Infinite

1,000

Initial pressure

500

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (h)

Well flowing

FIGURE 3: Flowing pressure responsebounded and semi-infinite

pressure reservoirs (using conventional) pseudo-time.

FIGURE 2: Illustration of high localized drawdown due to

boundariessame well rates, same flow duration. It is worth noting that there is a secondary source of error in

the pseudo-time procedure that has nothing to do with transient

average reservoir pressure conditions. Clearly, the average res- or boundary dominated flow. Rather, the error results from the as-

ervoir pressure is a function only of total pore volume and cu- sumption that bulk properties evaluated at a single average pres-

mulative produced fluids. If the well of interest is producing the sure can adequately represent the range of fluid properties observed

reservoir under boundary dominated conditions (depletion mode), throughout the reservoir. This error, usually negligible, can be sig-

the average reservoir pressure is a very reasonable datum at which nificant if there are large pressure gradients. Such would be the

to establish bulk fluid properties. However, if the well production case when the well produces at very high drawdown from a very

is still transient and no reservoir boundaries have been observed, low permeability reservoir. The error would be present during both

average reservoir pressure based on total reservoir volume may be

transient and boundary dominated flow. The solution suggested

a poor datum to use. Consequently, pseudo-time can cause anoma-

lous model responses under certain conditions. below does not address this error.

To illustrate the above, consider two gas reservoirs of very dif-

ferent size but having identical properties (permeability, skin, etc).

If we allow reservoir fluids to flow from identical vertical wells in Solution Method

both reservoirs, we would expect identical pressure responses in

both cases, until the boundaries of the smallest reservoir have been The proposed solution involves altering the definition of con-

observed. Yet, when we use the analytical models with pseudo- ventional pseudo-time such that the gas properties are evaluated

time, we observe a slightly greater pressure drop in the larger res- at the average pressure of the region of influence, rather than the

ervoir. This discrepancy is clearly not based on physical reality, average pressure of the total pore volume. Evaluating this pressure

but rather, is caused by pseudo-time. The error is usually negli- mathematically would involve first defining the region of influ-

gible. However, in cases where the pressure drawdown is severe, ence, and then integrating the pressure response over the domain

not only at the sandface, but over a significant areal extent in the and dividing by the area of the region (assuming no pressure varia-

vicinity of the well, the error can be significant. tion in the vertical direction):

One such case is that of a long and narrow reservoir with the

well located near one bounded end. Figure 2 illustrates the signifi-

cant localized pressure drawdown that occurs in this type of con- pdA

figuration. p = A

A .............................................................................................. (3)

To illustrate the pseudo-time issue, let us plot the pressure re-

sponse at the well for two scenarios:

1. Bounded Narrow Rectangular System where p~ is the average pressure inside the region of influence.

2. Semi-Infinite Narrow Rectangular System For practical purposes, a much more convenient way to eval-

uate the pressure is to use a material balance approach within the

Both reservoirs are the same width. The bounded system has its

end boundaries located beyond what we will call the region of in- region of influence:

fluence. The region of influence is defined as the region outside of

which there is no measurable pressure disturbance. Therefore, we p p G p

= 1

would expect the pressure responses for Cases 1 and 2 to be iden- Z Z Gir

tical. In fact, we can see from Figure 3 that they are quite different. ....................................................................................... (4)

The pressure response for Scenario 2 falls significantly below that

of Scenario 1. This is contrary to physics. where

The pressure responses ought to be identical, but because of

pseudo-time, there is an artificially induced difference between

them. The error arises because the pseudo-time for the semi-in- Gir =

(

Ar h 1 sw )

finite reservoir (Case 2) is based on an average reservoir pressure Bg

................................................................................... (5)

that remains constant at initial conditions through time (infinite

reservoirs do not deplete), while the finite case has a falling av-

erage reservoir pressure. Which one is correct? The answer is that and Ar is the area of the region of influence.

they are both wrong. However, since Scenario 1 allows for some Once in boundary dominated flow, the average reservoir pres-

reduction in the pressure at which the bulk properties are evalu- sure is established using precisely this method, but with the area in

ated, its pressure response will be closer to the correct answer. Equation (3) being defined as the total reservoir area.

50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

acting circle. Thus, the solution for Ar changes with time and is dif-

Establishing the Region of Influence ferent for different well/reservoir geometries.

Determining the region of influence is not a trivial matter. There To simplify the geometry of the solution significantly, we can

are (at least) two reasonable methods for establishing an affected approximate the region of influence as a rectangle (rather than a

reservoir area. One would be to calculate the pressure distribution circle with subtracted segments) with negligible impact on the re-

through the entire reservoir area and delineate the region, outside sult. The solution for area is divided into four different geometries,

of which there is less than some minimum percentage of pressure any combination of which may be part of a prescribed Ar (t) func-

drop (say 1%). This procedure, although analytically sound, would tion for a given pseudo-time calculation (Figure 4).

be very costly computationally, as a large array of solved pressures For example, well/reservoir geometry such as that shown

would be required at every time-step in the computation of pseudo- in Figure 4(C) would have a region of investigation whose area

time. In addition, some established analytical solutions for pres- would follow the formulas, in succession, for the single boundary,

sure at the wellbore (such as that of a bounded reservoir containing perpendicular boundaries and three boundaries solutions.

an infinite conductivity fracture) do not include the pressure solu- From Figure 4, it appears that the description of time-depen-

tion for all points inside the reservoir domain. dent areas of influence is somewhat cumbersome, as it requires

A more practical method for establishing a region of influence adjustments on the fly that depend on the particular geometry of

is to use the well established concept of the radius of investigation. the model. Since the pseudo-time correction is negligible in all but

The radius of investigation is defined as follows(1, 4). the most severe well/reservoir geometries, we may further approx-

imate the area of the region of influence by identifying the domi-

nant geometry factor (single boundary, perpendicular boundaries,

kt

rinv =

69.4c

(

SI units ) three boundaries or parallel boundaries) and applying the appro-

...................................................................... (6) priate area formula.

For instance, if d1, d2 and d3 are all of similar magnitude in the

The radius of investigation is an accepted measure of the speed three boundaries case, we may apply that area formula from time

of propagation of the pressure transient through diffusive media, zero until the radius of investigation reaches the far-field boundary.

and is a function only of permeability, porosity, fluid properties Likewise, if d1 and d2 are much closer than d3, and d3 and the far-

and time. Thus, the radius of investigation propagates through field boundary are on the same order of magnitude, then we may

any unbounded diffusive media at precisely the same velocity, re- apply the area formula for the perpendicular boundaries case from

gardless of reservoir geometry or changes in pressure drawdown. time zero.

Appendix A presents two synthetic model responses, clearly dem-

onstrating that this is true for an arbitrary reservoir shape and well Average Pressure in the Area of Influence and Corrected

location. Pseudo-Time

It is important to note that the radius of investigation does not The solution for the area developed above is used in conjunction

account for the magnitude of pressure depletion over time, only the with Equations (4) and (5) describing, respectively, average pres-

propagation of the leading edge of the region of influence. sure (p/z) within the region of influence and gas-in-place within the

Given the above, delineation of the region of influence in an iso- region of influence. The corrected pseudo-time is calculated using

tropic reservoir, containing a single vertical well, involves evalu- the following equation:

ating the intersection of the outward progressing circle prescribed

by the radius of investigation with the reservoir area itself:

( )

t

dt

ta = ct

0 ct

i

......................................................................................... (8)

Ar = rinv 2 A

........................................................................................ (7)

In Figure 5, the pseudo-time corrected solution for the semi-in-

where A is the area of the reservoir (defined by the model). finite reservoir case presented previously is compared against the

The formula given in Equation (7) applies to any arbitrary res- numerical solution, showing reasonably good agreement (the re-

ervoir shape and well location, but is restricted to vertical well ge- maining error cannot be reduced within the confines of the pseudo-

ometry and isotropic and homogeneous reservoirs. time approximation). Note, since the three boundaries case causes

More advanced well/reservoir geometries, such as fractured the most severe localized pressure drawdown of any rectangular

wells, anisotropic media, heterogeneities and/or layers, would

follow much the same procedure. However, the definition of the A. Single boundary B. Perpendicular boundaries

velocity of transient propagation would have to be defined sepa-

Ar 2rinv 2 rinvd 1 Ar rinv 2 rinvd 1 rinvd 2

rately for all directions and possibly as a function of space. The

additional solution complexity and computational expense would rinv

d1

plicitly evaluates fluid properties at each grid block). In order for

analytical models to remain favourable, they must be convenient

and efficient to solve. C. Three boundaries D. Parallel boundaries

Ar d 1 d 3 (d 2 rinv) Ar d 1 d 3 ( 2rinv )

Case Studies d2

d3

rinv

d3

rinv

Rectangular Reservoir

The corrected pseudo-time solution for a vertical well arbitrarily E. Three boundaries with hydraulic fracture

constructed as follows.

d3

d2 xf

Area of the Region of Influence d1 rinv

unbounded system. As the region of investigation expands beyond

FIGURE 4: Region of influence areas for common geometries.

system boundaries, area elements are subtracted from the infinite

July 2007, Volume 46, No. 7 51

Pwf vs time- semi-infinite "three boundary" reservoir 7,000

3,500 k = 0.13 md

6,000 xf = 350 ft

3,000 ye = 1,100 ft

5,000

pwf (psia)

2,500 xe

4,000

pwf (psia)

2,000

Numerical 3,000

1,500 Corrected pseudo-time

2,000 xe = 2,400 ft

xe = 5,000 ft

1,000 xe = 10,000 ft

1,000 OGIP = 4.3 bcf

measured data

500

Uncorrected pseudo-time 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (days)

Time (h)

FIGURE 5: Pseudo-time corrected solution for three boundary case FIGURE 7: Comparison of pressure solutions uncorrected pseudo-

compared with numerical simulation. time.

8,000

k = 0.13 md

7,000 xf = 350 ft

ye = 1,100 ft

6,000

pwf (psia)

5,000 xe

4,000

3,000

xe = 10,000 ft

xe = 5,000 ft

2,000 xe = 2,400 ft

measured data

1,000

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Time (days)

FIGURE 6: Production response analyzed using Agarwal and time.

Gardener Type Curve.

boundaries case is relevant. For the three boundaries system, the

geometry investigated, the approximations are expected to hold modified area formula and geometry is shown in Figure 4(E).

up as well (or better) for any general rectangular reservoir/vertical Upon correcting the pressure response using the new definition

well geometry. of pseudo-time, the previous model match is no longer valid indi-

cating too large an OGIP (see Figure 8). As the far-field boundary

Field Example 2: Fractured Well in a is reduced, the pressure response (properly) remains unchanged

Rectangular Reservoir until its location coincides with the radius of investigation. At that

point, the synthetic pressures decrease.

In this field study, an analytical reservoir model has been used to This case illustrates the value of the corrected pseudo-time func-

simulate the measured pressure response from a hydraulically frac- tion when history matching using analytical models with extreme

tured well. The production response, analyzed using the Agarwal well/boundary geometry. The conventional definition of pseudo-

and Gardener type curves(1, 2), suggests a bounded system with time in this case, generated history matches that did not properly

OGIP of about 28.3 106m3 (1 bcf) (see Figure 6). The objective of illustrate the boundary-dominated response observed from the type

the modelling exercise is to verify the interpreted gas-in-place, and curve analysis. In addition, the directionality of the results did not

improve upon the type curve model by fine-tuning. make sense. Only with the corrected pseudo-time, was the proper

A satisfactory history match is obtained using a narrow, rectan- synthetic pressure response created.

gular reservoir with the well located near a corner (see Figure 7). To complete the exercise, the history match is now refined, using

The simulated OGIP is more than four times higher than that in- the corrected pseudo-time model. The results indicate an OGIP of

terpreted using the type curve analysis. As the far-field boundary about 28.3 106m3 (1 bcf) (see Figure 9).

is moved closer to the well (and thus, OGIP is reduced), the simu-

lated flowing pressures increase! Common sense tells us that the

pressure response ought to decrease upon reduction in total reser-

voir volume in a bounded, depleting system. The anomalous syn- Conclusions

thesized pressure from the model is a result of the pseudo-time

error discussed previously. Figure 7 compares the results from 1. Without pseudo-time (or similar gas property correction rou-

three different boundary locations in the model. It also displays the tines), the analysis and modelling of gas reservoirs would

measured data, illustrating the original history match. Because of not be possible when using analytical solutions designed for

the pseudo-time error, the model does not properly (or uniquely) slightly compressible fluids.

indicate the OGIP or the bounded nature of the reservoir. 2. The conventional definition of pseudo-time is satisfactory

under conditions of boundary dominated flow.

3. During transient/transitional flow, the standard definition

Corrected Pseudo-Time Model of pseudo-time may cause incorrect and misleading results

when there are localized regions of high pressure drawdown.

The area formulas discussed in the previous section can be ex- These localized regions are caused primarily by severe well/

tended to hydraulically fractured wells. In this example, the three reservoir geometry (such as a narrow reservoir with the well

52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Z = gas compressibility factor

~

7,000

k = 0.12 md

Z = average gas compressibility factor within the region of

6,000

OGIP = 1 bcf influence

ye = 1,030 ft ~

xf = 350 ft = viscosity at the average reservoir pressure within the

5,000 region of influence, mPas

xe = 2,280 ft

pwf (psia)

4,000 mPas

= viscosity, mPas

3,000

= porosity, %

2,000

1,000 Subscripts

0 i = initial

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

r = within the region of influence

Time (days)

References

FIGURE 9: History match using corrected pressures. 1. Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, S.W. and

Fussell, D.D., Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined-

located near a corner). Additional errors may result from Type-Curve and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts; SPE Reservoir

large pressure gradients in very low permeability systems. Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 478-486, October

1999.

4. A new, corrected pseudo-time function is presented that eval-

2. Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger R.A., Gas Reservoir Decline-

uates gas properties at the average pressure of the region of

Curve Analysis Using Type Curves with Real Gas Pseudopressure

influence during transient or transitional flow, rather than and Normalized Time; SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.

the average reservoir pressure (based on external no-flow 671-682, December 1987.

boundaries). A general formula [Equation (7)] is given that 3. Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J., Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits

describes the region of influence for an arbitrarily located Testing; paper SPE 15028 presented at the Permian Basin Oil and

well in a reservoir with an arbitrary shape. Specific solutions Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, 13-15 March 1986.

are also derived for some simple (common) well/reservoir 4. ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD, Theory and

geometries. Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells; Third Edition, ERCB-75-34, En-

5. The new pseudo-time definition solves the problems asso- ergy and Resource Conservation Board, Calgary, AB, 1975.

ciated with transient flow with severe geometry and yields

results that are more consistent with those from a numerical

simulator. Its primary limitation is the complexity involved in Appendix A

calculating the area of the region of influence (which changes

with time). However, with suitable approximations, this can The purpose of the following is to illustrate that the propagation

be simplified greatly. of the radius of investigation along any unobstructed direction is

6. The pseudo-time modifications could be easily incorpo- not affected by the influence of boundaries in other directions.

rated into any software by simply changing the pressure at The radius of investigation is defined as:

which gas properties are evaluated. The new pressure would

be based on the region of influence, rather than the average kt

reservoir pressure. Note that the region of influence pres- rinv =

69.4c

(

SI units )

sure and average reservoir pressure become identical during .................................................................. (A-1)

boundary dominated flow.

As shown, the radius of investigation is a function of the perme-

Nomenclature ability, time, porosity and the fluid properties.

Let us consider two reservoirs with identical properties but of

A = area of the reservoir, m2

different size and shape. Reservoir A is square shaped with the well

Bg = formation volume factor of gas, m3/m3 in the centre, while Reservoir B is long and narrow. Reservoir B

cg = gas compressibility, kPa-1 has a much smaller total volume than Reservoir A. However, the

ct = total compressibility, kPa -1 distance from the well to the x boundary is the same in both res-

c~ t = compressibility evaluated at the average reservoir pressure ervoirs. A schematic is shown in Figure 10. For simplicity we will

within the region of influence, kPa -1 assume that both reservoirs produce single-phase oil.

d = distance to boundary, m

G = gas in place, 106m3 Diagnostic plots for two reservoir models:

cumulative gas produced, 106m3

(Ppi-Ppwf)/q [psi/(bbl/d)], Derivative

10,000

h = net pay, m Reservoir A

k = permeability, mD 1,000

Reservoir B

YeA = 100,000 ft

q = production rate, 106m3/day

p = pressure, kPa 100 XeA = 10,000 ft

pp = pseudo pressure, kPa2/mPas Reservoir A

Reservoir B

ppwf = pseudo pressure at the sandface, kPa2/mPas 10 YeB = 100 ft

~

p = average pressure within the region of influence, kPa XeA = 10,000 ft Outer Boundary

re = exterior radius, m 1

(Xe) reached at

about 1,700 hours

for both

rinv = radius of investigation, m reservoirs.

sw = water saturation 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

ta = pseudo-time, days or hours

T = temperature, K FIGURE 10: Comparison of radius of investigation between square

elongated reservoir.

xf = fracture half length, m

July 2007, Volume 46, No. 7 53

Data for Reservoirs A and B are as follows:

k = 20 mD Authors Biographies

= 10%

David Anderson (P.Eng) is a technical ad-

= 1.4194 mPas

visor with Fekete Associates, Inc. He has

c = 1.47 e-6 kPa-1 (1.02e-5 psi-1)

eight years of experience in the petroleum

XeA = YeA = 3,050 m (10,000 ft)

industry, including production optimiza-

XeB = 3,050 m (10,000 ft)

tion, gas deliverability modelling and well

YeB = 30.5 m (100 ft)

test analysis. He is currently the Technical

The time to reach the outer boundary X of both reservoirs is

Leader for Feketes RTA (Rate Transient

calculated by applying Equation (A-1). A time of 1,715 hours is

Analysis) Group. He has taught numerous

calculated when the radius of investigation is 1,525 m (5,000 ft)

industry courses on advanced production

(distance to the boundary from a well positioned in the centre of

decline analysis and has co-authored sev-

each reservoir).

eral technical publications on both pressure

The diagnostic plots in Figure 10 illustrate that the propagation

and rate transient analysis.

of the radius of investigation is identical for A and B. This be-

comes clear when comparing the derivative plots for each case.

Louis Mattar is the President of Fekete As-

The influence of the final (Xe) boundary, and subsequent onset of

sociates, Inc. He was the principal author of

pseudo-steady-state (unit slope), begins at exactly the same time.

the world-renowned E.R.C.B. publication,

Furthermore, the time, as shown in Figure 10, is the same as that

Theory & Practice of the Testing of Gas

calculated using Equation (A-1). Thus, we confirm that the radius

Wells, 1975. He specializes in well testing

of investigation along a particular direction is unaffected by the in-

and teaches it all around the world. He has

fluence of boundaries in other directions.

authored 45 technical publications. He is a

distinguished member of the Petroleum So-

ciety. In 1995, he received the Petroleum

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, An Improved Society Distinguished Author Award and

Pseudo-Time for Gas Reservoirs With Significant Transient Flow the Outstanding Service Award. In 2003,

(2005-114), first presented at the 6th Canadian International Petroleum Louis was the SPE Distinguished Lecturer

Conference the 56th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), in well testing.

June 7-9, 2005, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review De-

cember 10, 2004; editorial comments sent to the author(s) September 28,

2006; revised manuscript received October 31, 2006; paper approved for

pre-press October 31, 2006; final approval June 18, 2007.

- Depletion Drive CalculationsTransféré parFlorian Ananias Byarugaba
- ResEngCh10.pdfTransféré parweldsv
- Saturation Notes (Petroleum Engineering)Transféré parrestoffical
- SPE-943057-G-PTransféré parBuddy Walker
- Pvt ExperimentsTransféré parndlr81
- 00028641Transféré parHamidreza Anjidani
- Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in SandsTransféré parSolenti D'nou
- anuar...Transféré parFareast Keizer
- Oil&Gas Journal _optimizing ValueTransféré parRizki Perdana
- Standard ConditionsTransféré parroshan01
- 0002Optimal Oilfield Development of Fields With a Small Gas Cap and Strong Aquifer5353Transféré parAnas Abumais
- 8 Properties of HydrocarbonTransféré parFaisal Khokhar
- Sellos y TrampasTransféré parAleks Proaño
- CharacterTransféré parVasundhara Singh
- EGRTransféré parIman Saadatmand
- SIMULACIÓN EOR GYC.pdfTransféré parVicente J Sandoval G
- ART -Reinjection Into Geothermal ReservoirsTransféré parelsaorduna
- Multiphase Pressure Buildup AnalysisTransféré parmiguel_jose123
- Quality control in reservoir SamplingTransféré parRasheed
- zqa25Transféré parharde2lah
- Presentation 2Transféré parHasnain
- Q922+RE2+L03 V1Transféré parSudish Bhat
- Chapter+5-1+Well+Testing_I_Introduction_1103Transféré parHuner Yarsan
- Coring Oprations Alun Whittaker.pdfTransféré paralvaro_massimo
- Chaudhri (11)Transféré parسحر سلامتیان
- Analytical Comparisons of Water Coning in Oil and Gas Reservoirs (Weijun Shen)Transféré parMario Rollano
- Chapter 2_student CopyTransféré parMuhammad Nizam
- PDF DatastreamTransféré parFahmi Tamimi El Mahmud
- WATER FLOODINGTransféré pargt295038
- PAMFC15-130 Paper.pdfTransféré parHENRY MACIAS

- New Perspectives on Curriculum, Learning and AssessmentTransféré parTintin Kartini
- Band5_History of EBweldingTransféré parpiratina33
- Hospice Care PptTransféré parMark Ebenezer Bernardo
- Group 15 elementsTransféré partapas kundu
- A Cost Estimate Method for Bridge Superstructures Using Regression Analysis and Bootstrap - Fragkakis, Labropoulos,PantouvakisTransféré parstavros_sterg
- CMM for IT SectorsTransféré parRohit Semlani
- 2018 Global Hotel Reputation Benchmark ReportTransféré parTatiana
- INVEGA (paliperidone extended-release) Product Monograph for CanadaTransféré parjennabush
- Integrating Simulation Modelling and Value Stream Mapping for LeaTransféré parHadi P.
- Omo Winter 13 ProbsTransféré parthisismeaegouw
- diabetes mellitusTransféré parakheel ahammed
- Hadoop QuestionsTransféré parAmit Bhartiya
- Continuous Innovation - CiscoTransféré parSonam Paraswani
- IT'S A JETSON'S WORLDTransféré parAlfredoTheWise
- BA 7201 Operations ManagementTransféré parSam Renu
- Jon Bekken Nationalism or FreedomTransféré pardefoedefoe
- ryan blackburn general resumeTransféré parapi-369511449
- Dhcp Relay Agent Configuration on Huawei CliTransféré parHussein Dhafan
- Software Development India ChennaiTransféré parAdm Raja
- Rule: Income taxes: Foreign corporations; interest expense deduction determinationTransféré parJustia.com
- Aparecida Vilaca Kinship With OthersTransféré parEric White
- Read and Write Audio FilesTransféré parpradeep
- lesson plan day 3Transféré parapi-289084024
- 1H-1,2,3-Triazole Tethered Mono- And Bis-ferrocenylchalcone-Β-Lactam Conjugates_ Synthesis and Antimalarial EvaluationTransféré parAntônio Neto Machado
- Ug Project Report FormatTransféré parShyam Sundar
- IJEAS0302014Transféré parerpublication
- The Comedy of ErrorsTransféré parDana Harangus
- Confessions of a Scholarship JudgeTransféré parKelseyKopec
- Med_Chapter_04.pptTransféré parAli Ahmad
- LSDE January 24, 2013Transféré parLeyteSamar DailyExpress

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.