Physical Deliverability of Gas Reserves

IONEL I. GARDESCU
MEMBER AIME

Introduction

The rate at which oil and gas can be produced over

the life of a field is of major importance in ascertaining
the purchase value of a property, the security of a loan, or
t~e assu:ance of a steady supply of oil and gas to a pipeIme. ThIS paper deals only with the problem of predicting the future production of gas wells.
The deliverability study presented is an illustration of
a w?rkable 'method of estimating the volume of gas-well gas
available under certain conditions of field performance,
c.on.tra~tual obligations. and other physical and regulatory
~mutatIons. !he study IS based on exhibits and accompanymg supportmg data prepared for and submitted to the
Federal Power Commission in a recent Certificate Case
of Public Convenience and Necessity.
In connection with the estimation of gas reserves two
general terms are being used which, to avoid conf~sion,
should be defined.
Recoverable reserves are estimates made of the ultimate
volume of gas that can be produced profitably from a
reservoir. In general, there is no restriction imposed as to
the period over which the gas will be recovered or the
rate of flow that has to be maintained.
Deliverable reserves are estimates made of the volume
of gas that a reservoir or well can deliver during a given
period of time, at a specified contractual rate of flow
against a certain wellhead pressure, under the pervailin~
physical conditions of the gas reservoir and the status of
well development in the field, taking also into account
a.ny other contractual and applicable regul~tory restrictions.
One of the main factors involved in the estimate of
delivery is the computation of "physical deliverability"
which shows the maximum rate at which a well can be
produced under the existing characteristics of the reservoirs
and lease operations. Thus, the physical deliverability is a
ceiling beyond which a well or reservoir cannot be produced under given conditions. However, other restrictions
may further curtail the rate of delivery below the estimated maximum physical deliverability volume.
The present study illustrates the estimation of deliverable reserves, which involves the computation of physical deliverability as one of the limiting factors. It will be
noted that the total recoverable dry gas reserve estimate
shoWn in Table 1 (Line 22) is 245,943 MMcf, or 71.2
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Oct. 14, 196~. ;Revised manuscript received Oct. 22, 1960. Paper
presented at meetmg of Reservoir Engineering Study Group of Gulf
Coast Section of SPE, June 29, 1960, in Houston.
DECEMBER, 1960

SPE 1592-G

H. ZINDER & ASSOC., INC.

HOUSTON, TEX.

per cent of the original wet gas in place. The total deliverable gas over the 20-year contract period is 171,820 MMcf,
as shown in Table 3, or slightly less than 50 per cent of
the original wet gas in place, the latter being estimated
at 345,250 MMcf (Table 1, Line 17). Thus, the difference
bt::tween recoverable gas and deliverable, gas in the case
herewith presented is very significant.
The difference between recoverable and deliverable
reserves varies a great deal between different reservoirs
and different areas and is dependent upon several factors.
One of the most significant factors is the variation in permeability of the gas reservoir. A well completed in a very
"tight" sand may produce in some cases over a long
period of time at a relatively low rate of flow, thus resulting in a small volume of deliverable gas during the contract period; whereas, its ultimate recovery may' be substantially higher.
The economic impact of reserves with low deliverability
is of great significance. Of two reservoirs with equal ultimate recovery, the one with a low rate of delivery will
have a much smaller present value due to the deferment of
future earnings and the higher cost of operation of wells
producing at lower rates.
Estimate of. Recoverable Reserves

Reference will be made to the reserve data tabulations

only insofar as they form the basis of deliverabiIity computations.
TABLE I-GAS RESERVE DATA, UNASSOCIATED GAS-KNOX FIELD, GRADY AND
STEPHENS COUNTIES, OKLA, (ALL GAS VOLUMES IN MILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET
AT 14.65-LB. PRESSURE BASE).
Tolal
3rd Bromide Bromide Sand
2nd Bromide
1. Name of Reservoir
15,550
2. Avg. Deplh of Sand (feel)
15,390
6,647
3. Proved Area (acres)
8,052
72.54
4. Avg. Effecl. Sand Thickness (fl)
24.56
679,947
482,171
5. Tolal Gas Saluraled Sand (acre-ft) 197,776
14,955
14,955
6. Deplh of G-W Conlact (fl sub-sea)
6.45
7. Porosity (per cenl)
4.20
34.00
8. Connale Waler (per cent)
35.00
9,422
9,430
9. Initial BHP (psia)
9,398
1,000
10. Terminal SHP (psia)
1,000
698
11. Initial BHT (OA)
698
0.656
12. Specific Gravity of Dry Gas
0.656
1.568
13. Deviation Factor Z (initial)**
1.563
0.948
1.4. Deviation Factor Z {termina!}
0.948
0.5673
15. Original Gas in Place (per acre-ft)
0.3626
0.0995
0.0638
16. Residual Gas in Place (per acre-ft)
345,250
71,714
273,536
17. Original Wet Gas in Place
60,594
47,976
18. Residual Wet Gas in Place
12,618
19. Gas Recovery Factor (per cent)
82.4
82.5
284,656
225,560
20. Total Recoverable Wet Gas
59,096
13.6
21. Shrinkage and Field Use (per cent)
13.6
194,884
245,943
22. Total Recoverable Dry Gas
51,059
6,699
23. Cumulative Dry Gas to 4-1-59
239,244
24. Remaining Recoverable Dry Gas, 4159
25. No. of Wells Compo in Reservoir 10 & 1 (51)
10
26. BTU Content of Gas
Over 1 000
Over 1 000
*Specific gravity of recombined gas sample 0.874.
**Determined by laboratory measurements.
I

25

Table 1 shows the average gas reservoir data used in

estimating the volumes of original gas in place and of
recoverable gas. The basic data refer to unassociated
gas. The estimation of casinghead gas reserves was not
considered in this study. The standard "volumetric" method
has been used by which the volume of reservoir space
filled with gas was calculated and a recovery factor was
applied to estimate the recoverable reserves. Since the gas
reservoir accumulation occurred in a lenticular sand, it
was assumed that there would be no water drive. The
gas recovery factors of 82.4 and 82.5 (shown in Line 19)
were derived from an estimated abandonment pressure of
1,000 lb. This last value is a judgment figure based on
experience, giving due consideration to the geological and
physical characteristics of the reservoir and the performance of the wells.
Computation of Physical Deliverability
The computation of physical deliverability of a well
relies on the fundamental relationship of reservoir pressure to rate of flow discussed at length in the U. S.
Bureau of Mines Monograph 7.' The relationship of reservoir pressure to rate of flow is also shown in a manual
issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas.' This relationship is given for each individual gas well tested in
Texas as shown by Form GWT-1 required by the Railroad
Commission of Texas. The Form 1016 of the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission differs in the details shown, but
the basic relationship of pressure to rate of flow remains
basically the same as originally set up by the Bureau of
Mines Monograph.
Some petroleum engineers take exception to the accuracy of the application of back-pressure tests in estimating future well performances. Their objections are
derived primarily from readings taken at the well, which
in tight reservoirs do not always represent the true stabilized reservoir pressure. However, in the majority of cases
the pressure-rate of flow relationship taken in accordance
with the rules issued by the state regulatory authorities has
proved to be dependable, and this information is the only
one available in most cases for use as a basis of deliverability studies. This pressure-rate of flow relationship has
been used in the present study.
The pressure-rate of flow relationship permits calculation of the maximum rate of flow that a well will deliver
against a given wellhead pressure, making allowance for
the pressure differential between the top and bottom of
the well under flowing conditions. However, this method is
tedious because it involves several calculations that have
to be made on a trial-and-error basis. In the present computations, the pressure-deliverability curve has been used
and is outlined as follows.
The pressure-deliverability curve relationship was first
presented by the author in the Texas Gas Transmission
Docket G-859 before the Federal Power Commission involving a gas deliverability study of the Carthage field.
The study was based on specific requirements suggested
by the Federal Power Commission staff and was approved
by the FPC.
Fig. 1 is the physical deliverability curve of the field
herein presented showing the maximum rate of flow per
well from a reservoir or producing zone for any given
shut-in bottom-hole pressure.
Table 2 shows the computations involved in determining
the data used in the physical deliverability curve. There
are two sets of computations, one made for a gathering
lReferences given at end of paper.
26

line pressure of 1,000 lb and the other for 250 lb. The
gas purchase contract under consideration requires a
delivery against a line pressure not to exceed 1,000 lb. The
250 lb represents the delivery pressure to a field compressor operating on a 1:4 ratio, thus boosting the 250Ib well delivery to the required maximum operating pressure of the buyer's system.
Following a brief description of each of the columns
shown in Table 2 is a discussion of additional charts
and tabulations from which the respective values are calculated.
Col. 1 shows the assumed daily rates of flow for which
the shut-in bottom-hole pressure shown in Col. 11 is calculated.
Col. 2 is the calculated pressure drop in the gathering
line from the producing wellhead to the central point of
delivery to the pipeline. Only in cases where the gathering
system is poorly designed and the delivery pressure is low
will there be an appreciable pressure drop in the gathering
system. In most cases, the values in Col. 2 can be disregarded at normal rates of delivery.
Col. 3 is the wellhead pressure, being the contractual
pressure at the point of delivery plus the pressure drop
in the gathering system. Where field compression is necessary for economic recovery, the wellhead pressure is
equal to the compressor intake pressure plus the pressure drop in the gathering system.
Col. 4 is a factor representing the ratio of the weight
of the gas per unit of volume at the depth of the producing zone to the weight of the gas at wellhead, assuming
no flow. This ratio is calculated in terms of the depth
of the producing zone and the gravity of the gas corrected
for differences in temperature.
Col. 5 is the weight of the gas at the face of the sand,
assuming no flow, equal to the wellhead pressure (Col. 3)
multiplied by the gas weight factor (Col. 4).
Col. 6 is the pressure loss due to friction of the gas
flowing through the tubing at different rates. As already
mentioned, details of the calculations will be shown later.
Col. 7 is the pressure at the face of the sand or P, corresponding to the rates of flow shown in Col. 1. The fig7
rJ)

o
z

:::>6

/~

"-

u.

AT 1000 LB. DEL. PRESSURE-

rJ)5

/'

<[
rJ)

:::>

:I:
I--

./

a:: 3

~V-

:::>

rJ)
rJ)

a::

"2
w
a-'
:I:

::;:

I-I--

......-:: ~
V

~V

'i/

~V

,/

/'
;-AT 250 LB. DEL. PRESSURE

V/
/ 1/

1/
II

ABO. PRESSURE

I
I

ID

00

DAILY RATE OF FLOW PER AVERAGE WELL IN MMCF

Fig. I-Physical deliverability curve, Knox field,

Bromide sand.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 2-PHYSICAL DELIVERABILITY DATA, KNOX FIELD, BROMIDE SAND

(All Gas Volumes in Millions of Cubic Feet at 14.65 psia)
Pressure

Avg. Daily
Role/Well
MMcI

Drop in
Gathering

Wellhead

Weighl
of Gas

Line

Pressure

Factor

(I)

(2)

(3)

(4)

BHP
P.
No Flow

Friction
Loss in

BHP
P.

Tubing

Flowing

(5)

(6)

(7)

---

P8 2

P1 2

PB 2

p/ 2 X

X 1,000

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

2,338
2,641
3,049
4,347

3,950
8,500
13,750
24,500

6,288
11 ,141
16,799
28,847

1,493
2,508
3,340
4,100
5,371

245
513
880
2,042

3,950
8,500
13,750
24,500

4,195
9,013
14,630
26,542

374
2,048
3,000
3,820
5,152

1,000 IJ> Pressure 01 Delivery Point

0
1
2
3
5

0
1
4
6
18

0
1
2
3
5

0
4
21
32
92

1000
1001
1004
1006
1018

1.493
1.493
1.493
1.493
1.493

250
254
271
282
342

1.497
1.497
1.497
1.497
1.497

1493
1494
1499
1502
1520

35
126
244
565
250~lb

374
380
406
422
512
Pre-ssure drop in gathering system bosed on average of four miles of 4in. pipe.

1,529
1,625
1,746
2,085

Pressure at Delivery Point

115
310
516
917

495
716
938
1,429

TABLE 3-DElIVERABILITY SCHEDULE, KNOX FIELD, BROMIDE SAND

(All Gas Volumes in Millions of Cubic Feet 01 14.65 psia.)
Remaining

WeI Gas
Year

Beginning
of Period
(1)

Wet Gas Production

Avg. Daily
Total
(3)
(2)

PI

12/31
-(-4)-

1959 (9 mo.)
12,685
46.3
337,495tt
1960
324,810
46.3
16,900
1961
307,910
16,900
46.3
1962
14,785
291,010
40.5
1963
276,255
13,520
37.0
1964
12,675
261,705
34.7
1965
250,030
11,830
32.4
1966
10,560
238,200
28.9
1967
227,640
28.9
10,560
1968
217,080
10,140
27.8
1969
206,940
25.5
9,295
1970
197,645
23.2
8,450
1971
189,195
7,605
20.8
1972
181,590
19.7
7,180
6,760
1973
174,410
18.5
1974
167,650
17.4
6,335
1975
161,315
16.2
5,915
1976
155,400
15.0
5,490
1977
149,910
5,070
13.9
1978
144,840
5,070
13.9
1979 (3 mo.)
139,770
12.7
1,145
Remaining Wet Gas 138,625
Tala I 20 years ......
198,870
*Ory gas estimated at 86.4 per cent of wet gas,
**Moximum contract rate .40 MM/day.
***10tol physical deliverability reduced 25 per cent for effect of retrograde
tAssumed maximum delivery of 250-lb to field compressor after 1966.
ttOriginal wet gas in place Jess wet gas produced to 4-1-59.

7740
6560
5550
4910
4490
4130
3870
3630
3420
3240
3100
2960
2820
2720
2610
2530
2410
2340
2260
2180
2160

1~

Dry Gas Delivered

Physical Deliv.

Per Well
(6)
9.0
7.1
5.6
4.5
3.6
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.5 t
2.3
2.1
1.95
1.80
1.67
1 . .56
1.50
1.36
1.28
'.19
1.14
1.12

Per Day
-(-8)40.0"
40.0
40.0
35.0
32.0
30.0
28.0
25.0
25.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
11.0

Total
(7)

90.0
71.0
46.2***
40.5
32.4
30.2
28.3
25.2
26.2
24.1
22.0
20.5
18.9
17.5
16.4
15.7
14.3
13.4
12.5
12.0
11.7

Tolal

(9)
10,960
14,600
14,600
12,775
11,680
10,950
10,220
9,125
9,125
8,760
8,030
7,300
6,570
6,205
5,840
5,475
5,110
4,745
4,380
4,380
990
171,820

condensation after 1960.

ures in Col. 7 are equal to the total of the figures in Cols.

5 and 6.
Col. 8 is the square of the figures in Col. 7.
Col. 9 is the difference in the square of the shut-in
reservoir pressure and the square of the flowing pressure
at the face of the sand taken from the back-pressure rate
of flow graph for the reservoir under consideration (Fig.
4). This graph is derived from a composite of the individual well Forms 1016 for the 10 wells completed in the
Bromide sand.
Col. 10 is the square of the shut-in bottom-hole pressure obtained by adding the respective figures to Cols. 8
and 9.
Col. 11 is the square root of the figure in Col. 10 and
represents the minimum shut-in bottom-hole pressure of
the reservoir that is required to maintain a rate of flow
equal to the values shown in Col. 1.
It will be noted that the physical deliverability curves
(Fig. 1) were derived from Table 2 by plotting the shut-in
bottom-hole pressures (Col. 11) against the rates of flow
(Col. 1).
Auxiliary Charts and Data Supporting Table 2

Fig. 2 shows the weight of the gas column factor. The

Bureau of Mines Monograph 7 gives (on page 169) the
following equation for computing this factor.
DECEMBER, 1960

No.
of Wells
--(5)10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

(~:)

C: ;:! )= e5:'~;'

(16)

where p. = pressure at the bottom of hole,

P, = pressure at wellhead plus pressure drop due
to friction,
b = deviation coefficient,
G = specific gravity of gas,
L = depth of well in feet, and
T = average absolute temperature of gas column.
The second parenthesis in Eq. 16 gives the correction
for deviation of the gas from Boyle's law. The difference
between the deviation of the gas at the top and the bottom
of the gas column is quite small in most instances, and
the graph shown in Fig. 2 is derived from Eq. 16, disregarding the correction for deviation. The weight of the
gas column factors shown in Table 2, Col. 4 fall outside
the limits of Fig. 2 but were calculated on the same basis
as shown here. The recombined wet gas gravity used was
0.874, the weighted average depth of the zone was 15,510
ft and the average temperature of the gas column was
634A.
In most instances, the weight of the gas column factor
can be read from the respective curves shown in Fig. 2,
in terms of the depth of the producing zone, the gravity
and the average temperature of the gas column.
Fig. 3 is the "Humble Curve" showing the value of R',
27

104 5

-1--

14 3

j_ ..

IA 1

L3 9
1.37

,0/' V

..

1.3 5
1.33

0'

1.3 I

1.2 9

1/ V

1.27

/ V
/

1.2 3
1.2 I

.~-~

c-

U3

1.1 I
1.09

1/
2000

V....'l"

I
3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

GL (GAS GRAVITY

8000

--..

-r- . r--~-t= r-!0,o00

11,000

12,000

13,000

X DEPTH)

Fig. 2 - Weight of gas column factor. (Correction for

deviation from Boyle's law not taken into consideration.)

a::

w 500

II

100

+ 5280 P.,
the wellhead flowing pressure (Table 2, Col.
3 ),
R' = the pressure drop per mile for the respective
tubing used, and
L = the length of the tubing in feet.
Fig. 4 is the back-pressure composite graph of the 10
wells completed and tested in the Bromide sand. The
majority of wells in the Knox field are producing through
perforations in both the Second and the Third Bromide
sand. Thus, it is not possible to segregate the production of
one sand from the other, though the original gas reserves
were estimated separately for each of the sands as shown
in Table 1.
The back-pressure potential curve shown in Fig. 4 is a
composite of the individual curves of the wells in the
field. The daily rate of flow for each well was read from
its back-pressure potential curve corresponding to the 1
and 10 million Ib pressure square differentials. The arithmetic average of the reading taken at 1 million and at 10
million were plotted corresponding to these same pressures. A straight line was then drawn through the two
points.
P

V
/

~r-2

1/2 IN. TUBING

a::

::::l

50

(/)

(/)

a::
a.

10
.2

,'-2--=R='L- _
"

a::
w
a.
a.
0
a::

one of the factors used in computing the pressure loss in

the well tubing due to the flow of gas. The friction loss
shown in Table 2, Col. 6 is calculated from the following formula.

where P.,

..J

0--

9000

~ 1000

--t-r

2 IN. TUBING

I-

.-

--_._-

--

II I

/, ~

<t

::::l

---1-

1///

LI 5

(/)

-1---. ------- -_.---

/ V/

LI 7

~-

1/

5000
(/)

L_

1//

LI 9

/ V/
VI/V
/ V/

1.25

1.07

10,000

-+--10'0 "..
; ----1,0 _"
--0-;;:-7 -- r

-_.

.5

RATE

OF

FLOW

50

10

IN MMCF

PER DAY

Fig. 3-Pressure drop in well tubing, "Humble Curve".

100

I
<.l
Z

50

a::

<t

::::l

a(f)

a:: 10
w
a.

~ 5
z

::::l

a.
u.
o

(/)

II

...J
...J

:::E

.5

N-

o.
f

Computation of Deliverable Gas

Table 3 shows the estimated deliveries of gas by years
for the contract period. The total deliverable dry gas
available to the buyer is 171,820 MMcf. The equivalent
volume of gas produced by the wells is estimated at
198,870 MMcf; the difference between the two figures
representing the shrinkage of the gas volume resulting
from the extraction of liquefiable hydrocarbons, field usage
of the gas and gathering line losses.
Following is a brief description of each of the columns
shown in Table 3.
Col. 1 is the estimated volume of remaining wet gas
in the reservoir at the beginning of each period. The estimate, as of April 1, 1959, is equal to the original wet gas
estimate of 345,250 MMcf less the cumulative production
to that date measured as wet gas. The difference between
23

N~

a.

'.1

.5
I
5
10
DAILY RATE OF FLOW IN MMCF PER WELL

50

Fig. 4-Back-pressure potential curve, Knox field,

Bromide sand. Composite of 10 wells.

the figures shown in Col. 1 is equal to the estimated wet

gas production shown in Col. 3.
Cols. 2 and 3 are the average daily and total wet gas
production by years derived from the volume of dry gas
delivered shown in Cols. 8 and 9 on the basis of 13.6
per cent shrinkage and field use of gas.
Col. 4 is the shut-in bottom-hole pressure at the end of
each respective period read from Fig. 5. It will be
noted that Fig. 5 shows the relationship of remaining gas
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

10
9

en
wO
a::z
::J::J
eno
eno..
w
a::1.i..

POI NT

DEW
6

00
0

ID Z

I-J:
1-1- 3
~
.-'

V'
.,./

o
o

""

6,530 LB.-

wen 5
-10
oz

~~

0..0

J:<t

INITIAL BHP 9,423 LB.

~
ORIG. GAS IN PLACE-345,250 MMCF

.,./

II

'T

./

100

200

300

REMAINING WET GAS IN PLACE IN BILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET

CORRECTED FOR DEVIATION FROM BOYLE'S LAW
Fig. 5-Reservoir pressure vs gas in place, Knox field, Bromide sand.

in place against bottom-hole pressure rather than the PI Z

value. This was done for convenience in reading the PI
value for the remaining gas-in-place estimate for various
periods. Thus, the Z factor was applied in computing the
reserves to result in a curve relationship rather than the
straight-line relationship, which would have resulted if
the first method had been used. The Z factor was obtained
from actual laboratory tests.
Col. 5 is the number of completed wells plus the number of additional wells intended to be drilled by the operators.
Col. 6 is the physical deliverability of the average well
per day corresponding to the bottom-hole pressure shown
in Col. 4, as taken from Fig. 1, using the curve for deliveries at 1,000 lb through the year 1966 and the curve for
deliveries at 250 lb for years following.
Col. 7 is the physical deliverability per day for all of
the wells. It will be noted that the total daily physical
deliverability was reduced by 25 per cent beginning in
1961 because the reservoir pressure falls below the condensate dew point. The average permeability of the Bromide sand is low but variable, and the gas is very rich
in condensate. Thus, it was felt that the condensate will
affect to some extent the rate of flow of gas in the reservoir. The 25 per cent adjustment is a judgment figure
since there is insufficient performance data at this time
to make a quantitative analysis of the effect of liquid
hydrocarbon condensation.
Col. 8 is the daily volume of deliverable gas averaged
for the year. Through 1961, the average delivery is shown
at the contractual maximum of 40 MMcf/D. Beginning
in 1963, the average daily volume of gas delivered is
limited by the calculated physical deliverability of the
wells as shown in Col. 7.
Col. 9 is the annual volume of deliverable dry gas
available to buyer, equal to the average daily multiplied
by the number of days for the period shown.
DECEMBER, 1960

Conclusions
The computation of deliverability of gas is a relatively
simple computation based en the well performances obtained from back-pressure tests. The author has submitted
to the Federal Power Commission evidence that certain
reservoirs, or even fields, with similar performance characteristics can be grouped for purposes of deliverability
studies without materially distorting the results of the
computations compared to the total of the deliverability
study made for each individual reservoir.
The present deliverability study was based on a pressure-gas in place relationship. The same physical deliverability values are obtained as those which would have been
obtained if the pressure-recoverable gas relationship had
been used.
One of the objections of recoverable reserves estimates
is that its ultimate answer is based on a personal judgment
factor of recovery percentage. Such a judgment factor
is necessary because such elements as structural and lithological factors have to be considered and are not always
reflected by reservoir and well performance data. On the
other hand, a gas-in-place and deliverability study eliminates the "judgment" factor, and different engineers would
arrive at the same answer by using the available well and
reservoir data. However, it should be noted that, as in the
present case, the deliverable gas can never exceed the
volume of recoverable gas reserves.
References

1. "Back Pressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their Applica

tion to Production Practices", Monograph 7, USBM.
2. Back Pressure Test for Natural Gas Wells, Railroad Commis
sion of Texas.

***

EDITOR'S NOTE
OF IONEL

I.

PICTURE AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

GARDESCU APPEAR ON PAGE

50.
29