9 views

Original Title: SPE-169537-MS

Uploaded by tomk2220

- Drill Stem Testing.1
- 1997 - SPE - Gunter Etal - Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical Method
- LI-THESIS-2012.pdf
- 4. Deliverability Testing and Well Production Potential Analysis Methods
- 8 TCCS4 Task F Georgescu-Modelling and Simulation of CO2 Leakage Mechanisms Version2[1]
- Petrochemical Engineering - Petroleum Entrapment
- Matrix Acidizing in Saudi Arabia by Buoyant Ball Sealers
- Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneity in Laminated Reservoirs.docx
- Paper Saturation Height Methods
- Study tactics.pdf
- Data Sets
- Well Test Analysis in Volatile Oil Reservoirs
- Gab
- 308170387
- Field Scale Simulation of Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI)1
- Case Studies
- 1033647.pdf
- Oil n Gas Value Change
- SPE-1797-PA
- Unsteady flow model for multifractured horizontal well

You are on page 1of 15

Tariq Ali, James Sheng and Mohamed Soliman, Texas Tech University

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western North American and Rocky Mountain Joint Regional Meeting held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 1618 April 2014.

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 have not been

reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its

officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Production decline curve analysis is one of our common methods to estimate production rate profile and ultimate recovery of

a tight or shale gas reservoir. Because of the long transient behavior of low-permeability gas reservoirs, early production data

generally exhibits fracture-dominated flow regimes and late-time flow regimes have not reached yet. These challenges the

robustness of production decline curve analysis in such reservoirs, and this also question the validity of several models

presented in the literature.

If a well produces at a constant flowing pressure, a log-log plot of rate divided byover cumulative gas production vs.

cumulative gas production yields a straight line, and cumulative gas production vs. time yields another straight line as well.

Based on these two relationships and real data observations, new production-decline models are proposed in this paper.

The proposed models are verified by a large number of well production data in tight and shale reservoirs. These models are

also validated by numerically simulated cases. Under some special conditions, the proposed models can be used to validate

some published models. Many real data and simulate data show that the proposed models can be reliably used to estimate

production rates and the ultimate recovery in tight and shale reservoirs.

Introduction

Arps (1945) derived the rate decline empirical relations (exponential and hyperbolic). The exponential time-rate relation can

be derived from the loss-ratio relation while the hyperbolic timerate relation is derived from the loss-ratio derivative

term. The hyperbolic rate decline is a generalization of the exponential decline behavior observed from wells exhibiting

boundary conditions.

The common used method for decline curve analysis is Arps hyperbolic rate decline (Arps 1945); the hyperbolic decline

equation is extensively used because it can give a best fit for the long transient linear-flow regime observed in low and ultralow permeability gas wells with b values greater than unity. Lee and sidle (2010) showed that values of b greater than unity

can cause the reserves to have unreasonable properties.

Application of Arps hyperbolic model during transient flow regimes results in an overestimation of future production.

Rushing et al (2007) have shown that application of Arps hyperbolic model during transient flow regime causes reserve

errors estimate exceeding 100 percent.

To avoid this drawback, Ilk et al (2008) presented the power-law exponential rate decline relation based on the inverse of the

loss-ratio (D-parameter) behavior of the time-rate data.

Valko (2009) introduced the stretched exponential decline model to describe observed decline behavior of a database of rate

data obtained from unconventional reservoirs. The stretched exponential model is similar to the power-law exponential model

in matching the early time data, but it lacks the boundary conditions necessary to match log-time boundary conditions.

Duong (2010) proposed a time-rate relation based on a long-term linear flow exhibited in hydraulically fractured shale, and

tight wells. He showed that a log-log plot of rate divided by cumulative production versus time yields a straight line trend. He

also indicated that the slope and intercept of the straight line are characteristics of the reservoir.

Clark et al. (2011) introduced a new time-rate model by matching a type of logistic growth model to production data of oil

and gas wells. The logistic growth model is capable of modeling long transient behaviors of unconventional reservoirs, and

boundary conditions.

SPE-169537-MS

Vanorsdale (2013) concluded that Duong and Power-Law models may overestimate recovery as a result of changing the flow

regime during the first ten years of the life of the wells. He also concluded that continuous changing of flow regime may

result in overestimation of recovery.

This paper introduces new empirical decline models that are based on a long term linear flow in a large number of wells in

tight and gas shale reservoirs. The new methodology has been developed for production analysis and forecasting of

unconventional reservoirs.

Methodology Development

Long-term Fracture Flow

Numerous wells in unconventional reservoirs exhibit long-term linear flow, and it might be the only available flow

regime for analysis. Linear flow is characterized by a half slope line on the log-log plot of gas flow rate vs. time.

Wattenbarger (2007) identified different causes for linear transient flow including hydraulic fractures draining a square

geometry, high permeability layers draining adjacent tight layers and early-time constant pressure draining from different

geometries. Bello (2008) stated that a possible cause for the transient linear flow is the draining from the matrix blocks into

the surrounding high permeability fractures.

If a fracture flow regime (either linear or bilinear flow) is prolonged over the life of a well, the flow rate q will be

= ! !! ..... (1)

Where n is one-half for linear flow, or n is one-quarter for bilinear flow and q1 is the flow rate at day 1.

The gas cumulative will be

!

qdt

!

! =

= q!

!!!!

(!!!)

..... (2)

That is

! =

Let

!!

(!!!)

!!

(!!!)

! = at ! ...... (4)

Fig. 1 shows log-log plots for ! vs. time for a vertical well in unconventional reservoir. These plots give a straight line

with a positive slope, m, and an intercept of a.

Equation 4 is our first model, model1. Equation for q can be derived as shown in Appendix A:

= . . !!! .. (5)

SPE-169537-MS

1,000

100

Gp, MMSCF

y = 0.2291x0.9477

R = 0.99986

10

Cumulative Production

Power (Cumulative Production)

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

t, Day

Fig.1: Log-log plots for vs. time for a simulated shale gas vertical well. The data forms a straight line with a slope, and an

intercept, a.

Thompson et al (2012) note that multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal wells undergo several flow regime changes

during their producing lives. The end of linear flow (i.e. time stabilization) can be estimated by the region of investigation

equation developed for linear flow at constant pressure, also can be estimated by the change of slope which a well may

exibits, fig.2 and fig.2a show the change of slope.

If the slope m is changing with time, therefore

! = !(!) ... (6)

The slope is a function of time, therefore

= = !! . (7)

Then Eq.6 becomes

!!

! = !! ..... (8)

Equation q can be derived as shown in Appendix B:

= !"

!! !!!!

(1 p. ln t )........ (9)

SPE-169537-MS

Gp, MMSCF

100

y = 0.0077x0.7

R = 0.998

10

Cumulative Production

0.1

1

10

100

t , Day

1000

Fig.1.a: log-log plots for vs. time for tight gas vertical well. The data forms a straight line with a slope, and an intercept, a.

Slope, m

0.784

y = 0.8782x-0.017

R = 0.99952

0.78

0.776

0.772

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

t, Day

Fig.2: log-log plots for slope, m, vs. time for simulated horizontal well. The plot shows that the slope m is changing with time.

SPE-169537-MS

Slope, m

0.21

y = 0.5076x-0.138

R = 0.99904

0.11

0.01

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

t, Day

Fig.2a: log-log plots for slope, m, vs. time for a simulated horizontal well. The plot shows that the slope m is changing with time.

! vs. ! for both vertical and horizontal wells. All data follows a straight line with

a negative slope, - d, and an intercept of b. That is

Fig.3 shows log-log plots between

!!

! = ! ..... (10)

1

q/ Gp, Day-1

0.1

y = 0.1978x-1.05

R = 0.99996

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.1

10

Gp, SCF

100

1000

SPE-169537-MS

= !!!! ...... (11)

Where =

!!!

!"

!!!

!"

Re-arrange Eq.12 to be

!!!

!!!!!

= . (13)

!! !!!

! !

!

!

......

!

(14)

!

Let (. )!/! = , = ,

!

! = . ! .. (16)

Eq.16 is exactly Eq.4

Validation of the Duongs Model

We also validate Duong model by substituting Eq.4 into Eq.10

Recall Eq.10

!!

! = !

Recall Eq.4

! = !

Substitute Eq.4 into Eq.10

!!

! = !

! !!

! = ( ) .. ... (17)

SPE-169537-MS

!! !!!

.... (18)

! = . t

!!!

.. (19)

! = r. t

Field Examples

In this section, we present the analysis of a field case from different unconventional plays were using our new methodology.

Examples were selected to illustrate the decline behavior in various completion and production scenarios such as newly

developed plays and vertical or horizontal wells. For changes in flow regime, a, and m values will be highlighted for each

example in the following discussion.

Field case: East TX Tight Gas Well

We analyzed the daily production data obtained from a hydraulically fractured Horizontal well completed in a tight gas

reservoir. The early part of data was analyzed and presented before by Praikno, Rushing, and Blasingame (2003). The sixyear flow rate and cumulative production historical data is presented in fig.4. The figure shows the raw data some which has

to be deleted in order to be used for analysis. We identify a smooth decline throughout the life of this well. Visual inspection

of the rate data suggests that full boundary dominated flow regime has not been established yet, but the flow regime is no

long linear flow. We also observe the straight line relationship between Gp vs. t Eq.4. The first step is to fit the observed

cumulative gas production, Gp, to the proposed model (Eq.1) to estimate the intercept constant, a, and the slope parameter, m

by performing a linear regression. The resulting fit, shown in fig. 5, appears not to capture the entire trend in the data

although R2 = 0.996. We used model 2. (Eq.8) to find the slope, fig.6 shows the changing in the slope m over time. We used

the intercept from fig.5 and the slope from fig.6 to match the well production history shown in fig.7, and we compared

between the match from Eq.1, Eq.5 and Duong model. It is clear that Eq.8 provided a better match to the production history

of the well than Eq.4, and that is attributing to the presence of a different flow regime than linear flow, Thompson et al

(2012). Fig.8 shows the applicability of model 3.

Fow Rate/ Cumulative Production vs. Time (East TX Tight Gas Well)

1

10

0.1

0.01

Cumulative Production

0.1

Gp, MMSCF

1

Flow Rate

0.001

0.0001

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.01

2500

t, Day

Fig.4: Production history plot of East TX tight gas well - flow rate and cumulative production versus production time

SPE-169537-MS

10

Gp, MMSCF

1

y = 0.0227x0.61

R = 0.996

0.1

Cumulative Production

0.01

1

10

100

1000

10000

t , Day

Fig.5: Cumulative production versus production time for East TX tight gas

0.55

y = 0.6406x-0.026

R = 0.99418

Slope, m

0.54

slope m

0.53

0.52

100

600

1100

1600

t, day

Fig.6: the change of Slope m versus production time for East TX tight gas

2100

2600

SPE-169537-MS

Gp, MMSCF

Raw Data

Eq.4

Duong Model

Eq.8

500

1000

t, Day

1500

2000

2500

Fig.7: Comparison between Eq.4 and Eq.8 for East TX tight gas.

100

10

1

q /Gp,

day-1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

Production Rate / Cumulative Production

0.00001

0.01

0.1

Gp, MMSCF

10

Fig.8: flow rate / cumulative production vs. cumulative production for East TX tight gas

Simulation Case

We simulated case of a horizontal well with four transverse fractures using the LS-LR-DK method, Rubin (2010). We

modeled not only the fluid flow in hydraulic fractures, and SRV, but also the contribution from fracture network outside

SRV. Reservoir and fluid properties for the simulation are provided in Table1. The fractures are simulated having infinite

conductivity fractures operating under constant flowing pressure bottom hole pressure condition. Our specific goal is to

validate our new models by estimate the reserve and compare the results with the simulator output. We first generate the rate

profile of our simulated case for 20 years.

10

SPE-169537-MS

10

100000

1000

1

100

Flow Rate

Gp, MMSCF

10000

10

Cumulative Production

0.1

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1

8000

t, Day

Fig.9: Production history plot for numerical simulation case

We observe that boundary-dominated flow regime has been established before 2 years. We apply model1 formulation and

present the results in fig.10. Not a good match of cumulative gas production data with the model is observed due to the effect

of boundary dominated flow. We believe that the affect of any flow regime other than linear flow regime (i.e. compound

flow or boundary-dominated flow) will result in a variable slope m. Fig.11 shows the change in slope m over time. Fig.12

indicates that there is an excellent match of cumulative production data with model2. Model 1 and Duongs do not mach the

production history of the well as Model 1; because both model 1 and Duongs model assume the continuity of a single flow

regime which results in reserve overestimation. Fig.13 shows that Model 3 is not a perfect straight line due to the affect of

boundary dominated flow.

Gp, MMSCF

y = 0.0077x0.7

R = 0.998

0.1

0.01

Cumulative Production

0.001

1

10

t , day

100

1000

SPE-169537-MS

11

Slope, m

0.784

y = 0.8782x-0.017

R = 0.99952

0.78

0.776

0.772

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

t, Day

Fig.11: the change of Slope m versus production time for simulation case

2.E+04

Gp, MMSCF

1.E+04

8.E+03

Raw Data

Eq.4

4.E+03

Eq.8

Duong

0.E+00

0

2000

4000

t, Day

6000

8000

12

SPE-169537-MS

100

10

q /Gp, day-1

1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001

1

10

100

Gp, MMSCF

1000

10000

100000

Fig.13: flow rate / cumulative production vs. cumulative production for simulation case

Net Pay, h

Initial Reservoir Pressure, Pi

Natural Fractured Porosity,f

Matrix Porosity, m

Matrix Permeability, km

Natural Fracture Spacing

Natural Fracture Permeability, kf

Hydraulic Fracture Half-Length, xf

Hydraulic Fracture Permeability, khf

Reservoir Temperature, T

500
psia

300
ft

3000
psia

0.00004

0.03

0.0001
md

50
ft

0.00002

350
ft

10000
md

100
f

Summary

Accurate theoretical models are essential for matching the past production performance and predicting future rates as well as

cumulative production for producing wells in unconventional reservoirs. In this paper, we proposed novel analytical

approaches to analyzing shale gas production data. The current analytical approaches are limited in that they do not account

for all the flow regimes that may occur over the life of a well. The bases of our new approaches lie in the relationship

between cumulative gas production and production time during linear flow regime and beyond linear flow regime.

Conclusion

In this work, we have successfully developed analytical solutions for a long-term linear flow regime and beyond linear flow

regime by the means of production data analysis. Following are the main conclusions drawn by this study.

SPE-169537-MS

13

A
new
approach
has
been
developed
for
predicting
the
future
rate
and
reserve
estimate
for
fracture-

dominated
wells
in
unconventional
reservoirs.

A
log-log
plot
of
cumulative
production
vs.
time
is
observed
to
fit
a
straight
line
in
all
unconventional

reservoir
cases
where
a
dominated
long
linear
flow
exists.
The
slope
and
intercept
are
related
to

reservoirs
characteristics
for
tight
or
shale
reservoirs.

The
slope
m
is
always
positive
and
less
than
unity.

Several
field
and
numerical
simulation
were
used
to
validate
our
new
approach.

The
new
models
are
not
affected
by
the
varying
of
flow
regimes
as
the
case
with
power-Law
model
and

Duong
model.

Nomenclature

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Intercept constant defined by Eq.10

Intercept constant defined by Eq.7

slope defined by Eq.10

time function based on Eq.6

Original gas-in-place, MMSCF

Cumulative gas production, MMSCF

slope defined by Eq.4

slope defined by Eq.7

Rate, SCF/ d

time, d

References

Arps, J.J. 1945. Analysis of Decline Curves. Published in Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 160 (1945): 228-247.

Clark, A.J. 2011. Decline Curve Analysis in Unconventional Resource Plays Using Logistic Growth Models, M.S. Thesis, the University of

Texas, Austin, TX.

Clark, A.J., Lake, L.W. and Patzek, T.W.2011. Production Forecasting with Logistic Growth Models. Paper SPE 144790 presented at the

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA,

Duong, A. 2010. An Unconventional Rate Decline Approach for Tight and Fracture-Dominated Gas Wells. Paper CSUG/SPE 137748

presented at the 2010 Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21

October.

Ilk, D., Rushing, J. A. and Blasingame, T.A. 2008. Exponential vs. Hyperbolic Decline in Tight Gas Sands Understanding the Origin and

Implications for Reserve Estimates Using Arps Decline Curves. Paper SPE 116731 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 21-24 September.

Lee, W.J. and Sidle, R.E. 2010. Gas Reserves Estimation in Resource Plays. Paper SPE 130102 presented at the 2010 SPE Unconventional

Reservoir Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 12-25 February.

Mattar, L., Gault, B., Morad, K., Clarkson, C.R., Freeman, C.M., Ilk, D.and Blasingame, T.M. 2008. Production Analysis and Forecasting

of Shale Gas Reservoirs: Case History-Based Approach. Paper SPE 119897 presented at the 2008 SPE Shale Gas Production

Conference, Forth Worth, TX, USA, 16-18 November.

Pratikno, H., Reese, D., and Maguire, M. 2013. Production Analysis in the Barnett Shale- Field Example for Reservoir Characterization

Using Public Data. Paper SPE 166176 presented at the 2013 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LO,

USA, 30 September-2 October.

Mishra, S. 2012. A New Approach to Reserves Estimation in Shale Gas Reservoirs Using Multiple Decline Curve Analysis Models. Paper

SPE 161092 presented at the 2012 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KT, USA, 3-5 October.

Valko, P.P.2009.Assigning value to stimulation in the Barnett Shale-A simultaneous analysis of 7000 plus production histories and well

completion records. Paper SPE 119639 presented at the 2009 SPE hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX,

USA, 19-21 January.

Vanorsdale, C., 2013. Production Decline Analysis Lessons from Classic Shale Gas Wells. Paper SPE 166205 presented at the 2013 SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 30 September-2 October.

14

SPE-169537-MS

Appendix A

! = !

Taking a derivative respecting to time, we have:

(!) = ( ! )

!

= . . !!!

Where

!

=

Therefore

=

!

= . . !!!

Appendix B

We observed the slope, m, is varying with time in case of flow regime beyond linear flow, then:

! = !(!)

(B-1)

= = !!

Replace Eq. (B-2) into Eq. (B-1)

! = !"

!!

!!

(! ) = ( !" )

Where

= .

!!!

!"

!

!"

=

!!

( !" )

!" !!

!

=

.

Where = ln(). !!

!! !

= !" .

= . . !"

!"

(ct !! . ln t )

!! !

!"

( !! . ln )

(B-2)

SPE-169537-MS

15

!!

= . . !" (ln .

Where

ln

!"

!

!

!!

+ !! .

ln )

, and !! = . !!!!

!

!!

!

!!

= . . !! ( !!!! !!!! ln )

Simplify

= !"

!! !!!!

(1 p. ln t )

- Drill Stem Testing.1Uploaded byLeopard Eyes
- 1997 - SPE - Gunter Etal - Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using an Integrated Petrophysical MethodUploaded byAlviNelsonShtephenson
- LI-THESIS-2012.pdfUploaded bybu7amud
- 4. Deliverability Testing and Well Production Potential Analysis MethodsUploaded by77bgfa
- 8 TCCS4 Task F Georgescu-Modelling and Simulation of CO2 Leakage Mechanisms Version2[1]Uploaded bysaladinayubi1234
- Petrochemical Engineering - Petroleum EntrapmentUploaded byadamgarth
- Matrix Acidizing in Saudi Arabia by Buoyant Ball SealersUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneity in Laminated Reservoirs.docxUploaded byErik Andres Garcia Villarroel
- Paper Saturation Height MethodsUploaded byjulisarj
- Study tactics.pdfUploaded byNitin Gandhare
- Data SetsUploaded byjrtn
- Well Test Analysis in Volatile Oil ReservoirsUploaded byDICKSON TOYO
- GabUploaded bykianyeaplolgmailcom
- 308170387Uploaded byAnshul Jha
- Field Scale Simulation of Cyclic Solvent Injection (CSI)1Uploaded byAlex Castañeda
- Case StudiesUploaded byRusdan Fahrur Rozi
- 1033647.pdfUploaded byNilesh Singhal
- Oil n Gas Value ChangeUploaded byduyvinhly4991
- SPE-1797-PAUploaded byGonzalo Paez
- Unsteady flow model for multifractured horizontal wellUploaded bysmithyry2014
- Sour Gas Inj TengizUploaded byJeffGreen
- 1.Introduction 170411Uploaded byAnonymous iCFJ73OMpD
- parte 2Uploaded byfrank
- Document(1)Uploaded bySteven Chandra
- Modul I Uji SumurUploaded byyudha
- Field “U” filtration or fluid migration direction evaluation for development optimizationUploaded byIlshatFTalipov
- Petroleum Geology- Introduction (2)Uploaded byAhmed Ayad
- 2721_absUploaded byAbdelali Sol
- Gravitude.docxUploaded byrnoordin
- UNU-GTP-1985-03Uploaded bymuhamad_al_hakim

- STRESS SENSITIVITY OF SATURATION AND END-POINT RELATIVE PERMEABILITIESUploaded byari_si
- SPE-79709-PA-P.pdfUploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 63030Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 93253Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 10791Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 35742Uploaded bytomk2220
- SPE_99Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 07921Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 08945Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 08952Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 57439Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 06071Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 11182Uploaded bytomk2220
- 1108Uploaded bytomk2220
- Geo Mechanics Yn 3Uploaded bytomk2220
- SPE-171019-MSUploaded bytomk2220
- SPE-84491-MSUploaded byZoha Ahmed
- Spe 133452Uploaded bytomk2220
- Spe 21272Uploaded bytomk2220
- SPE-152509-MS-PUploaded bytomk2220
- SPE-166295-MS-PUploaded bytomk2220
- SPE 097972 (Rushing) Post Frac Perf Diagnostics for Gas WellsUploaded byOmar Zamora
- Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing.pdfUploaded byJLLMex
- SPE-153022-MSUploaded bytomk2220
- 113314.pdfUploaded bytomk2220
- Well-JPSEUploaded bytomk2220
- MS 037 ILK Dilhan Thesis TAMU (Dec 2005)Uploaded bytomk2220

- Second Periodical Exam_1Uploaded byPilo Pas Kwal
- SirUploaded by思恩
- Fourier transform.pdfUploaded byAnonymous JgrIK6L
- Guidi Rhetoric and Conceptual Problems in Economics the Case of General Equilibrium TheoryUploaded byEleutheros1
- 02 Pengantar Teknik IndustriUploaded byMarsius Sihombing
- Ampliacion ChuletaUploaded byAntonio Escamilla
- Forward–backward algorithm.pdfUploaded bySandro Ernesto Ruiz Samaniego
- Lecture 1 - Vectors.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 5CVuhgmVfj
- 06. Basic Engineering Correlation Admath x DeUploaded byJannine Joyce Bergonio
- Analisis ItemUploaded byTn Khairul
- Appendix bUploaded byspock126
- Enlish Statement ExampleUploaded byFrancis Gutierrez Balazon
- 159258080 CXC MATHS Formula SheetUploaded byEric D Medeci
- The Efficient Use of Supplementary Information in Finite Population SamplingUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- MAT2437 Formula Sheet_2015(1)Uploaded byMattison McGellin
- Data Sufficicent 56786Uploaded byCindy Lee
- A Collection of Problems Published on Mathematical MagazinesUploaded byΘωμαςΣτεφανιδης
- Beta Distribution SummaryUploaded byVarun Munjal
- Planning CommentaryUploaded byShealagh Lyons
- 2007.IJNME.non Linear Programming Method Aproach for UBLAUploaded byDebasisMohapatra
- Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Cracked Beam on Elastic Foundation Subjected to Moving MassUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- effects of peer tutoring to enhance multiplication fact fluency finalUploaded byapi-130242639
- Applcations of CalculusUploaded byJayanth Venkatesh
- Ad 0767826Uploaded byCesar Zamudio
- State Estimation for Distribution SystemsUploaded byhockpin
- CS Riddles_Wu ForumsUploaded bychiragparag
- 1 Frequency Domain AnalysisUploaded byVijay Raju
- Introduction to 3+1 Numerical RelativityUploaded byBraw Antonio
- jafa07vol-2.pdfUploaded byAgus Rahmat
- A level 2010 paper 1 solutionUploaded bykarpeo