31 views

Uploaded by Bolsec14

Anullar Pressure Build-up

- Proposal Example
- Calculations Help Determine Carbon Steel Piping in Cold Temperature Relief Service
- geothermal wells - two phase flow modeling
- Mold Advance Course Book
- hi_10_pinch.pr.pdf
- Dialogue Concerning Two Chiefs' World-System
- sumanta chowdhury - CLS_aipmt-15-16_XIII_phy_Study-Package-3_Set-1_Chapter-11.pdf
- Industrial Furnaces
- 152-1664-1-PB
- Fins
- Depressuring___A_Practical_Guide[1]
- JT - IPTC 13405. Well Integrity Management Systems, Achievements vs Expectations
- ME4413
- Welding 1
- BSJV 31012015
- 1-s2.0-0017931067900324-main
- 199876472-Centralize-Centralizers.pdf
- Woodworks - Thermal Movement of Wood
- The Heat Transfer Equation
- AE Questions

You are on page 1of 9

Annular-Pressure Buildup

A.R. Hasan, SPE, U. of Minnesota-Duluth; B. Izgec, SPE, and C.S. Kabir, SPE, Chevron*

Summary

Increased tubinghead temperature with increased rate may induce

pressure increase in the annuli for the trapped fluid. Managing

annular-pressure buildup (APB) for sustaining well deliverability

is particularly crucial in subsea wells, where intervention is complicated. Ordinarily, a multistring casing design accommodates

anomalous pressure rise from the standpoint of well integrity.

However, management of day-to-day operations presents challenges when APB occurs. This study presents mechanistic models

for understanding and mitigating APB during production. By

preserving mass, momentum, and energy in the wellbore, we

developed two approaches involving semisteady-state and transient

formulations. The intrinsic idea is to mimic the physical process

with minimal input parameters to estimate pressure buildup in the

annuli. Our model formulation handles the mechanisms of fluid

expansion and fluid influx/efflux quite rigorously. This approach

appears to be quite sufficient because we account for most of the

cases of APB encountered.

Introduction

Historically, production and reservoir engineers seldom probed the

root causes of APB, perhaps because tubular design with implicit

APB control has been in the domain of drilling engineers. But the

advent of continuous monitoring of pressure and temperature at

the well bottom, tubinghead, and annuli presents the opportunity

for real-time production and reservoir management within the

safe operating limits of the system. Pressures measured at the

tubinghead and bottomhole with the corresponding flow rate are

the most sought after data in production-engineering calculations.

Rate validation in integrated-asset modeling is a case in point. In

contrast, temperature measurements have not found routine usage,

but are gaining increased attention in connection with transientpressure testing (Sui et al. 2008; Duru and Horne 2008; Izgec

et al. 2007; Hasan et al. 2005; Kabir et al. 1996), downhole flow

profiling (Wang et al. 2008; Nath et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2006;

Ouyang and Belanger 2006), and flow-rate estimation (Izgec et al.

2009; Kabir et al. 2008). This paper shows that both pressure and

temperature responses at the tubinghead and annuli are strongly

related to flow rates and that these measured values can be used

to alert the operator of possible APB. Naturally, clarity in understanding the interrelationship of wellhead temperature with flow

rate and pressure is imperative for sustaining long-term wellhead

deliverability without compromising well integrity.

Fluid production in a typical production string may conceivably impact pressures in production and surface casings. Generally

speaking, only the shallowest casings are cemented from bottom

to the top, whereas the others are cemented at the bottom, and the

annuli contain mostly drilling fluid. Producing fluids in the tubing

string transmit heat to the liquid-filled annuli, thereby triggering

pressure increase. APB is not associated only with fluid production; fluid circulation during drilling may also induce the same, as

reported by Pattillo et al. (2006). Accessible wellheads in typical

land and offshore dry-tree wells allow the operator to monitor

and bleed off all annuli as needed. However, subsea wells present

Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Original SPE manuscript received for review 23 August 2008. Revised manuscript received

for review 10 August 2009. Paper (SPE 120778) peer approved 11 October 2009.

stakes are high in high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) wells

and those that are completed in a deepwater environment where

intervention costs are prohibitive. High flow rates simply exacerbate the APB issue because of the associated high energy that the

fluids bring to surface.

Consequences of APB are increased stresses on tubulars, which

in the limit, may cause well failure. Reduced production to alleviate

annulus-fluid temperature and pressure rise is, of course, economically unattractive. Given this reality, multistring casing designs

have been proposed by Halal and Mitchell (1994) and Adams

and MacEachran (1994). Methods for APB mitigation have been

proposed by way of reduced-heat transport with vacuum-insulated

tubing (Azzola et al. 2007; Ellis et al. 2004), induced compressible

fluids with nitrogen-foam spacers (Vargo et al. 2003, Loder et al.

2003), and water-based spacer fluid containing emulsified methyl

methacrylate monomer (Bloys et al. 2007).

Understanding the underlying mechanisms of APB is essential

for developing any mitigation approach. A number of researchers, notably Adams and MacEachran (1994) and Oudeman and

Bacarreza (1995), have identified three mechanisms responsible

for APBfluid expansion, fluid influx or efflux, and tubing buckling. Mechanistic modeling of APB is currently performed with a

well-known commercial package that relies on numerical modeling of the wellbore heat-transfer process. This study presents two

semianalytical approaches involving semisteady-state and transient

formulations. These models offer the potential for ongoing management of annular pressures. In their current form, these tools

are limited to handling annular-pressure increase owing to fluid

expansion. Issues with tubular buckling are not handled, but fluid

influx or efflux is accounted for in discrete steps.

Model Description

The mass of fluid trapped in an enclosed annulus can experience

significant pressure increase owing to thermal expansion when it

receives heat from the producing fluids in the tubing string. We

can write an expression (Oudeman and Bacarreza 1995; Oudeman

and Kerem 2006) describing the three components contributing to

the annular-pressure increase as

p =

l

1

1

T

Va +

V , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

T

T Va

T Vl l

where T is coefficient of isothermal compressibility, l is coefficient of thermal expansion, Vl is the volume of annular liquid, and

Va is the annular volume. The first term implies liquid expansion,

the second term accounts for volume change in the annulus owing

to tubular buckling, and the third term includes liquid influx (Vl

positive) or efflux (Vl negative) in the annulus. Because the first

term, or the liquid expansion, is by far the most dominant in a

sealed annulus, accounting for well more than 80% of pressure

increase in most cases (Oudeman and Kerem 2006), our modeling

approaches center around this term. In the following, we describe

the development of two methods for estimating APB. In both

methods, we adapt the first term in the Oudeman-Bacarreza model

and integrate it over the entire wellbore.

Semisteady-State Approach. In this approach, we treat uid ow

to be occurring at steady state while the consequent heat exchange

with the formation is in transient mode. This treatment implies

that except for well startup or shut-in when the uid ow occurs

at unsteady state, the use of this method is justied.

195

per unit length, whose heat content is Mcpi. We use Subscript 1 for

the annulus closest to the tubing (production casing), Subscript 2

for the annulus next to it, and so on. Fig. 1 depicts a typical well

sketch with multiple annuli. In the following, the energy balance

is modeled for Annulus 1; this approach has been extended for

multiple annuli, but we do not address that here for brevity.

During production or shut-in following production, fluids in the

tubing are hotter than the surrounding formation, thereby promoting heat to flow from the tubing toward the formation. Portions of

the heat flowing toward the formation accumulate in various elements of the well, including the annuli. As we mentioned earlier,

heat accumulation with consequent rise in temperature of the fluid

trapped in an annulus causes the APB in the vast majority of the

cases; this element constitutes the models basis.

Heat accumulation in the rst annulus = Heat exiting

the tubing uid Heat going out to the formation

from the rst annulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

Heat accumulation in the annulus is the product of its mass, M,

specific heat, cp1, and change in temperature with time, dT1/dt;

that is, Mcp1(dT1/dt). Heat exiting the tubing fluid to the annulus

is given by the temperature difference between the two fluids and

the heat-transfer coefficient:

Qta = (d1o)U1t (Tf T1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

Heat loss from the annulus to the formation is modeled in two

steps: that of loss from the annulus fluid to the wellbore/formation

interface and from this interface to earth. The major steps of the

solution are presented here, and the details of the derivation are

presented in Appendix A.

We can write heat loss in terms of temperature difference,

T1Tei, and the relaxation parameter, LR1, which is defined in

Appendix A as

Q = LR1 ( T1 Tei ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

Mathematically, Eq. 2 is then written as

Mcp1(dT1/dt) = (d1o)U1i (Tf T1) LR1(T1 Tei). . . . . . . . . . (5)

ProductionTubing casing

fluid

fluid

4

Fluid (Mud)

2

Cement

In Eq. 5, U1t is the coefficient for heat transfer between the tubing

and the first annular fluid and is detailed in Appendix A. Assuming

the tubing-fluid temperature, Tf , and the heat-transfer coefficients

to be invariant with time makes Eq. 5 a first-order linear-differential equation, with the following solution for the annulus-fluid

temperature, T1, as a function of time:

A A

T1 = T10 e Bt ,

B B

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

where

d U T + LR1Tei

A = ti 1e f

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

Mc p1

d U + L R1

B = t1 1e

T1o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)

Mc p1

the same approach, solutions for fluid temperatures in subsequent

annuli are obtained. This model is semisteady-state because we

presuppose steady-state flow of oil in the flow string, but transient

heat flow in the annuli and formation. Note that Eq. 6 contains the

time-dependant heat-transfer term, LR1, as shown in Eq. A-7 (Hasan

and Kabir 2002).

We use the knowledge of annulus-temperature rise, T1 T10,

to calculate APB. Pressure change, dp, for a fluid in a confined

space is related to the fluids thermal compressibility, , and fluid

expansivity, , by the following expression:

dp =

( V /T ) p

dT = ( / ) dT .

( V /p)T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)

rise is detailed in Appendix C.

Transient Approach. We adapted our (Izgec et al. 2007) transient

wellbore/reservoir simulator to model APB. While the wellboreuid temperature was evaluated by the coupled simulator, radialheat transfer responsible for APB was accounted for by solving

the following second-order diffusivity equation:

2T 1 T

T

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

+

=

r 2 r r

t

where represents thermal diffusivity (cp/k), which accounts for

transport of heat through various media, such as fluid, cement,

tubing/casing material, and formation. We adapted our coupled

wellbore/reservoir simulator (Hasan et al. 2005; Izgec et al. 2007)

to model the unsteady-state heat transfer for the APB problem at

hand. The analytic solution of Eq. 10 is given by

3

T f

Formation

wc p LR

(T

mc (1 + C )

ei

Tf +

T f

g sin

+

.

mc p (1 + CT ) z

C p

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

wc p

depth is given by

T f

z

= gG sin e ( z L ) LR , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

where

Fig. 1Well sketch showing various concentric annuli in a

typical well construction.

196

= gG sin +

g sin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

cp

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

220

220

Bottomhole

Temperature, F

Temperature, F

Tubinghead

180

Annulus-1

140

Annulus-2

100

180

Midpoint

140

100

Wellhead

60

60

50

100

150

200

250

Time, hr

Fig. 2Time-dependent temperature trace in various annuli

at surface.

and

dp

v dv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

CJ

dz

c p Jgc dz

a=

wc p

mc p (1 + CT )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)

g sin

= aLRTei aLRT f + a gG sin e ( z L ) LR +

.

t

C p

T f

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

Integrating Eq. 16, we obtain

T f = Tei +

1 e aLR t

1 e ( z L ) LR , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)

LR

where

LR =

2

wc p

rtoU to ke

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

ke + rtoU toTD

the tubing does not account for heat accumulation or increase in

temperature in the annulus. The general form of the heat-transfer

coefficient used in this formulation is given by

r ln ( rto /r1i ) rto ln ( r co / r ci ) r to ln ( r h / r co )

1

1

=

+ to

+

+

.

kt

kcas

kcem

U to hc + hr

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

The temperature rise in the annulus will slow down the net

heat-transfer rate. Because we have just one equation to calculate

temperature and heat loss to the formation, the impact of change

in annular heat-transfer rate can be approximated by continuously

evaluating both conductive and convective heat-transfer coefficients in the annulus using the following expressions:

1

1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)

=

U a hc + hr

Heat entering from tubing into the annulus is

Q = 2 rtoU a (T f Ta ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

0.4

0.6

0.8

Radial Distance, ft

Fig. 3Radial-heat transmission at various points in the wellbore.

The initial estimate of the fluid temperature is calculated by using

the following expression:

T f = Tei +

0.2

1 e aLR t

1 e ( z L ) LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)

LR

outlined in Appendix B. After calculation of Ua, the general

overall-heat-transfer coefficient, Uto, is evaluated to estimate the

fluid temperature again. Appendix C outlines how pressures are

computed in other annuli.

Example Applications

1. Synthetic Example. Let us illustrate how temperature propagation occurs radially, leading to APB. Consider a 14,000-ft vertical

well producing single-phase oil with multiple casing strings, such

the one shown in Fig. 1. As expected, the uid temperature at the

tubinghead will be considerably higher than the initial condition

of 70F, owing to energy that the uid brings to surface. Consequently, the tubinghead temperature stabilizes at 200F after

approximately 24 hours of production (Fig. 2). The associated heat

transport in the radial direction also causes temperature increase

in different annuli. Annulus-1 represents the uid temperature

in the production casing. After 24 hours of production, the corresponding energy dissipation in the radial direction is shown in

Fig. 3. As the tubinghead-temperature prole suggests, most of the

temperature drop is locally conned; that is, within the production

casing. These computations were performed with our transient

model, described in the preceeding section. Table 1 presents all

the relevant data used to generate Figs. 1 and 2.

2. Field Example 1. High-rate single-phase oil production occurs

from a 12,000-ft well. Table 2 presents the pertinent input parameters to the simulator. First, we modeled this well behavior with

the semisteady-state approach for pressure increase in 2002 and

2005. Pressure buildup was observed in the 7-in. production casing

owing to heating of annular uid by the producing uid in the tubing string. As Fig. 4 shows, the rise in annulus pressure is directly

related to increase in ow rate. With increased rate, the available

energy for heat transfer increases proportionately, leading to the

increased annular pressure. Fig. 5 makes this point amply clear.

Because the uid cannot expand in the annular conned space, its

low compressibility manifests in terms of increased pressure with

increased temperature, resulting in the APB behavior.

Fig. 6 shows the match of semisteady-state model response

with the wellhead temperature in the tubing. Note that the earlytime mismatch is a result of starting production in a cold well

when in reality, the well had been in production for some time.

However, this mismatch did not impede the models ability to

match the annular-pressure rise, as the pressure match testifies.

Note that the continuous rise in the annular pressure is directly

197

EXAMPLE

q (STB/D)

q (STB/D)

5,300

3,000

L (ft)

12,000

k (md)

50

L (ft)

14,000

k (md)

700

h (ft)

500

(fraction)

h (ft)

(fraction)

0.2

API Gravity

38

API Gravity

25

Tei (F)

Tei (F)

220

222

ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)

ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)

1.5

1.5

cpe (Btu/lbm-F)

0.625

0.012

cpe (Btu/lbm-F)

0.625

gT (F/ft)

gT (F/ft)

0.011

Tubing OD (in.)

4.5

Tubing OD (in.)

3.5

Tubing ID (in.)

3.96

26

Tubing ID (in.)

2.992

kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)

kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)

30

kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)

kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)

26

30

0.1

ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)

ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)

0.1

kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)

kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)

0.34

(hr/ft )

0.34

(hr/ft )

0.038

0.04

1,400

Annulus Pressure, psig

1,200

300

0.15

1,000

800

600

400

200

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

170

0

0

1,200

25,000

180

190

200

210

220

Tubinghead Temperature, F

related to the rise in wellhead tubing temperature, which is triggered by increasing flow rate. Fig. 6 captures the essence of what

is shown in Fig. 4.

In 2005, some annular liquid was bled off to relieve pressure. As

a consequence, higher producing rate was restored while the annulus

pressure decreased (Fig. 7). This bleedoff volume was not reported,

however. When we used a bleedoff volume of 79 gal, the model was

displays both this pressure and temperature match.

To model the entire history involving both pre- and postbleedoff periods, we used both models to compare and contrast

the solutions. As Fig. 9 shows, both models capture the essence

of the annulus-temperature response amid data scatter. Similarly,

good-quality APB match is obtained for the production casing

250

1,400

1,200

1,000

200

800

600

150

400

200

Data

Semisteady-state model

100

0

0

400

800

Time, hr

1,200

198

Tubinghead Temperature, F

Fig. 4Increasing production rate causes increased heat transfer, leading to APB.

1,600

1,200

Annulus

bleedoff

800

400

0

5,000

10,000 15,000

Oil Rate, STB/D

20,000

25,000

producing rates in 2006.

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

1,400

210

205

1,200

200

1,000

195

800

600

400

0

190

Temperature data

Pressure data

Semisteady-state

1,000

2,000

185

180

3,000

4,000

5,000

215

Annulus Pressure, psig

215

Tubinghead Temperature, F

210

205

200

195

185

Data

Semisteady-state

Transient

180

0

Producing Time, hr

gal of annular fluid.

3. Field Example 2. This well also exhibits a strong correlation

between tubinghead temperature and APB (Fig. 11). Of course,

changes in ow rate precipitate the corresponding wellhead temperature in the tubing string. Table 3 presents the necessary model

input parameters. Fig. 12 displays a satisfactory match of tubinghead temperature and annular pressure. We used the transient model

to obtain this match. Note that constant rates became the input

because only monthly production rates were available, lacking the

granularity needed for rigorous modeling. Signicant production

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Producing Time, hr

Fig. 9Comparing tubinghead-temperature predictions in 2006.

issue, the transient models ability to capture overall response is

quite encouraging.

Discussion

Increased drilling in deeper waters makes prediction and management of APB imperative. The two analytic models presented in this

work provide methods for estimating APB. Real-time monitoring

of pressure and temperature in various annuli and the use of proposed models makes day-to-day management of APB much more

viable. In fact, a calibrated model provides clues about the maximum allowable rate commensurate with the systems mechanical

190

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

Data

Semisteady-state

Transient

600

400

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Tubinghead Temperature, F

1,600

Annulus Pressure, psig

190

Producing Time, hr

180

170

160

150

140

200

400

9,500

L (ft)

14,100

k (md)

34

h (ft)

350

(fraction)

0.15

API Gravity

37

Tei (F)

225

ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)

1.5

cpe (Btu/lbm-F)

0.625

gT (F/ft)

0.011

Tubing OD (in.)

4.5

Tubing ID (in.)

3.96

kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)

26

kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)

26

ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)

0.1

kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)

0.34

(hr/ft )

0.04

1,000

1,200

annular-pressure rise, Field Example 2.

190

1,100

170

Annular Pressure, psi

q (STB/D)

800

TABLE 3INPUT PARAMETERS FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 2

600

150

900

130

110

700

o Annular pressure

Tubinghead temperature

Model temperature

Model pressure

500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

90

70

Tubinghead Temperature, F

1,600

50

2,500

Time, hr

199

volume needed to improve the operable range of production rate;

Fig. 7 illustrates such an example. The field example shows that

both models allow easy application to managing APB en route to

preserving well integrity. In so doing, aspects of flow assurance

and real-time production management are addressed intrinsically.

Of the two approaches presented, the semisteady-state model

is much simpler than its transient counterpart and, therefore, lends

itself for rapid implementation. However, this simplicity is a tradeoff in that it is not designed to handle transient rates associated

with any production scenario. In contrast, the transient model is

more complex, but is capable of properly representing early-time

transient behavior, as indicated by both the synthetic and field

examples. Consequently, the transient model is capable of providing early warnings for anomalous rise in APB and would allow

ample time for mitigation. Perhaps more important, one can assess

the maximum producing rate at the current condition and after a

certain volume of annular fluid has been bled off.

The examples presented in this study show that applications of

either model require real-time wellhead-pressure and -temperature

data in the production-tubing, production-casing, and other annuli.

Additional input data include well-configuration information, fluid

compressibility, and thermal properties. As is always the case, success in performance prediction is linked directly with data of good

precision for proper management of modern wells.

Conclusions

1. Rigorous formulations of APB are presented. The transient

formulation presents a coupled wellbore/reservoir model,

thereby allowing flexibility in both history matching and future

predictions.

2. Wellhead fluid temperature in the tubing string is directly correlated with APB; the model allows establishing the magnitude

of rate reduction en route to alleviating APB.

3. Field examples illustrate applications of the methodology used,

in terms of both diagnosis and mitigation.

Nomenclature

a = parameter dened by Eq. 14, ft/hr (L/t)

cp = heat capacity, Btu/lbm-F (L2/t2T)

CJ = Joule-Thompson coefcient of uid, ft-F-sec2/lbm (LTt2/M)

CT = thermal-storage coefcient, dimensionless

d = diameter, ft (L)

g = gravitational acceleration, ft/sec2(L/T2)

gc = unit conversion factor (= 32.17 lbm-ft/lbf-sec2)

gG = geothermal gradient, F/ft (T/L)

h = convective heat-transfer coefcient, Btu/F-hr (M/Tt3)

k = thermal conductivity of annular uid, Btu/hr-ft-F (ML/Tt3)

L = length of ow string, ft (L)

LR = relaxation length parameter (Eq. 18), 1/ft1 (L1)

LR1 = relaxation length parameter (Eq. A-7), Btu/ft-hr-oF (ML/Tt3)

M = mass of uid per unit depth, lbm/ft (M/L)

p = pressure, psia (M/Lt2)

q = ow rate, STB/D (L3/t)

Q = heat-transfer rate per unit length of wellbore, Btu/hr-ft

(ML/t3)

Qta = heat-transfer rate from tubing to production annulus per

unit length of wellbore, Btu/hr-ft (ML/t3)

r = radius, ft (L)

rwb = wellbore radius, ft (L)

t = producing time, hr (t)

tD = dimensionless producing time (= ket/ecer2wb)

T = uid temperature, F (T)

Tei = undisturbed earth or formation temperature at any depth,

F (T)

TC = heat transmissivity in center cell, Btu/oF-hr

TD = dimensionless temperature (= 2ke(Twb-Tei)/Q)

TE = heat transmissivity in east cell, Btu/F-hr

TW = heat transmissivity in west cell, Btu/F-hr

200

hr-F-ft2 (M/Tt3)

V = volume, ft3 (L3)

= coefcient of thermal expansion, 1/F (1/T)

T = coefcient of isothermal compressibility, l/psi (LT2/M)

= density, lbm/ft3 (M/L3)

= parameter dened by Eq. 14, F /ft (T/L)

= diffusivity of heat, hr/ft2 (t/L2)

Subscripts

a = annulus

c = convective

e = earth (formation)

f = produced uid

i = inside

i = ith annulus

o = outside

r = radiative

t = tubing

wb = wellbore

1 = rst or production annulus

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Chevron management for permission to publish

this work. Author Hasan acknowledges the support received from

the American Chemical Societys Petroleum Research Fund in

conducting work related to this project.

References

Adams, A.J. and MacEachran, A. 1994. Impact on Casing Design of Thermal Expansion of Fluids in Confined Annuli. SPE Drill & Compl 9 (3):

210216. SPE-21911-PA. doi: 10.2118/21911-PA.

Azzola, J.H., Tselepidakis, D.P., Patillo, P.D., Richey, J.F., Tinker, S.J.,

Miller, R.A., and Segreto, S.J. 2007. Application of Vacuum-Insulated

Tubing to Mitigate Annular Pressure Buildup. SPE Drill & Compl 22

(1): 4651. SPE-90232-PA. doi: 10.2118/90232-PA.

Bloys, B., Gonzalez, M., Hermes, R., Bland, R., Foley, R., Tijerina, R.,

Davis, J. et al. 2007. Trapped Annular PressureA Spacer Fluid That

Shrinks. Paper SPE 104698 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 2022 February. doi: 10.2118/104698-MS.

Duru, O. and Horne, R.N. 2008. Modeling Reservoir Temperature Transients and Matching to Permanent Downhole Gauge Data for Reservoir

Parameter Estimation. Paper SPE 115791 presented at the SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 2124 September. doi:

10.2118/115791-MS.

Ellis, R.C., Fritchie, D.G. Jr., Gibson, D.H., Gosch, S.W., and Pattillo, P.D.

2004. Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign: Part 2Redesign. SPE

Drill & Compl 19 (2): 112119. SPE-88838-PA. doi: 10.2118/88838-PA.

Halal, A.S. and Mitchell, R.F. 1994. Casing Design for Trapped Annulus

Pressure Buildup. SPE Drill & Compl 9 (2): 107114. SPE-25694-PA.

doi: 10.2118/25694-PA.

Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S. 2002. Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.

Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S., and Lin, D. 2005. Analytic Wellbore-Temperature

Model for Transient Gas-Well Testing. SPE Res Eval & Eng 8 (1):

240247. SPE-84288-PA. doi: 10.2118/84288-PA.

Izgec, B., Hasan, A.R., Lin, D., and Kabir, C.S. 2009. Flow-Rate Estimation

From Wellhead-Pressure and -Temperature Data. SPE Prod & Oper.

SPE-115790-PA (in press; posted 05 November 2009).

Izgec, B., Kabir, C.S., Zhu, D., and Hasan, A.R. 2007. Transient Fluid and

Heat Flow Modeling in Coupled Wellbore/Reservoir Systems. SPE Res

Eval & Eng 10 (3): 294301. SPE-102070-PA. doi: 10.2118/102070-PA.

Johnson, D., Sierra, J., and Gualtieri, D. 2006. Successful Flow Profiling

of Gas Wells Using Distributed Temperature Sensing Data. Paper SPE

103097 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2427 September. doi: 10.2118/103097-MS.

Kabir, C.S., Hasan, A.R., Jordan, D.L., and Wang, X. 1996. A Wellbore/Reservoir Simulator for Testing Gas Wells in High-Temperature

Reservoirs. SPE Form Eval 11 (2): 128134. SPE-28402-PA. doi:

10.2118/28402-PA.

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

Kabir, C.S., Izgec, B., Hasan, A.R., Wang, X., and Lee, J. 2008. Real-Time

Estimation of Total Flow Rate and Flow Profiling in DTS-Instrumented

Wells. Paper IPTC 12343 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 35 December. doi: 10.2523/12343-MS.

Loder, T., Evans, J.H., and Griffith, J.E. 2003. Prediction and Effective Prevention

Solution for Annular Pressure Buildup on Subsea Completed WellsCase

Study. Paper SPE 84270 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition, Denver, 58 October. doi: 10.2118/84270-MS.

Nath, D.K., Sugianto, R., and Finley, D. 2007. Fiber-Optic DistributedTemperature-Sensing Technology Used for Reservoir Monitoring in

an Indonesian Steamflood. SPE Drill & Compl 22 (2): 149156. SPE97912-PA. doi: 10.2118/97912-PA.

Oudeman, P. and Bacarreza, L.J. 1995. Field trial results of annular pressure

behavior in high pressure/high temperature well. SPE Drill & Compl

10 (2): 8488. SPE-26738-PA. doi: 10.2118/26738-PA.

Oudeman, P. and Kerem, M. 2006. Transient Behavior of Annular Pressure

Buildup in HP/HT Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 21 (4): 234241. SPE88735-PA. doi: 10.2118/88735-PA.

Ouyang, L.-B. and Belanger, D. 2006. Flow Profiling by Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) SystemExpectation and Reality. SPE Prod &

Oper 21 (1): 269281. SPE-90541-PA. doi: 10.2118/90541-PA.

Pattillo, P.D., Cocales, B.W., and Morey, S.C. 2006. Analysis of an Annular

Pressure Buildup Failure During Drill Ahead. SPE Drill & Compl 21

(4): 242247. SPE-89775-PA doi: 10.2118/89775-PA.

Sathuvalli, U.B., Payne, M.L., Patillo, P., Rahman, S., and Suryanarayana,

P.V. 2005. Development of a Screening System to Identify Deepwater Wells at Risk for Annular Pressure Build-Up. Paper SPE 92594

presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 2325

February. doi: 10.2118/92594-MS.

Sui, W., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.A. 2008. Model for

Transient Temperature and Pressure Behavior in Commingled Vertical

Wells. Paper SPE 115200 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 2830 October. doi:

10.2118/115200-MS.

Vargo, R.F. Jr., Payne, M., Faul, R., LeBlanc, J., and Griffith, J.E. 2003.

Practical and Successful Prevention of Annular Pressure Buildup on the

Marlin Project. SPE Drill & Compl 18 (3): 228234. SPE-85113-PA.

doi: 10.2118/85113-PA.

Wang, X., Lee, J., Thigpen, B., Vachon, G., Poland, S., and Norton, D. 2008.

Modeling Flow Profile Using Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) System. Paper SPE 111790 presented at the Intelligent Energy Conference and

Exhibition, Amsterdam, 2527 January. doi: 10.2118/111790-MS.

Approach

Heat accumulation in the annulus is simply equal to heat exiting

the tubing fluid minus the heat going out to the formation. Annular

heat accumulation causes temperature change with time, dT1/dt.

In other words,

Heat accumulation in the annulus = Mcp1(dT1/dt). . . . . . (A-1)

Heat exiting the tubing fluid to the annulus is given by the temperature difference between the two fluids and the heat-transfer

coefficient,

Qta = (d1o)U1t (Tf T1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)

In Eq. A-2, U1t is the coefficient for heat transfer between the

tubing and the first annular fluid and is discussed later in this

section. Heat loss from the annulus to the formation is modeled

in two steps: that of loss from annulus fluid to the wellbore/formation interface and from this interface to earth. Heat loss from the

Annulus 1 fluid (at a temperature of T1) to the wellbore/formation

interface (at Twb) is

Q = 2 r1oU1e ( T1 Twb ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)

Heat loss from wellbore/formation interface to earth will depend

on the temperature difference, TwbTei, and the dimensionless temperature TD (Hasan and Kabir 2002) and is given by

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

2 ke

(Twb Tei ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)

TD

where TD is given by

D

Q = L R1 ( T1 Tei ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)

where

r1oU1e ke

LR1 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)

ke + ( r1oU1eTD )

Eq. A-2 is then rewritten as

Mcp1(dT1/dt) = (d1o)U1i (Tf T1) LR1(T1 Tei). . . . . . . . (A-8)

In Eq. A-8, U1e represents the overall coefficient for heat transfer

from the first annular fluid to the wellbore/formation interface.

Because heat transfer is more dominant in the radial direction

than in its vertical counterpart, one can treat the resistances to heat

flow in series. Therefore, for heat transfer from Annulus 1 fluid

to the wellbore/formation interface, these resistances include those

offered by (1) Annulus 1 fluid, (2) any insulation around the tubing,

(3) Casing 1 material, (4) Annulus 2 fluid, (5) Casing 2 material,

and (6) the cement sheath, assuming no other annulus. Therefore,

we estimate U1e by inverting the sum of the resistances offered by

all the elements, which is given by

r ln ( rins /r1 ) rto lnn ( r 1o / r 1i )

1

r

r

+

+ to

= to + to

k1

r2 i ha 2

kins

U 1e r1o h1

. . . . . . (A-9)

r to ln ( r 2 o / r 2 i ) r to ln ( r cemo / r 2 o )

+

+

kc 2

kc 2

Eq. A-9 is a general expression. Not all elements, such as tubing

insulation represented by the second term of the right side, may

be present in a given wellbore. Note that all overall-heat-transfer

coefficients in this work are expressed in terms of the tubing outside diameter. Similarly, U1t in Eq. A-2 (and Eq. 5 in the text) is

the coefficient for heat transfer between the tubing and the first

annular fluid. In terms of annular- and tubing-fluid heat-transfer

coefficients, h1 and ht, and tubing conductivity, kt, U1t is given by

r ln ( rto /rti ) 1

1

r

+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-10)

= to + to

r

h

kt

ht

U 1t

1o 1

Appendix BSolution of Transient Formulation

The wellbore is represented by cylindrical grids in the z-direction

to calculate heat and mass flow during production and shut-in. The

heat flow from tubing fluid into the formation can be accounted

for by generating radial grids around each cylindrical element and

solving for the conduction equation.

The radial grids around the wellbore are generated logarithmically (Fig. B-1). Heat conduction in an unsteady-state radial

system may be evaluated by performing an energy balance for a

volume element. Using Fouriers law of heat conduction for volume element i, the final form of the equation is given by

Ti n1+1 Ti n +1

T n +1 Ti n +1

+ 2 ki ri h i +1

ri

ri +1

. . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)

n +1

n

Ti

2 Ti

= c p r h

t

2 ki 1 ri 1h

201

. ... . . .

the formation, and the top of cement occurs inside the annulus of

the previous casing. When the wellhead is sealed, an isolated volume of liquid is created or trapped. Second, a temperature increase

must take place resulting from either production or drilling operations. When the fluid is heated, it begins to expand and can produce

a substantial increase in pressure, which can be compounded if

more than one annulus is isolated.

Basically, the pressure at a specific depth in a trapped column

of liquid is determined by the average annulus temperature, the

volume of annulus, and the amount of fluid trapped. The following

expression for a change in pressure in a contained annulus can be

written by recalling Eq. 1 of the text:

p =

calculations.

In Eq. B-1, the first term represents the heat flux into a volume

element, the second term implies the heat flux out, and the last term

on the right side suggests the heat-accumulation term.

Defining,

TW =

2 ki 1 ri 1h

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)

ri

TE =

2 ki ri h

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)

ri +1

= c p r 2 h , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)

Ti n +1 Ti n

. . . . . . . . (B-5)

t

Upon manipulation, the matrix form is given by

TW Ti n1+1 Ti n +1 + TE Ti +n1+1 Ti n +1 =

t

t

Defining,

TC = TW TE + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)

t

n

Ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8)

t

This equation is implicit, which can be solved in matrix form. For

a cylindrical wellbore element with four radial grids, the matrix

from is given by

TW Ti n1+1 TC Ti n +1 TE Ti +n1+1 =

T1n +1

1

TW

TC

TE

TW

TC

TE

TW

TC

T2n +1

T3n +1

T4n +1

Tt n

=

n

T2

. . . . . . . . . . . . (B-9)

t T3n

T4n

The first temperature value on the right side is specified and provided by the analytic temperature solution given in the text.

Appendix CPressure in Multiple Annuli

For a well to experience APB, two conditions are prerequisite.

First, a sealed annulus, or annuli, must exist. In general, a drilled

formation is isolated in a cased well. Cement is circulated above

202

l

1

1

T

V +

V ,

T

T Va a T Vl l

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)

is the coefficient of isothermal compressibility, Vl is the volume of

annular liquid, and Va is the annular volume. Eq. C-1 suggests that

three terms contribute to annular-pressure buildup. These are:

Thermal expansion, which results in an increase in pressure

when the annular volume does not increase sufficiently to accommodate this expansion

Change of annular volume, by thermal expansion, ballooning,

or compression of the casings

Change in the amount of the fluid in the annulus caused either

by liquid leakoff to formation or fluid influx into the annulus

In a sealed annulus, the first term, thermal expansion, is dominant. The second term, change in annular volume, is a downward

correction to the first term. For a perfectly sealed annulus, the last

term is eliminated because the amount of liquid remains constant

with time. Because the first term or the liquid expansion is by far

the most dominant in a sealed annulus, accounting for well over

80% of pressure increase in most cases, our modeling approach

centers around this term. For the thermal-expansion term to dominate APB, two conditions need to apply, such that (1) no liquid is

lost from or added to the annulus and (2) the walls of annulus are

completely rigid, a condition that is satisfied when the casings are

cemented to the surface.

Therefore, Eq. C-1 simplifies to the following expression in

absence of leakoff and changes in annular volume:

p =

l

T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)

T

thermal expansion and the isothermal compressibility of the fluid.

Thermodynamically, fluid volume (or density) can be expressed as

a function of pressure and temperature, as follows:

V

V

V =

T +

p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-3)

T p

p T

When volume is constant, dV = 0, and we have

V

V

p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-4)

T =

p T

T p

Using the definitions of coefficient of thermal expansion and coefficient of isothermal compressibility, Eq. C-4 can be rearranged

for pressure as

T (1/V ) ( V /p )T (1/ ) ( /p )T , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-6)

p =

( V /T ) p

T = ( /T ) T .

( V /p)T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-7)

Note that Eq. C-2 is the finite-difference form of Eq. C-7. Along

with the annular-fluid temperature, fluid properties ( and T) will

change with depth. For example, near the bottomhole, the annular-fluid temperature is high and the temperature increase around

that region with producing time, hence p, is likely to be small.

However, near the wellhead, the annular-fluid temperature is initially low, and may rise substantially over a period of production.

Fig. 3 illustrates this point. Therefore, direct use of Eq. C-7 will

give inaccurate results. To account for the changes in volume of

trapped fluid as a function depth, one needs to use the following

expression:

( V /T ) p

T = ( /T ) T

( V /p)T

.

( M / 2 ) ( /T ) p T {V }bv

=

( M / 2 ) ( /p )T

p =

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-8)

In Eq. C-8, the summation is taken over the total number of grids

in the simulation model, and M is the mass of trapped fluid for

each grid cell of a given annulus. M can be calculated using the

following expression:

M r 2 /144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-9)

The amount of fluid taken out of the system by bleeding off at any

timestep is represented by the term (V )bv. Note that Eq. C-8 requires

a relevant temperature profile for each annulus at each timestep.

Technology Company in Houston. Email: bizg@chevron.com.

His work experience and research areas cover reservoir/production engineering, integrated production modeling, geomechanics, and reservoir simulation. Izgec holds a BS degree in

geophysical engineering from Ankara University, Turkey, and MS

and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M

University. Rashid Hasan is a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. He has 30 years of

teaching and research experience in many areas, including

fluid and heat flows in wellbores and pressure-transient testing.

He has consulted with and offered short courses for oil operating and service companies. He has also worked with NASA on

various aspects of multiphase flow and thermohydraulic transients. Hasan has published extensively and has served on various SPE committees, including editorial review for SPEPF and

SPEJ. He holds his MS and PhD degrees from U. of Waterloo,

Canada. Shah Kabir is a senior reservoir engineering advisor

at Hess in Houston. email: skabir@hess.com. His experiences

include transient testing, wellbore fluid- and heat-flow modeling,

and reservoir engineering. Kabir has published two books and

approximately 100 papers. He coauthored the 2002 SPE book

titled Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores. He also contributed in the 2009 SPE monograph on Transient Well Testing. Kabir

holds an MS degree in chemical engineering from the University

of Calgary, Canada. He has served on various SPE committees,

including editorial review committees for SPEPF, SPEREE, and

SPEJ. He received commendation as an outstanding technical

editor five times for two different journals, and also received the

SPE Western Regions Service Award in 2002. He served as SPE

Distinguished Lecturer in 2006-07 and became a Distinguished

Member in 2007.

203

- Proposal ExampleUploaded byVijay Rajaindran
- Calculations Help Determine Carbon Steel Piping in Cold Temperature Relief ServiceUploaded byshaonaa
- geothermal wells - two phase flow modelingUploaded byVassilios Kelessidis
- Mold Advance Course BookUploaded byshahzad afzal
- hi_10_pinch.pr.pdfUploaded bykrazylion
- Dialogue Concerning Two Chiefs' World-SystemUploaded bySlad
- sumanta chowdhury - CLS_aipmt-15-16_XIII_phy_Study-Package-3_Set-1_Chapter-11.pdfUploaded byNikhil Chauhan
- Industrial FurnacesUploaded byasif712
- 152-1664-1-PBUploaded bycông nghĩa phong
- FinsUploaded byDheerLakhotia
- Depressuring___A_Practical_Guide[1]Uploaded byVilas Kalgutkar
- JT - IPTC 13405. Well Integrity Management Systems, Achievements vs ExpectationsUploaded byjuantellezco
- ME4413Uploaded byHeriberto Saldivar Massimi
- Welding 1Uploaded byfauzailman
- BSJV 31012015Uploaded bykhabiran
- 1-s2.0-0017931067900324-mainUploaded byDarshan Mb
- 199876472-Centralize-Centralizers.pdfUploaded byhunterextreme
- Woodworks - Thermal Movement of WoodUploaded bydonspame
- The Heat Transfer EquationUploaded byDavid Hicks
- AE QuestionsUploaded byHimanshu Vasistha
- MECE2640 Chapter 3Uploaded bycolaarawr
- Startup and Shutdown ProceduresUploaded byShesharam Chouhan
- Khatami-Pass-Fail-Criterion-HDPE-Pipe-Pressure.pdfUploaded bydang2172014
- primary connections - heating upUploaded byapi-391225671
- cfda_7_heatxfer.pptUploaded byJitender Kumar
- Thermal ExpansionUploaded byAhmad Zaki Hafizi
- 6224569Uploaded byJorge Velasquez
- Chapter 2Uploaded byKenneth Bryan Miguel Villagoneza
- Project ManagementUploaded bynaefmubarak
- Transfer of Thermal EnergyUploaded byPeter Kachouh

- A Basic Modern Russian GrammarUploaded byhardhuckster
- Hydrochloric Acid HandbookUploaded byBolsec14
- 2 - PROPUSNOST STIJENAUploaded byBolsec14
- Technical Talent Shortage Could Begin to Limit GrowthUploaded byBolsec14
- Robert S Schechter Oil Well StimulationUploaded byBolsec14
- Svojstva Forties field.txtUploaded byBolsec14
- SPE-52157-MSUploaded byJOSUE
- SPE-52157-MSUploaded byJOSUE
- SPE 30775 - Water Control Diagnostic Plots (Chan, 1995).pdfUploaded bymartinezrdl
- Basic Conversational Russian in 7 DaysUploaded byDaniel Stain Ferreira
- Excel Napredni PriručnikUploaded byBolsec14
- Excel Napredni PriručnikUploaded byBolsec14
- Excel Napredni PriručnikUploaded byBolsec14
- B01 - PTAEX01Uploaded bytoàn đỗ
- Well testUploaded bygo25101992
- Practicalities of Detecting Faults From Buildup TestingUploaded byBolsec14
- From Straight Lines to DeconvolutionUploaded byBolsec14
- Formation DamageUploaded byBolsec14
- Pressure Build-Up Analysis, Variable-Rate CaseUploaded byBolsec14
- Approximating Well to Fault Distance From Pressure Build-up TestsUploaded byBolsec14
- Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies.pdfUploaded byfrancisco_pazv_59954
- Matrix_Acidizing.pdfUploaded byJames Bourne
- A New Method to Predict Performance of Gas Condensate ReservoirsUploaded byBolsec14
- Analysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test DataUploaded byBolsec14
- Formation Damage MechanismSkinUploaded byBolsec14
- Pressure Transient Well Testing Encountered ComplexitiesUploaded byBolsec14
- A Study of Formation Damage at Different EnviromentsUploaded byBolsec14
- Gas Condensate PVT.pdfUploaded byAlejandra Maleja Rivas
- Fracturing abstractUploaded byMounirBounouara
- Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests in Ultra Low Perm FormationsUploaded byBolsec14

- AUtomotive Heat ExchangerUploaded bysantoshkumarvenu
- 2 Thermal BCUploaded byAnonymous 17ihTauS5
- Olp Gce Mech & Heat Ct 5Uploaded byShabbir H. Khan
- 06 Heat TransferUploaded bySrijan Verma
- Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Science Form 1Uploaded byNaim Ahmad
- Industrial FurnacesUploaded byasif712
- Chapter 7 - Heat 1. Diagram 1 Below Shows TheUploaded byRozaini Othman
- Class 11 ch 14 HeatUploaded byBibhu Biswal
- Transport+Phenomena-Energy-Chap+8-9Uploaded byBilal Kazmi
- ME Elective SubjectUploaded byGyan Prakash Verma
- heat transfer lesson plan - revisedUploaded byapi-232744621
- b.e_m.e_syallabusUploaded byAnaruzzaman Sheikh
- Heat Transfer RrUploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- Lab 1.pdfUploaded byHarshita Sharda
- EML-4142-Syllabus_SP-2014.pdfUploaded byBrandy Mathews
- [Bme Apr 2015] Course Outline (Mehb323)Uploaded byPraviin Jayakumar
- Heat Transfer.pdfUploaded byririscahyani
- webquest conduction convection radiationUploaded byapi-259781257
- 139438_DSUploaded byLeneschi Alexandru
- 4th SEMESTER SyllabusUploaded bySaurabh Kalita
- Thermal Analysis ApproachesUploaded byJames Kuria
- Thermal Power Engineering SyllabusUploaded bySrikanth Srinivas
- Heat Conduction of a Circular Hollow Cylinder amidst Mixed Boundary ConditionsUploaded byInnovative Research Publications
- A Dropwise Condensation Model Using Nano Scale Pin Structured SurfaceUploaded byJuvy A. Balbarona
- First Order de Problem Set 2010 Math 208Uploaded byJen Chavez
- IECEP Identification CopyUploaded byDominic Mendoza
- MKP3V120-DUploaded byRidersronald
- Heat Chap02 094Uploaded bysaeid
- Catálogo- Hardening AppNoteUploaded byEnriqueGarrido
- middleby homework_4-2-07.pdfUploaded byCarlos Castillo Urrunaga