0 views

Uploaded by Anonymous U7yp0x

pdf

- 1.1 Overview of Sand Management Techniques.pdf
- Carbonate formation stimulation
- Minas 2A-54N Fracturing Post Job OK
- Fracturing Treatment
- Faulting and Stress
- Ontowiryo a Et Al - Supreme
- Syllabus Sp2011 PGE 301
- RATE EFFECTS ON WATER-OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
- 8. IHS Technical Upstream Consulting Capabilities
- PPP in the Niger Delta
- Naturally Fracture Reservoir-well Testing Interpretations
- Gas Condensate
- C1_Wellbore Completion Concepts
- Comparative Study of the Sand Control Methods Used in the Oil Industry Case Study of the Niger Delta
- P324_06A_Course_Work.pdf
- tdc601.pdf
- Petromod 2014 Petroleum Systems Modeling
- well testing
- PNGE 312
- FLC-42

You are on page 1of 40

For information:

www.petromgt.com

2015

Quality Petroleum Engineering Consultants

Services:

< Reservoir Studies (Conventional/Simulation)

< Well Test Planning andAnalysis

< Waterflood Design & Performance Monitoring

< ProductionOptimization

< Performance Evaluation of MFHW’s (PTA, RTA, Numerical)

< Reserves and Economic Evaluations

<Complete frac design/optimization (Gohfer/KAPPA software)

<Government Submissions

<Customized course contents

< Expert Witness

Petro Management Group - FracKnowledge

Full Well Frac Design and Optimization Services:

Geo-mechanical Reservoir Eng.

Geological

< Poisson’s ratio <DFIT and PTA

<Mineral contents

< Young’smodulus < RTA

<Natural fractures

< BrittlenessIndex <Reservoir parameters

<Core/Sweet spots

Geological Goffer

KAPPA

Data software

software

Well

Fracability

Optimum Frac

Design

reservoirs - (Feb. 24)

< Waterflood Application for MFHW’s - (March 25)

< Applications of Mini Frac (DFIT) - (May 7th)

<Performance Evaluation of Multi-Stage fracs Hz Wells

(MFHW’s) - (June 18)

<How to get the Most out of Well Testing

<Frac Databases: benefits to improve frac results

< How can we improve your frac design/performance in this

poor oil price environment

Industry and In-house Training Courses

< Well Test Analysis Workshop

< Performance Evaluation of Horizontal Wells

< Waterflood Management

<Enhanced Oil Recovery

<Petroleum Engineering for Non-Engineers

<Customization

<Confidentiality

DFIT - Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test

Agenda:

<Introduction

<Applications/benefits

<Types of DFIT analyses

• Pre-Frac Closure

• After Closure Analysis (ACA)

<Case study (Duvernay Shale Gas)

<Case study from Haynesville shale gas

Why Conduct a Mini Frac Test?

• Formation permeability

• Reservoir Pressure

< Other reservoir parameters (fluid leakoff, natural fractures)

< Environmental reasons; determine ceiling injection pressure

of the cap rock for (AER requirement) for:

• Steam-flooding projects

• Water disposal/injection projects

<Optimize water/fluid injection in EOR schemes

• Avoid over-injection (over the frac pressure)

• Avoid under-injection (much lower than the frac pressure)

< Optimize drawdown during flowback to avoid frac damage

Tight formations:

Inj rate: 1-7 Bbl/min

inj vol: 20-50 Bbl

Inj vol. < 7 m 3

Fracture connects the formation with wellbore;

past the damaged zone

< Short injection test (5 to 15 min.), followed by a few hrs of fall-off period

<Formation is broken down to allow wellbore/formation communication past

the damaged zone

<No proppant is used

< Specialized low-rate injection pump, with automated flow rate control by

means of a DCS (Digital Control System)

< Provides better results than closed chamber tests

Information Obtained from DFIT

• Fracture Propagation Pressure

• Instantaneous Shut-in Pressure (ISIP)

• Fracture Gradient (ISIP/depth)

• Fracture Closure pressure (FCP)

• Identify leakoff mechanism - leakoff coefficient

<Identify flow regimes, to confirm reservoir parameters:

• Reservoir pore pressure

• Formation flow capacity/mobility and Permeability

<Net Fracture Pressure (NFP)

• Fracture complexity

• Fracture progress/monitoring

• Well flowback planning

<Determine completion efficiency (step-down rate test)

• Pressure drop in perforation

• Pressure drop as a result of well tortuosity

Limitations of DFIT

be slightly higher than under drawdown conditions (stress-

sensitive permeability).

< Short tests will provide upper bound for pore pressure

<Low pressure reservoirs problematic for surface pressure

monitoring; would require bottomhole shut-in and gauges

Fracture Orientation is Controlled by

In- Situ Stress Field

7 6

7 66

Vertical fracture

σ1> σ >

2 σ 3

Where:

< σ2 : Principle (max. stress)

< σ3 : Minimum stress (closure stress)

In- Situ Stress Field

σ1 > σ2 > σ3

Horizontal fracture

Where:

< σ2 : Minimum horizontal stress

<σ3 : Overburden pressure (Lowest stress)

How to Determine Stress Direction?

Fracture Micro-

Image Log

Why Minimum Stress (σ3) is Important to Know?

embedment

Damaged zone

Filter

Proppant collapse cake

Where:

< σ2 : Principle (max. stress)

< σ3 : Minimum stress (closure stress)

Breakdown

Pressure

Fracture

Propagation Instantaneous

Pressure Pf Shut-in

Pressure or ISIP

Injection

Fracture Closure

Pressure or FCP No flowback test

Pseudo

Linear Flow

Pseudo Radial

Flow

Fracture

Dominated Reservoir

Dominated

Fracture Dominated Analysis

Determination of ISIP

ISIP = Gc . mG + Pc

Where:

Pc: Closure pressure

Gc: Value of the G-Function at closure pressure

mG: Slope of the G-Function prior to closure pressure

What is G-Function?

G-function is an analytical technique used to define the closure

pressure and the types of leak-off

4

0

g t D

4

3

1 t D 1.5 t D

1.5

for 1

g t D 1 t D sin 1 1 t t

D

0.5

D

0.5

for 0.5

t D t t p t p

pumping time

By: Kenneth G. Nolte in 1979

Pre-Closure Analysis

Pressure (FCP), and identify the common leakoff types:

<Pressure dependent Leakoff

<Fracture Tip Extension Leakoff

<Fracture Height Recession Leakoff

Normal Leakoff

First derivative

G- derivative

Occurs when the fracture Pc

area is constant during shut- Fracture closure

in and the leakoff occurs

through a homogeneous

rock matrix

Gc

0 1 2 3 4 8

Characteristics:

<The G-Function derivative (G dP/dG) lies on a straight that passes through

the origin (G-Function derivative) or semi-log derivative

<Deviation of G-Function from the straight line, determines fracture closure

pressure (FCP)

Frac (fluid) Efficiency (ή) = Total fluids injected - Fluid Leakoff

Total fluids injected

Total fluids injected

A high fluid efficiency means low leakoff and indicates the energy used to

inject the fluid was efficiently utilized in creating and growing the fracture.

Unfortunately, low leakoff is also an indication of low permeability.

Low leakoff (low fluid loss) High leakoff (high fluid loss)

Zone

Frac (fluid) Efficiency (ή)

Gc

(ή) = at closure pressure

Gc 2

< For Gc =30 ή = 30/(30+2) = 94% Low leakoff or low fluid loss

Where:

Natural

fractures

Pressure Dependent Leakoff (PDL)

First derivative

G- derivative

When secondary

fractures existent in the Pc

the main fracture

Gc

Characteristics:

< Subsequent to the hump, G-Function shows a normal leak off

(linear trend)

< The end of the hump identifies the fissure opening pressure

< Deviation of G-Function from the straight line, determines fracture

closure pressure (FCP)

Pressure

First derivative

Occurs when a fracture continues to G- derivative

grow even after injection is stopped and

the well is shut-in. It is a phenomenon

that occurs in very low permeability

reservoirs, as the energy which normally

would be released through leakoff is

transferred to the ends of the fracture

resulting in fracture tip extension.

G-Function

Characteristics:

< The G-Function derivative G dP/dG initially exhibits a large positive slope that

continues to decrease with shut-in time, yielding a concave-down curvature.

<Any straight line fit through the G-Function derivative G dP/dG intersects the y-axis

above the origin.

NOT occurred yet

Mini Frac Followed by a Flowback Period

observed.

<Therefore, a closure pressure can’t be estimated

< An excessively long fall-off period is required to observe

fracture closure

< Flowing back the well after the fall-off period, will induce

fracture closure; and hence, allow an estimate of the

closure pressure (Pc).

(with flowback)

Pb

Pi FPP Pb

FPP

ISIP

Buildup

PC

*

P C

0

Flowback

Time

Pb Fracture break-down pressure P*C Closure pressure during flow

FPP Fracture propagation pressure ∆P Draw-down pressure duringflowback

Considerations for the Flowback

In order to clearly observe the closure pressure, it is

recommended to select the flowback rate at approximately 1/6

to 1/4 of the last injection rate.

Fall-off Flowback

Pc

Correct Rate

Rate too high

Time

Pressure

First derivative

G- derivative

Occurs if the fracture

propagates through Pc

adjoining impermeable

layers during injection

Gc

Characteristics:

<The G-Function derivative G dP/dG lies below the straight line

extrapolated through the normal leakoff data.

<Both G-Function and the first derivative exhibits a concave up trend

Use of Square Root of Time ( t ) to Pick

the Closure Pressure (Pc) ??

1

3 (correct P c)

5

shut-in time

Shut in Time

by: Ken Nolte

to Confirm Closure Pressure (Pc)

dP

dt

(correct Pc)

dP

t

dt

dP dP

First derivative vs. t G-Function or t vs. t

d t d t

Semi-log derivative

After Closure Analysis (ACA)

Reservoir Dominated Analysis:

Fracture Closure

Pressure

Pseudo Radial Flow

(Normal Leak-off)

Closure

Pressure

1000 Slope = 1

Wellbore storage

100

P

d(P)

t .

d(t)

10

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 100

∆t, hrs

occurs also when the derivative plot deviates from the ½ unit slope

straight line on this Diagnostic plot

Flow Regime Diagnoses After Closure

(DFIT Analysis)

off/buildup period:

Use “injection/drawdown” derivative:

The derivative plot is the slope in a plot of pressure versus

log ∆t, from the semi-log plot

off/buildup period:

Use “fall-off/buildup” derivative:

The derivative plot is the slope in a plot of pressure versus

log (tp +∆t)/∆t, from the semi-log plot

Method of Determining

Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP)

1. G-Function Plot

2. Square Root Plot

3. Log-log Diagnostic Plot

Network Complexity

Fracture Extension Model

may exist and the higher is the Net Fracture Pressure

Net Fracture Pressure (NFP) vs. Fracture

Network Complexity

NFP closure NFP

closure NFP NFP

closure

closure

Increasing NFP

Indicating Progress of Fracture Extension

Fissures Ballooning

opening effect

Ill

Il

I lV

Limited Extension

Log of Time

II.- Constant NFP plateau can result in unstable growth, fluid loss or fissures opening

lll - Fracture growth ceases...continued injection increases width of the fracture; balloon

effect. This is the desired behaviour if a tip screenout treatment has been designed

lV - Unstable height. During fracturing, if a barrier is crossed and encountered a lower

stress zone (Pf > σzone) an accelerated height growth will occur, which is undesirable -

should terminate injection

Source: Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.G. 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures. J Pet Technol33

After Closure Analysis (ACA)

Procedures:

Pt

∆P

PR

a. Confirm reservoir pressure, PR

b. Estimate formation permeability, k

∆t

time function “FL”:

< Time function (FL)

2 tc

FL . sin 1 Valid only for t $ tc

t

Where:

- Pt : Pressure at shut-in “t”

- PR : Static/stabilized reservoir pressure

- Tc : Time at fracture closure pressure

Flow Regime Diagnoses

Procedure:

to use after closure data (t > tc)

< The pressure difference (∆P) or (Pt - PR) curve is completely

dependent on the value of reservoir pore pressure used

(estimated)

<The pressure derivative is insensitive to the reservoir

pressure estimate

<For this reason the method is iterative and the pressure

derivative should be used for all initial analyses.

Identification of Radial Flow Regime

P- Pi

(FL2).d(P-Pi)/d(FL2)

Start radial flow

1000

flow

Square Linear Flow (F 2)

L

curves overlap, forming a straight line with a unitslope

After Closure Analysis (ACA)

< Time function (FR)

1 x . tc

FR . ln 1

4 1 tc

Where:

16

x 1.6

2

Radial Flow Analysis

kh Vi

251,000

11800

MR. t c

11600

11400

11200

PR

Start of radial

flow

11000

Radial Flow (FR)

< Extrapolation of the straight line of the radial flow regime, yields the

reservoir pressure (PR)

< The slope of the line (MR), yields the flow transmissibility (kh/μ)

Permeability Est. from G-Function

This empirical formula gives an estimate of the permeability when after-

closure radial flow data are not available

k

c t G c . E .r P / 0.0381.96

Where:

K: Formation permeability md

μf : Fluid viscosity cp

PISIP: Instantaneous shut-in pressure psi

Pc: Closure pressure psi

N: Porosity frac

ct : Total compressibility psi-1

Gc : G-function at closure pressure

E: Young’s Modulus MMpsi

rP: Leakoff height to gross frac height ratio

Important tips:

prior to test from:

• The Eaton’s formula, or

• Knowledge from offset wells

<It is recommended to run BHP recorders instead of measuring

WHP’s to avoid:

• Inaccuracies in converting WHP data to BHP

• In case the WHP goes on vacuum

• Insulate wellhead, if high ambient temperature fluctuation is expected

<Fill up wellbore with water before starting injection to reduce

WBS duration and avoid pressure spikes (wtr. hammering)

<Add 3% KCI to injection water to reduce potential formation

damage

Mini Frac Design (cont.)

Test duration:

<The lower the injection pressure, the shorter the fall-off period to

reach radial flow

<The shorter the injection period, the shorter the fall-off period

closure pressure

Estimate of Fracture Pressure/Gradient

Field : South Pierson Zone : Spearfish

Eaton’s

Well : Typical Well Lithology: Dol/SS

Formula u

P (frac) = NOB ( ----------------- ) + P (PV) Psi/ft

1- u

Where :

P (frac) : Fracture Pressure Gradient 0.475 Psi/ft

NOB : Net Overburden Pressure Gradient 0.858 Psi/ft

(Overburden Grad.- Pore Pressure Grad.)

u : Poisson's Ratio "u" = 0.27 Limestone 0.28

0.33 Sandstone

P (PV) : Pore Pressure Gradient 0.142 Psi/ft

P Current 'Reservoir Pressure 479 Psi

D : Depth 3378 ft

Summary Results:

Fracture (Parting) Pressure 1606 Psi

11075 KPa

Note:

Overburden gradient is 1.0 Psi/ft

Impact of Ambient Temperature on DFIT

(10 oC), can yield cyclic measured pressure data measured at

the surface which makes DFIT analysis difficult, and results will

be unreliable. This can happen under 3 different scenario’s:

<Thermal compensation of pressure recorder

<Thermal expansion/contraction of the fluids in the wellbore

<The use of capillary tubing to connect the pressure recorder to the

wellhead is questionable....

WHP

BHP

BHT

WHT

< The cyclic change in the ambient temperature, has affected both

wellhead and bottom hole pressure data for uninsulatedwellhead.

<No affect on bottom hole temperature

Benefits of Wellhead Insulation

WHP (uninsulated)

WHP (insulated)

WHT

The wellhead pressure curves in a well with insulation and without insulation

are shown with the fluctuation in surface temperature

Benefits:

Delta SurfacePressure

G dP/dG

<Smooth data during

radial flow

<Easy to recognize

closure pressure Pre-closure ACA

Recommendations:

< Insulate wellhead Delta SurfacePressure

G dP/dG

thermal expansion to

reduce cyclic pressures

caused by changes in

Pre-closure ACA

ambient temperature

Info from DFIT Used for Frac Model Input

<Geological data; such as the presence of natural fractures

and geological complexity (NFP)

<Leakoff type and coefficient (rate of fluid loss to the

formation)

< Frac efficiency

<Calibration of local stress profile obtained from open hole

logs

Frac models utilize rock mechanic parameters; Poisson’s ratio and

Young’s Modulus, to generate local stress profile. Closure pressure

from DFIT can be used to calibrate the generated stress profile

Closure Press

Closure Press

from DFIT

from DFIT

and lower length

NPF NPF

Case Study

Mini Frac

Duvernay Formation

Duvernay Ex

Duverny mi ni frac - Shortcut.lnk

( C ommand Line)

period extended to 650 hrs (27 days)

Injection Period

period a little long; 25 minutes

Start of Radial

Flow (slope=-1)

∆t, hrs

< Pressure derivative plot showed a straight line with a slope of -1 after only 20 hrs of

shutin. Has radial flow really been reached??

<Departure of derivative from ½ slope, confirms closure pressure

G-Function Plot

Fracture

Closure

G-function

very high injection pressure was used

(Square Root Plot)

dP Fracture

dP / t d t Closure

dP t . dP / d t

t

d t

Identification of Radial Flow

Start of Radial

Flow Regime

P- Pi

Start of Radial

Flow Regime

Horner Plot

Summary of Results

Control of Well Flow-back

Design criteria:

selected to ensure it can withstand the local stresses in the

rock (Pc); otherwise it could get crushed and the fracture

becomes in-effective

<Increased draw-down, during the cleaning period (flow-back),

can result in poor frac characteristics

Proppant Design

Proppants keep the frac aperture wide open:

Pc Pc

Pc Pc

Where:

< Pc: Closure pressure

< ∆pdrawdown: Draw-down pressure

Effect of Pressure Draw-down on

Proppant Design

Pc Pc

σprop ΔP σprop

Pc Pc

If Pc is relatively high, draw-down pressure should be controlled to

avoid crushing the proppants/frac closure

Case Study

Impact of Well Flowback on Performance

(Haynesville Shale Gas)

SPE: 144425

Background

< Pressure > 10,000 psi (pore pressure gradient). 0.95 psi/ft

Stratigraphy

Performance Comparison

Vertical Well vs. 1st Hz Well

35,000 1200.00

31,500 1080.00

28,000 960.00

24,500 840.00

21,000 720.00

17,500 600.00

14,000 480.00

10,500 360.00

7,000 240.00

3,500 120.00

0 0.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

Time, hrs

SCADA Rate 24.2 Eq V. Well Rate SCADA Cum 24.2 Eq V. Well Cum

< Hz well perforation: four (4), two-foot clusters, 6 SPF, 60 degree phasing

< Disappointing results of first Hz well, relative to vertical wells

Bottom Hole Calc Pressure (psi) A Time BHCP CP DP FE DT

Corrected Pressure (psi) A 1

A G*dP/dG (psi) Closure 17.16 11603 11559 488.1 90.14 1225 E

E

12200 1250

1

12100

11900

11800 750

11700

11500

11400 250

11200 (Y.0=020,)0) 0

5 10 15 20 25

G(Time)

= 11,603 - 11,108 = 488 psi

critical draw-down is exceeded

Draw-down Exceeded Critical Limit

Horizontal Well DrawdownEstimates

100,000

qg . 22 MMscf/d

10,000 1000

Critical draw-down

pressure . 488 psi

1,000 100

12/03/08 12/13/08 12/23/08 01/02/09 01/12/09 01/22/09 02/01/09 02/11/09 02/21/09

Date

Rate (MSCFD) Actual WHFP(psi) Estimated BHFP(psi) Critical Drawdown (psi) Estimated Drawdown (psi)

Initial gas rate of 22 MMscf/d was maintained only for one week

(one month of flow-back)

Horizontal Well Drawdown Estimates

100,000

qg . 22 MMscf/d

10,000 1000

Critical draw-down

pressure . 488 psi

Drawdown

1,000 100

12/03/08 12/08/08 12/13/08 12/18/08 12/23/08 12/28/08 01/02/09

Date

Rate(MSCFD) Actual WHFP(psi) Estimated BHFP(psi) Critical Drawdown(psi) Estimated Drawdown(psi)

Closing Comments

< Mini Frac can yield important information; k, P,

presence of natural fractures, and leakoff information

<Results from Mini Frac can be used to fine tune the

frac design for vertical and Hz wells

< The closure pressure is used to estimate the critical

draw-down during a well flowback to avoid poor frac

performance

Thank You

Petro Management Group

Quality Petroleum Engineering Consultants

How to contact us ??

< Phone: (403) 216-5101

< Cell: (403) 616-8330

< Fax: (403) 216-5109

< Address: #401, 100 - 4th Ave. S.W.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3N2

- 1.1 Overview of Sand Management Techniques.pdfUploaded byJérôme Tsang
- Carbonate formation stimulationUploaded byDaniel De La Cruz
- Minas 2A-54N Fracturing Post Job OKUploaded bybiyoga ananto
- Fracturing TreatmentUploaded byali
- Faulting and StressUploaded byErwin Simbolon
- Ontowiryo a Et Al - SupremeUploaded byLaras Puti
- Syllabus Sp2011 PGE 301Uploaded byasdf3424234
- RATE EFFECTS ON WATER-OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITYUploaded byari_si
- 8. IHS Technical Upstream Consulting CapabilitiesUploaded byVanVietRoan
- PPP in the Niger DeltaUploaded byomoba sola
- Naturally Fracture Reservoir-well Testing InterpretationsUploaded byDhiaa LaMi
- Gas CondensateUploaded byarytri
- C1_Wellbore Completion ConceptsUploaded byNguyễnTrường
- Comparative Study of the Sand Control Methods Used in the Oil Industry Case Study of the Niger DeltaUploaded byelisabeth
- P324_06A_Course_Work.pdfUploaded byvitaxn
- tdc601.pdfUploaded byCristian Eduardo Caceres Huespe
- Petromod 2014 Petroleum Systems ModelingUploaded byDidier Yzquierdo Montoya
- well testingUploaded bySaa D Shamim
- PNGE 312Uploaded byMohammad Kazemi
- FLC-42Uploaded bypedro taquichiri
- Noah Vol24Uploaded byAprilya Ramadanti
- waterflooding.pdfUploaded byVishal Rana
- Cementing OperationsUploaded byalizareiforoush
- 26_Environmental Aspects InHeavy OilUploaded byJuan Carlos Taboada
- Report FffUploaded byanima1982
- Progresso No to de JuntasUploaded byLuana Eva Pinheiro
- Auxenfants a 2013 Pet Eng MSc ThesisUploaded byrobby ananda putra
- STAS 12313-85 Test on Stand of Concrete Prefabricated Components (en)Uploaded byGelu-Razvan Gimiga
- Saturated Oil Reservoir1 CompletoUploaded byRobert Torrico Camacho
- Predicting Sand Production - PetroWikiUploaded byAizen

- PE 6801-Risk Assessment and Safety Engineering - Copy.pdfUploaded byAnonymous U7yp0x
- Mini Frac May 2015 ConvertedUploaded byAnonymous U7yp0x
- 4_methaneUploaded byAnonymous U7yp0x
- Mini Frac May 2015Uploaded byAnonymous U7yp0x
- Mini-frac Analysis for Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fast Welltest 16-Aug-2013 0Uploaded byAnonymous U7yp0x
- Mini-frac Analysis for Unconventional Reservoirs Using Fast Welltest 16-Aug-2013Uploaded byCARLOSELSOARES

- Effect of Chitosan Coating in Overcoming the Phagocytosis of Insulin Loaded Solid Lipid Nanoparticles by Mononuclear Phagocyte SystemUploaded byNhat Dinh Do
- aerobic respiration quiz scUploaded byapi-323720899
- torqueTableFiber+GylonRaisedFaceUploaded bygkvmit
- Chemis DPP 7Uploaded byasha
- ch12.pptUploaded byIvan Fauzi Ryanto
- Tertiary DIRUploaded bySaddamix AL Omari
- Extensive List of Organic Pest Control RemediesUploaded byadequatelatitude1715
- TUTORIAL EXAMPLES in STEAM PLANTUploaded byfakenarashikamaru
- fluidmechanics-100801104129-phpapp01.pptUploaded bysajinirajith
- Bio Sample 12Uploaded byGhanshyam Chitara
- Betamethasone valerateUploaded bySuhariani La Suda
- Organic Reactions and MechanismUploaded byAbhay Kumar Nayak
- Hot BoltingUploaded byNickath Banu
- Indigo DataUploaded byRaj Vai Vajracharya
- vinyl Deco ClickUploaded bybianca_torres_8
- Heat Exchanger Inspection PDFUploaded byInnasi Arokiasamy
- Current Updates on Waste to EnergyUploaded byAnonymous NxpnI6jC
- 3-1Uploaded byPratyush Tripathi
- Dyeing BleachingUploaded byogechi
- Yeast - Chris WhiteUploaded byEEM2DE4
- Form 1325Uploaded byAlex Hategan
- Golden Statements, 2010, v33, July/AugUploaded byalcalrissian
- Energy Monitoring Solutions - Endress+HauserUploaded byLuc Schram
- Specification for Highway Works series 600: earthworksUploaded byLemmy Mulandi
- World Industrial Silica SandUploaded byMichael Warner
- Remediation Technologies for Heavy Metal Contaminated GroundwaterUploaded byBrian Bernhardt
- Chemistry Past Paper Ch1.1Uploaded byRaymond Chan
- Ipenz Pn 19 - SeismicUploaded bysh4kes
- Amendment No. 4_2010Uploaded byMohammed Hamad
- RRB Junior Engineer Civil solved model question paper 4.pdfUploaded byAkh Rhi