NGWA 2004mcellhiney PDF

McEllhiney Distinguished Lecture
Series in Water Well Technology

National Ground Water Association presents the
sponsored by the National Groundwater Educational Foundation
with a grant from the National Ground Water Association
by Hank Baski
2004 McEllhiney Lecture
Rev. 3
1
Hanks Guide to Wellness Builds on 40 Years Of:
Drilling
Started in water well business while in high school
Helped to build a cable tool drilling rig for the family drilling
business in Northern Minnesota
Moved business to Pueblo, Colorado
Consulting in Ground Water Hydrology
Based in Denver, Colorado
Projects nationwide
Manufacturing
Recognized need for ground water tools
Decided to develop products: pitless units, inflatable packers, and
downhole flow control valves (currently seven patents on these)
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Experience
My Motto (I m not an easy boss): question everything &
everyone - including yourself - and be willing to change
Rev. 3
2
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts
Commonly believed fallacies hinder optimal development of water wells:
The use of clear water as drilling fluid results in the best well
Artificial gravel pack is needed for sand-free, high-efficiency wells
Step pumping aquifer tests can determine well efficiency
Air-lifting cannot be trusted for reliable aquifer pumping tests
and can air-bind a well
New technologies and innovations will impact the water well industry
over the next decade:
Horizontal wells will play a greater role in water recovery and injection
Pricing for larger sedimentary wells will be based on
well efficiency instead of footage
Unique, new methods for well development will arrive
Energy savings will drive widespread adoption of
aquifer thermal energy storage
Case Study: Development of the Denver Basin Aquifers
Question & answer session
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Overview
Rev. 3
3
Fallacy 1: The Use of Clear Water as a Drilling Fluid
Results in the Best Well
At first sight, drilling with
clear water appears
natural and pure
In reality, it facilitates the
invasion of fines
up to 5 feet into aquifer
Better: use of bentonite
and other drilling muds
forms mud cake,
retaining fines and
enabling subsequent
development of naturally
developed, efficient wells
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Fallacies - Clear Water As Drilling Fluid
m
u
d
/
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

c
a
k
e
m
u
d
/
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

c
a
k
e
m
u
d

c
a
k
e
Aquifer
protected
Aquifer
invaded by fines
m
u
d

c
a
k
e
Aquifer
protected
Aquifer
invaded by fines
Drill
hole
with
clear
water
Drill
hole
with
bentonite
Rev. 3
4
Fallacy 2: Artificial Gravel Pack is Needed
for Sand-Free High-Efficiency Wells
Traditional dogmatic
belief: gravel pack is
needed in most
unconsolidated and
semi-consolidated
formations (on left)
Best solution (top right):
natural gravel pack
development using
drilling mud, jetting and
high-performance
wellscreen
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Fallacies - Artificial Gravel Pack Mandatory
Natural
Gravel Pack
Artificial
Gravel Pack
Aquifer
protected
Aquifer
invaded by fines
Aquifer
protected
Aquifer
invaded by fines
void
void
n
a
r
r
o
w

s
l
o
t

s
c
r
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e

s
l
o
t

s
c
r
e
e
n
n
a
r
r
o
w

s
l
o
t

s
c
r
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e

s
l
o
t

s
c
r
e
e
n
mud/sediment cake
mud cake
clear
water
bentonite
Rev. 3
5
How Well Screen Types Affect Jetting Development
Continuous Slot Screen
Bridge Slot Screen
Slotted Pipe
Louvered Screen
Source:
Groundwater and Wells by Fletcher G. Driscoll /
J ohnson Screen (Weatherford), Second Edition
Rev. 3
6
Naturally Developed Well (No Gravel Pack)
Source:
Advertisement by
J ohnson Screen (Weatherford)
Rev. 3
7
Fallacy 3: Step Pumping Aquifer Tests Can
Determine Well Efficiency
Related fallacy: constant rate pumping is best for aquifer tests
First, a refresher on concepts, terms, and definitions:
What kinds of pumping aquifer tests are there ?
Transmissivity, coefficient of storage, and other aquifer & well
characteristics
What is well efficiency ?
Then, a pragmatic perspective on what pumping aquifer tests
are most economical and easiest to perform
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Fallacies - Step Pumping & Well Efficiency
Rev. 3
8
Groundwater and Wells
is an Invaluable Bible
Rev. 3
9
The Bible Compares Two Kinds Of Pumping Tests
Pumping Tests
Principle
Constant Rate
Install one or more observation
wells at appropriate distance from
the pumping well
Pump at constant rate for 24 or
72 hours, depending on type of
aquifer
Take periodic drawdown
measurements from the pumping
and observation wells
Step Drawdown
Pumping rate is increased in
steps at regular intervals
Example:
100 gpm for 2 hours
200 gpm for next 2 hours
300 gpm for next 2 hours
and so on
Take data in both pumped and
observation wells
Source: Groundwater and Wells by Fletcher G. Driscoll / J ohnson Screen (Weatherford), Second Edition
Typical
Analysis
Time-drawdown graph in semi-
logarithmic plot
Distance-drawdown graph in
semi-logarithmic plot
Time-drawdown graph in semi-
logarithmic plot
Distance-drawdown graph in
semi-logarithmic plot
Rev. 3
10
Early Time Data is Almost Worthless in Most Cases
The initial S-shaped component is due to casing storage
In most cases, specific capacity is more reliable than slopes (semi-log)
or matchpoints (log-log) of aquifer test data for calculating transmissivity
10% Rule: It is not necessary to have an uninterrupted aquifer test.
I have found that a shut-down equal to about 10% or less of previous
pumping time is OK.
log time [min]
Casing
Storage Effect
Drawdown
1,000 10 100
0
B
A
C
Specific Capacity [gpm/ft] =
Pumping Rate [gpm]
Drawdown [feet]
Rev. 3
11
Comparing Theoretical and Actual Drawdown . . .
Source:
Groundwater and Wells
by Fletcher G. Driscoll /
J ohnson Screen
(Weatherford),
Second Edition
Rev. 3
12
. . . Leads to the Concept of Well Efficiency
Ground
Level
Static
Water Level
10 100 1000 1 Distance from
center of well
Well Efficiency [%] =
Theoretical Drawdown [feet]
Actual Drawdown [feet]
Theoretical
(Extrapolated)
Drawdown
Pumping
Water Level
Actual
Drawdown
Distance - Drawdown Graph in Semi-log Plot
10 m
in
100 m
in
[casing radii]
assuming
well efficiency
remains the
same over
time
Rev. 3
13
Turbulent and Laminar Flow Components in Step
Drawdown Tests Do Not Measure Well Efficiency
Many investigators and practicing engineers have (erroneously)
equated turbulent flow with well inefficiency
They falsely assume that the laminar head loss is the ordinary
aquifer loss and that the turbulent head loss component is
strictly the inefficiency drawdown component due to aquifer
damage and head loss through the well screen
However, we have seen efficient wells which exhibit some
turbulent flow - and also have seen inefficient wells where the
excess head loss due to formation damage and flow through the
screening device is essentially laminar !
Rev. 3
14
Not Mentioned Even in the Bible : There Are
More Than Two Kinds of Pumping Aquifer Tests
1. Constant Rate, with step drawdown considered a variant
2. Constant Drawdown, where one records the pumping rate
required to maintain a given drawdown
3. Variable Discharge & Drawdown (e.g. using air-lift pumping)
Air-lift pumping proves the cheapest & most effective aquifer test
Vertical Axis Variables:
1. s (drawdown)
2. 1/Q (gpm)
3. s/Q
log time
[min]
Casing
Storage Effect
1,000 10 100
Rev. 3
15
Fallacy 4: Air-lifting Cannot Be Trusted for Reliable
Aquifer Pumping Tests and Can Air-bind a Well
Who here has experienced air-binding first-hand?
Reasons why people have opposed use of air-lifting
Unwarranted fear of air-binding
Air-lift pumping tests force you to think of formation pressures
rather than water levels. But this results in better data collection,
analysis, and understanding of the aquifer regimes.
Lack of easily-accessible, broad-based analysis methods
Well development with air proves advantageous
Surge block development can be improved by simultaneously using
air. While surging, air can be used to pump out water and fines.
For stubborn wells, high-pressure air-jetting loosens up and
removes drilling mud and fines
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Fallacies - Air-lifting Cannot Be Trusted
Rev. 3
16
Air-lifting: Principles, Definitions & Example
Principles of Operation:
1. Aerated column is lighter than submergence
(think of a lake and then progress to a well)
2. Aerated column during pumping +friction loss =submergence
3. Empirical relationships are state-of-the-art. Probably, its
impossible to derive and/or calculate accurate formulas describing
requirements and performance of all air-lift operations.
Key Definitions:
Pumping Submergence
PS % =(APD - PWL) / APD
APD =Air Pipe Depth
PWL =Pumping Water Level
Static Submergence
SS psi =APD - SWL
APD =Air Pipe Depth
SWL =Static Water Level
Example Specifications:
8 inch borehole or well pipe I.D.
2 inch air pipe I.D.
40% pumping submergence
1900 cfm air compressor delivery
450 gpm air-lift pumping capacity
Sources: Why Air-lift Pumping Tests by Hank Baski (Feb79), Baski Inc. Catalog #6
Rev. 3
17
Approximate Air-lift Pumping Capacities
Air Compressor Requirements
Pressure rating [psi] must be 20%
greater than the Static Submergence
[psi].
Volume rating [cfm or cubic feet per
minute] must approximate values from
this table for hydrology testing:
If the water production surges, i.e.
varies in gpm rate, then a
GREATER cfm is needed.
On the other hand, well
development by air-lift pumping is
enhanced by surging; therefore, a
LOWER cfm is desired for part of
the development period.
Do not significantly exceed the
listed air delivery rate [cfm] as this
will dramatically increase the
friction loss in the annular area,
causing the water production to
decrease to the point where if too
much air is introduced, no water will
be produced.
NOTE: 1 foot of water =0.433 psi
1 psi =2.31 feet of water
Borehole
or
well Air Pipe
Pumping Submergence %
Air
Compressor
Delivery
Pipe Tube
Nominal Actual
Size OD 10% 20% 40% 60% 80%
(inch) (inch) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (cfm)
3/8 1/8 0.08 0.3 0.5 0.7 7.4
1/2 3/16 0.17 0.6 1 1.4 12
3/4 1/4 0.4 1.4 2.4 3.4 20
1 3/8 1 3 5 7 31
1-1/2 1/2 3 8 13 18 77
Pipe Pipe
Nominal Nominal
Size Size
2 1/2 0.5 5 15 25 35 120
3 3/4 2.5 15 40 65 90 270
4 1 5 28 75 125 175 470
5 1-1/4 7.5 50 140 230 320 740
6 1-1/2 12 80 225 370 520 1100
8 2 25 150 450 720 1000 1900
10 2-1/2 50 300 800 1300 1800 3000
12 4 75 450 1200 1950 2700 4000
14 4 90 600 1700 2900 4000 5100
16 5 100 800 2400 3900 5500 6600
Rev. 3
18
Air-lifting:
Evolution, Design, and Advantages
Air-lift pumping was used before
centrifugals
At least 80% of the aquifer tests that I
have conducted used air-lift pumping
Advantages include:
Readily available equipment
(difficult to obtain conventional pumps
for well diameters <4 inch or for
productions >2,000 gpm)
Dependability (no moving parts so high
sand pumping rates are no problem, no
expensive components to lose)
Lower cost, normally. . .
There are some disadvantages:
Limited by minimum
submergence requirements
Not well understood
Air compressor availability may
be limited
Rev. 3
19
Air-lifting Advantages (cont.)
Versatile: anticipated well production does not need to be known
- but it does need to be known for conventional pumping tests
Suitable for both small diameter (1/2 or less) and large wells
No practical depth limitation
Very easy to obtain pumping and non-pumping water level
measurements
Can produce approximately twice as much water from a given
well diameter
Practically eliminates casing storage effects
Well suited for conducting in-hole flow meter surveys during
pumping. The results are a testing necessity for in-situ leaching
or mining, and most valuable & powerful in describing aquifers.
Rev. 3
20
Why Fallacies Live On
( Psychology Behind Fallacies)
Websters defines:
Fallacy: a false idea
Myth: an ill-founded belief held uncritically,
especially by an interested group
Overcoming human resistance to change is very difficult as one
must admit that he/she has been making mistakes in past
Its not so much the not knowing that contributes to the sum of
human ignorance as it is the knowing so much that aint so.
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Fallacies - Summary
Rev. 3
21
Novel Solutions for Unmet Needs Drive Forecasts
Sense for unmet needs got me into business
Know more novel solutions than have resources
Breakthroughs from all sources give rise to new trends for
markets & technology of ground water industry: my forecasts
Why should you care? Unmet needs, novel solutions, and/or
resulting improvements may well impact your business, too!
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts
Rev. 3
22
Forecast 1: Horizontal Wells Will Play a Greater Role
in Water Recovery and Injection
Unmet need: ever increasing demand for water of all kinds
(potable, irrigation, industrial) in a time of dropping water levels
Solution:
There is plenty of water down there
Horizontal well completion enables more effective aquifer draining
Case study: Denver basin
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts - Horizontal Wells in Recovery & Injection
Rev. 3
23
Two Pumping Structures (Wells) in a Single Aquifer
Rev. 3
24
The System Can Be Extended to Three, Seven, or
More Pumping Structures
Rev. 3
25
Forecast 2: Pricing for Larger Sedimentary Wells Will
Be Based on Well Efficiency Instead of Footage
Recall definition of well efficiency as actual/theoretical drawdown
(related fallacy: 100% well efficiency is as good as it gets)
Unmet need: today the contractor with lowest $/foot bid gets job, and
customers end up with too many, inefficient wells
Solution:
Customer pays for well efficiency based on formula, e.g. only 70% of bid
rate if well only 70% efficient
Specification consultant decides casing size & material, screen size &
material, collapse strength of tubulars, depth, grouting intervals,
straightness, plumbness, and suspended solids limits after development.
Also decides calculated well efficiency with review provisions.
Contractor decides all technical aspects of drilling and development: drill
hole diameter, drilling fluid, screen, etc. with input from consultants and
suppliers. In larger projects, lowest bidder may be awarded 1/2 of all wells,
second gets 1/3rd, and remaining 1/6th goes to third-ranked bidder.
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts - Well Efficiency, Footage & Pricing
Rev. 3
26
Adoption Will Proceed Gradually, Where Project
Conditions Are Favorable
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts - Well Efficiency, Footage & Pricing
Customers
Contractors Consultants
Become more
knowledgeable
Unit cost for water
is reduced
High quality wells for customers
Raises standards in industry
Skilled contractors paid more
Unskilled fade away
Factors that influence
adoption of new model:
Hydrogeology
Ratio of drawdown to pumping depth
Production rate
Level of fixed and variable (energy) costs
More cooperation: less us vs. them
negativism between contractors &
consultants
There will be new roles for consultants:
Specification responsibility
Advising to contractors
Arbitrators of well efficiency calculation
Rev. 3
27
Forecast 3: Unique, New Methods
for Well Development Will Arrive
Unmet needs:
Inadequate development of new wells
In Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR): ways
to deal with suspended solids, bacterial
growth, precipitation, and entrained gas
Solutions include:
Underbalanced drilling
Chemicals
Simultaneous high-pressure jetting &
pumping, air jetting at 1,000+psi
Imported methods, e.g. ultrasonics
Patented methods from oilfield: pulsing
technology
Airlifting with variations
Combinations, e.g. pumping +sonic,
airlifting +surge blocks, jetting +surge
block +pumping +sonic +chemicals
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts - New Methods in Well Development
Rev. 3
28
From Australia: Combined Jetting and Air-lift Tool
Rev. 3
29
From Australia (cont.): The Valve Screen Plunger
and Development of Long Screens with Air
Rev. 3
30
Forecast 4: Energy Savings Will Drive Widespread
Adoption of Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage
Unmet need: effective method for using aquifers as economically (and
environmentally) attractive heating & cooling reservoirs, especially
valuable in temperate zones
Solution:
successful Dutch projects, also attempted in Canada
ASR well technology applies directly to ATES
Total energy balance on a yearly basis requires full cooperation between
heating & cooling engineers and ground water hydrologists
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Four Forecasts - Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage
Cold Water Warm/Hot Water
heat exchanger summer summer
winter winter
Rev. 3
31
A Practical Illustration - Denver Basin Development
Since 1968, some of you may have seen me present issues surrounding
nontributary ground water, aquifer storage & recovery (ASR), and the
Denver basin:
The Complex, Yet Simple, Issue of Non-Tributary Ground Water (1981)
The Complex, Yet Simple, Issue of Denver Basin Nontributary Ground
Water at the Colorado Water Congress, Workshop on Nontributary
Ground Water in Denver, Colorado (October 29, 1986)
Design and Material Considerations for ASR Systems at AWPCA in
Prescott, Arizona (J uly 20-21, 2000)
The Denver Basin and ASR at the American Groundwater Trust in
Lakewood, Colorado (J une 13, 2003)
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Case Study: Introduction
Rev. 3
32
From Pleasantville to Panicsville: Media Propagates
Crises, Poor Information, and Bad Solutions
WATER BILL: $3 BILLION (Rocky Mountain News 11/26/03)
RUNNING DRY (four-part series in RMN 11/22-26/03)
BIG STRAW FEASIBLE, COSTLY (Denver Post 11/18/03)
WATER DIET FOR CALIFORNIA (RMN 10/16/03)
Questionable claims attributed to some experts include:
Parts of Denver could begin running out of usable underground
water from their main source within 10 to 20 years
Water in some areas could become too expensive to pump
Colorado needs $15-billion, 27-year Big Straw project to transport
millions of gallons of Western Slope water daily across mountains
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Case Study: Introduction
Rev. 3
33
Experience Shows Projects (Good, Bad & Ugly) Are
Entangled in a Web
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts
Dogmatic Beliefs
(2000)
Technical
(1950s & 60s)
Timing
(1970s)
Political
(1990s)
Legal
(1970s)
Environmental
(1980s)
Economic
(1970s)
Case Study: Introduction
Rev. 3
34
Technical Issues:
Technical Issues Used to Get Primary Consideration
Vertical/Horizontal Well
Completions
Casing & Pump Column
Material Considerations
Well Development
Methods
ASR Considerations
Gotchas &
Future Thoughts
Dogmatic Beliefs
(2000s)
Technical
(1950s & 60s)
Timing
(1970s)
Political
(1990s)
Legal
(1970s)
Environmental
(1980s)
Economic
(1970s)
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Case Study: Denver Basin Development
Rev. 3
35
The Denver Basin Comprises Four Main Aquifers
DENVER BASIN CROSS SECTION
Elevation (feet)
Rev. 3
36
Background on the Denver Basin Reservoir
Location: the reservoir is ideally situated along the Rocky
Mountain Front Range where the high water demand is present
Reservoir capacity:
250 to 500 million acre feet (AF) in storage
Pumping and artificial recharge capacities are estimated to be at
least 1/2 to 1 million AF per year, approximately 450 to 900 MGD
Life:
The basin will be utilized as a reservoir for the foreseeable future
Existing water in storage will be pumped for the next 500 years
Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) started in 1992 at Highlands
Ranch (Centennial Water & Sanitation District).
As the reservoir is drawn down, ASR is expected to expand
throughout the basin
ASR in this reservoir will allow for a more economical and efficient
water supply, especially in those areas of higher demand and
during times of long term drought
Rev. 3
37
Water Levels Will Stop Falling at 30 Feet/Year
Once They Reach the Top of an Aquifer
Artesian Coefficient of Storage
1. Bulk modulus of water
2. Reduction of aquifer thickness
Water Table Specific Yield:
Porosity =Specific Retention
plus Specific Yield
Example:
Typical value =0.0001 - 0.00001
Normally =0.10 - 0.30
500 feet of water level change
correspond to <0.05 feet of water
recovered
correspond to 50 - 100 feet !
Media Fallacy:
When Conventional Wells Run Dry, the Aquifer is Doomed
Rev. 3
38
Ground Water Diversions (in the Denver Basin)
Vertical to horizontal well
minimum depth 1,500 to 2,000 feet
Medium yield/low to medium cost
Good for initial and intermediate
aquifer development
(Presently not used)
Conventional,
vertical well
no size or depth
limitation
Low yield/low cost
Good for initial
aquifer development
High cost/high yield
Good for recharge and
later aquifer development
(Presently not used)
Shaft and
Tunnels
Collector Wells
Source:
Hank Baski (1985)
Rev. 3
39
Cost to Produce Denver Basin Ground Water
Source: Hank Baski (1985)
30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10% 20% 50%
Percent Water in Storage
$8
$7
$9
$2
$3
$5
$4
$6
0
$1
C
o
s
t

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

G
a
l
l
o
n
s
Includes wells, pumps, pumphouses,
collector pipelines, operation & maintenance,
and pumping energy (based upon
conventional vertical water wells)
Does not include treatment or distribution
HIGH COST
Laramie-Fox Hills
Wells 3,000 ft. deep
T =1,000 gpd/ft
LOW COST
Dawson
Wells 500 ft. deep
T =6,000 gpd/ft
48 Wells =100 gpm
(1 Well =2.1 gpm)
7 1/2 Acres
38 Wells =150 gpm
(1 Well =3.9 gpm)
9 1/2 Acres
Denver & Arapahoe
3 Wells
120 Acres
1 Well
360 Acres
5 Wells
72 Acres
12 Wells
30 Acres
6 Wells
60 Acres
1 Well
360 Acres
1 Well
360 Acres
2 Wells
180 Acres
Rev. 3
40
Development of the Denver Basin Aquifers Illustrates
Some Fallacies Roots & Forecasts for the Industry,...
Commonly believed fallacies hinder optimal development of water wells:
The use of clear water as drilling fluid results in the best well
Artificial gravel pack is needed for sand-free, high-efficiency wells
Step pumping aquifer tests can determine well efficiency
Air-lifting cannot be trusted for reliable aquifer pumping tests
and can air-bind a well
New technologies and innovations will impact the water well industry
over the next decade:
Horizontal wells will play a greater role in water recovery and injection
Pricing for larger sedimentary wells will be based on well efficiency instead of
footage
Unique, new methods for well development will arrive
Energy savings will drive widespread adoption of
aquifer thermal energy storage
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Summary - Recap
Rev. 3
41
What Fallacies Have You Encountered ?
Water Witching (works - doesnt work)
Cable tool drilling is slow and old-fashioned
Geology determines regional groundwater flow
Porosity is important
Doubling well diameter =2x well production
Well development unnecessary for domestic wells
Air drilled wells do not need to be developed
Water producing zones are always easily identified when drilling with air
Air lines are not reliable or accurate for measuring water levels
Pumping clear water means a well is fully developed
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Summary - Q&A Setup
Rev. 3
42
Further Trends Impacting Our Industry
- Which We May Address in the Q&A Session
Groundwater currently considered brackish will become more
important as treatment technologies improve & become more
economical
Technology to maximize use of low production aquifers will
increase and become more important
Stainless steel and other non-corrosive materials
Point of use treatment
Additional safeguards
Automation
Higher pricing for delivered water
Application of a vacuum to the casing and dewatered aquifers
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Summary - Q&A Setup
Rev. 3
43
Please Feel Free to Call for Further Discussion:
Hank Baski
Baski, Inc.
phone: +1 (303) 789-1200
email: info@baski.com
Ground Water: Fallacies & Forecasts Q&A - Contact Information

NGWA 2004mcellhiney PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

NGWA 2004mcellhiney PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

McEllhiney Distinguished Lecture

Series in Water Well Technology

S-ar putea să vă placă și