© All Rights Reserved

12 (de) vizualizări

© All Rights Reserved

- APQP (Pankaj Nalwa)
- 01338029
- Spss Last Asignment
- IEEE
- Physical Limits of Inference
- SSRN-id1126022
- The Ticker and Investment Digest
- Method and Theory of Catchment Analysis by Donna Ropper
- R1Epstein
- Pendulums
- 4harddat
- VAPEPS
- SCUP39_EnrBudg
- method of contingency
- Full Scale SLC Draw Trials
- Patients' Reports or Clinicians' Assessments-- Wich Are Better for Prognosticating-
- Decision Trees
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Zhang 2012
- akmal qmt.pdf

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Performance Relationships

Frederic Gallice,* SPE, and Michael L. Wiggins, SPE, U. of Oklahoma

Summary

Petroleum engineers are routinely required to predict the pressure/

production behavior of individual oil wells. These well-perfor-

mance estimates assist the engineer in evaluating various operating

conditions, determining the optimum production scheme, and de-

signing production equipment and artificial-lift systems.

In this paper, commonly used empirical, inflow performance

relationships for estimating the pressure/production behavior dur-

ing two-phase flow are investigated. Relationships studied include

those proposed by Vogel; Fetkovich; Jones, Blount, and Glaze;

Klins and Majcher; and Sukarno and Wisnogroho. Each method is

described briefly, and the methods used to develop the relationship

are discussed.

On the basis of actual vertical-well data, the relationships are

used to predict performance for 26 cases. The predicted perfor-

mance is then compared to the actual measured rate and pressure

data. The variation between the predicted and measured data is

analyzed, and from this analysis, an assessment is made on the use

of inflow performance relationships and of the quality of the per-

formance estimates.

Introduction

When considering the performance of oil wells, it is often assumed

that production rates are proportional to pressure drawdown. This

straight-line relationship can be derived from Darcys law for

steady-state flow of a single, incompressible fluid and is called the

productivity index (PI).

Evinger and Muskat

1

were some of the earliest investigators to

look at oilwell performance. They pointed out that a straight-line

relationship should not be expected when two fluid phases are

flowing in the reservoir. They presented evidence, based on mul-

tiphase flow equations, that a curved relationship existed between

flow rate and pressure.

This work led to the development of several empirical inflow

performance relationships (IPRs) to predict the pressure/

production behavior of oil wells producing under two-phase flow

conditions. These estimates assist the engineer in evaluating various

operating conditions, determining the optimum production scheme,

and designing production equipment and artificial-lift systems.

This paper reviews and compares five IPRs proposed in the

literature for predicting individual-vertical-well performance in so-

lution-gas-drive reservoirs. The IPRs studied are Vogel

2

; Fetkov-

ich

3

; Jones, Blount, and Glaze

4

; Klins and Majcher

5

; and Sukarno

and Wisnogroho.

6

Each IPR was developed for various conditions

but essentially represents vertical wells producing from a single

solution-gas-drive reservoir under boundary-dominated flow con-

ditions. A homogeneous reservoir is assumed in all the methods

except for Fetkovichs; however, Wiggins et al.

7

have shown that

this assumption does not restrict the applicability of an IPR

method. Using data from 26 field cases, the five IPR methods are

used to predict the pressure/production behavior for the individual

cases, and the predictions are compared to the actual well perfor-

mance and to the other methods predictions to develop an under-

standing of their reliability.

Deliverability Methods

Vogel developed one of the earliest IPRs based on simulation data

for 21 reservoir data sets representing a wide range of reservoir

rock and fluid properties. Vogel noticed that the shapes of the

pressure/production curve for these cases were very similar. He

made the curves dimensionless by dividing the pressure at each

point by the reservoir pressure and by dividing the flow rate by the

maximum flow rate to obtain the dimensionless inflow perfor-

mance curve. He observed that all the points fell within a narrow

range and developed the following relationship to describe the

dimensionless behavior.

q

o

q

o,max

= 1 0.2

p

wf

p

R

0.8

p

wf

p

R

2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

Fetkovich

3

proposed the isochronal testing of oil wells to esti-

mate their productivity. This relationship is based on the empirical

gas-well-deliverability equation proposed by Rawlins and Schell-

hardt.

8

Using data from multirate tests on 40 different oil wells in

six fields, Fetkovich showed that the following approach was suit-

able for predicting performance:

q

o

= Cp

R

2

p

wf

2

n

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

which can be expressed in a form similar to Vogels IPR, as follows:

q

o

q

o,max

=

1

p

wf

p

R

n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

This method requires that a multirate test be conducted to obtain

the values of C and n. A log-log plot of the pressure-squared

difference vs. flow rate is expected to plot as a straight line, where

the inverse of the slope of the curve yields the deliverability ex-

ponent n required in Eq. 3.

Using Forchheimers

9

model to describe non-Darcy flow, Jones

et al.

4

proposed the following relationship between pressure and rate.

p

R

p

wf

q

o

= A + Bq

o

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

This method requires that a multirate test be conducted to deter-

mine the coefficients, A and B, in which A is the laminar-flow

coefficient and B is the turbulence coefficient. From Eq. 4, it is

evident that a Cartesian plot of the ratio of the pressure difference

to the flow rate vs. the flow rate yields a straight line, with the

y-intercept being A and the slope, B. Once the coefficients are

estimated, the flow rate at any flowing pressure can be determined

with Eq. 5.

q

o

=

A + A

2

+ 4Bp

R

p

wf

2B

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

On the basis of Vogels work, Klins and Majcher

5

developed an

IPRthat incorporated the bubblepoint pressure. The authors simulated

21 wells using Vogels data and developed 1,344 IPR curves. Using

nonlinear regression analysis, they presented the following IPR.

q

o

q

o,max

= 1 0.295

p

wf

p

R

0.705

p

wf

p

R

d

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

in which

d =

0.28 + 0.72

p

R

p

b

1.235 + 0.001p

b

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

* Now with Kerr-McGee, Houston.

Copyright 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 88445) was revised for publication from paper SPE 52171, first presented

at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2831

March. Original manuscript received for review 1 July 1999. Revised manuscript received 5

March 2004. Paper peer approved 6 March 2004.

100 May 2004 SPE Production & Facilities

Sukarno and Wisnogroho

6

developed an IPR based on simula-

tion results that attempts to account for the flow-efficiency varia-

tion caused by rate-dependent skin as the flowing bottomhole pres-

sure changes. The authors developed the following relationship

using nonlinear regression analysis.

q

o,actual

q

o,max,r=0

= F

E

1 0.1489

p

wf

p

R

0.4416

p

wf

p

R

2

0.4093

p

wf

p

R

,

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

in which

F

E

= a

0

+ a

1

p

wf

p

R

+ a

2

p

wf

p

R

2

+ a

3

p

wf

p

R

3

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

and

a

R

= b

o

+ b

1

s + b

2

s

2

+ b

3

s

3

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

In Eq. 10, s is the skin factor, and a and b are the fitting coeffi-

cients shown in Table 1.

IPR Comparison

To compare the various IPRs, data from 26 cases presented in the

literature are analyzed. Each case uses actual field data represent-

ing different producing conditions. Data from each case are used to

select rate and pressure information for test points, and these points

are used to predict well performance with each IPR method. The

predictions are then compared to the actual measured production

data at drawdowns greater than the test data. Several cases are used

to demonstrate the analysis and to provide insight into the behavior

of the various predictive models. Complete details of the analysis

are presented by Gallice,

10

while the cases analyzed are summa-

rized in Table 2.

Case 1. Millikan and Sidewell

11

presented multirate-test data for a

well producing from the Hunton Lime in the Carry City Field,

Oklahoma. The test was conducted in approximately 2 weeks, with

the well producing at random rates rather than in an increasing or

decreasing rate sequence. The average reservoir pressure was

1,600 psi, with an estimated bubblepoint pressure of 2,530 psi

and an assumed skin value of zero. The field data are summarized

in Table 3.

Table 4 presents the performance predictions for test informa-

tion at a flowing bottomhole pressure of 1,267 psi, representing a

21% pressure drawdown. As can be seen, the maximum well de-

liverability varies from 2,562 to 3,706 STB/D. The largest flow

rate was calculated with Vogels IPR, while the smallest rate was

obtained using Fetkovichs method.

Fig. 1 shows the various IPR curves generated from the test

data. Visual inspection indicates that the methods of Fetkovich and

Jones, Blount, and Glaze estimate the actual well performance

more accurately. The other methods capture the general shape of

the data but overestimate actual performance. If the straight-line

PI is used in this case, a maximum flow rate of 6,054 STB/D

would have been predicted from the test point. This estimate is

more than 60% greater than the highest rate predicted by the IPR

methods and shows the importance of using a multiphase flow

relationship to evaluate well performance when multiphase flow

occurs in the reservoir.

Table 5 shows the percent difference between the recorded

flow-rate data and the computed rate for the five IPR methods. The

multirate methods have differences of less than 10%. The average

absolute difference for Fetkovichs method is 4%, while Jones

et al.s is 7%. The single-point methods have an absolute average

difference ranging from 18 to 31% for Klins and Majcher and

Vogel, respectively. In general, the difference tends to increase

with increasing pressure drawdown. This increased difference in

predicted vs. actual performance is expected. Because each IPR is

actually used to extrapolate performance behavior at drawdowns

greater than the test point, one would expect these estimates to

increase in error as one moves further from the known data point.

Because the test data cover a wide range of pressure draw-

downs, they allow an investigation of the effect of drawdown on

performance estimates. Table 6 presents a summary of the average

absolute differences for each method based on drawdown percent-

ages (8, 21, 38, 51, and 78%) of the test point. As shown, the average

101 May 2004 SPE Production & Facilities

absolute differences in the performance predictions for all the

methods decrease as the test-point drawdown percentage increases.

For example, Vogels method predicted a maximum flow rate

of 5,108 STB/D at an 8% pressure drawdown, compared with

2,564 STB/D at a drawdown of 78%. This is almost a 100%

reduction in the maximum well deliverability. In addition, the

average differences in the performance estimates decrease from

72% at an 8% drawdown to 1.7% at a 78% drawdown.

All the methods show that the average absolute differences

decrease similarly in the predicted performance. By increasing

the pressure drawdown of the test point from 8 to 21%, the av-

erage absolute differences were decreased by more than 100%

for each method. For this particular case, a 20% pressure draw-

down appears sufficient to predict the well performance. This

is consistent with the observations of Wiggins

12

who recom-

mended, on the basis of simulation results, that a minimum pres-

sure drawdown of 20% be used for all well testing used to predict

oilwell performance.

In summary, Fetkovichs relation provided the best estimates of

well performance for this cases entire range of interest. In general,

the difference in performance predictions increased as the pressure

drawdown increased from the test pressure. Also, the average ab-

solute difference in the predictions decreased as the test pressure

drawdown increased.

Cases 2 and 3. The next cases represent one well located in the

Keokuk pool, Seminole County, Oklahoma, where test data were

collected 8 months apart at two different reservoir pressures.

13

The

reservoir pressure decreased from 1,734 to 1,609 psi, or 7%, be-

tween tests. These cases were selected to demonstrate the effect of

depletion on the IPR methods.

Owing to limited test data, performance predictions were made

from test information at pressure drawdowns of 13 and 12% for

reservoir pressures of 1,734 and 1,609 psi, respectively. As antic-

ipated, the various methods provide a range of performance esti-

mates for both reservoir pressures. Table 7 summarizes the abso-

lute differences in the IPR estimates. When the data were plotted,

there was little to distinguish the multipoint methods from single-

point ones for the first case. However, the second case clearly

showed a definite difference between the multipoint and single-

point methods. The average absolute difference in the performance

estimates also changed between the two cases, indicating that the

reliability of the various performance methods may change during

the life of a well.

Summary. The additional cases and their analysis are presented in

detail in Ref. 10. Table 8 presents a summary of the average

absolute difference for each method for all cases examined. As

indicated, no one method always provided the most reliable esti-

mates of the actual well data analyzed. However, some general

comments can be made on the basis of this table and all the cases

analyzed in this study.

The multipoint methods of Fetkovich and Jones et al. tend to do

a better job of predicting well performance than the single-point

methods. As a matter of fact, the total average absolute difference

is almost twice as great for the single-point methods as compared

to Fetkovichs multipoint method15 compared to 8%. The

method of Jones et al. had an average difference of 12%. Overall,

the single-point methods of Vogel, Klins and Majcher, and

Sukarno provided similar average differences in the cases exam-

ined14 to 15%.

Case 5 demonstrates the variation in the predicted performance.

In this case, Fetkovichs method performed the poorest in estimat-

ing actual performance, while Vogels IPR did the best. This case

clearly shows that one should not depend on a single IPR method

to make reliable performance predictions in all reservoirs.

Case 9 provides another anomaly in this analysis. Each method

provides very similar estimates, except for Jones et al. In this

case, Vogels method provides a somewhat better estimate than

Fetkovich. However, the multipoint method of Jones et al. pre-

dicted rates that are significantly different from the actual perfor-

mance. For this case, this method estimated performance with an

average absolute difference of 58%, compared with 16 to 18% for

the other methods.

As a final note, the available data or costs of obtaining data will

influence selecting an IPR method to predict performance. Overall,

multipoint methods will provide more information and are recom-

mended to estimate well performance; however, it costs more to

obtain the data compared to single-point methods. In the end, the

Fig. 1Predicted inflow performance curves compared to ac-

tual field data for Case 1.

102 May 2004 SPE Production & Facilities

benefit of multipoint methods must be carefully considered in

relation to the expense of obtaining the information.

Conclusions

In this study, five different methods to predict the pressure/

production performance of oil wells producing from solution-gas-

drive reservoirs have been presented. These are the methods of

Vogel; Fetkovich; Jones, Blount, and Glaze; Klins and Majcher;

and Sukarno and Wisngroho. Each method requires parameters

that are normally available from a production test. The methods

can be separated into multipoint and single-point methods. The

primary concern of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the

IPR methods on the basis of actual production-test data. Detailed

analysis and comparisons for 26 different cases were performed.

From this study, the following conclusions were drawn.

1. There is no one method that is the most suitable for every test.

It has been observed that in one case, one method will provide

the most reliable estimates, while providing the worst estimates

in the next case. From this observation, consideration should be

given to using more than one method in predicting performance

to provide a range of possible outcomes.

2. Of the well-performance methods evaluated in this study and the

field data analyzed, Fetkovichs multipoint method tended to be

the most reliable. It has been shown, on the basis of the test data,

that the overall absolute difference for Fetkovichs method was

less than for the others. Also, Fetkovichs method provided

consistent performance predictions throughout the pressure-

drawdown range, while the single-point methods appeared to be

more sensitive to the drawdown pressure of the test point.

3. The selection of a drawdown pressure for testing purposes is an

important parameter related to the reliability of the IPR meth-

ods. It appears that a minimum drawdown pressure of 20% of

the average reservoir pressure is required to obtain reliable es-

timates of well performance for any IPR method. In general, it

is recommended that test information be obtained as near to

operating conditions as possible.

4. Because of depletion effects, one IPR method may be reliable at

one reservoir pressure but unreliable at another. This may be

caused by changes in reservoir parameters with time that can

lead to changes in reservoir flow properties. Once again, this

suggests the use of multiple IPR methods to estimate well per-

formance.

Nomenclature

a fitting parameter defined in Eq. 10, dimensionless

A laminar-flow coefficient, mL

4

/t, psia/STB/D

b constant in Eq. 10, dimensionless

B turbulence coefficient, mL

7

, psia/(STB/D)

2

C flow coefficient, L

3+2n

t

4n1

/m

2n

, STB/D/psia

2n

d exponent defined in Eq. 7, dimensionless

F

E

Sukarno and Wisnogroho flow efficiency, defined in

Eq. 9, dimensionless

n deliverability exponent, dimensionless

p

b

bubblepoint pressure, m/Lt

2

, psia

p

R

average reservoir pressure, m/Lt

2

, psia

p

wf

flowing bottomhole pressure, m/Lt

2

, psia

q

o

oil flow rate, L

3

/t, STB/D

q

o,max

maximum oil flow rate, L

3

/t, STB/D

s skin factor, dimensionless

References

1. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: Calculation of Theoretical Productiv-

ity Factors, Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126.

2. Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive

Wells, JPT (January 1968) 83; Trans., AIME, 243.

3. Fetkovich, M.J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells, paper SPE

4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas,

Nevada, 30 September3 October.

4. Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M., and Glaze, O.H.: Use of Short Term Mul-

tiple Rate Flow Tests To Predict Performance of Wells Having Tur-

bulence, paper SPE 6133 presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 36 October.

103 May 2004 SPE Production & Facilities

5. Klins, M.A. and Majcher, M.W.: Inflow Performance Relationships

for Damaged or Improved Wells Producing Under Solution-Gas

Drive, JPT (December 1992) 1357.

6. Sukarno, P. and Wisnogroho, A.: Generalized Two-Phase IPR Curve

Equation Under Influence of Non-linear Flow Efficiency, Proc., Soc.

of Indonesian Petroleum Engineers Production Optimization Intl. Sym-

posium, Bandung, Indonesia (1995) 3143.

7. Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E., and Jennings, J.W.: Analytical Devel-

opment of Vogel-Type Inflow Performance Relationships, SPEJ (De-

cember 1996) 355.

8. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Backpressure Data on Natural

Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices, U.S. Bureau

of Mines (1935) 7.

9. Forchheimer, P.: Wasserbewegung durch Boden, Ziets V. Deutsch

Ing. (1901) 45, 1782.

10. Gallice, F.: A Comparison of Two-Phase Inflow Performance Rela-

tionships, MS thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma (1997).

11. Millikan, C.V. and Sidewell, C.V.: Bottom-hole Pressures in Oil

Wells, Trans, AIME (1931) 194205.

12. Wiggins, M.L.: Inflow Performance of Oil Wells Producing Water,

PhD dissertation, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas (1991).

13. Haider, M.L.: Productivity Index, API Drilling and Production Prac-

tice, API, Dallas (1936) 181190.

14. Sukarno, P.: Application of the New IPR Curve Equations in Sangatta

and Tanjung Miring Timur Fields, Proc., Indonesian Petroleum Assn.

Sixteenth Annual Convention (1987).

15. Walls, W.S.: Practical Methods of Determining Productivity in Res-

ervoirs on Leases by Bottomhole Pressure and Core Analysis, API

Drilling and Production Practice, API, Dallas (1938) 146161.

16. Kemler, E. and Poole, G.A.: A Preliminary Investigation of Flowing

Wells, API Drilling and Production Practice, API, Dallas (1936)

140157.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 1.589 873 E-01 m

3

psi 6.894 757 E+00 kPa

psi

2

4.753 8 E+01 kPa

2

Frederic Gallice is a geoscientist at Kerr-McGee Corp., Hous-

ton. e-mail: fgallice@kmg.com. Gallice holds a BS degree in

physics from the U. of Blaise Pascal and an MS degree in pe-

troleum engineering from the U. of Oklahoma (OU). Michael L.

Wiggins is a professor of petroleum and geological engineer-

ing at OU. e-mail: mwiggins@ou.edu. He has industry experi-

ence with major and independent exploration and produc-

tion companies. His teaching and research interests include

production operations, well performance, stimulation, artificial

lift, and production optimization. Wiggins holds BS, MEng, and

PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M U. He

is a Distinguished Member of SPE and currently serves on the

Editorial Review Committee as Executive Editor of SPE Produc-

tion & Facilities. He has been a member of the Production and

Operations Symposium (POS) technical program committee

since 1992 and served as the General Chairman for the 2003

POS. He was a Director of the Oklahoma City Section from

1999 to 2001. He has served as a member of the Engineering

Registration Committee, as the Faculty Adviser for the OU SPE

Student Chapter, and as a committee member for the Petro-

leum Computer Conference.

104 May 2004 SPE Production & Facilities

- APQP (Pankaj Nalwa)Încărcat dePankaj Nalwa
- 01338029Încărcat deapi-3697505
- Spss Last AsignmentÎncărcat deaminasaeed
- IEEEÎncărcat deThang Chu
- SSRN-id1126022Încărcat deHongtrang Vn
- Physical Limits of InferenceÎncărcat deFred J. Beans
- The Ticker and Investment DigestÎncărcat deZhaofu Wang
- Method and Theory of Catchment Analysis by Donna RopperÎncărcat deKyle Norman
- R1EpsteinÎncărcat deBuried_Child
- PendulumsÎncărcat deCassie Peterson
- 4harddatÎncărcat deyadavame
- VAPEPSÎncărcat depws111
- SCUP39_EnrBudgÎncărcat dePacymo Dubelogy
- method of contingencyÎncărcat desonu200186
- Full Scale SLC Draw TrialsÎncărcat deFrancoHermosillaFerreira
- Patients' Reports or Clinicians' Assessments-- Wich Are Better for Prognosticating-Încărcat dedaniel
- Decision TreesÎncărcat deShilpi Jain
- Environmental Impact AssessmentÎncărcat deMiguel90
- Zhang 2012Încărcat deAkmal da Silva
- akmal qmt.pdfÎncărcat deHanif Farhaty
- respond_document_print (6).pdfÎncărcat deSaaki Ganesh
- SPE-88445-PA.pdfÎncărcat deDenis Gontarev
- Dr. Amir Mosavi’s Biography and ResearchÎncărcat deAmir Mosavi
- 07036367Încărcat dePradeep Kundu
- 1 Effects of Road Geometry and Traffic Volumes on Rural Roadway Accident RatesÎncărcat deFirdhausyia Rahmani
- Business Plan SampleÎncărcat deKhaja Zakiuddin
- 13. ModelTuning DES EnÎncărcat dezinsou1234
- 0892-6875%2891%2990142-I.pdfÎncărcat deaghilif
- DS120x_SyllabusÎncărcat dedomomwambi
- Data Science in Algorithmic Trading – Towards Data ScienceÎncărcat deFoto Thomas

- technology workshop lesson planÎncărcat deapi-290468840
- Tutorial 1 QuestionsÎncărcat deMarilynYunLing
- C ProgramsÎncărcat deJanarthanan Jagan
- Foreign Direct InvestmentÎncărcat debalutansutra
- Paddy Dehydration by AdsorptionÎncărcat deImèneHermassi
- w_make160Încărcat deppetraka
- Workshop-Paper-7-ISCC-and-MSPO-Compliance-for-Certification.pdfÎncărcat deFazrizza Jalil
- 1958 Homans Social Behaviour as ExchangeÎncărcat deJames Fagan
- CSC423 CSC324 Syllabus Fall2017 (1)Încărcat dejazzbug0318
- Shell Scripts ExamplesÎncărcat decezaurus
- Rethinking ThinkingÎncărcat deJordi Llorens Terrazas
- 3018_0Încărcat deMitha Kim Nam Gil
- Psych I - Unit IIÎncărcat deMark Darket
- Oracle 11gr2 Single Node Rac InstallationÎncărcat deVijay Shankar
- DiimagaÎncărcat dedhiraj
- oral presentation rubric 6q3Încărcat deapi-249058307
- Two Pass AssemblerÎncărcat deWasim Mirza
- Chapter 12 Existential Phenomenology Theory and Therapy HandoutÎncărcat derifqi235
- The John Zink Combustion Handbook PreviewÎncărcat deMattu Saleen
- 9084-ErEEFBh.pptxÎncărcat deNabeel Khan
- Whitepaper SCOTT SAFETY Understanding SILÎncărcat dera9622
- VodafoneÎncărcat deLili Ak
- True North SummaryÎncărcat decoachersland
- Warwick Growth 12342012Încărcat deDaniel Lee Eisenberg Jacobs
- entrepreneurial conceptsÎncărcat deArchana Tiwari
- Towards a Biography of Georg Cantor (Grattan-Guinness)Încărcat deDan
- 059ce467-en.pdfÎncărcat deMerrry
- affective capitalism.pdfÎncărcat deAadad
- game senseÎncărcat deapi-357069288
- standard 3 - emhÎncărcat deapi-473398173

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.