0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

5 (de) vizualizări6 paginiData Management

Mar 16, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Data Management

© All Rights Reserved

5 (de) vizualizări

Data Management

© All Rights Reserved

- Principles: Life and Work
- Principles: Life and Work
- The Intelligent Investor, Rev. Ed
- Marrying Winterborne
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- Rich Dad Poor Dad: What The Rich Teach Their Kids About Money - That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!
- MONEY Master the Game: 7 Simple Steps to Financial Freedom
- Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth
- I Will Teach You to Be Rich, Second Edition: No Guilt. No Excuses. No BS. Just a 6-Week Program That Works
- Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup
- The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness
- The Intelligent Investor Rev Ed.
- The Intelligent Investor
- Rework
- Unshakeable: Your Financial Freedom Playbook
- Your Money or Your Life: 9 Steps to Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence: Fully Revised and Updated for 2018
- Rich Dad's Guide to Investing: What the Rich Invest In, That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!
- Liar's Poker: Rising Through the Wreckage on Wall Street

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

P.A. Tyler, Schlumberger GeoQuest, J.R. McVean, Merak Projects

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum

Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2528 March 2001.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Efficient frontier theory is gaining acceptance as a part of the

portfolio analysis process in the petroleum industry. One of

the major difficulties companies encounter in creating

corporate efficient frontiers is in representing project level

risks in a corporate consolidation of value. Full stochastic

evaluations require the management of huge quantities of data.

As a result several current solutions use multiple discrete

outcomes to represent any given project, rather then a

complete stochastic distribution. This paper evaluates the

differences resulting from using these two approaches to

project risking. By examining the optimized portfolio results

and the resultant efficient frontier, we are able to draw direct

conclusions about the added value attributable to detailed

Monte Carlo based evaluations. Since price is the source of

most correlation between projects, the investigation was done

with and without price as an input variable. It was discovered

that the differences between the stochastic and discrete

outcome evaluations are not significant when price uncertainty

is neglected, but the inclusion of price leads to significant

differences if the resulting correlation is not accounted for.

Introduction

Petroleum managers are constantly faced with the decision

of how to invest limited amounts of capital in order to

maximize shareholder value or return. This is usually done by

evaluating all the available investments, and then selecting a

subset in which to invest. This subset is often referred to as

the companys portfolio. Selection of this portfolio is critical

to a companys success and therefore it requires significant

consideration.

The goal of the portfolio selection process is to select the

optimal set of projects. However, this is not a simple

within the corporate strategy and constraints can become a

very daunting exercise. The task of matching project selection

to the company strategy and goals is often referred to as

Portfolio Management. There are many elements that must be

taken into account in portfolio management, including.

Maximizing the value of the portfolio.

Living within the capital spending limits.

Meeting the production requirements.

Achieving both short term and long term cash flow

goals.

Matching forecasted net income targets.

Meeting developmental and/or environmental

constraints.

This is even more complex in our industry where many

projects have significant amounts of uncertainty, or variation

in the possible outcomes. In recent years more and more

attention has been placed on how to represent these

uncertainties within the portfolio evaluation. These

uncertainties exist in various forms within the investment

projects of a petroleum company, and can include.

Existence of hydrocarbons (probability of success).

Geological reservoir properties.

Timing and extent of the development program.

Capital and operating costs.

Oil and gas prices.

These uncertainties in the input data required to make an

economic evaluation of E&P projects lead to uncertainties in

the economic results. Acknowledging that these uncertainties

exist in the individual projects, naturally leads to the concept

that uncertainties exist in the overall portfolio. In recent years

a significant amount of effort has been spent in trying to

define this portfolio risk and to compare portfolios by their

risk vs. reward relationship.

In light of the importance of portfolio level risk, this paper

compares two differing approaches to project evaluation under

uncertain conditions, and the effect the differing approaches

have on the overall portfolio risk measurements. The two

approaches compared will be an uncertainty tree approach

where projects are evaluated as distinct outcomes each with a

differing probability of occurrence (referred to here as simple

stochastic), and a full Monte Carlo evaluation approach

where the projects are evaluated across the full range of input

uncertainties.

In a 1952 article, Noble laureate Harry Markowitz explained

the theory of portfolio diversification from the perspective of

minimizing risk. His work completely changed the field of

portfolio optimization (Markowitz, 1952). There are three

basic principles that need to be understood prior to any

discussion of efficient frontier theory.

A rational investor will prefer more value to less value,

but will also prefer less risk to more risk.

A portfolio can be more or less than the sum of its

individual projects, depending on how the investments

interact with each other.

The interaction between

investments is as important as the individual investments

themselves.

There is no single optimal portfolio as it is generally

possible to gain more value by accepting more risk.

This last point is essentially an expression of the concept

of efficient portfolios. A portfolio is said to be efficient if it is

the case that no other portfolio has more value while having

the same or less risk, and there is no other portfolio that has

less risk while having the same or more value. In order to

evaluate the efficiency of any given portfolio it is typically

plotted on an efficient frontier graph (Fig. 1). This graph is a

plot of several portfolios, each with its own value and risk

measurements. Points to the right (higher value) and below

(lower risk) are said to be more efficient portfolios than

portfolios that lie to the left or above. The collection of

portfolios that lie on the lower right edge of this graph are

referred to as the efficient frontier. For the given strategy and

goal, there are no other portfolios that generate the same value

for less risk.

dominated by all portfolios in quadrant II (portfolios B and C) and

dominates all portfolios in quadrant IV. Portfolio D is neither

dominated nor dominates portfolio E because E is in Ds first

quadrant. Portfolios B, C, D, and E are all efficient because they

have no portfolios in their second quadrant.

SPE 69594

definition of portfolio risk in order to simplify the analysis.

Semi-standard deviation is a popular measure of downside

uncertainty or risk, and is commonly used by many who are

employing portfolio management in the petroleum industry.

The use of simple stochastic data at the project level leads

to smooth risk profiles at the portfolio level. As the discrete

outcomes are combined in larger and larger numbers of

projects, the discreteness of the outcomes is lost. A portfolio

that has ten projects, each with four discrete outcomes,

contains slightly more then one million possible outcomes. To

illustrate this, the NPV distribution for one of the mid range

portfolios (LV 1) used in this paper, is shown with both the

full Monte Carlo based data (Fig. 2) and the simple stochastic

data

(Fig. 3).

Carlo based optimization.

stochastic based optimization.

Project Generation

In order to evaluate the differences that the project risk

evaluation method has on portfolio risk, we needed to start

with a typical group of projects. In our case we used thirty

projects based on real evaluations from differing locations

SPE 69594

assets, acquisitions and a large proportion of exploration

projects (Table 1). The projects do not however represent

any single company or country, and the values have been

modified slightly to ensure anonymity.

Each project was fully evaluated using a probabilistic

reservoir simulator, and the resultant distributions were used

as the basis for all evaluations. Deterministic development

profiles were created for the most likely successful outcomes.

For the exploration projects; failure, low and high

deterministic evaluations were also created, and the

probability of each outcome was derived from the simulator

results.

The combination of these creates a simple

stochastic evaluation of the projects. These can be

represented by multiple branch uncertainty trees (Fig. 4), and

could have included as many outcomes as required to describe

the development options.

individual outcomes using a historically validated function.

This leads to a far more robust and complex evaluation of the

individual projects.

Typical results from four of the

exploration projects evaluated are shown in Fig. 5.

Incorporation of Price Uncertainties

One of the issues with portfolio risk evaluations is that if

you need to include price uncertainty, it usually needs to be

fully correlated across all the projects, unlike most technical or

reservoir uncertainty. This can be achieved in Monte Carlo

simulations by applying a single price distribution to the entire

set of projects. This global application of a price uncertainty

allows fully correlated prices across multiple projects. This is

easily accomplished in many of todays Monte Carlo

simulating systems, but adds a considerable complexity to

uncertainty tree analyses.

In order to illustrate the importance of this correlation, a

second set of project data was generated in which the Monte

Carlo evaluated projects used a fully correlated price

distribution, while the simple stochastic evaluations used a

typical 3-branch price uncertainty (Fig. 6).

an exploration project used in the risked portfolio optimization.

The probabilities are derived from a detailed analysis of the

inherent reservoir uncertainties, and the independent scenarios

came from the development engineering group.

Fig. 6An example of the typical simple stochastic evaluation

including the uncertainty associated with price.

This is a

schematic representation, where price uncertainty effects all end

nodes.

different from normal distributions. These risk profile shapes are

typical of exploration projects.

specific development assumptions were made as in the simple

stochastic evaluations. However, the entire distribution of

outcomes from the reservoir simulator was incorporated, and

correlation using a modified simple stochastic approach.

Including the 3-branch uncertainty node, to roughly model

price uncertainty, increases the number of possible outcomes

from four to twelve. When combining projects into portfolios,

perfect price correlation can be achieved by insuring that only

project outcomes of similar price assumptions are combined.

In other words, the high price outcomes of each project can

only be combined with high price outcomes of other projects.

This technique, while requiring more project outcome

evaluations and considerable care in the portfolio generation

stage, may prove to be sufficient to capture the broad affects

of inter-project correlation, provided price is the only

significant contributor to this correlation. For the purposes of

this paper, this approach was not attempted but further study

of this topic is clearly warranted.

SPE 69594

In order to evaluate the effect that these two approaches had

on the portfolio risk measurement, an efficient frontier was

developed for each of the four project evaluations.

Full Monte Carlo evaluations without price

uncertainty.

Simple stochastic evaluations without price

uncertainty.

Full Monte Carlo evaluations with fully correlated

price uncertainty.

Simple stochastic evaluations with price uncertainty

without correlation.

This was accomplished by defining a strategy that

consisted of the following requirements.

A minimum annual produced oil volume and gas

volume was required from year 2003 to 2010.

Annual exploration capital and production capital

expenditure was limited for all years

Cumulative reserve replacement over the first five

years and over the first ten years were specified.

Only portfolios that met all of the above goals were

included in the efficient frontier graph. In this case, the

projects could either be included or not. The model was not

permitted to vary the percent working interest in any of the

projects. This was representative of the majority of projects

we were working with, and is often how some companies

evaluate portfolio selection.

The optimizer objective value was set to maximize NPV at

a 10% discount rate, or to minimize the semi-standard

deviation of NPV at a 10% discount rate, our risk measure.

By varying the minimum required NPV for a given

optimization, and optimizing on minimum possible risk,

specific portfolios from the set of the most efficient portfolios

found were noted. Randomly generated portfolios were used

to supplement the efficient portfolios, in order to populate the

efficient frontier graph. In total over fifteen optimizations

were run for each graph.

The exact same optimization procedure was performed for

all sets of input data (Figs. 7 to 10), and the efficient frontiers

were compared for both project selection and overall risk

measures.

their characteristics are listed in Table 1. The same portfolios

(groups of projects) were then identified in the simple

stochastic efficient frontier graph (Fig. 8). As can be seen

most of the portfolios remained efficient or did not shift

markedly from the efficient frontier in the simple stochastic

optimizations. This indicates the differences in the evaluation

detail did not significantly effect the portfolio selection or

portfolio risk comparisons, when price uncertainty was

ignored.

Results

Using the full Monte Carlo evaluations, the resultant portfolio

NPVs ranged from MM$1,510 to MM$3,070, while the

associated risk ranged from MM$225 to MM$660 (Fig. 7).

While using the simple stochastic evaluations, the resultant

portfolio NPVs ranged from MM$1,510 to MM$3,070, and

the associated risk ranged from MM$200 to MM$490 (Fig. 8).

The identical NPV values are no surprise as the expected

values of the simple stochastic evaluations matched the mean

values (expected) from the full Monte Carlo evaluations

(Table 2).

In order to compare the optimized project selection

between the two project risking methods, fourteen of the most

efficient portfolios found based on the full Monte Carlo

project evaluations, without price uncertainty. Note that most of

the portfolios identified as efficient in Fig. 7 are efficient or close

to efficient here.

Monte Carlo based project evaluations without price uncertainty.

The highlighted efficient portfolios were chosen for comparison

with the simple stochastic based efficient frontier.

evaluated with price uncertainty. Using the full Monte Carlo

evaluations with correlated price uncertainty, the resultant

portfolio NPVs ranged from MM$1,565 to MM$3,040, while

the associated risk ranged from MM$610 to MM$1,000 (Fig.

9).

Using the simple stochastic evaluations with non

correlated price uncertainty, the resultant portfolio NPVs

ranged from MM$1,560 to MM$3,040, and the associated risk

ranged from MM$310 to MM$590 (Fig. 10).

SPE 69594

factor in this case. Including correlated price uncertainty in the

full Monte Carlo based project evaluations leads to a

significant increase in the range of possible values for

resulting portfolios. This increase in the width of the portfolio

risk profiles manifests itself as larger semi-standard

deviations. In the case of the simple stochastic approach with

price uncertainty, the lack of price correlation means that this

affect is not observed.

In order to compare the optimized project selection and the

effect of price correlation, 14 of the most efficient portfolios

found based on the full Monte Carlo with correlated price

evaluations were selected. They are labeled on Fig. 9. The

same portfolios (groups of projects) were then identified in the

simple stochastic efficient frontier graph with non correlated

price uncertainty (Fig. 10). In this case only four of the

fourteen portfolios are still efficient using the simple

stochastic project data with non correlated prices. The

portfolios are close to the efficient frontier, indicating that the

reduced evaluation detail still has some value.

Monte Carlo based project evaluations, including fully correlated

price uncertainty.

The highlighted efficient portfolios were

chosen for comparison with the simple stochastic based efficient

frontier.

inevitably leads to the loss of inter-project correlations.

However, in many cases there is little cause for inter-project

correlation, with the notable exception of price. As we have

seen, the loss of this correlation can significantly affect the

understanding of the level of risk involved with the resulting

portfolios, although the selection of optimal portfolios may not

be affected as significantly

stochastic project evaluations, including non correlated price

uncertainty. Note location of the Portfolios, from Fig. 9, which

were efficient in the full Monte Carlo efficient frontier with

correlated price uncertainty.

Conclusions

The method of describing risk at the individual project level, is

a factor in the portfolio optimization and analysis process.

Using full Monte Carlo based evaluations does lead to

improved risk measurement and more accurate portfolio

analysis.

Using a relatively simple uncertainty tree approach to

evaluate the projects will lead to similar portfolio optimization

results when using risk measures as the main selection criteria,

with significantly less effort in the creation of the project

evaluations.

The incorporation of price uncertainty leads to large

differences in the two approaches due to the effects of the

correlation. The authors feel more investigation is warranted

in the effects of incorporating correlated prices in the simple

stochastic evaluations.

This paper firmly demonstrates that companies can start

down the road of risked based portfolio optimization and

analysis without having to put together detailed Monte Carlo

based evaluations for every project. A mix of the approaches

can be used to perform risk based portfolio optimization and

analysis, allowing companies to use the detailed data where

available, without having to force everyone into long and

detailed analysis of every project.

References

1. Markowitz, H.: Portfolio Selection, The Journal of Finance,

Vol. VII, No. 1, (1952) 77-91.

2. McVean, J.R..: The Significance of Risk Definition on Portfolio

Selection, SPE 62966, 2000 SPE annual technical conference

and exhibition in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 Oct, 2000.

Name

EP 1

EP 2

EP 3

EP 4

EP 5

EP 6

EP 7

EP 8

EP 9

EP 10

EP 11

EP 12

EP 13

EP 14

EP 15

EP 16

EP 17

EP 18

EP 19

EP 20

EP 21

EP 22

EP 23

EP 24

EP 25

EP 26

EP 27

EP 28

EP 29

EP 30

AT Cash

NPV 10%

(MM$)

127

102

200

251

367

68

90

77

125

128

80

85

30

92

51

47

8

7

5

6

106

38

110

148

184

50

118

187

283

23

Capital

Undisc.

(MM$)

142

62

133

119

345

75

137

28

88

204

71

121

86

95

31

96

21

20

9

5

452

182

352

42

387

73

143

82

69

51

Oil Prod.

Type

(MMSTB)

56

50

182

212

47

57

88

48

44

111

80

85

38

66

21

47

11

10

7

6

182

79

138

28

237

46

103

32

39

39

SPE 69594

Probability

of Success

(%)

Acq.

Dev.

Dev.

Dev.

Acq.

Del.

Expl.

Expl.

Expl.

Expl.

Del.

Expl.

Expl.

Dev.

Dev.

Expl.

Expl.

Expl.

Del.

Del.

Expl.

Expl.

Expl.

Expl.

Dev.

Expl.

Del.

Expl.

Del.

Expl.

90

72

35

41

17

94

30

27

40

30

20

95

90

30

60

23

43

80

90

15

90

25

Name

Max V

HV - 1

HV 2

HV 3

HV 4

AV 1

AV 2

AV 3

AV 4

LV 1

LV 2

LV 3

LV 4

Min R

AT Cash

NPV 10%

(MM$)

3,070

2,860

2,796

2,690

2,613

2,552

2,420

2,352

2,240

2,186

2,034

1,889

1,771

1,510

Semi-Standard

deviation based

on Full

Monte Carlo

Inputs

(MM$)

660

639

611

565

540

523

460

430

403

380

362

337

311

225

Number

of

Projects

25

22

23

23

25

21

24

24

23

22

20

21

19

19

Semi-Standard

deviation based

on Simple

Stochastic

Inputs

(MM$)

490

477

485

442

378

377

350

315

310

285

276

255

225

200

- G Risk RegisterÎncărcat deits2kool
- DLL week 2Încărcat deSon Ocampo
- Consumer Imagery PptÎncărcat derichavaish_d
- a3pwoodbmthqs 150116033148 Conversion Gate02Încărcat deAmgad Alsisi
- pbl_newÎncărcat deShukri Shabri
- Risk ManagementÎncărcat derubbydean
- The Impacts of Planning Rules Regulations Uncertainty and Delay on Residential Property DevelopmentÎncărcat deBen Ross
- Managing UncertaintyÎncărcat delovenika
- Risk analysis processesÎncărcat deAhmed Abouliela
- Transforming Uncertainties into Risks and Poverty AlleviationÎncărcat deahmed_driouchi
- Chapter 11Încărcat deIvan Pacheco
- Algorithms for Dummies (en)Încărcat deWalter Angolar Da Silva
- 2011MS4_GRPF06_PPTÎncărcat desuprim85
- Risk Mitigation Action Plan TemplatesÎncărcat deHector Eduardo Ermacora
- James Bach on RiskÎncărcat dewrongturnbd
- areÎncărcat deNevets Nonnac
- Paper 133Încărcat deFahad Naseem
- 9457 Monte Carlo MethodÎncărcat deMandar Balshankar
- term2 little bits presentationÎncărcat deapi-309879228
- UntitledÎncărcat deeurolex
- Credit Management Configaration - ERP Operations - SCN WikiÎncărcat deranjeetulhe
- Annex 10 (Technical Evaluation Table & Procurement Risk Register)Încărcat dedangthequyetbk
- Only Thing Guide McCrackenÎncărcat deJAdrienn
- eportfolio the value propositon canvas as of the 26th of jan 2017Încărcat deapi-348732193
- RMaswadehWk7Încărcat deReema124
- AMUEM2009-PENCEASFATÎncărcat deSantosh Kumar
- 5100.7-2004(+A1)Încărcat deTian Ng
- risk management plan (2)Încărcat deapi-291180964
- Bcsp Csp ExamguideÎncărcat deJuan Collins
- 2003 - CChE - Jain et alÎncărcat desemant

- Fmev Chap3 ReservesÎncărcat deJuan Carlos M M
- JD2016 Results Iib ResultÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- 13 WellsÎncărcat deMuna Nadi
- PP Evaluation Exploration2014 KÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- ZFA 9 BehaviorsÎncărcat derahul_khanna4321
- Comp LogÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- Larson MSc 1996 Pp Ps Acqusition Processing InterpretationÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- lab1Încărcat deJeevan Babu
- Coverted Wave Seismic ExplorationÎncărcat dekadrawi
- Principles of GeophysicsÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- ProMAX3D TutorialÎncărcat deFitriRotuaLumbanraja
- 3 Seismic Interp BasicsÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- LWD-3 Year PerspectiveÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- 4304735793Încărcat deJeevan Babu
- Liao Thesis 2013Încărcat deJeevan Babu
- Managing People EffectivelyÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- learninggeoscience_PetrophysicsÎncărcat deroshmedia
- Sea Beam Multi Beam Theory OperationÎncărcat deFlorentin Petrescu
- Oil&Gas Economics CourseÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- Doug PeacockÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- Data Lifecycle Management- RCD 2012Încărcat deJeevan Babu
- 06 JosephSeila DataGovernanceatDevonEnergy CalgaryDMS 2013 - CopyÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- Data Quality MgtÎncărcat delamenewni
- 2012 7 13 Portfolio Management Process FactsheetÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- Omb Circular a16 Supplemental GuidanceÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- ch12Încărcat deJeevan Babu
- Best Data Management PracticesÎncărcat deJeevan Babu
- RSC 2012 Reserves Conference_8Shale_MichaelidesÎncărcat deJeevan Babu

- G76.30608-1Încărcat deAlejandro Valdés Rojas
- Vestas_V47.pdfÎncărcat dees9857
- Ing Ali Marcano Cv.pdfÎncărcat deAli
- Test Execution and Defect ManagementÎncărcat demannd211
- Ansaldo Thomassen - Flexible Service Agreements (2014)Încărcat deguerrez
- Clustering_Techniques_of_Data_Mining-_A.pdfÎncărcat deReshma Khemchandani
- seminar3dprinter-copy-160308175908.pdfÎncărcat denavaneeth
- tech110.pdfÎncărcat dePrasetyo Adi
- Lateral Support of Wood Beams in Residential Structures.pdfÎncărcat deBrian-Marti Boatright
- EBS Maintenance Best PracticesÎncărcat deBernard Carlos
- SAIBAOnline Global EditionÎncărcat deNikhl
- Spc Turbo ChinaÎncărcat desvkatkar
- BPP MM Devolucion de a ProveedorÎncărcat deandersonjaviera
- Profili njemačkih firmiÎncărcat deHaris Trešnjo
- UredaÎncărcat deHarshad Muranjan
- Aviation Boatswain’s Mate HÎncărcat destephenhu
- Total Waste ManagementpdfÎncărcat dekaim1
- Fiat LineaÎncărcat deAtul Kumar
- Agile Methodology.docxÎncărcat deSushanto Chakravarty
- IDC Assessment CognizantÎncărcat deAshish Verma
- Fast Lube Aug 2011Încărcat deCheryl Ann Lambert Wall
- User Manual With FAQs - Shares Investment With Capital GainÎncărcat deS Ram Mohan
- Hydra Grease-Eater Enzyme LiquidÎncărcat deAmyWhite11
- Obiee Basic TermsÎncărcat deVikas
- SafetySpeak! Vol 9 No 2Încărcat deShikhin Garg
- NAZI TechnologyÎncărcat deAnonymous D7sfnwmOX
- Rockwood Electric UtilityÎncărcat deGenability
- Hagglunds Drive System PresentationÎncărcat deramanujam59
- PMP-Sld-5th-EdÎncărcat deSohail Khan
- Datastage Student GuideÎncărcat desayanc2003

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

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

Anulați oricând.