52 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Mohannad Abdulrahman

- fracking lesson plan sustainability science la
- 121312 NY ISSUE + BP
- 2-29 Hydro Frack Technology Paper
- SPE-184835-MS.pdf
- Horizontal Well Fractured
- Baker2000 Unlocked
- Shale Tech Coference 2011
- Si Tech Report 1584
- Case_study-Risk_mitigation_in_remedial_h (2).pdf
- Positive Reactions in Carbonate
- Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering
- 314973340-Sand-Mass-Prediction-in-a-North-Sea-Reservoir.pdf
- Examples of Kavg
- pentng hyfrac
- Hydraulic Fracturing and Job Creation
- HFU AND FZI
- Petroskills Reservoir Characterization Course Content
- zqa17
- #PAPER FIX.docx
- Class_48_21-03-2017

Anda di halaman 1dari 68

1/2

This test is the most commonly used test in field. The test is conducted by allowing a

well to flow at constant flow rate for a certain period of time. Then the well is shut down

allowing the pressure to build up in the well. The well pressure (usually downhole) is

recorder as a function of time. These recordings can be used to estimate:

a- Formation permeability

b- Average pressure in the drainage area

c- Reservoir heterogeneity

d- Location of reservoir boundaries

e- Stimulation and damages in the wellbore.

The discussion of the idealized pressure buildup test serves as a base case where the data

from actual well testing is compared to. An ideal case would involves:

a- An infinite acting reservoir

b- Homogenous porous media

c- Isotropic (no directional changes in rock properties)

d- Slightly compressible fluid

e- Single phase fluid

f- Fluid properties are constant during the test.

Lets consider a well that produced at a constant rate, q, for a time period of tp. Now the

well is shut-in and the time elapsed since shut-in is t. The following figure present a

demonstration of this case.

2/2

To represent the closure of a well, mathematically, we can assume that at time tp, an

imaginary well with a flow rate of (-q) is imposed so that the flow rate before tp equals q

and after tp equals zero.

From Matthews and Russells solution for diffusivity equation is given as:

ct rw 2

70.6qB

Pwf = Pi

Ei

kh

0

.

00105

kt

qB rskin k

ln

Pskin =

1

0.00708hk rw k skin

Now, the total pressure drop can be calculated as:

Pi Pwf =

ct rw 2

70.6qB

qB rskin k

E

948

141

.

2

ln

1

hk r k

kh

kt

w skin

rskin

ct rw 2 k

qB

E

948

2

1

= 70.6

ln

kt k skin rw

hk

During well testing, the argument of the Ei function is small after a short time, therefore,

using the logarithmic approximation (Ei (x) = ln(1.781x)), results in:

rskin

ct rw 2 k

qB

ln

1688

2

1

Pi Pwf = 70.6

ln

kt k skin

r

hk

w

k

r

s=

1 ln skin

k skin rw

The equation can be written as:

ct rw 2

qB

Pi Pwf = 70.6

ln

1688

2

s

kt

hk

3/2

Now, back to the situation where we have an actual well and an imaginary well, the

pressure of the actual well (Pws) can be calculated using the principles of superposition

as:

ct rw 2

ct rw 2

qB

( q )B

Pi Pws = 70.6

s

s

ln

1688

2

70

.

6

ln

1688

2

hk

k (t p + t )

k (t )

hk

qB t p + t

Pws = Pi 70.6

ln

hk t

Or

qB t p + t

Pws = Pi 162.6

log

hk t

t p + t

will be a straight line

hk

4/2

Since the slope is negative from the plot, then it is more convenient to deal with the

absolute value of m. Thus we will redefine m as:

qB

m = 162.6

hk

From the slope, reservoir permeability can be determine. (The slope in a logarithmic

scale can be found by taking the difference of any two point that are apart by one cycle as

shown in the previous figure).

t + t

Moreover, if we extend the line till p

equals 1, then the value of initial pressure

(Pi) can be found. The skin factor can also be determined from the ideal pressure

buildup data. At the time just before the well is shut in, the flowing bottomhole pressure

can be written as:

ct rw 2

qB

ln

1688

2

Pwf = Pi + 70.6

s

kt p

hk

ct rw 2

qB

log

1688

0

.

869

= Pi + 162.6

s

kt p

hk

ct rw 2

0.869 s

= Pi + m log 1688

kt p

The pressure after the well is shut in, can be calculated from:

t p + t

Pws = Pi m log

Combing the previous two equations yields, the skin factor, s, can be written as:

Pws Pwf

s = 1.151

m

2

t + t

+ 1.151log1688 ct rw

+ 1.151log p

kt

t p

5/2

t p + t

is small (i,e

Taking any time after well shut in, that ensure the value of log

t

p

taking a small t after well shut in) and record the pressure at that time. Usually the

pressure after 1 hour of well shut (P1-hr) in is recorded. The skin factor is written as:

ct rw 2

+ 1.151log1688

kt

k

P Pwf

+ 3.715

1.151log

= 1.151 1hr

2

m

c

r

t w

P Pwf

s = 1.151 1hr

m

P Pwf

= 1.151 1hr

m

log

3

.

23

+

2

ct rw

This procedure of determine reservoir permeability, initial pressure, and skin factor is

known as Horner plot technique.

6/2

Example-1:

A newly drilled well produced at a constant flow rate of 500 STB/day. A pressure

buildup test was designed for the well, therefore, the well was shut in after 3 days. The

following information are related to the oil and reservoir properties.

Bo

= 1.3 bbl/STB

= 1.0 cp

ct

= 2010-6 psi-1

= 22 ft

porosity

= 0.2

rw

= 0.3 ft

Moreover, the following table shows the recorded shut in pressure (Pws) versus time.

Pws, psi

1,150

1,794

1,823

1,850

16

1,876

24

1,890

48

1,910

Determine the formation permeability, initial reservoir pressure (Pi), and skin factor (s)

using Horner plot technique.

7/2

Solution

t p + t

to analyze pressure buildup data.

t,

hours

2

4

8

16

24

48

(tp+t)/t

37.0

19.0

10.0

5.5

4.0

2.5

Pws,

psi

1,794

1,823

1,850

1,876

1,890

1,910

The slope is equal to 100 psi, therefore, the formation permeability is calculated as:

500 1.3 1

qB

k = 162.6

= 162.6

= 48 md

22 100

hm

8/2

t + t

The extrapolation of the line to p

= 1.0 gives an initial reservoir pressure of 1,950

psi. The skin factor is calculated after deterring the pressure after one hour of well shut

in (P1-hr). From the plot, P1-hr is 1764 psi. Therefore the skin factor, s, can be calculated

as:

P1hr Pwf

s = 1.151

m

+ 3.23

log

2

c r

t w

1,764 1,150

48

= 1.151

+ 3.23

log

5

2

100

0.2 1 2 10 0.3

= 1.43

The flowing pressure (Pwf) is given at time zero as 1,150 psi in the table. This well has a

flow restriction because skin factor is positive.

9/2

In actual wells, the responses in terms of pressure versus time is more complicated than

for the ideal case. Instead of simply a straight line, we usually obtain a curve with

complicated shape. To understand the complexity involved in real well testing, the

concept of pressure propagating into reservoir as time progress is important.

As a

pressure disturbance happened in a well, the pressure wave propagates into reservoir

formation. We can divide this propagation into three different regions:

1- Early-Time region: during which a pressure transient is moving the formation

near the wellbore.

2- Middle time region: a pressure during which a pressure transient is moving away

from the wellbore and deep into bulk formation

3- Late-Time region: during which the pressure transient has reached the well

drainage radius.

The following figure shows a schematic of these different regions

10/2

1- Early-Time Region

Due to drilling operations, most well have altered permeability near the wellbore (a

new trend in the industry is to use the underbalanced drilling operations to reduce the

impact of drilling fluids on the permeability around the wellbore). Therefore, the

straight line behavior observed for ideal buildup tests will not be shown in actual

buildup well tests due to the presence of the altered permeability region around the

wellbore. Sometimes, we have a very thin thickness of the altered permeability

region, which reduce its effect on pressure responses. The following figure shows a

cased hole well with drilling and perforation damages.

The other factor which deviates the behavior of actual buildup well tests from an ideal

one is the assumption of instantaneous closure of flow downhole upon the surface

shut down of the production. To illustrate this point more, consider a well, with a

production rate of q, which has been produced for time period of tp. At time = tp, the

well was shut down by closing the production at surface.

Due to fluid

compressibility, the downhole rate requires sometimes to reach an actual zero flow

rate. This effect is called the wellbore storage effect and the required time is called

11/2

wellbore storage time. The following figure illustrate the difference between actual

and ideal responses of downhole rate in reaction to well closure.

The effect of wellbore storage on pressure response, usually, lasts longer than the

effect altered permeability zone.

2- Middle-Time Region

When the time of buildup pressure test moved beyond the time of wellbore storage

effect and altered permeability zone effect, we start to see the ideal pressure buildup

test responses. The ideal behavior will continue until the pressure propagation wave

reaches one or more reservoir boundaries, massive heterogeneities, or fluid/fluid

contact. To use Horner method, pressure data during the middle time is needed.

Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between pressure responses during early, middle,

and late time regions.

3- Late-Time Region

When pressure continue to propagate beyond middle time it will eventually reach the

drainage boundaries of the well. In this late time, pressure responses will be affect by

boundary configuration, interference from nearby wells, significant reservoir

heterogeneities, and fluid/fluid contact.

12/2

4.1. Deviation from Infinite Reservoir Assumption

When deriving Horner plot for ideal case, we assumed that the reservoir is infinite

acting during the periods before and after well shut in. However, most reservoirs

are in the pseudosteady state before closing the well. Therefore, the applications of

Horner plotting technique is not correct theoretically. Researchers still use Horner

plot for the following reasons:

a) For infinite acting reservoirs, where at time = tp+t, pressure wave did not

reach reservoir boundaries or radius of investigation (ri) < external reservoir

boundaries (re), Horner method can be used.

b) For finite reservoirs, pressure data recorded during the middle time can be still

used to determine reservoir permeability.

Another plotting technique for finite acting reservoir was proposed by Miller,

Dyes, and Huthchinson (MDH). Consider the equation,

qB t p + t

Pws = Pi 162.6

log

hk t

qB

qB

[log(t )]

Pws = Pi 162.6

log(t p + t ) 162.6

hk

hk

= Pi m log(t p + t ) + m[log(t )]

When tp>> t during the pressure buildup test duration, then log(tp+t) log(tp) =

constant. Thus:

Pws = C + m[log(t )]

Thus a plot of Pws versus log(t) will be a straight line with a slope (m) and an

intercept of (C).

13/2

The previous mathematical developments (in Chapter 1) were made assuming the

flow of a single phase where the total compressibility was defined as the

compressibility of that fluid plus the compressibility of the formation. However, in

hydrocarbon reservoirs, usually, there are more than one fluid flowing through

porous media.

compressibility to account for more than one fluid. The new definition of total

compressibility is:

ct = co S o + c w S w + c g S g + c f

permeabilities and fluid viscosity. The following equation, which describes the

simultaneous flow of (oil, water, and gas) in radial geometry, is shown:

c t

P

1 P

=

r

r r r 0.000264 t t

Where

t =

kg

ko

kw

The previous development is made for homogeneous reservoirs.

reservoir is homogeneous in nature.

However, no

development, and especially the Horner plot is limited. Yet, we still can use the

previous development to find average rock and fluid properties.

14/2

In light of the previous discussion, the expected behavior of recorded pressure at

wellhead, Pws, after well shut in is discussed for the most common situation in actual

cases.

a- Effect of near wellbore damage (skin) on the early pressure responses

The following figure shows a comparison between an ideal and actual pressure

buildup data during the early time region in Horner plot.

The figure shows that two cases, Case 1 without near wellbore damage (skin) and

Case 2 with near wellbore damage, without wellbore storage. The extension of

straight line in case 1 shows the flowing wellbore pressure (Pwf) just before well

closure. However, in actual cases, the flowing wellbore pressure will be less than

the one in ideal case due to the presence of near wellbore damage (Skin). The

figures below illustrate the reason why we have less flowing pressure for the near

wellbore damaged cases.

15/2

To provide the same flow rate (q), the pressure drop (P = Preservoir - Pwf) should be

higher for cases with near wellbore damage (less permeability) to overcome the flow

resistance.

pressure for near wellbore damage cases should be lower. Usually, we dont see the

effect of near wellbore damage in actual pressure buildup tests because the pressure

recorded during this time interval is also affected by wellbore storage, which has

more time duration than near wellbore damage.

b- Effect of wellbore storage and near wellbore damage (skin) on the early pressure

response

Nearly, all pressure buildup tests are exposed to the effects of wellbore storage

and near wellbore damage. The following figure shows two cases, one with only

near wellbore damage and the other with both near wellbore damage and wellbore

storage. The figure shows how the presence of wellbore storage distort early time

data (ETR) and delay the start of the middle time region (MTR). The extension of

both curves should provide the same flowing bottomhole pressure. The presence

of wellbore storage challenges the accurate determination of the beginning of

middle time region (MTR) where the recorded pressure data are used in Horner

plot.

16/2

The presence of fractures in the reservoir will affect pressure and fluid flow

behaviors during pressure buildup tests. Naturally fractured reservoirs are

distinct types of porous media: matrix and fracture. Because of the different

fluid storage and conductivity characteristics of the matrix and fractures,

these reservoirs often are called dual-porosity reservoirs. Fig. 1 illustrates a

naturally fractured reservoir composed of a rock matrix surrounded by an

irregular system of vugs and natural fractures. Fortunately, it has been

observed that a real, heterogeneous, naturally fractured reservoir has a

characteristic behavior that can be interpreted using an equivalent,

homogeneous dual-porosity model such as that shown in the idealized

sketch. (Petrowiki)

Fig. 1

during pressure buildup test.

The pressure buildup slowly during the early time (ETR) and the middle time

region (MTR) starts only after the pressure transient has moved beyond the region

influenced by the fracture presence.

17/2

The location of the well undergoing pressure buildup test, with respect to the

reservoir boundaries is important to understand the wellhead pressure behavior

during the late time region (LTR). Indeed, the late time region start earlier when

a well is located near the reservoir boundaries and vice versa. The following

figure show pressure responses of pressure buildup tests for a well in the center of

a circular reservoir and a well near reservoirs boundary.

As shown in the figure, the start of middle time region (MTR) starts earlier for the

case with un-centered well and the duration of late time region (LTR) is longer so

that the pressure drop reach all boundaries.

18/2

From the previous discussion, it is concluded that the presence of wellbore storage

has an influential effect on pressure behavior during buildup tests. Wellbore storage

(1) delays the beginning of middle time region (MTR); (2) might eliminate the middle

time region (MTR) from well test duration; (3) produces false indications of middle

time region (MTR).

of the middle time region (MTR) in a pressure buildup test is highly recognized for

Horner plot where reservoir permeability, skin factor, and static pressure of drainagearea pressure can be solved for.

The presence of wellbore storage (sometimes called afterflow) can be indicated by a

lazy S-shaped curve during the early time as shown in the following figure.

Sometimes, data from specific time period might be absent in the figure. Therefore,

wellbore storage can be determined on by looking at the plot.

PD =

kh(Pws Pwf

141.2 q B

19/2

tD =

0.000264kt e

ct rw2

CsD =

0.894 Cs

hct rw2

where

C s = 25.65

Awb

te is defined as:

t e =

t

t

1 +

t

p

The dimensionless plot in Chapter (1) can be used to determine the time at which

the wellbore storage end by type curve matching. When the unit slope line ends,

then taking 1.5 log cycle will shows the end of wellbore storage. In case the unit

slope line is not shown, then the preplotted curve for finite value of CsD become

identical to the curve for CsD = 0, then the point of this match is the end of wellbore

storage effect. In this case, the following empirical equation is used.

t wbs

170,000C s e 0.14 s

kh

20/2

Example-2:

The following table shows the pressure buildup test for an oil well at the center of square

reservoir with a lateral length of 2640 ft.

t, hours

0

0.15

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1

2

4

6

7

8

12

16

20

24

30

40

50

60

72

Pws, psi

3534

3680

3723

3800

3866

3920

4103

4250

4320

4340

4344

4350

4364

4373

4379

4384

4393

4398

4402

4405

4407

The well was producing for 19 months at a rate of 250 STB/day. The following data also

provided.

= 0.8 cp

= 0.039

= 1.136 bbl/STB

ct

=1710-6 psia-1

rw

= 0.198 ft

= 53 lbm/ft3

Awb

= 0.0218 ft2

= 69 ft

1- At what shut in time (t) does the afterflow cease distorting the pressure buildup

test data?

2- At what shut-in time (t) do boundary effects appears?

21/2

Solution:

First of all, we have to calculate the external radius of the reservoir. We can assume that

we have a circular reservoir with the similar area. Thus

re =

6,969,600

= 1,489

ft

t p = 19 30 24 = 13680 hr

(For practical purposes, we assume 1 year = 365.25 days and 1 month = 30 days)

22/2

The following figure show a plot of pressure after well closure (Psw) and

t p + t

t

From the figure, the end of wellbore storage (afterflow) is shown at 2,200 which

corresponds to t = 6.2 hrs. The end of wellbore storage is characterized by the

end of a lazy S-shaped curve in pressure response. In fact, the lazy S-shaped

curve can be a consequence of different reservoir characteristics, so we need to

confirm the end of wellbore storage using type curve analysis from our discussion

for Chapter (1). First, plot (Pws-Pwf) versus t e =

1 + t

t

p

in a log-log graph as

23/2

The figure indicates that the pressure response deviated from the unit slope line at

around te = 0.2 hr (t 0.2 hr). Moreover, the figure shows that after 1.5 log

cycle from that deviation, the wellbore storage ended at te = 7 hrs (t 7 hrs).

The figure also shows that the reservoir boundaries were felt at around te = 40

hrs (t 40 hrs). To confirm the duration of the MTR, we match this plot with

the type curve plot for wellbore storage discussed in Chapter (1). The following

figure illustrates that the actual data fit well curves for s = 0 for several values of

CsD (e.g. CsD = 103, 104, and 105).

In fact, the actual data well test data indicated that the recorded pressure data

coincide with the CsD =0 for s = 5 at te = t = 4 to 6 hrs which agrees with the

actual data plot. Moreover, the data from the semi-log plot suggest that the start

of boundary effect is around

t p + t

t

We can assume that the MTR spans the time range of t = 7 hrs to t = 40 hrs.

24/2

25/2

We can narrow the range of matched CsD by calculating CsD in advance. From

Chapter 1:

qsf = q +

24 Cs dPw

B

dt

Cs

qB t

24 P

Cs

bbl

=

= 0.0118

24 P

24

100

psi

Then

C sD =

0.894C s

0.894(0.0118)

=

= 5,882

2

ct hrw

(0.039) 1.7 10 5 (69)(0.198)2

26/2

6- Determination of Permeability

As discussed previously, reservoirs average permeability can be determined form the

data within the MTR. Therefore, the selection of MTR duration is crucial in the

calculations of average permeability. The MTR cannot start until the wellbore storage

distortion ceases. The following steps illustrate the usual procedure to determine the

average permeability

1- Determine the start of MTR by estimating the end of wellbore storage

2- From Horner plot, fit the data after wellbore storage to the best line. The deviation

from this line at later time can be used to estimate the end of MTR.

3- From the fitted line, which represents the duration of MTR, calculate the slope and

estimate the average permeability as:

k = 162.2

qB

mh

4- You may need to calculate the radius of investigation at the start and the end of

MTR to know the volume of sampled region.

5- The average permeability can be calculated from fluid flow equation, if average

pressure (P ) is known, as:

r 3

141.2qB ln e

rw 4

kj =

h(P Pwf )

If

kj < k the well is damaged

kj > k the well is stimulated

kj = k the well is neither damaged no stimulated

27/2

Example-3:

For the buildup test in the previous example, determine formation permeability

Solution:

From Example 2, the MTR spans the time range of t = 7 hrs to t = 40 hrs.

7 t 40

1,995

t p + t

t

343

As indicated in the figure, the slope of the straight line is 80 psi/cycle. Thus

k = 162.2

(250)(1.136)(0.8) = 6.68 md

qB

= 162.2

(80)(69)

mh

28/2

ri =

kt

6.68(7 )

=

= 304

948ct

948(0.039 )(0.8) 1.7 10 5

ft

kt

6.68(40 )

=

= 729

948ct

948(0.039 )(0.8) 1.7 10 5

ft

at t = 40 hrs

ri =

The fraction of wellbore drainage area that was sampled during MTR is

% tested =

729 304

100 28%

1489

29/2

After permeability determination form the slope of MTR line, the skin factor can be

determined. From previous section, the skin factor can be calculated as:

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151

m

log

c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

Where P1-hr is the value of Pws at shut in time t of 1 hr. This value can be found by

extrapolating the middle time line to the x-axis value when t = 1 as shown in the

following figure.

1- Positive then we have a flow restriction such as wellbore damage due to

drilling fluids

2- Negative then we have a stimulated well where the region surrounding the

wellbore have higher permeability value than the formation.

30/2

The skin factor can be visualized as an enhancement of wellbore size. Thus, the effect of

positive skin factor on flow rate can be substituted by using a wellbore with a smaller

radius and vice versa. The new apparent radius (rwa) of the wellbore is defined as:

rwa = rw e s

Consider the pressure drop equation;

ct rw 2

q o Bo o

Pi Pwf = 70.6

ln 1688 kt

hk

ct rw 2

q B

= 70.6 o o o ln 1688

kt

hk

+ ln e 2 s )

ct rw 2 e 2 s

q B

= 70.6 o o o ln 1688

kt

hk

ct rwa2

q o Bo o

= 70.6

ln 1688 kt

hk

2s

This means that the effect of skin on the total pressure drop is the same as that of a well

with no skin but with a wellbore radius of rwa.

31/2

From the discussion in the previous chapter, we derive:

q B

Ps = 141.2 o o o s

hk

= 0.869m(s )

Where m is the slope of middle time region. The effect of additional pressure drop on

well productivity is crucial. For example, a well may be producing 500 STB/day of oil

with a pressure drop of 1,000 psi. Suppose that the analysis of a pressure buildup on this

well shows Ps = 600 psi, and that 600 psi of the pressure drop occurs across the altered

permeability zone. This implies that if the damaged were removed, the well could

produce much more oil with the same pressure drop or we could produce the same

amount of oil with less pressure drop.

32/2

Let define the flow efficiency as the ratio of actual productivity index (PI) of a tested well

to its ideal PI. Thus:

E=

J actual P Pwf Ps

=

J ideal

P Pwf

efficiency values greater than one indicate stimulated well; while values below one

indicate damaged well. Moreover, a flow efficiency value of 0.2 means that the well

productivity is reduced to 20% and the flow in the well is restricted by 80%. On the

other hand, a flow efficiency of 2 indicate that the well is producing twice as its original

productivity.

In many cases, the average reservoir pressure before well shut-in can be

t p + t

t

= 1 . Thus:

*

J actual P Pwf Ps

=

E=

J ideal

P * Pwf

33/2

Example-4:

For the pressure buildup test in example 2:

1- Calculate the skin factor

2- Calculate the effective wellbore radius, (rwa)

3- Calculate the additional pressure drop near the wellbore, if any

4- Calculate the flow efficiency

5- Verify the end of wellbore storage distortion

Solution:

1- The skin factor can be calculated the following equation

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151

m

log

c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

P1-hr can be determined by extrapolating the middle time line to the time t = 1

(

t p + t

t

13,680 + 1

= 13,681 ) as shown in the following figure.

1

34/2

4,280 3,534

6.68

s = 1.151

log

2

6

80

+ 3.23 = 4.66

From Example 2, we found that the data matched well with type curve of s = 5

which agrees with the calculated value.

ft

This can be interpreted as that the tested well is producing 250 STB/day of oil

with the same pressure drawdown as a well having the same pressure drawdown

and a radius of 0.00187 ft without a permeability altered zone.

q B

Ps = 141.2 o o o s = 0.869m(s ) = (0.869 )(80 )(4.66 ) = 323

hk

psi

Thus, 323 psi out of the total pressure drawdown (approximately 4420 3534 =

886 psi) is caused by damage.

t p + t

t

35/2

E=

P * Pwf Ps

P Pwf

*

= 0.675

4,530 3,534

5- To find the end of wellbore distortion, we can use the following equation:

t wbs

= 6.68 hr

=

6.68 69

kh

0.8

36/2

In many cases, not all formation thickness is open to flow. In fact, the common options

for well completion are divided among open or cased holes as shown in the following

figure.

The presence of cased hole (where casings are used to control flow from different zones

through well perforations) imposed more restrictions on the flow of fluid toward the

wellbore and increases the value of skin factor. Researchers found that the total skin

factor in cased hole wells can be calculated as the summation of skin due to drilling

damage, sd, and skin due to perforation, sp.

s=

Thus:

ht

sd + s p

hp

Where:

ht

hp

= perforated length, ft

37/2

Moreover, the following equation can be used to determine the skin factor due to

perforation:

h

h

s p = t 1 ln t

h

rw

p

kH

kV

Where:

kH

= horizontal permeability, md

kV

= vertical permeability, md

38/2

Example-5:

A well with disappointing productivity is perforated in 10 ft of a total formation thickness

of 50 ft. Vertical and horizontal permeabilities are believed to be equal. A pressure

buildup test was run on the well. The following data are provided:

Pwf

= 1,190 psi

P1-hr

= 1,940 psi

= 0.2 m

= 0.5 cp

rw

= 0.25

ct

= 1510-6 psi-1

= 3.35 md

= 50 psi/cycle

Calculate s, sd, and sp and determine whether the productivity problem results from

formation damage or from other causes.

Solution:

The total skin factor can be calculated the following equation

P1 hr Pwf

k

+ 3.23

log

s = 1.151

2

c r

m

t w

1,940 1,190

3.35

= 1.151

log

2

6

50

= 12.3

+ 3.23

h

h

s p = t 1 ln t

hp

rw

kH

kV

50 50

2 = 1 ln

1 2 = 13.2

10 0.25

sd =

hp

ht

p

50

With this small skin factor for damage, the well is neither damaged nor stimulated and

the observed productivity problem is due to the incompletely perforated interval.

39/2

is a well-stimulation technique in which formation is fractured by a hydraulically

pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally.

A high-pressure fluid

(usually chemicals and sand suspended in water) is injected into a wellbore to create

cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and brine will

flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of

hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminum oxide) hold the fractures open

once the deep rock achieves geologic equilibrium.

40/2

For fractured wells, the pressure responses differ than those of unfractured wells.

For

fractured wells, type curves are usually used to interpret reservoirs responses due to

pressure changes. For high conductivity fractures, the pressure drop in the fractures is

small and linear fluid flow can occur from reservoirs rock into fractures. Linear fluid

flow implies that a uniform fluid flux into the fracture per unit cross-sectional area at all

points along fracture as shown in the following figure.

From linear flow into vertical fractures discussion in previous chapter, the following

equation is introduced:

qB

Pi Pwf = 4.064

hL f

kct

Considering a buildup test with a very long production time before well shut in

( t p >> t ), the previous equation can be written as:

qB

Pws Pwf = 4.064

hL f

A plot of Pws versus

kct

qB

m L = 4.064

hL f

kct

When linear flow is not recognized and the relationship between Pws and

t is not

L f = 2 rwa

41/2

Since:

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151

m

log

c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

And

rwa =

Lf

2

= rw e s

Then

Lf

L

= 2.303 log f

s = ln

2rw

2rw

Therefore,

L

Lf

1

= 2.303 log f 2.303 log

2.303 log

rw

2rw

2

P1 hr Pwf

k

+ 3.23

log

= 1.151

c r 2

m

t w

Or divide by 1.151

Lf

2 log

2

1 P Pwf

2 log = 1 hr

m

rw

k

log c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

log(L f ) =

1 Pwf P1 hr

m

2

k

+ log

ct

2.63

The previous equation can be used when we have an estimates for P1-hr and k. In many

cases, the middle time region (MTR) for fractured wells cannot be identify due to the

early effect of fracture and late effect of reservoir boundary on pressure responses as

shown in the following figure.

42/2

It has been found that for a fracture length of more than one tenth of external radius,

L f > 0.1 re , that the boundary effect start before the influence of fracture disappear.

43/2

The pressure buildup tests can be used to estimate the pressure in the region surrounding

the tested well. For ideal well test case (in Chapter 1), for an infinite reservoir, the

original reservoir pressure was estimated by extrapolating the buildup test data to infinite

t p + t

shut-in time

t

related, but not equal, to the current average drainage area pressure.

For new reservoirs, the extrapolation of the middle time region line (MTR) to the shut-in

t p + t

time

t

Here the

assumption is that the pressure decline is negligible and production from the well is

minimal.

44/2

In the case when the effect of reservoirs boundaries is felt, the extrapolation of the LTR

line would give the original reservoir pressure under the assumption of negligible

pressure depletion. The following figure shows a schematic of estimating the original

reservoir pressure from LTR line.

45/2

If the pressure depletion is significant, then the original reservoir pressure cannot be

estimated form the extrapolation of MTR or LTR line. In this case, well testing can be

used to estimate the average pressure in the drainage area of the well. Commonly, two

methods are used: Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) P* Method and Modified Muskat

Method.

This method is referred to as P* method in which the extrapolation of the MTR line to

t p + t

shut-in time of

= 1 is used to determine a P* value. P* then can be used to

t

calculate the static drainage-area pressure P , which is the stabilized pressure for a

well giving enough shut-in time.

t DA = 0.000264

PD MBH =

kt p

ct A

kh P* P

70.6qB

The following figures shows the solutions obtained by MBH for various reservoir

shape and well locations.

46/2

Figure (A1)

Figure (A2)

47/2

Figure (A3)

Figure (A4)

48/2

t p + t

1- Extrapolate MTR line to

t

3- Choose the proper curve.

4- From tDA, find the value of PD MBH.

5- Calculate P as

P = P*

(70.6qB ) P

kh

D MBH

= P*

m

PD MBH

2.303

49/2

Example-6:

For the buildup pressure test shown in Example 2, estimate the average pressure in the

wells drainage area using P* method.

Solution:

t p + t

= 1 , P* can be determined as

t

2- As indicates in Example 2, the lateral length is 2,640 ft and the area = 6,969,600

ft2

therefore, Figure (A1) is used in this case.

50/2

4- From Example 2,

= 0.8 cp

tp

= 19*30*24 = 13,680 hr

= 0.039

=1710-6 psia-1

ct

t DA = 0.000264

kt p

ct A

= 0.000264

6.68 13,680

= 6.53

0.039 0.8 17 10 6 (6,969,600 )

P = P*

(70.6qB ) P

kh

D MBH

= P*

80

m

5.25 = 4,347 psia

PD MBH = 4,530

2.303

2.303

51/2

Factors for Reservoirs

In chapter 1, the following equation was introduced (replacing initial pressure Pi

by P*):

2s

kt p

70.6qB

+ 2s

=

ln

2

kh 1688 ct rw

P * Pwf =

ct rw2

70.6qB

ln1688

kh

kt p

Furthermore, from the discussion in Chapter 1 for shape factor, the following

equation can be rewritten:

P Pwf = 141.2

= 70.6

qB 1 10.06 A 3

+ s

ln

kh 2 C A rw2 4

qB 10.06 A

1.5 + 2 s

ln

2

kh C A rw

(P

P * P = 70.6

kt p

qB

ln

kh 1688 ct rw2

kt p

qB

ln

kh 1688 c t rw2

qB 10.06 A

1.5 + 2s

+ 2s 70.6

ln

2

kh C A rw

10.06 A

ln

C r 2 + 1.5

A w

= 70.6

kt p

C A rw2

qB

(

)

+

ln

4

.

482

ln

= 70.6

qB 0.000264kt p C A

ln

ct A

kh

= 70.6

qB

[ln(t DA C A )]

kh

Thus:

52/2

ln (t DA C A ) =

P* P

qB

70.6

kh

PD MBH =

kh P* P

70.6qB

Thus:

PD MBH = ln(t DA C A )

The previous equation implies that there is a linear relationship between PDMBH

and tDA during pseudosteady state time.

Example-7:

Calculate the shape factor for a circular reservoir with a well at the center.

Solution:

Choose a dimensionless time, tDA, after PSS as indicated in Figure A-1.

Thus:

PD MBH = ln (t DAC A ) = ln (1 C A ) = 3.454

Or

CA = 31.6

53/2

For a well producing at constant rate in a cylindrical bounded reservoir, the solution

of flow equation was shown as:

e n t D J 12 ( n reD )

qB 2t D

3

(

)

Pwf = Pi 141.2

+

ln

r

+

2

eD

2

2

2

kh reD2

4

n =1 n J 1 ( n reD ) J 1 ( n )

flow, the previous equation can be written as:

0.00388 kt

ct re2

qB

P Pws = 118.6

e

kh

Taking the logarithm on both sides:

qB 0.00388kt

kh

ct re2

log(P Pws ) = A + Bt

Where A and B are constants. In the development of the previous equation, the shutin time should be range as

250ct re2

750ct re2

t

k

k

The procedure of Modified Muskat method starts with an assumption of average

reservoir pressure, P , and plot the previous equation. This process continues until a

straight line relationship between log(P Pws ) versus t. It is important to mention

that the correct average reservoir pressure, P , should give a straight line during the

correct applicable time interval.

54/2

Example-8:

Consider the pressure buildup test in Example 2, estimate the average pressure in the

wells drainage area by using modified Muskat Method.

Solution:

The first step is to check the time validity for the data points in the range

250ct re2

750ct re2

t

k

k

250(0.039 )(0.8) 17 106 (1,489 )

t

6.68

6.68

2

44 t 132

So, the data point between 44 and 132 hours are considered. The following table

summarizes the calculations of (P Pws ) .

t,

hours

Pws, psi

40

50

60

72

4398

4402

4405

4407

Assumed P , psi

4408 4412 4422

P -Pws, psi

10

14

24

6

10

20

3

7

17

1

5

15

The following figure shows the relationship between (P Pws ) and t under different

assumed P . As shown in the figure, the value of 4,412 psi is the best choise.

55/2

Pressure buildup data, for a well, can be used to estimate reservoirs size and distance to

boundaries.

1- Estimation of Distance to Boundaries

From Chapter 1, we used the principle of superposition to impose an imaginary well

to represent a no-flow boundary. The developed equation to describe pressure change

was:

2

ct (2 L )2

qB 1,688ct rw

qB

ln

2

70

.

6

948

Pi Pwf = 70.6

s

E

kh i

kt p

kt

kh

For an imaginary well of a well in a pressure buildup test, the previous equation can be

written as:

ct rw2

ct rw2

qB

( q )B

ln

1

,

688

2

70

.

6

ln

1

,

688

2

Pi Pws = 70.6

s

s

kh

k (t p + t )

kt

kh

ct L2

ct L2

qB

( q )B

3

,

792

70

.

6

3

,

792

E

70.6

E

i

kh i

k (t p + t )

k (t )

kh

If the shut-in time large, such that the logarithmic approximation of the Ei function can be

used, then:

t + t

qB t p + t

+ ln p

Pi Pws = 70.6

ln

kh t

t

qB t p + t

= 141.2

ln

kh t

qB t p + t

Pws = Pi 325.2

log

kh t

From the previous equation, for a well near a sealing boundary, such as a sealing fault,

the slope of the pressure build up test will be double and the time needed for the slope to

be doubled will be:

3,792ct L2

< 0.02

kt

56/2

Or

1.9 10 5 ct L2

t >

For low permeability reservoirs or in case the distance is too large, the duration of the

pressure buildup test might not be sufficient. In these cases, the pressure shut-in can be

approximated as:

ct L2

ct L2

qB t p + t

qB

log

0

.

434

3

,

792

70

.

6

3

,

792

Pws = Pi 162.6

kh i

kt p

k (t )

kh t

With the previous equation, the distance to the boundary (L) can be estimated using the

following method:

t + t

1- Plot Pws versus log p

3- Extrapolate the MTR into LTR as shown in the following figure

4- Choose several points in the LTR and find the difference Pws* = Pws PMT

5- Estimate L from the following equation

ct L2

qB

3

,

792

Pws* = 70.6

kt

kh

57/2

Example-9:

Geologist suspect that a fault near a newly drilled well. A pressure buildup test was run

to confirm the presence of this fault. The following table shows the test data.

t, hours

Pws, psi

t, hours

Pws, psi

t, hours

Pws, psi

3,103

4,085

30

4,614

3,488

10

4,172

36

4,700

3,673

12

4,240

42

4,770

3,780,

14

4,298

48

4,827

3,861

16

4,353

54

4,882

3,936

20

4,435

60

4,931

3,996

24

4,520

66

4,975

= 0.15

= 0.6 cp

= 54.8 lbm/ft3 qo

ct

= 1710-6 psi-1

rw

= 0.5 ft

= 1,221 STB/day

= 8 ft

Bo = 1.31 bbl/STB

Before the test, the well produce a total of 14,206 STB of oil during 279.2 hours. The

analysis of these data indicate that wellbore storage lasted for 1 hr and based on a slope

of 650 psi/cycle of the earliest straight line, reservoir permeability was estimated as 30

md. The depth of investigation after one hour was 144 ft.

From these data, determine whether the buildup test data indicate that the well is

behaving as if it were near a single fault and estimate distance to an apparent fault from

buildup data several time in the LTR.

58/2

Solution:

t + t

1- Plot Pws versus log p

as shown in the following figure.

t

The MTR line is established with a slope of 650 psi/cycle as shown in the figure.

59/2

The extended LTR line is shown with a slope of 1300 psi/cycle (double the slope

of the MTR)

4- Choose several points in the LTR and find the difference Pws* = Pws PMT

This step can be done manually or by substituting several values of

t p + t

into the equation of MTR line. The equation of MTR line can be

found as:

650 t p + t

+ 5070

PMT =

ln

2.303 t

60/2

t, hours

6

8

10

12

14

16

20

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

(tp+t)/t

Pws, psi

47.5

35.9

28.9

24.3

20.9

18.5

15.0

12.6

10.3

8.8

7.6

6.8

6.2

5.7

5.2

3,996

4,085

4,172

4,240

4,298

4,353

4,435

4,520

4,614

4,700

4,770

4,827

4,882

4,931

4,975

PMT, psi

3980

4059

4120

4170

4211

4247

4306

4354

4412

4458

4496

4528

4556

4581

4603

Pws-PMT

16

26

52

70

87

106

129

166

202

242

274

299

326

350

372

ct L2

qB

P = 70.6

Ei 3,792 kt

kh

*

ws

t, hours

6

8

10

12

14

16

20

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

16

26

52

70

87

106

129

166

202

242

274

299

326

350

372

Ei (x)

L2, ft2

L, ft

-0.05615

-0.09078

-0.18280

-0.24829

-0.30646

-0.37458

-0.45541

-0.58749

-0.71696

-0.85853

-0.97122

-1.05813

-1.15336

-1.23944

-1.31754

1.9

1.567

1.11

0.929

0.8082

0.69899

0.599023

0.48056

0.39283

0.32319

0.27932

0.2519

0.22186

0.1972

0.18419

3.31E+04

3.64E+04

5.74E+04

5.76E+04

5.85E+04

5.78E+04

6.19E+04

5.96E+04

6.09E+04

6.02E+04

6.07E+04

6.25E+04

6.19E+04

6.12E+04

6.29E+04

182

191

240

240

242

240

249

244

247

245

246

250

249

247

251

Where X values are estimated using Ei(-x) table. From the previous table, it can be concluded that

the distance between the well and the boundary is between 240 and 250 ft.

61/2

A quick method to estimate the distance between a well and the boundary is suggest by

Gray. In this method, a specific time at the intersection of the extension of MTR and the

double slope line is determined as tx as shown in the following figure.

This time can be used in the following equation to find the distance:

L=

0.000148kt x

ct

t + t

From the previous example, this intersection occurs at p

= 17 as shown in the

t

figure below.

L=

0.000148kt x

0.000148(30)(17.45)

=

= 225

(0.15)(0.6) 17 106

ct

ft

62/2

The results of pressure buildup test can be used to estimate reservoir size.

Considering the concept of compressibility, the change in pressure with respect to the

volume withdraw can be employed to determine reservoir size.

ct =

1 V

VR P

Consider a volumetric reservoir with a constant total compressibility, then the average

reservoir pressure after producing Np barrel of oil can be calculated as:

P2 = P1

(N )(B )

p

V R ct

Or

VR =

(N )(B )

(P P )c

p

63/2

Example-10:

Two pressure buildup tests were conducted on a reservoir, where the first one indicated

an average reservoir pressure of 3,000 psi and the second test indicated an average

reservoir pressure of 2,100 psi. Knowing that the well have been produced at a rate of

150 STB/day in the year between the two tests. Average oil formation volume factor, Bo,

is 1.3 bbl/stb, total compressibility, ct, is 10 10-6 psi-1, porosity, , is 22% and average

sand thickness, h is 10 ft. Estimate area, AR, of the reservoir in acres.

Solution:

In order to find the area, first we have to find the volume of the reservoir.

VR =

(N )(B ) =

(150 365)(1.3)

= 35.9 10

(P P )c (3,000 2,100)(10 10 )(0.22)

p

bbl

VR =

43,560 AR h

5.615

Thus:

AR =

=

= 463 acres

43,560 h

43,560 10

64/2

For an infinite acting reservoir, the multiphase drawdown can be described by the

following equation:

Pwf = Pi + 162.6

q Rt 1688ct rw2

log

t h

t t

1.151

Pws = Pi 162.6

q Rt t p + t

log

t h t

In the previous two equations, the total flow rate, qRt, is given bbl/day as:

q Rt = q o Bo + (q g q o Rs )B g + q w Bw

t =

ko

kw

kg

t p + t

results in a

The pressure buildup equation implies that a plot of Pws and log

m = 162.6

q Rt

t h

From which the total mobility can be determined. Moreover, researchers showed that the

permeability to each phase, effective permeability, can be estimated from the slope as:

k o = 162.6

q o Bo o

mh

65/2

k g = 162.6

(q

q o Rs )B g g

k w = 162.6

mh

q w Bw w

mh

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151

log t 2

m

ct rw

+ 3.23

The methods to find average reservoir pressure in multiphase flow is similar to the one

developed previously.

66/2

Example-11:

A buildup tes is run in a well that produces oil, water, and gas simultaneously. Well,

rock, and fluid properties evaluated at average reservoir pressure during the test include

the following:

So

= 0.58

cf

=3.510-6 psi-1

= 1.5 cp

Sg

= 0.08

cg

=0.3910-3 psi-1

= 0.7 cp

Sw

= 0.34

cw

=3.610-6 psi-1

co

=86.410-6 psi-1

= 0.03 cp

Bo

= 1.3 bbl/STB

Bw

Bg

= 1.48 bbl/MSCF

Rs

= 0.17

= 0.3

rw

1.02

bbl/STB

= 685 SCF/STB

h

= 38 ft

qo

= 245 STB/day

qw

= 38 STB/day

qg

= 489 MSCF/day

t p + t

a plot of Pws versus log

shows that the slope of the MTR, m, is 78 psi/cycle and

t

that the P1 hr = 2,466 psi. Flowing pressure, Pwf, at the instant of shut-in was 2, 028 psi.

From these data, estimate t, ko, kw, kg, and s.

67/2

Solution:

k o = 162.6

q o Bo o

(245)(1.3)(1.5) = 26.2 md

= 162.6

(78)(38)

mh

k w = 162.6

q w Bw w

(38)(1.02)(0.7 ) = 1.49 md

= 162.6

(78)(38)

mh

k g = 162.6

(q

q o Rs )B g g

mh

= 162.6

(489 10

)(

= 0.78 md

(78)(38)

Then

t =

ko

kw

kg

+

+

= 45.6

1.5

0.7 0.03

md

cp

We have to find the total compressibility, ct, in order to find skin factor. Thus:

ct = S o c o + S g c g + S w c w + c f

= 0.58 86.4 10 6 + 0.08 0.39 10 3 + 0.34 3.6 10 6 + 3.5 10 6

= 86.0 10 6

psi 1

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151

log t 2

m

ct rw

+ 3.23

2,466 2,028

45.6

= 1.151

log

2

6

78

(0.17 ) 86 10 (0.3)

= 1.5

+ 3.23

68/2

- fracking lesson plan sustainability science laDiunggah olehapi-276590409
- 121312 NY ISSUE + BPDiunggah olehJon Campbell
- 2-29 Hydro Frack Technology PaperDiunggah olehEwin Abadi
- SPE-184835-MS.pdfDiunggah olehSS
- Horizontal Well FracturedDiunggah olehHugo Luis Barrios
- Baker2000 UnlockedDiunggah olehSaùl Rs
- Shale Tech Coference 2011Diunggah olehGene Citrone Jr.
- Si Tech Report 1584Diunggah olehChristian Leal
- Case_study-Risk_mitigation_in_remedial_h (2).pdfDiunggah olehjc
- Positive Reactions in CarbonateDiunggah olehJulian Carrero Carreño
- Basic Concepts in Reservoir EngineeringDiunggah olehDiego A. Navia
- 314973340-Sand-Mass-Prediction-in-a-North-Sea-Reservoir.pdfDiunggah olehViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Examples of KavgDiunggah olehdedete
- pentng hyfracDiunggah olehAdib Wahyu Hidayat
- Hydraulic Fracturing and Job CreationDiunggah olehFidelityMinerals
- HFU AND FZIDiunggah olehAnre Thanh Hung
- Petroskills Reservoir Characterization Course ContentDiunggah olehDG Leong
- zqa17Diunggah olehharde2lah
- #PAPER FIX.docxDiunggah olehDicky Pratama
- Class_48_21-03-2017Diunggah olehahmed
- Nature of Well TestingDiunggah olehRrelic
- Researchpaper Investigation of Hot Gas Injection in Gas Assisted Gravity DrainageDiunggah olehArash Pourabdol Shahrekordi
- Bradner ThesisDiunggah olehRani Fouad
- Nova Scotia independent fracking reviewDiunggah olehGlobal Halifax
- PETSOC-2004-114Diunggah olehAnonymous pBORfa
- Stimulation 1Diunggah olehabnerpalacio
- 02 Petroleum GeologyDiunggah olehgirilingam
- OFR_2012_06 Summary of Alberta's Shale- and Siltstone-Hosted Hydrocarbon Resource PotentialDiunggah olehAlberta Geological Survey
- Defining-Reservoir-Drive-Mechanisms.pdfDiunggah olehYoucef Benferdi
- Development.pdfDiunggah olehPaniczer

- Appilcation of Epi, Health Survi, Health Infor, And Role of NurseDiunggah olehsreekala
- Governance and Complexity—Emerging Issues for Governance TheoryDiunggah olehBejmanjin
- Social ProjectDiunggah olehDarshan Jain
- Anestesi Regional Pada ObesitasDiunggah olehTomi Julizon
- Curriculum.pdfDiunggah olehaddthelens
- OperatingInstructions_iOS7Diunggah olehPaulo
- Social Media ReportDiunggah olehWai Chai
- Inclusiva NetDiunggah olehDiego Cerda
- Airport Management _ SITADiunggah olehanirbanfreelancer
- Bryan Rogers IndictmentDiunggah olehLeigh Egan
- freedom of expression paper final draftDiunggah olehapi-243956658
- Heirs of Pidacan vs. Air Transportation OfficeDiunggah olehJose Mendoza
- Pregledni radDiunggah olehSanela
- bonton iz 1922godineDiunggah olehDragana Marjanovic
- 10 Chapter 2Diunggah olehCifha Rajesh Saldhanha
- Bank of Baroda MbaDiunggah olehVicky Singh
- Incredible Analysis GannDiunggah olehpaparock34
- The Edge of Infinity - Supermassive Black Holes in the Universe [Melia]Diunggah olehpoloko7
- διαφορικη Mε central difference equation διαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equation διαφορικη Mε central difference equationδιαφορικη Mε central difference equationDiunggah olehAnonymous fbeCwgBFY
- 10form-Describe a FriendDiunggah olehDaniela Ionescu
- Specimen MS - Paper 2 Edexcel Biology (a) as-LevelDiunggah olehDana Hamo
- Victorian Governments Vision for Languages Education, October 2011Diunggah olehSlovenian Webclassroom Topic Resources
- Medicinski engleski - skriptaDiunggah olehNikola Kudoić
- rfc7252_CoAPDiunggah olehsmsbari
- EC6201 Electronic Devices Lecture Notes Regulation 2013Diunggah olehSSECECE
- Upper-intermediate testsDiunggah olehvsakareva
- Bar Question ContractsDiunggah olehJhoel Villafuerte
- Final.final.final.spivak.complaintDiunggah olehwright4ulg
- Kuber Yantra for Money and WealthDiunggah olehSCB4
- Ambient InterfacesDiunggah olehzahra_nia