SPE-92565-MS_samuel2005_Tortuosity Factors for Highly Tortuous Wells_A Practical Approach

© All Rights Reserved

11 tayangan

SPE-92565-MS_samuel2005_Tortuosity Factors for Highly Tortuous Wells_A Practical Approach

© All Rights Reserved

- Solutions Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems 5ed
- 9abs104 Mathematics i
- zahid
- tutorial 7
- alg 2 t10 6
- Lecture 1
- ders_dokuman
- Aerodynamics Drag
- alg 2 t10 6
- Auto Corrltn
- (Drag Polar)
- MaxMin
- Figures and Formulas
- Kestabilan Tambang Bawah Tanah
- Molin
- CFD prob
- iaec05
- 4037_w14_ms_13
- AMSHW1 Solutions
- HRW Physics 3 Vectors

Anda di halaman 1dari 6

G. Robello Samuel and Kaiwan Bharucha, Landmark Graphics; Yuejin Luo, BP

pragmatic approach provides a comprehensive framework for

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in calibrating tortuosity values for complicated tortuous

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.

wellpaths.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC 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 or the Introduction

International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).

The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their Drilling operations in deep and ultra-deep water are increasing

officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper around the world. The development of these substantial

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

the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in prospects is very challenging and requires the integration of

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 knowledge with prudent designs at different stages of the well

was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., development. However, the cost premium imposed by deep

fax 01-972-952-9435.

and ultra deepwater wells is very high and many of the

discoveries are marginal in terms of the commercial viability.

Abstract With the increase of developing and operating costs, there is a

Tortuosity is one of the critical factors to be considered for growing need to reduce the cost of drilling and other allied

complex directional well trajectories, complicated build rates, operations. Also, more wells are drilled in rotary steerable

precise steering in thin reservoirs and extended reach wells. mode. Alternating between the sliding and rotary modes

When planning a well, wellpath modeling commonly results in hole spiraling and wellbore oscillation becomes

generates smooth curves, whereas an actual well contains more pronounced due to frequent slide drilling. This paper

severe doglegs and other irregularities. Determining the presents a study on how to adapt to the new wellbore hole

tortuosity factors to apply in the well path is always a spiraling effects encountered in ultra deep wells. This paper

challenge during the planning phase. Presently no examines some of these effects, while asserting that it is

quantification method is available and field tests have shown necessary to integrate this new approach, as a result more

that the present calculations gravely underestimate the accurate solutions can be predicted. This new hydraulic design

drillstring torque and drag values for highly deviated, tortuous encapsulating hole spiraling effects provides a simple,

deep wells. Problems mostly occur when the drillstring lies in practical way to view the severity of the wellbore oscillation.

a strongly curved wellpath. In the long transitional region that Qualitative assessment and quantitative characterization of

covers most of the operational range in field applications, the the torque and drag are critically important in many phases of

conventional equations used for torque and drag calculation the well construction. They not only allow subsequent

results in underprediction. Due to increased extended and adjustments to the wellplan when combined with payzone geo

steered wells the torque and drag calculations need correction steering tools, but also successful completion of extended

to take care of the tortuous effects of the wellbore. This paper reach and complex wells. Increasingly more difficult wells are

addresses the adverse impact of the torque and drag being drilled that requires an accurate estimation of torque and

calculations in highly tortuous wells and presents an approach drag calculations. Operating outside the safety limits may lead

to calibrate the tortuosity factors whereby the accuracy of the to costly complications. This paper describes a method to

calculations is enhanced. The methodology uses actual survey calculate tortuosity factors that better represent the actual

data and known surface hook loads for different operating curved wellbore.

conditions, such as tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off

bottom, to arrive at appropriate friction factor values that can Hole Spiraling and Wellbore Oscillation

be used further in torque and drag calculations. Once the

friction factors for both cased hole and open hole are The occurrence of borehole spiraling or oscillation of wellbore

determined, sensitivity analyses can be done on the planned path has been known for many years in the drilling industry.

survey. Appropriate tortuosity values are derived at by Characterization of this behavior and the effects are

comparing predicted results with the field driller’s data. This increasingly discussed and analyzed with improved borehole

paper also describes four methods, Sine Wave, Random- imaging techniques and logging tools. Increased evidence of

Azimuth, Random-Inclination-Azimuth and helix used to hole spiraling have been reported (1, 2, 3, 4). The hole spiraling or

calibrate the tortuosity factors that better represent the actual threading will have deep impact on the well construction and

curved wellbore. The simple guidelines are presented along completion process. During the planning phase, the hole

with two field examples from Gulf of Mexico. The simple, spiraling or oscillation of the wellbore can effectively be

2 SPE/IADC 92565

described by applying tortuosity to the wellbore with the and period (wave length) specified. The angle change is

desired tortuosity factor. Tortuosity is one of the critical modified using the following relationship

factors to consider for complex directional well trajectories, D

accurate build rates, precise steering in thin reservoirs and ∆α = sin × 2π × M

P

extended reach wells. Presently, the industry uses different

The magnitude M is the maximum variation of angle that will

generations of rotary steerable systems and adjustable

be applied to the inclination and azimuth of the native

downhole tools to reduce wellbore tortuosity. When planning

(untortured) wellpath. The determination of magnitudes

a well, wellpath modeling commonly generates smooth

should be based on the evaluation of historical data from

curves, whereas an actual well contains severe doglegs and

offset or similar wells. The values of magnitude can vary

other irregularities. The difference between the planned

depending on many factors including hole type (cased or open

smooth well profile and the actual well drilled can have a

hole), hole size, drilling performance, hole curvature, and

major impact on the torque and drag losses for the well.

other parameters. Further, the inclination angle is modified so

Models apply different "rippling" or "roughness" techniques to

that it does not become less than zero, since negative

a planned wellpath to simulate the variations found in actual

inclination angles are not allowed. The new angle and azimuth

wellpath surveys. This option renders planned (smooth) well

are given as follows

profiles in a form that more realistically predict loads. Note

that tortuosity is usually applied only when the surveys α n = α + ∆α

represent an unrealistically smooth path. ε n = ε + ∆α + ψ xvc

Also while applying tortuosity, ensure that the measured depth

The industry has no standard for quantifying tortuosity. of the survey point is not an exact integer multiple of the

Tortuosity is usually expressed in degrees/100 ft, similar to the

∆D

expression of dogleg severity. The calculation of “running period as ∆α = sin 2π = 0

tortuosity” is the station-to-station summation of the total P

curvature normalized to a standard wellbore course length In this situation, tortuosity will not be applied to the

between survey stations. In general, tortuosity is defined as the undithered data set and caution should be exercised to avoid

ratio of the summation of the total curvature, including build this situation.

and walk, to the survey stations length. The rippling or

undulation can be applied based on the different methods that Helical method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the

modify the inclination and azimuth of the survey points. survey points by superimposing a helix along the wellbore

Furthermore, "micro-tortuosity(5)" caused by hole spiraling path using the magnitude (radius of the cylinder in the

results in a spiraled hole axis instead of a straight line. This parametric equation) and period (pitch) specified. This method

can be planned during the planning phase by applying uses the circular helix defined as:

tortuosity over and above the wellpath that has been already f (u ) = a cos(u ) + a sin( u ) + bu

tortured with the desired magnitude and amplitude or The generalized parametric set of equations for helix used to

superimposing a helix with desired pitch and magnitude. superimpose the wellbore path is given by

x (u ) = M cos(u )

Tortuosity Methods y(u ) = M sin( u )

There are different methods used to apply "roughness" to a P

planned well path to simulate the variations found in actual z(u ) = u

well path surveys. These options render planned (smooth) well 2π

profiles in a form that gives rise to more realistic prediction

for the analysis. It is expressed as the difference between the Random Inclination and Azimuth method is similar to the

actual and planned curvatures divided by the respective Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth Variation method as

distance between the survey stations and can be written as described as above, except that the azimuth variation is

n m independent of inclination. The new angle and azimuth are

DL a − DL p given as follows

α n = α + ∆α

j=1 i =1

T= and is expressed in deg/100 ft.

MD j − MD i ∆α

εn = ε + + ψ cvc

Rippling or undulation is applied based on the following four 2 sin α n

methods.

a. Sine Wave method Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth method applies a

b. Helical method random variation to the survey inclination and azimuth within

c. Random Inclination and Azimuth method the magnitudes specified. Random numbers used may be

d. Random Inclination Dependent azimuth method between -1.0 to +1.0. In this method the azimuth variation is

inversely proportional to inclination resulting in higher

Sine Wave method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the inclination with lower azimuth variation and lower inclination

survey point based on the concept of a sine wave shaped ripple with higher azimuth variation. The change in angle, new angle

running along the wellbore using the magnitude (amplitude) and new azimuth are given by:

∆α = ζ × δ

SPE/IADC 92565 3

∆MD diameters 121/4 and 81/2-in. daily drilling reports provided

δ= M the actual measured weights for tripping in, tripping out, and

P

α n = α + ∆α rotating off bottom. Torque and drag calculations were used to

predict the measured weights and torque while tripping in,

∆α tripping out, rotating off bottom, and rotating on bottom. After

εn = ε + + ψ cvc

2 sin α n comparing the field surface data with the predicted surface

data using different friction-factor values, it was found that a

Methodology friction factor of 0.17 inside the casing resulted in the best

The following simple procedure is a guideline to estimate the match as shown in Fig 1.

tortuosity factors for a particular hole size.

Step 1 -- Collect the relevant drilling data. These include the Using the estimated casing friction factor, the model calibrated

original well plan (casing program, directional plan, BHA the openhole friction factor to match the entire 121/4-in. hole

designs, etc.) and actual drilling data (well configuration, hole section. As shown in Fig 2 it was found that a casing friction

section BHAs, definitive survey data, mud logging data and of 0.17 and openhole friction of 0.24 match well with the

any down hole torque / WOB measurements, etc.). predicted calculations. The predicted values are slightly

Step 2 -- For each hole section, calibrate the friction conservative, especially for the tripping out operation. The 8

factor through casing based on the actual drilling data while ½” diameter hole section was then used to validate the

drilling out the shoe and the definitive survey data without any friction-factor values. A similar procedure was followed for

tortuosity correction. determining the casing friction factor for the 8 ½” diameter

Step 3 -- Repeat step 2 for the open hole in each of the hole casing section; found to be 0.15. This is slightly lower than

sections. Note the friction factor through the casing should be the casing friction factor of 0.17 for the 12 ¼” hole section.

that from step 2). The difference may be attributed to the fact that when casing

Step 4 -- Once the appropriate FFs have been established for is run inside of another casing string, it smoothes out the effect

both cased and open holes, these can be used in conjunction of tortuosity and results in lower friction factor as shown in

with the original planned well profile to define the most Fig 2.

appropriate tortuosity factor for the well by matching the

800

torque and drag predictions with the actual drilling data. Note

the tortuosity factor obtained will be applicable to the BHA

that have been used in the hole section. 700

650 600

Hook Load (kips)

600

500

550

Actual Tripping In

Hook Load (kips)

450

Predicted Tripping In

300

Predicted Tripping Out

400

Actual Tripping In Predicted ROT_off

bottom

350 Actual Tripping Out 200

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 2300

Actual ROT_off bottom

Measured Depth (ft)

300

Predicted Tripping In

250

PredictedTripping Out Figure 2: Field tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off

Predicted ROT_off

bottom

bottom hook loads vs. actual survey data and predicted

200 hook loads using friction factor 0.17 for casing and 0.24 for

9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000

Measured Depth (ft)

12.25” (OBM) open hole.

Figure 1: Actual tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off For 12 1/4” hole section, good hook load and surface torque,

bottom hook loads vs. actual survey data and predicted while rotating off bottom, data was available and was

hook loads using casing friction factor 0.17 for 12.25” compared with the simulated hook load and surface torque

(OBM) hole section. prediction. The results are shown in Fig 3. The field data trend

matched the predicted results well.

With the availability of definitive survey data, one can assume

that the tortuosity of the well has been built into the survey. It To further validate the results, simulations were re-run for the

can used to calibrate the friction factor for the first hole size well using the same friction factor numbers used in the well to

for which the tortuosity factor needs to be estimated. Our predict surface torque, while rotating on bottom. For this well

4 SPE/IADC 92565

only mud logging data for torque, rotating on bottom, was Tortuosity factor calibration

available and hence it was used for this study. The graph in As the friction factor numbers for these wells were already

Fig 3, shows that the trend line has three different slopes one determined the next step was to compare the planned surveys

starting from 17000’ to 18000’ the next from 18000’ to with actual surveys for these particular wells and come up

20000’ feet and then it increases till TD. This can be explained with some base line tortuosity number i.e. wavelength and

by the fact that the WOB and torque at bit were varying magnitude for the sine wave.

throughout the hole section. Three different torque at bit

values were taken, 5000 lb-ft, 8200 lb-ft, and 13000 lb-ft to Torque and drag calculations were used to predict the Hook

mimic the down-hole conditions. One can see from Fig 3 that loads for tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off bottom

the predicted upper (13000 lb-ft), middle (8200 lb-ft), and the using the 12 ¼” hole section, planned survey, for the well

lower (5000 lb-ft) trend lines bound the field data real well under analysis. It was determined that by using the Tortuosity

and there slopes are in agreement. wavelength or period of 500ft, magnitude of 0.35 inside casing

and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole we get a very

1000 35000 good match between field surface data and predicted data as

shown in Fig 4, where as Fig 5 shows that when applying no

30000

900

tortuosity values the simulated data is under predicting as

compared to the field data. By viewing both the plots it can be

25000

seen that the predicted data are in close agreement with the

800

20000

field data when using tortuosity period of 500ft, magnitude of

Hookload (kips)

0.35 inside casing and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole.

700 15000 800

Actual Hookload

750

10000

600 Predicted Hookload

700

5000

Mud Logging Surface 650

500 Torque

Measured Depth (ft)

0 600

Predicted Surace

Torque

550

400 -5000

Actual Tripping In

18300 18500 18700 18900 19100 19300 19500

500

Measured Depth (ft) Actual Tripping Out

Figure 3: Mud logging hook-load vs. actual survey data Tortuosity

Predicted Tripping Out w/o

and predicted hook-load using friction factor 0.17 for 350 Tortuosity

Predicted ROT w/o Tortuosity

casing and 0.24 for open hole. Pump rate = 1000 gpm, 300

WOB = 40 kips (OBM) 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000

Hookload (kips)

0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity None

750

700

800

650 750

Measured Depth (ft)

600 700

550 650

Measured Depth (ft)

600

500

Actual Tripping In

550

450 Actual Tripping Out

Actual ROT_On Bottom

Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity 500

400 Actual Tripping In

Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity

Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity 450 Actual Tripping Out

Actual ROT_On Bottom

350

Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity

400

Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity

300 Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 350

Hookload (kips)

300

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000

Hookload (kips)

Figure 4: Sine Wave Method: Hook Load Vs. Measured

Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity Figure 6: Helical Method: Hook Load Vs. Measured Depth

Periods = 500ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5 - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity Pitch

= 500ft Helix Radius Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5

SPE/IADC 92565 5

Similar procedure was repeated for other methods. Fig 6 applied as similar to the 12 ¼” hole section and under

exhibits the result comparison between the actual data and the predicted when tortuosity was not applied.

match with the helical method. It was observed that by using These results are specific to the deepwater wells in the

the Tortuosity pitch or period of 700ft, magnitude of 0.35 GOM undertaken in this study. The friction factors vary based

inside casing and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole a on hole diameter, hole conditions, lithology, and drilling fluid

good match between field surface data. Further the plots type. It can be concluded for these wells that good predictions

shown in figures 7 and 8 are for the Random Inc and Azimuth were achieved by using friction factors of 0.17 for casing and

and Random Inc Dependent Azimuth. It can be seen that the 0.24 for open hole in 121/4-in. hole. For 81/2-in. hole, the

tortuosity period between the Random Inc and Azimuth and friction factor value for casing is slightly lower, 0.15, which

Random Inc Dependent Azimuth did not affect the results to a we attribute to the smoothing effect of the casing being set

large extent in this case. inside another casing string. For planned well paths different

800 magnitudes and tortuosity periods can be applied to have a

750 comparable predicted surface torque and drag results for

different operating modes.

700

The proposed method demonstrates and ascertains the

Measured Depth (ft)

600

dependence on the calibration of friction factors and tortuosity

550

factors for the prediction of the results accurately during the

500 planning stage of the well. Also this method provides a

450

powerful and robust method for investigating and quantifying

Actual Tripping In

Actual Tripping Out

the wellbore tortuosity. The proposed framework generally

400 Actual ROT_On Bottom

Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity

describes wells that are very deep with tortuous or spiraled

350 Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity wellpath. From the analysis it can be concluded that the

Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity

300

severity of the torque and drag calculations depends on the

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 tortuosity and spiraling of the wellpath. The method proposed

Hookload (kips)

provides a relative comparison of various designs by way of

Figure 7: Random Inc and Azimuth: Hook Load Vs. evaluating with the untortured wells. This method can be

Measured Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) further expanded to quantify the hole quality for different

Tortuosity Period = 200ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5 drilling BHAs (rotary, motor and rotary steerable).

800 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express appreciation to their

750

companies for the opportunity to present this paper.

700

Nomenclature

650

D = Measured depth, ft

Measured Depth (ft)

600 P = period,

M = magnitude,

550

ψ xvc = cross vertical correction

500

ζ = random number

450

Actual Tripping In

400

Actual Tripping Out References

Actual ROT_On Bottom

Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity 1. Stroud, D., Peach, S., Johnston, I., “Optimization of

350 Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity

Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity

Rotary Steerable System Bottomhole Assemblies

300

Minimizes Wellbore Tortuosity and Increases Directional

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 Drilling Efficiency”, SPE 90396. Presented at the SPE

Hookload (kips)

Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.,

and September 2004.

Figure 8: Random Inc Dependent Azimuth: Hook Load 2. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, and Darren

Vs. Measured Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 Stuart: “Quantifying Tortuosities by Friction Factors in

(OBM) Tortuosity Periods = 200ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, Torque and Drag Model” SPE 77617 presented at The

OH = 0.5 SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas,

29 September-2 October 2002.

The simulations were repeated for 8 ½” hole section also for 3. Paul Pastusek and Van Brackin,.: “A Model for Borehole

predicted hook loads vs. actual hook loads. Similar tortuosity Oscillations” SPE 77617 presented at The SPE Annual

and friction values were applied to compare surface torques as Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., pp. 5-8

before. The results showed that the simulated hook loads October 2003.

matched closely with the field data when tortuosity was

6 SPE/IADC 92565

Bajwa: “Simple practical approach provides a technique

for calibrating tortuosity factors” Oil & Gas Journal 15,

2003.

5. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, Darren Stuart,

and Blaine Comeaux.: “Tortuosity versus Micro-

Tortuosity - Why Little Things Mean a Lot” SPE 67818

SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, 27 February-1 March 2001.

- Solutions Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems 5edDiunggah olehRicardo Vega
- 9abs104 Mathematics iDiunggah olehrams221209
- zahidDiunggah olehZahid Manzoor
- tutorial 7Diunggah olehShehab_Alsanwy_9505
- alg 2 t10 6Diunggah olehapi-261379705
- Lecture 1Diunggah olehChukwudi Obi
- ders_dokumanDiunggah olehAslı Dogan
- Aerodynamics DragDiunggah olehleovi_10
- alg 2 t10 6Diunggah olehapi-261379705
- Auto CorrltnDiunggah olehDev Anand
- (Drag Polar)Diunggah olehVijay Kishore
- MaxMinDiunggah olehGeorge Protopapas
- Figures and FormulasDiunggah oleh1dulles
- Kestabilan Tambang Bawah TanahDiunggah olehSiLvy_aRa
- MolinDiunggah olehSabrinaFuschetto
- CFD probDiunggah olehPiyush Jagasia
- iaec05Diunggah olehCristiana Temelie
- 4037_w14_ms_13Diunggah olehSherlock Wesley Conan
- AMSHW1 SolutionsDiunggah olehDavid Pham
- HRW Physics 3 VectorsDiunggah olehPedro Sarmiento Solis
- (Lecture Notes in Engineering 57) M. G. Donley, P. D. Spanos (Auth.)-Dynamic Analysis of Non-Linear Structures by the Method of Statistical Quadratization-Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (1990)Diunggah olehAnastacia Charenza
- Frequency Wave Length Chart 2013Diunggah olehctrl.z.jones
- Effect of Alkaline Agents on the Transport Od Polysaccharides in a Cabonate Matrix (1)Diunggah olehDiego Chamorro
- tesisDiunggah olehAnonymous gBMz178
- INFLATION AND PERFORMANCE OF THREE PARACHUTE CONFIGURATIONS FROM SUPERSONIC FLIGHT TESTS IN A LOW-DENSITY ENVIRONMENTDiunggah olehDavid Soriano
- 5_6129882714758709423Diunggah olehlipu das
- Lo Palmer, In situ stress measurements in some near-surface rock formations_Thorold_t76-001.pdfDiunggah olehSen Hu
- THE_NATURE_OF_LIGHT.pdfDiunggah olehthina
- Module 08 Que.Paper pdf^.ACAPL BMT.pdfDiunggah olehPRATIK SHAW
- zhao2012.pdfDiunggah olehhs

- M 2 Prosper AideyanDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPEDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- andersen2009.pdfDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Tellez 2012Diunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Pra Die 2007Diunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Charlie2004 Reverse CirculationDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- 18b_IWCF Homework Answers Day 1_Answers HighlightedDiunggah olehAhmed Ayad
- SPE 187447 MS_spivey2017_Challenges & Lessons Implementing RTO DAS ExxonDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-29460-MS_samuel1997_A Practical Technique to Estimate the Qi-KFormation in a Kicking WellDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-90048-MS_samuel2004_Accelerating Drilling Technology With EKnowledge Factory_Changing ParadigmDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-29408-MS_powell1995_Minimization Of Formation Damage Filter Cake Deposition & Stuck Pipe PotentialDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-128129-MS_Cake Grueso.pdfDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-21999-MS_bradley1991_A Task Force Approach to Reducing Stuck Pipe CostsDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-27528-MS_howard1994_Tracking Stuck Pipe Probability While DrillingDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SPE-28298-MS_wisnie1994_Quantifying Stuck Pipe Risk in Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas DrillingDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- adkins1993.pdfDiunggah olehAmirhossein
- FISHING TIME-DECISION MAKINGDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Adult LearnersDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- SLB Panel 5 Perspective Stuck Pipe 1991Diunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Catalogo Tuberias APIDiunggah olehexergic
- Oxy Limiters Ryan Davis 10K Forum PresentationDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Casing Drilling & Smear Effect AnalysisDiunggah olehAhmedButt
- MSC Colorado PlasteringDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- PrecisionTree5 EnDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Jiimaa_GirmaaDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Super Fishing JarDiunggah olehCristian Popa
- Transformacion DigitalDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- Data Mining_Differential Sticking_Naraghi Et AlDiunggah olehJorgito Arias
- saudi_ECPJOT-Summer-2015-full.pdfDiunggah olehJorgito Arias

- scriptmanual_en_3.1Diunggah olehfpm
- Static Testing of Micro PropellersDiunggah olehCesar
- ITTC Recommended Procedures and Guidelines.pdfDiunggah olehKariem Zaki
- The physics of stone skippingDiunggah olehapi-26504090
- Solved Problems in VibrationDiunggah olehRasikaPerera
- Project ReportDiunggah olehankit_khanna_140
- Test UploadDiunggah olehShawn Sagar
- 04 Torsion TestDiunggah olehGarry Gautama
- 9781447167792-c2.pdfDiunggah olehraghu
- Calculate Design Beam Jib CraneDiunggah olehjafary
- Choice of the Traction Motor for the Electric Racing Car 2016 Procedia EnginDiunggah olehBig Flores
- Physics Paper-1 CSE Questions.pdfDiunggah olehVishwjeet Singh
- Maxon RE Max CatalogDiunggah olehLCDias1968
- physics@viresh_iitk / Test-1-JEE2012Diunggah olehViresh Singh
- A Framework for Black Start and Power System RestorationDiunggah olehyao
- Sizing Electric Motors for Mobile RoboticsDiunggah olehanon-293485
- Review of Recent Advancements of Direct Torque Control in Induction Motor Drives-A Decade of ProgressDiunggah olehalejandro castaño hernandez
- Control of EvDiunggah olehmehmeteee
- 150610 Controlling Hole Angle - Vertical DrillingDiunggah olehImam Pranadipa
- Maxon 0900766b80032092Diunggah olehawright261934mi
- Motorcycle Dynamics studyDiunggah olehJuan Lopez
- Examples 2Diunggah olehTimmy Vo
- Synchronizing and Damping Torque Coefficients of Synchronous MachinesDiunggah olehyourou1000
- Polychain CARBON DesignDiunggah olehHabtamu Bekele
- GripperDiunggah olehKALPEN
- WS XI PH Rotational Motion RollingDiunggah olehkaushik247
- Vehicle Pull MechanismDiunggah olehChinmaynanda Dash
- 04 - Rotational Motion - JEE.pdfDiunggah olehCefas Almeida
- Gimbal_modeling.pdfDiunggah olehMeluk 'Rhaina' de Silva
- CS-A.pdfDiunggah olehSachin Pal