Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
S.B. Dyer
5.5. Huang
Saskatchewan Re~earch Council
S.M. Farouq All
..
University of Alberta
A
CAN MET/Energy
K,N. Jhu
Research laboratories 8
PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE FOURTH PETROLEUM CONFERENCE OFTHESOUTH SASKATCHEWAN SECTION,
THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM, HELD WITH CANMET IN REGINA OCTOBER 7-9, 1991. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS
INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR
PUBUCATION IN CIM JOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE
CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.
PHASE BEHAVIOUR STUDIES The simulated distillation data on the Buffalo Coulee crude
.. . oil are listed in Table 3. The amount of 525 C+ residue
Phase be~vIOW' smdies ,,:,ereconducted on a Kindersley fraction in the crude oil is 50.9 percent b weighl
area heavy oil. Wellhead oil samples were collected from y
the Buffalo Coulee Bakken Sand Pool located approximately Stock Tank all with Carbon Dioxide and Ethane
five kilometres west ~d five kilometres north of ColeviIle, The cleaned Buffalo Coulee wellhead oil was saturated with
Saskatchewan. The discovery well, B7-22-32-24 W3M, was . .
drilled ' A
. m ugus
t 1952 2 Thi
.
1 1 . th
s 01 poo IS e resu to,
.1 f carbon dioXIde at 1.83, 3.51, 5.20. and 6.99 MPa at the
f 25 5°C 111 de . f th carbon
h droc bo . th di . naI I . . f th reservOir temperature 0 . . e nSlty 0 e
trapping yarns m e up- p eroslo Iffilt 0 e di .ct ted k +__1, il . creased fro 967.2 kg! 3
Mi . " " Midal B -I.1. d 111 il . h (966 OXl e-samra SlOC 1lUll\. 0 m m m , at
SSISSlpplan e ~en san. e 0 IS eavy . 3'
kg! 3) d . ( . tel 900 mP t . .tial annosphenc pressure, to 974.3 kg/m at 6,99 r..r1Pa(FIgure 2).
m .an VISCOUS approXlffia y a.s a ml F th bo di ' d ted I th ' .d d
"
diu' ) A . th I1h
...or e car n oX! e-satura . 01, ere IS a rapl ecrease
"
reservoir con ODS . gas cap IS present m e no em
f th e poo. 12 A f th rod U. d m VISCOSity between atmosphenc pressure and 5 MPa and then
~
po...on 0
. data .
summary
ted . T bl 1 3
0 e p uc on an 1 ll . hi h
a eve mg at g er pressure
(F"
19ure
2) Th ' ,
e VISCOSItyv aIues
,
reservoir ISpresen m a e . "
at 25.5°C are 1935 mPa.s at atmosphenc pressure and 45.0
Buffalo Coulee samples were collected from well BIO- mPa's at 6.99 MFa for the carbon dioxide-saturated stock tank
12-2
--
12-3
given in Reference5). It is capableof operational. a the effect of pressure,for differentequivalentslug volumes,
pressureof 10MPaand lOOOC, with a maximumdeflection may be comparedbecausethe numberof moles of fluid
of lessthan 0.01 mm. An importantcharacteristicof the injecrro in both runswasapproximatelyIhe same. Therefore.
modelis that it canberotatedto ~rform horizontal,vertical the parameterof intrest is the volumeof carbondioxide (at
andinclinedfloods. reservoirconditions). Figure 9 showsthat the two runs had
. ". . almost identical initial slopes (bar chart inset) but that Run 1D2
The eqwpment. de~s, ~peraung p~edures, ~easunng (4.1 MFa) rformed better than Run TDI (2.5 MFa) durin
f th ~f100dIifi g
methodsand
d FscalmgAJcntenaThwereh~hl:-
descnbed.."
prevIouslyth
by most0 e e.
RoJas
"
an arouq 1.
.6
e; ~lg cntena lor e
immisciblecarbondioxideprocesswerederivedby means Figures 10 and 11 show the oil recoverydistributionsfor
of bothdimensionaland inspectionalanalyses.FarouqAli RunsTD 1 andm2, respectively.For RunTO1 (2.5MPa)the
andRojas7haveshownthisprocessto be stronglygoverned fIrst slug oil recoverywassignificant,but oil recoveryfor thc
by viscousand gravitationalforces. It was felt that for remainingslugsdroppedoff dramatically. Total oil recovery
heavyoils the ratio of capillary to viscousforceswas so was 40.86% HCPV. Post-waterfIoodrecovery is absent
low that unscaledcapillarypressures had negligibleeffect becausea 20:1 water-oil ratio had been reachedduring thc
on the;process.s WAG process.The oil recoverydistributionfor RunTO2 (4.1
. tal tests
E penm
x en
d ted .
were con
. uc usmg reservOIr
MPa) was much more;uniform with the fIrst slug being
.. "
prod
u . th
ced
waSr an
]a 0 samp
. es
te d
om rod
S lac
il
we;redv-
I fr 11 1 ~ 35 - 38 - 27 domInant. Total
I Th
o.f 5 4 percent! es.
oil
. f th . . .al .1 .
recovery
red
was 46.26% HCPV, an mcrease
~ W3M d "
e umecove portIon 0 e mlu 01-In-
lac . h " UREC". F" 10 d 1 Th .
:"mth e ad
en1 c reservOir.
th en
edi pusan
Ch was
nzatI
". p e ISs own as m Igures an 1. c mcreasc
.., em ease porousmum. aracte on .. "
f th S nl il red,. d tail b Jha.4 In 011recovery ISaccountedfor by the post-watcrflood recovcry
0 e e ac 0 waspresen me, y (4.96%)at the higherpressures as well astheslight increasein 8
Two secondarycarbondioxide;WAG displacement tests blowdownrecoveryat the higherpressures dueto the increased
werecompletedat 21~22°Cusinga WAG (waterto carbon carbondioxide-oilsolubility. Thecarbondioxiderequirements
dioxideslugvolume)ratioof 4:1 (10 slugs)andan injection andretentionswere45.4sm3/m3, 48.9% and40.2sm3/m3, 28.7
rateof 0.776mId. % at 2.5 and 4.1 MFa, respectively.
Runs TDI and ffi2 consistedof injecting an equal CONCLUSIONS
number of moles of carbon dioxide at two different
pressures.The;numberof molesinjectedwascalculatedto
.. .
1. ~e densItyand VI~Slty of the Buffalo Coulee,,:,ellh~d
be equalto thenumberof molesrequiredfor a 20%carbon 011andof the.reconsututed Buffalo ~ouleereser--:°lf~u!ds
dioxideslug at 5.5 MPa (1.41 g-mol). Consequently, the decreasedWith tem~rature and mcr~ With IlSmg
volumeof carbondioxide injectedat 2.5 MPa (illl) was press?Te.The saturationpressure,gas-oilmho (G.OR) and
equivalentto 0.53 PV. The volume of carbondioxide s:vel~ngf~ctor of.the Buffalo Coulee",,:cllhead
oII~ar~n
injectedat 4.1 MPa (ID2) was equivalentto 030 PV dioXIdeffilxtW"esmcreasedsmoothlyWIthcarbondioxide
Pressuresof 2.5 and4.1 MPawerechosenbecause'most of concentration. The GOR and swelling factor slartcd to
the Senlacreservoirsfell within this rnnge. The objective level off at carbondioxidepressuresgreaterthan7 MPa.
wasto detecttheeffectof thepressureson recoveryfactor. 2. The viscosity of the carbon dioxide-saturatedBuffalo
Owing the carbon dioxide WAG drive, the injecrro C.ou~eereservoir flui~ decreased~ith .increasin~carbon
carbondioxide was divided into 10 slugs with eachslug dioXIdepress~. A nmeteenfoldVISCOSIty reduchonfrom
8~parated by water. TheWAG processwasfoUowedby an the bubblepomt pressure(4.2 MPa) of the reservoirfluid
extendedwaterfloodanda final blowdown. Waterflooding
was carriedout subsequent to the WAG processuntil an
to ~carbo~dioxide~ress~ of 7.7 MP~wasob~cd. The
f1~Iddensity,~as.-oilratlo and.swe~lingfactor Increased
8
instantaneousproducing WOR greater than 20:1 was WIth.carbondioxIde concenttatJon (In the pressurernnge
reached.In Run TDI (conductedat 2.5 MPa), this WaR studied).
was reachedat the end of the WAG process,therefore, A large reductionin the oil viscosity(93%) and an 8.7%
subsequent waterfloodjngwasnot initiated. in~ in the swelling factor of the carbon dioxidc-
Theexperimentalresultson the oil recoveryand carbon saturatedBuffalo Couleestocktankoil at moderate pressure
dioxiderequiremcntare summarizedin Table6. Table 6 (4.0 MFa) and 25.5°C suggestthat enhancedrecoveryof
alsogivesthe operatingparameters, model sandand fluid ~~ ~dersley-type heavyoil is viableby carbondioxide
properties. mJecuon.
Figure9 showsthe oil recoverycurvesfor the two runs 3. o.uri~g the differential liberation cycle of the; carbon
on the basisof cumulativemolesof fluid injected. Thus, dioxide-saturatedBuffalo Coulce reservoir fluid. more
12-4
given in Reference 5). It is capable of operation at a the effect of pressure, for different equivalent slug volumes,
pressureof 10 MPa and 100°C. with a maxirnnrn deflection may be compared because the number of moles of fluid
of less than 0.01 mm. An important charncteristic of the injected in both runs was approximately Ihe same. Therefore,
model is that it can be rotated to perform horizontal, vertical the parameter of intrest is the volume of carbon dioxide (at
and inclined floods. reservoir conditions). Figure 9 shows that the two runs had
" .. . almost identical initial slopes (bar chart inset) but that Run 1D2
The eqwpment. de~s. ~peraung p~edures, ~easunng (4.1 MPa) rformed better than Run TD1 (2.5 MPa) durin
f th pe
flood lifi g
methods
. anand
ROJas
scalmg cntena Th
. 6 were
d Farouq AI 1.
descnbed
e scalin prevIously
.."
g cntena bye
lor th most 0 e e.
immiscible carbon dioxide process were derived by means Figures 10 and 11 show the oil recovery distributions for
of both dimensional and inspectional analyses. Farouq Ali Runs TD 1 and 1D2, respectively. For Run TD 1 (2.5 MPa) the
and Rojas7have shown this processto be strongly governed flISt slug oil recovery was significant, but oil recovery for thc
by viscous and gravitational forces. It was felt that for remaining slugs dropped off dramatically. Total oil recovery
heavy oils the ratio of capillary to viscous forces was so was 40.86% HCPY. Post-waterflood recovery is abscnt
low that unscaled capillary pressureshad negligible eff~t because a 20:1 water-oil ratio had been reached during the
on the process.s WAG process. The oil recovery distribution for Run TD2 (4.1
E . tal tests d ted . . MPa) was much more uniform with the flISt slug being
xpenmen were con uc USIng reservoir .. .
od
pr u . th
W3M w S an
ced
1a 0 samp . es om rod
S lac
ater
we cedv- d
d il 1 fr 11 1 ~ 35 - 38 - 27 doffilnant.
I
o.f 5 4 percenUes.
Th
Total
red . f th . . .al .1 .
oil recovery was 46.26% HCPV, an Increasc
Two secondarycarbon diox.ideWAG displacement tests blowdown r~overy at the higher pressuresdue to the increascd
were completed at 21-22°C using a WAG (water to carbon carbon dioxide-oil solubility. The carbon dioxide requirements
dioxide slug volume) ratio of 4:1 (10 slugs) and an injection and retentions were 45.4 sm3jm3,48.9 % and 40.2 sm3/m3,28.7
rate of 0.776 mid. % at 2.5 and 4.1 MPa, respectively.
12-4
carbon dioxide was retained in solution than was 7. Rojas, G. and Farouq All, S.M. "Current Technology of
dissolved during presswization at any given pressure. Heavy Oil Recovery by Immiscible Carbon Dioxide and
This suggeststhat the mobility and prOOuctionrate of Waterflooding," ~. ill International Conference on
me reservoir fluid will be maintained at higher values Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Long Beach (1985) .Y.2l:J1
for a longer period. 652-663.
4. Ethane (~HJ, when used as a solvent with Buffalo 8. Dyer, S.B. "Performanceof the Immiscible Carbon Dioxide
Coulee heavy oil, has been demonstrated to be more WAG Process at Low Pressure," M.Sc. Thesis, University
effective than carbon dioxide in solubilizing the heavy of Alberta (1989).
oil and in turn, swelling the oil and reducing the oil
viscosily at reservoir conditions. There are, however, a
number of potential problems associatedwim the useof
ethane (gravity ovenide, low solubility in water, its
availability and high cost).
5. Scaled physical model displacemen(Sof Senlac heavy
oil at two pressures (equal mass of carbon dioxide
injected) showed that me effect of pressureon tolal oil
recovery is small. However, other work' indicates mat
if an equivalent volume of carbon dioxide was injected
8 at 4.1 MFa, the oil recovery would be higher. Thus the
volume of carbon dioxide (at reservoir conditions) plays 8
an important role.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this work by Amoco, AOSTRA,
Esso, Gulf, Husky, Norcen, Saskoil, Shell, Texaco, and me
Federal Panel on Energy R&D (PERD) is gralCfully
acknowledged. Thanks are also due to P. deWit, K. Knorr,
and N. Shatilla for their contributions to the experimenlal
work; to J. Barker and D. Sinclair for meir assistancein the
preparation of the manuscript. The scaled physical model
faciliries were provided by the University of Alberta.
REFERENCES
1. Holm, L. W. "Carbon Dioxide Solvent Flooding for
Increased Oil Recovery," ~, AIME, (1959) 216,
225-231.
2. Sugianto, S., SaskaochewanOil and Gas Corporation,
8 Internal Report and Private Communications (1989).
3. Saskatchewan
Energyand Mines,ReservoirAnnual 8
12]9...
4. Jha, K.N. "A Laboratory Study of Heavy Oil Recovery
with Carbon Dioxide," ~ (March-April 1986) 54-63.
12-5
-
Table 1. Summaryof Productionand ReservoIrData Buffalo COUlee
Year1y
total(1989) 25 989 m~
Developedarea 719 ha
Averageconnatawater 25.0%
Oil density 978 kg/m'
Table 2. ChemIcal and Physical Properties of the Cteaned Buffalo Coulee Wellhead Oil
255
95 967.2
967.4
1935
1956 8
2095 968.7 2036
5635 971.2 2220
9055 973.6 2495
12095 975.8 2587
MoleaJfar Weight 424 g/g;ool
COmponents WeIghtPercent
Saturates 21.8
Aromatics 19.3
Resins 41.9
Asphallenes 13.5
12-6
. . .'.
IBP 84 55 569
5 195 60
10 251 65
15 292 70
20 331 75
25 366 80
30 399 85
35 433 90
40 463 95
4S 496 FBP
50 532
, The viscosity and density for deaned wellhead oil at 25.5°C and atmospheric pressure were
1935 mPa.s and 967.2 kg/m3, respectively.
12-1
Table5. PVTPropertiesof the CO2.SaturatedBuffaloCouleeReservoIrFluid(Bubble
Point Pressure= 6..30 MPa) from a DifferentialLlberatlonTest at 25.5°C
Fluid Parameters
Type - Senlac Senlac
LiveiDead Dead Dead
Oil Viscosity @ 23.C mPa's 3295.0 3295.0
Oil Density kg/mS 969.2 969.2
Model Parameters
Absolute Permeability J1ml 7.62 7.41
Porosity % BV 43.1 41.5
InitialOil Saturation % PV 86.8 90.1
Connate Water Saturation % PV 13.2 9.9
Pore Volume cm' 2100.3 2022.5
IOIP cm' 1823_1 1822.3
Experimental Parameters
WAG Ratio H2O:CO2 4.0 4.0
Operating Pressure MPa 2.5 4.1
Operating Temperature .C 21.0 21.0
..
A
CO, Injection StaQe (CO,)
Superficial Velocity
Total Auid Injected
CO2 Requirement
mId
PV
g.mol
sm'/m'
0.78
0.53
1.41
4S
0.78
0.30
1.41
40 8
Oil Recovery % IOIP 39.4 39.6
Residuaf Oil Sat. (CO2) % PV 52.6 54.4
Extended Waterflood Staoe (EWA
Superficial Velocity mid 0.0 0.78
Total Fluid Injected PV 0.0 0.71
Oil Recovery % IOIP 0.0 5.0
Residual Oil Sat. (EWF) % PV 52.6 49.9
Blowdown StaQe (BD)
Oil Recovery % IOIP 1.5 1.7
Residual Oil Saturation (BD) % PV 51.3 48.4
Oil Recovery Summa!:(
Initial Waterflood % (OIP N/A N/A
Total Oil Recovery % IOIP 40.9 46.3
12-8
(f:UJ£W) ~.LOV:l ~Nm3MS
(S-edW)AlISOOSI" u ~ ~~
~ - "2:~
'"': ~ - -"10-: - -CD
~ § 8 ~ § ~ ~ 'i3
N N ~ N ~.-
...
~
N..
iU"~ .x
c:
ca
<5 t-.. I-
~ .x "*
91 ~ ~
u ~ I- (/)
!lJ -n tO~ 11-
;>
!
T 0
~
9
(/)
Q)
Q) .
L1- t
Q.
~
W
~
8
.Q
~
(/1
z
~
l.
co~
~:¥i
~
80
m 1;P:
,\ ~
\
...g:
~
(/)
w -~
g
0
f tOw
~ "6
?;-
+ \ \ "6
F
~u
OM
(,) a;.in \ \ M'" £lri
'" Q. c: \ II: ~N
!<i 8" " ~ ~"iU
8 """ "
. ..."U '" '" tD
Go ~ () ,," (/)"U:J:
~ ?;- "1 N 1a&,
~
~ N
-Vi
§
~
~ " " .£ 5
&N 8
I- 5 ~
~ ...
'- ~O
QU
.d ~
'"
" " ~
~:6
.- i ~ d~
0>
~
0)
,...:2
0) 01 m
e
5,
t-
..;
.
(£w,6)j)AlISN30 u: 2 2 ~ e
:J
(f:UJ/£WS)Oll~'~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 02
~
d ~
- §
~ 8
- ~
0
~
>- iU (5
t=
(/1 0
.x
1a
~lIS
~ I- I-
>
i
~-
(/)
§ ~
=
Q.
~
C/)
qI
j ~
8 ~
(/1
z
§
w
Ix:
c1
0
H!
=>
~
!R
8
.Q 8
~ =>
1- £ w ~o
t ~
w
~
:J
0
a:
Q.
~
aJlI)
o~
?;-
~ .'?::- 0 .~=
w ~ ~ ~~
~ -uU
~ @
.
~ '"
cn a~
N
2! _?: .~
~ In §o
~ ~
Q.
§
5
5 :E
,~
. <'J
ca
0>
:2~~g~~
01
(&W;611)
0;
AlISN30
0) 0) 0> m
e:J
I¥: (f:UJI6"'f)AllSN30
co ~
.g.
u.
12-9
CD
- "Q"
to ~ e
- 0 ~
"~ '" '"
g - ~
u
0 "Q"
.a
(G
~0
-- - '"
(G
c0
t ;:;.
.j;; 8 0
- ~
.~
"'~
5§ ]:v .
'i'O ~'"
1
() -aJ
~1 ~
~
:2
:3
~
"1\
a-
g.
CD~
(U
(3
UI Li:e <: ~ W
()
oa: -~
~'"
~ ;
It tl: ::)
a: j
~
4)~
~Q.
~
0 .offi
8
l ~~ ~ .. g: ~
() 0>4)
"5~ ~
~ I' m~
lit 02 , U -0
~ ,.. co
~
,
'on;:;.
~
..Q & ,'.n.~
8 ~ ~
8
I =3 1'" §
~f-
cd
...
'"'
a N
5.
It)
~ "
" '"
...
~
E
to"
~
:3 ,~ .. :3
2' ,'0 0)
i!o " 0 II:
8
- -
(S"EdW) A.iISO~SI/l (s.edW) A.l1S(X)SI/I
0 0
r-- N
fa
~
~
(U
f-"
-
m -
0
.g
U> ~
<I>
~
to
.-
.a
:> cu
o~
t.n.
~
-
0
u
=0
ro --
0
0
~ -
~
OIl
(U
;:;.
on
.~
0 :3 C
§. m 'i'O ~
8 05.2
~F.Q-
~ .c
'"
u0
<0
"'~
~~
W
:g
Li: Q)
~ 8
1 a: .= :>
c ::) 0011
w
~ .~
"OJ
oU>
-(/)
~ 2;
"'Q.
~<.) a: () '&! ~"t)
"5 ~ ~ Q. Q):'a
<.)..co 1 ~ Q)
.;;; f CX) ~2
~ 8. u <3~
()
'"'
00
~
EN
0
~
. .28.
CUE
~. ~8 "5~
Q
~
~.c:
",.-
:3-
"'~
to
CXJ
.D
..
'" 0 ~~ It)
-= - Q.v ~ e
t --i .~
Ao u-
S (\I
0 IF:
CDr--tOlt)~M(\I~
(ed~) 3i:JOSS31:Jd
NOI1\ICJill'Y'$ (cwJ6)1)
A.iISN30
12-10
(CWl£W)~Ol~V~ ~Nm3MS
U> U> U> U> U>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ::: ::: ~ ~
m j
6
()
~ ..2
i
u.
~
~
! ~
}' (J) -
, (I) ~
" ;2
'..
,, U)~
C1I
~
N
'Q.
~,
"
" ...II:
-
~
w
0
<.)
~
..Q
5<.)
0
~.
..
'6"
" ~ ~ u~ ~
,Q' u. (/) m", a)
.,. ~ .'" W U-N ..,
~ '" .. ~
S C')Q.
II: g'm
~:2
~
J
'oc J, :) .
~,
"
on
'[I:
'.'"
0
0
. -
(J
N
8 t(j
. ". ,
'II:~
N
m~
"8 ~ @I
~
~
~
E
'..,
',~
',aj
g~
.
~
- -~a 8
--.:-
~ 'CJ) 0
I- ..
,
~
:J 0
E
!
Q) -I
II:
--
~~ ~
c
~ E
~
(~WS)Ol1\fdl~ :: u.
IYII'~-O ~t 0 ~".'.I! "0
0 W
u 0-~ ~
"i
0
"""
"'...
0
-
... ...
~
..
0-0
~3
-
... ~
~
~
:.:.
~
~
-::::
..Q . II ~~
"0 .. -. E - . k
U
~
U>
~
0';
000
cu
0
~
0
'"
-
-
~
..
~
~
..
VI VI
-
00
00
. ~
..
~
(\I
m O>~" II
.:: ~ ~
0.
.~
'" -o;~"'"O
x . n
0
r
'"
8
.
:J
[I:
0--
.=
CX"
E
~"o'o
";
-
u
So
, :
a:
.~
.2
IL
C:
.'3;?
v, O
, -~
a~
0 0
c-
u
-
~
U
..
,, to
'"
a:
3:~~
I- 0 0
2
~0 }
a
8 ",
.
'
"
~
'"
0.
0
~
0.
~
~
0
0
,,-° 8
.. ..2
k to Ad:JH~ 'p°:)"POJd I!O
, --- ~
.. ~
.. C
'. N
.0..
-' ,
0
<.)
() ~ ') '0
""! '-, C
on
'"
.
"
'. " --
:3
:J
e ", Q
2.
'"
'. "I.
(/)
~ ,..;
E
OJ
~
~
I- .2'
u-
R 8 .9; ~ ~ @ ~
'. (a;.lOW)Aln180lOS-GOO
12-11
°-
(\J
'-0
c,-
::J(\J
a:~
QCtj
co..
.Q '2:
C'
'5,-
.D .
~ ~ 'C= ~
'"
~
~
."
0
'"
~
.-
(JJ @J
"Uo~ tJI ON
c~;:.-.
IV
rn~:'<~
..~ -1/1
~ c."
~
0>0
o
Q)00~3: >
0>
-l",3:.~
.-CN
0"-0
m~~u g 0..
a:O
10£;10 .-
-~ °
8 ~-
:::: 8
0>
::J
0)
0
'" -
on
-
0 on 0 i.i:
Ad~H% 'AJaAo:>aMrlo
0-
,-
'-0
c,-
::IN
a:~
QCtj
co..
.Q 2:
8 C'
~
6.
~
..
G
."
ELO:
.c=N
~
VJ IN.
'" ... ._~
"UoO 0 0 8
mO co N
C~::.-.
Q)c"~~
o>.:.~~
-1/1
:J
c."0
":>..
0>0
Q)0~~3: >
-1~_.~
0"'='"
0>n
~
-0..0 L.L-
mo.mU
10gB a:fri.
=
Oe.-
I
0
~
~6~"LI Q)
::J
0)
0
'" -
on 0
- II) 0 [[
Ad:)H% '.(JaAo:>a~ 110
12-12