DOCSLIB.ORG

Dynamic Kill of Underground Blowouts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dynamic Kill of Underground Blowouts DYNAMIC KILL OF UNDERGROUND BLOWOUTS ALVARO F. NEGRÃO, PETROBRAS VICTOR GERARDO VALLEJO-ARRIETA, PEMEX ADAM T. BOURGOYNE, JR. LSU JOHN ROGERS SMITH, LSU Table of Contents Non - Newtonian Kill Fluids ................................................. 47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................... 3 Reservoir Model..................................................................... 53 Formation Fluid Rate Determination.................................... 54 Global Solution Scheme......................................................... 56 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 4 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 67 NOMENCLATURE ................................................................... 67 CONCEPT................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY ................................................................................. 8 STEADY-STATE DYNAMIC KILL COMPUTER MODEL FOR DYNAMIC KILL COMPUTER PROGRAM ............................. 71 OF AN UNDERGROUND BLOWOUT COMPUTER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTING THE CONSIDERING FRACTURE PROCEDURE............................................................................. 71 PROPAGATION ............................................. 9 Work Sheet Descriptions...................................................... 71 Input Data................................................................................ 73 INTRODUCTION........................................................................ 9 Potential Applications of the Program................................ 74 GAS RESERVOIR MODEL........................................................ 10 Example Application to Dynamic Kill of an Actual WELLBORE MODEL............................................................... 11 Surface Blowout ..................................................................... 74 THE INDUCED FRACTURE MODEL...................................... 17 Example Application to Dynamic Kill of an Actual VERTICAL FRACTURE INITIATION..................................... 17 Underground Blowout........................................................... 76 FRACTURE EXTENSION MODEL.......................................... 18 SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF RESULTS..................................... 82 GLOBAL CALCULATION PROCEDURE................................. 24 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 83 LEAK OFF VOLUME CORRELATION .................................... 25 Description of the experimental apparatus......................... 25 CONCLUSIONS AND Experimental Procedure ......................................................... 26 RECOMMENDATIONS................................ 84 RESULTS................................................................................... 28 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 32 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 84 Time-dependent Model accounting for Fracture STEADY-STATE DYNAMIC KILL Extension Pressure ................................................................. 84 METHODS..................................................... 34 Steady-state Model................................................................ 85 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 85 PUBLISHED STEADY STATE FLOW MODELS.................... 34 ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................. 86 E. M. Blount and E. Soeiinah (1981)7................................... 34 R. D. Lynch et al. (1981)8 ....................................................... 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 87 W. L. Koederitz, F.E. Beck, J.P. Langlinais and A. T. Bourgoyne Jr. (1987)9............................................................. 37 G. E. Kouba, G. R. MacDougall, and B. W. Schumacher TIME-DEPENDENT DYNAMIC KILL (1993)10 ..................................................................................... 38 PROGRAM..................................................... 90 Dhafer A. Al-Shehri (1994)11................................................. 39 P. Oudeman, and D. Mason (1998)12.................................... 40 Kill volume............................................................................... 41 STEADY-STATE DYNAMIC KILL Michael Wessel, and Brian Tarr (1991)13 ............................ 41 SPREADSHEET FOR SURFACE MATHEMATICAL MODEL AND METHODOLOGY FOR BLOWOUTS................................................. 124 STEADY-STATE DYNAMIC KILL ANALYSIS...................... 42 DYNAMIC KILL MATHEMATICAL MODEL....................... 42 Model Assumptions.............................................................. 44 STEADY-STATE DYNAMIC KILL Wellbore Model...................................................................... 44 SPREADSHEET FOR Newtonian Kill Fluids ............................................................ 45 UNDERGROUND BLOWOUTS ................. 125 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1 Executive Summary This LSU study was funded by the Minerals Management Services, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., under Contract Number 14-35-001-30749. This report has not been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policy of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. his report describes the work performed for Task 8 - Requirements for Dynamic Kill of Underground Blowouts. This task was part of the 1994 –1999 LSU/MMS well control research project focused on underground blowouts. Dynamic kills have been successfully T used to control both surface and underground blowouts. Therefore this task related to improved modeling of dynamic kills for underground blowouts. The original goals of Task 8 were to modify a dynamic kill simulator that was developed in a previous project to include a hydraulic fracture model, to design and conduct an experimental test of the fracture model, and to initiate technology transfer activities for dynamic kills. These goals were met and are described in Chapter 3. A program listing for the dynamic kill simulator is included as Appendix A. The primary conclusions from conducting this work are that the new model predicts a lower minimum mud flow rate to control an underground blowout than the current models, is significantly more difficult to use and maintain than previous time-dependent and steady-state models, and provides a more exact prediction of pressure versus time during a kill than current models. Steady-state models have also been widely used as a basis for design and analysis of dynamic kills. Given the difficulty in using and maintaining the new time-dependent simulator, steady-state methods are described in Chapter 4. A steady-state method was implemented in ExcelTM spreadsheets to design and analyze dynamic kills for both surface and underground blowouts. Application of the spreadsheets to actual examples of surface and underground blowouts are described in Chapter 5. The resulting conclusions are that the spreadsheets provide reasonable estimates of steady-state pressures and flows to be expected during kill operations and that the quality of the estimates could be improved by implementing a power-law rheology model and by accounting for the measured depth in directional wells. The spreadsheets are included as Appendices B and C to this report. 3 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 Introduction The Minerals Management Service is concerned about reducing the potential for surface and underground blowouts because Congress has mandated that MMS is responsible for worker safety and environmental protection. he 1994 –1999 LSU/MMS well control research project was proposed by Bourgoyne and Kelly1 to focus on the development of improved procedures for detecting and handling underground blowouts in marine environments. Task 8 of the project was proposed to T consider dynamic kills of underground blowouts. The original proposal stated that “the current model used for contingency planning of dynamic kill operations often does not perform satisfactorily for a case involving an underground blowout because it is necessary to assume that the pressure in the fracture is independent of kill rate. Subtask 8a would involve the modification of a dynamic kill computer simulator that was developed in a previous project to include a representative hydraulic fracture model and the design of an experimental test for verifying the model in our research well. Subtask 8b would involve conducting the experimental test and initiating technology transfer activities.1” The work performed for these tasks is described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes additional work on a simplified dynamic kill calculation method implemented in an Excel� spreadsheet. While this method does not include the hydraulic fracture model, it is more practical to run and maintain than the simulator. Chapter 5 compares results from the spreadsheet method to other published methods used in analyzing a surface blowout and to data recorded during kills of both surface and underground blowouts. Concept The dynamic kill is a relatively new technique. It was formalized by Mobil Oil Corporation and was first reported by Blount and Soeiinah7. The method was designed to control an Arun field surface
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wellcap® IADC WELL CONTROL ACCREDITATION PROGRAM WELL SERVICING OPERATIONS – SNUBBING CORE CURRICULUM and RELATED JOB SKILLS
    WellCAP® IADC WELL CONTROL ACCREDITATION PROGRAM WELL SERVICING OPERATIONS – SNUBBING CORE CURRICULUM AND RELATED JOB SKILLS FORM WCT-2SS SUPERVISORY LEVEL The purpose of the core curriculum is to identify a body of knowledge and a set of job skills that can be used to provide well control skills for well servicing operations. The curriculum is divided into three certification types: Coiled Tubing, Snubbing, and Wireline (Wireline is presented in document WCT – 2WSW) and within each certification, three levels: Introductory, Fundamental, and Supervisory. Students may complete an individual certification (e.g., Coiled Tubing) or combination certifications (e.g., Coiled Tubing and Snubbing). All knowledge and skills for each individual certification must be addressed when combining certifications. The suggested target students for each core curriculum level are as follows: INTRODUCTORY: New Hires (May also be appropriate for non-technical personnel) FUNDAMENTAL: Helpers, Assistants, “Hands” involved with the operational aspects of the unit and who may act/operate the unit under direct supervision of a certified Unit Operator or Supervisor. SUPERVISORY: Unit Operators, Supervisors, Superintendents, and Project Foreman Upon completion of a well control training course based on curriculum guidelines, the student should be able to perform the job skills in italics identified by a "!" mark (e.g., ! Identify causes of kicks). Form WCT-2SS WellCAP Curriculum Guidelines – Well Servicing - Snubbing Revision 040416 Supervisory Page 1 CORE CURRICULUM
    [Show full text]
  • Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee (UDAC) Risk Assessment Technical Support
    (U N C L A S S I F I E D ROUGH DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSE ONLY) Risk Informed Decision Support for UDW Drilling Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee (UDAC) Risk Assessment Technical Support Dasari V. Rao, Division Leader, Decision Applications Division Chris Smith and Elena Melchert, DOE Program Oversight (U N C L A S S I F I E D) Operated by the Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the DOE/NNSA Summary of LANL AnalysesU N C L A S S I F I E D Status update and a review of preliminary findings • Over the past three decades there has been a steady decrease in ‘major’ kick frequency; more recently, frequency is about 1 in 10 wells. A majority of the kicks occur in the shallower regions where the primary hazard is the release of natural gas, some condensates and synthetic mud to the environs. A small fraction (1 in 100 wells) kick while drilling and cementing in the target region where oil and other condensates present blowout hazard. • Ultra-deep water formations stratigraphy and reservoir properties are significantly different compared to previous operational experience. • Our modeling efforts included development of accident progression event trees that enumerated an exhaustive list of possible accident sequences; barrier analyses that quantified reliability of each barrier; and physics-based well dynamics models that explicitly captured timing of events. We have used a generic well design and well operations that are consistent with IADC and API guidance. • Important barriers in place to mitigate a kick (e.g., Lower Marine Riser connection (LMRP), Blowout Preventer (BOP) and Drill Pipe Safety Valves) are vulnerable to control system and design deficiencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Manufacturer Annular BOP: Choke and Kill Valves: Wellhead Connector
    Rig Name: Equipment Owner: The purchaser or renter of the equipment to be installed onto the Equipment User: The company that owns the well, wellhead or wellhead assembli Name: Person(s) Completing Name: Document: Name: Name: Time to Complete Document (hours): Number of Shear Rams: Number of Sealing Shear Rams: Test Ram Installed: BOP Classification Size Manufacturer Ram Type BOP: Annular BOP: Choke and Kill Valves: Wellhead Connector: LMRP Connector: Choke Manifold: e wellhead or wellhead assemblies. ies on which the equipment is to be installed. Title: Title: Title: Title: Press. Rating Model 1 Scope 1.1 Purpose 1.1.1 The purpose of this standard is to provide requirements on the installation and testing of blowout prevention equipment systems on land and marine drilling rigs (barge, platform, bottom-supported, and floating). Blowout preventer equipment systems are comprised of a combination of various components. The following components are required for operation under varying rig and well conditions: a) blowout preventers (BOPs); b) choke and kill lines; 1.1.2 c) choke manifolds; d) control systems; e) auxiliary equipment. 1.1.3 The primary functions of these systems are to confine well fluids to the wellbore, provide means to add fluid to the wellbore, and allow controlled volumes to be removed from the wellbore. Diverters, shut-in devices, and rotating head systems (rotating control devices) are not addressed in this standard (see API 64 and API 16RCD, respectively); their primary purpose is to safely divert or direct flow rather than to confine fluids to the 1.1.4 wellbore. 1.2 Well Control 1.2 Procedures and techniques for well control are not included in this standard since they are beyond the scope of equipment systems contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil and Gas Operator Representative Workover and Intervention Well Control
    Oil and Gas Operator Representative Workover and Intervention Well Control Curriculum, Course Delivery Requirements, and Related Learning Objectives Form WSP-02-WS-OGO Revision 0 27 September 2017 © IADC 2017 COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT All rights reserved. No part of this document may be distributed outside of the recipient’s organization unless authorized by the International Association of Drilling Contractors. Related Learning Objectives for WellSharp® Oil and Gas Operator Representative-Workover/Intervention Well Control Contents 1.0 Oil and Gas Operator Representative Course Overview........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Curriculum .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Risk Awareness and Management ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Organizing a Well Control Operation ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Well Control Principles & Calculations ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Well Global Services Brief
    GLOBAL SERVICES BRIEF 2021 wildwell.com V. 04 LOCATIONS Corporate Office Drilling Technology Center 2202 Oil Center Court Houston, Texas 77073 USA Regional Response Locations UNITED STATES Houston, Texas Odessa, Texas Greeley, Colorado Roaring Branch, Pennsylvania INTERNATIONAL Aberdeen, Scotland Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Dubai, UAE Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Port Harcourt, Nigeria Stavanger, Norway Singapore Well Control Training Centers UNITED STATES Houston, Texas Corpus Christi, Texas Odessa, Texas Tyler, Texas Lafayette, Louisiana Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Casper, Wyoming Williston, North Dakota Canonsburg, Pennsylvania Global Services Brief +1.281.784.4700 // wildwell.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Corporate Overview ..................................................................1 Forensic Studies .....................................................................12 Emergency Response Services ............................................5 Design to Industry Standards ..................................................12 Blowout & Well Control Response ............................................5 Fitness for Purpose Assessment .............................................12 Pressure Control ......................................................................5 Risk Management Services ................................................13 Well Control Engineering Services .......................................6 Well Control Emergency Response Plans ................................13 Blowout Rate Modeling (Worst Case Discharge Analysis)
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Well Integrity Rev 0, 04 December 2012
    An Introduction to Well Integrity Rev 0, 04 December 2012 0 Preface This document has been prepared as a joint project between members of the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association's Well Integrity Forum (WIF) and professors at NTNU and UiS. The intention with the document is to provide a document that can be used in educating personnel in well integrity and especially students at the universities. Authors of this document have been: Hans-Emil Bensnes Torbergsen, Eni Norge Hilde Brandanger Haga, Statoil Sigbjørn Sangesland, NTNU Bernt Sigve Aadnøy, UiS Jan Sæby, Shell Ståle Johnsen, Total Marvin Rausand, NTNU Mary Ann Lundeteigen NTNU 0 04.12.12 Original document Revision Date of issue Reason for Issue 1 Index Preface ................................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 6 List of figures ............................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1. What is well integrity? (Well integrity – concepts and terminology) ........................................... 5 2. Background and History ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Well Test Equipment
    Surface well test equipment A unique combination of well testing solutions and aftermarket support About NOV National Oilwell Varco (NOV) is a worldwide leader in the design, manufacture and sale of equipment and components used in oil and gas drilling and production operations and the provision of oilfield services to the upstream oil and gas industry. Through our broad capabilities and vision, our family of companies is positioned and ready to serve the needs of this challenging, evolving industry. We have the technical expertise, advanced equipment and readily available support necessary for our customers’ success. NOV Completion & Production Solutions NOV Completion & Production Solutions integrates technologies for well completions and oil and gas production. We design, manufacture and sell equipment and technologies needed for well stimulation, well intervention and artificial lift systems. In addition, we focus on offshore production with floating production systems and subsea production technologies. In every type of environment, we bring together engineering operational expertise and field-proven solutions with a foundation of safety and risk management that helps you control costs and achieve lasting success. Intervention and Stimulation Equipment (ISE) Our engineering, manufacturing and service expertise delivers field-proven solutions that help you control costs, increase service value and achieve success. We partner with you to address your operational challenges and apply extensive research, testing, state-of-the-art engineering and manufacturing to deliver the field-proven equipment and performance you demand. It isn’t often that you find everything you are looking for in one place. At the Intervention and Stimulation Equipment (ISE) business unit of NOV, we combine years of experience with trusted brand names to deliver complete solutions that maximize efficiency, improve your service value and increase your bottom line.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Assessment of Well Control Procedures for Extended Reach and Multilateral Wells Utilizing Computer Simulation
    Devel opment and Assessment of Well Control Procedures for Extended Reach and Multilateral Wells Utilizing Computer Simulation by Dr. Jerome J. Schubert, Texas A&M University Dr. Jonggeun Choe, Seoul National University, Korea Mr. Bjorn Gjorv, Texas A&M University Mr. Max Long, Texas A&M University Final Project Report Prepared for the Minerals Management Service Under the MMS/OTRC Cooperative Research Agreement 1435-01-99-CA-31003 Task Order 85222 Project Number 440 December 2004 OTRC Library Number: 12/04-A146 “The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as represent ing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U. S. Government”. For more information contact: Offshore Technology Research Center Texas A&M University 1200 Mariner Drive College Station, Texas 77845-3400 (979) 845-6000 or Offshore Technology Research Center The University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station C3700 Austin, Texas 78712-0318 (512) 471-6989 A National Science Foundation Graduated Engineering Research Center DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF WELL CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR EXTENDED REACH AND MULTILATERAL WELLS UTILIZING COMPUTER SIMULATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description This project included four tasks. Task 1 - Perform a literature search of the state of the art in well control for vertical, directional, horizontal, extended reach, and multi-lateral wells. Task 2 - Modify an existing Windows-based well control simulator that has been developed by Dr. Jonggeun Choe for use in more conventional wellbores to model extended reach and multilateral wells.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Company Equipment Operator Snubbing Well Control
    Service Company Equipment Operator Snubbing Well Control Curriculum, Course Delivery Requirements, and Related Learning Objectives Form WSP-02-WS-SN-EO Revision 0 17 August 2017 © IADC 2017 COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT All rights reserved. No part of this document may be distributed outside of the recipient’s organization unless authorized by the International Association of Drilling Contractors. WellSharp® Service Company Equipment Operator Snubbing Well Control Contents 1.0 Overview of Service Company Equipment Operator Snubbing Well Control ........................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Curriculum .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Risk Awareness and Management ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Well Control Principles & Calculations ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Barriers ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Influx Fundamentals....................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NORSOK STANDARD D-010 Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations
    NORSOK STANDARD D-010 Rev. 3, August 2004 Well integrity in drilling and well operations This NORSOK standard is developed with broad petroleum industry participation by interested parties in the Norwegian petroleum industry and is owned by the Norwegian petroleum industry represented by The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) and Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL). Please note that whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this NORSOK standard, neither OLF nor TBL or any of their members will assume liability for any use thereof. Standards Norway is responsible for the administration and publication of this NORSOK standard. Standards Norway Telephone: + 47 67 83 86 00 Strandveien 18, P.O. Box 242 Fax: + 47 67 83 86 01 N-1326 Lysaker Email: [email protected] NORWAY Website: www.standard.no/petroleum Copyrights reserved NORSOK Standard D-010 Rev 3, August 2004 Foreword 4 Introduction 4 1 Scope 6 2 Normative and informative references 6 2.1 Normative references 6 2.2 Informative references 7 3 Terms, definitions and abbreviations 7 3.1 Terms and definitions 8 3.2 Abbreviations 12 4 General principles 13 4.1 General 13 4.2 Well barriers 13 4.3 Well design 19 4.4 Risk assessment and risk verification methods 20 4.5 Simultaneous and critical activities 20 4.6 Activity and operation shut-down criteria 21 4.7 Activity programmes and procedures 22 4.8 Contingency plans 24 4.9 Personnel competence and supervision 24 4.10 Experience transfer and reporting 25 5 Drilling activities 26 5.1 General 26
    [Show full text]
  • WCS-BROCHURE.Pdf
    ABOUT US Well Control School (WCS) is a leading provider of accredited well control training. Since our inception in 1979, we have trained over 85,000 students globally through our training centers and proprietary System 21 e-Learning program. Our approach to ensuring positive student engagement is to deliver the latest standards and methodologies using expert knowledge, case studies and realistic, hands-on simulations to help adult learners navigate everyday oilfield situations successfully. Since our founding, we have been at the forefront of developing well control standards in support of competency- based training and enhanced personnel safety. Our organization collaborated with the United States Minerals Management Systems (now BOEM and BSEE) to develop the well control training section of the standard known currently as “Subpart O”. As a result, we launched the Well Control School Accreditation Program, a curriculum- based training standard that provides oil and gas training for drilling, well control and well servicing operations, and complies with IOGP 476 standards and US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Subpart O (30 CFR Part 250.1504). For more information, visit www.wellcontrol.com. ACCREDITATIONS AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS • The Well Control School Accreditation • International Standard ISO 9001 (ISO) • International Well Control Forum (IWCF) • International Coiled Tubing Association (ICoTA) • International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) • Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) • Association of Energy Services Companies (AESC) REGISTRATION Instructor-led and System 21 e-learning courses are offered at three training centers in Houston, Texas; Lafayette, Louisiana and Laurel, Mississippi. For instructor-led and computer-based courses: Web: www.wellcontrol.com For System 21 e-Learning web-based courses: Phone: 1.713.849.7400 Web: www.wcsonlineuniversity.com e-Mail: [email protected] e-Mail: [email protected] Instructor-led classes begin at 7:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Bullheading Ii Two Phase Simulation of a Definitive Well Kill
    BULLHEADING II TWO PHASE SIMULATION OF A DEFINITIVE WELL KILL By Moshey A. William Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) (Mechanical Engineering) SEPTEMBER 2013 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh Perak Darul Ridzuan CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL BULLHEADING II TWO PHASE SIMULATION OF A DEFINITIVE WELL KILL By Moshey A. William A project dissertation submitted to the Mechanical Engineering Programme Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) (Mechanical Engineering) Approved: _________________________ Dr William Pao Final Year Project Supervisor UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS TRONOH, PERAK November 2013 i CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified sources or persons. ___________________________ Moshey Arens William ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Given this opportunity, I would like to acknowledge those who have been helping me, either directly or indirectly, in continue working on the project – starting from preliminary research, to the development phase and until the completion phase of this Final Year Project in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. I would like to thank Dr. William Pao, my supervisor for this project for the past two semesters. Dr. Pao has been giving me moral and mental support since the first. His understanding and confidence on my capabilities and passion towards the idea has given me the flexibility and spiritual advantages that I needed in conducting the project from the start to finish.
    [Show full text]