)TC 6713
assessment of Conductor Setting Depth
.R. Aldridge, Fugro-McClelland Ltd., and G. Haland, A/S Norske Shell
Copyright 1991, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper waa presented at the 23rd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May O-9, 1991.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee followingreview of informationormtained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offehore TechnologyConference and are subject to correctionby the author(a).The material, as presented, does not neceessrily reflect
any positionof the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstract should contain mnapicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented.
ABSTNACT
This paper reviews the methode generally used
by oil companies to determine the conductor eetting
depth required to avoid hydrofracture of cohesive
soils during drilling for the first casing string.
Traditional approaches are compared with an approach
developed by the authors, and the results of each
method are compared with teat data obtained during
geotechnical site investigations offshore. A case
history is presented which showe the effect of the
authors’ deeign method on the required conductor
setting depth, and indicates the considerable poss-
ible cost savings and safety benefits available from
effective conductor design.
INTRODUCTION
The advancement of any kind of borehole ie
dependent on the cuttinge being continually cleared
from the bit face. This is usually achieved by
direct circulation drilling, circulating fluid to
the bit through the drillstring with the returning
fluid and cuttinge passing up the annulus between
the drillstring and the borehole or casing. If the
marine casing is not set deep enough, the pressure
of the drilling fluid may lead to formation break-
down and loss of circulation. Apart from difficul-
ties in then advancing the borehole, this may also
result in not being able to monitor and control
shallow gas effectively. Formation breakdown can
also lead to wash out and lees of support for the
foundation of a structure. Correct assessment of
the required conductor setting depth may therefore
have not only economic but also safety implications
for the well-drilling operation.
One poesible method of determining required
setting depth is to perform hydraulic fracture
testing (HFT’s) in the field. This may however
References and illustrations at end of paper.
167
prove to be both costly and in some cases difficult
to perform. Where fracture test data are not avail-
able, analytical methods have traditionally been
based on excess fluid pressures not exceeding the
minor principal coil streae, These traditional
methode are suspected to give unnecessarily deep
setting depths, but no theoretically sound and
practically proven method of calculating shallower
setting depths is known to the authors.
From an oil company’s point of view, the deri-
vation of a reliable analytical tool that is less
conservative than the traditional methods could lead
to considerable savings. It ia, however, important
that any such method should not underpredict the
required setting depth, since the cost and safety
implications of such underprediction may be consid-
erable. A detailed review of field teste has there-
fore been performed to assesa the reliability of the
new approach propoeed in this paper.
FIELD TESTS
During the geotechnical site investigations
performed for platforms in the North Sea hydraulic
fracture tests (HFT’s) are often performed in order
to determine ‘tin situ!! the fracture pressure which
causes formation breakdown at various depths below
mudline. The test is most frequently performed in
hard clays using the type of apparatus preeented on
Fig. 1. The typical procedure for performing euch
tests in the North Sea is as follows:
1. The borehole is advanced to the required depth
using open hole drilling with returns to mud-
line, with the bottom assembly including the
test apparatus as shown in Fig. 1.
2. The string is pulled back to leave a length of
predrilled hole below the bit as the test
section,
2 ASSESSMENT OF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN
3. The packer is inflated to seal the test sec-
tion, and a wireline dart is lowered to the bit
to measure pressure during the test.
4. The test section is pressurised by pumping
fluid into the drillstring at a given flow rate
and the test performed as outlined on Fig. 2.
The test is therefore generally performed in a
pre-drilled section, and is flow controlled. The
measurement made during the test include the fol–
lowing:
1. The initial fracture pressure.
2. The steady state pressure under a given flow
rate.
3. The close up pressure after initial fracture.
4. The re-fracture pressure.
Whilst all stages of the HFT test may be used
to infer geotechnical soil parameters, this paper
concerns the pressure required to cause initial
fracture, which is generally adopted as the limit of
allowable excess fluid pressure during drilling
operations. Initial fracture pressures from such
tests have been used to check the theoretical method
presented in the following.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Minor Principal Stress Approach
The hydrostatic, drilling fluid and in situ
soil pressures during drilling for the first casing
string are shown schematically on Fig. 3. The
drilling fluid pressure which may be expected to
fracture the soil formation has been the subject of
analysis by Bjerrum et al. (1972). This approach
was developed following obaervationa of fracture
occurring whilst installing push-in piezometers.
The excess pressure, Au, required to cause a ver-
tical crack in the soil as derived by.- Bierrum et al.
is given by:
Au = Po’(l/v-l) [(l-~)ko + Pt’/po’] ... (1)
or Au = po’ (l-v) [(2+&c@ko + pt’/pol] ... (2)
where v = Poisson’s Ratio of the soil
CY= effect of installation on circumferen-
tial stress
effect of installation on radial stress
Po’ = vertical effective stress in-situ
k=
coefficient of lateral earth pressure
o loading the application of any increment of radial
at est
tensi e stress sustainable by the soil
168
OTC 671:
Equation 1 represents the case of fracture
occurring prior to blow off, and equation 2 repre-
sents fracture occurring following blow off of the
soil from the piezometer.
This assumption of a “perfect” installation and
a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 (undrained response) re-
duces equations 1 and 2, respectively, to:
Au = ko.p ‘ + pt’
o ... (3)
or Au = ko.p ‘ + pt’/2
o ... (4)
Bjerrum also notes that there is a possibility
of a horizontal crack forming if the excess head
exceeds p ‘. In his recommendations on allowable
pressures,” derived from theory and field and labora-
tory observations, the tensile stress ptt was con-
servatively ignored. These results then reduce to
the assumption adopted by many oil companiea in
estimating required conductor setting depth, that an
excess pressure equal to the lower of the principal
stresses in the ground should be assumed to cause
hydrofracture, i.e.:
Au=p’ (ko>l) ... (5)
o
Au = ko.p ‘ (ko<l) ... (6)
o
The analyses presented by Bjerrum et ai, are
based on observations of push-in piezometer installa-
tion and subsequent applied excess water pressure.
However, in offshore operations the borehole is
advanced by drilling rather than pushing the string
into the soil. The method generally followed in
HFT’s performed offshore also forms a pre-drilled
section of borehole prior to testing. The approach
adopted by Bjerrum et al. to account for the distur-
bance caused by a cavity expansion into the soil may
therefore not be applicable for this case.
Shear Failure Approach
The in situ total stress condition in the soil and
the changes in total stress caused during an ideal-
ised drilling and subsequent pressurisation opera-
tion for the HFT test are presented on Fig. 4. The
stress changea in the radial and circumferential
directions have been calculated from elasto-plastic
theory (Den Hartog (1972)) on the assumption that:
1. the SOil response ia linear-elastic perfectly
plastic.
2. the permeability of the soils is low enough
that pressure changea due to flow are minimal.
3. a Poisson’s Ratio of 0.5 is sssumed for, cohe-
sive soil under undrained loading.
It may be seen from Fig. 4 that for undrained
stress results in a reduction of the same magnitude
in circumferential stress. Baaed on these atresa
changes it is possible to datermine the excess fluid
pressure in the borehole at which the circumferen-
WC 6713
tial stress falls to zero or to any given value of
tensile stress, pt’, as follows:
Au = 2,ko.p ‘ + uh + ptt
o
where = hydrostatic pressure at the given depth
‘h
Equation 7 is consistent with the results given
by Jaeger (1969) for a porous elastic medium, if the
permeability of the medium is set to zero. It may
therefore be expected that hydrofracture will occur
at the preseure given by equation 7; unless a gen-
eral shear failure of the clay at the wall of the
borehole occurs at a lower pressure. Examination of
the three principal stresses given on Fig. 4 may be
used to calculate the maximum deviator streea in the
clay material. If the maximum deviator stress
exceeds twice the undrained shear strength of the
clay, then a plastic failure of the borehole wall
may be expected to occur. The deviator stresses
derived from the vertical (v), radial (r) and cir-
cumferential (c) principal etresses are as followe:
or-u = Au- p ,
v o
Ur - IJC = 2.Au - ko.po’
Uv-u ‘Au+p ’-2,ko.p
c o
Shear failure will occur when any of these
deviator stresses exceeds twice the undrained com-
preaaive ahear strength of the soil. Using equa-
tions 81 to 10 it is therefore possible to derive
eqUatiOnS 11 to 13, respectively, defining the
eXCeSS fluid pressure which would cause a shear
failure in the borehole wall:
Au = 2.su + Po’
Au= S + kO.PO’
u
Au = 2.au + po’(2ko-1)
where s = undrained ehear strength in compression
u
An alternative possible mode of failure to that
considered above is a uniform cavity expansion, for
which the excees pressure to cause failure is of the
order of 5.7 to 6.3 times the undrained shear
strength, depending on the overconsolidation ratio
of the clay (Randolph et al. (1979)).
It ia poaaible that a ahear failure, as given
by the lowest of equations 11 to 13, will occur
prior to the tensile failure given by equation 7.
There are assumptions inherent in both theoretical
approaches, however. Observations made during
drilling for the first casing string are therefore
reviewed below to assess the validity of each ap-
proach. The results of these approaches are also
compared with the method traditionally used, as
given by equations 5 and 6.
ALDRIDGE AND HAIMD ?
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS
A review has been made of the reeults of 34
... (7) hydraulic fracture tests ‘(HFT’s) performed in pre-
drilled sections in geotechnical boreholes performed
during platform site-investigations in the North
Sea, The teste were performed at aix sites, at
depths of between 40 and 140 metres below mudline,
in hard clay strata. Of the 34 tests, three resul-
ted in very high fracture pressures close to those
expected from cavity expaneion theory, as previously
reported by Overy and Dean (1986). Three resulted
in anomalously low pressures, believed to have been
due to leakage around the packer. Data from the
remaining 29 tests are reviewed below.
The predicted and meaaured test results are
compared for the six test sites on Fig. 5. The
dashed line representa the calculated minor princi-
pal stress and the solid line is the lowest of the
preseures derived from equations 11 to 13. The
results chow graphically that the “shear failure!!
approach gives a closer fit to the HFT test data
.,. (8) than the traditional “minor principal stress!!method
at these sites.
... (9)
The ratio of measured to calculated fracture
’ ... (lo) pressure has been plotted for the traditional ap-
0 proach, i.e. equations 5 and 6, on Fig, 6, and for
the pressures given by the lowest of equations 11 to
13 on Fig. 7, for all 29 sites. The valuee given by
equation 7 are not plotted, since they are alwaYs
higher than the values given by equations 11 to 13,
and the “shear failure” mechanism may therefore be
assumed to control. It may again be seen from Figs.
6 and 7 that the “shear failure!’ approach repre-
sented by equations 11 to 13 gives a significantly
... (11) better overall fit to the data than the “minor
principal stress” method.
. . . (12)
Observations of drilling mud pressures and
... (13) returns or lack of returns during offshore drilling
operations are not generally available to the geotech-
nical consultant. Records obtained during drilling
from a semi-submersible drilling rig at the Draugen
site in the Norwegian Sea are presented on Fig. 8.
This figure shows the mud preaeure actually applied
during drilling and the estimated fracture pressure
based on the “minor principal stresstt and “shear
failure” methods. Again this data confirms that the
“ahear failure” approach gives results which are
more coneiatent with observations, since although
excess drilling fluid pressures exceeded those given
by the “minor principal stress” approach, no IOS5 of
returns waa encountered.
The results of a statistical analysis of the
data are also presented on Figa. 6 and 7, and show
that the measured test pressures are on average
almost exactly double those given by the “minor
principal strees” method but only 34 per cent higher
than given by the “shear failure” method. The
statistical correlation, as measured by the standard
deviation, is also better for the ‘rehear failure”
method.
169
4 ASSESSNE??YOF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN
Whilst the above data is limited, the statis-
tical correlations indicate that the “shear failure’
approach presented here is the more appropriate
method for calculating setting depth, From the data
analysed here, it is suggested that the excess
pressure calculated using the “shear failure” ap-
preach should be divided by a factor of safety of
1.3 to give an allowable drilling fluid pressure for
assessing the required setting depth. This approach
should result in a greater than 95 per cent statis-
tical confidence of avoiding hydrofracture. Records
from actual well-drilling operations and further in
situ HFT tests may allow this factor of safety to be
reduced with time.
CASE STUDY
The “shear failure” method described above has
been used in the establishment of setting depth for
the Draugen Field offshore Norway. A/S Norske Shell
is the operator for the field on behalf of their
partners Statoil and BP Norway, and proposed to
install a concrete gravity base structure supporting
10 well slots with six producing platform wells and
some subsea wells. The conductor arrangement at the
gravity base structure is shown schematically on
Fig. 9. The water depth at the Draugen platform
site is 252 metres, and the drilldeck is approxi-
mately 313 metres above mudline. It is planned to
install the platform in the field during the summer
of 1993 with conductor setting starting a few days
after platform installation.
The soil investigation covering the upper 130
metres of the soil revealed clay layers with varying
shear strength. The strength in the most critical
layers, i.e. between 50 and 150 metres below mud-
line, varies between 200kPa and 1200kPa as shown on
Fig. 10. NO hydraulic fracture tests were per-
formed, partly due to cobbles within the clay lay-
ers, which could have made the use of testing equip-
ment very time consuming,
For the gravity base structure, analyses were
performed relating to the condition following instal-
lation of the structure. Following placement of the
GBS structure, the increase in the total horizontal
and vertical stresses beneath the structure were
calculated using elastic theory (Poulos and Davis
(1974)). Equations 5 and 6 were then modified to
incorporate the increased stresses directly, and
equations 11 to 13 required modification ae follows:
AU=2.Su+p ’+Ap
o v
Au = S + ko.p ‘ + APh
u 0
Au = 2.su+ po’(2ko-1) + 2.Aph
where Apv = increase in vertical total stress
Aph = increase in horizontal stress
Using these modified stresses, the traditional
“minor principal stress” method led to a setting
depth in excess of 130 metres below mudline, aa
OTC 6713
shown on Fig. 11, whereas the “shear failure” ap-
preach indicated that a setting depth of only 70
metres below mudline would provide an acceptable
safety level of over 300kPa difference between the
calculated fracture pressure and the estimated mud
pressure. This difference was equivalent to a
factor of safety of 1.39 on excess pressure, result-
ing in a greater than 97 per cent statistical confi-
dence of avoiding hydrofracture. This probability,
in conjunction with the confidence given by the
apparent lack of hydrofracture during drilling
operations at the site, resulted in a 70 metre
penetration being considered an acceptable conductor
setting depth for this project.
Installation of the 26 inch conductor into the
top of the very hard clay layer between 65 metres
and 95 metres below mudline was considered feasible
using a drill/drive sequence with an IHC S90 pile
hammer, or equivalent. Installing the conductor
below this layer would have called for a larger
hammer and thicker wall conductor to give the same
confidence in reaching the required setting depth.
The presence of a aand layer at 130 metrea below
mudline would also have led to an increased risk of
encountering shallow gas during conductor installa-
tion.
CONCLUSIONS
The data presented in this paper indicate that
the traditional “minor principal stress” method of
estimating conductor setting depth is generally
conservative, and may result in much deeper setting
depths for the conductor than are actually required
to avoid hydrofracture during drilling for the first
casing string. The “shear failure” approach as
presented in this paper ia considered to give a more
realistic assessment of the actual required setting
depth, and ita use, in conjunction with an appro-
priate factor of safety, will often result in signi-
ficant savings in the casing programme.
The use of the “shear failure” approach has led
to a saving of more than 50 metres on the Draugen
conductor design, and has avoided the need for a
more expensive installation method using thicker
wall conductors and heavier plant. The shallower
setting depth has also eliminated the requirement
for special procedures to install the conductors
through a sand layer which would have presented a
significant increased risk of encountering shallow
gas.
. . . (14)
... (15) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
.... (16) The Authors wish to thank A/S Norske Shell, Statoil
and BP Norway for permission to publish this paper.
-----
I [u
)TC 6713 A.LDRII!GE
ANI
.

10 Bjerrum, L., Nash, J.K.T.L. , Kennard, R.M. —SIGNAL CABLE

and Gibson, R.E. (1972), “HydraulicFractur-

ing in Field Permeability Testing!!, Geotech- —~ F T DART
nique Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 319-322.

2. Den Hartog, J.P. (1952), “AdvancedStrength

of Materialsit,McGraw-Hill.

3. Jaeger, J.C. (1969), “Elasticity, Fracture _SLllJING VALVE

FOR PACKER
and Flow”, Halsted Press.

4. Randolph, M.F., Carter, J.P. and Wroth, —PRESSURE DROP VALVE

C.P. (1979), llDri~en pilee in Clay - ‘he

—PRESSURE SENSOR
Effects of Installation and Subsequent
Consolidation”, Geotechnique Vol. 29, No.
4, pp. 361-393. —ROUGH HOLE PACKER

5. Overy, R.F. and Dean, A.R. (1986), “Hydrau-

lic Fracture Testing of Cohesive soil”.
Proc. Offshore Technolozv
-. Conference. -OPEN BIT
Paper No. OTC 5226.

6. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1974),

“Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock
Mechanicst$. Series in Soil Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons. ,,.iil

Fig.1 Hydraulic FractureTestEquipment

I I ,, 1 I I I
II
I I I I I I I
1000 TJUF RF
STEAOY STATE
PREsSUBE
1 CLOSE UP
PRESSURE
800 I 1’ I

I ‘i k 4
/ “

600 I
\ ?w uP ‘

\ <
T
400

200 i
PUMP OFF - + PUMP O Jb
+ PUMP OFF

o
0 4 a 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
TIME AFTER START OF TEST (rein)

Fig. 2 Hydraulic Fracture Test Procedure

171
 1’ ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘, ‘, ‘, ‘1 ‘1 ‘1

I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, l,i, i,l~ll, II

l,l,
,,l!! 1!:’ “’”
,1,1, ,,11, , II 11,,,,1,,1’~ ~~
II II II II ,’,,,,

I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,
,,!!! 1!: ““
,, II II J ,1
II II II II
I,,!!!!:I I I I I I I I
“’’”
I I I 1,1, 1,1, i,lll, II
1,1, l,
II II 1, i II II ,, ~ ~ ~ ~

II II II II II II II

I I I I I,;!!:”I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, 1 ! 1, 1, 1, I
II
II!! ““
II II II 1,1, II II ,,
II II II II II II
~ ~

,,
~ ~
I
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, i,i, i,lll, II
l,l,
1!!: “’’”
II II II II II
II II II II II II 1’
TOTAL STRESSESIN-SITU
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
1!!’ “’”
II II II II II II II ~ ~ ~
II II II II II II

,,,
I I I!!1!:I I I I I
“’’”
I I I I l,l,l,i,i,l~l~,~,~,
II

II II ) ;
II II II II II II
I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, 1, i, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1,
,,l!! 1!: “’’”
II II II ‘1
II II II II
koPo’+ Uh
1, 1, 1, 1, 1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,
;“’’’’l lllllllllll!l
,,
““““““““““““““
!!!!!:
1,1, l,i,
“’’”
i,lll, II
1,1, l, 200

II II II II II ~
II II II II II II II
I
0
I I I I I I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, 1 ~ 1, 1, 1, I
II .
,,!! 1!!: “’’”
-1
II II II II II
II II II II II II ‘1
I IO
TOTAL STRESSES DURING ORILLING
-200

I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, i,i, 1,111, II

l,l,
1!!! “’’”
II II II II II
II II II II II II
-a

I,,!!1!1’
I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
“’”
II II II II II II II ~ II ~
II II II II II II -ma

1,1, i,lll, 1,1, l,

,,, I I I!!1!:
I I I I I I I l,i,
II
“’’”
II II ‘1
II II II II -ma UhdJ

I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, 1,1, i,llll, II

l,l,
,,!!! 1!: “’’”
II II
IIII II II -1000

I,,, I I!!!1!:I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, 1,1, i,lll, II

1,1, l, I 1
!
1 I

“’’” i!
!/l
II !, ,1 I
,,,,,,, 11111,! !1111!! ,’,,,

I I I I I,;!!:”I I I I I I 1, 1, 1, i, i, I ~ 1, 1, 1, I
II
““
II!!
II II II 1,1, l’, II Fig.3 Hydrostatic,Mud-umand Fig.4 Changes in TotalSoilStresses
II II II II II II
#
‘1
~
I InsituSoilStresses DuetoDriUingOperations
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1, i,i, i,lll, II
l,l,
1!!: “’’”
II II II II II )
I 11111111111111 ‘1 ‘1

I,,!! I I I I
1!!’
I I I I
“’”
I I 1,1, l,i, i,l, ill, II
l,l,
II II II II II
II II II II II II
I
I,,!! I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I, I, i, i, 1, ~ 1 I 11 ,,!11
1!!’ “’”
 EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPal EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPa)
0 1 z o 1 2
40 40 1-

●
1

I
60 60
● I
‘Y\\
1
I
1

I
) ●

\ \ /
80 \ 80
I
I
1
I ●
100 100
I ●
I
I
I
120 120
I
I
m

140 140

o i 2 0 2 4
50 60

I 1 ●

I \
I \
70 I ●
80 t
I ‘* ✼
✼
I I
1 ,. I
90 100 ,
1 I
1
x ● I ●

110 120

0 i 2 o 2 A
00 80

●
● 1
\ \
\
100 100 \
\
\ \ o
I
\ ● \
\ \ \ o
120 120 . (B
\ w
\

\ D

140 140

HFT RESULTS
‘-’-- MINOR PRINCIPAL STRESS PREDICTION
— SHEAR FAILURE PREDICTION

Fig.5 Comparison ofHFI’Reaults with Predictions

173
 RATIO MEASURED/CALCULATED RATIO MEASURED/CALCULATED
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 o i 2 3 4 5 6
40
I I
-1 SD MEAN +1 SD I
I -1 SD MEAN +1 SD I
I
1
[

I
●
I

I
MEAN = 1.99
I L I
I
MEAN = 1.34
-1
S.D. = 0.52 S.D. = 0.32
I 4 .1
60 60
I ● I
I ●1 ● 1°
,
● ● I
b I m
I I I I I
1: ~ 1010’
10
ao
I dw I
I
I
● I ● D
● ● ●{
a
100
I I* 100
I I

●1 ● 18
I I ● I ●
I I -0 ● I
1° ● ‘1 ●
120 1- 1 I I I I
120
P q ●

I I
● I f 10!
I I
‘1 I Ill
140 140 J r I I I I I 1

Fig. 6 Ratio of Measured to Calculated Fracture Presaure- Fig. 7 Ratio of Measuxwl to Calculated Fracture Pres.sure-
Minor Principal Stress Method Shear-Failure Method
 I

(-ah

&
——._
— —.
r
n
Y

.“

‘H

1!
g
H--l Hl---
Ill

:4
2?
c!”
–

:-.-—.
. ._.
.—

:::--H-I-W+H47H:H
,._.LLmtmTl i tilt<
. “-’”:F
.
—.

-:
—.

!1/
“l’’t-+’=t’;--’l:+:F+l<-l<-
.: :.— ;. .. .- —= 4 _. ._.,, .1 . . . - __ .

.-. ~>

. . .-. . . . ___ __. .,. .,. . _ .. _ ---- .._ __

m
.— .——. _.

.
08 8 e 8 8 z-. s g ~ ~ ~ t?
[W 3N11OW M013B H1d30

175
 .
.

. —.—.. ..—
—....—.
=n
g“
~ ‘“- ..-_._ . . —.

~.-—-–
!#
——–—
z —..——
8
:. . .._ .
“
8
$ —.
s
s.
; )

- ,/’
“ -= .>= -—

-.. — . . .- -

“8 s

W %11MV4 lk0130 H1d30

gl
e
r%

0
1+
.

2
.-

176