spangler, monitoring controlled rel. rel worksop... · lanl trailer lanl ec tower pnnl trailer. ......

Overview of Monitoring Controlled ReleasesOverview of Monitoring Controlled Releases

Lee SpanglerLee SpanglerDirector, ZERT

Montana State University (US)

Contributions from many other sitesMichael Steven, University of Nottingham (UK)Maike-L. Buddensiek, SINTEF (Norway)Richard Esposito, Southern Company (US)Andrew Feitz, Geosciences AutraliaAndrew Feitz, Geosciences AutraliaAaron Cahill, Technical University of DenmarkClarissa Melo CEPAC, Pontifical Catholic Univ. (Brazil)

IEAGHG Natural Releases of CO2 Workshop

Controlled ReleasesWill typically have limited depth / overburdenyp y pMay have other artificial aspects

Flow rates can be known / controlledFlow rates can be known / controlledDetermine onset concentration / fluxes for

environmental responsesD t i ti fDetermine recovery time for responsesInvestigate changes in ecology due to high CO2Establish detection limits for monitoring technologiesg g

Overburden can be carefully characterizedAllow detailed study of transport processesAllow detailed study of transport processes

Provide test bed for new technologies

J. Shaw

Site Location

*

Field Test Facility

MSU Agricultural landsMSU Agricultural landsMSU Agricultural lands

Route

MSU Agricultural lands

Route

Experiment SiteExperiment Site

Facility Goals

• Develop a site with known injection rates for testing near surface monitoring techniquestest g ea su ace o to g tec ques

• Use this site to establish detection limits for monitoring technologiesg g

• Use this site to improve models for groundwater – vadose zone – atmospheric dispersion models

• Develop a site that is accessible and available for multiple seasons / years

Injection RateSally Benson

100 m

1 000

1,000 m10 m

100 m 100 mSally Benson

1000 20 40 60 80 100

Years

ay) 10

0 20 40 60 80 100Years

1,000 m

0.1%

1

10

akag

e R

ate

(t/d

a

0 1

1

ge R

ate

(t/da

y)

0.01%

0.001% 0.01%

0.1%

0.01

0.1

Scal

ed L

ea

0.01

0.1

Scal

ed L

eaka

g

0.001%

0.001Scale to 1000 m leak1,000 kg/day: 1 tonne/day

Lee Spangler

Scale to 1000 m leak100 kg/day: 0.1 tonne/day

Lee SpanglerAn idling car generates about 0.045 kg CO2 / min or 65 kg CO2 / day. Our injection rate is about equal to 2 - 4 idling cars

Horizontal Well Installation

R S lb S ll BRay Solbau, Sally Benson

240 ft6 ft

Packer

Pressure transducer

Electric cablePacker inflation lineCO2 delivery linesStrength line

16 in

Packer Packer

40 ft

2010 Summer Experimental Layout

N10 mMT Tech Sensors and Transect

Vertical injector

NE end of pipeUnderground

lasersWater wells

*=packerPNNL Array

LANL Laser NE end of pipelasers

IRCam

SW d f i2007

(0,0)LANL Laser and weather station

MSU or LICOR

zone 1zone 2zone 3zone 4zone 5zone 6

Plant Study Area

Plant Block

SW end of pipeLANL Trailer

PNNL TrailerLANL EC Tower

Large Number of Participants / MethodsInvestigator Institution Monitoring Number of Sensors47 investigators

TechnologyArthur WellsRod DiehlBrian Strasizar

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Atmospheric tracer plume measurements

1 tower (4m)Blimp (Apogee Scientific) with 3 tether line samplers

Bee hive monitoring for tracer with sorption tube and pollen trap

2 hives

31 instruments / sensor arrays5 univ. 6 DOE labs, 4 companies

Automated Soil CO2 flux system

4 chambers

William PicklesEli SilverErin Male

University of California- Santa Cruz

Hand held hyperspectral measurements (plant health)

1 instrument

Yousif KharakaJames ThordsenGil AmbatsSarah Beers

United States Geological Survey*

Ground water monitoring

1 EC and temperature probe, Dissolved oxygen probe, lab analysis of water samples

Henry Rauch West Virginia University

Water monitoring well headspace gas sampling

1 sensor

Lucian WielopolskiSudeep Mitra

Brookhaven National Laboratory*

Ineleastic neutron scattering (total soil carbon)

1 instrument

Martha Applei bi h

Montana Tech* Soil moisture, temp.Chl h ll C

5 sensorsXiaobing ZhouVenkata LakkarajuBablu Sharma+2 students

Chlorophyll Content Meter , Fluorescence Meter , LI-COR 2000 to measure leaf area index Leaf Porometer to measure stomatal conductance Infrared radiometry ( l h l h)

2 instruments(plant health)Atmospheric humidity and temperature, accumulated rainfall

1 sensor each

Plant root imaging 1 cameraSoil conductivity 1 sensorHandheld hyperspectral measurements (plant h lth)

1 instrument

health)William HolbenSergio Morales

University of Montana* Microbial studies Lab analysis

Investigator Institution Monitoring Technology

Number of Sensors

Lee SpanglerLaura DobeckKadie Gullickson

Montana State University

Water content reflectometers (soil moisture)

15 sensors

Automated soil CO2flux system

5 long term chambers, 1 portable

Large Number of Participants / Methods

survey chamberCO2 soil gas concentration

6 sensors

Kevin Repasky (PI)Jamie Barr


Underground fiber sensor array (CO2 soil gas concentration)

4 sensors

Rand Swanson Resonon* Flight based h l

1instrument

p

hyperspectral imaging system

Joseph Shaw (PI)Justin HoganNathan Kaufman


Multi-spectral imaging system (plant health)

1instrument

Meteorological measurements

1 tower

J li F d L Al N ti l I it ( l d th) 1 i t tJulianna Fessenden+3 students

Los Alamos National Laboratory

In situ (closed path) stable carbon isotope detection system

1 instrument

Flask sampling for in situ isotope detection

Lab analysis

Sam Clegg Seth Humphries

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Frequency-modulated spectroscopy (FMS) open air path

1 instrument

open-air pathThom Rahn Los Alamos National

LaboratoryEddy covariance 1 tower

James AmonetteJon Barr

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Soil CO2 flux (steady-state)

27 chambers

Sally Benson (PI)Sam KrevorJean-Christophe

Stanford University* / Picarro Instruments*

Commercial cavity ringdown real-time measurements of δ13C

1 instrument

Jean Christophe PerinAriel EspositoChris Rella (Picarro)

Instruments measurements of δ C and CO2 in air

Greg RauIan McAlexander (LGR)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory /Los Gatos Research*

Commercial cavity ringdown real-time measurements of δ13C and CO2 in air

1 instrument

2Jennifer Lewicki Lawrence Berkeley

National LaboratoryCO2 soil gas concentration

8 sensors

CO2 atmospheric concentration

2 sensors

Chamber soil CO2flux measurements

1 instrument

Meteorological 1 tower

2010 Summer Experimental Layout

N10 mMT Tech Sensors and Transect

Vertical injector

NE end of pipeUnderground

lasersWater wells

*=packerPNNL Array

LANL Laser NE end of pipelasers

IRCam

SW d f i2007

(0,0)LANL Laser and weather station

MSU or LICOR

zone 1zone 2zone 3zone 4zone 5zone 6

Plant Study Area

Plant Block

SW end of pipeLANL Trailer

PNNL TrailerLANL EC TowerFalse color flux map is from 2007 release

Underground Fiber Sensor

30000 0.3 m Cell Over Pipe1 m Fiber Over Pipe

Jamie Barr Kevin Repasky

20000

25000

1 m Fiber Over Pipe

on (p

pm)

10000

15000

2 Con

cent

ratio

20 40 60 80 100 120 1400

5000CO

2

Hollow core where the light interacts with the carbon dioxide

Time (hr)

Hyperspectral Imaging

True Color Analyzed Image

Spectral Imaging System:

Imaging Spectrometer, Data Logger/System Control,

Spectral Imaging System:

Imaging Spectrometer, Data Logger/System Control,IMU/GPS/CommunicationsIMU/GPS/Communications

Challenges of Aerial ImagingK i R k

Further geometric

Kevin Repasky

structuresN

IMU correctionFurther geometric

correction

structures

rows of tarps

ZERT Time Series

K i R kJune 24

End of CO2

releaseMay31 June 8 June 13 June14 June 18 June 21 June 25 June 28 July 1

June 3Start of CO2

release

Kevin Repasky

y y

Unsupervised Classification

K i R kKevin Repasky

CO2 hotspots

rows of tarps

K i R kKevin Repasky

Shallow CO2 Flow Modeling (1)C. Oldenburg (LBNL)

TOUGH2/EOS7CA was used to address the origin of patchy emissions at the ZERT shallow-release experiment.

A three-dimensional grid (3D) wasHigh-flux regions correlate A three-dimensional grid (3D) was developed that captures the changes in elevation of the pipe.

High flux regions correlate with packer locations.

3D longitudinal grid with 52,569 gridblocks (4779

19

3D longitudinal grid with 52,569 gridblocks (4779 gridblocks per XY-plane)..

Shallow CO2 Flow Modeling (2)C. Oldenburg (LBNL)

Results suggest that packer locations influence emission patterns.

Base Case (6 zones)

qCO2 = 100 kg CO2/day

Case 1 (23 zones)Three-dimensional results of XgCO2

at t = 3 days showing patchy emission pattern.

Base Case (6 zones) Case 1 (23 zones)

t = 1.5 hr t = 1 5 hrt 5 t = 1.5 hr

t = 12 hr t = 12 hr

• Patches are correlated with packer locations and high-Patches are correlated with packer locations and highelevation regions in each zone in the soil material.

• With more packers (i.e., more zones), there are still early breakthroughs but overall emission is less patchy.

• Therefore, simulations support the hypothesis that along-pipe flo of CO p ards ithin each one leads to an

20

pipe flow of CO2 upwards within each zone leads to an effective point-source release that creates a persistent patchy emission.

Near-surface monitoring technologies were tested at the MSU field sitetested at the MSU field site.

• Surface flux monitoring, soil gas sampling and

Surface flux measurements

soil gas sampling, and perfluorocarbon tracers were tested at the MSU site

• All methods were able to detect plumes at 70to detect plumes at both wells out to 5m

• PFC tracers were most 30

40

50

60

cent

ratio

n (%

vol) 100 cm

60 cm30 cm

sensitive for detection

0

10

20

30

-15 -5 5 15

CO

2 con

c

21

Soil gas measurementsPFC tracer measurementssurface distance from pipe (m)

Topography and wind can significantly affect the migration of CO2 in the near surfacethe migration of CO2 in the near surface.

• Wind blowing over a hill can change the pressure at the

Hill

change the pressure at the atmosphere-soil boundary

• Simulations show that the CO2 will appear at different monitoring locations based on these pressure

Sensitivity to Permeability

40

45

50

m2 /s

)

1 D10 D100 Don these pressure

differences• Hill height, wind speed, soil 10

15

20

25

30

35

surf

ace

flux

(mic

rom

ol/m

permeability were varied 0

5

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

x (m)

22

ZERT Near‐Surface Detection Test SiteLarge number of participants

47 investigators31 instruments / sensor arrays5 univ. 6 DOE labs, 4 companies

S i l I f J lSpecial Issue of Journal

Billings Gazette

ASGARDASGARDArtificial Soil Gassing And Response Detection

The ASGARD facility was established in 2006 as a purpose-built field facility for the study of ecosystem responses to elevated soil gas concentrations and to test monitoring systems for COmonitoring systems for CO2leakage.

ASGARD: Site DesignReplicated experimental plotsp p p

Plot dimensions 2.5 x 2.5 m4 gassed plots per experiment4 ungassed controlsgPermanent grass pasture Plus two crops (different each year )

CO2 supplyTwo 200 litre cryotanksMass flow controllersInjection at a depth of 60 cmSupply rate 1 litre min-1

Soil gas monitoringAccess tubes at 30 cm depth

ASGARD: Monitoring and MeasurementMonitoring techniques g qinclude:

Soil gas and fluxSoil gas and flux mapping

Plant root h h

Gas flux measurements Canopy CO2 measurement with Draeger tubesphotography

ground coverRemote sensing of

with Draeger tubes

Remote sensing of plant stress

Crop biomassC COCanopy CO2 Soil gas concentrations Root photography using

Bartz minrhyzotron

ASGARD L tiASGARD :LocationASGARD is located at N52°,49’60”;W01°,14’60” on the Sutton BoningtonCampus of the University ofNottingham UKNottingham, UK.

For further information, contact:Professor Michael Steven ([email protected])D K S ith (K ith@ tti h k)Dr Karon Smith ([email protected])University of Nottingham, School of Geography, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

ASGARD is currently funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme.

CO2FieldLabSh t j t i f ti f th W k hShort project information for the Workshop

on natural analogues, October 2010Maike-L Buddensiek SINTEF (Norway)Maike L. Buddensiek, SINTEF (Norway)

www.sintef.no/CO2FieldLab

PartnersFrance Norway

Great BritainGreat Britain

Acknowledgments for financial support:CLIMIT via Gassnova SF (NO)DGCIS, Direction générale de la compétitivité, de l'industrie et des services (FR)

www.sintef.no/CO2FieldLab

( )

BackgroundFrom demonstration projects to sequestration deployment: Storage considered as an acceptable option for mitigation of climate change.By 2012, 3 projects for storage in saline aquifers > 5MT CO2 /Y,

/4 projects > 0.5 MT CO2 /Y

Regulatory framework:EU legislation passed December 2008 to be derived state by stateEU legislation passed December 2008, to be derived state by stateMonitoring, Reporting and Accounting protocols are under development.

However the issue of leakagemust be well addressed :However, the issue of leakagemust be well addressed :Safety: Minimize the Health, Safety & Environmental risk Mitigation and early remediationPublic acceptance: credibility of geological storage challengedAccounting: if leakage occurs, emission credits must be surrendered and the site stabilized (EU)

Crucially needed: validated monitoring system for leakagey g y gCurrently: no means to assess such technologies.

Objectivesj

CO2 injection in permeable reservoirShallow (10-30 m)Deep (200 – 300 m, ca. 200 tons in 2-4 weeks)

Determine sensitivity of monitoring systems to detect subsurfacemigration & surface leakageg gUpscale results to assess monitoring systems and requirements ensuring safe CO2 storageTest and calibrate migration models in well controlled conditionsTest and calibrate migration models in well controlled conditions Inform the public about the safety of CO2 storage by showing the performance of monitoring systems

/ f

35

Develop monitoring protocol / certification scheme

Project outline

Phase 1: Appraisal phase / site characterizationPhase 1: Appraisal phase / site characterization(almost completed)

Go / No-go decision depending on site feasibilityGo / No go decision depending on site feasibility(Dec 2010)

Phase 2: Injection and monitoring phasease ject o a d o to g p asea) Shallow injectionb) Deep injection

Phase 3: Project closure

36

Location: 50 km SW of Oslo, Norway

Receives

37

Timeline – phase 1Milestones achieved

Legal groundworkGeoelectric / GPR surveys (Nov 09)Geological reconnaissance (Feb 10)Seismic survey (Mar 10)Seismic survey (Mar 10)Drilling & logging operations (Jun 10)Hydrodynamic testing (Aug 10)

Milestones to comeInjection test (Oct 10)Risk & feasibility analysis (extensive modeling) (Nov 10)Go/no-go decision (Dec 10)

Drilling – June 10

39

Site characterisationGeophysical surface

measurementsWell

measurementsSoil / surface /

atmospheric mmeasurements measurements atmospheric m.

• 2D geoelectric

• 2D GPR

• Bore hole logging (300 m)

• Hydrodynamic testing (6 m)2D GPR

• 2D seismics

( )

• Core sample analysis

g ( )

• Chemical & biological baseline ( )• Injection test (water, soil, gas)

Scenario modeling

Timeline – phase 2 + 3p

Milestones – phase 2July 2011: shallow injection completedSpring 2012: deep injection initiatedSpring 2013: coupled modeling reported, protocolSeptember 2013: final report

Milestones phase 3 (parallel to Phase 2)Milestones - phase 3 (parallel to Phase 2)December 2011: 1st abandonment planSeptember 2013: Site abandoned; project closureSeptember 2013: Site abandoned; project closure

Monitoring of CO2 displacementg 2 pGeophysical surface

measurementsMonitoring well measurements

Soil / surface / atmospheric mmeasurements measurements atmospheric m.

• 4D ERT, SPT

• EM, NMR

MW1: WestBay

• CO2, isotopes,

• Soil gas

• Surface gas: LaserEM, NMR

• Passive seismics

• Active seismics

CO2, isotopes, induction logging, pressure, temp.

Surface gas: Laser gas analyser, accumulation h b

• Time-lapse ERT MW2:

• Permanent electrode

chambers, atmospheric tower

• Shallow wells: waterarray, logging

Shallow wells: water sampling

Modeling: History matchingModeling: History matching

Monitoring of CO2 impactg 2 p

Geophysical surface measurement

Well measurements Soil / surface / atmospheric m.

MW1: WestBay • Water samplingMW1: WestBay• Water sampling• Analysis of bacteria

activity

Water sampling • Analysis of bacteria

activityactivity

CO2 impact study on shallow groundwater Electric Power Research Institute, LLNL

• Scope of Work– Simulate CO2 intrusion into USDW– Observe effects in the field– Model experiment Plant Daniel Test Sitep

• Purpose of StudyAddress stakeholder concerns– Address stakeholder concerns

– Identify indicator parameters– Understand abatement options

Lab studies and modeling suggests that CO2 intrusion into aquifers may mobilize naturally-occurring metals and compromising quality of water. Field pilot projects provide field test-occurring metals and compromising quality of water. Field pilot projects provide field test

beds to understand the reality of this issue.

Withdraw H2O Inject H2O/CO2

Withdraw

Fl

Diffuser

Monitor Water QualityInject

Flow

Depth (ft)

0

20

Shallow Soils20

40

60 Confining Unit80

100

Confining Unit

120

140

160

Confining Unit

160

180 Confining Unit

Experiment design and monitoring

Treat 2 gpm with CO2

Pump at 5 gpm

PW-1 Inject 2 gpm

Groundwater flowMW-2

MW-4

Groundwater flow

MW-3IW-1MW-1

BW-1

PW = Pumping WellMW = Monitoring WellsIW = Injection WelljBW = Background Well

IEAGHG Meeting - Natural Releases of CO2

Ginninderra Controlled Release F ilitFacility

• Joint CO2CRC-Geoscience Australia projectp j• Located on CSIRO Plant Industry Ginninderra

Experiment Station (Canberra); deep yellow podzolic soils; sandy loam to heavy clay; gravel to 1cmsoils; sandy loam to heavy clay; gravel to 1cm.

• 15 min from centre of Canberra• Funding secured for 3 years, provisions for 2 release

icampaigns per year• Maximum release 600 CO2 kg/d


ObjectiveObject e

• Provide a greenhouse gas controlled releaseProvide a greenhouse gas controlled release facility to enable researchers from Australia and internationally to test and optimise y pgreenhouse gas monitoring equipment, techniques and quantitative emission models

• Interested in atmospheric, soil, biological and potentially groundwater studies


Ginninderra Controlled Release F ilitFacility

• Phase 1 – test ‘front end’ of system with above ground release

• Phase 2 – ZERT like horizontal well 3m underground but above water table (install December 2010). Release planned for April/May 2011

• Potential to install 2nd

horizontal well below groundwater table – provide an “area” release source


Current atmospheric tomography i t (Ph 1 l )experiment (Phase 1 release)

• Collaboration between CO2CRC, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Wollongong and Geoscience Australia

• 8 Vaisala GMP343 instruments and co-located air intake8 Vaisala GMP343 instruments and co located air intake ports 20m from central release point

• CH4, CO2, N2O, C-13, H2O measured continuously using FTIRFTIR

• Releasing 30L/min CO2 and 0.05L/min N2O• Locate size and location of leak within array using y g

Bayesian methods


Co-located air sampling ports and CO2sensors


Like to use the facility?e to use t e ac ty

Please contact:Please contact:

Charles Jenkins ([email protected])or

Andrew Feitz ([email protected]))


Environmental Technology for Carbon DioxideEnvironmental Technology for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Aquifers

• Technical University of Denmark

• University of Copenhagen

• Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

• Aarhus University

• Rambol

V f ll• Vattenfall

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (USA)

• ETH (Switzerland)

H i t W tt U i it (UK)• Herriot‐Watt University (UK)

Funded by Danish Strategic Research Council

Work Package 2, 3 and 4: An injection of CO2 in a shallow groundwater system

Land acquisition and planning• Land acquisition and planning stage.

• Negotiations with 2 sites;o Kalundborg, Zealand (1)g ( )o Oksbol, Jutland (2)

• Unconfined aquifer (15 m) underlain by clay (5 m) and further confined system (20+ m)

1further confined system (20+ m).

• Sand and gravel. 2

The Experiment: Simulation of a leake pe e t: S u at o o a ea• Field site dimensions; 50 m length, 20 m width• Enforced gradient by abstraction/injection wells• CO2 injected at aquifer base (approx. 15 – 20 m.b.g.l) in gas phasej q ( pp g ) g p• Array of multi-level monitoring wells and geophysical instruments• Release rate and duration to be determined • Potentially “detectable” and “undetectable” rates (ZERT), 3 – 6 month release• CO release to commence Summer 2011• CO2 release to commence Summer 2011

Project Aims and Key Focusj yTo elucidate effects on hydrogeology, geochemistry and hydraulics• Full water chemistry analysis from multi-level monitoring well array• Sediment analysis before and after releasey• Particular interest in trace metals• Hydraulic analysis before, during and after release with tracers and

pressure transducers• Assessment of current geochemical models ability to predict results• Assessment of current geochemical models ability to predict results

To determine suitability of geophysical techniques to detect CO2contamination• 3D resistivity time lapse monitoring of resistivity changes in the

subsurface associated with the injection of CO2• magneto resonance sounding applied to map the water content and

form 3D reconstruction of changes in resistivity and waterform 3D reconstruction of changes in resistivity and water saturation.

• The TOUGH code used to establish a 3D numerical multi-phase flow model for the field site

Contact: Aaron Cahill – [email protected]

BRAZILIAN EXPERIMENTAL CO2 CONTROLLED RELEASE SITE

PROJECT IN PLANNING PHASE

SITE LOCATION:

Ressacada’s Farm of Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) ‐ Florianopolis city inSanta Catarina state (southern Brazil) where there are field experiments oncontaminant transport and remediation of groundwater impacted by spills of oil andp g p y pderivatives since 1998.

Figure 1: Location of Ressacada’s Farm (Chiaranda, 2006).

Chiaranda, H.S. 2006. BTEX Volatilization in Subsurface Environments Contaminated with Ethanol Blended Gasoline: Comparison Between Measured and Simulated Concentrations.Master's Thesis. Federal University of Santa Catarina. 95 p.

Figure 2: Aerial view of Ressacada’s Farm ‐ highlighted area (modif. from Google Maps).

http://maps.google.com.br/

SITE DESIGN

BRAZILIAN EXPERIMENTAL CO2 CONTROLLED RELEASE SITE

Initial proposal: horizontal well installed below the water table (approx. 1,5m)

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT• Brazilian capacity building on CO monitoring techniques;• Brazilian capacity building on CO2 monitoring techniques;• to test efficacy and detection limits for near‐surface monitoring techniques;• to test new (real time) CO2 monitoring tools

MONITORING TECHNIQUES TO BE EMPLOYED• multi‐depth soil gas monitoring,• soil flux chambers,• water chemistry• water chemistry,• plant health,• resistivity methods,• atmospheric measurements,• real time monitoring techniques

ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE• 2010: planning phase2010: planning phase• 2011: infrastructure installation and Time Zero monitoring• from 2012: operational phase

COLLABORATORS

PETROBRAS Research Center (CENPES)PETROBRAS Research Center (CENPES)

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) – Ground Water Remediation Laboratory(REMAS)

Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) ‐ Brazilian Carbon StorageResearch Center (CEPAC) Clarissa Melo [[email protected]]

Nuclear and Energy Research Institute (IPEN) ‐ Lasers and Applications Center

São Paulo State University (UNESP)

Certi Foundation (CERTI)

spangler, monitoring controlled rel. rel worksop... · lanl trailer lanl ec tower pnnl trailer. ......

Documents