Advertisement

Proppant Crushing Mechanisms Under Reservoir Conditions: Insights into Long-Term Integrity of Unconventional Energy Production

  • K. M. A. S. Bandara
  • P. G. RanjithEmail author
  • T. D. Rathnaweera
Review Paper
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Proppant crushing, a major proppant failure mechanism, occurs in geothermal energy and oil/gas stimulation production stages when the level of net stress exerted on the proppant exceeds the actual crush resistance of the material. Loss of effective reservoir conductivity due to proppant crushing can result in significant loss in productivity, and so it is crucial to understand the realistic proppant mechanical performances under deep reservoir conditions. This review provides a comprehensive overview of proppant crushing at the micro- to macro-levels by analyzing single proppant breakage, as well as re-arrangement and breakage mechanisms of proppant packs under in situ fracture environments. The choice of an appropriate proppant type based on the fracture treatment plays a key role in effective geothermal and oil/gas recovery. In addition, injection of proppants with better characteristics (higher sphericity, lower size, better gradation and lower granular porosity) can significantly influence the reduction of the extent of proppant crushing. Moreover, this study compares the performances and responses of different types of proppants upon proppant interaction with geothermal and oil/gas reservoir environments. Furthermore, this paper discusses various proppant types and their enhanced characteristics, which can be utilized as controlling measures for proppant crushing during unconventional energy extraction.

Keywords

Hydraulic fracturing Unconventional oil/gas resources Proppant Proppant crushing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to all the reviewers who provided constructive comments to help to improve the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aderibigbe, A. A., Valdes, C. C., Heidari, Z., & Fuss-Dezelic, T. (2017). Mechanical-damage characterization in proppant packs by use of acoustic measurements. SPE Production & Operations, 32(2), 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altuhafi, F. N., & Coop, M. R. (2011). Changes to particle characteristics associated with the compression of sands. Geotechnique, 61(6), 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altuhafi, F. N., Coop, M. R., & Georgiannou, V. N. (2016). Effect of particle shape on the mechanical behavior of natural sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(12), 04016071-1–04016071-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aman, S., Tomas, J., & Kalman, H. (2010). Breakage probability of irregularly shaped particles. Chemical Engineering Science, 65(5), 1503–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonyuk, S., Tomas, J., Heinrich, S., & Mörl, L. (2005). Breakage behaviour of spherical granulates by compression. Chemical Engineering Science, 60(14), 4031–4044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Assem, A. I., & Nasr-El-Din, H. A. (2017). Interactions between different acids and bauxitic-based ceramic proppants used in gravel-packed and fractured wells. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 158, 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Assem, A. I., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Fuss, T., Shi, J., & Herskovits, R. (2017). Mud-acid interactions with sand and clay-based ceramic proppants used in gravel-packed and fractured wells. SPE Production & Operations, 32(02), 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandara, K. M. A. S., Ranjith, P. G., Rathnaweera, T. D., Perera, M. S. A., & Kumari, W. G. P. (2018). Thermally-induced mechanical behaviour of a single proppant under compression: Insights into the long-term integrity of hydraulic fracturing in geothermal reservoirs. Measurement, 120, 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barati, R., & Liang, J. T. (2014). A review of fracturing fluid systems used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 131(16), 40735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becq, D., Claude, R., & Sarda, J. (1984). High-strength proppants behavior under extreme conditions. In SPE formation damage control symposium (pp. 147–156). Society of Petroleum Engineers.Google Scholar
  11. Bose, C. C., Gul, A., Fairchild, B., Jones, T., & Barati, R. (2015) Nano-proppants for fracture conductivity improvement and fluid loss reduction. In SPE western regional meeting 2015: Old Horizons, New Horizons through enabling technology (pp. 651–665).Google Scholar
  12. Bremer, J. M., Mibeck, B., Huffman, B. L., Gorecki, C. D., Sorensen, J. A., Schmidt, D. D., et al. (2010). Mechanical and Geochemical Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing Proppants Exposed to Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide. Paper presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Breval, E., Jennings, J. S., Komarneni, S., MacMillan, N. H., & Lunghofer, E. P. (1987). Microstructure, strength and environmental degradation of proppants. Journal of Materials Science, 22(6), 2124–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brinton, D., McLin, K., & Moore, J. (2011). The chemical stability of bauxite and quartz sand proppants under geothermal conditions. In Thirty-sixth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering, SGP-TR-191.Google Scholar
  15. Cavarretta, I., O’Sullivan, C., & Coop, M. R. (2017). The relevance of roundness to the crushing strength of granular materials. Geotechnique, 67(4), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cavarretta, I., & O’Sullivan, C. (2012). The mechanics of rigid irregular particles subject to uniaxial compression. Geotechnique, 62(8), 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheung, S. K. (1988). Effects of acids on gravels and proppants. SPE Production Engineering, 3(2), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Childers, I. M., Endres, M., Burns, C., Garcia, B. J., Liu, J., Wietsma, T. W., et al. (2017). Novel highly dispersible thermally, stable core/shell proppants for geothermal applications. Geothermics, 70(Supplement 2), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cipolla, C. L., Warpinski, N. R., Mayerhofer, M. J., Lolon, E., & Vincent, M. C. (2008). The Relationship between Fracture Complexity, Reservoir Properties, and Fracture Treatment Design. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Coulter, G. R., & Wells, R. D. (1972). The Advantages of High Proppant Concentration in Fracture Stimulation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24(06), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dan, C., & Schubert, H. (1990). Breakage probability, progeny size distribution and energy utilization of comminution by impact. Aufbereitungs-Technik, 31(5), 241–247.Google Scholar
  22. Danzer, R., Supancic, P., Pascual, J., & Lube, T. (2007). Fracture statistics of ceramics—Weibull statistics and deviations from Weibull statistics. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 74(18), 2919–2932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Silva, R. V., Ranjith, P. G., & Perera, M. S. A. (2016). An alternative to conventional rock fragmentation methods using SCDA: a review. Energies, 9(11), 958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deon, F., Regenspurg, S., & Zimmermann, G. (2013). Geochemical interactions of Al2O3-based proppants with highly saline geothermal brines at simulated in situ temperature conditions. Geothermics, 47, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duenckel, R., Conway, M. W., Eldred, B., & Vincent, M. C. (2011). Proppant diagenesis- integrated analyses provide new insights into origin, occurrence, and implications for proppant performance. In Society of petroleum engineersSPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference 2011 (pp. 98-124)Google Scholar
  26. Dusterhoft, R., Nguyen, P., & Conway, M. (2004). Maximizing effective proppant permeability under high-stress, high gas-rate conditions. In SPE Annual Technical Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, E. R., Anschutz, D. A., Rickards, A. R., & Callanan, M. J. (2009). Modified API/ISO crush tests with a liquid-saturated proppant under pressure incorporating temperature, time, and cyclic loading: What does it tell us? In Society of Petroleum EngineersSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference (pp. 123–129).Google Scholar
  28. Fu, L., Zhang, G., Ge, J., Liao, K., Jiang, P., Pei, H., et al. (2016). Surface modified proppants used for proppant flowback control in hydraulic fracturing. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 507, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gabbott, I., Chouk, V., Pitt, M. J., Gorham, D. A., & Salman, A. D. (2007). Chapter 27 descriptive classification: Failure modes of particles by compression. In A. D. Salman, M. Ghadiri, & M. J. Hounslow (Eds.), Handbook of Powder Technology (Vol. 12, pp. 1121–1148). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Ghosh, S., Rai, C. S., Sondergeld, C. H., & Larese, R. E. (2014). Experimental Investigation of Proppant Diagenesis. Paper presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference—Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Glover, P. (2001). Formation Evaluation MSc Course Notes. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  32. Gomez, V., Alexander, S., & Barron, A. R. (2017). Proppant immobilization facilitated by carbon nanotube mediated microwave treatment of polymer-proppant structures. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 513, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenwood, J. A., & Tripp, J. H. (1964). The elastic contact of rough spheres. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions ASME, 34(1), 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Han, J., & Wang, J. Y. (2014). Fracture Conductivity Decrease Due to Proppant Deformation and Crushing, a Parametrical Study. Paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Herskovits, R., Fuss-Dezelic, T., Shi, J., Wilcox, C., & Kaul, T. (2016). Sand and ceramic proppant performance in thin layer/monolayer conditions subjected to cyclic stress. In SPE Eastern Regional Meeting.  https://doi.org/10.2118/184061-MS.
  36. Hertz, H. (1896). Miscellaneous Papers by H. Hertz. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Hu, K., Sun, J., Wong, J., & Hall, B. E. (2014). Proppants selection based on field case studies of well production performance in the Bakken shale play. In Society of petroleum engineers Western North America and rocky mountain joint conference and exhibition 2014 (Vol. 2, pp. 773–792).Google Scholar
  38. Huang, J., Xu, S., & Hu, S. (2013). Effects of grain size and gradation on the dynamic responses of quartz sands. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 59, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IEA. (2018). International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/. Accessed 05/04/2018 2018.
  40. Jiang, X. C., Zeng, Q. H., Chen, C. Y., & Yu, A. B. (2011). Self-assembly of particles: Some thoughts and comments. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 21(42), 16797–16805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, C. G., Simmons, S. F., & Moore, J. N. (2014). Proppant behavior under simulated geothermal reservoir conditions. In Proceedings, thirty-ninth workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering (pp. 24–26).Google Scholar
  42. Kaiser, M. J., & Yu, Y. (2012). A scenario-based hydrocarbon production forecast for Louisiana. Natural Resources Research, 21(1), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kendall, K. (1988). Agglomerate strength. Powder Metallurgy, 31, 28–31.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, C. M., & Willingham, J. R. (1987). Flow Response of Propped Fracture to Repeated Production Cycles. In Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, (Paper) SPE (Vol. Pi, pp. 351–359).Google Scholar
  45. Kurz, B., Schmidt, D., & Cortese, P. (2013). Investigation of improved Conductivity and Proppant Applications in the Bakken Formation. In Society of Petroleum EngineersSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference 2013 (pp. 382–394)Google Scholar
  46. Lacy, L. L., Rickards, A. R., & Ali, S. A. (1997). Embedment and Fracture Conductivity in Soft Formations Associated with HEC, Borate and Water-Based Fracture Designs. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  47. Lade, P. V., Yamamuro, J. A., & Bopp, P. A. (1996). Significance of particle crushing in granular materials. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(4), 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Legarth, B., Huenges, E., & Zimmermann, G. (2005). Hydraulic fracturing in a sedimentary geothermal reservoir: Results and implications. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(7), 1028–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Li, H., Wang, K., Xie, J., Li, Y., & Zhu, S. (2016). A new mathematical model to calculate sand-packed fracture conductivity. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 35, 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liang, F., Sayed, M., Al-Muntasheri, G. A., Chang, F. F., & Li, L. (2016). A comprehensive review on proppant technologies. Petroleum, 2(1), 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lobo-Guerrero, S. (2006). Evaluation of crushing in granular materials using the discrete element method and fractal theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  52. Man, S., & Wong, C. K. R. (2017). Compression and crushing behavior of ceramic proppants and sand under high stresses. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 158, 268–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mattson, E. D., Neupane, G., Plummer, M., Jones, C., & Moore, J. Long-term Sustainability of fracture conductivity in geothermal systems using proppants. In 41st workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2016 (Vol. SGP-TR-209).Google Scholar
  54. Maurer, E. (1980). Geothermal fracture stimulation technology. Volume II. High-temperature proppant testing. Santa Fe Springs, California, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  55. McDowell, G. R., & Bolton, M. D. (1998). On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Geotechnique, 48(5), 667–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McLin, K., Brinton, D., Mandalaparty, P., Jones, C., & Moore, J. (2010). The chemical and thermal stability of proppants under geothermal conditions. In 2010 AIChE Annual Meeting, 10AIChE Google Scholar
  57. Mittal, A., Rai, C. S., & Sondergeld, C. H. (2018). Proppant-conductivity testing under simulated reservoir conditions: impact of crushing, embedment, and diagenesis on long-term production in shales. SPE Journal, 23(04), 1304–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Montgomery, C. T., & Smith, M. B. (2010). Hydraulic fracturing: History of an enduring technology. JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 62(12), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Much, M. G., & Penny, G. S. (1987). Long-Term Performance of Proppants under Simulated Reservoir Conditions. In Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, (Paper) SPE (pp. 257–266).Google Scholar
  60. Nakata, Y., Kato, Y., Hyodo, M., Hyde, A. F., & Murata, H. (2001). One-dimensional compression behaviour of uniformly graded sand related to single particle crushing strength. Soils and Foundations, 41(2), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nguyen, D. H., Azéma, E., Radjai, F., & Sornay, P. (2015). Evolution of particle size distributions in crushable granular materials. In Geomechanics from micro to macroproceedings of the TC105 ISSMGE international symposium on geomechanics from micro to macro, IS-Cambridge 2014 (Vol. 1, pp. 275–280).Google Scholar
  62. Nguyen, P., Weaver, J., & Rickman, R. (2008). Prevention of geochemical scaling in hydraulically created fractures: Laboratory and field studies. In Society of petroleum engineersSPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting 2008 (pp. 524–545).Google Scholar
  63. Osiptsov, A. A. (2017). Hydraulic fracture conductivity: Effects of rod-shaped proppant from lattice-Boltzmann simulations and lab tests. Advances in Water Resources, 104, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palisch, T. T., Duenckel, R., Chapman, M. A., Woolfolk, S., & Vincent, M. (2010). How to Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests: Exposing the Top 10 Myths. Paper presented at the In SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas.Google Scholar
  65. Palisch, T. T., Vincent, M. C., & Handren, P. J. (2008). Slickwater fracturing—Food for thought. In ProceedingsSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Vol. 4, pp. 2195–2214).Google Scholar
  66. Parker, M. A., Ramurthy, K., & Sanchez, P. W. (2012). New proppant for hydraulic fracturing improves well performance and decreases environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing operations. In SPE Eastern Regional Meeting (pp. 244–253).Google Scholar
  67. Raysoni, N., & Weaver, J. D. (2012). Long-term proppant performance. Paper presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA.Google Scholar
  68. Reinicke, A., Rybacki, E., Stanchits, S., Huenges, E., & Dresen, G. (2010). Hydraulic fracturing stimulation techniques and formation damage mechanisms—Implications from laboratory testing of tight sandstone–proppant systems. Chemie der Erde—Geochemistry, 70(Supplement 3), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reynolds, G. K., Fu, J. S., Cheong, Y. S., Hounslow, M. J., & Salman, A. D. (2005). Breakage in granulation: A review. Chemical Engineering Science, 60(14), 3969–3992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roberts, S. S., Binder, M. S., & Lane, R. H. (1990). Strength, volume and weight loss of gravels and proppants due to HF-based acids. Paper presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  71. Rozenblat, Y., Portnikov, D., Levy, A., Kalman, H., Aman, S., & Tomas, J. (2011). Strength distribution of particles under compression. Powder Technology, 208(1), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rumpf, H. (1962). The strength of granules and agglomerates. Agglomeration (pp. 379–418). New York: AIME, Interscience.Google Scholar
  73. Sato, K., Wright, C. A., & Ichikawa, M. (1998). Post-Frac Analyses Indicating Multiple Fractures Created in a Volcanic Formation. Paper presented at the In SPE india oil and gas conference and exhibition.Google Scholar
  74. Schubarth, S. K., Chabaud, R. A., & Einhorn, R.B. (1994). Moxa arch frontier formation development success through increased fracture conductivity. In ProceedingsSPE annual technical conference and exhibition (pt 1 ed., Vol. Sigma, pp. 525–532).Google Scholar
  75. Schubarth, S., & Milton-Tayler, D. (2004). Investigating how proppant packs change under stress. In ProceedingsSPE annual technical conference and exhibition (pp. 3181–3187).Google Scholar
  76. Singh, D., McGlinchey, D., & Crapper, M. (2016). Breakage functions of particles of four different materials subjected to uniaxial compression. Particulate Science and Technology, 34(4), 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Speight, J. G. (2016). Handbook of Hydraulic Fracturing (Handbook of Hydraulic Fracturing). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stephens, W. T., Schubarth, S. K., Dickson, K. R., Snyder, E. M., Doles, K. J., & Herndon, D. C. (2007). Behavior of proppants under cyclic stress. In SPEhydraulic fracturing technology conference 2007 (Vol. 2007, pp. 524–530).Google Scholar
  79. Tang, Q., Xue, G. H., Yang, S. J., Wang, K., & Cui, X. M. (2017). Study on the preparation of a free-sintered inorganic polymer-based proppant using the suspensions solidification method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tavares, L. M., & King, R. P. (1998). Single-particle fracture under impact loading. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 54(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Terracina, J. M., Turner, J. M., Collins, D. H., & Spillars, S. (2010). Proppant Selection and Its Effect on the Results of Fracturing Treatments Performed in Shale Formations. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  82. Vincent, M. C. (2002). Proving It—A review of 80 published field studies demonstrating the importance of increased fracture conductivity. In ProceedingsSPE annual technical conference and exhibition (pp. 2875–2895).Google Scholar
  83. Vincent, M. C. (2009). Examining our assumptionsHave oversimplifications jeopardized our ability to design optimal fracture treatments? Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas.Google Scholar
  84. Wang, W., & Coop, M. R. (2016). An investigation of breakage behaviour of single sand particles using a high-speed microscope camera. Geotechnique, 66(12), 984–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weaver, J. D., Rickman, R. D., & Luo, H. (2010). Fracture-conductivity loss caused by geochemical interactions between man-made proppants and formations. SPE Journal, 15(1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weibull, W. (1939). A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Stockholm: Generalstabens litografiska anstalts förlag.Google Scholar
  87. Whitesides, G. M., & Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at all scales. Science, 295(5564), 2418–2421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitsitt, N., & Dysart, G. (1970). The effect of temperature on stimulation design. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 22(04), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wu, X., Huo, Z., Ren, Q., Li, H., Lin, F., & Wei, T. (2017). Preparation and characterization of ceramic proppants with low density and high strength using fly ash. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 702, 442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ye, X., Ganley, T., Morris, J. F., Tonmukayakul, N., & Parker, M. A. (2009). Uniaxial compression of dense granular materials: Stress distribution and permeability. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 65(3–4), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zhang, J., Zhu, D., & Daniel Hill, A. (2015). A new theoretical method to calculate shale fracture conductivity based on the population balance equation. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 134, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zoveidavianpoor, M., & Gharibi, A. (2016). Characterization of agro-waste resources for potential use as proppant in hydraulic fracturing. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 36, 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations