How To Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests: Exposing the Top 10 Myths
- Terrence T. Palisch (CARBO Ceramics) | Robert Duenckel (CARBO Ceramics) | Mark Aaron Chapman (CARBO Ceramics) | Scott Woolfolk (CARBO Ceramics) | Michael Vincent (Insight Consulting)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- August 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 345 - 354
- 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.5.1 Fracture design and containment, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 4.1.2 Separation and Treating
- Production and Operations
- 4 in the last 30 days
- 896 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
When the American Petroleum Institute (API) established standardized crush-testing procedures (API RP-56 1983), the committee indicated that the test results should "provide indications of the stress level where proppant crushing is excessive and the maximum stress to which the proppant material should be subjected." However, over time, many have forgotten not only how the test is conducted, but also its original intent. As such, many now unintentionally misapply the results of crush testing as they select proppants for their fracture designs.
This paper will review the top 10 myths associated with crush testing and its interpretation, addressing such common questions as
- Do standard test conditions (high proppant concentration and low temperature) provide realistic predictions of proppant performance?
- Should proppant be tested wet or dry?
- Does the loading procedure affect crush?
- What happens if proppant is not distributed uniformly in a fracture?Do all proppants fail in the same manner?
- Are all proppant types equally damaged by 5% crush?
- How can the industry misuse the test to report "superior" results?
Readers of this paper will be armed with a better understanding of how crush testing is performed, how crush results can be misapplied, and the correct use of crush-test results. In addition, the authors will present an alternative methodology for evaluating proppant that incorporates all of the benefits gained from crush testing, but avoids the common pitfalls. Armed with this information readers can improve the design of fracture treatments, thereby achieving increased production rates and superior economic returns.
|File Size||580 KB||Number of Pages||10|
API RP 56, Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in HydraulicFracturing Operations. 1983. Washington, DC: API.
API RP 58, Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel PackingOperations, second edition. 1995. Washington, DC: API.
API RP 60, Recommended Practices for Testing High Strength Proppants Usedin Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, second edition. 1995. Washington, DC:API.
Coulter, G.R. and Wells, R.D. 1972. The Advantages of High ProppantConcentration in Fracture Stimulation. J Pet Technol 24(6): 643-650. SPE-3298-PA. doi: 10.2118/3298-PA.
Cutler, R.A., Enniss, D.O., Jones, A.H., and Swanson, S.R. 1985. Fracture Conductivity Comparison ofCeramic Proppants. SPE J. 25 (2): 157-170.SPE-11634-PA. doi: 10.2118/11634-PA.
Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W. 2001. Experimental Study of FractureConductivity for Water-Fracturing and Conventional Fracturing Applications.SPE J. 6 (3): 288-298. SPE-74138-PA. doi:10.2118/74138-PA.
Gidley, J.L., Penny, G.S., and McDaniel, R.R. 1992. Effect of Proppant Failure and FinesMigration on Conductivity of Propped Fractures. SPE Prod & Fac 10 (1): 20-25. SPE-24008-PA. doi: 10.2118/24008-PA.
ISO 13503-2:2006, Petroleum and natural gas industries--Completion fluidsand materials--Part 2: Measurement of properties of proppants used in hydraulicfracturing and gravel packing operations. 2006. Geneva, Switzerland:ISO.
McDaniel, R.R. and Willingham, J.R. 1978. The Effect of Various Proppants andProppant Mixtures on Fracture Permeability. Paper SPE 7573 presented at theSPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 1-3 October. doi:10.2118/7573-MS.
Palisch, T., Duenckel, R., Bazan, L., Heidt, H.J., and Turk, G. 2007. Determining Realistic FractureConductivity and Understanding Its Impact on Well Performance--Theory and FieldExamples. Paper SPE 106301 presented at the SPE Hydraulic FracturingTechnology Conference, College Station, Texas, USA, 29-31 January. doi:10.2118/106301-MS.
Saint-Gobain Proppants. 2006. Interprop 20/40 specifications, http://www.proppants.saint-gobain.com/en/ipSpecs2040a.html(accessed 1996, 1998, and 2004 as Norton-Alcoa Proppants).
Saucier, R.J. 1974. Considerations in Gravel PackDesign. J Pet Technol 26 (2): 205-212. SPE-4030-PA.doi: 10.2118/4030-PA.
Schubarth, S. and Milton-Tayler, D. 2004. Investigating How Proppant PacksChange Under Stress. Paper SPE 90562 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September. doi: 10.2118/90562-MS.
Spon, E., Byrne, O., and Spon, E. ed. 1874. Spon's Dictionary ofEngineering, Civil, Mechanical, Military and Naval; with technical terms inFrench, German, Italian, and Spanish, Division VIII. London: E. & F.N.Spon.
Stim-Lab Proppant and Fluid Consortium. 1986-2008. http://www.corelab.com/pe/stimlab/Consortia/Consortia.aspx.
Vincent, M.C. 2009. ExaminingOur Assumptions--Have Oversimplifications Jeopardized Our Ability to DesignOptimal Fracture Treatments? Paper SPE 119143 presented at the SPEHydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19-21January. doi: 10.2118/119143-MS.