Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

Luwa sand was characterized and used to design a proppant for reservoir stimulation/hydraulic fracturing applications. This involves describing the sand in terms of its physicochemical properties, including Sieve analysis, proppant sphericity and roundness measurement, acid solubility measurement, turbidity test, bulk density measurement, proppant crush-resistance test and loss on ignition test (LOI). Additional tests on hardness and elemental (XRF) were also conducted. X-ray fluorescence analysis of the sand indicates that the sand contains higher percentages of Aluminium oxide (Al₂O₃) than Silicon oxide (SiO₂). The hardness test on the Mohs scale confirmed the sand materials as topaz, i.e. not purely corundum (a crystalline form of aluminium oxide) or purely quartz with a hardness value of 8. This value is more complex than silicon oxide, with a hardness value of 7, and less than corundum, with a hardness value of 9. The Luwa sand is uniformly graded; more than 90% of the sand falls within the specified particle range of 20/40 mesh size. The 20/40 mesh-designed proppant shows favourable qualities for consideration as a proppant. However, the sand exhibits low crush resistance at pressures of 3000 psi and, therefore, cannot be applied in reservoirs with closure stress of up to 3000 psi. Because of the low crush strength of Luwa sand, gum Arabic resin was used to coat the sand for improved mechanical and chemical stability. The new resin-coated sand was further tested for crush resistance and acid solubility. The result shows a significant improvement in the crush resistance above 3000 psi with less than 5% fines generated. Generally, the uncoated sand produces less than 10% fines at stresses less than 3000 psi and is considered to have a 2 K value, while the resin-coated proppant generates 10% fines above 6000 psi. The resin coated can be classified as having a 5K value and can be applied in reservoirs with closure stress of up to 5000 psi or less.

Hydraulic fracturing; sand; proppant; resin; gum arabic; crush resistance; closure stress; reservoir stimulation

1. Gale, J. F. W., Laubach, S. E., Olson, J. E., Eichhuble, P., & Fall, A. (2014). Natural Fractures in shale: A review and new observations. AAPG Bulletin, 98(11), 2165–2216. doi: 10.1306/08121413151

2. Mehmood, F., Liao, J., Hou, M. Z., Zahoor, M. K., & Xiong, Y. (2022). Optimization of hydraulic fracturing with rod-shaped proppants for improved recovery in tight gas reservoirs. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources, 8(1). doi: 10.1007/s40948-022-00347-9

3. Kamel, A., Salem, Z., Chemini, R., Khodja, M., & Allia, K. (2018). Characterization of natural sand proppant used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Particulate Science and Technology, 37(6), 716–724. doi: 10.1080/02726351.2018.1438542

4. Sun, H., He, B., Xu, H., Zhou, F., Zhang, M., Li, H., Yin, G., Chen, S., Xu, X., & Li, B. (2022). Experimental Investigation on the Fracture Conductivity Behavior of Quartz Sand and Ceramic Mixed Proppants. ACS Omega, 7(12), 10243–10254. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c06828

5. Beckwith, R. (2011). Proppants: Where in the World. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 63(04), 36–41. doi: 10.2118/0411-0036-jpt

6. Lutynski, M., Janus, D., & Zimny, M. (2015). Comparison of selected properties of Natural and Ceramic Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.potopk.com.pl/Full_text/2015_full/IM%202-2015-a48.pdf

7. Bandara, K. M. A. S., Ranjith, P. G., Zheng, W., Tannant, D. D., De Silva, V. R. S., & Rathnaweera, T. D. (2022). Grain-scale analysis of proppant crushing and embedment using calibrated discrete element models. Acta Geotechnica, 17(11), 4837–4864. doi: 10.1007/s11440-022-01575-9

8. Guo, T., Wang, Y., Du, Z., Chen, M., Liu, D., Liu, X., & Rui, Z. (2021). Evaluation of Coated Proppant Unconventional Performance. Energy & Fuels, 35(11), 9268–9277. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00187

9. Akkal, R., & Khodja, M. (2020). Comparison of chosen sands from Algerian quarry and dune aeolian as proppants used in hydraulic fracturing engineering. Journal of fundamental and applied sciences, 12(1S), 196–214.

10. Xu, F., Yao, K., Li, D., Xu, D., & Yang, H. (2022). Study on the Effect of Acid Corrosion on Proppant Properties. Energies, 15(22), 8368. doi: 10.3390/en15228368

11. Nep, E. I., & Conway, B. J. (2010). Characterization of Grewia Gum, a potential pharmaceutical excipient. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45718453_Characterization_of_Grewia_Gum_a_Potential_Pharmaceutical_Excipient

12. Palisch, T. T., Duenckel, R. J., Chapman, M. A., Woolfolk, S., & Vincent, M. C. (2009). How to Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests -- Exposing the Top 10 Myths. All Days. doi: 10.2118/119242-ms

13. Palisch, T., Wilson, B., & Duenckel, B. (2014). New Technology Yields Ultra High-Strength Proppant. All Days. doi: 10.2118/168631-ms

14. Coulter, G. R., & Wells, R. D. (1972). The Advantages of High Proppant Concentration in Fracture Stimulation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24(06), 643–650. doi: 10.2118/3298-pa