A Comprehensive Review of Proppant Embedment in Shale Reservoirs Experimentation, Modeling and Future Prospects

Journal Pre-proof
A comprehensive review of proppant embedment in shale reservoirs:

Experimentation, modeling and future prospects
Allan Katende, Lisa O’Connell, Ashley Rich, Jonny Rutqvist,

Mileva Radonjic
PII: S1875-5100(21)00344-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104143
Reference: JNGSE 104143
To appear in: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Received date : 6 May 2021

Revised date : 24 June 2021
Accepted date : 7 July 2021
Please cite this article as: A. Katende, L. O’Connell, A. Rich et al., A comprehensive review of
proppant embedment in shale reservoirs: Experimentation, modeling and future prospects. Journal
of Natural Gas Science and Engineering (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104143.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Journal Pre-proof
1 A comprehensive review of proppant embedment in shale reservoirs:

2 Experimentation, modeling and future prospects
3 Allan Katendea , Lisa O’Connellb , Ashley Richc , Jonny Rutqvistd , Mileva Radonjica,e,∗
of
4
a School of Chemical Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 420 Engineering North: Stillwater, Oklahoma(OK) 74078, United States of America (USA).
5
b Stim-Lab Inc. Core Laboratories, Duncan, Oklahoma(OK),73533, United States of America (USA).
6
c PropTester Inc, 17222 Huffmeister Road Cypress, Texas(TX) 77429, United States of America (USA).
7
d Energy Geosciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California(CA) 94720, United States of America (USA).
8
e Boone Pickens School of Geology, Oklahoma State University, 105 Noble Research Center, Stillwater, OK 74075, United States of America (USA).
pro
9 Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive review on the application of proppants to maintain fracture permeability over the lifetime
of a well based on published observations from experiments and modeling. The review identifies and describes important
processes occurring during proppant embedment, during hydraulic fracturing, laboratory testing of fracture conductivity,
re-
proppant embedment and modeling of proppant embedment. Finally, this paper identifies the challenges and knowledge gaps
that also provide future avenues of research and opportunities for collaborative technological development which requires an
interdisciplinary approach of science, engineering in academia, government, and private sector.

10 Keywords: Shale Gas, Tight oil, Hydraulic Fracturing, Proppant Embedment, Fracture Conductivity, Horizontal drilling.
lP
11 Contents 35 5.4 Indentation Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
36 5.5 Flow-through Testing coupled with X-ray
37 Computed Tomography . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12 1 Introduction 2
13 2 Methodology 5 38 6 Modelling of Proppant embedment during hy-
39 draulic fracturing and production 24
rna
14 3 Proppants: history, source, mineralogy, shape & 40 6.1 Proppant embedment modeling . . . . . . . 24
15 size, mechanical and chemical stability 6 41 6.2 Proppant settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
42 6.3 Proppant Compaction and Deformation . . 27
16 4 Proppant Embedment and Fracture Conductiv-
17 ity 8 43 6.4 Proppant Dissolution and Precipitation . . . 28
18 4.1 Factors Influencing proppant embedment 44 6.4.1 Dissolution mass flux . . . . . . . . 28
19 and fracture conductivity . . . . . . . . . . 9 45 6.4.2 Diffusive mass flux . . . . . . . . . 28
20 4.1.1 Proppant Quality . . . . . . . . . . 10 46 6.4.3 Precipitation mass flux . . . . . . . 28
21 4.1.2 Proppant Pack Damage . . . . . . . 13 47 6.5 Un-uniform proppant distribution . . . . . . 28
22 4.1.3 Shale rock susceptibility to prop- 48 6.6 Numerical modeling from micro-scale to
23 pant embedment as a result of Ge- 49 reservoir-scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Jou
24 omechanical Properties . . . . . . . 15
25 4.1.4 Shale rock/hydraulic fracturing 50 7 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 30
26 fluid interaction and its impact on
27 proppant embedment . . . . . . . . 16
51 Nomenclature 31
28 5 Currently available laboratory testing tech-
29 niques for proppant embedment and fracture 52 Declaration of interests 31
30 conductivity 18
31 5.1 American Petroleum Institute(API) Con- 53 Acknowledgements 31
32 ductivity Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
33 5.2 Fracture Conductivity System . . . . . . . 18 54 Bibliography 39
34 5.3 Laser surface Profilometry . . . . . . . . . 19
∗ Corresponding author: Dr. Mileva Radonjic(mileva.radonjic@okstate.edu)is a Samson Chair at the School of Chemical Engineering, Oklahoma State
University, 420 Engineering North: Stillwater, Oklahoma(OK) 74078, United States of America (USA).
Email address: mileva.radonjic@okstate.edu ( Mileva Radonjic)
Submitted: May 6, 2021: Revised: June 23, 2021 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Journal Pre-proof
J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 2
55 1. Introduction 66 and Suicmez, 2020; Kang et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2015;
67 Rutqvist et al., 2013; Sharma and Livescu, 2020; Soeder,
mong the twenty two largest gas fields based on 2018; Soeder and Borglum, 2019; Wang and Li, 2017).
A
56 68
57 recoverable reserves worldwide, six are located in 69 Figure 1 shows the technically proven shale hydrocarbon
of
58 North American shale reservoirs with average recovery fac- 70 resources worldwide whereas Figure 2 shows the natural
59 tors of approximately 20% (Rogers, 2011). At present, in- 71 gas producing plays in the United States; the major shale
60 novations in horizontal well drilling and completion sup- 72 plays are the Antrim, Barnett, Haynesville and Marcellus
pro
61 ported by 3-D seismic, microseismic, formation microim- 73 Shales. The United States Energy Information Administra-
62 ager (FMI)/formation microscanner (FMS), and other mea- 74 tion suggests that the USA possesses more than three thou-
63 surements are unlocking supplies of natural gas through- 75 sand trillion ft3 of recoverable reserves, of which more than
64 out North America for the decades ahead (Clarkson et al., 76 30% is contained within shale formations (Boardman and
65 2013; Curtis et al., 2011, 2014; Dindoruk et al., 2020; Eren 77 Puckette, 2006; Li et al., 2016; Wang and Li, 2017).
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Figure 1: Geographical map showing the location of proven technically recoverable Shale hydrocarbon resources world-
wide(GIS-Data obtained from EIA)
Journal Pre-proof
HilliardBaxterMancos- Niobrara Fm Heath Fm
¯
Niobrara
Cody
Manning Mowry Niobrara-
Canyon Mowry Bakken
Gammon Niobrara Fm
Excello-Mulky
Excello-Mulky
Antrim
Marcellus Devonian
(Ohio) Utica
of
pro
Monterey-
Temblor
New Albany
Monterey
Monterey
Chattanooga
Monterey
Mancos Chattanooga
Mancos
Lewis
Hermosa Niobrara Fm
Bend
CHEROKEE Pierre Floyd-Chattanooga
PLATFORM -Niobrara Barnett
Conasauga
Barnett-
Barnett- Woodford Tuscaloosa
Woodford Floyd-Neal
Pearsall Haynesville-Bossier
ARKOMA Avalon-Bone
Woodford-Caney
0 15 30 Miles
Spring
re- Eagle Ford

Woodford
Fayetteville
Woodford-Caney
Figure 2: Shale producing plays in the United States. The figure on the bottom left shows the map of the Caney shale part of
0 125 250 500 Miles
which lies in the Arkoma basin and the rest in the Anadarko basin within the Oklahoma county .
lP
78 However, considerable variability in well production, 96 fracture treatment (Zeng et al., 2020a), sustained produc-
79 even within the same field, continues to challenge our in- 97 tion rates of the well cannot be guaranteed (Asadi et al.,
80 tuition about the simple and consistent nature of shale for- 98 2020; Dejam, 2019; Nobakht et al., 2013; Ramandi et al.,
81 mations, the oil condensate and gas within (Bilgen and 99 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). A significant reduction in the
rna
82 Sarikaya, 2016). 100 amount produced from the well can be observed as a re-
83 Thus, for the exploration and exploitation of the advan- 101 sult of low in-situ formation permeability (Clarkson et al.,
84 tages of shale reservoirs, it is important to have a good un- 102 2011; Dejam et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2015). In the case of
85 derstanding of its governing parameters and shale character- 103 hydraulically fractured wells, proppant failure can also lead
86 ization demands; seismic, sonic log, and laboratory-based 104 to a rapid reduction in production (Bandara et al., 2020b;
data (Du et al., 2021; Froute and Kovscek, 2020; Gokaraju 105 Ding et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2018). Due to higher frac-
Jou
87
88 et al., 2020; He et al., 2019; Radonjic et al., 2020; Sambo 106 ture closure pressures (Wang et al., 2018a; Zhuo et al.,
89 et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2019). 107 2020), and with the current ability to stimulate greater-depth
108 treatments (Sutra et al., 2017), studies relating to proppant

90 Through a combination of technological developments
109 embedment are becoming increasingly relevant. Proppant
91 and active learning, operators are beginning to develop a
110 embedment (Bandara et al., 2021; Maslowski and Labus,
92 mastery of the fracturing approaches employed in shale
111 2021) represents a particularly pressing issue in terms of
93 reservoirs (Ghofrani and Atkinson, 2020; Leimkuhler and
112 low permeability reservoirs because of the marginal profits
94 Leveille, 2012; Yang et al., 2013). However, even in situa-
113 produced by wells of this nature (Chuprakov et al., 2021).
95 tions in which it is possible to complete a massive hydraulic
Journal Pre-proof
114 Wide and long fractures are typically required to ensure 150 modulus causes a larger optimal proppant packing ratio and
115 the economic viability of low-permeability candidate for- 151 lower permeability correction factor. The conductivity cor-
116 mations (Huang et al., 2021b; Mahrer, 1999; Torsaeter et al., 152 rection factor-based optimal proppant packing ratio is more
117 1987). Multiple propped fractures are critical for long-term 153 closely aligned with the findings of previous studies than the
of
118 production in shale formations (Buenrostro et al., 2019; Kr- 154 permeability correction factor-based value. The findings of
119 ishnan et al., 2021; Michael et al., 2020). However, it is to 155 their work also indicated that with regard to proppant defor-
120 be expected that a substantial area of a given fracture is sup- 156 mation, the optimal proppant packing ratio is substantially
pro
121 ported by a monolayer (Khanna et al., 2015) of proppant or 157 greater, the optimal proppant intensities at various phases
122 less (Chuprakov et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2019; Luo et al., 158 of graded proppant injection are appropriately greater, and
123 2020b; Xiao et al., 2021). In situations such as this, the 159 the anticipated folds of productivity rise after stimulation is
124 fracture conductivity is directly influenced by proppant em- 160 much less. Liu et al. (2021) also described how there have
125 bedment (Elsarawy and Nasr-El-Din, 2019; Voltolini and 161 been some inconsistencies between the experimental and
126 Ajo-Franklin, 2020; Zhi and Elsworth, 2020). Fracture clo- 162 modelling results by previous scholars. They highlighted
127
128
129
re-
sure stress will further increase during production as a re-
sult of the pressure drawdown (Alramahi and Sundberg,
2012). These pressures may increase in response to an in-

163
164
165
how one potential cause of the variation could be the ne-
glectfulness of proppant deformation and proppant embed-
ment into the walls of the hydraulic fracture. These factors
130 tensification of the pressure drawdown (Zheng and Tannant, 166 may have a significant impact in soft or unconsolidated for-
lP
131 2019) and this causes additional proppant embedment and 167 mations like ductile shales, coal bed methane, geothermal
132 could even cause -proppant failure in cases of high closure 168 reservoirs, etc. because rigid proppants can be readily em-
133 stress (Alramahi and Sundberg, 2012; Legarth et al., 2005). 169 bedded within the walls of the fracture whereas soft prop-
134 Wang et al. (2020b) studied the correlation between par- 170 pants can be deformed easily, all of which can reduce the
135 ticle migration, embedment, and proppant breakage on frac- 171 fracture aperture.
rna
136 ture diversion. They assessed the impact that fracture con- 172 The conductivity of propped and unpropped fractures de-
137 ductivity had on particle migration by varying the closing 173 termines the effectiveness of the hydraulic fracturing pro-
138 pressure and injection velocity. The produced fluid was 174 cess however the impairment to fracture conductivity is
139 obtained at various experimental stages, and the particle 175 proppant embedment (Fan et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021;
140 morphology was subsequently investigated. The outcomes 176 Liu et al., 2021; Maslowski and Labus, 2021; Song et al.,
Jou
141 revealed that particle migration, embedding, and proppant 177 2021a). Studies being conducted at present are deeply fo-
142 breakage all have a negative impact on fracture conductiv- 178 cused on increasing the effectiveness of fracturing fluids,
143 ity that correlates with flow rate and closing pressure, and 179 mitigating proppant embedment and raising the fracture
144 a rise in fluid injection velocity exacerbates the particle mi- 180 conductivity.
145 grations blocking effect. 181 Contemporary reviews on fracturing technologies, prop-
146 Liu et al. (2021) examined embedment and deformation 182 pants and materials for coating proppants used in hydraulic
147 within a framework that was designed to determine the best 183 fracturing have been attempted in previous studies (Ahamed
148 packing ratio for proppant placement. The outcomes re- 184 et al., 2019; Barboza et al., 2021; Barree et al., 2019; Danso
149 vealed that a lower proppant elastic modulus or rock elastic 185 et al., 2021; Duenckel et al., 2016; Isah et al., 2021; Liang
Journal Pre-proof
186 et al., 2016; Liew et al., 2020; Michael et al., 2020; Ramlan 207 ductivity of propped fractures in shale reservoirs during hy-
187 et al., 2021). However, substantial progress has occurred 208 draulic fracturing. The review process followed a reiterative
188 in the last decade and proppant embedment in shale has 209 process where search items were updated as the review pro-
189 not been extensively documented. This paper has there- 210 cess progressed. The selection of literature to include was
of
190 fore focussed(see Figure 3) on proppant embedment in shale 211 based on peer reviewed journal articles as well as peer re-
191 reservoirs with details on the; proppants used during hy- 212 viewed conference proceedings. The literature search was
192 draulic fracturing, proppant embedment with a focus on fac- 213 done based on scientific databases that include; Scopus, Sci-
pro
193 tors affecting proppant embedment and fracture conductiv- 214 enceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Springer. Where previous
194 ity while also detailing the laboratory testing of proppant 215 databases listed were limited, Google Scholar was used to
195 embedment and fracture conductivity and finally the mod- 216 expand the search process. To include several keywords in
196 eling of proppant embedment during hydraulic fracturing. 217 a single search, the boolean operator ”AND” was used dur-
197 To-date, there is a lack of understanding on how proppant 218 ing the search. Where necessary; the literature search was
198 embedment can be mitigated in ductile formations such as 219 confined to articles published within the last decade. An
199
200
201
re-
shale and in soft unconsolidated formations. Therefore we
hope that this review can enhance our knowledge on miti-
gating proppant embedment and ensuring that constant pro-

220
221
222
exception was made in areas with limited peer reviewed ar-
ticles available. There wasn’t any geographical limit that
was applied during the review process. A total of 260+ ref-
202 duction rates can always be achieved after hydraulic frac- 223 erences were reviewed where the majority are peer reviewed
lP
203 turing and well completion. 224 journal articles. Figure 3 shows the scope and structure of
225 this review.

204 2. Methodology
205 This review has been based on original research articles
206 on the evaluation and optimization design of long-term con-

rna
Proppant Embedment in Shale
Proppants Proppant Embedment Knowldege gaps and

Jou
used during and Fracture Conductivity Recommendations

Hydraulic Fracturing
Factors affecting Laboratory Testing of Modeling of

proppant embedment Proppant embedment and Proppant embedment during
& Fracture Conductivity Fracture Conductivity Hydraulic Fracturing
Figure 3: Scope and structure of the review problem.
Journal Pre-proof
226 3. Proppants: history, source, mineralogy, shape & size, 263 To combat these problems, polymer coating was proposed.
227 mechanical and chemical stability 264 A polymer coating can provide adequate resistance to clo-
228 The purpose of proppants, such as sand, is to hold the 265 sure stresses and prevent flowback, allowing the formation
229 fractures open after the drilling fluid flows back into the 266 to be cleaned up with ease and also hinder settling of prop-
of
230 wellbore(Nimerick et al., 1992; Sinclair et al., 1983). Poly- 267 pants (Beckwith, 2011; Zoveidavianpoor et al., 2018).
231 mers have been used extensively in the petroleum industry 268 The fracture walls are held open by proppants, thereby
232 to optimize the drilling of wells. More recently, they have 269 forming a conductive path that connects the reservoir to
been used for proppant coating during hydraulic fracturing
pro
233
270 the wellbore after pumping and fracturing fluid leak-off.
234 in order to improve their strength (Dewprashad et al., 1993; 271 Successful hydraulic fracturing treatment demands the right
235 Michael et al., 2020; Zoveidavianpoor et al., 2018). Prop- 272 proppant type at the right concentration. Most treatments
236 pants illustrated in figure 4 are similar in nature to spheres 273 use sand as the proppant due to its obtainability, cost-
237 that are small enough with sufficient strength to resist the 274 effectiveness, and adequate fracture conductivity at clo-
238 large stresses in the well and rock formation. Proppants 275 sure stresses up to 6000 psi,(Table 1) Furthermore, sand
239
240
241 draulic fracturing treatment.

re-
coated with thin layers of polymer in general result in high
fracture conductivity, which improves the quality of the hy-

276
277
278
can be strengthened through the addition of a resin coat-
ing (e.g. Northern White Sand), which, depending on the
type of resin, allows its use with closure stresses up to

242 Proppants may be grouped into conventional and ad- 279 8000 psi,(Table 1), enhances the proppant strength, and
243 vanced propppants. Conventional proppants include sand,
lP
280 decreases flowback during production. Coating sand with
244 ceramics, nutshells, and glass beads, whereas polymer 281 resin also increases its conductivity for closure stresses
245 coated proppants are advanced proppants. Conventional 282 above 4000 psi while not affecting the resins fluid ef-
246 proppants work fairly well and are much cheaper than ad- 283 fects (Krishnan et al., 2021; Melcher et al., 2020). De-
247 vanced proppants. However, ceramics are the advanced 284 spite their reliability and versatility, some components of
rna
248 proppants, resin coated proppants are not widely used in 285 resin-coated proppants (RCPs) can negatively interact with
249 shale wells due to problems with low permeability. The cost 286 some of the common additives of fracturing fluids, e.g.
250 of RCP or ceramics is much higher than 100 mesh sand, and 287 organometallic crosslinkers, and oxidative breakers (Nor-
251 with the volumes of sand proppant increasing, the well cost 288 man et al., 1992). According to Assem and Nasr-El-Din
252 tends to be dominated by proppant cost. Smaller unpropped 289 (2015); Chuprakov et al. (2021); Deng et al. (2014); Iri-
fracture systems do not perform well. (Besler et al., 2007;
Jou
253
290 arte and Tutuncu (2018); Michael et al. (2020); Nimerick
254 Melcher et al., 2020; Zoveidavianpoor et al., 2018). 291 et al. (1992); Norman et al. (1992); Songire et al. (2019),
255 Sand was the first proppant to be utilized in hydraulic 292 this affects organometallic crosslinking, hinders the bond-
256 fracturing, but it was not able to endure the high stresses 293 ing of the proppant pack, and reduces the clean-up of frac-
257 of deeper rock formations. Consequently, ceramics were 294 turing fluid, thereby increasing proppant crushing and af-
258 introduced, as they are able to withstand high stresses; how- 295 fecting flowback and reducing permeability. However, is-
259 ever, due to their high specific gravity, their utilization has 296 sues with proppant flowback can also be addressed us-
260 been restricted. Glass beads were subsequently suggested, 297 ing fiber technology, which is chemically compatible and
261 but their high cost of production and relatively low resis- 298 does not require special curing in terms of temperature or
262 tance to closure stresses limited their applications as well. 299 time. (Chuprakov et al., 2020; Sallis et al., 2014)
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
(a) 40/70 Northern White fracturing sand (b) 70/140 Northern White fracturing sand (c) 20/40 regular sand
(d) 20/40 Resin coated sand

re-(e) 40/70 Resin coated sand (f) 20/40 Ceramic proppant
Figure 4: Optical micro-graphs illustrating commonly used proppants taken at 40X.
Table 1: Comparisons of embedment influencing properties for different types of proppants(Zoveidavianpoor et al., 2018)
lP
Chemically Frac Resin Light Coated Medium Medium
Properties Ceramic
Modified Coated weight strength strength
Reinforced Sand Sand ceramic coated
ceramic ceramic
Composite
Proppant ceramic
rna
Roundness 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Sphericity 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bulk Density, 0.68 1.54 1.46 1.56 1.55 1.5 1.55 1.5
g/cm3
Solubility in 1.8 4.59 0.3 5.89 <2% <2% <2% <2%
HCl/HF
Crush, wt% fines 0.1622 9.5 0.8 5.2 – 0.57 – 0.37
generated at 8000
psi
Jou
Turbidity (FTU) 38 <100 80 <100 <100 <100 <100

Specific gravity 1.42 2.66 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.4
Pressure (psi) <8000 <5000 <8000 >10,000 >10,000 >10,000 >10,000 >10,000
Temperature (o F) <300 <200 <250 >300 >300 >300 >300 >300
Journal Pre-proof
300 4. Proppant Embedment and Fracture Conductivity
301 Proppant embedment is a vital step in drilling reservoirs 309 meant to keep complex fractures open (Maslowski et al.,
302 with low permeability (Atteberry et al., 1979; Cooke, 1977; 310 2018), but those proppants do not travel as far into the frac-
of
303 Coulter and Wells, 1972; Holditch and Ely, 1973; Tan et al., 311 ture network as expected before stopping due to excessive
304 2020; Wang et al., 2020c). Proppants hold fractures open, 312 roughness and the fracture geometry (Ma et al., 2020b; Sa-
305 allowing oil and gas to be produced. However, many issues 313 hai and Moghanloo, 2019). Subsequent closure of those
pro
306 arise when transporting proppants (Barboza et al., 2021; 314 fractures diminishes production (Wang et al., 2018a; Zhuo
307 Clark, 2006; Isah et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Luo et al., 315 et al., 2020).
308 2020b; Wen et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2015). Proppants are
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Figure 5: Illustration of physical phenomena that affect an effectively packed fracture due to proppant embedment after the
hydraulic fracturing of a shale reservoir.
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Figure 6: Optical micro-graphs showing northern white proppant embeded in a shale core.
316
317
318
re-
After stimulating a well, the conductivity and porosity
of the well will decline because of proppant embedment as
well as deformation (Bandara et al., 2020a; Hou et al., 2020;

338
339
340
ticles (Li et al., 2018). The simulations show that under a
closure stress, proppants become embedded into the rock,
changing its porosity (Gu et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Os-
319 Wang and Elsworth, 2018; Wang et al., 2018b). As the clo- 341 iptsov et al., 2020; Zhang and Hou, 2015). After the frac-
lP
320 sure pressure increases, proppants will deform the fractures 342 turing fluid is withdrawn from the wellbore, the mechanical
321 and impede the porosity of the formation (Alramahi and 343 properties of the shale are also modified (Bai et al., 2020;
322 Sundberg, 2012; Zheng and Tannant, 2019). Figure 5 shows 344 Zhao et al., 2020). Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio pre-
323 how proppants are deformed by one another and how the 345 dicted in the simulations as well as measureed in experi-
formation is similarly changed by the proppants. In addition mental data indicate that as the proppant embedment depth
rna
324 346
325 to the damage mechanisms outlined in Figure 5, breakdown 347 increases, Youngs modulus decreases, and poissons ratio in-
326 of the fracture faces from proppant creates additional fines 348 creases (Chen et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2019), this is more
327 which are an additional source of material occluding pore 349 closely related to the affected zone.
328 throats and damaging porosity as shown in Figure 6. 350 Table 2 illustrates a summary of the previous studies in-
351 vestigating proppant embedment.

Jou
329 Many studies are ongoing to determine what influences
330 the embedment of proppants and they are demonstrating 352 4.1. Factors Influencing proppant embedment and fracture
331 that the major influencing factors are the; closure stress, 353 conductivity
332 particle size, and proppant concentration(Li et al., 2018; 354 Lee et al. (2016) argues that well productivity is im-
333 Voltolini and Ajo-Franklin, 2020; Wang and Elsworth, 355 pacted by conductivity losses in a fracture network. Cooke
334 2020, 2018; Wang et al., 2018a; Zheng et al., 2020). Sim- 356 (1973b); Gaurav et al. (2012); Lee et al. (2016); Lehman
335 ulations of proppant embedment are also ongoing as cur- 357 et al. (1999); Miskimins and Alotaibi (2019); Schubarth and
336 tailed in section 6; the proppants are being modeled as reg- 358 Tayler (2004) have examined the proppant pack conductiv-
337 ular spheres and arranged in a diamond shape between par- 359 ity for material selection purposes. According to Lehman
Journal Pre-proof
360 et al. (1999), reference conductivity data can be considered 385 result of the treatment quality (Montgomery and Steanson,
361 quite optimistic; in fact, the actual conductivity of the frac- 386 1985; Terracina, 2011; Vincent and Huckabee, 2007).
362 tures is typically lower than the expected fracture conduc- 387 Below are some of the factors that affect proppant quality.
363 tivity. As such, all of the detrimental effects from downhole
of
364 scenarios should be taken into consideration when defin- 388 4.1.1.1. Type
389 After the injection phase ceases, to keep the fractures open,
365 ing the proppant conductivity (Hlidek and Duenckel, 2020;
390 different types of proppants can be used (Xu et al., 2020).
366 Ning et al., 2020).
391 As shown in Figure 4 and table 1 the main proppant types
pro
367 The following factors affect proppant conductivity.
392 are lightweight ceramics (LWC), high-strength proppants
393 (HSP), natural sands, resin-coated sand (RCS) and RCP, and
368 4.1.1. Proppant Quality 394 intermediate-strength proppants (ISP).
369 Several scholars Luo et al. (2020b); Sookprasong (2010); 395 The most popular and commonly used proppant is natural
370 Volk et al. (1981); Zhang et al. (2015) have examined the in 396 sand (quartz sand) due to its widespread availability and low
situ closure stresses on proppant-induced fractures. Their cost but it results in a significant loss of fracture conductiv-
371
372
373
work involved conducting experiments and mathematical re-
modeling of the permeability, the closure stresses, the clo-
397
398
399
ity and a reduction in estimated ultimate recovery (Syfan
and Anderson, 2011).
374 sure of fractures and the pressures around the fracture and 400 Bandara et al. (2020c) performed experiments to evalu-
375 the wellbore. Their results demonstrated that the type of 401 ate the type of proppants on the general quality of prop-
lP
376 closure stress in response to the proppant in the fracture will 402 pants. Their study involved using; resin coated sand, sin-
377 result in both elastic and nonelastic deformation. More- 403 tered bauxite ceramic, and natural sand as proppant test
378 over, Alramahi and Sundberg (2012) , Lee and Yasuhara 404 specimens. Their results in figure 7 indicated that a great
379 (2013), Lee et al. (2009) have stated that an evolving stress 405 amount of fines were generated from sand in comparison
rna
380 field also impacts both the proppant placed within hydraulic 406 to resin-coated proppants and ceramic proppants. They
381 fractures and the changes in the chemical compositions of 407 also observed a great increase in compaction and proppant
382 the fluids present in the porosity. To determine the treatment 408 porosity for all proppants indicating that whatever the type
383 quality, it is essential to select the proper type of proppant 409 of proppant used, proppant pack porosity and compaction
384 since the final fracture conductivity would be primarily a 410 reduction is expected under a higher stress confinement.
Jou
(a) The effect of particle size on varying types (b) How compaction of the proppant pack varies (c) Porosity of the proppant pack varies with
of proppants with types of proppants proppant type.
Figure 7: Investigating the effect of proppant type (Bandara et al., 2020c).

Journal Pre-proof
419 lies between 8 and 140 mesh (0.0937 in and 0.0041 in). The
420 number of protrusions across one linear inch of screen spec-
421 ifies the mesh size (Bandara et al., 2020c; Guo et al., 2012;
422 Schmidt et al., 2014). The term ’sieve cut’ refers to the prop-
of
423 pant when detailing the proppant size (Barree et al., 2019).
424 For instance, 20/40 mesh is labelled 0.0331 in and 0.0165
425 in; 40/70 mesh is 0.0165 in and 0.0083 in; and 70/140 mesh
pro
426 is 0.0083 in and 0.0041 in.
427 As it is evident in figure 9, that proppant size and spheric-
428 ity can vary implying that proppants are available in vari-
429 ous sizes (Schmidt et al., 2014). Fracture conductivity is

Figure 8: Effect of proppant type on cumulative oil pro- 430 typically a function of particle size, wherein a larger parti-
duction per lateral for Ceramic, Sand proppants and an un-
known completions in North Dakota (Besler et al., 2007) 431 cle size leads to a higher fracture conductivity (Huckabee
411
412
re-
Besler et al. (2007) observed based on figure 8 that long-
term production was sustained from wells where ceramic

432
433
434
et al., 2005). The near-wellbore conductivity can be max-
imized with the traditional fracture treatment: initially uti-
lizing a relatively small-size proppant tailored with a larger-

413 proppants were used as compared to conventional sand im- 435 size proppant (Guo et al., 2012). Improved permeability and
plying that the type of proppants used can significantly af-
lP
414
436 a correspondingly improved conductivity have been noted
415 fect production. 437 with proppants comprising larger grain sizes. However, due
438 to their greater contact area with the fracture, proppants with
416 4.1.1.2. Size
439 large particles tend to be weaker and more easily crushed
440 because they support a larger load. Conversely, regarding

rna
441 the occurrence of crushing and invasion of fines, although
442 smaller grains demonstrate higher strength and resistance,
443 they have less permeability (Bandara et al., 2020c). As
444 such, a constant proppant grain size can be achieved by min-
445 imizing the mesh range to attain a better permeability. Com-

Jou
446 monly, proppant particles with a variety of sizes are mixed
447 in hybrid completion designs based on the assumptions and
448 criteria of the stimulation design. Correspondingly, perme-
Figure 9: SEM Optical micro-graph of the 40/70 Northern 449 ability can be potentially reduced in stimulation treatments
White fracturing sand taken at the Venture I facility at Okla- 450 by mixing various proppant sizes (Schmidt et al., 2014). For
homa State University Laboratory. This micro-graph shows
a variation in proppant size as well as sphericity even within 451 instance, relative to 20/40 proppant, the application of 100
the same batch of proppants.
452 mesh is likely problematic, as the 100 mesh can invade and
417 Many scholars have deduced that in hydraulic fracture treat- 453 occupy pore space (Dontsov and Peirce, 2014).
418 ments, the proppants size range is imperative and typically 454 Carroll and Baker (1979), Schmidt et al. (2014) ex-
Journal Pre-proof
455 plored the performance of a variety of proppant sizes on 477 4.1.1.3. Roundness and Sphericity
456 tail-in mixing and on the mixing of a variety of prop-

478 Sphericity and the smoothness of edges refer to the round-
457 pant sizes; their studies revealed that the conductivity of
479 ness of the grains and indicate how closely their shape
458 proppant-filled fractures is significantly impacted by higher
480 resembles a sphere (Elochukwu and KhaiKiat, 2021; Lyu
of
459 concentrations of high-conductivity proppant. For instance,
481 et al., 2019). El-Kader et al. (2020) contends that prop-
460 irrespective of the proppant concentration, the conductiv-
482 pants in general must have a certain roundness in order to
461 ity of the overall proppant pack is significantly improved
483 maintain their mechanical strength and the roundness and
pro
462 by mixing large-size lightweight ceramic(LWC) proppant
484 sphericity of most proppants is about 0.9. Tang et al. (2017)
463 and 40/70 sand. Similarly, the same conductivity can be
485 observed that, the higher the roundness and sphericity, the
464 achieved at high concentrations of 40/80 LWC proppant
486 better the proppant transportation in cracks was and that lit-
465 mixed with larger LWC proppant particles and at low con-
487 tle fracturing fluid was needed.
466 centrations of 40/70 sand mixed with larger LWC proppant
488 The proppant pack porosity is directly proportional to the
467 particles.
re- 489
490
491
roundness or sphericity of the grains. Furthermore, round
and spherical grains that are similar in size demonstrate in-
creased strength due to the even distribution of stress (He
492 et al., 2020).
493 Hao et al. (2020), Xu et al. (2020) have compared ce-

lP
494 ramic proppants against quartz sand and deduce that the uni-
495 formity in size and shape contributes to a higher sphericity
496 and roundness which in turn contributes to a higher porosity
497 and permeability during hydraulic fracturing. Round prop-

rna
498 pant flows out of the fracture more easily during cleanup
Figure 10: (a) Variation in compaction of the proppant pack 499 than does proppant with sharper edges that tends to lock in
and (b) porosity of proppant pack with proppant size (Ban-
dara et al., 2020c). 500 place.
501 4.1.1.4. Strength

Jou
468 To progressively evaluate the effect of proppant 502 A comparison of the most popular commercial proppants
469 size, Bandara et al. (2020c) used only ceramic proppants 503 is presented in Figure 4 and table 1. The closure stress
470 from sizes, 16/30, 20/40, 30/50 and 40/70 at a constant max- 504 or minimum horizontal stress illustrated in Figure 5 repre-
471 imum stress of 70 MPa packed in three layers and loaded for 505 sents the pressure exerted by the formation on the proppant.
472 five cycles. Their results in figure 10 indicated that when 506 Proppant grains must be sufficiently strong to withstand this
473 the proppant size decreases, there is an increase in proppant 507 pressure (Tang and Ranjith, 2018; Wu et al., 2017). Ac-
474 pack compaction which leads to a reduction in proppant 508 cording to Haoze et al. (2021); Huckabee et al. (2005); Ma
475 pack porosity and they hypothesised that larger proppants 509 et al. (2020a); Naima et al. (2020), an inadequate proppant
476 are generally recommended for well stimulation. 510 strength may cause the proppant to be crushed under the clo-
Journal Pre-proof
511 sure stress; as a result, due to the creation of fines, the prop- 519 4.1.2. Proppant Pack Damage
512 pant pack will suffer reduced conductivity and permeability.
520 Proppant pack damage is a serious problem during hy-
513 Smaller proppant has more load support area and is much
521 draulic fracturing (Huang et al., 2021a; Tandon et al., 2018;
514 stronger than larger proppant of the same type (Song et al.,
522 Weaver et al., 2009b). In-situ stresses and temperature can
of
515 2021b). Thus, a higher proppant strength would result in a
523 lead to damage of the proppant pack which results in re-
516 better retained conductivity at the closure pressure (Cooke,
524 duced porosity of the proppant pack (Han et al., 2016; Luo
517 1977; Cooke et al., 1977; Melcher et al., 2020; Tasque et al.,
525 et al., 2020b; Raysoni and Weaver, 2012). As a result of me-
pro
518 2021).
526 chanical damage, there is; proppant embedment, proppant
527 flowback, proppant crushing and proppant pack diagenesis
528 as illustrated in figure 5 and figure 11.
re-
lP
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 11: Optical micro-graphs showing: (a)Fractured High Strength Proppant in the Niobrara Shale (b)Proppant embedment
of regional sand in the woodford shale. (c)Proppant crushing of regional sand
rna
529 Below is a discussion on the factors resulting in proppant 542 prevented deformation and the degree of embdement was
530 pack damage; 543 dependent on the amount of clay and quartz present in the
544 shale.
531 4.1.2.1. Proppant Embedment 545 Osiptsov et al. (2020) looked at how fracture conductiv-
532 As shown in Figures 5, due to the reduced width of the 546 ity was affected by proppant embedment. Their study in-
volved using a coupled finite element model in which the

Jou
547
533 proppant pack when embedding proppants into the frac-
534 ture walls, there is a reduction in conductivity (Luo et al., 548 geomechanics were treated in combination with the fluid
535 2020b). 549 displacement model in the fracture. Their results revealed
536 Arshadi et al. (2017) studied the effect of deformation 550 that proppant pack compaction greatly influenced conduc-
537 on two phase flow using middle east proppant( generally 551 tivity and the decrease in embedment had an insignificant
538 sand grains used in the Bakken shale) packed shale sam- 552 effect on well production.
539 ples and visualised the effects using X-ray microtomogra- 553 Moreover, Voltolini and Ajo-Franklin (2020) conducted
540 phy. Their results denoted that when closure stress con- 554 an experimental study to investigate the development of
541 ditions remained constant, proppant packs in the fracture 555 propped fractures by using an in-situ microtomography.
Journal Pre-proof
556 Their study involved using; ottawa sand and ceremic ball 590 meability (Ghosh et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2019; Karazincir
557 blasting beads as proppants on three different formations ie; 591 et al., 2018, 2019).
558 Eagle-ford shale, Marcellus shale & Niobrara shale . Re- 592 Weaver et al. (2005, 2006, 2007) looked at the impact
559 sults revealed that ceramic proppants performed better than 593 of fracture conductivity due to diagenesis and reported that
of
560 ottowa sand because the roundness reduced conductivity 594 when the strength of the proppants was high, porosity filling
561 losses in the fracture and their high strength reduced prop- 595 reactions were exasperated due to the formation of minerals
562 pant pack damage. Furthermore, their results revealed that 596 akin to clay.
pro
563 ceramic propped fractures remained optimal over a range of 597 Correspondingly, Elsarawy and Nasr-El-Din (2018,
564 closure pressures. They also observed partial embedment in 598 2020) have studied diagenesis of the eagle ford shale by ag-
565 all shales when quartz grains were intact. 599 ing the sand, ceramic and resin coated proppants together
566 Embedment also results in spalling, as the failure of the 600 with the shale samples using de-ionised water for a period
567 reservoir rock will generate fine particles (Osiptsov et al., 601 of three weeks at 325o F and 300psia. Their results revealed
568 2020; Terracina, 2011; Terracina et al., 2010). When us- 602 that because of the dissolution reactions of the shale with
569
570
571
re-
ing smaller proppants, because of the better load distribu-
tion, less embedment is typically observed (Bandara et al.,
2020c).
603
604
605
de-ionised water, calcium sulphate and calcium zeolite pre-
cipitated from the shale samples with ceramic proppants.
Sand and resin coated proppants had no effect of precipita-
606 tion but changed the composition of the elements of zeolite

572 4.1.2.2. Proppant Geochemical Diagenesis
lP
607 precipiate due to the rock fluid-interaction. This dissolution
573 Weaver et al. (2005) coined the term ”proppant diagenesis” 608 was due to the presence of silicon(Si) ions. Thereofre the
574 after observing mineral precipitates during the rock-fluid 609 presence of Si–ions is believed to be a major contributing
575 and proppant interaction. Later on; Duenckel et al. (2012, 610 factor to diagenesis and needs to be addressed during hy-
576 2011) , Elsarawy and Nasr-El-Din (2018) defined diagene- 611 draulic fracturing.
rna
577 sis that; when crystalline precipitation is observed in labora-

612 4.1.2.3. Proppant Crushing
578 tory observations of proppants, this precipitation is referred
579 to as diagenesis. Diagenesis shown in figure 5 entails a se- 613 Formation closure (Shuang et al., 2020) is the major source
580 ries of three processes (Ghosh et al., 2014; LaFollette and 614 of crushing, specifically in cases where the proppant is not
581 Carman, 2010; Lee et al., 2010) 615 well distributed (Palisch et al., 2009). Commonly, crushing
Jou
616 is less prevalent towards the pack center and more preva-
582 (1) impinging of the grain-grain contact leads to dissipa-
617 lent at the interface (Han and Wang, 2014). Previous schol-
583 tion,
618 ars (Barree and Conway, 2000; Dusterhoft et al., 2004;
584 (2) the interfacial water film that distinguishes the grains
619 Schubarth and Tayler, 2004) have also reported that depend-
585 leads to dissipation,
620 ing on the amount of stress induced on the proppant pack,
586 (3) precipitates at the walls of the pore.
621 the grain to grain contact may be increased leading to crush-
587 The loss of porosity is observed during diagenesis from 622 ing and fracture conductivity reduction due to deformation.
588 proppant dissolution, followed by subsequent remineraliza- 623 Bandara et al. (2020c) looked at a series of parameters
589 tion along the pack, resulted in a direct damage of pack per- 624 such as; proppant size, type, and concentration and they
Journal Pre-proof
625 analysed results of particle size with a Mastersizer 2000 op- 659 Almond et al. (1995) have studied RCP and what fac-
626 tical analyzer. The authors suggested that proppant crushing 660 tors would impact their flowback. Their laboratory stud-
627 occurred when the highest stress levels were induced and 661 ies involved; varying the pH of the fluid from 7 to 12, us-
628 this led to proppant pack damage. Their results also showed 662 ing potassium chloride fluid, seawater and borate fractur-
of
629 that a large quantity of fines were generated by sand com- 663 ing fluid; varying the closure stress; stress cycling and fi-
630 pared to ceramic proppants and resin coated proppants. 664 nally looked at the bottom-hole circumstances during prop-
631 It is therefore important to improve crushing resistance of 665 pant flow-back. Their work exemplified that; when pH was
pro
632 proppants and reduce the impact of formation damage, this 666 increased, the resin removal percentage increased and cor-
633 is particularly true for large grain proppant less so for the 667 respondingly UCS decreased, with borate fracturing fluid,
634 100 mesh sizes.. 668 there was a reduction in UCS compared to samples im-
669 mersed in potassium chloride.

635 4.1.2.4. Proppant Flowback
670 Shor and Sharma (2014) conducted modeling of prop-
636 In the petroleum industry, choking and proppant flowback 671 pant transport considering movements of discrete particles
637
638
639
re-
are eminent and are considered to be potentially both-
ersome (Terracina et al., 2000). Proppant back-flow on
cleanup is a significant problem because most proppant flow

672
673
674
and provided an explanation to parameters that would lead
to an increased rate of flow back and these include; closure
stress, fluid velocity, cohesion between contacting of prop-
640 is seen before the fracture closes which can take days in an 675 pants and fracture width. Their work demonstrated that the
lP
641 ultra-low permeability formation like shale. There are still 676 width of the fracture was a function of closure stress and
642 debates (Frederic et al., 2011) that flowback would not be 677 fluid velocity whereas the proppant flowback was a func-
643 a problem during production, however, these controversies 678 tion of cohesion between particles that could be enhanced
644 have limited validity due to the following; 679 in resin coated proppants. High production flow rate would
680 impact the fracture as high fluid velocity tended to loosen

rna
645 1. displacing proppants horizontally from the wellbore

681 particles and destabilized the proppant pack. Shor and
646 leaves an inadequately propped zone or channel around
682 Sharma (2014) therefore recommended gradual flow rate
647 the well.
683 buildup to ensure confining stress on proppant pack before
648 2. dynamic pressure redistribution or unintentional hy-
684 imposing high fluid velocity.
649 draulic fracturing when the well is shut in as well as
650 during its operation can be the cause of this overflush-

Jou
685 4.1.3. Shale rock susceptibility to proppant embedment as a

651 ing.
686 result of Geomechanical Properties
652 Likewise, any intentional or unintentional flowback can 687 The influence of rock mineralogy on the shale’s geome-
653 re-introduce proppants back into a well. This may take 688 chanical properties has been studied extensively by Cheng
654 place after hydraulic fracturing, during production, during a 689 and Bunger (2015); Detournay and Cheng (1993); Dewhurst
655 hard shutdown, which would send a pressure signal into and 690 et al. (2013); Dong et al. (2017, 2018); Eshkalak et al.
656 out of a fracture, and during pressure redistribution when 691 (2014); Jacobi et al. (2009); Lawal and Mahmoud (2020);
657 the well is shut–in (Trela et al., 2008; van Batenburg et al., 692 LeCompte et al. (2009); Yang et al. (2015, 2018), who in-
658 1999). 693 dicated that Youngs modulus, brittleness, and hardness usu-
Journal Pre-proof
694 ally rise with a reduction in the fraction of clay minerals or 730 ing laboratory equipment such as; triaxial cell (Frash et al.,
695 an increase in the fraction of carbonate minerals. Further- 731 2019; Islam and Skalle, 2013), X-ray Computed tomogra-
696 more, Dong et al. (2018) , Ghanizadeh et al. (2015) , Vafaie 732 phy (Voltolini, 2021), unconfined compressive stress mea-
697 and Kivi (2020) , Yang et al. (2018) demonstrated that in- 733 surements (Rezaei et al., 2020) and based proppant strength
of
698 creased brittleness is caused by a high fraction of carbonate 734 tests (Bandara et al., 2020c) acquired under ideal labora-
699 minerals, while biogenic quartz improves brittleness. More- 735 tory conditions, which are API RP 19D (Duenckel et al.,
700 over, the Total organic content only slightly impacts the ge- 736 2016) compliant using one-and-a-half inch wide and one-
pro
701 omechanical properties of high thermal maturity shales. 737 tenth inch long conductivity cell that accommodates sand-
702 Abousleiman et al. (2007) has evaluated the geomechan- 738 wiched rock-proppant-rock samples and it is utilized for
703 ical properties of the woodford shale(whose clay content 739 the analysis of fracture conductivity loss and proppant pack
704 is mainly illite and chlorite) using a triaxial cell, a brazil- 740 damage.
705 lian test on samples exposed to drilling and fracturing flu-
706 ids and finally correlating the parameters to field log data. 741 4.1.4. Shale rock/hydraulic fracturing fluid interaction and
707
708
709
re-
Their results postulated isotropic that drilling or fracturing
fluids have a great significance on compressive stress and
tensile stress. Young’s modulus of elasticity, poisson’s ratio

742
743
744
its impact on proppant embedment
Selecting the right fracturing fluid is essential to hy-
draulic fracturing. The fluid is primarily used to maintain

710 and other mechanical properties correlated to log data were 745 an open fracture as well as to convey the propping agent
lP
711 found to be largely isotropic. 746 along the fracture. Fluid selection generally considers vis-
712 Sierra et al. (2010) made a follow-up study on the me- 747 cosity (Yang et al., 2020) as this affects proppant transport,
713 chanical properties and the effects of lithofacies on the 748 fluid loss, and fracture geometry, as well as cleanliness fol-
714 woodford shale and their results revealed that the upper 749 lowing flowback to ensure maximum conductivity after the
715 woodford which is lower in clay content had a much higher 750 fracture. Certain cases may require other fluid characteris-
rna
716 fracture toughness in comparison with the lower and middle 751 tics to be taken into account, such as whether it is compat-
717 woodford. 752 ible with other materials, e.g. resin-coated proppants, and
718 Ma and Zoback (2018) studied Bakken core samples 753 the rock, fluids and pressure of the reservoir; for example,
719 subjected to recurring hydrostatic loads and observed that 754 the use of foams can facilitate flowback in reservoirs under
720 the cyclic mechanical response were indicative of consis- 755 low pressure. In addition, the choice of fluid is further con-
Jou
721 tent results after seasoning but variability and uncertainties 756 formed by; environmental, safety, and cost factors as well
722 in experimental data were lost due to seasoning because sea- 757 as pipe friction and surface pump pressure.
723 soning closed micro-cracks and constricted soft parts. The 758 A large quantity of fluid makes contact with the rock for-
724 question that remained to be pursued was; can seasoning be 759 mation during hydraulic fracturing, giving rise to physical
725 representative of a material in in-situ state? 760 and chemical interactions (Alagoz and Sharma, 2021; Edgin
726 It is difficult to quantify geomechanical properties (If- 761 et al., 2021; Jeffry et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021; Qingyun
727 erobia and Ahmad, 2020; Rezaei et al., 2020) that would 762 et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2020b). The
728 lead to inefficient fracture conductivity and eventually prop- 763 chemical equilibrium of the rock, hydrocarbon, and connate
729 pant damage. Many studies have been carried out involv- 764 water system is disrupted by the treatment fluid (Gundogar
Journal Pre-proof
765 et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2021). This leads to the physical 788 imbibition with de-ionised water. They monitored the ion
766 and chemically alteration of a zone of rock directly adjacent 789 concentration, pH and electrical conductivity during inhibi-
767 to the fracture face (Bremer et al., 2010; Lyu et al., 2020; 790 tion for a period of four weeks. Their results revealed that
768 Weaver et al., 2009b). Many factors can influence fracture- 791 samples that had a highest calcite content and lowest or-
of
769 face permeability, such as rock softening, water retention, 792 ganic carbon imbibed much more water and this was true
770 chemical scale formation, and proppant embedment (Jacobi 793 for Barnett shale followed by Marcellus shale and finally
771 et al., 2009; Rutqvist, 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Weaver et al., 794 Eagle Ford shale. Figure 12 shows an SEM micrograph be-
pro
772 2008, 2009a, 2010; Wick et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020). 795 fore and after imbibition for a period of one week showing
773 Yiman et al. (2017) studied the geochemistry during 796 that pyrite was oxidised and dissolved in water which gen-
774 hydraulic fracturing and their work involved conducting 797 erated H+ and a reduced pH was seen. This is indicative that
775 experiments on water-rock interactions using Longmaxi 798 fluid-shale interactions are vital during hydraulic fracturing.
776 shale samples. Their results indicated an increase in to-
777 tal dissolved solids in the fluid obtained during flowback.
778
779
780
They also observed a dominant increase in SO2−
K+ , Na+ , Cl− .
re-
2+
4 , Ca ,
These were attributed to oxidation of
pyrite (equations: 1,2,3), dissolution of plagioclase (equa-
781 tion: 6), dolomite (equation: 5) & calcite (equation: 4).

lP
Figure 12: SEM micrograph of Marcellus shale; a) before
imbibition b) after imbibition for one week at ambient con-
ditions (Zeng et al., 2020b).
FeS 2 + 2.5O2(aq) + H2 O → Fe2+ + 2S O2− +
4 + 2H , (1)
12Fe2+ + 3O2 + 6H2 O ⇋ 8Fe3+ + 4Fe(OH)3 , (2) 799 Lyu et al. (2020), Yuepeng et al. (2020) argue that chem-
rna
− ical processes involving precipitation following calcite min-

S O2−
4 + 2C + 2H2 O ⇋ H2 S + 2HCO3 . (3) 800
eral dissolution can lead to further withering of the rock

CaCO3 + H + ⇋ Ca2+ + HCO−3 ,
801
(4)
802 which results in reduced permeability and porosity. Forma-
CaMg(CO3 )2 + 2H + ⇋ Ca2+ + Mg2+ + 2HCO−3 . (5)
803 tion mineral re-mineralization in the pack following dissolu-
804 tion could reduce pack permeability (Li et al., 2020; Zhong
et al., 2019). Exposure to stress conditions and high temper-

2KAlS i3 O8 + 2H + + H2 O ⇋ Al2 (S i2 O5 )(OH)4 + 2K +
805
Jou
806 atures (Voltolini, 2021) when proppants are transported into

+ 4S iO2 . (6)
807 the hydraulic fracture support geochemical reactions, pos-
808 sibly resulting in the formation of pore-filling minerals and

782 Qingyun et al. (2020) has deduced that a critical role is
809 leading to a reduction in the proppant pack porosity (Sheng-
783 played by matrix bulk mineralogy and the mineral distribu-
810 gui et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2020). Proppant embedment is
784 tion in the formation in water-surface interactions, thereby
811 greatly affected by shear weakening in carbonates result-
785 influencing a variety of mechanisms.
812 ing from fluid saturation (Chuprakov et al., 2020; Hu et al.,
786 Zeng et al. (2020b) have studied the effect of fracturing
813 2016).
787 fluids on Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Barnette shales using
Journal Pre-proof
814 5. Currently available laboratory testing techniques for 840 The cell in figure 13(a) can be modified to look at prop-
815 proppant embedment and fracture conductivity 841 pant flowback under a multiphase flow condition. Shale
842 has no nano-permeability and there will not be any fluid

816 Testing proppants as a means of better understanding the
843 losses as it may be seen for sand stone and carbonate for-
817 permeability and conductivity at closure stress is important
of
844 mations therefore, the industry modified figure 13(a) into
818 during the process of designing and evaluating hydraulic
845 figure 13(b) where there exists leakoff lines which you can
819 fractures. Fundamentally, there is a requirement for tradi-
846 also use to pump through the cell and leak off at the core
820 tional proppants to provide and maintain conductive frac-
pro
847 sample in order to build a filter cake. The disadvantage of
821 tures within sites of production. It is typical for the well to
848 the conductivity cell testing method is that it is not designed
822 experience downhole conditions. In such situations, there
849 to give accurate measurements of proppant conductivity un-
823 is a requirement to ensure the closure stress demands are
850 der downhole conditions and the industry has now amalga-
824 fulfilled when also maintaining the resistance to diagenesis
851 mated this test into a fracture conductivity system.
825 during the production process. Some of the methods that
826
827
828
testing are presented below.
re-
are used for proppant embedment and fracture conductivity
5.1. American Petroleum Institute(API) Conductivity Cell

852 5.2. Fracture Conductivity System
829 The conductivity cell was the first industry standard used
in testing proppant pack conductivity.

lP
830 853 To overcome the limitations of the API conductivity cell,
831 Figure 13 shows the traditional API fracture conductivity 854 a fracture conductivity system shown in figure 14 was de-
832 unit that was designed to be used with de-ionised and dis- 855 signed to be able to mimic reservoir conditions. Wang et al.
833 tilled water. In this test, samples are cut to fit a cell size of 856 (2020b,c) have used a fracture conductivity testing system
834 1.5-inches in width and 7.0-inches in length. A proppant 857 to investigate; proppant breakage, embedment, particle mi-
rna
835 concentration of 2lb/ft2 is used and proppant confinement 858 gration, fracturing fluid on gel breaking performance and
836 is by the steel platens at confinement stresses from 1psi to 859 damage to fracture conductivity. The sample preparation
837 14,000psi where proppant is held at any stress for a fifteen 860 requirements for the conductivity cell and the fracture con-
838 minute period and all experiments are conducted at ambient 861 ductivity system are the same. The advantage of the fracture
839 conditions. 862 conductivity system is that you can have closure pressures
Jou
863 in the range of 0-20,000psi, with an accuracy of 0.04% on
864 the set point, temparatures that range from ambient condi-
865 tions to 177o C, flow rates in the range of 0.001–50ml/min

Holes to deal
with fluid loss 866 and you can use varying fracturing fluids as opposed to the
Surface on
867 conductivity cell shown in figure 13. The system can ac-
Shale Platens which proppant is put
868 commodate a variety of fracturing fluids ranging in compo-
(a) (b)
869 sition and pH. It can go from two platens and four platens
Figure 13: (a)Linear flow conductivity test cell. (b) Linear
flow conductivity cell modified to deal with fluid loss. 870 during the test.
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Conductivity cell in which 1.5-in X 7in cut platens are put with
sandwiched proppant of 2lb/ft2
Figure 14: Illustration of the Fracture Conductivity System at the Corelab facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
871 5.3. Laser surface Profilometry

re- Illustration of confocality of the Raman Microscope
Point light Beamsplitter Objective
source
Dial for object
focussing
Microscope
lP
Display screen True surface enabler
Focus plane
Video and Raman and
532nm Laser Connection mode keys reference plane
Pinhole detector
wires Shield that covers
the lenses and the
sample
Power Lines Spectrometer
Sample stage
rna
On and off
key
Stage Joy stick control 785nm Laser
Data logger and

Central processing unit
Anti-Vibration Table
Caney Shale platen being surface profiled with
Jou
Schematic by: Allan Katende

a Raman surface profilometry after an API test.
Figure 15: Illustration of the laser surface profilometry linked to the Raman Microscope in the Hydraulic Barrier Materials
Laboratory at Oklahoma State University.
872 The laser surface profilometer linked to the Raman microscope shown in figure 15 was used for quantifying the proppant
873 embedment depths on the Caney Shale samples after an API test. Samples were placed under a Raman microscope shown
874 in figure 15. To obtain a surface profilometry map, the following parameters were used: 20X and 50X objective lenses, an
875 excitation wavelength from the 532nm laser distributed by a 600 g/mm BLZ=500nm grating, a laser power between 0.55 mW.
876 Figure 16 and Figure 17 illustrate how the surface profilometry was used to quantify proppant embedment on a a Caney Shale
877 sample after an API test. Figure 17 shows an optical image in (a) that was used for surface profiling and upon the final surface
Journal Pre-proof
878 profiling, cross-sectional lines are drawn in regions of interest to determine how deep the proppant embedments are as shown
879 in Figure 17.
of
pro
Figure 16: Proppant Embedment captured by Surface Profilometry of Caney Shale in contact with ceramic proppant at
re-
12000psi and 95C, API19D. a) shallow embedment blue, up to 20micrometers, b)medium embedment yellow, up to 50mi-
crometers c) deep embedment white up to 70micrometers
lP
rna
Figure 17: (a) Raman microscope image of the shale platelet surface. Ceramic proppants are visible on the surface of the shale
sample (b) 3D-Surface profilometer image obtained from the Raman Microscope. The surface profilometer image obtained
from the Raman microscope was used to determine the embedment depth along the profile.
Jou
880 5.4. Indentation Testing

881 Indentation testing can provide a good indication in predicting proppant embedment. Figure 18 shows how the Indenter
882 can can be used to determine hardness and elastic modulus. hardness provides a good indication in predicting proppant
883 embedment while elastic modulus provides a good indication in predicting fracture aperture. These two properties can only
884 be achieved through indentation testing. After indention testing is complete, post analysis is done using scanning electron
885 microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy. Figure 19 shows an SEM micro-graph and an EDS micro-graph of a Caney
886 shale sample indicating heterogeneity in both the micro-structure and surface chemistry. The hardness and elastic modulus
887 values obtained from indentation testing can provide insight into proppant embedment and fracture aperture generation.
Journal Pre-proof
Microscope
zoom imaging
Lock Lenses
Central Processing Depth Sensor Nano-indenter
Screen display unit tip
of
Micro-indenter tip
Data Logger Steel block Caney Shale
Control unit Sample
Microscope
control unit Sample
Indenter Stage
control unit Indenter
pro
Z-axis control
X and Y controls Speed control
Connection wires
Anti-vibration table
Air Compressor
re-Pressure
Guage
Connection to the
Schematic by: Allan Katende Anti-vibration table
lP
Figure 18: Schematic of the Indenter in the Hydraulic Barrier Materials Laboratory at Oklahoma State University.
rna
Jou
(a) (b)
Figure 19: (a) SEM micrograph of showing indents on Caney Shale Sample. (b) Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy showing the
surface chemistry of the indented Caney Shale sample
Journal Pre-proof
888 5.5. Flow-through Testing coupled with X-ray Computed Tomography

Mount to the side of the Oven dP
Nomenclature
MV - Metering valve
V - Valve
dP - Differential Pressure
V1 V3 V4 C-Connection
V2
To CC-cell Inlet
Or to pump Pressure
of
MV7 MV8
X-ray Computed Tomography

Oven V5 Scanner
Temperature
V6 Sensor BPR Vent
pro
V10
out
in
V9
V7
MV1 MV2 MV3 C9
Refill Refill Refill C7 Core Holder
V8 C6
C8
A B C V11
1000 ml
1000 ml
1000 ml
H20 H20 H20

V12 V13 V14
MV4 MV5 MV6

Gas Booster
Outlet Pressure
C3
C2 To BPR Dome
Exhaust
Isolate Purge
Metering BPR Overburden
Pump Drain Air to Overburden Purge
Overburden Pressure Air to
Overburden Overburden
H20
Pump A
H20
H20
Pump B
Overburden
Pressure
Pump
Drain
Overburden
Overburden Pump
Outlet Pressure
Water or Oil
Air to
re-
Compressed Air
Drive Air Pressure

To Overburden Pump
Air Pressure
Regulator
To Vent
RD
Overburden Pump
Overburden
Pressure
Drain
Overburden
Compressed Air
Isolate
BPR
Overburden
Pressure
Drive Air Pressure
To Gas Booster
Air Pressure
Regulator
Overburden Drive Air Pressure To Core Holder Regulator

Air
1500ml Overburden for Triaxial Cell To Overburden Pump
CC-Cell
Vent Air
Drive Air Pressure

To Overburden Pump Air Pressure Regulator
lP
Closed Pump
To SMC Valves Controller Water or Oil
Pressurize Side Panel
Air Inlet To Isco Pump Controller
Overburden Pump
Outlet Pressure
Air Pressure
Regulator
Schematic by: Allan Katende
Figure 20: Schematic of the flow-through system coupled with the X-ray computed tomography and a Tri-axial cell in the
Hydraulic Barrier Materials Laboratory at Oklahoma State University.
rna
Jou
Core holder inside an X-ray

system to study visually the
phenomena while flowing
Oven with flow accumulators
Figure 21: Visual representation of the flow-through system coupled with the X-ray computed tomography and a Tri-axial
cell in the Hydraulic Barrier Materials Laboratory at Oklahoma State University.
Journal Pre-proof
893 ure 22. Proppant is then spread onto the sample surface
894 and the sample is made intact with the use of teflon tape
I-in n
2-i 895 and two filter papers on both sides so as to prevent fines mi-
896 gration during the actual flow-through experiments. Before
of
Mono-layer of 897 experiments can begin and after experiments, the sample is
Proppant
898 scanned using an X-ray coupled with the flow through sys-
899 tem as shown in figure 20 and figure 21. This enables the
Figure 22: Sliced shale sample indicating how proppant is
pro
spread onto the sample surface prior to flow through testing. 900 visualisation of the internal micro structure properties of the
901 shale sample as seen in figure 23. After the experiment is

889 The flow through system shown in figure 20 and figure 21 902 done, the sample is scanned using a laser profilometer de-
890 is used to investigate fracture permeability and proppant 903 scribed in section 5.3 and an SEM system in-order to visu-
891 embedment up to closure stress of 6,000psi. To achieve 904 alize and quantify the effect of embedment.
892 this, a sample is sliced into two halves as shown in fig-
re-
lP
(a) Top view

rna
Jou
(b) Side view (c) Iso-metric view

Figure 23: Visualization of the micro structure of the proppant sand wiched shale sample using a flow-through system coupled
with the X-ray computed tomography and a Tri-axial cell in the Hydraulic Barrier Materials Laboratory at Oklahoma State
University.
Journal Pre-proof
905 6. Modelling of Proppant embedment during hydraulic 925 • ν ≡ poisson’s ratio
906 fracturing and production 926 • E ≡ modulus of elasticity
927 • a is the radius of contact computed from Cripps (2007)

907 As the fracture is created and packed with proppant, a se-
928 equation 9.
ries of physical and chemical processes happen and change
of
908
3 PR
the characteristics of the hydraulic fracture (Hosseini and a3 = (9)
909
4 E∗
910 Khoei, 2020; Shi, 2021; Wang et al., 2020a; Yue et al.,
929 • P is the indenter load
911 2020). A major concern regarding these fracture charac-
pro
930 • E∗ ≡ coalesced modulus of elasticity of the inden-
912 ter changes is related to the fracture conductivity (Wang
931 ter and half-space computed by Cripps (2007) equa-
913 et al., 2021; Wen et al., 2007). As compressive pressure
932 tion 10.
914 acts on the fracture in conjunction with fluid-rock-proppant
915 interaction, the fracture tends to close, and the fracture flow
′2
1 1 − ν2 1−ν
916 channel tends to be blocked. As a result, the fracture con- = + (10)
E E E′
917
918
919
1973a; Li et al., 2015).
6.1. Proppant embedment modeling

re-
ductivity decreases (Alramahi and Sundberg, 2012; Cooke,
933
934
′2
• ν ≡ poisson’s ratio.
′
• E ≡ youngs modulus of elasticity.
935 The degree of penetration often referred to in the Hertz

920 The study of proppant embedment starts with a linear
936 (1896) contact theory, should be relatively small compared
lP
921 elastic model, and the classic Hertz (1896) contact model
937 to the radius of the sphere indenter. In circumstances where
922 that is between an elastic semi-infinite half-space and a rigid
938 proppant embedment is to a large degree, Chen et al. (2017)
923 spherical ball is used. The analytical solution is provided
939 provided a power law correlation (Equation 11), which per-
924 below:
940 forms better than the Hertz (1896) model for shale rocks
rna
941 with a variety of clay minerals.
h = η (σe )λ (11)
942 • η and λ are fitted parameters from experimentation.
Jia et al. (2019) studied the rod-shaped proppant conduc-

Jou
943
Figure 24: Hertz (1896) contact model between a rigid 944 tivity due to compaction and embedment. In their study,
spherical ball and an elastic semi-infinite space.
945 they considered two cylinders, as shown in Figure 25, and
946 they summarized the following:

1 − ν2 π 2
uz = Pm 2a − r2 ; r 6 a (7)
E 4a
 !1 
1 − ν2 3  2 a a a2 2 
uz = Pm  2a − r2 sin−1 + r2 1 − 2  ; r > a
E 2 r r r Figure 25: The mutually squeezed cylinder and plate(Jia
(8) et al., 2019).
Journal Pre-proof
957 • G0 is the shear modulus, MPa
" ( !)# 958 • H is the depth of embedment, mm

′ 2lr2 1
α = F̄ · (V1 + V2 ) · 1 + ln · (12)
V1 + V2 · F̄ dr1 959 • K is the bulk modulus, MPa
960 • Pc is the closure pressure, MPa
of
′
947 • α is dependent on embedment and deformation. For 961 • ν ≡ poisson’s ratio
948 the illustration in figure 25, when the elastic modulus
962 • ηmax is the maximum vertical displacement on the
949 of the plane tends to infinity, cylinder 1 will not embed
963 boundary, mm
pro
′
950 into the plane and α is determined by only deforma-
964 • η2 ≡ shear coefficient during secondary creep, MPa
951 tion.
′ Ding et al. (2018) provided an analytical solution for
952 • Deformation(β ) is computed using equation 12 and
the Maxwell (1890) model to describe viscoelastic deforma-
953 has to satisfy the relation in equation 13
" ( !)# tion. The dimensionless depth is shown in equations 17&18
′ 2lr2 1
β = F̄ · V1 · 1 + ln · (13)
V1 · F̄ dr1 below for the fractional Maxwell (1890) model:
tion 14 and equation 15 below:

′
The value of embedment(h ) is computed from equa- re- 






D(t) = 





3π 5 +
4E2 (1−ν12 )
E1
h E t iα
− Eα − 3η2
2
(1 − 2ν2 )2 − 4ν2 +
16E2
E 2 tα
η2 Γ(1+α)
 23












′ ′ ′ (17)
h =α −β (14)
965 And if α = 1, equation 18 shows the dimensionless depth
lP
966 for the Maxwell (1890) model.
( " !# !)
′ 2lr2 1 V1 + V2
h = F̄ · V2 1 + ln · − V1 · ln (15)  −E2 t
 23
(V1 + V2 ) · F̄ dr1 V1 

 3πP 5+
4E2 (1−ν12 )
− e 3η2 (1 − 2ν2 )2 − 4ν2 + E2 t 




 o E1 η2 


D(t) = 
 


 16E2 

rna
Shale formations contain a high clay content and un- 

 

(18)
dergo creep deformation. Several scholars have developed
viscoelastic models to account for the creep deformation 967 • D is the deformation.
in proppant embedments. Guo and Liu (2012) used a 968 • Po is the closure stress, Pa.
Maxwell (1890) model to combine the elastic component 969 • ν ≡ poisson’s ratio.
and viscous component. These viscoelastic models include
• E is the elastic modulus.
Jou
970
the Maxwell (1890) model and Burgers (1918) model. The

971 Luo et al. (2020b) applied a modified Burgers (1918)
details are listed in equation 16.
972 model to quantify the viscoelastic deformations by ignor-
!Z t
2Pc (t)(1 − ν a)
2
a (1 − 2ν) 2
973 ing viscous flow. The corresponding total embedment of
H= + 1+ Pc (t)dt (16)
E 2η2 3 0
974 proppants into the fractures could generally be expressed
975 by equation 19
954 • q is the normal distributes stress, MPa
955 • a ≡ radius of q, mm σ σ −Er1

t

ε(t) = + 1 − e ηr1 (19)
Er0 Er1
956 • E ≡ modulus of elasticity, MPa
Journal Pre-proof
976 • ε(t) is the embedment depth. 994 The fluid rheological property plays a large role in prop-
977 • σ ≡ applied stress. 995 pant transportation. Water (Britt, 2012; Britt et al., 2006),
978 • Er1 &Er0 ≡ creep and elastic modulus. 996 gel (Harris and Heath, 2006), foam (Valko and Economides,
979 • ηr1 t ≡ rock visco-elastic coefficient. 997 1997), etc. were studied as fracturing fluids. Harris and
of
998 Heath (2006) addressed the fact that proppant types also af-
980 6.2. Proppant settlement
999 fect proppant transport, since the reaction of certain prop-
981 Novotny (1977) presented a proppant settlement model 1000 pants and fluids might change the fluid rheology.
for fracture fluid based on a single particle in a Newtonian
pro
982
1001 Barree and Conway (1994) suggested that proppant
983 fluid. The terminal settling velocity could be calculated
1002 transport should incorporate bulk flow mechanics (fluid
984 based on laminar, transition and turbulent flow.
1003 movement in the fracture). From the calculated vertical
985 For NRe ≤ 2(S tokes − law region),
1004 and lateral bulk fluid velocity and empirical fluid and prop-
1005 pant velocity relationship, the proppant velocity resulting

24
CD = (20)
NRe 1006 from the fluid effect can be calculated. The overall prop-
V∞ =
g(ρ p − ρ)d
18µ
2
re-(21)
1007
1008
1009
pant velocity arises from the combination of fluid bulk flow
and particle settling. Tomac and Gutierrez (2015) empha-
sized that the proppant settling relations cannot be used in

For 2<NRe < 500(Intermediate region),
1010 conditions with rough and narrow hydraulic fractures and
lP
18.5 1011 high fluid viscosities, since the particle interaction during
CD = 0.6
(22)
NRe 1012 settling, temperamental upward and fluid counterflow may
1013 cause proppant trajectories that defy gravity.
20.34(ρ p − ρ)0.71 d1.14 1014 Previous studies (Barboza et al., 2021; Fei et al., 2020;
V∞ = (23)
ρ0.29 µ0.43
1015 Hosseini and Khoei, 2020; Isah et al., 2021; Suri et al.,
rna
For NRe > 500(Newtons − law region), 1016 2020) have relied on the assumption of uniform fracture
1017 geometry. Smith et al. (2001) found that conditions cor-

C D = 0.44 (24)
1018 responding to a layered modulus (i.e., stacked formations
1019 having different layers with varying moduli) cause width

s
g(ρ p − ρ)d 1020 nonuniformities in fractures that affect proppant placement.
V∞ = 1.74 (25)
ρ
Jou
1021 Chun et al. (2021) identified through experiments that frac-
986 where NRe is the Reynolds number, CD ≡ drag coefficient 1022 ture width nonuniformities and height growth have major
987 on a sphere, rho ≡ density of fluid in gm/cc, ρ p ≡ proppant 1023 effects on proppant transport.
988 density in gm/cc, µ ≡ viscosity in poises, g is the gravita- 1024 As the pumped proppant packs and settles in the hy-
989 tional constant of 980 cm/sec2, d is the proppant diameter 1025 draulic fracture, the fracturing process ends, and the pro-
990 in cm, & v∝ ≡ velocity of a proppant particle in an infinite 1026 duction stage starts. During the production stage, the low
991 media in cm/sec. 1027 conductivity of the uppropped zone, caused by the nonuni-
992 Novotny (1977) also provided the justification for non- 1028 form proppant distribution inside a single fracture, tends to
993 Newtonian fluids, wall effects and slurry concentrations. 1029 diminish production by 50% (Zanganeh et al., 2015). Fur-
Journal Pre-proof
1030 thermore, the nonuniform distribution of proppant among 1063 • where R ≡ radius; ν & E are Poisson’s ratio, & mod-
1031 fracture clusters during fracturing operations can also cause 1064 ulus of elasticity of the half-space; and the effective
1032 significant reductions in well productivity (Li et al., 2021; 1065 stress is σe .
1033 Yu et al., 2015).

1066 Based on the Hertz (1896) contact model, Li et al. (2015)
of
1034 As well production starts, a series of physical and chem-
1067 considered a multilayer proppant with rhombohedron pack-
1035 ical processes happen and change the characteristics of the
1068 ing; the total fracture width reduction resulting from prop-
1036 hydraulic fracture. Van-Batenburg et al. (1999) noted that
1069 pant compaction can be calculated as equations 27&28.
pro
1037 the fluid flow in the fractures affects the packed proppant
 2
local stability, causing proppant flowback and open chan- 2  1 − u2 3 
1038
Wd = 3.78RPc (n2 − 1) 
3  p 
 (27)
E p 
1039 nel development in the fracture. Moreover, several au-
1040 thors have reported that the fracture porosity and perme- !
wf
1041 ability decrease during the production stage (Lee et al., n2 = ceil √ (28)
3·C ·R
1042 2010; Lehman et al., 1999; Sanematsu et al., 2015). Sev-
1043
1044
1045
re-
eral causative mechanisms have been proposed, including
stress changes (Bhandari et al., 2021), chemical reactions
and precipitation (Khan et al., 2021), temperature/stress-

1070
1071
1072
• where ceil(x) ≡ ceiling function given by (ceil(x) =
|x| + 1). C is the sphericity of the proppants, R is the
proppant grain radius, and E and ν are the elastic mod-
1073 ulus and Poisson ratio of the proppant, respectively. In

1046 enhanced dissolution (Bandara et al., 2018; Voltolini, 2021),
1074 addition, w f is the fracture width of the rhombohedron
lP
1047 rearrangement of the packing structure (Liu et al., 2021),
1075 packing before compaction, and Pc is the formation
1048 etc. The decrease in permeability in the fractures signif-
1076 pressure.
1049 icantly decreases the well recovery (Yu et al., 2015; Zan-
1050 ganeh et al., 2015). 1077 Proppant grains can break into smaller parts under high
1078 compressive pressure, which further reduces the fracture

rna
1051 6.3. Proppant Compaction and Deformation

1079 width and blocks the fracture pores, thus decreasing the
1052 Hydraulic fracture network is initially created using pow- 1080 fracture conductivity. A proppant fragment study was con-
1053 erful pumping pressures, and once the fracturing is com- 1081 ducted by Zheng and Tannant (2019). They applied a 3d
1054 pleted for a particular location, the fluids tend to dissipate 1082 discrete element model (PFC3D from Itasca (2014) Con-
1055 into the rock formations as well as flow back, causing fluid 1083 sulting Group) to simulate proppant particle breakage. In
pressure reduction. Later on, as the production proceeds,
Jou
1056
1084 their model, particle deformation is considered to take place
1057 and reservoir pressure is reduced, the fracture closing pres- 1085 once the octahedral shear stress in a particle is greater than
1058 sure from the earth stresses increases. Chen et al. (2017) 1086 the particle strength.
1059 observed that the Hertz (1896) contact model is used to
1060 characterize proppant compaction, where the maximum ver-
1061 tical displacement for two proppant grains can be expressed Particle de f ormation criterion : σi > σ s(D) (29)
1062 as equation 26.
!2 1087 • where σi is the octahedral shear stress and σ s is the

1 − ν2 3
uz = · πσe (26) diameter-dependent stress threshold.
EE ∗ 4 1088
Journal Pre-proof
1089 After the criterion is reached, the original particles are re- 1117 • Db ≡ coefficient of diffusion , ε is the immeasurably
!
1
1090 placed by 4 smaller particles, and volume conservation still 1118 small length × contact area diameter ,
1000
1091 holds. Their results verified that the permeability and poros- 1119 dc is the grain tograin contact diameter, and (Cint)x
dc
1092 ity decrease with proppant fragmentation, thus causing the 1120 = ε and (Cpore)x = 2 are the interface and pore space
of
1093 fracture conductivity to decrease. 1121 concentrations respectively. ω ≡ thickness of the water
1122 film that will be trapped at the interface.

1094 6.4. Proppant Dissolution and Precipitation
In addition to physical proppant compaction, stress- 1123 6.4.3. Precipitation mass flux
pro
1095
dM prec
1096 enhanced dissolution of the proppant increases the density 1124
dt is given by;
1097 of grain packing, and reprecipitation of mineral

dM prec A
1098 The density of the grain packing increases as a result of = V p · kc · C pore − Ceq (32)
dt M
1099 an increase in the density of the proppant which results from
1100 physical proppant compaction and stress-enhnaced disso- 1125 • where V p is the volume of the pore space, A ≡ surface
area of the relative grains, M ≡relative fluid, kc ≡ pre-

1101
1102
1103
lution of the proppants. The mineral re-precipitation fur-
ther occludes pores, thus decreasing the fracture conduc-

re-
tivity (Lee et al., 2010; Luo et al., 2019; Yasuhara et al.,
1126
1127
1128
cipitation rate constant of the dissolved mineral, & Ceq
≡ dissolved quartz equilibrium solubility.
1104 2003). The corresponding dissolution and precipitation of

1129 6.5. Un-uniform proppant distribution
1105 quartz are described in the three sections 6.4.1,6.4.2&6.4.3
lP
1130 In the ideal case, the proppant distribution in the fracture
1106 listed below;
1131 is uniform, but this scenario is atypical. Smith et al. (2001)
1107 6.4.1. Dissolution mass flux 1132 found that conditions corresponding to a layered modulus
1108
dMdiss
is given by; 1133 (i.e., layered formations with different layers having dif-
dt
1134 ferent moduli) cause width nonuniformities in the fracture
rna
dMdiss 3π · Vm2 (σa − σc ) k + ρg dc2 1135 that affect the proppant distribution. Huang et al. (2021a)
= (30)
dt 4RT
1136 identified through experiments that fracture width nonuni-
1109 • where Vm is the solid molar volume, σa = is the grain 1137 formities and height growth have major effects on proppant
1110 to grain pressure which must exceed the hydrostatic 1138 transport. Yue et al. (2020) noted that the injected proppant
1111 pore pressure, k ≡ constant of dissolution for the solid, 1139 gradually settles and accumulates in a ramp shape inside
Jou
1112 ρg ≡ grain density, dc ≡ contact diameter , R ≡ Univer- 1140 the fracture. Proppant also accumulates at any fracture in-
1113 sal gas constant, T ≡ system temperature, and σc is the 1141 tersections. All the above factors cause the nonuniformity
1114 critical stress for the initiation of the pressure solution. 1142 of the proppant distribution inside the fracture. This in turn
1143 affects the fracture closing process. The uneven distribution

1115 6.4.2. Diffusive mass flux 1144 of proppant has a direct impact on the production perfor-
dMdi f f
1116
dt is given by; 1145 mance; thus, some scholars have constructed direct reser-
1146 voir models to identify the relations. Zanganeh et al. (2015)

dMdi f f 2π · ω · Db
= d · Cint − C pore (31) assigned a low conductivity in the unpropped fracture sec-
dt ln 2ε c 1147
1148 tion and claimed that this low conductivity diminished pro-
Journal Pre-proof
1149 duction by 50%. Furthermore, the nonuniform distribution 1179 observed from x-ray micro-tomography. In Katende et al.
1150 of proppant among fracture clusters during fracturing oper- 1180 (2021), core-scale and micro-indentation tests were applied
1151 ations can also cause significant reductions in well produc- 1181 to determine cohesion and friction angle of Caney shale
1152 tivity (Yu et al., 2015). 1182 required for modeling proppant embedment. Parameters
of
1183 for creep compaction can be determined from laboratory
1153 6.6. Numerical modeling from micro-scale to reservoir-
1184 creep experiments at the core-scale, or by indentation and
1154 scale
1185 fracture flow through experiments (Nakagawa and Borglin,
pro
1155 Complementary to the basic analytical methods discussed 1186 2019; Zhang et al., 2015). Recent modeling of the long-
1156 above, numerical modeling can consider more complex 1187 term fracture creep closure for Caney shale properties pre-
1157 conditions and processes, such as material heterogeneity 1188 dicts that clay rich units could experience substantial time-
1158 and bedding anisotropy, non-ideal proppant shapes and dis- 1189 depend proppant embedment and fracture closure (Benge
1159 tributions, mixed brittle-ductile shale behavior, and prop- 1190 et al., 2021). Modeling of production would involve mul-
1160 pant crushing. Numerical modeling can also be used for 1191 tiphase fluid flow and geomechanics, considering oil, gas,
1161
1162
1163
re-
upscaling from nano and micro-scale behavior to reser-
voir fracture closure behavior. This involves multi-scale
modeling of fractured porous and granular media (Hu and

1192
1193
1194
and water components, as well as elasto-plastic closure of
fractures (Han et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018; Shuang et al.,
2020). In formations with high clay content, the model-
1164 Rutqvist, 2021; Zheng et al., 2020) to adequately cap- 1195 ing would need to include creep embedment and its impact
lP
1165 ture compaction of proppant filled fracture that can include 1196 on fracture permeability (Benge et al., 2021; Ding et al.,
1166 stages of proppant redistribution, embedment and crush- 1197 2020; Luo et al., 2020a). Such analysis maybe expanded to
1167 ing (Voltolini and Ajo-Franklin, 2020). In this contexts, 1198 modeling time-dependent processes using coupled thermo-
1168 recent work in Voltolini et al. (2021) and Katende et al. 1199 hydro-mechanical-chemical modeling in which the evolu-
1169 (2021) show how indentation tests can be evaluated in terms 1200 tion of chemical compositions of the fluids can play a sig-
rna
1170 of Mohr-Coulomb plasticity that can then be applied for 1201 nificant role for the long-term production behavior. Future
1171 modeling proppant embedment and fracture closure at the 1202 research along those lines would require coupling of mul-
1172 reservoir scale. 1203 tiphase fluid flow and geomechanics models with reactive
1173 Figure 26 presents results of micro-mechanical modeling 1204 transport models that have been applied for example in nu-
1174 of indentation of a spherical, proppant like, indenter into 1205 clear waste disposal in shale and caprock sealing (Rutqvist
Jou
1175 an anisotropic very ductile shale (Voltolini et al., 2021). 1206 et al., 2014; Xiao et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2014). The vali-
1176 The modeled complex micro-mechanical behavior around 1207 dation of such complex models against laboratory and field
1177 the indenter, including ductile deformation under the in- 1208 observations is essential for more accurate prediction of the
1178 denter and brittle fracture propagation along bedding was 1209 long-term.
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Figure 26: The modeling of indentation tests showing a mixed brittle-ductile behavior of plastic compaction below the indenter
and brittle fracturing along the bedding. (a) comparison of modeled and experimental load-indentation curve, and (b) modeling
results of ductile plastic compaction and brittle fracturing at the peak load. (modified from Voltolini et al. (2021))
1210 7. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

re- 1231
1232
fracturing of shales.
• Specifically, it is imperative to refine the fracturing

1211 Hydraulic fracturing of unconventional shale reservoirs
1233 fluid and hydraulic fracturing treatment processes be-
lP
1212 require use of proppants. Traditionally, quartz sand was
1234 cause imperfections in these procedures affect creep
1213 the top choice as proppant. Recently, due to large demand,
1235 deformation, permeability, and proppant wetting char-
1214 other sources of sand are also considered, as well as manu-
1236 acteristics.
1215 factured ceramic proppants, although the cost is prohibitive
1237 • Rock properties combined with the proppant character-
1216 in the case of ceramics. The reservoir pressure and tem-
rna
1238 istics to a significant degree determine the embedment

1217 perature are outside of the influence of engineering design,
1239 depth. The creation of an effective treatment design re-
1218 and as such dictate what type of fluids, proppants and com-
1240 quires that operators possess a thorough apprehension
1219 pletions design as well as production and reservoir manage-
1241 of the mechanical and mineralogical characteristics of
1220 ment, will be applied in any given field. Mechanical and
1242 the shale formation.
1221 chemical stability of proppant is not only determined by its
1243 • Characterization of the rheological behaviors of vari-
Jou
1222 composition, but the size and shape of particles, and the
1244 ous fracturing fluids is central to ability of operators to
1223 composition of both, engineered and in situ geofluids, to
1245 tailor existing fluids and develop new hydraulic frac-
1224 which proppants will be exposed during their lifecycle.
1246 turing fluids with a broader array of applications.
1225 Based on the assessment of proppant embedment in shale
1226 reservoirs, this review proposes best practices such as to op- 1247 • The use of proppants coated with various materials
1227 timize hydraulic fracturing and minimize proppant embed- 1248 such as nanoparticles, graphene, and polymers, can po-
1228 ment from practical and economic perspectives. In addition, 1249 tentially prevent fines generation preventing formation
1229 the review outlines next steps for addressing proppant em- 1250 damage and maintaining well productivity.
1230 bedment and environmental concerns related to hydraulic 1251 • Modeling of proppant behavior should always be val-
Journal Pre-proof
1252 idated against experimental studies and field observa- 1267 Acknowledgements
1253 tions and theoretical predictions can be advanced only
1254 through a more nuanced understanding of the rheology 1268 The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge
1255 of fracturing fluids. 1269 that this study was made possible by Department of En-
of
1270 ergy(DOE) Award DE-FE0031776 from the Office of Fossil
1256 These are some of the gaps and future avenues of re-
1271 Energy. Funding for LBNL was provided by the U.S. De-
1257 search and opportunities for collaborative technological de-
1272 partment of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, through the Na-
1258 velopment, which requires an interdisciplinary approach of
pro
1273 tional Energy Technology Laboratory and Oklahoma State
1259 science, engineering in academia, government, and private
1274 University, under Award Number DE-AC02-05CH11231.
1260 sector.
1275 We would like to thank Mr. E. Cline formerly at Chesa-
1261 Nomenclature 1276 peake Energy, Mr. G. King from G. E, King Engineering
k Permeability
1277 & Mr. B. Dean from Continental Resources for construc-
I Illite
1278 tive feedback on the article. The author would like to thank
S
N2
CO2
Smectite
Nitrogen
Carbondioxide
re- 1279
1280
1281
Dr. Mileva Radonjic without whose guidance this work
would not have come to completion. The author is also
grateful to the Petroleum Engineering PhD program in the

PAM Polyacrylamide
1282 School of Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State Uni-
KCL Potassium Chloride
lP
1262 1283 versity in Stillwater Oklahoma as the major PhD work has
LWC Low Weight Ceramic
1284 been conducted here with a research assistantship funded
HSP High Strength Proppant
1285 by Dr. Mileva Radonjic. The author would also like to
RCP Resin Coated Proppant
1286 thank; Mr. B. Anderson for his assistance in providing the
CCP Ceramic Coated Proppant
1287 Corelab API schematic, Mr. B. Chapman for his assistance
rna
ISP Intermediate Strength Proppant

1288 with the visualization of the schematics for proppants, Mrs.
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery
1289 Lisa O’Connel for providing optical micro-graphs from the
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
1290 Proppant Consortium, Mrs. Ashley. Rich for providing
1291 proppant optical micrographs from PropTester Inc, and Mr.

1263 Declaration of interests
1292 D. Kevin for his assistance with the GIS. The authors would
The authors declare that they have no known compet-
Jou
1264 1293 also like to thank Mrs. L. Whitworth and Mr. B. Johnson
1265 ing conflicting interests or personal relationships that could 1294 from the Venture 1 facility at Oklahoma State University for
1266 have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 1295 their assistance in acquiring SEM and EDS data.
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Table 2: Summary of previous studies investigating proppant embedment
Author Methodology Formation Name Model used Observations
Liu et al. (2021) • Finite Element Modeling. • Diameter of proppants had
—— • Utilized a model based on Li et al. (2015) find- insignificant effect on the
ings; optimum proppant packing
 ratio.
 1 − ν2  3
2
2   1
h = 1.04D1 (K 2 p) 3   • Underestimation of prop-
E1 pant concentration was due
  2 to proppant embedment
 1 − ν22  3  p
+    + D2

negligence.
E2 E2
Ding et al. (2020) Finite Element Modeling

re- – h is the embedment depth, D1 &D2 are di-
ameters of the proppant, E1 &E2 are the
proppant elastic modulus, p is the effective
stress, ν1 &ν2 are the poisons ratio.
• Hypothesised a model based on Hertz (1896)

• Proppant embedment had a
• Sandstone detrimental effect on pro-
contact theory duction.
  32
 
 
lP
 
d 
32
3πq 
=   
R    

 4  !1 ! 
  1−ν2
1
1−ν2  
2
E1 + E2
– d is the contact depth, E1 &E2 are the prop-

pant elastic modulus, q is the effective
stress, ν1 &ν2 are the poisons ratio.
Zhi and Elsworth Experimental methodology • When the variable stress
rna
(2020) combined with Numerical • Coal and Shale • Derived a semi-nalytical model to anticipate in- hardening effect was ne-
Modeling Samples dentation and propped permeability evolution. glected, proppant embed-
ment was overestimated.
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Table 2 continued: Summary of previous studies investigating proppant embedment
Bandara et al. • Experimental study to in- Proppant embedment(H) = • All proppants exhibited significant pack
(2020c) vestigate crushing and em- • Steel pedestals hardening.
T otal de f ormation
bedment of proppant packs of 54mm in di- • Albeit sand proppants are easier to be ob-
−Proppant de f ormation
using sintered bauxite ce- ameter. tained in terms of cost, RCP and CCP
Chen et al. (2020)

ramic, resin coated sand
and natural sand as prop-
pants.
Finite Element Modeling
re-
• Formation char-
acteristics of
−Proppant
−Rock
pack
• Hypothesised a model based on

(1896) contact theory
de f ormation
de f ormation
Hertz
showed great proppant crushing and em-
bedment tests.
• The higher the proppant distribution den-

sity, the higher the heat extraction rate
and the reduction in ammassed thermal
a geothermal  2 energy and break through time.
 3Pe,c l2pr R  3 1
reservoir. δ =  
4E ∗  R
– δ is the contact depth, Pe,c is the ef-
lP
fective stress, E ∗ effective youngs
33
modulus for the proppant and rock

formation, R is the proppant radius,
l pr distance between two adjacent
proppants
Perez et al. (2020) Experiments& Modeling Shale Integrated geomechanical workflow • Fluid design and proppant selection
must be optimised considering the geo–
mechanical conditions.
Luo et al. (2020b) Modeling
rna
σ σ −Er1
t
• Proppant grain arrangement significantly
—— ε(t) = + 1 − e ηr1 influences fracture conductivity and this
Er0 Er1
decreases as the effect of fines migration,
• ε(t) ≡ degree o f embedment, σ = crushing of proppants, formation damage
exerted compressive stress, Er1 ≡ and dissolution of proppants.
Modulus o f elasticity
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Osiptsov et al. Coupled finite element model- 2 • Proppant pack com-
(2020) ing —— eh = b0 + b1 1.04D1 K 2 p 3 paction greatly in-
 !2 !2   fluences fracture
 1 − ν2 1 − ν2s 3 1 − ν2 3  p 
×  + −  + D2  conductivity whereas
E Es E E the decrease in fracture
aperture due to prop-
• eh is the embedment depth, b0 , b1 , D1 &D2 are pa- pant embedment has an
rameters describing the embedment. K ≡ piezocon- insignificant effect on
Li et al. (2020) Computational modeling Shale

re- ductivity coeficient, p ≡ pressure, E ≡ equivalent elas-
tic modulus of elasticity, E s ≡ modulus of elasticity
of the rock material, ν ≡ poisson ration & ν s ≡ rock
material poisson ration.
• Used the Chen et al. (2017) hypothesis; h = η (σe )λ
and h ≡ embedment, η&λ are fitting parameters and
well production.
• High density proppant

embedment reduces
σe is the effective stress. fracture deformation
as the effective stress
increases.
lP
34
Voltolini and Ajo- • Experimental study suppo- • Three shale • When quartz grains are
Franklin (2020) erted by insitu X-Ray mi- formations were —— intact, induced fractur-
crotomography used; ing and partial embed-
– Proppants used are; ment of the proppants
1. Eagleford
1. Sand obtained is seen in all shales.
shale
from Ottawa
2. Marcellus
a proxy for an
shale
ideal frac sand
2. Ceramic prop- 3. Niobrara
rna
pants shale
Yun et al. (2020) Computational modeling Geothermal Reser- • Used the Hertz (1896) hypothesis; • Thermal breakthrough
voir time varies with prop-
 2
 3Pe,c l2pr R  3 1 pant distribution.
δ =  
4E ∗  R • An increase in the
propped fracture
– δ is the contact depth, Pe,c is the effective stress,
spacing increased the
E ∗ effective youngs modulus for the proppant
geothermal develop-
and rock formation, R is the proppant radius, l pr
ment efficiency.
distance between two adjacent proppants
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Author Methodology Formation Model used Observations
Name

Wang and Elsworth Computational 

 2 16ηE ′2 w (x,z)ϕ̄ (x,z) 32 • Ultra light weight prop-

wa 4E3π
ln r0 wr (x,z)
r0
, wr (x, z) ≤ wr0 (x, z)ϕ̄r0 (x, z)
(2020) modeling —— we (x, z) =  9π3 c p pants exhibited great per-



 0, wr (x, z) ≥ wr0 (x, z)ϕ̄r0 (x, z) formance with gases com-
• wa is the asperity width, E is the equivalent young’s modulus of elas- pared to sands.
ticity, wr (x, z) is the fracture aperture, ϕ̄r0 (x, z) is the residual proppant
concentration.
Haoze et al. (2020) Orthogonal Coal bed
experimentation methane
reservoir re- ω pb = ω p − ω p1 − (ωb − ωb1 )
• ω pb is the embedding depth, ω p is the deformation value of the block
under proppant embedment, ω p1 is the deformation of the proppant
test block at 1MPa, ωb is the deformation value of the block without
proppant placement, ωb1 is the deformation of the proppant test block
at 1MPa.
• Increase in proppant mesh
values increases character-
istics of fracture proppant
assemblies do increase.
• Higher proppant place-
ment may cause fracture
damage.
Xu et al. (2019, Computational Shale hem = um − u p • There is a non-linear vari-
2020) modeling to vali- • hem is the embedment depth, um is the displacement between the frac-
ation in fracture conduc-
date experimental ture and proppant when there is closure pressure, u p is the displace-
tivity due to change in
lP
data ment at the contact part of the fracture and proppant.
mechanical properties of
35
shale.
Fan et al. (2019, Discrete ele- d 1
L m2 • Adding more proppants
2020) ment modeling —— = B2
D D2 into the fracture alleviates
supported by • d = embedment diameter impress on fractured wall(m), D = proppant proppant embedment lead-
experimental data diameter, L = load exerted on a proppant surface, B and m are rock ing to fracture propagation.
fitted coefficients for experimental data.
Tang et al. (2019) Experimental Sandstone • Proppant embedment in-
—— creased with the increase
rna
in shear stress.
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Zheng et al. (2020) Discrete element model- Montney siltstone • Proppants with the small-
ing supported by experi- —— est size resulted in the least
ments proppant embedment.
Elsarawy and Nasr- Experimental • Eagle Ford • Proppant porosity under
El-Din (2019) shale —— stress had a direct propor-
• Marcellus shale. tionality to the concentra-
tion of proppants and it
Nakagawa and Bor-

glin (2019)
Zhong et al. (2019)

Experimentation sup-
ported by in-situ visuali-
sation
Experimentation
re-
Marcellus shale
——
was opposite to proppant
size.
• Brittleness and high cal-

cite content of shale causes
proppant crushing.
1. Longmaxi shale • Fracture conductivity de-
2. Wufeng shale —— creases as the closure pres-
sure increases for both for-
mations.
lP
Karazincir et al. Experimentation 1. Grey Berea • Near the fractured face,
36
(2018, 2019) 2. Castlegate —— there was a loss in perme-

3. Berea Buff ability due to proppant em-
bedment.
Chen et al. (2018) Computational modeling !
3.3πσy 2 • An increase in proppant
—— dc1 = R concentration had no effect
4E ′
• dc1 = maximum depth of embedment, R = radius on the contact stress and
′
of the proppant, σy = compressive stress, E = the degree of embedment.
effective young’s modulus of elasticity.
rna
Mittal et al. (2018) Experimentation 1. Eagle Ford • Proppant embedment had a

Shale —— great dependence on min-
2. Vaca Muerta eralogy.
Shale
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Pimenov and Mathematical modeling X
m X
m
ui (x) = Bils (x)Dls + Biln (x)Dln • Proppant embedment is
Kanevskaya (2017) —— minimised by evaluating
l=1 l=1
Z the change in the well
+ Gik (x, z) ▽ p fk (z)dV(z) productivity.
V
• ui (x= displacement; Bils (x)&Biln (x) = influence
coefficients for displacements; D s &Dn =tan-
gential and normal displacement coefficients,
Ghanizadeh et al.
(2016)
Mueller and Amro

Rigorous core analysis
supported by imaging
Mathematical modeling
re-
Montney shale
Gik (x, z) = Greens function.
s
——
!
• Propped fracture perme-
ability was higher than
the combination of un-
propped fracture and ma-
trix permeability.
• Fluid–rock interaction re-
1. Marcellus shale D D2 d2
(2015) supported by indentation uz = − − duced the surface hardness
hardness experiments 2. Eagle Ford 2 4 4
and increased the depth of
shale • uz = depth of embedment, d = indentantion diam-
embedment of all shales.
lP
3. Mancos shale eter, D = indenter diameter/proppant diameter.
37
Corapcioglu et al. Experimentation Niobrara shale • Rock-fluid interactions de-

(2014) —— creased the youngs modu-
lus while proppant embed-
ment and crushing became
inevitable.
Kurz et al. (2013) Experimentation Bakken shale • Fracture conductivity was
—— a function of the; proppant
type, formation strength,
rna
embedment and spalling.

Denney (2012) Experimentation Eagle Ford • Samples with the highest
—— carbonate content showed
a reduced young’s modu-
lus and the highest embed-
ment.
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
Akrad et al. (2011) Experimentation • Exposure to fracturing flu-
1. Bakken shale
—— ids reduced the youngs
2. Barnett shale
modulus leading to embed-
3. Eagle Ford ment in all formations.
shale
4. Haynesville
shale
Neumann et al. Experimental Quissam Forma-
(2010)
Wen et al. (2007) Experimental

re-
tion(tight limestone)
1. Siltstone
2. Conglomerate
3. Dolomitic
——
——
• The use of the right prop-
pant may prevent flow-
back, crushing and embed-
ment.
• Proppant embedment leads
to great fracture damage.
mudstone
Abass et al. (2006) Experimentation Carbonate • Rock-fluid interactions
—— caused embedment.
lP
38
Nguyen et al. (2005) Experimental Unconsolidated • Proppant packs reduced

sandstone —— fines migration.
Lacy et al. (1998) Computational modeling Sandstone • When the brittle hardness
supported by laboratory —— and young’s modulus de-
experiments. creases, embedment be-
comes a problem.
Volk et al. (1981) Experimental Tight sandstone • When the proppant cover-
rna
—— age decreased, the rate of

fracture closure increased.
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
1339 North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, 14-16 September,

1340 Cairo, Egypt, 2015. doi: 10.2118/175833-MS.
1296 Bibliography
1341 R. Atteberry, R. Tucker, and J. Ritz. Application Of Sintered Bauxite Prop-
1342 pants To Stimulation Of Low Permeability South Texas Gas Reservoirs.
1297 H. H. Abass, A. A. Al-Mulhem, M. H. Alqam, and M. R. Khan. Acid Frac-
1343 pages 1–11. Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, 20-22
1298 turing or Proppant Fracturing in Carbonate Formation? A Rock Me-
of
1344 May, Denver, Colorado, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1979. doi:
1299 chanics View. pages 1–9. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual
1345 10.2118/7924-MS.
1300 Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-27 September, San Antonio,
1346 J. Bai, Y. Kang, Z. Chen, L. You, M. Chen, and X. Li. Changes in retained
1301 Texas, USA, 2006. doi: 10.2118/6813-MS.
1347 fracturing fluid properties and their effect on shale mechanical proper-
1302 Y. N. Abousleiman, M. H. Tran, S. Hoang, C. P. Bobko, A. Ortega,
pro
1348 ties. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 855(103163),
1303 and F.-J. Ulm. Geomechanics Field and Laboratory Characterization
1349 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103163.
1304 of the Woodford Shale: The Next Gas Play. pages 1–14. Society
1350 K. Bandara, P. Ranjith, A. Haque, W. Wanniarachchi, W. Zheng, and
1305 of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
1351 T. Rathnaweera. An experimental investigation of the effect of
1306 hibition, 11-14 November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 2007. doi:
1352 long-term, time-dependent proppant embedment on fracture permeabil-
1307 10.2118/110120-MS.
1353 ity and fracture aperture reduction. International Journal of Rock Me-
1308 M. Ahamed, M. Perera, L. Dong-yin, P. Ranjith, and S. Matthai. Proppant
1354 chanics and Mining Sciences, 144:1–22, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.
1309 damage mechanisms in coal seam reservoirs during the hydraulic frac-
1310
1311
1312
1313
fuel.2019.04.166.
re-
turing process: A review. Fuel, 253:615–629, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.
O. M. Akrad, J. L. Miskimins, and M. Prasad. The Effects of Fractur-

ing Fluids on Shale Rock Mechanical Properties and Proppant Embed-
1355
1356
1357
1358
2021.104813.
K. M. A. S. Bandara, P. G. Ranjith, T. D. Rathnaweera, M. S. A. Perera,
and W. Kumari. Thermally-induced mechanical behaviour of a single
proppant under compression: Insights into the long-term integrity of hy-
1359 draulic fracturing in geothermal reservoirs. Measurement, pages 76–91,
1314 ment. pages 1–12. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
1360 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.01.053.
30 October-2 November, Denver, Colorado, USA, Society of Petroleum
lP
1315
1361 K. M. A. S. Bandara, P. G. Ranjith, and T. D. Rathnaweera.

1316 Engineers, 2011. doi: 10.2118/146658-MS.
1362 Laboratory-scale study on proppant behaviour in unconventional oil and
1317 E. Alagoz and M. M. Sharma. Investigating Shale-Fluid Interactions and
1363 gas reservoir formations. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineer-
1318 Its Effect on Proppant Embedment Using NMR techniques. American
1364 ing, 78(103329), 2020a. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103329.
1319 Rock Mechanics Association, pages 1–8, 2021.
1365 K. M. A. S. Bandara, P. G. Ranjith, and T. D. Rathnaweera. Extensive anal-
1320 S. Almond, G. Penny, and M. Conway. Factors Affecting Proppant Flow-
rna
1366 ysis of single ceramic proppant fracture mechanism and the influence of
1321 back with Resin Coated Proppants. pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum
1367 realistic extreme reservoir conditions on proppant mechanical perfor-
1322 Engineers, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 15-16 May,
1368 mance. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, page 107586,
1323 The Hague, Netherlands, 1995. doi: 10.2118/30096-MS.
1369 2020b. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107586.
1324 B. Alramahi and M. Sundberg. Proppant Embedment And Conductivity
1370 K. M. A. S. Bandara, P. G. Ranjith, T. D. Rathnaweera, W. A. M. Wan-
1325 of Hydraulic Fractures In Shales. pages 1–6. 46th U.S. Rock Mechan-
1371 niarachchi, and S. Q. Yang. Crushing and embedment of proppant
1326 ics/Geomechanics Symposium, 24-27 June, Chicago, Illinois, Ameri-
1372 packs under cyclic loading: An insight to enhanced unconventional
1327 can Rock Mechanics Association, 2012.
Jou
1373 oil/gas recovery. Geoscience Frontiers, pages 1–15, 2020c. doi:

1328 M. Arshadi, A. Zolfaghari, M. Piri, G. A. Al-Muntasheri, and M. Sayed.
1374 10.1016/j.gsf.2020.02.017.
1329 The effect of deformation on two-phase flow through proppant-packed
1375 B. R. Barboza, B. Chen, and C. Li. A Review on Proppant Transport
1330 fractured shale samples: A micro-scale experimental investigation.
1376 Modelling. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pages 1–13,
1331 Advances in Water Resources, 105:108–131, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.
1377 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108753.
1332 advwatres.2017.04.022.
1378 R. Barree and M. Conway. Proppant Holdup, Bridging, and Screenout
1333 M. B. Asadi, M. Dejam, and S. Zendehboudi. Semi-analytical solution
1379 Behavior in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. pages 1–7. Society of
1334 for productivity evaluation of a multi-fractured horizontal well in a
1380 Petroleum Engineers, SPE Production and Operations Symposium, 24-
1335 bounded dual-porosity reservoir. Journal of Hydrology, 581(124288),
1381 27 March, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2000. doi: 10.2118/67298-MS.
1336 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124288.
1382 R. Barree and M. Conway. Experimental and Numerical Modeling of
1337 A. I. Assem and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. Interactions Between Mud Acid and
1383 Convective Proppant Transport. pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum
1338 Sand Proppants. pages 1–11. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
Journal Pre-proof
1384 Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 25-28 1429 ence and Exhibition, 24-27 September, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006.
1385 September, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1994. doi: 10.2118/28564-MS. 1430 doi: 10.2118/102227-MS.
1386 R. D. Barree, R. J. Duenckel, and B. T. Hlidek. Proppant Sieve Distribution 1431 A. Buenrostro, A. Harbi, A. Arevalo, and J. Carmona. Channel Frac-
1387 - What Really Matters? pages 1–14. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technol- 1432 turing Technology to Successfully Deploy Proppant Fracturing Stim-
1388 ogy Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 February, The Woodlands, Texas, 1433 ulation Under Limited BHP Window for Completion Integrity. pages
of
1389 USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2019. doi: 10.2118/194382-MS. 1434 1–11. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas
1390 R. Beckwith. Proppants: Where in the World. pages 1–5. Journal of 1435 Show and Conference, 18-21 March, Manama, Bahrain, 2019. doi:
1391 Petroleum Technology, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2011. doi: 1436 10.2118/195086-MS.
1392 10.2118/0411-0036-JPT. 1437 J. M. Burgers. Het atoommodel van Rutherford-Bohr. Royal Netherlands
pro
1393 M. Benge, Y. Lu, A. Katende, J. Rutqvist, D. Crandall, A. Haecker, 1438 Academy of Arts and Sciences., 1918. doi: http://ilorentz.org/history/
1394 G. King, J. Renk, M. Radonjic, and A. Bunger. Connecting Geome- 1439 proefschriften/sources/Burgers 1918.pdf.
1395 chanical Properties with Potential for Proppant Embedment and Pro- 1440 H. B. Carroll and B. Baker. Particle Size Distributions Generated By
1396 duction Decline for the Emerging Caney Shale, Oklahoma. pages 1–6. 1441 Crushed Proppants And Their Effects On Fracture Conductivity. pages
1397 Society of Petroleum Engineers, Unconventional Resources Technol- 1442 1–11. Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, 20-22 May,
1398 ogy Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 26-28 July 2021, 2021. 1443 Denver, Colorado, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1979. doi: 10.2118/
1399 M. R. Besler, J. W. Steele, T. Egan, and J. Wagner. Improving Well Pro- 1444 7923-MS.
1400
1401
1402
1403
re-
ductivity and Profitability in the BakkenA Summary of Our Experiences
Drilling, Stimulating, and Operating Horizontal Wells. pages 1–13. So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 1114 November 2007.,
1445
1446
1447
1448
D. Chen, Z. Ye, Z. Pan, Y. Zhou, and J. Zhang. A permeability model for
the hydraulic fracture filled with proppant packs under combined ef-
fect of compaction and embedment. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 149:428–435, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.045.
1404 2007. doi: 10.2118/110679-MS. 1449 M. Chen, S. Zhang, M. Liu, X. Ma, Y. Zou, T. Zhou, N. Li, and S. Li.
1405 A. R. Bhandari, P. B. Flemings, and R. Hofmann. The dependence 1450 Calculation method of proppant embedment depth in hydraulic fractur-
lP
1406 of shale permeability on confining stress and pore pressure. Jour- 1451 ing. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 45(1):159–166, 2018.
1407 nal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 92:1–16, 2021. doi: 1452 doi: 10.1016/S1876-3804(18)30016-8.
1408 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.1040081. 1453 X. Chen, P. Eichhubl, J. E. Olson, and T. A. Dewers. Effect of Water
1409 S. Bilgen and I. Sarikaya. New horizon in energy: Shale gas. Journal of 1454 on Fracture Mechanical Properties of Shales. Journal of Geophys-
1410 Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 35, Part A:637–645, 2016. doi: 1455 ical Research-Solid Earth, 124(3):2428–2444, 2019. doi: 10.1029/
rna
1411 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.09.014. 1456 2018JB016479.

1412 D. Boardman and J. Puckette. Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Up- 1457 Y. Chen, H. Wang, T. Li, Y. Wang, F. Ren, and G. Ma. Evaluation of
1413 per Mississippian Barnett Shale of Texas and Caney Shale of Southern 1458 geothermal development considering proppant embedment in hydraulic
1414 Oklahoma. OGS Open-File Report No. 6, 2006. Oklahoma Geological 1459 fractures. Renewable Energy, 153:985–997, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.
1415 Survey, Norman Oklahoma. 1460 renene.2020.02.063.
1416 J. M. Bremer, B. Mibeck, B. L. Huffman, C. D. Gorecki, J. A. Sorensen, 1461 C. Cheng and A. P. Bunger. Rapid simulation of multiple radially grow-
1417 D. D. Schmidt, and J. A. Harju. Mechanical and Geochemical As- 1462 ing hydraulic fractures using an energy-based approach. International
Jou
1418 sessment of Hydraulic Fracturing Proppants Exposed to Carbon Diox- 1463 Journal of Numerical and Analystical Methods in Geomechanics, 2015.
1419 ide and Hydrogen Sulfide. pages 1–9. Canadian Unconventional Re- 1464 doi: 10.1002/nag.2471.
1420 sources and International Petroleum Conference, 19-21 October, Cal- 1465 T. Chun, D. Zhu, Z. Zhang, S. Mao, and K. Wu. Experimental Study
1421 gary, Alberta, Canada, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010. doi: 1466 of Proppant Transport in Complex Fractures with Horizontal Bedding
1422 10.2118/136550-MS. 1467 Planes for Slickwater Fracturing. SPE Production and Operations, 36
1423 L. Britt. Fracture stimulation fundamentals. Journal of Natural Gas Sci- 1468 (01):1–13, 2021. doi: 10.2118/199877-PA.
1424 ence and Engineering, 8:34–51, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2012.06. 1469 D. Chuprakov, L. Belyakova, A. Iuldasheva, A. Alekseev, D. Syresin,
1425 006. 1470 M. Chertov, P. Spesivtsev, F. I. S. Suarez, I. Velikanov, L. Semin, and
1426 L. K. Britt, M. B. Smith, Z. A. Haddad, J. P. Lawrence, S. T. Chipperfield, 1471 D. Bannikov. Proppant Flowback: Can We Mitigate the Risk? pages 1–
1427 and T. J. Hellman. Waterfracs: We Do Need Proppant After All. pages 1472 27. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technol-
1428 1–15. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Confer- 1473 ogy Conference and Exhibition, 4-6 February, The Woodlands, Texas,
Journal Pre-proof
1474 USA, 2020. doi: 10.2118/199748-MS. 1519 144391-MS.

1475 D. Chuprakov, A. Iuldasheva, and A. Alekseev. Criterion of proppant 1520 M. E. Curtis, E. Goergen, J. Jernigen, C. H. Sondergeld, and C. S. Rai.
1476 pack mobilization by filtrating fluids: Theory and experiments. Jour- 1521 High-Resolution Mapping of the Distribution and Connectivity of Or-
1477 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, page 107792, 2021. doi: 1522 ganic Matter in Shales. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
1478 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107792. 1523 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-29 October, Am-
of
1479 P. E. Clark. Transport of Proppant in Hydraulic Fractures. Society of 1524 sterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. doi: 10.2118/170787-MS.
1480 Petroleum Engineers, pages 1–7, 2006. doi: 10.2118/103167-MS. 1525 D. K. Danso, B. M. Negash, T. Y. Ahmed, N. Yekeen, and T. A. O. Ganat.
1481 C. Clarkson, N. Solano, R. M. Bustin, A. Bustin, G. Chalmers, L. He, 1526 Recent advances in multifunctional proppant technology and increased
1482 Y. Melnichenko, A. Radlinski, and T. Blach. Pore structure character- 1527 well output with micro and nano proppants. Journal of Petroleum Sci-
pro
1483 ization of North American shale gas reservoirs using USANS/SANS, 1528 ence and Engineering, 196:1–22, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.
1484 gas adsorption, and mercury intrusion. Fuel, 103:606–616, 2013. doi: 1529 108026.
1485 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.119. 1530 M. Dejam. Tracer dispersion in a hydraulic fracture with porous walls.
1486 C. R. Clarkson, J. L. Jensen, and T. Blasingame. Reservoir Engineering for 1531 Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 150:169–178, 2019. doi:
1487 Unconventional Reservoirs: What Do We Have to Consider? pages 1– 1532 10.1016/j.cherd.2019.07.027.
1488 45. Society of Petroleum Engineers, North American Unconventional 1533 M. Dejam, H. Hassanzadeh, and Z. Chen. Semi-analytical solution for
1489 Gas Conference and Exhibition, 14-16 June, The Woodlands, Texas, 1534 pressure transient analysis of a hydraulically fractured vertical well in a
1490
1491
1492
1493
USA, 2011. doi: 10.2118/145080-MS.
re-
C. Cooke. Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers. pages
1–7. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
1973a. doi: 10.2118/4117-PA.
1535
1536
1537
1538
bounded dual-porosity reservoir. Journal of Hydrology, 565:289–301,
2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.020.
S. Deng, H. Li, G. Ma, H. Huang, and X. Li. Simulation of shaleprop-
pant interaction in hydraulic fracturing by the discrete element method.
1494 C. E. Cooke. Fracturing With a High-Strength Proppant. pages 1–5. Jour- 1539 International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 70:219–
1495 nal of Petroleum Technology, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1977. 1540 228, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.04.011.
lP
1496 doi: 10.2118/6213-PA. 1541 D. Denney. Fracturing-Fluid Effects on Shale and Proppant Embedment.
1497 C. E. Cooke. Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers. pages 1542 pages 1–3. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Society of Petroleum En-
1498 1–7. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1543 gineers, 2012. doi: 10.2118/0312-0059-JPT.
1499 September 1973b. doi: 10.2118/4117-PA. 1544 E. Detournay and A. H. D. Cheng. Fundamentals of Poroelasticity. Anal-
1500 C. E. Cooke, J. L. Gidley, and D. H. Mutti. Use of High-Strength Proppant 1545 ysis and Design Methods, pages 113–171, 1993. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-
rna
1501 for Fracturing Deep Wells. pages 1–8. SPE Deep Drilling and Produc- 1546 08-040615-2.50011-3.
1502 tion Symposium, 17-19 April, Amarillo, Texas, Society of Petroleum 1547 D. Dewhurst, A. Bunger, M. Josh, J. Sarout, C. D. Piane, L. Esteban, and
1503 Engineers, 1977. doi: 10.2118/6440-MS. 1548 M. Clennell. Mechanics, Physics, Chemistry and Shale Rock Proper-
1504 H. Corapcioglu, J. Miskimins, and M. Prasad. Fracturing Fluid Effects on 1549 ties. pages 1–11. American Rock Mechanics Association, 47th U.S.
1505 Young’s Modulus and Embedment in the Niobrara Formation. pages 1– 1550 Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 23-26 June, San Fran-
1506 17. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-29 October, 1551 cisco, California, 2013. doi: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-
1507 Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014. 1552 paper/ARMA-2013-151.
Jou
1508 doi: 10.2118/170835-MS. 1553 B. Dewprashad, H. Abass, D. Meadows, J. Weaver, and B. Bennett. A
1509 G. Coulter and R. D. Wells. The Advantages of High Proppant Concentra- 1554 Method To Select Resin-Coated Proppants. pages 1–8. Society of
1510 tion in Fracture Stimulation. pages 1–5. Journal of Petroleum Technol- 1555 Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
1511 ogy, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1972. doi: 10.2118/3298-PA. 1556 tion, 3-6 October, Houston, Texas, 1993. doi: 10.2118/26523-MS.
1512 A. C. F. Cripps. Introduction to Contact Mechanics. Springer, 2007. ISBN 1557 B. Dindoruk, R. R. Ratnakar, and J. He. Review of recent advances in
1513 978-0-387-68187-0. 1558 petroleum fluid properties and their representation. Journal of Natural
1514 M. E. Curtis, R. J. Ambrose, C. H. Sondergeld, and C. S. Rai. Transmission 1559 Gas Science and Engineering, pages 1–13, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.
1515 and Scanning Electron Microscopy Investigation of Pore Connectivity 1560 2020.103541.
1516 of Gas Shales on the Nanoscale. pages 1–10. Society of Petroleum 1561 X. Ding, F. Zhang, L. Yang, and G. Q. Zhang. Modelling Proppant Embed-
1517 Engineers, North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhi- 1562 ment in Viscoelastic Formations with the Fractional Maxwell Model.
1518 bition, 14-16 June, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2011. doi: 10.2118/ 1563 pages 1–12. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engi-
Journal Pre-proof
1564 neering, ISRM International Symposium - 10th Asian Rock Mechanics 1609 M. G. Edgin, B. Medina-Rodriguez, J. P. Kaszuba, J. C. Dewey, and V. Al-
1565 Symposium, 29 October - 3 November, Singapore, 2018. 1610 varado. Geochemical reactions and alteration of pore architecture in
1566 X. Ding, F. Zhang, and G. Zhang. Modelling of time-dependent prop- 1611 saturated shale after injection of stimulation fluid. Fuel, (120815):1–
1567 pant embedment and its influence on tight gas production. Jour- 1612 11, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120815.
1568 nal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (103519), 2020. doi: 1613 M. A. El-Kader, M. I. Abdoub, A. M. Fadl, A. A. Rabou, O. A. Desouky,
of
1569 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103519. 1614 and M. F. El-Shahat. Novel light-weight glass-ceramic proppants based
1570 T. Dong, N. B. Harris, K. Ayranci, and S. Yang. The impact of rock 1615 on frits for hydraulic fracturing process. Ceramics International, 46(2),
1571 composition on geomechanical properties of a shale formation: Mid- 1616 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.09.173.
1572 dle and Upper Devonian Horn River Group shale, Northeast British 1617 H. Elochukwu and K. K. KhaiKiat. Characterization of Baram and Tan-
pro
1573 Columbia, Canada. AAPG Bulletin, 101(2):177204, 2017. doi: 10. 1618 jung sands as potential proppants. Energy Geoscience, 2(3):175–180,
1574 1306/07251615199. 1619 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.engeos.2020.12.002.
1575 T. Dong, N. B. Harris, L. J.Knapp, J. M. McMillan, and D. L. Bish. The 1620 A. M. Elsarawy and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. An Experimental Investigation
1576 effect of thermal maturity on geomechanical properties in shale reser- 1621 of Proppant Diagenesis and Proppant-Formation-Fluid Interactions in
1577 voirs: An example from the Upper Devonian Duvernay Formation, 1622 Hydraulic Fracturing of Eagle Ford Shale. pages 1–25. SPE Trinidad
1578 Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1623 and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference, 25-26 June, Port
1579 97:137–153, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2018.07.007. 1624 of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2018.
1580
1581
1582
1583
re-
E. V. Dontsov and A. P. Peirce. The Effect of Proppant Size on Hy-
draulic Fracturing by a Slurry. pages 1–11. 48th U.S. Rock Mechan-
ics/Geomechanics Symposium, 1-4 June, Minneapolis, Minnesota, So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, 2014.
1625
1626
1627
1628
doi: 10.2118/191225-MS.
A. M. Elsarawy and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. Proppant Diagenesis in Carbon-
ate-Rich Eagle Ford Shale Fractures. pages 1–13. SPE Drilling & Com-
pletion, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2020. doi: 10.2118/200481-
1584 H. Du, M. Radonjic, and Y. Chen. Microstructure and micro-geomechan- 1629 PA.
1585 ics evaluation of Pottsville and Marcellus shales. Journal of Petroleum 1630 A. M. Elsarawy and H. A. Nasr-El-Din. A new method to measure
lP
1586 Science and Engineering, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107876. 1631 propped fracture width and proppant porosity in shale fractures. Jour-
1587 R. Duenckel, M. W. Conway, B. Eldred, and M. Vincent. Proppant Dia- 1632 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 181(106162), 2019. doi:
1588 genesis–Integrated Analyses Provide New Insights Into Origin, Occur- 1633 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.06.026.
1589 rence, and Implications for Proppant Performance. pages 1–14. SPE 1634 T. Eren and V. S. Suicmez. Directional drilling positioning calculations.
1590 Production & Operations, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012. doi: 1635 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 73(103081), 2020.
rna
1591 10.2118/139875-PA. 1636 doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103081.

1592 R. Duenckel, N. Moore, L. O’Connell, K. Abney, S. Drylie, and F. Chen. 1637 M. O. Eshkalak, S. D. Mohaghegh, and S. Esmaili. Geomechanical Prop-
1593 The Science of Proppant Conductivity Testing-Lessons Learned and 1638 erties of Unconventional Shale Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Engi-
1594 Best Practices. pages 1–20. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 1639 neering, pages 1–10, 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/961641.
1595 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 1640 M. Fan, J. McClure, Y. Han, N. Ripepi, E. Westman, M. Gu, and C. Chen.
1596 USA, February 2016. Paper Number: SPE-179125-MS, 2016. doi: 1641 Calculation method of proppant embedment depth in hydraulic fractur-
1597 10.2118/179125-MS. 1642 ing. pages 1–17. SPE Journal, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2019.
Jou
1598 R. J. Duenckel, M. W. Conway, B. Eldred, and M. C. Vincent. Proppant 1643 doi: 10.2118/195588-PA.
1599 Diagenesis - Integrated Analyses Provide New Insights Into Origin, Oc- 1644 M. Fan, Y. Han, M. Gu, J. M. amd Nino Ripepi, E. Westman, and C. Chen.
1600 currence, And Implications For Proppant Performance. pages 1–27. 1645 Investigation of the Conductivity of a Proppant Mixture Using an Ex-
1601 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 24-26 January, The 1646 periment/Simulation-integrated Approach. Journal of Natural Gas Sci-
1602 Woodlands, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2011. doi: 1647 ence and Engineering, (103234), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.
1603 10.2118/139875-MS. 1648 103234.
1604 R. Dusterhoft, P. Nguyen, and M. Conway. Maximizing Effective Prop- 1649 M. Fan, Z. Li, Y. Han, Y. Teng, and C. Chen. Experimental and Numerical
1605 pant Permeability under High-Stress, High Gas-Rate Conditions. pages 1650 Investigations of the Role of Proppant Embedment on Fracture Con-
1606 1–16. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Confer- 1651 ductivity in Narrow Fractures. SPE Journal, 26(1):1–13, 2021. doi:
1607 ence and Exhibition, 26-29 September, Houston, Texas, 2004. doi: 1652 10.2118/204222-PA.
1608 10.2118/90398-MS. 1653 W. Fei, Q. Chen, X. Lyu, and S. Zhang. Fracturing-Fluid Flowback
Journal Pre-proof
1654 Simulation with Consideration of Proppant Transport in Hydraulically 1699 ABSTRACT.

1655 Fractured Shale Wells. ACS Omega, 5(16):94919502, 2020. doi: 1700 M. Gu, E. Dao, and K. K. Mohanty. Investigation of ultra-light weight
1656 10.1021/acsomega.0c00714. 1701 proppant application in shale fracturing. Fuel, 150:191–201, 2015. doi:
1657 L. P. Frash, J. Hampton, M. Gutierrez, A. Tutuncu, J. W. Carey, J. Hood, 1702 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.019.
1658 M. Mokhtari, H. Huang, and E. Mattson. Patterns in complex hy- 1703 A. S. Gundogar, C. M. Ross, A. D. Jew, J. R. Bargar, and A. R. Kovscek.
of
1659 draulic fractures observed by true-triaxial experiments and implications 1704 Multiphysics Investigation of Geochemical Alterations in Marcellus
1660 for proppant placement and stimulated reservoir volumes. Journal of 1705 Shale Using Reactive Core-Floods. Energy and Fuels, pages 1–13,
1661 Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, pages 2781–2792, 1706 2021. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00588.
1662 2019. doi: 10.1007/s13202-019-0681-2. 1707 J. Guo and Y. Liu. Modeling of Proppant Embedment: Elastic Deformation
pro
1663 S. J. Frederic, F. Sanfilippo, J.-M. Embry, M. White, and J. B. Turnbull. 1708 and Creep Deformation. pages 1–7. SPE International Production and
1664 The Sanding Mechanisms of Water Injectors and their QUantification 1709 Operations Conference & Exhibition, 14-16 May, Doha, Qatar, Society
1665 in Terms of Sand Production: Example of the Buuzard Field (UKCS). 1710 of Petroleum Engineers, 2012. doi: 10.2118/157449-MS.
1666 pages 1–13. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical 1711 T. Guo, S. Zhang, L. Wang, W. Sui, and H. Wen. Optimization of prop-
1667 Conference and Exhibition, 30 October-2 November, Denver, Colorado, 1712 pant size for frac pack completion using a new equipment. Jour-
1668 USA, 2011. doi: 10.2118/146551-MS. 1713 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 96–97:1–9, 2012. doi:
1669 L. Froute and A. R. Kovscek. Nano-Imaging of Shale Using Electron Mi- 1714 10.1016/j.petrol.2012.08.007.
1670
1671
1672
1673
re-
croscopy Techniques. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
20-22 July, Virtual, 2020. doi: 10.15530/urtec-2020-3283.
A. Gaurav, E. Dao, and K. K. Mohanty. Evaluation of ultra-light-weight
1715
1716
1717
1718
A. Gupta, C. Rai, and C. Sondergeld. Experimental Investigation of
Propped Fracture Conductivity and Proppant Diagenesis. pages 1–
18. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 2019. doi: 10.15530/urtec-2019-363.
1674 proppants for shale fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi- 1719 J. Han and J. Y. Wang. Fracture Conductivity Decrease Due to Proppant
1675 neering, 92-93:82–88, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2012.06.010. 1720 Deformation and Crushing, a Parametrical Study. pages 1–15. Society
lP
1676 A. Ghanizadeh, C. R. Clarkson, S. Aquino, O. H. Ardakani, and H. Sanei. 1721 of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 21-23 October,
1677 Petrophysical and geomechanical characteristics of Canadian tight oil 1722 Charleston, WV, USA, 2014. doi: 10.2118/171019-MS.
1678 and liquid-rich gas reservoirs: II. Geomechanical property estimation. 1723 J. Han, J. Y. Wang, and V. Puri. A fully coupled geomechanics and fluid
1679 Fuel, 153:682–691, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.113. 1724 flow model for proppant pack failure and fracture conductivity damage
1680 A. Ghanizadeh, C. R. Clarkson, H. Deglint, A. Vahedian, S. Aquino, and 1725 analysis. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 31:546–554,
rna
1681 J. Wood. Unpropped/Propped Fracture Permeability and Proppant Em- 1726 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.03.034.
1682 bedment Evaluation: A Rigorous Core-Analysis/Imaging Methodol- 1727 J. Hao, H. Hao, Y. Gao, X. Li, M. Qin, and K. Wang. Effect of Sinter-
1683 ogy. pages 1–29. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 1728 ing Temperature on Property of Low-Density Ceramic Proppant Adding
1684 San Antonio, Texas, 1-3 August 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1729 Coal Gangue. Materials Science–Ceramics and Glasses, 26(1), 2020.
1685 2016. doi: 10.15530/urtec-2016-2459818. 1730 doi: hhttps://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ms.26.1.19376.
1686 H. Ghofrani and G. M. Atkinson. Activation Rate of Seismicity for Hy- 1731 L. Haoze, B. Huang, Q. Cheng, and X. Zhao. Optimization of proppant
1687 draulic Fracture Wells in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Bul- 1732 parameters for CBM extraction using hydrofracturing by orthogonal
Jou
1688 letin of the Seismological Society of America, 2020. doi: 10.1785/ 1733 experimental process. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, pages
1689 0120200002. 1734 1–13, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jge/gxaa009.
1690 S. Ghosh, C. S. Rai, C. H. Sondergeld, and R. E. Larese. Experimental 1735 L. Haoze, B. Huang, Q. Cheng, X. Zhao, B. Chen, and L. Zhao.
1691 Investigation of Proppant Diagenesis. pages 1–23. SPE/CSUR Un- 1736 Mechanism of Single Proppant Pressure Embedded in Coal Seam Frac-
1692 conventional Resources Conference Canada, 30 September2 October, 1737 ture. Energy Fuels, 35(9):77567767, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/
1693 Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014. doi: 1738 acs.energyfuels.0c04360.
1694 10.2118/171604-MS. 1739 P. C. Harris and S. Heath. Proppant Transport of Fracturing Gels is Influ-
1695 D. Gokaraju, A. Thombare, S. Govindarajan, A. Mitra, A. Guedez, and 1740 enced by Proppant Type. pages 1–10. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
1696 M. Aldin. Laboratory Investigation and Characterization of the Poroe- 1741 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 19-21 January, The
1697 lastic Response of Ultra-Tight Formations. International Petroleum 1742 Woodlands, Texas, 2006. doi: 10.2118/118717-MS.
1698 Technology Conference, pages 1–13, 2020. doi: 10.2523/IPTC-19686- 1743 H. He, L. Luo, and K. Senetakis. Effect of normal load and shearing ve-
Journal Pre-proof
1744 locity on the interface friction of organic shale Proppant simulant. Tri- 1789 X. Huang, L. Zhang, R. Zhang, X. Chen, Y. Zhao, and S. Yuan. Numerical
1745 bology International, 144, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2019.106119. 1790 simulation of gas-liquid two-phase flow in the micro-fracture networks
1746 L. He, H. Mei, X. Hu, M. Dejam, Z. Kou, and M. Zhang. Advanced 1791 in fractured reservoirs. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineer-
1747 Flowing Material Balance To Determine Original Gas in Place of 1792 ing, pages 1–26, 2021b. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104101.
1748 Shale Gas Considering Adsorption Hysteresis. pages 1–11. Society of 1793 P. T. Huckabee, M. C. Vincent, J. M. Foreman, and J. P. Spivey. Field
of
1749 Petroleum Engineers, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2019. 1794 Results: Effect of Proppant Strength and Sieve Distribution Upon Well
1750 doi: 10.2118/195581-PA. 1795 Productivity. pages 1–12. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
1751 H. Hertz. Uber die beruhrung fester elastischer Korper (On the con- 1796 hibition, 9-12 October, Dallas, Texas, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
1752 tact of rigid elastic solids). London: Macmillan, New York, Macmil- 1797 2005. doi: 10.2118/96559-MS.
pro
1753 lan and co., pages 1857–1894, 1896. doi: https://archive.org/details/ 1798 C. C. Iferobia and M. Ahmad. A review on the experimental techniques and
1754 cu31924012500306/page/n45/mode/2up. 1799 applications in the geomechanical evaluation of shale gas reservoirs.
1755 B. Hlidek and R. Duenckel. High Viscosity Friction Reducers - Potential 1800 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (103090), 2020. doi:
1756 for Fracture Damage and Impact of Brines on Proppant Transport Capa- 1801 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103090.
1757 bility. pages 1–26. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference 1802 J. Iriarte and A. N. Tutuncu. Geochemical and Geomechanical Alterations
1758 and Exhibition, 4-6 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, Society of 1803 Related to Rock-Fluid-Proppant Interactions in the Niobrara Formation.
1759 Petroleum Engineers, February 2020. doi: 10.2118/199736-MS. 1804 pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International Con-
1760
1761
1762
1763
re-
S. Holditch and J. Ely. Successful Stimulation of Deep Wells Using High
Proppant Concentrations. pages 1–5. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1973. doi: 10.2118/4118-PA.
N. Hosseini and A. R. Khoei. Numerical simulation of proppant transport
1805
1806
1807
1808
ference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 7-9 February,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2018. doi: 10.2118/189536-MS.
A. Isah, M. Hiba, K. Al-Azani, M. S. Aljawad, and M. Mahmoud. A com-
prehensive review of proppant transport in fractured reservoirs: Exper-
1764 and tip screen-out in hydraulic fracturing with the extended finite el- 1809 imental, numerical, and field aspects. Journal of Natural Gas Science
1765 ement method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining 1810 and Engineering, pages 1–13, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103832.
lP
1766 Sciences, 128(104247), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104247. 1811 M. A. Islam and P. Skalle. An Experimental Investigation of Shale Me-
1767 L. Hou, D. Elsworth, and X. Geng. Swelling and embedment induced by 1812 chanical Properties Through Drained and Undrained Test Mechanisms.
1768 sub- and super-critical-CO2 on the permeability of propped fractures 1813 Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46:13911413, 2013. doi:
1769 in shale. International Journal of Coal Geology, (103496), 2020. doi: 1814 10.1007/s00603-013-0377-8.
1770 10.1016/j.coal.2020.103496. 1815 Itasca. Proppant in Fluid Filled Joints–Itasca Consulting
rna
1771 D. Hu, D. N. Benoit, P. Nguyen, and R. Gashimov. Quantitative Analysis 1816 Group, Inc. https://www.itascacg.com/learning/tutorials/
1772 of Proppant-Formation Interactions by Digital Rock Methods. pages 1817 proppant-in-fluid-filled-joints, 2014. Online; last accessed Jan-
1773 1–11. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Con- 1818 uary 30, 2020.
1774 ference and Exhibition, 26-28 September, Dubai, UAE, 2016. doi: 1819 D. J. Jacobi, J. J. Breig, B. LeCompte, M. Kopal, G. Hursan, F. E. Mendez,
1775 10.2118/181342-MS. 1820 S. Bliven, and J. Longo. Effective Geochemical and Geomechani-
1776 M. Hu and J. Rutqvist. Multi-scale Coupled Processes Modeling of Frac- 1821 cal Characterization of Shale Gas Reservoirs From the Wellbore En-
1777 tures as Porous, Interfacial and Granular Systems from Rock Images 1822 vironment: Caney and the Woodford Shale. pages 1–11. Society of
Jou
1778 with the Numerical Manifold Method. Rock Mechanics and Rock En- 1823 Petroleum Engineers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
1779 gineering, pages 1–19, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00603-021-02455-6. 1824 tion, 4-7 October, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2009. doi: 10.2118/124231-
1780 F. Huang, C. Dong, Z. You, and X. Shang. Detachment of coal fines de- 1825 MS.
1781 posited in proppant packs induced by single-phase water flow: Theoret- 1826 S. J. M. Jeffry, K. Trjangganung, A. A. Chandrakant, B. Madon, A. Ka-
1782 ical and experimental analyses. International Journal of Coal Geology, 1827 tende, and I. Ismail. Selection of suitable acid chemicals for matrix
1783 239:1–13, 2021a. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2021.103728. 1828 stimulation: A Malaysian Brown field scenario. Journal of Petroleum
1784 J. Huang, W. Gong, L. Lin, C. Yin, F. Liu, H. Zhou, L. Bai, L. Song, 1829 Science and Engineering, 186(106689), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.
1785 and Z. Yang. In-situ Proppant: Beads, Microproppant, and Channel- 1830 2019.106689.
1786 ized-Proppant. pages 1–13. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi 1831 L. Jia, K. Li, J. Zhou, Z. Yan, F. Wan, and M. Kaita. A mathematical model
1787 International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, 11-14 November, 1832 for calculating rod-shaped proppant conductivity under the combined
1788 Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2019. doi: 10.2118/197638-MS. 1833 effect of compaction and embedment. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Journal Pre-proof
1834 Engineering, pages 11–21, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.05.034. 1879 doi: 10.2118/131782-MS.
1835 Z. Kang, Y. Zhao, and D. Yang. Review of oil shale in-situ conversion tech- 1880 L. Lawal and M. Mahmoud. Poisson’s Ratio, Porosity and Aspect Ratio
1836 nology. Applied Energy, 269(115121), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy. 1881 as Geomechanical Index of Shale Brittleness. pages 1–8. International
1837 2020.115121. 1882 Petroleum Technology Conference, International Petroleum Technol-
1838 O. Karazincir, Y. Li, K. Zaki, W. Williams, R. Wu, Y. Tan, P. Rijken, and 1883 ogy Conference, 13-15 January, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
of
1839 A. Rickards. Measurement of Reduced Permeability at Fracture Face 1884 2020. doi: 10.2523/IPTC-20283-Abstract.
1840 Due to Proppant Embedment and Depletion. pages 1–16. SPE Annual 1885 B. LeCompte, J. A. Franquet, and D. Jacobi. Evaluation of Haynesville
1841 Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-26 September, Dallas, Texas, 1886 Shale Vertical Well Completions With a Mineralogy Based Approach
1842 USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2018. doi: 10.2118/196204-MS. 1887 to Reservoir Geomechanics. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engi-
pro
1843 O. Karazincir, Y. Li, K. Zaki, W. Williams, R. Wu, Y. Tan, P. Rijken, and 1888 neers, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October,
1844 A. Rickards. Measurement of Reduced Permeability at Fracture Face 1889 New Orleans, Louisiana, 2009. doi: 10.2118/124227-MS.
1845 Due to Proppant Embedment and Depletion - Part II. pages 1–18. SPE 1890 D. Lee, D. Elsworth, H. Yasuhara, J. Weaver, and R. Rickman. An Eval-
1846 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September - 2 Octo- 1891 uation of the Effects of Fracture Diagenesis On Fracture Treatments:
1847 ber, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2019. 1892 Modeled Response. pages 1–12. International Society for Rock Me-
1848 doi: 10.2118/196204-MS. 1893 chanics and Rock Engineering, ISRM International Symposium - 10th
1849 A. Katende, J. Rutqvist, M. Benge, A. Seyedolali, A. Bunger, J. Puckette, 1894 Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, 29 October - 3 November, Singa-
1850
1851
1852
1853
re-
A. Rihn, and M. Radonjic. Convergence of micro-geochemistry and mi-
cro-geomechanics towards understanding proppant shale rock interac-
tion: a Caney shale case study in southern Oklahoma, USA(Submitted
for publication, June 15, 2021). 2021.
1895
1896
1897
1898
pore, 2009.
D. S. Lee and H. Yasuhara. An evaluation of the effects of fracture diagen-
esis on hydraulic fracturing treatment. Geosystems Engineering, pages
113–118, 2013. doi: 10.1080/12269328.2013.780762.
1854 H. J. Khan, E. Spielman-Sun, A. D. Jew, J. Bargar, A. Kovscek, and 1899 D. S. Lee, D. Elsworth, H. Yasuhara, J. D. Weaver, and R. Rickmand.
1855 J. L. Druhan*. A Critical Review of the Physicochemical Impacts 1900 Experiment and modeling to evaluate the effects of proppant-pack dia-
lP
1856 of Water Chemistry on Shale in Hydraulic Fracturing Systems. En- 1901 genesis on fracture treatments. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi-
1857 vironmental Science and Technology, 55(3):13771394, 2021. doi: 1902 neering, 74(1–2):67–76, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2010.08.007.
1858 10.1021/acs.est.0c04901. 1903 T. Lee, D. Park, C. Shin, D. Jeong, and J. Choe. Efficient production es-
1859 A. Khanna, A. Kotousov, J. Sobey, and P. Weller. Conductivity of narrow 1904 timation for a hydraulic fractured well considering fracture closure and
1860 fractures filled with a proppant monolayer. Journal of Petroleum Sci- 1905 proppant placement effects. Energy Exploration and Exploitation, 34
rna
1861 ence and Engineering, 100:9–13, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2012.11. 1906 (4), 2016. doi: www.jstor.org/stable/90007421.
1862 016. 1907 B. Legarth, E. Huenges, and G. Zimmermann. Hydraulic fracturing in
1863 M. R. Krishnan, Y. Aldawsari, F. M. Michael, W. Li, and E. H. Alsharaeh. 1908 a sedimentary geothermal reservoir: Results and implications. Interna-
1864 Mechanically reinforced polystyrene-polymethyl methacrylate copoly- 1909 tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(7-8):61028–
1865 mer-graphene and Epoxy-Graphene composites dual-coated sand prop- 1910 1041, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.05.014.
1866 pants for hydraulic fracture operations. Journal of Petroleum Science 1911 L. V. Lehman, M. A. Parker, M. E. Blauch, R. Haynes, and A. Blackmon.
1867 and Engineering, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107744. 1912 Proppant Conductivity What Counts and Why. pages 1–11. SPE Mid-
Jou
1868 B. A. Kurz, D. D. Schmidt, and P. E. Cortese. Investigation of Im- 1913 Continent Operations Symposium, 28-31 March, Oklahoma City, Okla-
1869 proved Conductivity and Proppant Applications in the Bakken Forma- 1914 homa, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1999. doi: 10.2118/52219-MS.
1870 tion. pages 1–13. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 1915 J. Leimkuhler and G. Leveille. Unconventional Resources. Society of
1871 4-6 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engi- 1916 Petroleum Engineers, 08(1):1–3, 2012. doi: 10.2118/0112-026-TWA.
1872 neers, 2013. doi: 10.2118/163849-MS. 1917 D. Li, F. He, W. Ou, J. Zhu, R. Li, and Y. Pan. Mechanism of multi-stage
1873 L. L. Lacy, A. Rickards, and D. Bilden. Fracture Width and Embedment 1918 sand filling stimulation in horizontal shale gas well development. Nat-
1874 Testing in Soft Reservoir Sandstone. pages 1–5. SPE Drilling & Com- 1919 ural Gas Industry B, 5(4):326–336, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ngib.2018.06.
1875 pletion, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1998. doi: 10.2118/36421-PA. 1920 001.
1876 R. F. LaFollette and P. S. Carman. Proppant Diagenesis: Results So 1921 J. Li, B. Li, Z. Wang, C. Ren, K. Yang, and S. Chen. An Anisotropic Per-
1877 Far. pages 1–14. SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, 23-25 February, 1922 meability Model for Shale Gas Recovery Considering Slippage Effect
1878 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010. 1923 and Embedded Proppants. Natural Resources Research, pages 1–24,
Journal Pre-proof
1924 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11053-020-09660-0. 1969 in IEEE Access, 7:16078–16087, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.
1925 J. Li, P. Liu, S. Kuang, and A. Yu. Visual lab tests: Proppant transportation 1970 2894500.
1926 in a 3D printed vertical hydraulic fracture with two-sided rough sur- 1971 H. Ma, C. Bao, Y. Tian, and G. Li. Effects of Feldspar Content on Mi-
1927 faces. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (107738), 2021. 1972 crostructure and Property for High-Strength Corundum-Mullite Prop-
1928 doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107738. 1973 pants. Transactions of the Indian Ceramic Society, 2020a. doi:
of
1929 K. Li, Y. Gao, Y. Lyu, and M. Wang. New Mathematical Models for Cal- 1974 10.1080/0371750X.2019.1699863.
1930 culating Proppant Embedment and Fracture Conductivity. pages 1–12. 1975 W. Ma, J. Perng, and I. Tomac. Experimental investigation of proppant
1931 Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Journal, 2015. doi: 10.2118/ 1976 flow and transport dynamics through fracture intersections. Geome-
1932 155954-PA. 1977 chanics for Energy and the Environment, pages 1–18, 2020b. doi:
pro
1933 M. Li, G. Yin, J. Xu, J. Cao, and Z. Song. Permeability evolution of shale 1978 10.1016/j.gete.2020.100232.
1934 under anisotropic true triaxial stress conditions. International Journal 1979 X. Ma and M. D. Zoback. Static and Dynamic Response of Bakken Cores
1935 of Coal Geology, 165:142–148, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2016.08.017. 1980 to Cyclic Hydrostatic Loading. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
1936 F. Liang, M. Sayed, G. A. Al-Muntasheri, F. F. Chang, and L. Li. A 1981 51:19431953, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00603-018-1443-z.
1937 comprehensive review on proppant technologies. Petroleum, 2(1):2639, 1982 K. D. Mahrer. A review and perspective on far-field hydraulic fracture ge-
1938 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.petlm.2015.11.001. 1983 ometry studies. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 24(1):
1939 M. S. Liew, K. U. Danyaro, and N. A. W. A. Zawawi. A Comprehensive 1984 13–28, 1999. doi: 10.1016/S0920-4105(99)00020-0.
1940
1941
1942
1943
(13):1–20, 2020. doi: 10.3390/en13133326.
re-
Guide to Different Fracturing Technologies: A Review. Energies, 13
H. Liu, P. Bedrikovetsky, Z. Yuan, J. Liu, and Y. Liu. An optimized model

of calculating optimal packing ratio for graded proppant placement
1985
1986
1987
1988
M. Maslowski and M. Labus. Preliminary Studies on the Proppant Embed-
ment in Baltic Basin Shale Rock. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineer-
ing, pages 1–13, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00603-021-02407-0.
M. Maslowski, P. Kasza, and K. Wilk. Studies on the effect of the prop-
1944 with consideration of proppant embedment and deformation. Jour- 1989 pant embedment phenomenon on the effective packed fracture in shale
1945 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 196(107703), 2021. doi: 1990 rock. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 15(02):105115, 2018. doi:
lP
1946 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107703. 1991 10.13168/AGG.2018.0012.
1947 Y. Liu, J. Y. Leung, and R. Chalaturnyk. Geomechanical Simulation of 1992 J. C. Maxwell. The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell. Cambridge
1948 Partially Propped Fracture Closure and Its Implication for Water Flow- 1993 University Press, 1890. ISBN 9780511710377.
1949 back and Gas Production. pages 1–6. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1994 H. Melcher, M. Mayerhofer, K. Agarwal, E. Lolon, O. Oduba, J. Murphy,
1950 SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (02): 273290., 2018. doi: 10.2118/189454-PA. 1995 R. Ellis, K. Fiscus, R. Shelley, and L. Weijers. Shale Frac Designs Move
rna
1951 X. Luo, Y. Qi, J. Li, P. Huang, S. Wang, X. Ren, and P. Zhang. Convection 1996 to Just-Good-Enough Proppant Economics. pages 1–27. SPE Hydraulic
1952 heat transfer and friction characteristics of liquid CO2-N2 foam frac- 1997 Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, 4-6 February, The
1953 turing fluid using C4F9OCH3 as frother. Journal of Petroleum Science 1998 Woodlands, Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2020. doi:
1954 and Engineering, (106461), 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106461. 1999 hhttps://doi.org/10.2118/199751-MS.
1955 Z. Luo, N. Zhang, L. Zhao, F. Liu, P. Liu, and N. Li. Modeling of pressure 2000 F. M. Michael, M. R. Krishnan, W. Li, and E. H. Alsharaeh. A Review
1956 dissolution, proppant embedment, and the impact on long-term conduc- 2001 on Polymer-Nanofiller Composites in Developing Coated Sand Prop-
1957 tivity of propped fractures. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer- 2002 pants for Hydraulic Fracturing. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Jou
1958 ing, (106693), 2020a. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106693. 2003 Engineering, page 103553, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103553.
1959 Z. Luo, N. Zhang, L. Zhao, F. Liu, P. Liu, and N. Li. Modeling of pressure 2004 J. L. Miskimins and M. Alotaibi. The Impacts of Proppant Sorting and
1960 dissolution, proppant embedment, and the impact on long-term conduc- 2005 Dune Shape on Slickwater Hydraulic Fracturing Conductivity. pages
1961 tivity of propped fractures. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer- 2006 1–11. SPE/AAPG/SEG Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Tech-
1962 ing, (106693), 2020b. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106693. 2007 nology Conference, 18-19 November, Brisbane, Australia, Unconven-
1963 Q. Lyu, J. Shi, and R. P. Gamage. Effects of testing method, lithology 2008 tional Resources Technology Conference, 2019. doi: 10.15530/AP-
1964 and fluid-rock interactions on shale permeability: A review of labora- 2009 URTEC-2019-198208.
1965 tory measurements. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2010 A. Mittal, C. S. Rai, and C. H. Sondergeld. Proppant-Conductivity Test-
1966 (103302), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103302. 2011 ing Under Simulated Reservoir Conditions: Impact of Crushing, Em-
1967 X. Lyu, F. Liu, P. Ren, and C. Grecos. An Image Processing Approach 2012 bedment, and Diagenesis on Long-Term Production in Shales. pages
1968 to Measuring the Sphericity and Roundness of Fracturing Proppants. 2013 1–12. SPE Journal, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2018. doi: hhttps:
Journal Pre-proof
2014 //doi.org/10.2118/191124-PA. 2059 E. J. Novotny. Proppant Transport. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum En-
2015 C. Montgomery and R. Steanson. Proppant Selection: The Key to Success- 2060 gineers, SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12
2016 ful Fracture Stimulation. pages 1–10. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2061 October, Denver, Colorado, 1977. doi: 10.2118/6813-MS.
2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1985. doi: 10.2118/12616-PA. 2062 A. A. Osiptsov, I. A. Garagash, S. A. Boronin, K. I. Tolmacheva, K. E.
2018 M. Mueller and M. Amro. Indentaion Hardness for Improved Proppant 2063 Lezhnev, and G. V. Paderin. Impact of Flowback Dynamics on Fracture
of
2019 Embedment Prediction in Shale Formations. pages 1–14. SPE European 2064 Conductivity. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pages
2020 Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition, 3-5 June, Budapest, 2065 1–24, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106822.
2021 Hungary, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015. doi: 10.2118/174227- 2066 T. T. Palisch, R. J. Duenckel, M. A. Chapman, S. Woolfolk, and M. C.
2022 MS. 2067 Vincent. How to Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests – Exposing
pro
2023 B.-S. Naima, F. DeBenedictis, M. Usie, and S. Bhaduri. A New-Inter- 2068 the Top 10 Myths. pages 1–15. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SP-
2024 mediate Strength Proppant Additive to Combat Asphaltene Deposi- 2069 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 19-21 January, The
2025 tion for Delivering Long Term Flow Assurance. pages 1–13. Society 2070 Woodlands, Texas, 2009. doi: 10.2118/119242-MS.
2026 of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International Conference and Exhibition 2071 Z. Pan, Y. Ma, N. N. Danesh, L. D. Connell, R. Sander, D. I. Down, and
2027 on Formation Damage Control, 19-21 February, Lafayette, Louisiana, 2072 M. Camilleri. Measurement of Shale Anisotropic Permeability and Its
2028 USA, 2020. doi: 10.2118/199283-MS. 2073 Impact on Shale Gas Production. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum
2029 S. Nakagawa and S. E. Borglin. Laboratory In-Situ Visualization of 2074 Engineers, PE Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Conference and
2030
2031
2032
2033
re-
Long-Term Fracture Closure and Proppant Embedment in Brittle and
Ductile Shale Samples. American Rock Mechanics Association, 2019.
doi: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-2019-1996.
L. Neumann, P. Fernandes, M. Rosolen, V. Rodrigues, J. S. Neto, C. Pe-
2075
2076
2077
2078
Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 2015. doi: 10.2118/176955-MS.
O. Perez, F. E. Fragachan, M. Omer, and J. Huang. Emerging Fluid Design
with Enhanced Proppant Carrying Capacity: An Integrated Geome-
chanical Workflow. pages 1–12. International Petroleum Technology
2034 droso, A. Mendez, and D. Torres. Case Study of Multiple-Hy- 2079 Conference, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 13-15
2035 draulic-Fracture Completion in a Subsea Horizontal Well, Campos 2080 January, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2020. doi: 10.2523/IPTC-
lP
2036 Basin. pages 1–12. SPE Drilling & Completion, Society of Petroleum 2081 20108-MS.
2037 Engineers, 2010. doi: 10.2118/98277-PA. 2082 A. A. Pimenov and R. D. Kanevskaya. Mathematical Modeling of Prop-
2038 P. D. Nguyen, R. G. Dusterhoft, and B. Clarkson. Control of Forma- 2083 pant Embedment and Its Effect on Conductivity of Hydraulic Fracture.
2039 tion Fines to Provide Long-Term Conductivity in Weak, Unconsoli- 2084 pages 1–8. SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, 16-18 Oc-
2040 dated Reservoirs. pages 1–17. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Off- 2085 tober, Moscow, Russia, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2017. doi:
rna
2041 shore Technology Conference, 2-5 May, Houston, Texas, 2005. doi: 2086 10.2118/187934-MS.
2042 10.4043/17039-MS. 2087 L. Qingyun, A. D. Jew, G. E. B. Jr, J. R. Bargar, and K. Maher. Reactive
2043 K. Nimerick, S. McConnell, and M. Samuelson. Compatibility of Resin– 2088 Transport Modeling of Shale-Fluid Interactions after Imbibition of
2044 Coated Proppants With Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids. pages 1–5. Soci- 2089 Fracturing Fluids. Energy& Fuels, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.
2045 ety of Petroleum Engineers, SSPE Production Engineering, 1992. doi: 2090 9b04542.
2046 10.2118/20639-PA. 2091 M. Radonjic, G. Luo, Y. Wang, M. Achang, J. Cains, A. Katende, J. Puck-
2047 L. Ning, S. Zhang, X. Ma, Y. Zou, S. Li, and Z. Zhang. Thermal effect on 2092 ette, M. Grammer, and G. E. King. Integrated Microstructural Char-
Jou
2048 the evolution of hydraulic fracture conductivity: An experimental study 2093 acterisation of Caney Shale, OK. pages 1–11. Society of Petroleum
2049 of enhanced geothermal system. Journal of Petroleum Science and En- 2094 Engineers, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2020. doi:
2050 gineering, 187(106814), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106814. 2095 10.15530/urtec-2020-2947.
2051 M. Nobakht, R. Ambrose, C. R. Clarkson, J. E. Youngblood, and 2096 H. L. Ramandi, M. A. Pirzada, S. Saydam, C. Arns, and H. Roshan.
2052 R. Adams. Effect of Completion Heterogeneity in a Horizontal Well 2097 Digital and experimental rock analysis of proppant injection into nat-
2053 With Multiple Fractures on the Long-Term Forecast in Shale-Gas 2098 urally fractured coal. Fuel, 286(Part1):1–7, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.
2054 Reservoirs. pages 1–9. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of 2099 2020.119368.
2055 Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2013. doi: 10.2118/149400-PA. 2100 A. S. Ramlan, R. M. Zin, N. F. A. Bakar, and N. H. Othman. Recent
2056 L. Norman, J. Terracina, M. McCabe, and P. Nguyen. Application of Cur- 2101 Progress on Proppant Laboratory Testing Method: Characterisation,
2057 able Resin-Coated Proppants. pages 1–7. Society of Petroleum Engi- 2102 Conductivity, Transportation, and Erosivity. Journal of Petroleum Sci-
2058 neers, SPE Production Engineering, 1992. doi: 10.2118/20640-PA. 2103 ence and Engineering, (108871):1–10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.
Journal Pre-proof
2104 2021.108871. 2149 Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February, The Woodlands,
2105 N. Raysoni and J. D. Weaver. Long-Term Proppant Performance. pages 1– 2150 Texas, USA, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2014. doi: 10.2118/
2106 8. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International Symposium and 2151 168629-MS.
2107 Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 15-17 February, Lafayette, 2152 S. Schubarth and D. M. Tayler. Investigating How Proppant Packs Change
2108 Louisiana, USA, 2012. doi: 10.2118/150669-MS. 2153 Under Stress. pages 1–7. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
of
2109 A. Rezaei, F. Siddiqui, B. Dindoruk, and M. Y. Soliman. A Review on Fac- 2154 bition, 26-29 September, Houston, Texas, Society of Petroleum Engi-
2110 tors Influencing the Rock Mechanics of the Gas Bearing Formations. 2155 neers, 2004. doi: 10.2118/90562-MS.
2111 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (103348), 2020. doi: 2156 E. Sharma and S. Livescu. New Laboratory Lubricity Research on
2112 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103348. 2157 Coiled Tubing Operations in Open-Hole Wells and Sand- or Proppan-
pro
2113 H. Rogers. Shale gas–the unfolding story. Oxford Review of Economic 2158 t-Filled Cased-Hole Wells. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engi-
2114 Policy, 27(1):117–143, 2011. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grr004. 2159 neers, SPE/ICoTA Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 24-25
2115 J. Rutqvist. Fractured rock stress-permeability relationships from in situ 2160 March, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2020. doi: 10.2118/199848-MS.
2116 data and effects of temperature and chemical-mechanical couplings. 2161 L. Shenggui, J. Huang, S. Tang, S. Shi, X. Wu, and X. Liu. Experimental
2117 Geofluids, 15(1-2), 2015. doi: 10.1111/gfl.12089. 2162 Study on the Damage of Artificial Fracture Permeability in Coal during
2118 J. Rutqvist, A. P. Rinaldi, F. Cappa, and G. J. Moridis. Modeling of fault re- 2163 the Flow Back of Guar-Based Fracturing Fluid. Geofluids, (8302310):
2119 activation and induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale– 2164 1–13, 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/8302310.
2120
2121
2122
2123
31–34, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2013.04.023.
re-
gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 107:
J. Rutqvist, L. Zheng, F. Chen, H.-H. Liu, and J. Birkholzer. Modeling

of Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Processes with Links to Geo-
2165
2166
2167
2168
F. Shi. XFEM-based numerical modeling of well performance considering
proppant transport, embedment, crushing and rock creep in shale gas
reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 201:1–13,
2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108523.
2124 chemistry Associated with Bentonite-Backfilled Repository Tunnels in 2169 R. J. Shor and M. M. Sharma. Reducing Proppant Flowback From Frac-
2125 Clay Formations. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 47:167–186, 2170 tures: Factors Affecting the Maximum Flowback Rate. pages 1–11.
lP
2126 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00603-013-0375-x. 2171 Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
2127 R. Sahai and R. G. Moghanloo. Proppant transport in complex fracture 2172 Conference, 4-6 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2014. doi:
2128 networks A review. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2173 10.2118/168649-MS.
2129 182(106199), 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106199. 2174 Z. Shuang, R. Manchanda, and M. M. Sharma. Modeling Fracture Closure
2130 J. N. Sallis, D. M. Agee, P. D. Artola, C. Guimaraes, and V. Chaloupka. 2175 with Proppant Settling and Embedment during Shut-In and Production.
rna
2131 Proppant Flowback Prevention with Next Generation Fiber Technol- 2176 pages 1–16. SPE Drilling & Completion, Society of Petroleum Engi-
2132 ogy: Implementation of an Innovative Solution for HPHT Hydraulic 2177 neers, 2020. doi: 10.2118/201205-PA.
2133 Fracturing in Indonesia. pages 1–8. International Petroleum Technol- 2178 R. Sierra, M. Tran, Y. Abousleiman, and R. Slatt. Woodford Shale Me-
2134 ogy Conference, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 10- 2179 chanical Properties And the Impacts of Lithofacies. pages 1–10. 44th
2135 12 December, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2014. doi: 10.2523/IPTC- 2180 U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechan-
2136 17979-MS. 2181 ics Symposium, 27-30 June, Salt Lake City, Utah, American Rock Me-
2137 C. Sambo, C. C. Iferobi, A. A. Babasafari, S. Rezaei, and O. A. Akanni. 2182 chanics Association, 2010.
Jou
2138 The Role of 4D Time Lapse Seismic Technology as Reservoir Monitor- 2183 A. Sinclair, J. Graham, and C. Sinclair. Improved Well Stimulation With
2139 ing and Surveillance Tool: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Nat- 2184 Resin-Coated Proppants. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
2140 ural Gas Science and Engineering, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020. 2185 SPE Production Operations Symposium, 27 February-1 March, Okla-
2141 103312. 2186 homa City, Oklahoma, 1983. doi: 10.2118/11579-MS.
2142 P. Sanematsu, Y. Shen, K. Thompson, T. Yu, Y. Wang, D.-L. Chang, B. Al- 2187 M. Smith, A. Bale, L. Britt, H. Klein, E. Siebrits, and X. Dang. Layered
2143 ramahi, AliTakbiri-Borujeni, M. Tyagi, and C. Willson. Image-based 2188 Modulus Effects on Fracture Propagation, Proppant Placement, and
2144 Stokes flow modeling in bulk proppant packs and propped fractures un- 2189 Fracture Modeling. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE
2145 der high loading stresses. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer- 2190 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September-3 October,
2146 ing, 135:391–402, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.09.017. 2191 New Orleans, Louisiana, 2001. doi: 10.2118/71654-MS.
2147 D. Schmidt, P. R. Rankin, B. Williams, T. Palisch, and J. Kullman. 2192 D. J. Soeder. The successful development of gas and oil resources from
2148 Performance of Mixed Proppant Sizes. pages 1–10. SPE Hydraulic 2193 shales in North America. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineer-
Journal Pre-proof
2194 ing, 163:399–420, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2017.12.084. 2239 ing nuclear magnetic resonance measurements. Journal of Petroleum
2195 D. J. Soeder and S. J. Borglum. Unconventional tight oil and shale gas re- 2240 Science and Engineering, 167:343–353, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.
2196 sources. The Fossil Fuel Revolution: Shale Gas and Tight Oil, 2:31–61, 2241 2018.03.087.
2197 2019. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815397-0.00003-3. 2242 Q. Tang, G. hui Xue, S. jie Yang, K. Wang, and X. min Cui. Study on the
2198 H. Song, Z. Liang, Z. Chen, and S. S. Rahman. Numerical modelling 2243 preparation of a free-sintered inorganic polymer-based proppant using
of
2199 of hydraulic fracture propagation in poro-viscoelastic formation. Jour- 2244 the suspensions solidification method. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2200 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 196(107640), 2021a. doi: 2245 148, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.001.
2201 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107640. 2246 Y. Tang and P. G. Ranjith. An experimental and analytical study of the ef-
2202 L. Song, H. Yuan, Y. Gong, C. He, H. Zhou, X. Wan, W. Qin, S. Yang, and 2247 fects of shear displacement, fluid type, joint roughness, shear strength,
pro
2203 X. Ren. High-strength and long-term durable hydrophobic polystyrene 2248 friction angle and dilation angle on proppant embedment development
2204 microsphere: a promising ultra-lightweight proppant for fracturing 2249 in tight gas sandstone reservoirs. International Journal of Rock Me-
2205 technology. Polymer Bulletin, pages 1–10, 2021b. doi: 10.1007/ 2250 chanics and Mining Sciences, 107, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.
2206 s00289-021-03683-0. 2251 03.008.
2207 S. Songire, C. Prakash, and R. Belakshe. Effects of Resin-Fluid Interac- 2252 Y. Tang, P. G. Ranjith, and B. Wu. Experimental study of effects of shear-
2208 tion on Fracturing Fluid Stability, Proppant Flowback, and Preventive 2253 ing on proppant embedment behaviour of tight gas sandstone reservoirs.
2209 Control Methods. pages 1–18. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 2254 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pages 1–7, 2019. doi:
2210
2211
2212
2213
ama, Bahrain, 2019. doi: 10.2118/194959-MS.
re-
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 18-21 March, Man-
P. A. Sookprasong. In-Situ Closure Stress on Proppant in the Fracture:

A Controversial New Thinking. pages 1–7. Society of Petroleum Engi-
2255
2256
2257
2258
10.1016/j.petrol.2018.07.066.
J. E. Tasque, I. N. Vega, S. Marco, P. A. Raffo, and N. B. D’Accorso.
Ultra-light weight proppant: Synthesis, characterization, and perfor-
mance of new proppants. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engi-
2214 neers, Tight Gas Completions Conference, 2-3 November, San Antonio, 2259 neering, 85:1–10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103717.
2215 Texas, USA, 2010. doi: 10.2118/136338-MS. 2260 J. Terracina. Effects of Proppant Selection on Shale Fracture Treatments.
lP
2216 Y. Suri, S. Z. Islam, and M. Hossain. Proppant transport in dynamically 2261 pages 1–3. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Society of Petroleum En-
2217 propagating hydraulic fractures using CFD-XFEM approach. Interna- 2262 gineers, 2011.
2218 tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 131(104356), 2263 J. Terracina, M. Parker, R. Pongratz, and R. Poole. How to Reduce Prop-
2219 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104356. 2264 pant Flowback in High-Rate Wells. pages 1–10. Society of Petroleum
2220 E. Sutra, M. Spada, and P. Burgherr. Chemicals usage in stimulation pro- 2265 Engineers, SPE Middle East Oil Show, 17-20 March, Manama, Bahrain,
rna
2221 cesses for shale gas and deep geothermal systems: A comprehensive 2266 2000. doi: 10.2118/68202-MS.
2222 review and comparison. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2267 J. M. Terracina, J. M. Turner, D. H. Collins, and S. Spillars. EProppant Se-
2223 77:1–10, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.108. 2268 lection and Its Effect on the Results of Fracturing Treatments Performed
2224 F. E. Syfan and R. W. Anderson. Lower Quality Natural Quartz Proppants 2269 in Shale Formations. pages 1–17. SPE Annual Technical Conference
2225 Result In Significant Conductivity Loss and Reduction In Ultimate Re- 2270 and Exhibition, 19-22 September, Florence, Italy, Society of Petroleum
2226 covery: A Case History. pages 1–16. SPE Annual Technical Confer- 2271 Engineers, 2010. doi: 10.2118/135502-MS.
2227 ence and Exhibition, 30 October-2 November, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2272 I. Tomac and M. Gutierrez. Micromechanics of proppant agglomeration
Jou
2228 Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2011. doi: 10.2118/146827-MS. 2273 during settling in hydraulic fractures. Journal of Petroleum Exploration
2229 P. Tan, H. Pang, R. Zhang, Y. Jin, Y. Zhou, J. Kao, and M. Fan. 2274 and Production Technology, 5:417434, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s13202-
2230 Experimental investigation into hydraulic fracture geometry and prop- 2275 014-0151-9.
2231 pant migration characteristics for southeastern Sichuan deep shale reser- 2276 O. Torsaeter, J. Kleppe, and T. van Golf-Racht. Multiphase Flow in Frac-
2232 voirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (106517), 2020. 2277 tured Reservoirs. Advances in Transport Phenomena in Porous Media,
2233 doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106517. 2278 128:551–629, 1987. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-3625-6 12.
2234 Y. Tan, Z. Pan, J. Liu, X.-T. Feng, and L. D. Connell. Laboratory study of 2279 J. M. Trela, P. D. Nguyen, and B. R. Smith. Controlling Proppant Flow
2235 proppant on shale fracture permeability and compressibility. Fuel, 222: 2280 Back to Maintain Fracture Conductivity and Minimize Workovers:
2236 83–97, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.141. 2281 Lessons Learned from 1,500 Fracturing Treatments. pages 1–15. So-
2237 S. Tandon, Z. Heidari, A. Aderiigbe, J. Shi, and T. Fuss-Dezelic. A new 2282 ciety of Petroleum Engineers, SPE International Symposium and Ex-
2238 method for mechanical damage characterization in proppant packs us- 2283 hibition on Formation Damage Control, 13-15 February, Lafayette,
Journal Pre-proof
2284 Louisiana, USA, 2008. doi: 10.2118/112461-MS. 2329 Geology, 144:1–15, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2021.103689.
2285 A. Vafaie and I. R. Kivi. An investigation on the effect of thermal matu- 2330 J. Wang and D. Elsworth. Fracture Penetration and Proppant Transport in
2286 rity and rock composition on the mechanical behavior of carbonaceous 2331 Gas- and Foam-Fracturing. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engi-
2287 shale formations. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 116, 2020. doi: 2332 neering, (103269), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103269.
2288 hhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2020.104315. 2333 J. Wang and D. Elsworth. Role of proppant distribution on the evolution
of
2289 P. Valko and M. Economides. Foam Proppant Transport. pages 1–6. SPE 2334 of hydraulic fracture conductivity. Journal of Petroleum Science and
2290 Production & Facilities, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1997. doi: 2335 Engineering, 166:249–262, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.03.040.
2291 10.2118/27897-PA. 2336 J. Wang, D. Elsworth, and M. K. Denison. Propagation, proppant transport
2292 D. van Batenburg, E. Biezen, and J. Weaver. Towards Proppant Back-Pro- 2337 and the evolution of transport properties of hydraulic fractures. Jour-
pro
2293 duction Prediction. pages 1–8. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 2338 nal of Fluid Mechanics, 855:503–534, 2018a. doi: hhttps://doi.org/10.
2294 European Formation Damage Conference, 31 May-1 June, The Hague, 2339 1017/jfm.2018.670.
2295 Netherlands, 1999. doi: 10.2118/54730-MS. 2340 J. Wang, D. Elsworth, and T. Ma. Conductivity Evolution of Prop-
2296 D. Van-Batenburg, E. Biezen, and J. Weaver. Towards Proppant Back-Pro- 2341 pant-Filled Hydraulic Fractures. pages 1–14. 52nd U.S. Rock Me-
2297 duction Prediction. pages 1–8. SPE European Formation Damage Con- 2342 chanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 17-20 June, Seattle, Washington,
2298 ference, 31 May-1 June, The Hague, Netherlands, Society of Petroleum 2343 American Rock Mechanics Association, 2018b. doi: https://www.
2299 Engineers, 1999. doi: 10.2118/54730-MS. 2344 onepetro.org/conference-paper/ARMA-2018-111.
2300
2301
2302
2303
re-
M. C. Vincent and P. T. Huckabee. Using Field Results to Guide Proppant
Selection in the Pinedale Anticline. pages 1–8. Rocky Mountain Oil &
Gas Technology Symposium, 16-18 April, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2007. doi: 10.2118/108991-MS.
2345
2346
2347
2348
J. Wang, Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, F. Zhou, E. Yao, and R. Wang. Study of
Fracturing Fluid on Gel Breaking Performance and Damage to fracture
conductivity. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (107443),
2020b. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107443.
2304 L. J. Volk, C. J. Raible, H. B. Carroll, and J. S. Spears. Embedment Of 2349 J. Wang, Y. Huang, F. Zhou, and X. Liang. The influence of proppant
2305 High Strength Proppant Into Low-Permeability Reservoir Rock. pages 2350 breakage, embedding, and particle migration on fracture conductivity.
lP
2306 1–15. SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, 27-29 2351 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 193(107385), 2020c.
2307 May, Denver, Colorado, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1981. doi: 2352 doi: hhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107385.
2308 10.2118/9867-MS. 2353 L. Wang, J. D. Fortner, and D. E. Giammar. Impact of Water Chemistry
2309 M. Voltolini. In-situ 4D visualization and analysis of temperature-driven 2354 on Element Mobilization from Eagle Ford Shale. Environmental Engi-
2310 creep in an oil shale propped fracture. Journal of Petroleum Exploration 2355 neering Science, 32(4):310–320., 2015. doi: 10.1089/ees.2014.0342.
rna
2311 and Production Technology, pages 1–10, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol. 2356 Q. Wang and R. Li. Research status of shale gas: A review. Renew-
2312 2021.108375. 2357 able Energy and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74:715–720, 2017. doi:
2313 M. Voltolini and J. Ajo-Franklin. Evolution of propped fractures in shales: 2358 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.007.
2314 The microscale controlling factors as revealed by in situ X-Ray micro- 2359 J. D. Weaver, P. D. Nguyen, M. A. Parker, and D. W. van Batenburg.
2315 tomography. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (106861), 2360 Sustaining Fracture Conductivity. pages 1–10. Society of Petroleum
2316 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106861. 2361 Engineers, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 25-27 May,
2317 M. Voltolini, J. Rutqvist, and T. Kneafsey. Coupling dynamic in situ 2362 Sheveningen, The Netherlands, 2005. doi: 10.2118/94666-MS.
Jou
2318 X-ray micro-imaging and indentation: A novel approach to evaluate 2363 J. D. Weaver, D. W. van Batenburg, and P. D. Nguyen. Sustaining Con-
2319 micromechanics applied to oil shale. Fuel, (120987):1–12, 2021. doi: 2364 ductivity. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Interna-
2320 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120987. 2365 tional Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 15-17
2321 D. Wang, H. Wang, F. Li, M. Chen, and A. P.Bunger. Parameters affect- 2366 February, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 2006. doi: 10.2118/98236-MS.
2322 ing the distribution of pulsed proppant in hydraulic fractures. Jour- 2367 J. D. Weaver, M. Parker, D. W. van Batenburg, and P. D. Nguyen.
2323 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 191(107125), 2020a. doi: 2368 Fracture-Related Diagenesis May Impact Conductivity. pages 1–10.
2324 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107125. 2369 Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Journal, 2007. doi: 10.2118/
2325 D. Wang, Z. You, R. L. Johnson, L. Wu, P. Bedrikovetsky, S. M. Aminos- 2370 98236-PA.
2326 sadati, and C. R. Leonardi. Numerical investigation of the effects of 2371 J. D. Weaver, R. D. Rickman, and H. Luo. Fracture-Conductivity Loss Due
2327 proppant embedment on fracture permeability and well production in 2372 to Geochemical Interactions Between Manmade Proppants and Forma-
2328 Queensland coal seam gas reservoirs. International Journal of Coal 2373 tions. pages 1–12. SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint
Journal Pre-proof
2374 Meeting, 11-15 October, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, Society of 2419 Shale during Stimulation and Shut-In Periods of Hydraulic Fracturing.
2375 Petroleum Engineers, 2008. doi: 10.2118/118174-MS. 2420 Energy & Fuels, 34(11), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103348.
2376 J. D. Weaver, R. Rickman, H. Luo, and D. Elsworth. Fracture-Conductivity 2421 J. Xu, Y. Ding, L. Yang, Z. Liu, R. Gao, H. Yang, and Z. Wang. Effect
2377 Loss Caused By Geochemical Interactions Between Man-Made Prop- 2422 of proppant deformation and embedment on fracture conductivity after
2378 pants And Formations. pages 1–12. 43rd U.S. Rock Mechanics Sym- 2423 fracturing fluid loss. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
of
2379 posium & 4th U.S. - Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, 28 June-1 2424 71(102986), 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102986.
2380 July, Asheville, North Carolina, American Rock Mechanics Associa- 2425 J. Xu, Y. Ding, L. Yang, Z. Liu, R. Gao, H. Yang, and Z. Wang.
2381 tion, 2009a. 2426 Conductivity analysis of hydraulic fractures filled with nonspherical
2382 J. D. Weaver, R. D. Rickman, H. Luo, and R. Logrhy. A Study of Prop- 2427 proppants in tight oil reservoir. Energy Science and Engineering, pages
pro
2383 pant Formation Reactions. pages 1–16. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2428 1–13, 2020. doi: 10.1002/ese3.517.
2384 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 20-22 April, The 2429 M. Yang, Y. Lu, Z. Ge, Z. Zhou, C. Chai, and L. Zhang. Optimal selection
2385 Woodlands. Texas, 2009b. doi: 10.2118/121465-MS. 2430 of viscoelastic surfactant fracturing fluids based on influence on coal
2386 J. D. Weaver, R. D. Rickman, and H. Luo. Fracture-Conductivity Loss 2431 seam pores. Advanced Powder Technology, 31(6):2179–2190, 2020.
2387 Caused by Geochemical Interactions Between Man-Made Proppants 2432 doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2020.03.005.
2388 and Formations. pages 1–9. SPE Journal, Society of Petroleum En- 2433 S. Yang, N. Harris, T. Dong, W. Wu, and Z. Chen. Mechanical Prop-
2389 gineers, 2010. doi: 10.2118/118174-PA. 2434 erties and Natural Fractures in a Horn River Shale Core from Well
2390
2391
2392
2393
re-
G. Wei, T. Babadagli, H. Huang, L. Hou, and H. Li. A visual experimental
study: Resin-coated ceramic proppants transport within rough vertical
models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, (107142):1–13,
2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107142.
2435
2436
2437
2438
Logs and Hardness Measurements. pages 1–13. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, EUROPEC 2015, 1-4 June, Madrid, Spain, 2015.
10.2118/174287-MS.
doi:
S. Yang, N. B. Harris, T. Dong, W. Wu, and Z. Chen. Natural Fractures and

2394 M. Wei, Y. Duan, M. Dong, Q. Fang, and M. Dejam. Transient Production 2439 Mechanical Properties in a Horn River Shale Core From Well Logs and
2395 Decline Behavior Analysis for a Multi-Fractured Horizontal Well with 2440 Hardness Measurements. pages 1–12. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
lP
2396 Discrete Fracture Networks in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Journal of Porous 2441 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2018. doi: 10.2118/174287-
2397 Media, 22(3):343–361, 2019. doi: 10.1615/JPorMedia.2019028982. 2442 PA.
2398 Q. Wen, S. Zhang, L. Wang, Y. Liu, and X. Li. The effect of prop- 2443 Y. Yang, C. J. Robart, and M. Ruegamer. Analysis of U.S. Hydraulic Frac-
2399 pant embedment upon the long-term conductivity of fractures. Jour- 2444 turing Design Trends. pages 1–14. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
2400 nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 55(3-4):37–45, 2007. doi: 2445 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February, The
rna
2401 10.1016/j.petrol.2006.08.010. 2446 Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2013. doi: 10.2118/163875-MS.

2402 W. Wick, S. Taneja, I. Gupta, C. H. Sondergeld, and C. S. Rai. Chemically 2447 H. Yasuhara, D. Elsworth, and A. Polak. A mechanistic model for
2403 Induced Formation Damage in Shale. pages 1–11. Society of Petro- 2448 compaction of granular aggregates moderated by pressure solution.
2404 physicists and Well-Log Analysts, Petrophysics, 2020. 2449 JJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 76:1–15, 2003. doi:
2405 X. Wu, Z. Huo, Q. Ren, H. Li, F. Lin, and T. Wei. Preparation and char- 2450 10.1029/2003JB002536.
2406 acterization of ceramic proppants with low density and high strength 2451 L. Yiman, T. Huang, Z. Pang, and C. Jin. Geochemical processes during
2407 using fly ash. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 702, 2017. doi: 2452 hydraulic fracturing: a water-rock interaction experiment and field test
Jou
2408 10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.01.262. 2453 study. Geosciences Journal, 21:753763, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s12303-
2409 H. Xiao, Z. Li, S. He, X. Lu, P. Liu, and J. Li. Experimental study on 2454 017-0114-5.
2410 proppant diversion transportation and multi-size proppant distribution 2455 W. Yu, T. Zhang, S. Du, and K. Sepehrnoori. Numerical study of the effect
2411 in complex fracture networks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi- 2456 of uneven proppant distribution between multiple fractures on shale gas
2412 neering, page 107800, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107800. 2457 well performance. Fuel, 142:189–198, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.
2413 T. Xiao, H. Xu, N. Moodie, R. Esser, W. Jia, L. Zheng, J. Rutqvist, and 2458 10.074.
2414 B. McPherson. Chemical-Mechanical Impacts of CO2 Intrusion Into 2459 M. Yue, Q. Zhang, W. Zhu, L. Zhang, H. Song, and J. Li. Effects of
2415 Heterogeneous Caprock. Water Resources Research, 56(11):1–8, 2020. 2460 proppant distribution in fracture networks on horizontal well perfor-
2416 doi: 10.1029/2020WR027193. 2461 mance. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 187(106816),
2417 W. Xiong, M. Gill, J. Moore, D. Crandall, J. A. Hakala, and C. Lopano. 2462 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106816.
2418 Influence of Reactive Flow Conditions on Barite Scaling in Marcellus 2463 W. Yuepeng, X. Liu, L. Liang, and J. Xiong. Experimental study on
Journal Pre-proof
2464 the damage of organic-rich shale during water-shale interaction. Jour- 2496 j.petrol.2018.03.038.
2465 nal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, (103103), 2020. doi: 2497 X. Zhao, E. He, J. Guo, Z. Haiyan, H. Wang, and W. He. The study of
2466 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.103103. 2498 fracture propagation in pre-acidized shale reservoir during the hydraulic
2467 C. Yun, H. Wang, T. Li, Y. Wang, F. Ren, and G. Ma. Evaluation of geother- 2499 fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184:106488,
2468 mal development considering proppant embedment in hydraulic frac- 2500 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106488.
of
2469 tures. Renewable Energy, 153:985–997, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.renene. 2501 L. Zheng, J. Rutqvist, H.-H. Liu, J. T. Birkholzer, and E. Sonnen-
2470 2020.02.063. 2502 thal. Model evaluation of geochemically induced swelling/shrinkage
2471 B. Zanganeh, M. Ahmadi, C. Hanks, and O. Awoleke. The role of hydraulic 2503 in argillaceous formations for nuclear waste disposal. Applied Clay
2472 fracture geometry and conductivity profile, unpropped zone conductiv- 2504 Science, 97-98:24–32, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.clay.2014.05.019.
pro
2473 ity and fracturing fluid flowback on production performance of shale oil 2505 W. Zheng and D. D. Tannant. Influence of proppant fragmentation on
2474 wells. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, pages 1–7, 2506 fracture conductivity - Insights from three-dimensional discrete element
2475 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.juogr.2014.11.006. 2507 modeling. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 177:1010–
2476 F. Zeng, Y. Zhang, J. Guo, Q. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Xiang, and Y. Zheng. 2508 1023, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.03.015.
2477 Optimized completion design for triggering a fracture network to en- 2509 W. Zheng, D. D. Tannant, X. Cui, C. Xu, and X. Hu1. Improved discrete
2478 hance horizontal shale well production. Journal of Petroleum Science 2510 element modeling for proppant embedment into rock surfaces. JActa
2479 and Engineering, 190(107043), 2020a. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020. 2511 Geotechnica, 15:347364, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11440-019-00819-5.
2480
2481
2482
2483
107043.
re-
L. Zeng, N. Reid, Y. Lu, M. M. Hossain, A. Saeedi, and Q. Xie. Effect of
the FluidShale Interaction on Salinity: Implications for High-Salinity
Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing in Shales. Energy& Fu-
2512
2513
2514
2515
S. Zhi and D. Elsworth. Proppant embedment in coal and shale: Impacts of
stress hardening and sorption. International Journal of Coal Geology,
(103545), 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2020.103545.
Y. Zhong, E. Kuru, H. Zhang, J. Kuang, and J. She. Effect of Fractur-
2484 els, 34(3):3031–3040, 2020b. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b04311. 2516 ing Fluid/Shale Rock Interaction on the Rock Physical and Mechanical
2485 J. Zhang and J. Hou. Theoretical conductivity analysis of surface modifi- 2517 Properties, the Proppant Embedment Depth and the Fracture Conduc-
lP
2486 cation agent treated proppant II Channel fracturing application. Fuel, 2518 tivity. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 52:10111022, 2019. doi:
2487 165(1):28–32, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.026. 2519 10.1007/s00603-018-1658-z.
2488 J. Zhang, L. Ouyang, D. Zhu, and A. Hil. Experimental and numerical 2520 H. Zhuo, S. Deng, Z. Huang, C. Xia, Y. Zeng, and J. Jiang. Conductivity
2489 studies of reduced fracture conductivity due to proppant embedment in 2521 performance evaluation of fractures filled with proppant of different
2490 the shale reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2522 sizes in shale with LBM-DEM. International Journal of Oil and Gas
rna
2491 (130):37–45, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.004. 2523 Technology, 23(1), 2020. doi: 10.1504/IJOGCT.2020.104972.
2492 L. Zhang, Z. Kou, H. Wang, Y. Zhao, M. Dejam, J. Guo, and J. Du. 2524 M. Zoveidavianpoor, A. Gharibi, and M. Z. bin Jaafar. Experimental char-
2493 Performance analysis for a model of a multi-wing hydraulically frac- 2525 acterization of a new high-strength ultra-lightweight composite prop-
2494 tured vertical well in a coalbed methane gas reservoir. Journal of 2526 pant derived from renewable resources. Journal of Petroleum Science
2495 Petroleum Science and Engineering, 166:104–120, 2018. doi: 10.1016/ 2527 and Engineering, 170:1038–1047, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.06.
2528 030.
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
Highlights
Proppant embedment in shale is reviewed.
of
Factors inuencing fracture conductivity and proppant embedment are reviewed
in detail.
pro
Experimental techiniques and modeling approaches for studying proppant em-
bedment and fracture conductivity are discussed in detail.
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
Declaration Statement of Interest
of
The authors declare no conicting and competing interests.
pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou

A Comprehensive Review of Proppant Embedment in Shale Reservoirs Experimentation, Modeling and Future Prospects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Comprehensive Review of Proppant Embedment in Shale Reservoirs Experimentation, Modeling and Future Prospects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comprehensive Review of Proppant Embedment in Shale Reservoirs Experimentation, Modeling and Future Prospects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

A comprehensive review of proppant embedment in shale reservoirs:

Allan Katende, Lisa O’Connell, Ashley Rich, Jonny Rutqvist,

To appear in: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

Received date : 6 May 2021

© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1 A comprehensive review of proppant embedment in shale reservoirs:

interdisciplinary approach of science, engineering in academia, government, and private sector.

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 2

67 Rutqvist et al., 2013; Sharma and Livescu, 2020; Soeder,

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 3

HilliardBaxterMancos- Niobrara Fm Heath Fm

re- Eagle Ford

108 treatments (Sutra et al., 2017), studies relating to proppant

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 4

sult of the pressure drawdown (Alramahi and Sundberg,

2012). These pressures may increase in response to an in-

glectfulness of proppant deformation and proppant embed-

ment into the walls of the hydraulic fracture. These factors

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 5

hope that this review can enhance our knowledge on miti-

gating proppant embedment and ensuring that constant pro-

ticles available. There wasn’t any geographical limit that

was applied during the review process. A total of 260+ ref-

225 this review.

205 This review has been based on original research articles

206 on the evaluation and optimization design of long-term con-

Proppant Embedment in Shale

Proppants Proppant Embedment Knowldege gaps and

used during and Fracture Conductivity Recommendations

Factors affecting Laboratory Testing of Modeling of

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 6

241 draulic fracturing treatment.

fracture conductivity, which improves the quality of the hy-

ing (e.g. Northern White Sand), which, depending on the

type of resin, allows its use with closure stresses up to

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 7

(d) 20/40 Resin coated sand

Figure 4: Optical micro-graphs illustrating commonly used proppants taken at 40X.

Roundness 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Turbidity (FTU) 38 <100 80 <100 <100 <100 <100

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 8

300 4. Proppant Embedment and Fracture Conductivity

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 9

of the well will decline because of proppant embedment as

well as deformation (Bandara et al., 2020a; Hou et al., 2020;

closure stress, proppants become embedded into the rock,

changing its porosity (Gu et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Os-

351 vestigating proppant embedment.

329 Many studies are ongoing to determine what influences

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 10

and Anderson, 2011).

Figure 7: Investigating the effect of proppant type (Bandara et al., 2020c).

J OURNAL OF N ATURAL G AS S CIENCE AND E NGINEERING 11

420 number of protrusions across one linear inch of screen spec-

424 For instance, 20/40 mesh is labelled 0.0331 in and 0.0165

427 As it is evident in figure 9, that proppant size and spheric-

429 ous sizes (Schmidt et al., 2014). Fracture conductivity is

term production was sustained from wells where ceramic