SPE-180261-MS

Evaluation of Sand and Ceramic Proppant Performance Under Thin

Layer/Monolayer Conditions of Unconventional Hydraulic Fractures
Tihana Fuss, Jingyu Shi, Stephen Bottiglieri, and Raphael Herskovits, Saint-Gobain Proppants

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Low Perm Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5– 6 May 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production data analysis of neighboring wells in Williams County, ND shows some 100% ceramic
proppant completions do not show adequate production improvement needed to justify the additional cost
of ceramic proppant. These results are contradictory to laboratory API proppant pack conductivity (API
RP 19-D) or proppant pack mechanical strength (API RP 19-C) measurements which predict superior
performance of all types of ceramics compared to sand. This study evaluates the ability of current API
procedures to predict proppant behavior in horizontal wells and suggests a modified API testing procedure
which considers the performance of thin layer/monolayer proppant packs improving the correlation
between the laboratory and well production data.
The study also compares the mechanical strength of 20/40 and 30/50 white sand, clay based economy
lightweight ceramics and bauxite based intermediate strength ceramics using standard and modified API
RP 19-C crush resistance tests. During testing, load cell volumes range from the standardized 4lb/ft2 to
the modified 0.5 and 0.25lb/ft2. 0.5 and 0.25lb/ft2 volumes simulate proppant behavior in hydraulic
fractures with frac widths approaching 0.12⬙ and 0.07⬙, respectively. Mechanical failure of proppants is
quantified by comparing proppant size distribution pre- and post-stress application using a Horiba
CAMSIZER. Failure of proppants is also measured using in-situ high pressure CT scanning protocol that
enables visualization of the proppant failure as a function of applied load, proppant type and proppant
pack thickness.
The study establishes large differences in mechanical performance of tested materials under thick
(4lb/ft2) and thin (0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2) proppant bed height conditions. In the case of white sand, even at
pressures as low as 4,000psi, the amount of material failure is 3 times higher at 0.5lb/ft2 and 5 times higher
at 0.25lb/ft2 compared to the API standard (4lb/ft2). Both types of tested ceramic proppants also show a
higher % of mechanical failure in lower bed height conditions. While the mechanical performance of the
tested ceramic proppants is better than that of sand, the performance of clay based economy lightweight
ceramics at 8,000psi is drastically reduced and begins to approach that of sand. This is most prominent
for 30/50 mesh distribution samples.
In situ high-pressure CT scanning identifies two different failure mechanisms in the tested proppant-
s.The study then compares laboratory data to publicly available well production data in Williams County,
2 SPE-180261-MS

ND. Production increases seen in 100% ceramic completions shows a strong correlation to laboratory
measured performance of proppant at 0.5 and 0.25lb/ft2.
This paper quantifies the effect of reduced fracture thickness to the performance of different proppant
types. In addition, this paper introduces a novel in-situ high pressure CT scanning protocol and provides
unique insight into proppant failure mechanisms found in thin, unconventional fractures.
Introduction
For the last several decades, best practices for successful completion design have focused on achieving
economic optimum fracture length as described in 1978 paper by Holditch et al (1). To achieve economic
optimum fracture length, a fracture must contain proppants that will, at reservoir conditions, achieve the
desired fracture conductivity. The industry has, over the years, developed laboratory testing procedures
that quantify proppant mechanical behavior and proppant pack permeability and conductivity (2) (3).
These procedures provide the only industry accepted guidance on expected performance of proppants in
application conditions. Over the years, numerous tests conducted by both suppliers (4) (5) and industry
consortiums have confirmed that, at pressure in the range of 6,000 – 8,000 psi, failure of sand becomes
extensive and it ceases to provide the required pack permeability (Figure 1) using API RP 19-D (3).
Generally, at and above those pressures, the industry uses ceramic proppants in order to maximize well
performance and achieve desired fracture length.

Figure 1—Comparisons of permeability between sand, economy lightweight ceramics and Intermediate Strength Ceramics. (Data
shown presents an average of all reported samples and is calculated using Predict K software)

Development of unconventional resources, part of the still ongoing shale revolution, has brought out
many changes to the industry.
The industry has seen a drastic and steep (see Figure 2) rise in the mass of proppants used in
unconventional wells, driven by operator reported large increase in initial production as a function of
proppant mass (and fluid volume). However, as was also the case in 1978, this increase also changes well
economics. While for conventional wells, proppant cost is usually a small percentage of drilling and
completion costs, it can be as high as 40% in unconventional wells. Therefore, choosing ceramic
SPE-180261-MS 3

proppants over sand requires a $1,000,000⫹ decision. Under such economic pressure, choosing the right
proppant is an important decision in which return on investment is closely monitored.

Figure 2—Evolution of average amount of proppants (short tons) per well. Data show represents an average of publicly reported
(FracFocus) data for all US basins. Data obtained using NavPort software

While monitoring well performances, it became apparent some 100% ceramic completions in Willston
basin, ND did not show the production improvement needed to economically differentiate themselves
from 100% sand completions in the same area. This is an unexpected discovery because use of ceramics
in the area, according to API testing, is justified as completed wells are typically 10,000 ft TVD with
closure stresses above 8,000 psi, which is beyond the failure point of sand.
The presented study focuses on this issue by first comparing the production and economic performance
of 10 wells located in Williams County, ND located in close proximity of each other. Then, the laboratory
mechanical behavior of 20/40 and 30/50 sand, economy lightweight ceramics and intermediate density
proppants are measured using standard (4 lb/ft2 proppant loading) then a modified (2, 0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2)
API RP 19-C (2) testing procedure. The study goes on to employ an in-situ CT scanning tool to study
proppant failure mechanisms in the tested proppants. Finally, measured performance of tested proppantrs
is correlated to well production and economic performance.
Performance of different proppant types in application condition
Figure 3 shows a Google Earth® image of 10 neighboring wells in Williams County, ND. Analysis of
chemical disclosure data (Table 1) and state completion records indicates five of the 10 wells in the area
utilized sand-based completions, while the other five opted for 100% ceramic completions. Further state
reported data notes two of the five 100% ceramic wells used intermediate strength bauxite proppant while
the other three used an economy lightweight, kaolin clay-based ceramic. Wells completed using ceramic
proppants show excellent production results with an average 2 year cumulative production close to
200,000 bbl (Figure 4). While all of ceramic wells showed great production results two wells completed
4 SPE-180261-MS

using small mesh intermediate strength ceramics show better production results compared to wells
completed using economy lightweight ceramics.

Figure 3—Google® Earth image showing location of wells in Williams County, ND

Table 1—Completion design for evaluated wells

SPE-180261-MS 5

Figure 4 —Publicly available cumulative production data for wells shown in this study

Production and completion data of the five sand wells shows high production variability (Figure 4) and
various completion designs, as seen in Table 1. Although, on average, all ceramic completions outperform
sand completions, one of the five sand wells production results is similar to the production of 100%
lightweight ceramic completions.
Economic analysis of the presented wells is performed based on calculated 3 year cash flow (Figure
5) assuming WTI @ $55/bbl and 20% royalty. 3 year cash flow was calculated for all wells by
extrapolating 215 day production points to 3 years using basin average decline rates of 77% for 1st year,
35% for 2nd year and 23% for 3rd year.

Figure 5—Cumulative 215 day oil production and 3 year cash flow for 10 wells used in the study at WTI of $55 and 20% royalty
6 SPE-180261-MS

The results - average 3 year cash flow for sand wells yields $ 4.4 million, lower than the average cash
flow of economy lightweight ceramic wells ($6.1 million) and intermediate strength ceramics ($8.5
million). However, average performance of the top three sand wells at $5.2 million underperforms
economy lightweight ceramics wells by only $0.9 million, which is not sufficient to justify the additional
incremental investment in roughly 2,000 tons (4,000,000 lb) of economy lightweight ceramics. On the
other hand, both production and economic performance of completions utilizing intermediate density
proppants shows sufficient production improvement to ensure positive return on investment. Average 3
year cash flow of intermediate strength ceramics wells ($8.5 million) overprefoms average 3 year cash
flow of top 2 sand wells ($5.8 million) by $2.7 million which is more than sufficient for positive return
on investment and increased revenue.

Laboratory performance of different proppant types

Method
The study compares the mechanical strength of 20/40 and 30/50 white sand, kaolin clay-based
economy lightweight ceramics and bauxite based intermediate strength ceramics using standard and
modified API RP 19-C crush resistance testing.
All crush resistance tests are performed at either 6,000 or 8,000 psi closure stress using MTS model
Alliance RF/300 dynamic automated load frame with a force resolution of ⫾1 lbs. Material is tested in
a 2⬙ diameter steel crush cell. The reported crush resistance value is the weight of material finer than the
smallest original mesh size: 40 mesh for 20/40 samples and 50 mesh for 30/50 samples. The size
distribution of each proppant specimen, before and after testing, is measured using a Horiba CAMSIZER,
an optical size analyzer.
The analysis begins by testing samples using the API RP 19-C testing procedure. This procedure
measures the crush resistance of the proppant pack at 4 lb/ft2 loading. In a 2⬙ diameter cell, required by
this test, this corresponds to a proppant pack width of 17–18 proppant layers, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 —4lb/ft2 pack of intermediate strength bauxite

Following the standard API testing, a set of samples is tested using a modified API RP 19-C procedure.
Proppant loading conditions are adjusted to 2, 0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2. Figure 7 visually demonstrates the effect
of this decrease on the width the proppant pack. At 0.5 lb/ft2, the proppant pack contains 2–3 proppant
layers while, at 0.25 lb/ft2, only one or two layers of proppants are present. Concentrations of 0.5 and 0.25
lb/ft2 are selected to simulate proppant behavior in fractures with widths approaching 0.12⬙ and 0.07⬙,
respectively. This closely resembles the expected fracture width in unconventional shale reservoirs, such
as those found in Williams County, ND.
SPE-180261-MS 7

Figure 7—Pack of intermediate strength bauxite proppant with 2ⴖ diameter. From left to right: 4lb/ft2, 2lb/ft2, 0.5lb/ft2, 0.25lb/ft2

Lastly, X-Ray Computed Tomography (XCT) of proppants visualizes the behavior and failure of
proppants under quasi-static loading. The XCT system incorporates a compression stage, which allows for
the introduction of loads on a proppant pack before acquiring a CT scan. The GE Phoenix Tomography
with a Deben automated compression stage was used to conduct these experiments. A specialized cell
holds the proppants in the compression stage during testing. The standardized API crush cell cannot be
used due to the high X-ray absorption rate of steel. The voxel size of the resulting scans is approximately
8␮m. The process follows a several step iteration of acquiring a 360° CT scan by applying and holding
a load on the proppant pack, and repeating until the targeted load is reached. The resulting data is sets of
CT scan images at varying loads, which are then stitched, together in the same frame. This provides a
semi-continuous visualization of how proppants of varying material type respond under load.

Results
Figure 8 shows the comparison of the wt% of collected fines (crushed particles) from tested 20/40 mesh
and 30/50 mesh proppant samples at 6,000 and 8,000 psi closure stress with 4lb/ft2 proppant loading. As
expected, and in line with previously published industry data (4), both economy lightweight ceramics and
intermediate density ceramics show significant improvement, over 60% increase, over sand. Figure 9
shows the evolution of the wt% of collected fines for all tested 20/40 and 30/50 proppants as a function
of proppant loading for 6,000psi. 8,000psi closure stress performance at 4lb/ft2 and the evolution of the
wt% of collected fines as a function of proppant loading is shown on Figure 10.

Figure 8 —Comparison of the wt% of collected fines for 20/40 and 30/50 proppants at 4lb/ft2 as a function of proppant loading for
6,000psi and 8,000 psi
8 SPE-180261-MS

Figure 9 —Evolution of wt% of collected fines for all tested 20/40 and 30/50 proppants as a function of proppant loading for 6,000psi
SPE-180261-MS 9

Figure 10 —Evolution of wt% of collected fines for all tested 20/40 and 30/50 proppants as a function of proppant loading for 8,000psi
10 SPE-180261-MS

Comparison of the proppant mechanical performance as a function of proppant pack loading (pack
width) brings out two important trends. First, the data indicates that wt% of measured fines is relatively
consistent between 4, 2 lb/ft2 for both 6,000 and 8,000 psi, especially with 30/50 samples. Even more
importantly, at those pressures and loading rates, relative differentiation between ceramic and sand
proppants remains relatively constant.
At loading of 0.5 lb/ft2 all proppant types begin to experience an increase in crush, but relative
differentiation between ceramic and sand proppants remains relatively constant, where all types of
ceramics perform better than sand.
However, results are drastically different at 0.25 lb/ft2. Proppant failure at 0.25 lb/ft2 shows a
significant increase from the baseline (4lb/ft2) across all proppant types. On top of this, crush of tested
proppants increases most rapidly with lightweight ceramic proppant, resulting in a wt% of reported crush
that starts to approach that seen in sand. This behavior is consistent for both 20/40 and 30/50 samples at
both 6,000 and 8,000psi. This trend is not observed in intermediate strength ceramic and they remain, in
both tested sizes and pressures, well differentiated from sand.
In-situ X-Ray tomography scans of the proppant pack under stress reveals a closer view of thin layer
crush phenomena. Figure 11 shows CT scans captured for a thin layer ( 2–3 grains thick; resembling 0.5
lb/ft2) of 20/40 mesh proppant packs as a function of applied load. The images show that the failure of
the sand pack begins sooner (at smaller loads) than that seen in ceramics. The failure of sand is extreme
and generates a large amount of very small fines. This catastrophic type of failure has a large negative
impact on the propped fracture height and can easily close the fracture. Compared to sand, both tested
ceramics show more resistance to crushing, but lightweight ceramics fail more drastically than interme-
diate strength ceramics. Additionally, the failure mode of lightweight ceramics is very different than with
intermediate density ceramics. During failure, intermediate density ceramics tend to cleave and fail in
larger ⬙chunks⬙. Lightweight ceramic samples show two types of failure: CT images reveal that some
proppants, especially at lower loadings, tend to cleave in a similar manner to intermediate density
ceramics however, a large percentage of lightweight proppants also experience catastrophic type failure
similar to that seen in sand. Increases in the applied load only intensify this effect and, at higher loads,
catastrophic failure starts to dominate. It is also important to note that this increase of catastrophic failures
can have a large negative effect on retained fracture width as the newly created small fines can no longer
support the fracture. Conversely, proppants that cleave, like intermediate density proppants, the failed
proppants are still large enough and can retain some fracture width, positively contributing to fracture
conductivity and well production.
SPE-180261-MS 11

Figure 11—In situ CT scans of proppant packs as a function of applied force

Discussion
Analysis of well production and well economics data presented in this paper highlights a set of
neighboring wells in ND where economy lightweight ceramic wells provided only a modest differenti-
ation over sand, while wells made from intermediate density ceramics provided a significant differenti-
ation over sand. Laboratory testing of proppants under current API testing does not provide indication of
such trends, however similar performance trend are observed in proppant packs tested under thin proppant
pack conditions (0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2). Testing also reveals that proppants tested under thin proppant pack
conditions show different modes of failure. Here we will discuss relevance of these results and provide
a connection between testing results and assumed proppant application environment
12 SPE-180261-MS

Highly ductile unconventional reservoirs create narrow hydraulic fractures. In this discussion, we
divide total fractured length in these fractures into three regimes: near wellbore regime, thin propped
fractures and natural fractures. Figure 12 shows rough schematic representation of these regimes.

Figure 12—Schematic showing the assumed proppant loading in hydraulic fractures created in unconventional reservoirs

Current industry understanding of hydraulic fractures near wellbore suggest an area that possesses the
largest fracture width (0.25⬙ to 0.5⬙) and has low interaction with natural fractures. This area of fracture
is important as all produced fluids within the fracture converge towards this area of in order to exit the
fracture. Fracture widths larger than 0.25⬙ allow creation of thick proppant packs similar to those used in
API testing procedures (2) (3).
Behavior of proppants in thick packs (2 or 4 lb/ft2) is well known and has been studied for a number
of decades. Use of either economy lightweight ceramics or intermediate strength ceramic proppants in this
regime will ensure maximum conductivity of near wellbore region. Also, as ceramic proppant mechanical
performance in thick pack conditions is significantly better than sand, further gains in conductivity can be
achieved by using larger sizes of proppant, such as 20/40.
Thin propped fractures are here described as a part of hydraulic fracture that extends beyond the near
wellbore regime (Figure 12) and ends at the tip of the induced hydraulic fracture. This region is believed
to have the highest connectivity to natural fractures and serves as a connector between natural fractures
and the near wellbore region. This part of the fracture is expected to have fracture widths less than 0.12⬙.
In this part of the fracture, proppant bed thickness can allow 2–3 proppant layers in case of 20/40 proppant
SPE-180261-MS 13

or up to 5 layers in case of 30/50 proppant. Monolayer conditions are expected near the tip of the fracture.
In general, thin propped fractures are expected to have proppant loading of 0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2. It is the
author’s belief that the mechanical stability of proppant pack in this region is one of the key factors
contributing to higher performance seen in intermediate strength ceramic wells shown in this study,
especially after 100 days of production when pressure on proppants quickly increase due to fast depletion.
The ability of intermediate strength ceramics to retain propped width in these very narrow sections of the
fracture ensures efficient drainage of the reservoir, continues to provide a high conductivity path for oil
and gas towards the near wellbore region and decreases the production decline rate.
Third part of the fracture is here defined as natural fractures (Figure 12). Width of natural fractures and
the ability of proppants to enter them is still a matter of industry debate. For the sake of discussion we
will assume two things: first that if proppants do enter natural fractures, the length of propped natural
fractures will be smaller than the length of thin propped fracture and second, proppants in the natural
fractures can exist only as a monolayer. Under these conditions proppant grains experience especially high
stresses. In such situations the proppant failure mechanism becomes of uttermost importance and
proppants that cleave into few larger sub-parts (such as intermediate strength ceramics shown in this
study) will provide better retention of fracture width than proppants that fail catastrophically, such as sand
and economy lightweight ceramics shown here.
Conclusions
Over the last several decades, the industry has generated a large amount of proppant performance data
using designated API methods. This paper identifies cases where results, correlations and conclusions
generated from standard API testing do not accurately predict well production performance in uncon-
ventional reservoirs and overestimate performance of economy lightweight ceramics. The modified API
RP 19-C procedure for testing of proppant performance under thin layer/monolayer conditions yields
results that better correlate with well production data trends, especially those past 100 day production. The
results also show the proppant pack failure mode and mechanism can be vastly different in a monolayer
pack versus a multilayer pack. Observed improvement in correlation suggests that mechanical stability of
thin proppant packs is one of the key factors responsible for seen improvement in well performance. In
order to improve well performance operators would benefit by choosing proppants based on their ability
retain fracture width under low proppants loading such as 0.5 and 0.25 lb/ft2. The presented results show
only intermediate strength small mesh size proppants did provide benefit to production and justify the
investment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the support and permission of Saint-Gobain Proppants to conduct this research and
to publish the results.

References
1. The Optimization of Well Spacing and Fracture Lenght in Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs. S.A. Holditch,
J.W.Jennings, S.H.Neuse, R.E.Wyman. SPE 7496, s.l. : Socieaty of Petroleum Engineers of AMIE.
2. ISO 13503-2. Petroleum and natural gas industries - Completion fluids and materials-Part 2:Measurement of
properties of proppants used in hydraulic fracturing and gravel-packing operations. ISO 13503-2:2006(E).
3. ISO 13503-5. Petroleum and natural gas industries — Completion fluids and materials — Part 5: Procedures for
measuring the long-term conductivity of proppants. 2006. ISO 13503-5:2006(E).
4. Statistical Study of the Crush Resistance Measurement for Ceramic Proppants. W.T. Stephens, S.K. Schubarth, D.I.
Rivera, E.M. Snyder, and D.C. Herndon. SPE 102645, s.l. : Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2006.
5. Influence of Acid Exposure upon Mechnaical Strenght of Ceramic Proppants. Fuss, T., Snyder, E.M., Herndon, D.C.,
Stephens, W.T.,. Margarita Island, Venezuela : SEFLUCEMPO, 2008.