SPE Production & Operations
Volume 25, Number 3, August 2010, pp. 345-354

SPE-119242-PA

How To Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests: Exposing the Top 10 Myths

View full textPDF ( 594 KB )

DOI  More information 10.2118/119242-PA http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119242-PA

Citation

  • Palisch, T., Duenckel, R., Chapman, M., Woolfolk, S., and Vincent, M.C. 2010. How To Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests: Exposing the Top 10 Myths. SPE Prod & Oper 25 (3): 345-354. SPE-119242-PA. doi: 10.2118/119242-PA.

Discipline Categories

  • 5.3.3 Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel Packing
  • 5.3 Production Enhancement

Keywords

  • Production and Operations

Summary

When the American Petroleum Institute (API) established standardized crush-testing procedures (API RP-56 1983), the committee indicated that the test results should "provide indications of the stress level where proppant crushing is excessive and the maximum stress to which the proppant material should be subjected." However, over time, many have forgotten not only how the test is conducted, but also its original intent. As such, many now unintentionally misapply the results of crush testing as they select proppants for their fracture designs.

This paper will review the top 10 myths associated with crush testing and its interpretation, addressing such common questions as

  • Do standard test conditions (high proppant concentration and low temperature) provide realistic predictions of proppant performance?
  • Should proppant be tested wet or dry?
  • Does the loading procedure affect crush?
  • What happens if proppant is not distributed uniformly in a fracture?Do all proppants fail in the same manner?
  • Are all proppant types equally damaged by 5% crush?
  • How can the industry misuse the test to report "superior" results?

Readers of this paper will be armed with a better understanding of how crush testing is performed, how crush results can be misapplied, and the correct use of crush-test results. In addition, the authors will present an alternative methodology for evaluating proppant that incorporates all of the benefits gained from crush testing, but avoids the common pitfalls. Armed with this information readers can improve the design of fracture treatments, thereby achieving increased production rates and superior economic returns.

View full textPDF ( 594 KB )

History

  • Original manuscript received: 23 October 2009
  • Meeting paper published: 20 January 2009
  • Revised manuscript received: 18 March 2010
  • Manuscript approved: 19 March 2010
  • Published online: 22 July 2010
  • Version of record: 11 August 2010