Patent Grant
7654323
The present invention relates to a proppant for fractured earth having a high compressive strength and a good conductivity.
Naturally occurring deposits containing oil and natural gas have been located throughout the world. Given the porous and permeable nature of the subterranean structure, it is possible to bore into the earth and set up a well where oil and natural gas are pumped out of the deposit. These wells are large, costly structures that are typically fixed at one location. As is often the case, a well may initially be very productive, with the oil and natural gas being pumpable with relative ease. As the oil or natural gas near the well bore is removed from the deposit, other oil and natural gas may flow to the area near the well bore so that it may be pumped as well. However, as a well ages, and sometimes merely as a consequence of the subterranean geology surrounding the well bore, the more remote oil and natural gas may have difficulty flowing to the well bore, thereby reducing the productivity of the well.
To address this problem and to increase the flow of oil and natural gas to the well bore, companies have employed the well-known technique of fracturing the subterranean area around the well to create more paths for the oil and natural gas to flow toward the well. As described in more detail in the literature, this fracturing is accomplished by hydraulically injecting a fluid at very high pressure into the area surrounding the well bore. This fluid must then be removed from the fracture to the extent possible to ensure that it does not impede the flow of oil or natural gas back to the well bore. Once the fluid is removed, the fractures have a tendency to collapse due to the high compaction pressures experienced at well-depths, which can be more than 20,000 feet. To prevent the fractures from closing, it is well-known to include a propping agent, also known as a proppant, in the fracturing fluid. The goal is to be able to remove as much of the injection fluid as possible while leaving the proppant behind to keep the fractures open.
Several properties affect the performance of a proppant. If forces in a fracture are too high for a given proppant, the proppant will crush and collapse, and then no longer have a sufficient permeability to allow the proper flow of oil or natural gas. In deep wells or wells whose formation forces are high, proppants must be capable of withstanding high compressive forces, often greater than 10,000 pounds per square inch (“psi”). Proppants able to withstand these forces (e.g., up to and greater than 10,000 psi) are referred to as high strength proppants. In shallower wells, high strength proppants may not be necessary as intermediate strength proppants may suffice. Intermediate strength proppants are typically used where the compressive forces are between 5,000 and 10,000 psi. Still other proppants can be used when the compressive forces are low. For example, sand is often used as a proppant at low compressive forces.
In addition to the strength of the proppant, how the proppant will pack with other proppant particles and the surrounding geological features is critical, as the nature of the packing can impact the flow of the oil and natural gas through the fractures. For example, if the proppant particles become too tightly packed, they may actually inhibit the flow of the oil or natural gas rather than increase it.
The nature of the packing also has an effect on the overall turbulence generated through the fractures. Too much turbulence can increase the flowback of the proppant particles from the fractures toward the well bore. This may undesirably decrease the flow of oil and natural gas, contaminate the well, cause abrasion to the equipment in the well, and increase the production cost as the proppants that flow back toward the well must be removed from the oil and gas.
The useful life of the well may also be shortened if the proppant particles break down. For this reason, proppants have conventionally been designed to minimize breaking. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,497,008 to Graham et al. discloses a preferred proppant composition of a hard glass that has decreased surface flaws to prevent failure at those flaws. It also discloses that the hard glass should have a good resistance to impact abrasion, which serves to prevent surface flaws from occurring in the first place. These features have conventionally been deemed necessary to avoid breaking, which creates undesirable fines within the fracture.
The shape of the proppant has a significant impact on how it packs with other proppant particles and the surrounding area. Thus, the shape of the proppant can significantly alter the permeability and conductivity of a proppant pack in a fracture. Different shapes of the same material offer different strengths and resistance to closure stress. It is desirable to engineer the shape of the proppant to provide high strength and a packing tendency that will increase the flow of oil or natural gas. The optimum shape may differ for different depths, closure stresses, geologies of the surrounding earth, and materials to be extracted.
The conventional wisdom in the industry is that spherical pellets of relatively uniform size are the most effective proppant body shape to maximize the permeability of the fracture. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,753,299 to Lunghofer et al. Indeed, the American Petroleum Institute's (“API's”) description of the proppant qualification process has a section dedicated to the evaluation of roundness and sphericity as measured on the Krumbein scale. The more spherical the proppant, the better it is believed to perform in the proppant pack.
Another property that impacts a proppant's utility is how quickly it settles both in the injection fluid and once it is in the fracture. A proppant that quickly settles may not reach the desired propping location in the fracture, resulting in a low level of proppants in the desired fracture locations, such as high or deep enough in the fracture to maximize the presence of the proppant in the pay zone (i.e., the zone in which oil or natural gas flows back to the well). This can cause reduced efficacy of the fracturing operation. Ideally, a proppant disperses equally throughout all portions of the fracture. Gravity works against this ideal, pulling particles toward the bottom of the fracture. However, proppants with properly engineered densities and shapes may be slow to settle, thereby increasing the functional propped area of the fracture. How quickly a proppant settles is determined in large part by its specific gravity. Engineering the specific gravity of the proppant for various applications is desirable because an optimized specific gravity allows for a proppant to be better placed within the fracture.
Yet another attribute to consider in designing a proppant is its acid-tolerance, as acids are often used in oil and natural gas wells and may undesirably alter the properties of the proppant. For example, hydrofluoric acid is commonly used to treat oil wells, making a proppant's resistance to that acid of high importance.
Still another property to consider for a proppant is its surface texture. A surface texture that enhances, or at least does not inhibit, the conductivity of the oil or gas through the fracture is desirable. Smoother surfaces offer certain advantages over rough surfaces, such as reduced tool wear and a better conductivity, but porous surfaces may still be desirable for some applications where a reduced density may be useful.
All of these properties, some of which can at times conflict with each other, must be weighed in determining the right proppant for a particular situation. Because stimulation of a well through fracturing is by far the most expensive operation over the life of the well, one must also consider the economics. Proppants are typically used in large quantities, making them a large part of the cost.
Attempts have been made to optimize proppants and methods of using them. Suggested materials for proppants include sand, glass beads, ceramic pellets, and portions of walnuts. The preferred material disclosed in previously-mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 3,497,008 is a hard glass, but it also mentions that sintered alumina, steatite, and mullite could be used. Alumina has conventionally been thought to add strength to a proppant, so many early proppants were made of high-alumina materials, such as bauxite. The strength of these high-alumina materials is believed to be due to the mechanical properties of dense ceramic materials therein. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,068,718 and 4,427,068, both of which disclose proppants made with bauxite. Bauxite ceramics are known to optimize the toughness of a proppant whereas alumina ceramics optimize their hardness. For example, previously-mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 4,427,068 discloses a proppant comprising a clay containing silica that adds a glassy phase to the proppant, thereby weakening the proppant. Furthermore, the silica of that patent is “free” silica, meaning that it is amorphous and not engaged, for example, to the mullite phase. In general, high amounts of silica reduce the strength of the final proppant. In particular, it is believed that sintered proppants containing more than 2% silica by weight will have reduced strength over those with lower silica contents. Other so-called impurities are also believed to reduce the strength of the proppant.
Early high strength proppants were made using tabular alumina which was a relatively expensive component. For this reason, the industry shifted from using tabular alumina to other alumina sources, such as bauxite. By the late 1970's, the development focus in the industry shifted from high strength proppants to intermediate or lower strength, lower density proppants that were easier to transport and use, and were less expensive. Over the next 20 years, the industry focused on commercialization of lower density proppants and they became commonly used. The primary method of reducing the density of proppants is to replace at least a portion of the higher density alumina with lower density silica. According to U.S. Pat. No. 6,753,299, “the original bauxite based proppants of the early 1970's contained >80% alumina (Cooke). Subsequent generations of proppants contained an alumina content of >70% (Fitzgibbons), 40% to 60% (Lunghofer), and later 30% to <40% (Rumpf, Fitzgibbons).” Thus, as to both product development and proppant use, there was a retreat in the industry from proppants manufactured from high-alumina materials such as bauxite.
Numerous production methods have been suggested for making spherical alumina pellets. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,427,068 to Fitzgibbon discloses a method of making sintered pellets using a dry pelletizing process. In that process, which is described in more detail below, pellets are forced to rub against each other in a mixer to increase their sphericity. After mixing, the pellets are sintered in a known fashion. Another known method involves preparing an aqueous feed from the desired pellet materials and continuously atomizing the feed into a layer of already partly dried particles made from the same pellet material. Both of these known methods result in particles having surface irregularities and a less than ideal spherical shape. These properties contribute to an uneven distribution of stress that leads to crushing and the generation of fines. They also contribute to having lower void volumes in the pack, as well as a lower conductivity. The surface irregularities can also have an undesirable abrasive effect on the pumping equipment in the well, and have a higher coefficient of friction that can make the removal of the fracturing fluid from the well more difficult and costly. An alternative production process, electrofusion, has been suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 5,964,291 to Bourne et al. However, electrofusion is not the focus of that patent, and no details are provided regarding how the electrofusion is to be accomplished. Indeed, the applicants are not aware of any electrofused proppant products that have been on the market in the past or are on the market today.
Today, as resources become more scarce, the search for oil and gas involves penetration into deeper geological formations, and the recovery of the raw materials becomes increasingly difficult. Therefore, there is a need for proppants that have an excellent conductivity and permeability even under extreme conditions.
An embodiment consistent with the present invention is a high strength proppant comprising an electrofused pellet. In another embodiment, a high strength proppant comprises a substantially solid and substantially spherical pellet produced by electrofusion of at least one metal oxide. A method of making a proppant is also provided, with that method comprising melting at least one metal oxide in an electrical arc furnace, pouring the molten metal oxide to create a pour stream, and separating the pour stream to form at least one electrofused pellet. A method of fracturing subterranean formations is also provided, with that method comprising injecting a fluid containing at least one electrofused pellet.
a is an image of a sintered spherical proppant.
b is an image of an electrofused proppant consistent with the present invention.
Reference will now be made in detail to embodiments of the present invention. A high strength electrofused proppant is found to achieve superior crush resistance, conductivity, and other benefits when used in fracturing subterranean formations surrounding oil and/or gas wells under relatively high closing pressures.
A high strength proppant in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention may be a spherical particle prepared by an electrofusion process (hereinafter referred to as an “electrofused sphere” or “electrofused pellet”). To initiate the electrofusion process, an alumina-containing material such as, for example, so-called pure or technical alumina, bauxite, mullite, or a combination of these or any other suitable alumina-containing material may be melted in an electric arc furnace. An example of such a furnace is described below in connection with an exemplary electrofusion process. Because a high alumina content is known to improve the hardness and toughness of a proppant, the metal oxide mixture may be formulated to include at least about 50% alumina by weight. In some embodiments, such as where bauxite is used as an alumina source, it may be desirable to create a molten mixture comprising more than about 90% alumina by weight.
In some embodiments, such as those where the primary source material contains little or no SiO2 (e.g., pure alumina, meaning alumina that has impurities fewer than about 2% by weight), it may be additionally desirable to introduce a small amount of SiO2, for example, between about 0.1% and about 1% by weight, into the mixture. The addition of SiO2 may be accomplished either prior to or during the melting stage of the process. The addition of a small amount of SiO2 has the advantage of improving the viscosity and flowability of the molten mixture, which contributes to achieving a more spherical product than electrofused pellets prepared without SiO2, thereby providing improved crush resistance. A mixture with improved flowability also offers a wider range of speeds with which the mixture can be poured, allowing more control over the resultant particle size distribution. However, those skilled in the art will recognize that adding too much SiO2 to the mixture can weaken the electrofused spheres, so care must be taken to balance the needs of improved flowability with the final properties of the electrofused product. Consequently, in some embodiments the SiO2 content of the mixture may be limited to between about 0.3% and about 0.6% by weight.
When melting is completed, a bessemerizing process is used to form substantially solid and substantially spherical particles of a desired diameter. The term “substantially solid” as used in this application is intended to distinguish the inventive materials from those that are considered in the industry to be hollow. It is not intended to imply that the materials lack all porosity.
It will be understood by those skilled in the art that
The electrofused spheres created from the above bessemerizing process are collected, for example, using a suitable collection tray located below pour stream 104. The collected spheres are then sorted into desirable sizes by any method known to those skilled in the art such as, for example, by centrifugation or sieving according to the dimensions specified in the U.S. Standard Sieve Series commonly used within the art. A Mesh Table showing the commonly used U.S. Standard Sieve Series is shown in
The sieving analysis involves a number of specific steps. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, sieves of desirable sizes are cleaned to ensure that they are free of loose proppants, resins, or dust. The sieves are then weighed individually and stacked on top of each other inside a base pan with the lowest sieve size (i.e., the one with the largest holes) at the top and the largest sieve size at the bottom.
The collected electrofused spheres are separated into batches of about 80 grams and weighed. Each batch is then poured into the top sieve of the stack. A lid is place upon this top sieve and firmly secured in place by an “o” ring. The stack of sieves is placed on a sieve shaker and shaken for about 10 minutes. After shaking, the sieves are individually weighed again along with the spheres that were held by the sieve. The previously recorded sieve weight is subtracted from the total sieve weight with the electrofused spheres to determine the weight of the electrofused spheres at a particular sieve size.
The total weight of the electrofused spheres in all sieves is calculated and compared to the initially recorded weight of the electrofused spheres prior to sieving to identify procedural errors. If the weight difference is within an allowable range, such as about 1%, then the process is considered to be valid and the weight of the electrofused spheres in each sieve is calculated as a percentage of the total weight of electrofused spheres from all the sieves. In this way, the sieving analysis provides an assessment of the percentages of electrofused spheres produced at various sizes in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
In some embodiments, the electrofused spheres for use as proppants are formed to an average diameter of about 0.1 mm to about 3 mm, which corresponds to a mesh size of about 6 to about 140 mesh. In some embodiments, it may be desirable to restrict the size ranges of the electrofused spheres from about 0.2 mm to about 2 mm, which corresponds to about 10 to about 80 mesh. It may be further desirable in some embodiments to further restrict the size of the electrofused spheres from about 0.2 mm to about 1.7 mm, which corresponds to about 12 to about 80 mesh. The choice of size may depend upon considerations such as the intended fracture depth, the choice of carrier fluid, or other factors known to those skilled in the art.
Depending on the application, the electrofused spheres may have varying apparent specific gravities. While “specific gravity” is known in the art to refer to the weight per unit volume of a material as compared to the weight per unit volume of water at a given temperature, “apparent specific gravity” as used in this application refers to the weight per unit volume of a material including only the material itself and its internal porosity as compared to the weight per unit volume of water. Thus, in the apparent specific gravity computation, first the weight of the material being measured is determined. Then the volume of the material, including only the volume of the material and its internal pores, is determined. For some materials, this step is easily accomplished by placing the material in water and measuring the volume of the displaced water. For proppants of this type, however, water may permeate and fill in the interior pores, giving inaccurate results. Consequently, it is necessary to measure the displacement in mercury or some similar fluid that will not permeate the material and fill its internal pores. The weight per unit volume measured in this manner is then compared to the weight per unit volume of water at a given temperature. The specific temperature used in accordance with this application is about 25 degrees Celsius.
Electrofused spheres of the sizes discussed above generally have an associated apparent specific gravity of less than about 3.9. In some embodiments, the apparent specific gravity of the electrofused spheres may be limited to between about 3.0 to about 3.9. It may be further desirable to restrict the apparent specific gravity of the electrofused spheres from about 3.4 to about 3.7 in some embodiments.
The above electrofused spheres also have an associated bulk density of between about 1.7 g/cm3 to about 2.7 g/cm3. In some embodiments, it may be desirable for the bulk density to be between about 1.9 g/cm3 and about 2.5 g/cm3. Bulk density as used in this application and understood within the art refers to the mass of a particular volume of electrofused spheres divided by the volume occupied by the electrofused spheres where the mass has been compacted. This is sometimes referred to as “packed” or “tapped” bulk density. The measurement method of the “packed” or “tapped” bulk density is that set forth by the Federation of European Producers of Abrasives (FEPA) as standard number 44-D. The volume used for the calculation of bulk density includes both the space between the electrofused spheres and the pore spaces (both interior and exterior) of the electrofused spheres.
It is known within the art that proppants having a high apparent specific gravity and high alumina content exhibit superior crush resistance. Crush resistance as used in this application is measured according to procedures promulgated by the API for measuring proppant crush. Specifically, a certain volume of the spherical particles of a given dimension range (e.g., 20/40 mesh) is loaded into a crush cell with a floating piston. For a desired stress level, the piston presses onto the proppant at the required stress level (e.g., 20,000 psi) for a set period of time (e.g., two minutes). The weight percentage of crushed materials, for example, gathered by sieving the fines through a sieve of a desired size (e.g., less than about 1 mm), is measured.
Results of tests using the API crush resistance procedures indicate the electrofused spheres exhibit high crush resistance up to 50,000 psi. Because crush resistance alone is generally insufficient to illustrate the potential conductivity that is essential to a proppant, a conductivity test according to API Recommended Practice 61 for measuring conductivity is also used. In a particular test, a quantity of electrofused spheres in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention was placed and leveled in a test cell between Ohio sandstone rocks. Ohio sandstone has a static elastic modulus of approximately 4 million psi and a permeability of 0.1mD. Heated steel plates provided the desired temperature simulation for the test. A thermocouple was inserted into the middle portion of the electrofused sphere collection to record the temperature. A servo-controlled loading ram provided a closing pressure on the proppant between the Ohio sandstone rocks. The test cell was initially set at 80° F. and 1,000 psi. The cell was then heated to 250° F. and held for 4 hours before the stress was increased to 2,000 psi over 10 minutes. After 50 hours at 2,000 psi, measurements were made, and then the stress level was raised to 3,000 psi. The same procedures were applied and subsequent measurements were made at 5,000 psi, 7,500 psi, and 10,000 psi over a total of 254 hours.
Measurements were taken of the pressure drop in the middle of the electrofused sphere pack to enable calculation of the permeability at a particular stress condition according to Darcy's Law. Specifically, permeability is part of the proportionality constant in Darcy's Law, which relates flow rate and fluid physical properties (e.g., viscosity) to the stress level applied to a pack of electrofused spheres. Permeability is a property specifically relating to a pack of electrofused spheres, not the fluid. Conductivity, on the other hand, describes the ease with which fluid moves through pore spaces in a pack of electrofused spheres. Conductivity depends on the intrinsic permeability of an electrofused sphere pack as well as the degree of saturation. In particular, conductivity expresses the amount of fluid that will flow through a cross-sectional area of an electrofused sphere pack under the desired stress level.
Specifically, to measure conductivity, a 70 mbar full range differential pressure transducer was started. When the differential pressure appeared to be stable, a tared volumetric cylinder was placed at the outlet and a stopwatch was started. The output from the differential pressure transducer was fed to a data collector, which recorded the output every second. Fluid was collected for 5 to 10 minutes after which the flow rate was determined by weighing the collected effluent. The mean value of the differential pressure was retrieved from a multi-meter, as were the peak high and low values. If the difference between the high and low values was greater than 5% of the mean, the data was disregarded. Temperature was recorded at the start and end of the flow test period. Viscosity of the fluid was obtained using the measured temperature and viscosity tables. At least three permeability determinations were made at each stage using Darcy's Law. The standard deviation of the determined permeabilities had to be less than 1% of the mean value before the test was accepted.
Using the conductivity testing method above, a pack of 20/40 mesh electrofused spheres in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention exhibited conductivity of at least about3,400 md-ft and a permeability of at least about 230 Darcies at a closing pressure of about 5,000 psi. Other embodiments may exhibit conductivities of at least about 4,000 md-ft at 5,000 psi, and permeabilities of at least about 200 Darcies at 5,000 psi.
The surprisingly superior conductivity and permeability of the electrofused spheres at that closing pressure may be attributed to the spheres' relatively smooth surface, their superior crush resistance as a result of their high alumina content, and their highly spherical shape that provides an increased void volume over the more irregular spherical proppants of the prior art.
The highly spherical shape and substantially smooth surface are particularly advantageous when compared to the sintered spheres that are currently being used in the industry. More specifically, the spheres made from the commonly used sintering method acquire their form from, for example, a dry pelletizing process commonly used in the proppant manufacturing industry (as described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 4,427,068 to Fitzgibbon). During this dry pelletizing process, a mixing device such as an Eirich Mixer having a horizontal or inclined circular table and capable of rotating at a speed of from about 10 to about 60 revolutions per minute is used to mix a ground dry power of the desired base material for forming the pellets. A rotatable impact impeller is provided inside the circular table, which rotates in an opposite direction to the rotational direction of the circular table and causes the material added to the mixer to flow over itself in a countercurrent manner. While the circular table and the impact impeller are both rotating, the dry powder for forming the pellets is continually added until the desired size of unsintered pellets is formed. The pellets are then sintered to cause crystallization and hardening of the base material.
Because the above dry pelletizing process forms the spheres through the use of a countercurrent, which forces the spheres to rub against each other, the resulting spheres are typically not highly spherical in shape and contain many imperfections such as dents and protrusions.
Another known method for pelletizing spheres for sintering is a wet method. This method involves preparing an aqueous feed from the desired pellet materials and continuously atomizing the feed into a layer of already partly dried particles made from the same pellet material that is fluidized in a stream of drying air. The formed pellets are continuously retrieved from the layer and separated into desired sizes before sintering. This wet method also produces particles that are of less than ideal sphericity due to uneven contact with dry ingredients and variations in the air stream. Sintered spherical proppants prepared according to the above processes generally have a sphericity of slightly better than 0.7 on the Krumbein scale. An exemplary image of such sintered spheres currently being used in the industry is shown in
While such a sintered sphere may satisfy the basic requirements of a proppant, it has a number of draw backs in proppant applications. For example, the less than ideal spherical shape does not facilitate an even distribution of load pressure and creates stress points throughout the proppant pack under high closing pressure. This uneven distribution of stress leads to crushing and the generation of fines. Sintered spheres under pressure break into very minute, dust-like pieces that have a tendency to create densely packed fine layers that significantly reduce both permeability and conductivity. Additionally, the fines tend to have sharp edges, which when in contact with surrounding intact spheres, concentrate the compression forces onto other spheres at the sharp contact points and contribute to the destruction of the surrounding spheres in the proppant pack.
The process of electrofusing spheres, however, results in spheres that have been homogeneously cooled from the outside to the inside. Consequently, a radial organization of crystals form toward the center of the sphere, thereby creating a potential radial cleavage plane. Thus, in contrast to sintered spherical proppants, electrofused spheres may fail under high compressive forces to result in fines shaped like half-spheres, or slices of spheres. These fines have fewer sharp edges and are less aggressive in their destructive effect on the other spheres in the pack than the fines created when a sintered sphere fails.
The irregularities on a sintered sphere's exterior also make the sphere more resistant to fluid flow. The disadvantage here is three-fold. First, irregular materials have a higher coefficient of friction, making it more difficult to remove the fracturing fluid from between them during clean up. Any fracturing fluid that remains in the proppant pack after injection will close up voids that oil or natural gas could otherwise flow through to the well. Consequently, the conductivity of the pack may be reduced if clean up cannot be effectively and efficiently conducted. Also, the clean up phase of a fracturing operation can take days, and prohibits use of the well to pump oil or natural gas. The cost in terms of clean up man-hours, clean up equipment, and the delayed pumping of oil or natural gas is extremely high and is well-known to those in the art. Second, the irregularities reduce the conductivity of the proppant pack, as it would have a higher compacity and lower void volume compared to proppants that are more uniformly spherical. Third, an irregular texture on a sintered sphere surface makes the sphere highly abrasive when injected under pressure and in large quantities. This will likely to contribute to equipment wear-and-tear during fracturing and within the well.
In view of the above disadvantages associated with a lack of sphericity and smoothness, improved sphericity is therefore advantageous because it increases both the strength and the conductivity of the proppant. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, the electrofused sphere is able to achieve a sphericity of at least about 0.8 on the Krumbein scale. In some embodiments, the electrofused spheres possess a sphericity of at least about 0.9 on the Krumbein scale. It is even possible to make electrofused spheres with a sphericity of more than about 0.95 on the Krumbein scale. This improved sphericity is a direct consequence of the electrofusion process, described above.
An image of exemplary electrofused spheres in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention is shown in
The highly spherical shape and smooth exterior of the electrofused proppant overcome the disadvantages of the prior art. For example, a smooth proppant has a lower coefficient of friction than one having an irregular surface. Accordingly, the fracturing fluid can more easily be removed from the pack, leading to increased conductivity and a lower cost of clean up. A smooth, spherical proppant will also result in increased void spaces in the pack, also aiding conductivity. Yet another advantage is that a smooth spherical proppant will not be nearly as abrasive to well equipment or to the equipment used in the fracturing operation. All of these advantages lead to an increased return on investment through lower clean up costs, higher well up-time, and increased conductivity.
The specific surface areas of the electrofused spheres are obtained according to the widely-used BET method (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) that calculates specific surface area based on adsorption of gaseous molecules, such as nitrogen, on the sphere surface. The electrofused spheres in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention generally acquire a substantially smooth surface measuring between about 0.05 m2/g and about 0.5 m2/g.
Because sphere formation during electrofusion is almost instantaneous, often a wide particle size distribution results from this manufacturing process instead of making a substantial amount of pellets with the desired diameter range. A number of adjustments to the standard electrofusion process may be made to ensure more electrofused spheres will be manufactured within a desired dimension range. For example, EP 1,157,077 suggests using ultrasound waves to aid in the dispersion and cooling of the pellets. This method is somewhat complicated, requires specialized equipment, and may not be suitable for mass production.
Another way to encourage the production of smaller electrofused spheres involves the use of additives, such as water, in the compressed air used during the bessemerizing process. When water comes into contact with the molten mixture, it extracts a portion of the heat away from the mixture and creates a more rapid cooling effect. This rapid cooling effect leads to quicker solidification, which results in the production of a greater amount of smaller diameter spheres. In an embodiment of the present invention, the electrofused spheres produced using this modified bessemerizing process range between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm in diameter. Other materials known in the art to absorb large amounts of energy may be used as well to rapidly decrease the temperature and speed solidification to the desired extent to provide a greater percentage of the desired sized sphere, so long as the material does not adversely impact the final product properties.
Yet another modification for the production of smaller electrofused spheres involves reducing the flow of the pour stream. With a reduced pour stream, the compressed air may be more effective in causing rapid solidification of individual droplets, thereby resulting in a higher proportion of smaller diameter electrofused spheres. With the reduction of flow, it may be necessary to monitor the viscosity of the flow to ensure that the slower pour does not result in solidification in the pour spout or the casting channel leading up to the pour spout. In some embodiments of the present invention, adoption of one or more of the above modifications may result in as much as up to 100% of the electrofused spheres measuring below about 2 mm in diameter.
It will be understood that the above modifications are merely examples of methods that may be implemented in connection with the electrofusion process to cause rapid solidification of the spheres, thereby generating smaller spheres. These methods may be altered to suit various conditions during the electrofusion process and/or used in combination with each other or other processes without departing from the spirit of the present invention.
Three specific examples for manufacturing electrofused spheres from various suitable raw materials in accordance with embodiments of the present invention are discussed below. It will be understood that these examples are merely illustrative. Various modifications to the process and substitution of raw materials may be made without departing from the spirit of the present invention.
A mixture of 1,000 kg of pure alumina and 4 kg of silica sand was melted in a lidded electrical arc furnace. The electrical arc furnace had a diameter of about 1.8 meters, a power of about 1.2 megawatts, and a voltage of about 172 volts. As soon as the mixture completely liquefied, the arc furnace was tilted and the molten mixture was poured from a pour spout to form a pour stream. Concurrently with the pouring, the pour stream was bessemerized with compressed air through a tube having an air nozzle directed at the pour stream. An air pressure of 8 bars was used, but other suitable pressures can be determined by those skilled in the art. The pressurized air caused individual droplets of the molten mixture to separate and rapidly solidify into spheres. The electrofused spheres were then collected in the bessemerizing chamber with a base comprising water-cooled steel plates. The electrofused spheres were then transported into a cooling tube by an air stream. After sufficient cooling, the electrofused spheres were screened into suitable sizes by sieving as described above.
1,000 kg of bauxite having an alumina content of about 85% was melted in a lidded electrical arc furnace in the manner described above in connection with Example 1. Bauxite with higher alumina percentages may also be used. Because natural bauxite generally contains a sufficient amount of silica, the addition of silica sand was not necessary in this instance. The molten bauxite was then processed in the same manner as described above for the pure alumina mixture.
1,000 kg of mullite containing about 5% baddeleyite (ZrO2) was melted in a lidded electrical arc furnace. The electrofusion process of the molten mixture was the same as described above for the pure alumina mixture.
Table 1 below shows the physical properties of electrofused spheres that were obtained using the raw materials described above in the examples. It will be understood that these properties are merely illustrative and may vary depending on modifications to the electrofusion process and raw materials.
The Vollstaedt grain crushing resistance was measured using the known method involving the computerized testing of individual grain fracture strength, with size and shape analysis of the individual grains. The particular FEPA grit on the Vollstaedt sieve was 35. The pore volume percentage was measured using a combination of optical microscopy and software-controlled digital image analysis. Using various microscopy contrast methods (e.g., bright field), it was possible to distinguish different phases (minerals or pores) by the different gray scales appearing in the image. The software was then able to compute the porosity of the sample.
In view of the above, electrofused spheres prepared in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention are well-suited as proppants. The electrofused spheres contain a high percentage of alumina, which is known to improve strength and crush resistance in proppants. The electrofusion of the specific compositions of materials introduces finer pores within the sphere, which allows a better distribution of load within the sphere when under pressure, thereby reducing crushing and the production of undesirable fines. The electrofusion of the specific compositions also creates spheres that are very close to an ideal spherical shape with a smooth surface. Such spheres may have a reduced resistance and may allow for the creation of a more uniform proppant pack, which in turn improves the crush resistance and conductivity of the proppant pack.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 2005 045 180 | Sep 2005 | DE | national |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1192709 | Tone | Jul 1916 | A |
| 1871792 | Horsfield | Aug 1932 | A |
| 1871793 | Horsfield | Aug 1932 | A |
| 1942431 | Jung | Jan 1934 | A |
| 2261639 | Benner et al. | Nov 1941 | A |
| 2340194 | McMullen | Jan 1944 | A |
| 2566117 | Christie, Jr. et al. | Aug 1951 | A |
| 2699212 | Dismukes | Jan 1955 | A |
| 2950247 | McGuire, Jr. et al. | Aug 1960 | A |
| 2986455 | Sandmeyer | May 1961 | A |
| 3026938 | Huitt et al. | Mar 1962 | A |
| 3075581 | Kern | Jan 1963 | A |
| 3079243 | Ueltz | Feb 1963 | A |
| 3126056 | Harrell | Mar 1964 | A |
| 3241613 | Kern et al. | Mar 1966 | A |
| 3242032 | Schott | Mar 1966 | A |
| 3245866 | Schott | Apr 1966 | A |
| 3347798 | Baer et al. | Oct 1967 | A |
| 3350482 | Bowers | Oct 1967 | A |
| 3399727 | Graham et al. | Sep 1968 | A |
| 3437148 | Colpoys, Jr. | Apr 1969 | A |
| 3486706 | Weyand | Dec 1969 | A |
| 3491492 | Ueltz | Jan 1970 | A |
| 3497008 | Graham et al. | Feb 1970 | A |
| 3598373 | Inman | Aug 1971 | A |
| 3690622 | Brunner et al. | Sep 1972 | A |
| 3758318 | Farris et al. | Sep 1973 | A |
| 3763603 | Trischuk | Oct 1973 | A |
| 3810768 | Parsons et al. | May 1974 | A |
| 3856441 | Suzukawa et al. | Dec 1974 | A |
| 3890072 | Barks | Jun 1975 | A |
| 3976138 | Colpoys, Jr. et al. | Aug 1976 | A |
| 4008763 | Lowe, Jr. | Feb 1977 | A |
| 4051603 | Kern, Jr. | Oct 1977 | A |
| 4052794 | Ganiaris | Oct 1977 | A |
| 4053375 | Roberts et al. | Oct 1977 | A |
| 4068718 | Cooke, Jr. et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
| 4072193 | Sarda et al. | Feb 1978 | A |
| 4077908 | Stenzel et al. | Mar 1978 | A |
| 4104342 | Wessel et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
| 4111713 | Beck | Sep 1978 | A |
| 4140773 | Stowell et al. | Feb 1979 | A |
| 4252544 | Takahashi | Feb 1981 | A |
| 4268311 | VerDow | May 1981 | A |
| 4296051 | Shimamura et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
| 4303204 | Weston | Dec 1981 | A |
| 4343751 | Kumar | Aug 1982 | A |
| 4371481 | Pollock | Feb 1983 | A |
| 4392988 | Dobson et al. | Jul 1983 | A |
| 4396595 | Heytmeijer et al. | Aug 1983 | A |
| 4407967 | Luks | Oct 1983 | A |
| 4427068 | Fitzgibbon | Jan 1984 | A |
| 4439489 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1984 | A |
| 4440866 | Lunghofer et al. | Apr 1984 | A |
| 4442897 | Crowell | Apr 1984 | A |
| 4450184 | Longo et al. | May 1984 | A |
| 4462466 | Kachnik | Jul 1984 | A |
| 4493875 | Beck et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
| 4509598 | Earl et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
| 4521475 | Riccio et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
| 4522731 | Lunghofer | Jun 1985 | A |
| 4547468 | Jones et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
| 4555493 | Watson et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4607697 | Urffer | Aug 1986 | A |
| 4618504 | Bosna et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
| 4623630 | Fitzgibbon | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4628042 | Speronello | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4632876 | Laird et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4639427 | Khaund | Jan 1987 | A |
| 4652411 | Swarr et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4654266 | Kachnik | Mar 1987 | A |
| 4657754 | Bauer et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4658899 | Fitzgibbon | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4668645 | Khaund | May 1987 | A |
| 4671909 | Torobin | Jun 1987 | A |
| 4680230 | Gibb et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4713203 | Andrews | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4714623 | Riccio et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4744831 | Beck | May 1988 | A |
| 4867931 | Cochran, Jr. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4869960 | Gibb et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4874726 | Kleeb et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4879181 | Fitzgibbon | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4892147 | Jennings, Jr. et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4894285 | Fitzgibbob | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4911987 | Sakata et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 4921820 | Rumpf et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4921821 | Rumpf et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4923714 | Gibb et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 4944905 | Gibb et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4977116 | Rumpf et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 5002904 | Jain et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5030603 | Rumpf et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5045506 | Dube et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5120455 | Lunghofer | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5175133 | Smith et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5182051 | Bandy et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
| 5188175 | Sweet | Feb 1993 | A |
| 5212143 | Torobin | May 1993 | A |
| 5225123 | Torobin | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5240654 | Smith et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| RE34371 | Rumpf et al. | Sep 1993 | E |
| 5243190 | Bandy et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5304226 | Hasegawa et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5330005 | Card et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5358047 | Himes et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5387268 | Hiraiwa et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5396805 | Surjaatmadja | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5397759 | Torobin | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5420174 | Dewprashad | May 1995 | A |
| 5422183 | Sinclair et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5439055 | Card et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5501274 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5501275 | Card et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5547023 | McDaniel et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5582249 | Caveny et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5582250 | Constien | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5597784 | Sinclair et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5604184 | Ellis et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5633084 | Hiraiwa et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5697440 | Weaver et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699860 | Grundmann | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5775425 | Weaver et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5782300 | James et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5787986 | Weaver et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5833000 | Weaver et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5837656 | Sinclair et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5839510 | Weaver et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5853048 | Weaver et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5871049 | Weaver et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5948734 | Sinclair et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5955144 | Sinclair et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5964291 | Bourne et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5972835 | Gupta | Oct 1999 | A |
| RE36466 | Nelson et al. | Dec 1999 | E |
| 6015442 | Alary | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6032741 | Johnson | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6047772 | Weaver et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6059034 | Rickards et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6074754 | Jacobsen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6080232 | Sperlich et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6152227 | Lawson et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6172011 | Card et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6192985 | Hinkel et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6209643 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6217646 | Gervais | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6330916 | Rickards et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6364018 | Brannon et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6372678 | Youngman et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6406789 | McDaniel et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6419019 | Palmer et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6503676 | Yamashita et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
| 6528157 | Hussain et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6582819 | McDaniel et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
| 6599863 | Palmer et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6632527 | McDaniel et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6659179 | Nguyen | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6668926 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6725926 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6725930 | Boney et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6725931 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6729404 | Nguyen et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6732800 | Acock et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
| 6743269 | Meyer et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6749025 | Brannon et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6752208 | Nguyen | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6753299 | Lunghofer et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6772838 | Dawson et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6780804 | Webber et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6830105 | Thesing | Dec 2004 | B2 |
| 6832652 | Dillenbeck et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6837309 | Boney et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6866099 | Nguyen | Mar 2005 | B2 |
| 6887811 | Kanbara et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6892813 | Nguyen et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6949491 | Cooke, Jr. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 6962200 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6983797 | Nguyen et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 7004255 | Boney | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7032664 | Lord et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7032667 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7036591 | Cannan et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7036592 | Nguyen et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7040403 | Nguyen et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7044220 | Nguyen et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7044224 | Nguyen | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7053018 | Kanbara et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7063150 | Slabaugh et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7066258 | Justus et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7067445 | Webber et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7080688 | Todd et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7081439 | Sullivan et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7082993 | Ayoub et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7086460 | Nguyen et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7119039 | Krause et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7128158 | Nguyen et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7160844 | Urbanek | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 20030029094 | Moeltgen et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030195121 | Fitzgerald | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040040708 | Stephenson et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093804 | Alary | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040129923 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162224 | Nguyen et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040200617 | Stephenson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040224155 | Barron et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050019574 | McCrary | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050028979 | Brannon et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050059555 | Dusterhoft et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050059558 | Blauch et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050096207 | Urbanek | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050126780 | Todd et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050130848 | Todd et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050145385 | Nguyen | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050166803 | Dillenbeck et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050173116 | Nguyen et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050194141 | Sinclair et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050244641 | Vincent | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050274523 | Brannon et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050284630 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050284631 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060006589 | Canova et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060016598 | Urbanek | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060035790 | Okell et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060048944 | van Batenburg et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060054324 | Sullivan et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060058173 | Mozhzherin et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060065398 | Brannon et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060073980 | Brannon et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060078682 | McDaniel et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060081371 | Duenckel et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060113078 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060113080 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060124303 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060151170 | Brannon et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060157244 | Reddy et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060162926 | Roddy | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060162929 | Urbanek | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060166834 | Roddy | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060174802 | Bedel et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060175058 | Nguyen | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060201673 | Welton et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060219600 | Palamara et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060243441 | Cornelius de Grood et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060258546 | Brannon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060272816 | Willberg et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070023187 | Canova et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 551409 | Jan 1983 | AU |
| 9501449 | Aug 1997 | BR |
| 9501450 | Aug 1997 | BR |
| 303442 | May 2005 | BR |
| 1045027 | Dec 1978 | CA |
| 1117987 | Feb 1982 | CA |
| 1172837 | Aug 1984 | CA |
| 1191020 | Jul 1985 | CA |
| 1194685 | Oct 1985 | CA |
| 1232751 | Feb 1988 | CA |
| 1281306 | Oct 1968 | DE |
| 2948584 | Jun 1980 | DE |
| 0083974 | Jul 1983 | EP |
| 0087852 | Sep 1983 | EP |
| 0101855 | Mar 1984 | EP |
| 0116369 | Aug 1984 | EP |
| 0169412 | Jan 1986 | EP |
| 1157077 | Aug 2002 | EP |
| 1355038 | Oct 2003 | EP |
| 284131 | Jan 1928 | GB |
| 578424 | Jun 1946 | GB |
| 715354 | Sep 1954 | GB |
| 886342 | Jan 1962 | GB |
| 992237 | May 1965 | GB |
| 1033143 | Jun 1966 | GB |
| 1411135 | Oct 1975 | GB |
| 1421531 | Jan 1976 | GB |
| 2037727 | Jul 1980 | GB |
| 2079261 | Jan 1982 | GB |
| 2092561 | Oct 1983 | GB |
| 18450 | Jul 1985 | PH |
| 2129987 | May 1999 | RU |
| 2140874 | Nov 1999 | RU |
| 2140875 | Nov 1999 | RU |
| 99107936 | Jan 2001 | RU |
| 2166079 | Apr 2001 | RU |
| 2196889 | Jan 2003 | RU |
| 2211198 | Aug 2003 | RU |
| 2215712 | Nov 2003 | RU |
| 200310003003 | Nov 2003 | RU |
| 2002117351 | Jan 2004 | RU |
| WO 9209543 | Jun 1992 | WO |
| WO 0064573 | Nov 2000 | WO |
| WO 0130699 | May 2001 | WO |
| WO 2004097171 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004046495 | Jun 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004083600 | Sep 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005087665 | Sep 2005 | WO |
| WO2005087665 | Sep 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005100746 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| WO2005100746 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| WO2005110942 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006082359 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006082416 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006084236 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO2006135997 | Dec 2006 | WO |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070062699 A1 | Mar 2007 | US |
