On-the-Fly Resin Coating Controls Proppant Flowback

and Enhances Conductivity

Logan Cabori, Hexion Inc.
Agenda

 Proppant Flowback Effects

 Existing Mitigation Techniques/Technology
 Theory: Requirements of a New Additive
 Laboratory Testing
 Field Studies
 Next Generation Development
 Conclusion
 Effects of Proppant Flowback

Fractures can close or be significantly reduced in size Proppant flowback near wellbore can result in
as proppant flows back. loss of connectivity between the fracture and
wellbore.
Effects of Proppant Flowback

Effects of proppant flowback are not limited to reduced hydrocarbon production.

Additional costs related to proppant flowback are:

– Damage to surface equipment

– Hauling and disposal of proppants that reach the surface
– Damage to artificial lift systems
– Additional days for flowback crews to be on site, and
– Lost production time for well remediation including additional cleanouts for
displaced proppants that do not return to the surface and deposit in the
lateral.
 Existing Mitigation Techniques/Technology

Physical Solutions Chemical Solutions

 Forced Closure  Curable resin coated proppants
 Fibers  On-the-fly resin coating
 Shaped (interlocking) Proppants  Proppant surface treatments
 Choke management

No physical or chemical proppant flowback control strategy is

perfect for all wells.
Technical shortcomings, application inflexibility, and cost of the
existing techniques/technologies led to the development of PFCA.

CONFIDENTIAL

5
Theory: Requirements of a New Additive

 Liquid additive that can be added on-the-fly

 Ability to coat substrate in an aqueous medium (frac fluid)
 Adhesive properties that facilitate coating of the proppant surface and
subsequently bonding the particles together
 Insolubility in water as well as oil
 Thermal stability in order to survive normal well temperatures
 Easy equipment clean-up
 No special equipment required

Cost effective
Laboratory Testing: Coating Efficiency-
Fluorescence is used to ensure uniform coating
 Efficient coating for PFCA was observed in the laboratory as well as in field samples taken
directly from the blender tub.

An even coating is critical for the mechanical strength of the

consolidated proppant pack.
Laboratory Testing: Unconfined Compressive Strength

 UCS testing indicates that sand treated with PFCA has adequate bond strength to
control proppant flowback.

°
 Laboratory Testing: Oil flow rate and Conductivity

Conductivity of PFCA Coated 20/40 Sand vs Oil Flow Rate of PFCA Treated vs Untreated 40/70
Uncoated 20/40 Sand Northern White Sand
7000 30
6000
Conductivity--md-ft

25
5000

Oil Flow Rate, ml/min

4000 20
3000
15
2000
1000
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 5
Closure Pressure, psi
0
uncoated PFCA coated PFCA coated Uncoated

Gravity flow rate testing showed improved oil flow rate for PFCA. Standard
baseline conductivity (2% KCl solution) indicated no significant impact on
conductivity.
Laboratory Testing: Critical Flow Rate –
Third Party Laboratory

 Critical flow rate is a key parameter that is widely used to characterize the ability of a
control measure to limit proppant flowback.

Critical Flow Rate

Uncoated Frac Sand

PFCA

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Nitrogen Flow (lb/min)
Field Studies: PFCA Application

 The setup for pumping PFCA is similar to other liquid chemicals

– Typical application rates vary from 1.0-1.5% BWOS (by weight of sand)
– Samples are taken from a sample port off the blender or missile
– The samples are visually inspected on site and analyzed by fluorescence method
in the laboratory
Field Studies: Case Study 1
Wolfcamp A in Reeves County, Texas

 Initial Head-to-Head Trial:

– 10% tail-in of 100 mesh RCP vs. 10% tail-in of 100 mesh treated with PFCA

Rate Clean Vol Prop Con Stage Prop

Stage # Description Fluid Type (bpm) (gals) (PPA) Prop Type (lbs)
1 Breakdown Slickwater 15 1,050
2 Spreadhead Acid 15% Acid 15 1,000
3 Flush Slickwater 95 18,473
4 Pad Slickwater 95 4,200
5 100 Mesh 0.5 PPA Slickwater 95 95,000 0.5 100 Mesh 47,500
6 100 Mesh 1 PPA Slickwater 95 142,500 1 100 Mesh 142,500
7 100 Mesh 1.5 PPA Slickwater 95 110,833 1.5 100 Mesh 166,250
8 100 Mesh 2 PPA Slickwater 95 71,250 2 100 Mesh 142,500
9 100 Mesh 2 PPA + PFCA Slickwater 95 47,500 2 100 Mesh +PFCA 95,000
10 Flush Slickwater 95 18,473

The PFCA well produced 50% less proppant during drill-out. An 80% reduction of
proppant flowback was observed during flowback.
 Field Studies: Case Study 1
Wolfcamp A in Reeves County, Texas

 Next phase: Operator A completed 61 PFCA wells and compared them to 31 wells that
used the traditional resin coated proppant design. Production was observed for 15 months.

Operator A was able to reduce

overall CAPEX by nearly $7.6mm
while increasing BOE production.
Field Studies: Case Study 2
3rd Bone Spring in Lea County, New Mexico

 Operator B was using a 25% RCP tail-in and still experiencing flowback that was
damaging ESPs.
 Switching to PFCA, Operator B was able to coat a 50% tail-in while remaining cost
neutral.

Stage # Stage Type Fluid Type Clean Vol Prop Con Stage Prop Prop Type Avg Rate
(gals) (ppa) (lbs) (bpm)
1 Pad Slickwater 20,000 80.0
2 Prop Slickwater 30,000 0.50 15,000 40/70 Regional 80.0
3 Prop Slickwater 40,000 0.75 30,000 40/70 Regional 80.0
4 Prop Slickwater 45,000 1.00 45,000 40/70 Regional 80.0
5 Prop Slickwater 56,000 1.25 70,000 40/70 Regional 80.0
6 Prop Slickwater 60,000 1.50 90,000 40/70 Regional 80.0
7 Prop Slickwater 68,000 1.75 119,000 40/70 Regional + PFCA 80.0
8 Prop Slickwater 65,500 2.00 131,000 40/70 Regional + PFCA 80.0
9 Flush Slickwater 18,354 80.0
Field Studies: Case Study 2
3rd Bone Spring in Lea County, New Mexico

 During the first month of initial flowback, the PFCA well produced only 30 lb of proppant to
the surface

 With success of the initial trial, subsequent trials have been conducted to optimize their
usage of PFCA in order to reduce CAPEX spend

 Additional trials were conducted with a 40% and 35% tail-in design. Only trace amounts
of proppant flowback were observed in these trials
Field Studies: Case Study 3
2nd & 3rd Bone Spring in Lea Co., NM and Ward Co., TX

 In order to develop a job design for PFCA, a proppant flowback study was performed on a
comparable nearby well targeting the same formation.

 Samples were taken every twelve hours to compare the flowback samples to the initial
mesh size distribution of the 40/70 and 100 mesh sand.

 The study concluded that the 40/70 tail-in was flowing back to the surface.

 Based on the results, a trial was designed to utilize a 40% tail-in of PFCA on two wells in a
four-well pad.
Field Studies: Case Study 3
2nd & 3rd Bone Spring in Lea Co., NM and Ward Co., TX

Prop Avg
Con Clean Vol Stage Prop PFCA Vol Rate
Stage # Stage Name Fluid Type (ppa) Prop Type (Gal) (lbs) (Gal) (bpm)
1 Breakdown Slickwater 1,000 10
2 15% HCl Acid 2,000 10
3 Pad Slickwater 15,000 90
4 .50 PPA Slickwater 0.5 100 Mesh 100,000 50,000 90
5 .75 PPA Slickwater 0.75 100 Mesh 80,000 60,000 90
6 1.00 PPA Slickwater 1 100 Mesh 90,000 90,000 90
7 1.50 PPA Slickwater 1.5 100 Mesh 60,000 90,000 90
8 2.00 PPA Slickwater 2 100 Mesh 50,000 100,000 116 90
9 1.00 PPA Slickwater 1 40/70 White + PFCA 60,000 60,000 69 90
10 1.50 PPA Slickwater 1.5 40/70 White + PFCA 60,000 90,000 104 90
11 2.00 PPA 10# Linear Gel 2 40/70 White + PFCA 30,000 60,000 69 90
12 Flush Slickwater 21,000 90
Field Studies: Case Study 3
2nd & 3rd Bone Spring in Lea Co., NM and Ward Co., TX

 Initial flowback results showed PFCA-completed wells had over 75% less proppant flowing
back than wells completed without PFCA.

 This led Operator C to continue optimizing the percentage of proppant treated with PFCA to
reduce CAPEX while minimizing proppant flowback.
Conclusion

 Proppant flowback continues to have a significant impact on well profitability.

 PFCA was developed as a more economical proppant flowback control system that is added
directly to the blender tub.

 This paper presents extensive laboratory testing and field results that demonstrate the fitness
of PFCA at stopping or reducing proppant flowback while improving hydrocarbon production
in treated wells.
Next Generation Development
 Two part system that is mixed at the wellsite in an in-line static
mixer that feeds directly into the blender tub
 The two components of the coating layer will crosslink to form
a chemical bond between sand grains to provide a strongly
consolidated proppant pack which reduces sand flowback
 Is effective over a wide temperature range: 105˚F - 350˚F

 High critical flow rate for improved proppant flowback control

in high rate wells

 Can be applied to any type and mesh size proppant

PropCure coating provides savings by:
 Mitigating proppant flowback
 Reducing time for flowback services to be onsite
 Extending life of artificial lift systems and other equipment
 Reducing the need for additional surfactants

PropCure coating improves production and revenue by:

 Keeping proppant in the fractures and maintaining pathways for oil and gas to flow
 Improving conductivity of the proppant pack compared to uncoated frac sand
 Encapsulating proppant fines, which can otherwise move and plug off the permeability
of the proppant pack
 Altering the relative permeability of the proppant pack
 Dosage, %
Sand Type Temperature, °F Shut-in Time, h UCS, psi
BWOS
40/70 200 16 1 >250
40/70 325 16 1 >250
100 Mesh 240 16 1.5 >400
*Testing done at 1000 psi with a one-inch diameter cell.

PropCure coating provides significant bond strength to

control proppant flowback. The coating is effective at a
wide range of bottomhole temperatures.
 Conductivity and Permeability
Conductivity Comparison Permeability Comparison
2lb/ft2, 250°F, Ohio Sandstone 2lb/ft2, 250°F, Ohio Sandstone
PropCure Coating Uncoated Frac Sand PropCure Coating Uncoated Frac Sand

10000 100

Permeability (Darcys)
Conductivity (md-ft)

1000

100 10

10

1 1
4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Stress, psi Stress, psi

Closure Stress, psi 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Closure Stress, psi 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Conductivity (md-ft) Permeability (Darcys)
PropCure Coating 1860 962 328 157 PropCure Coating 95 51 19 9
Uncoated Frac Sand 1411 202 43 14 Uncoated Frac Sand 71 11 2 1

PropCure coating has improved conductivity and permeability compared to the

control of uncoated frac sand. This improvement can be attributed to fines
encapsulation and reduced fines migration.
CONFIDENTIAL

24
 Flowrate Test on VFC-2000 Coated and Raw Sand Pack

CONFIDENTIAL

25
 Surface Activity Data

Oil Flow Rate Through Proppant Pack

By altering the relative permeability, 2.5

PropCure coating provides more that two

2
times higher flow rate compared to

Oil Flow Rate (mL/min)

uncoated frac sand. 1.5

1
Running this technology, even at low
concentrations, can reduce or eliminate the 0.5
need for additional surfactants.
0
PropCure Coated Frac Sand (0.5% BWOS) Uncoated Frac Sand

CONFIDENTIAL

26
 PropCure Field Study in the Bakken
Clean Stage
Rate Vol Prop Con Prop
Stage # Description Fluid Type (bpm) (gals) (PPA) Prop Type (lbs)
1 Spreadhead Acid Acid 15 750
 Bakken 7 Well Pad 2 TP Water TPW 70 24,000
– 5 Bakken Wells / 2 Three Forks Wells 3 TW Water - Pad Slickwater 70 8,000
4 40/70 Mesh (0.5 ppg) - PropCure Slickwater 70 30,000 0.5 40/70 Mesh + PropCure 15,000
 40 Stages per well 5 40/70 Mesh (1.0 ppg) Slickwater 70 23,000 1 40/70 Mesh 23,000
 8M lb of 40/70 White Sand 6 40/70 Mesh (1.5 ppg) Slickwater 70 30,000 1.5 40/70 Mesh 45,000
7 40/70 Mesh (2.0 ppg) Slickwater 70 26,000 2 40/70 Mesh 52,000
– 200K/stage 8 40/70 Mesh (2.5 ppg) Slickwater 70 12,000 2.5 40/70 Mesh 30,000
 Lateral ~10K ft. 9 40/70 Mesh (2.5 ppg) - PropCure Slickwater 70 14,000 2.5 40/70 Mesh + PropCure 35,000
10 Flush TPW 70 19,216
 Slickwater Fluid System 11 Pumpdown TPWPD 10 20,216
 PropCure 7% Lead-in / 18% Tail-in
Cumulative BOE Production PropCure Wells
 1% BWOS Concentration
300000 increased
250000 production by
 3 Wells PropCure (2 Bak / 1 TF) 200000
24%
 4 Wells Raw Sand (3 Bak / 1 TF) 150000

100000

 Wells were taken off production for a period of 50000

time due to the price volatility in Q2 of 2020 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PropCure Wells Offset Wells

CONFIDENTIAL

27
VFC-2000 and PropShield comparison

PropShield VFC-2000
Ease of Pumping On Demand, can be pumped at On Demand, can be pumped at
any time during job as long as any time during job as long as
PPA is >.5 PPA PPA is >.5 PPA
Requires 1 LA pumps Minimum Requires 2 LA pumps Minimum
System Component Single component 2 part system crosslinks to form a
chemical bond between sand
grains
1:1 ratio of XA and XB

Proppant Applications Works on Raw Silica sand and ceramics. Any mesh size can be
coated. %BWOS will change depending on type and size

Critical Flow Rate 8X higher than Raw sand 19X Higher than Raw sand

Special Equipment None- uses standard LA pumps Inline Static Mixer to blend 2 part
on Service company equipment system-Hexion Provides
BHT Range 68˚F - 215˚F 105˚F - 350˚F
 Conclusion

 Proppant flowback continues to have a significant impact on well profitability

 Hexion’s Liquid Additive Technologies were developed as more economical proppant flowback control systems that are
added directly to the blender tub
 SPE-201372-MS presents extensive laboratory testing and field results that demonstrate the fitness of PFCA at
stopping or reducing proppant flowback while improving hydrocarbon production in treated wells
 Based on field data and laboratory testing, lower concentrations of PFCA are being evaluated as replacements for
surfactants typically used for production enhancement
 Next-generation developments are being designed to meet demands for higher temperature wells and wells with higher
flow rates. Initial Results are very promising.

Even at reduced coating levels PropCure and PropShield have surfactant like qualities that
help increase production. This is seen in the field and quantified in the lab with flow tests.
CONFIDENTIAL

29
Acknowledgements / Thank You / Questions

Co-Authors
– Dr. Charles Zha
– Benjamin Abrams
– Dr. John Green
– Kevin Hamori
– Adam Harper

 Questions
– Please Contact
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

– Based on SPE-201372
Laboratory Testing: Oilflow Rate Test

 The oil flow rate test is conducted to understand if the coating improves
or impedes oil flow compared to a control.
 Testing is done by using the setup shown in Figure 4.
 The proppant is dry coated with PFCA in a separate container. The
coated proppant is then packed into the glass column.
 Isopar™ L (API gravity of 53.2°), a laboratory oil, is added to the
column. The bottom valve is then opened until the proppant pack is
fully saturated.
 After full saturation, the rate of flow is calculated. Untreated proppant is
used as a control for comparison.