O & G companies face a tough choice as to the type of Proppant they go with.
Not all sand is created equal.
Silica sands from the pits in Wisconsin and Arkansas produce top quality Proppant.
What makes the their silica preferrible for fracking over other sands across the country?
1) The consistent and preferred diameter of each tiny grain of sand.
2) The spherical shape of each pebble. i.e. its very round in shape which allows the oil to flow easier between the grains of sand.
3) Silica from Wisconsin & Arkansas has a higher crush tolerance. It can withstand the tremendous pressures much better the fracking process exerts.
Texas sand by comparison, when viewed under a microscope, tends to be rectangular in shape and when you put those tiny squares of rock under tremendous pressure it builds what could only be described as a "brick wall" making oil flow around the grains of sand very difficult.
The 2nd reason Texas sand is inferior is because it crushes easier under the tremendous pressures which is the whole point of fracking. The sand used must be very hard. Fracking grade sand is called "Proppant". It gets that name simply because it "props" open the cracks and fissures created in the rock when water and certain chemicals are forced down a well.
So why would some oil companies even consider going with Texas sand? Costs. $$$ shipping trainloads of sand comes with a hefty freight bill. That freight bill has to be passed down to the consumers. Therefore Texas sand is cheaper. It may not be as efficient as the Wisconsin & Arkansas silica but getting it in collosal quantities to the well site is much cheaper. Oil companies are sometimes willing to sacrifice the quantity of oil they can produce out of a well if they're saving millions on the front end costs. Its a toss up and it creates a dilemma each oil company must face in the end as to which Proppant is "best".
Make sense?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
