Review Reports
- Xiaohong Wei*,
- Yuting Wang and
- Yaru Song
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Harminder Pal Singh Reviewer 2: A. M. El-Shamy Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I have gone through the manuscript submitted to Coatings. Authors have reported a new propellant material with enhanced potential for facilitating movement form reservoir to borewell. The submitted work is worthy of publication. However, I have a few queries that should be addressed.
1. How far this novel material was better over the previously used resins? Authors need to provide a quantitative comparison explicitly in the abstract.
2. What about the cost-effectiveness of the new resin?
3. What about the other resin materials being used?
4. In the present form, introduction is too short. It may be elaborated a bit further highlighting research shortfalls/ gaps and the need to have new materials.
Revise the conclusion and present as sentences and not as bullet/number points.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is largely Ok.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
My comments
Thank you very much for giving me the chance to cooperate with your respected journal in reviewing this exciting work. The manuscript deals with “A Study on a New Type of High-Performance Resin-coated Sand for Petroleum Fracturing Proppants”. This work is very important for readers to improve their awareness regarding resin-coated sand for petroleum fracturing proppants.
Weaknesses points must be fixed before publication.
While the study presents a new approach to enhancing the performance of coated-sand petroleum fracturing proppant material, there are several potential weaknesses and points of concern that should be acknowledged:
1. Limited Scope of Study: The study focuses solely on investigating the performance of the modified quartz sand coated with low-density resin in specific conditions. It doesn't account for potential variations in geological formations, fluid compositions, or operating conditions that might impact the proppant's performance in different scenarios. More illustrations are needed.
2. Lack of Comparative Analysis: The study doesn't provide a comprehensive comparison with existing or alternative proppant materials. Without comparing the new coated-sand proppant to other types of proppants available in the market, it's challenging to gauge the true significance of the improvements claimed. Please add a separate part to discuss this point.
3. Narrow Range of Parameters: The study only examines the effects of a specific polyimide resin content and curing temperature on the proppant's performance. It doesn't explore the effects of varying these parameters, which could yield different results or optimize the proppant's performance under different conditions. Please specify.
4. Limited Mechanical Characterization: While the study mentions the breakage ratio, it doesn't provide a detailed analysis of the proppant's mechanical properties beyond this single parameter. Other mechanical properties such as crush resistance, conductivity, and fines generation are also crucial for assessing the overall suitability of the proppant material. More details are required.
5. Lack of Long-Term Performance Data: The study only presents performance data under specific conditions and for a limited duration. It doesn't address the proppant's long-term durability, especially considering the challenging conditions it might encounter in actual hydraulic fracturing operations over extended periods. Just modify.
6. Assumption of Uniform Resin Distribution: The study assumes a uniform distribution of the resin coating on the sand particles. However, variations in coating thickness or distribution could impact the proppant's overall performance and stability. Add more sentences.
7. Limited Environmental Considerations: The study doesn't discuss the potential environmental implications of using the new coated-sand proppant. This could include factors like resin degradation, leaching, or possible interactions with the fracturing fluid or surrounding formations. It will improve the impact of the paper.
8. Scale-Up Challenges: The study is conducted at a laboratory scale, and there might be challenges in scaling up the production of the modified proppant to an industrial level. Issues related to consistency, uniformity, and production efficiency could emerge during large-scale manufacturing. If it is possible.
9. Industry-Specific Factors: The study doesn't address the potential challenges or constraints that might arise from regulatory requirements, industry standards, or the operational realities of hydraulic fracturing operations. Highlights this part.
10. Lack of Economic Analysis: The study doesn't discuss the economic feasibility of producing and using the new coated-sand proppant. Cost considerations related to production, deployment, and potential incremental benefits compared to existing solutions are not explored. Very important to verify this analysis.
In conclusion, while the study presents promising results for the new coated-sand petroleum fracturing proppant material, it's essential to acknowledge these weaknesses and potential limitations. Further research, broader testing, and a more comprehensive analysis are needed to fully assess the viability and effectiveness of the proposed approach in practical hydraulic fracturing operations.
My final decision was accepted after a major revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This submission reports preparation of quartz sand modified with a silane coupling agent KH560 and a polyimide resin for use as a proppant in fracturing to enhance oil and gas production. A key objective is to reduce the density to slow settling of proppant particles and improve performance. Samples are characterized by FTIR, SEM and other methods with consideration of the amount of resin and curing temperature taken into account.
This topic has generated a good deal of research of interest to the industry. The investigators have designed a novel approach with results appearing to show that a decrease in density is achieved. For what is written. the English is satisfactory.
Density represents a key property for the modified proppant. The Formula A.1 used to determine density seems to have been improperly applied. Lines 65 and 66 state “Following the addition of a weight of m3 of proppant to the bottle,…” and line 72, “m3 was the quality of proppants added to the density bottle,…”, implying that m3 is only the mass of the proppant when it should be the mass of both proppant and the density bottle(pycnometer). Calculation using this value for m3 would yield incorrect values for the apparent density of the proppant.
Additional work on content of the paper is needed. The literature review is not up-to-date with most of the references 7-10 years old. The paper needs a current literature search and analysis [See for example: Wei G, Huang H, Babadagli T, Hou L, Li H. Determination of the effect of resin-coating on ceramic proppant settlement for optimal hydraulic fracturing applications. Powder technology. 2020 Aug 1;373:109-17; Chen T, Gao J, Zhao Y, Liang T, Hu G, Han X. Progress of Polymer Application in Coated Proppant and Ultra-Low Density Proppant. Polymers. 2022 Dec 17;14(24):5534; Xie X, Niu S, Miao Y, Gao X, Cheng L, Gao F. Preparation and properties of resin coated ceramic proppants with ultra light weight and high strength from coal-series kaolin. Applied Clay Science. 2019 Dec 15;183:105364.] In the Discussion, compare the findings of your study with the work of others.
The experimental section needs to be completely rewritten to provide sufficient detail for others to be able to reproduce the findings. The experimental description lacks amounts of reagents, sand, solvents, reaction times, etc. Strengths of acids are not mentioned. Polyimine is generic and not a specific compound. Which polyimine was used? What was its molecular weight and dispersity? No information has been provided on the viscometer used including plate geometry and shear rate. All test methods should be adequately described with details.
The data do not support conclusions 1 and 3 that the modified proppant yielded superior performance since it was not tested with fracking. Improved performance can be inferred from the results presented, but not concluded.
Other points:
Line 8: Correspondence is repeated.
Lines 72-74: The word “quality” often describes a subjective measure. Its meaning here is unclear so another word would be better.
Line 102: H2SO4 and H2O2 undergo hydrolysis? This is not clear. Show the reaction.
Line 108: Hydrogen peroxide is an oxidizing agent but the oxidation state shown for Si has not changed in the reaction.
Line 121: ratio, radio
Line 168: FTIR provides information on the functional groups present. Many chemists would not equate that to composition.
Line 179: Add the FTIR spectra for quartz sand with KH560.
Line 192: Units on the ordinate are incorrect.
Line 221: Grammar
Several references are incomplete.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall the quality of English is fine and the grammar correct. There are other issues with the writing as provided in the more detailed comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Accept
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have not addressed the need to rewrite the Experimental section of the paper. As stated in the initial review:
"The experimental section needs to be completely rewritten to provide sufficient detail for others to be able to reproduce the findings. The experimental description lacks amounts of reagents, sand, solvents, reaction times, etc. Strengths of acids are not mentioned. Polyimine is generic and not a specific compound. Which polyimine was used? What was its molecular weight and dispersity? No information has been provided on the viscometer used including plate geometry and shear rate. All test methods should be adequately described with details."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf