6
bank sand, concrete sand, pugmill proppant sand. No
proppant production was reported until two years prior to
the property purchase being considered.
Existing Technical Report
A technical report on the potential for proppants and
other sand products underlying the property was prepared
on behalf of the owner. The technical report mentioned
the Montgomery/Lissie Formation and the Deweyville
Formation only once each in a short section called “Geologic
Setting.” That section essentially was a repeat of map expla-
nations of the two formations. Other than that, neither of
the two formations nor any other geologic discussions were
contained in the report.
The scope of work included exploring the general
subsurface conditions at the site and relevant engineering
properties of the subsurface materials using geotechnical
borings. The entire section of the report on grain size dis-
tribution was based almost exclusively on the laboratory
analyses from 12 test holes, with no attempt to correlate
test holes with one another. Two-foot samples were taken
from test holes every ten feet. All of the drill holes were
located in the upland Flatwoods none was in the bottom-
land floodplain or low terraces.
The report contained an elaborate, unnecessarily com-
plicated method to determine the amount of proppant-
sized sand underlying the Montgomery/Lissie portion of
the property. A simplified description of the methodology
follows:
• Test hole samples (two-foot samples collected at
ten-foot intervals) were sieved. The percent of mate-
rial passing through the #40 sieve and retained on
the #140 sieve* was measured for each sample and
referred to as “percent recovery.”
• Various laboratory analyses were conducted to deter-
mine the properties of the sand. It was reported that
all of the sand met requirements for use as proppant.
• The percent recovery was calculated in 10-foot inter-
vals (fig.3a)
• The average percent recovery rate per ten-foot inter-
val, with respect to elevation, for all samples was cal-
culated and applied to the volumes of ten-foot layers
of the entire site. For example, the concentration of
potential proppant is greater than 50 percent in the
layers from sea level to 50 feet elevation, and is less
than 50 percent in every other layer.
• The percent recovery for the ten-foot layers were
summed to determine the total proppant available
at the site.
In-depth geologic study
I was retained by a client to evaluate the existing report, to
opine on the report’s description of the quality and quantity
*This range was considered to be acceptable size material for
proppant. For reference: The #40 sieve has a nominal open-
ing of 0.420 mm, and the #140 sieve has a nominal opening
of 0.105 mm. Sand is generally considered to be 2.0 mm to
0.0625 mm.
Figure 3a. Generalized cross section showing potential proppant at site in 10-foot intervals relative to elevation without
consideration of geology
bank sand, concrete sand, pugmill proppant sand. No
proppant production was reported until two years prior to
the property purchase being considered.
Existing Technical Report
A technical report on the potential for proppants and
other sand products underlying the property was prepared
on behalf of the owner. The technical report mentioned
the Montgomery/Lissie Formation and the Deweyville
Formation only once each in a short section called “Geologic
Setting.” That section essentially was a repeat of map expla-
nations of the two formations. Other than that, neither of
the two formations nor any other geologic discussions were
contained in the report.
The scope of work included exploring the general
subsurface conditions at the site and relevant engineering
properties of the subsurface materials using geotechnical
borings. The entire section of the report on grain size dis-
tribution was based almost exclusively on the laboratory
analyses from 12 test holes, with no attempt to correlate
test holes with one another. Two-foot samples were taken
from test holes every ten feet. All of the drill holes were
located in the upland Flatwoods none was in the bottom-
land floodplain or low terraces.
The report contained an elaborate, unnecessarily com-
plicated method to determine the amount of proppant-
sized sand underlying the Montgomery/Lissie portion of
the property. A simplified description of the methodology
follows:
• Test hole samples (two-foot samples collected at
ten-foot intervals) were sieved. The percent of mate-
rial passing through the #40 sieve and retained on
the #140 sieve* was measured for each sample and
referred to as “percent recovery.”
• Various laboratory analyses were conducted to deter-
mine the properties of the sand. It was reported that
all of the sand met requirements for use as proppant.
• The percent recovery was calculated in 10-foot inter-
vals (fig.3a)
• The average percent recovery rate per ten-foot inter-
val, with respect to elevation, for all samples was cal-
culated and applied to the volumes of ten-foot layers
of the entire site. For example, the concentration of
potential proppant is greater than 50 percent in the
layers from sea level to 50 feet elevation, and is less
than 50 percent in every other layer.
• The percent recovery for the ten-foot layers were
summed to determine the total proppant available
at the site.
In-depth geologic study
I was retained by a client to evaluate the existing report, to
opine on the report’s description of the quality and quantity
*This range was considered to be acceptable size material for
proppant. For reference: The #40 sieve has a nominal open-
ing of 0.420 mm, and the #140 sieve has a nominal opening
of 0.105 mm. Sand is generally considered to be 2.0 mm to
0.0625 mm.
Figure 3a. Generalized cross section showing potential proppant at site in 10-foot intervals relative to elevation without
consideration of geology
