Last week’s forum discussions were centered around operational challenges and new regulatory requirements in the fracking industry. Members engaged in deep conversations about managing collapse risks and optimizing porosity versus leakoff for better Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR). There was also significant interest in handling sand-laden flowback transients and improving spill response timing. Additionally, new methane LDAR rules prompted discussions about continuing education options.
This Week’s Hot Topics
Managing collapse risk in a tight window
This discussion dives into strategies for dealing with collapse risks when time is limited—a crucial topic for maintaining safety and efficiency. Read more here
Porosity or leakoff: bigger EUR lever
A thought-provoking debate on whether improving porosity or managing leakoff has a greater impact on EUR. Read more here
Stabilizing sand-laden flowback transients
Experts share techniques for stabilizing flowback with high sand content, which is vital for operational stability. Read more here
The leak I see most after storms
An insightful thread on common leaks observed post-storm and how to address them effectively. Read more here
My spill kit has better timing
This conversation highlights practical tips for improving the timing of spill kit deployments. Read more here
Cutting stage times without cutting corners
A valuable exchange on reducing stage times efficiently without sacrificing quality or safety. Read more here
CEU options for new methane LDAR rules
Members are exploring continuing education options to comply with new methane Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) regulations. Read more here
Proppant settling at 40 bpm
This topic discusses proppant settling issues at higher pumping rates and potential solutions. Read more here
Looking for microseismic QC training
A call for recommendations on quality control training in microseismic monitoring—important for precise data analysis. Read more here
As always, your contributions make our community insightful and impactful. Looking forward to another week of engaging discussions.
Quick example: in high‑leakoff benches we’ve nudged EUR up by running a 5–10 bbl/ft HVFR pre‑pad with 0.5–1 ppg 100‑mesh and a short fiber slug to seal early — like putting a lid on a leaky bucket. Small caveat: it can spike treating pressure, so we key it to DFIT leakoff (Cp) and back off fiber if screenout risk creeps up — seeing similar on your end, @lisa_camp411?
On a high‑porosity bench last week, we shifted to “bigger holes, fewer shots” (3 × 0.42" at 60° per cluster) and bumped rate about 12% to hold net pressure; EUR nudged about 5% and sand‑laden flowback was tamer without extra chem spend. Caveat: keep an eye on perf friction and collapse limits — if horsepower’s tight, a small HVFR‑only pad is a safer fallback.
We’ve bumped EUR by dropping a 2–3 bbl degradable diverter pill right after the pre‑pad and keying the next rate step to ISIP decay — if it falls >250 psi in 60 s, we re‑dose before starting slurry. It caps early “leakoff” without wrecking cluster balance, but below about 170°F it doesn’t clean up well, so I switch to a light fiber/100‑mesh pre‑pad instead, @KaraG. Last week that cut our sand‑laden flowback transients and netted about 3–4% on two stages.