Spacing Pilots Performance Study Using Public Data in the Barnett Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
URTeC 1624264 Unconventional play development continues to expand quickly around the globe. The first unconventional play to be rapidly developed has been the Barnett Shale in North Central Texas. As of July 2012, the Barnett Shale has more than 13,000 multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) with approximately 2,500 being five years or older. This gives the Barnett Shale a significant production database from which to perform production analysis. Well spacing is a key value driver for field development and needs to be addressed early in the appraisal process. The extensive public production database was used to gain insights as to appropriate well spacing in two counties of the Barnett Shale, Denton and Wise. This paper demonstrates a workflow to understand appropriate spacing for future development based on infill production performance. Initial peak production and one-year cumulative gas production from infill and non-infill wells are used as key performance indexes. An important assumption of this work is that well spacing should be as close as possible where infill well results are as good as non-infill wells. When the infill well performance is poorer than the non-infill wells, the spacing is too close. Forty MFHW spacing pilots were identified and analyzed, with 34 of these pilots meeting criteria for use in the study. This paper will review the workflow, the results, provide a recommended spacing based upon the performance data and also highlight other factors that may need to be considered. Currently, this paper is believed to be the first to utilize field performance in a simple and objective yet robust manner to generate a recommended spacing for a given area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".