Generalized Extreme Value Statistics, Physical Scaling and Forecasts of Gas Production in the Barnett Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a method of predicting field-wide gas (or oil) production from unconventional reservoirs, using the Barnett shale as an illustration. Our method has six steps. First, divide a field of interest (here Barnett) into geographic/depositional regions, where -- upon statistical testing -- gas and/or oil production are statistically uniform. Second, in each region i , fit a generalized extreme value distribution to every cohort of gas/oil wells with 1,2,…, n i years on production. Third, obtain accurate estimates of uncertainties in the distribution parameters for each regional well cohort. As a result, obtain n i points for the stable mean (P 50 ) well prototypes for each region i , and the corresponding high/low (P 10 /P 90 ) bounds on well production. Fourth, by adjusting the producible gas/oil in place and pressure interference times between the adjacent hydrofractures, fit each statistical P 50 well prototype with a physics-based scaling curve that also accounts for late-time external gas inflow. The physics-scaled well prototypes now extend 10-20 years into the future. Fifth, for each region, time-shift the dimensional, scaled well prototype and multiply it by the number of well completions during each year of field production. Add the production from all regions to match the past field production and predict decline of all wells up to current time. These well productivity estimates are more accurate and better quantified than anything a production decline curve analysis might yield. Sixth, by assuming different future drilling programs in each region, predict field production futures. We hope that the US Securities and Exchange Commission will adopt our robust, transparent approach as a new standard for booking gas (and oil) reserves in shale wells.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".