Total petroleum system
Richard M. Pollastro
Central Energy
assessment of undiscovered
resources in the giant
Barnett Shale continuous
(unconventional) gas
accumulation, Fort
Worth Basin, Texas
Richard M. Pollastro
ABSTRACT
Undiscovered natural gas having potential for additions to reserves
in the Mississippian Barnett Shale of the Fort Worth Basin, north-
central Texas, was assessed using the total petroleum system assess-
ment unit concept and a cell-based methodology for continuous-type
(unconventional) resources. The Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum
system is defined in the Bend arch–Fort Worth Basin as encompass-
ing the area in which the organic-rich Barnett is the primary source
rock for oil and gas produced from Paleozoic carbonate and clastic
reservoirs. Exploration, technology, and drilling in the Barnett Shale
play have rapidly evolved in recent years, with about 3500 verti-
cal and 1000 horizontal wells completed in the Barnett through
2005 and more than 85% of the them completed since 1999. Using
framework geology and historical production data, assessment of the
Barnett Shale was performed by the U.S. Geological Survey using
vertical wells at the peak of vertical well completions and before a
transition to completions with horizontal wells. The assessment
was performed after (1) mapping critical geological and geochemi-
cal parameters to define assessment unit areas with future potential,
(2) defining distributions of drainage area (cell size) and estimating
ultimate recovery per cell, and (3) estimating future success rates.
Two assessment units are defined and assessed for the Barnett
Shale continuous gas accumulation, resulting in a total mean undiscov-
ered volume having potential for additions to reserves of 26.2 TCFG.
The greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas
Copyright #2007. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received January 24, 2006; provisional acceptance May 16, 2006; revised manuscript
received June 14, 2006; final acceptance June 20, 2006.
DOI:10.1306/06200606007
AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 4 (April 2007), pp. 551 – 578 551
AUTHOR
Resources Team, U.S. Geological Survey,
Box 25046, MS 939, Denver, Colorado 80225;
pollastro@usgs.gov
Rich received an M.A. degree in geology from
the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1977.
He joined the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 and
serves as a province geologist on the national and
world energy assessment projects. His recent ac-
complishments include petroleum system assess-
ments of the Fort Worth, Permian, and South Florida
basins, and the Arabian Peninsula.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to several individuals and in-
dependent exploration companies for valuable
discussions of the Barnett Shale play and for pro-
viding data and information for the assessment
of gas resources in the Barnett continuous accumu-
lation. The author is particularly thankful for the
cooperative efforts of Dan Jarvie and his associates
at Humble Geochemical Services to define the
Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system, and
to Troy Cook, U.S. Geological Survey petroleum
engineer, who generated estimated ultimate re-
covery distributions and provided helpful discus-
sions on unconventional reservoir production. Kent
Bowker, Craig Adams (Adexco Production Co.),
Brad Curtis and Dan Steward (Republic Energy),
David Martineau (Pitts Oil and Gas), Tony Carvalho
(Chief Oil and Gas), and Robert Cluff (Discovery
Group) were also especially helpful in sharing their
knowledge and experience on geologic and pro-
duction characteristics of the Barnett play, which
greatly facilitated the assessment process.
Special thanks are due to Chris Schenk, chief of the
U.S. Geological Survey National Oil and Gas As-
sessment Project, who provided continuous support
and reviewed an early version of the manuscript.
I also thank other members of the U.S. Geological
Survey National Oil and Gas Assessment Review
Committee, Ron Charpentier, Tom Ahlbrandt, and
Tim Klett, for sharing their wisdom and advice
during the assessment. Ron Hill and Mitch Henry
(U.S. Geological Survey) provided essential assis-
tance in the collection, analysis, and interpretation
of oil and gas samples. Jim Schmoker reviewed
early versions of the manuscript and provided helpful
discussions on methodology and data input. I am
also grateful to constructive reviews by AAPG re-
viewers Kent Bowker, Brian Brister, William Fischer,
and William Hill. Finally, this article benefited greatly
from critical and detailed review by Dick Keefer.
Figure 1. United States natural
gas production data for the
lower 48 states showing (A) his-
torical and projected annual
production in trillions of cubic
feet (TCF), 1990–2025, for off-
shore and onshore conventional,
nonassociated accumulation
and onshore unconventional
accumulation; and (B) historical
and projected annual production
by resource type. The figure is
modified from Energy Informa-
tion Administration (2004).

assessment unit represents a core-producing area where
thick, organic-rich, siliceous Barnett Shale is within
the thermal window for gas generation (Ro  1.1%)
and is overlain and underlain by impermeable lime-
stone barriers (Pennsylvanian Marble Falls Limestone
and Ordovician Viola Limestone, respectively) that
serve to confine induced fractures during well com-
pletion to maximize gas recovery. The extended con-
tinuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit, which had
been less explored, defines a geographic area where
Barnett Shale is (1) within the thermal window for gas
generation, (2) greater than 100 ft (30 m) thick, and
(3) where at least one impermeable limestone barrier
is absent. Mean undiscovered gas having potential for
additions to reserves in the greater Newark East assess-
ment unit is estimated at 14.6 tcf, and in the less tested
extended assessment unit, a mean resource is estimated
at 11.6 TCFG. A third hypothetical basin-arch Barnett
Shale oil assessment unit was defined but not assessed
because of a lack of production data.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few decades, the United States has progres-
sively increased its dependence on the supply of natural
gas from accumulations within continuous (unconven-
tional) reservoirs (Figure 1A). Moreover, a recent study
by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA,
2004) projected that production from unconventional
domestic natural gas resources in the lower 48 states
will increase as demand grows, changing the overall

552 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

mix of domestic natural gas supply. For example, of the
18.6 tcf of natural gas production in 2002 in this part of
the nation, 32% was from unconventional resources. By
2025, the EIA predicts that 48% of the total natural gas
production (21.3 tcf ) in the lower 48 states will be met
by unconventional resources (Figure 1B). Total non-
associated, unconventional gas production in the lower
48 states is expected to reach 9.5 tcf by 2030 (EIA,
2006).
By 2002, 8 of the top 12 gas fields in the United
States, as ranked by reported annual production volume,
produced from continuous-type (unconventional) reser-
voirs, four of which produce from shale and/or chalk
formations (Table 1A). The EIA (2004) projects that
annual natural gas production from shale formations
will increase from about 0.6 tcf in 2002 to about 1.1 tcf
by 2025, with more than 0.5 tcf of annual shale-gas
production from the Barnett Shale of the Fort Worth
Basin, north-central Texas (Table 2). Although the pro-
jected volumes of natural gas from shale may appear
optimistic, Barnett Shale annual gas production at the
greater Newark East field climbed to almost 0.5 tcf in
2005 (Texas Railroad Commission, 2006) and is now
the second largest United States gas field ranked by an-
nual production volume (Table 1B). As a result, the
overwhelming success of the Barnett Shale in the Fort
Worth Basin has fueled exploration for potential re-
sources in similar shale sequences across North America
(Curtis, 2002; Faraj et al., 2004; Bustin, 2005).
Although this work was presented as an oral article
at the 2004 AAPG Annual Meeting in Dallas, Texas
(Pollastro, 2004), it has not been previously published
in written format. For this reason, it was submitted as
an invited article for the theme issue on the Barnett
Shale to document the background and reasoning in
support of the 2003 U.S. Geological Survey assessment
(Pollastro et al., 2004a).
This article presents the geologic model, historical
production and exploration, methodology, justified in-
put, and consequent output data for the 2003 U.S. Geo-
logical Survey total petroleum system assessment of un-
discovered gas resources and the potential for additions
to reserves in the Barnett Shale continuous accumula-
tion in the Fort Worth Basin. At the time of this assess-
ment, annual vertical well completions in the Barnett
Shale were at a peak, and only a few horizontal test wells
were online with short production histories (Figure 2).
For these reasons, only Barnett Shale vertical well pro-
duction and history were used in the 2003 U.S. Geo-
logical Survey assessment. After this assessment, annual
vertical well completions in the Barnett Shale declined
with a corresponding rapid increase in number of hor-
izontal well completions (Figure 2). Most importantly,
this total petroleum system assessment of the giant un-
conventional resource in the Barnett Shale provides an
end-member analog for use in the evaluation of other
potential shale-gas resources.
PETROLEUM PRODUCTION HISTORY
Shows of oil and gas were first encountered within the
Fort Worth Basin while drilling water wells during the
mid-19th century. Petroleum exploration began as early
as the end of the civil war, with the first commercial
oil discoveries in the early 1900s (Ball and Perry, 1996).
By 1960, the Bend arch – Fort Worth Basin area had
reached a mature stage of exploration and develop-
ment, as demonstrated by the high density of produc-
ing wells (Figure 3). By 1990, the Bend arch–Fort Worth
Basin province (U.S. Geological Survey Province 045)
had produced more than 2 billion bbl of oil and about
8 TCFG.
Prior to the 1980s, the Mississippian Barnett Shale
was not an exploration target in the Fort Worth Basin.
Instead, exploration was focused mostly on Pennsylvanian
clastic and carbonate rock, conventional reservoirs. Wide-
spread gas shows and unexpected minor production from
the Barnett convinced Mitchell Energy and Develop-
ment Corporation to pursue unconventional gas and
oil production from the thick shale unit. With initial gas
recoveries mostly subeconomic, the company focused
on ways to more effectively complete Barnett Shale
wells and, thus, increase well performance and recover-
ies. Continued capital investments by Mitchell Energy
in geologic and engineering studies of the unconvention-
al Barnett reservoir resulted in the progressive improve-
ment of Barnett completions. By 1996, Barnett wells
were producing about 20 BCFG annually and had defined
a core production area represented by the Newark East
field in the northeastern part of the Fort Worth Basin
(Figure 3) (Bowker, 2003; Montgomery et al., 2005). In
2002, Newark East field became the largest gas field in
Texas in terms of annual production strictly from ver-
tical well production (Figures 2, 4). In 2004, the Newark
East Barnett Shale field became the second largest gas
field within the lower 48 states of the United States in
terms of annual gas production volume, the largest being
the San Juan Basin coalbed gas area (EIA, 2005).
Production curves for both vertical and horizontal
Barnett wells commonly show hyperbolic declines with
Pollastro 553
Table 1. Top Ranked United States Fields

A. Top 12 United States Fields as Ranked by 2002 Reported Annual Gas Production*

Accumulation Continuous 2002 Production

Rank Field Name Location Type Classification Discovery Year Volume (bcf)

1 Blanco/Ignacio-Blanco Colorado, Continuous Coalbed gas 1927 841.7

coalbed area New Mexico
2 Basin coalbed area New Mexico Continuous Coalbed gas 1969 592.1
(San Juan Basin)
3 Hugoton gas area Kansas, Oklahoma, Conventional NA** 1922 393.0
Texas
Powder River Basin Wyoming Continuous Coalbed gas 1999 311.1
4 coalbed area
5 Jonah Wyoming Continuous Tight sandstone and 1977 224.7
basin centered
6 Antrim Michigan Continuous Shale gas 1965 224.7
7 Newark East Texas Continuous Shale gas 1981 203.2
8 Prudhoe Bay Arkansas Conventional NA 1967 196.5
9 Carthage Texas Conventional NA 1944 195.7
10 Wattenberg Colorado Continuous Chalk gas and basin 1970 175.4
centered
11 Giddings Texas Continuous Chalk and shale gas 1973 142.9
12 Lower Mobile Bay area Alabama Conventional NA 1979 135.2

B. Top 10 United States Fields Ranked by Gas Production from Estimated 2004 Field Level Datay

Accumulation Continuous 2004 Estimated

Rank Field Name Location Type Classification Discovery Year Production Volume (bcf)

1 San Juan Basin Colorado, Continuous Coalbed gas 1927 1450.8

gas area New Mexico
2 Newark East Texas Continuous Shale gas 1981 412.6
3 Powder River Basin Wyoming Continuous Coalbed gas 1992 325.7
coalbed area
4 Guyman-Hugoton Kansas, Oklahoma, Conventional NA 1922 307.9
gas area Texas
5 Lower Mobile Alabama Conventional NA 1979 290.1
Bay area
6 Jonah Wyoming Continuous Tight sandstone and 1977 250.9
basin centered
7 Prudhoe Bay Arkansas Conventional NA 1967 209.3
8 Wattenberg Colorado Continuous Chalk gas and basin 1970 192
centered
9 Carthage Texas Conventional NA 1944 191.4
10 Antrim Michigan Continuous Shale gas 1965 166.7
*Data are derived from Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2002).
**NA = not applicable.
y
Data are derived from Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2005).

554 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

Table 2. Historical and Projected Shale-Gas Production*

Annual Production (bcf)

Region/Basin/Formation 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Northeast Region
Appalachian Basin 173 221 249 360 429 411
Antrim Shale 190 175 173 229 230 201
Illinois Basin– New Albany Shale 3 1 1 0 0 0

Northeast Subtotal 367 397 423 590 659 612

Southwest Region
Fort Worth Basin–Barnett Shale 233 222 374 434 500 520

Total United States shale-gas production 600 619 797 1024 1159 1132
*In billion cubic feet in the United States by region and basin, 2002 – 2025. Modified from Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2004).

time. Restimulation of older Barnett wells in Newark
East, especially those completed prior to the late 1990s
when water-based fracturing techniques were used, has
increased recoveries significantly, sometimes by a factor
of 3 or more. In many cases, restimulation has increased
flow to initial rates or greater; restimulation has also
been successful in some subeconomic wells. Present
routine completion practice is to restimulate all Barnett
wells that have been producing for several years; multiple
recompletions are also common.
Cumulative gas production through January 2006
from Barnett Shale at greater (10-county-wide) Newark

Figure 2. Plot of annual number of vertical and horizontal well completions in Barnett Shale versus year. Data derived from the IHS
Energy well production database (IHS Energy, 2006).

Pollastro 555
Figure 3. Map showing oil-, gas-, and mixed oil-and-gas –production cells in north-central Texas and southwestern Oklahoma,
boundary of the U.S. Geological Survey Bend arch –Fort Worth Basin province 045, boundary of Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum
system (TPS), geographic extent of Barnett Shale, major structural elements, and location of Newark East field. Cells are equal to
0.25 mi2 (0.64 km2). The data are from IHS Energy well production database (IHS Energy, 2003).

556 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin


East field was about 1.82 tcf (Texas Railroad Commis-
sion, 2006); annual gas production has increased pro-
gressively from about 11 bcf in 1993 to more than
480 bcf (Figure 4) in 2005 (Texas Railroad Commis-
sion, 2006). By 2004, proven gas reserves for the Newark
East field were estimated at about 3 tcf (Bowker, 2004),
which, combined with the 2003 U.S. Geological Survey
mean estimate of more than 26 tcf of undiscovered, non-
associated gas resource (Pollastro et al., 2004a), indicate
that the Barnett Shale will be a significant shale-gas
producer for the next 15–20 yr. More so, the projec-
tion by the EIA (2005) that annual production from
the Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth Basin will pro-
gressively increase to about 520 BCFG by 2025 (Table 2)
appears conservative when one considers that Barnett
annual production for 2005 had rapidly climbed to
Figure 4. Plot of annual and cumulative gas
production in billions of cubic feet (BCF) from
Barnett Shale, Newark East field, Texas, since
1993. Data are from the Texas Railroad Com-
mission (2006).
480 bcf (Figure 4). Finally, the Barnett Shale serves
as a model for worldwide exploration and development
of continuous-type gas resources from indigenous-
sourced, shale reservoirs.
BARNETT SHALE CONTINUOUS ACCUMULATION
Barnett Shale and the Total Petroleum System – Assessment
Unit Concept
For purposes of resource assessment, the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey identifies two primary end-member types
of oil and gas accumulations, conventional accumula-
tions and continuous accumulations, recognizing that
some accumulations may contain characteristics of both.
Pollastro 557
Continuous-type accumulations, a term introduced
and adopted by the U.S. Geological Survey (Schmoker,
1996), include coalbed gas, fractured shale gas and oil,
fractured chalk gas and oil, basin-centered gas, and tight-
reservoir gas. Continuous-type accumulations typically
extend over large areas, have source rocks in close asso-
ciation with reservoir rocks, and are mostly gas (in some
cases, oil) charged throughout their extent (Schmoker,
1996, 2002). Continuous accumulations commonly have
transition zones that grade into more conventional ac-
cumulations (Schenk and Pollastro, 2002). The Barnett
Shale is considered an end member, a continuous type
accumulation with strata within the formation serving
as source, reservoir, and seal (Pollastro et al., 2003).
Current U.S. Geological Survey petroleum assess-
ments incorporate the total petroleum system assess-
ment unit (TPS-AU) method (Klett et al., 2000; Magoon
and Schmoker, 2000) to estimate undiscovered oil and
gas instead of the play concept method used by the
U.S. Geological Survey in 1995 (Gautier et al., 1996).
The TPS-AU approach is preferred (U.S. Geological Sur-
vey World Petroleum Assessment Team, 2000) because
it focuses on the hydrocarbon fluid system. That is,
(1) the total petroleum system includes all of the ele-
ments of the petroleum system originally defined by
Magoon and Dow (1994) to be related to known hy-
drocarbon accumulations, seeps, or deposits, as well as
incorporating resources and corresponding geographic
areas of all undiscovered accumulations linked to a spe-
cific pod(s) of mature source rock; and (2) the assess-
ment unit is based on similar geologic elements and hy-
drocarbon accumulation type and may also represent a
play or group of plays that are to be assessed. The assess-
ment unit differs from a play by being constrained with-
in a total petroleum system, whereas a play may involve
more than one source rock and/or petroleum system and
is not necessarily confined to the boundaries of a specific
petroleum system. Additionally, it is not uncommon for
more than one petroleum system to be the source for
hydrocarbons for a specific geologic play. Thus, the as-
sessment unit concept allows for a better understanding
of the essential elements and processes within a total
petroleum system that relate to source, generation, mi-
gration, and trapping of the undiscovered resource.
Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System
Samples of (1) oil and gas from numerous Paleozoic
reservoirs and (2) cuttings and cores of the Barnett Shale,
as well as other potential source rocks, were collected
from wells throughout the Bend arch–Fort Worth Basin
558 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin
area and analyzed in a joint study by the Humble Geo-
chemical Services and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
study concluded that the organic-rich, Mississippian Bar-
nett Shale is the primary source rock for oil and gas
produced from reservoirs of Paleozoic age in the Bend
arch – Fort Worth Basin area (Jarvie et al., 2001, 2004,
2005, 2007; Pollastro et al., 2003, 2007; Hill et al.,
2007). Although other stratigraphic units show limited
source potential, including organic-rich facies of Penn-
sylvanian age, correlation of oils to both oil produced
from the Barnett Shale and rock extracts of the Barnett
Shale indicates that the Barnett is the source of most
of the oil and gas in the basin. For example, fingerprint-
ing of oil produced from low-maturity Barnett Shale
in Brown County, Texas, using gas chromatography,
biomarkers, and carbon isotopes correlates with other
oils from reservoirs in the western part of the basin in
Shackelford, Callahan, and Throckmorton counties, and
that most of the oils are low sulfur and originated from
a marine shale source rock. Similarly, the same oils cor-
relate with condensates in the central Barnett Shale,
producing horizons of the Newark East field based on
light hydrocarbons, biomarkers, and carbon isotopes.
Furthermore, these oils are found in all reservoirs older
and younger than the Barnett Shale (Jarvie et al., 2004,
2005, 2007; Hill et al., 2007), thus defining the strati-
graphic distribution of the Barnett-Paleozoic total pe-
troleum system (Figure 5).
The resulting oil and gas geochemistry database was
combined with a detailed study of the formation by the
U.S. Geological Survey, based on well logs, commercial
well databases, and published literature to define the
total petroleum system (Pollastro, 2003; Pollastro et al.,
2003, 2004b) and to evaluate its discovered and undis-
covered resources. The following geologic elements of
the total petroleum system were identified and mapped:
(1) Paleozoic source rocks with particular attention to
the Barnett Shale; (2) geographic distribution of the
Barnett Shale; (3) stratigraphic and geographic extent
of produced hydrocarbons originating in the Barnett
Shale; (4) geographic areas where Barnett Shale is with-
in the gas- and oil-generation windows; (5) geographic
areas where Barnett Shale produces or has the potential
to produce natural gas (and oil) resources; and (6) geo-
graphic areas of optimal Barnett gas production.
The geographic boundary outlining the Barnett-
Paleozoic total petroleum system is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 also shows that the geographic extent of the
Barnett Shale is entirely within the boundary of the total
petroleum system, a relation that is interpreted to indi-
cate that most hydrocarbons being generated originated

Figure 5. Generalized stratigraphic section of the Bend arch –
Fort Worth Basin showing the distribution of source, reservoir,
and seal rocks of the Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system
(TPS).
from the Barnett Shale. The formation is also considered
to be the primary source rock for hydrocarbons produced
from reservoir rocks of Paleozoic age in the Hardeman
Basin to the north of the Red River arch (Pollastro et al.,
2004a). Other source rocks identified within the U.S.
Geological Survey Bend arch–Fort Worth Basin prov-
ince are Pennsylvanian shales that produce mostly gas
from reservoirs on the Eastern shelf of the Permian Ba-
sin (Brister et al., 2002; Pollastro et al., 2004a).
The stratigraphic section of the Bend arch–Fort
Worth Basin area comprise mostly Paleozoic strata that
overlie Precambrian granite and metasedimentary rocks.
The karsted Ellenburger Group shelf-carbonate sys-
tem of Ordovician age overlies basement (Figure 5),
and the Barnett Shale is unconformable on the Ellen-
burger across much of the basin. Conventional hydro-
carbon reservoirs, mostly of Pennsylvanian age, are pre-
sent throughout a thick sequence of shelf and bank
carbonates and fluvial-deltaic and slope clastics. Reser-
voirs of Ordovician, Mississippian, and early Pennsylva-
nian age are mostly carbonates, whereas clastic reservoirs
dominate the middle Pennsylvanian through Lower Per-
mian. A stratigraphic column of the Barnett-Paleozoic
total petroleum system showing producing reservoir
intervals and distribution of other principal elements of
the total petroleum system is shown in Figure 5.
Historical Summary of Barnett Shale Assessments
In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey assessed undiscov-
ered oil and natural gas resources for the entire onshore
and state waters of the United States (Gautier et al.,
1996). As part of this effort, a methodology was devel-
oped for assessing of unconventional (continuous) re-
sources, resulting in the first quantitative assessment of
such resources on a nationwide scale. Although the Bar-
nett Shale was recognized at that time as being a contin-
uous accumulation, it was not quantitatively assessed
until Schmoker et al. (1996) and Kuuskraa et al. (1998)
performed interim assessments to estimate the size of
the potential resource. Using a cell-based methodology
and projecting estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of
individual cells, cell size (drainage area), and success
rates from early historical production data, Schmoker
et al. (1996) estimated a total mean undiscovered gas of
about 3.4 tcf. As the Barnett play rapidly evolved with
improved recovery technology and a progressive increase
in exploration, drilling, production, and geologic knowl-
edge, new data were generated that improve the basis
for estimating the undiscovered shale-gas resources.
Using the new data and an intensive development model,
Pollastro 559
Kuuskraa et al. (1998) applied the methodology and logical Survey applied the TPS-AU methodology to
geographic boundaries of Schmoker et al. (1996) to assess undiscovered conventional oil and gas and undis-
produce an updated assessment of the Barnett Shale covered continuous (unconventional) gas in the Bend
that resulted in a total mean undiscovered volume of arch–Fort Worth Basin province (U.S. Geological Sur-
about 10 TCFG. Input parameters, variables, and re- vey Province 045). In that assessment, four total petro-
sulting volumes for the assessments of the Barnett Shale leum systems were identified: three within the Bend
by Schmoker et al. (1996) and Kuuskraa et al. (1998) arch–Fort Worth Basin area and one in the Hardeman
are summarized in Table 3. Basin (Pollastro et al., 2004a). The assessment of the Bend
Recognizing the importance of updating the Bar- arch–Fort Worth Basin province resulted in estimated
nett Shale resource assessment, in 2003, the U.S. Geo- means of 26.7 TCFG, 98.5 MMBO, and 1.1 billion bbl
of natural gas liquids in the three total petroleum sys-
tems within the province. Nearly all of the undiscov-
Table 3. Summary of Input Parameters Used in Interim
ered gas resource (98% or 26.2 TCFG) is considered to
Assessments of Undiscovered Gas in the Barnett Shale by
be in two of the three Barnett Shale assessment units,
Schmoker et al. (1996) and Kuuskraa et al. (1998)
representing a single continuous accumulation of non-
Schmoker Kuuskraa et al. associated gas. Historical production data, framework
Assessment Parameter et al. (1996) (1998) geology, and thermal-maturity parameters used to de-
fine and assess the Barnett Shale accumulation in the
Cell Size (ac) 320 80; 160; 320 2003 assessment are summarized in the section below.
Best-potential area NA* 80 (30% of area) Details of the geology and geochemistry of the Barnett
Middle-potential area NA 160 (30% of area) Shale and Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system are
Low-potential area NA 320 (40% of area) discussed in companion articles by Hill et al. (2007),
Jarvie et al. (2007), and Pollastro et al. (2007).
Number of 180 300
productive cells
Number of 30 50 2003 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BARNETT
unproductive cells SHALE ASSESSMENT
Median area (mi2) 2439 2439
Median area (ac) 1,560,960 1,560,960 General Methodology

Median Number of 4668 10,148 The U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the Barnett
Total Untested Cells Shale, completed in September 2003 and released in
Best-potential area NA 5740 March 2004 (Pollastro et al., 2004a), applied the cell-
Middle-potential area NA 2822 based, FORSPAN model for continuous accumula-
Low-potential area NA 1577 tions described by Schmoker (1999, 2002) and Klett
and Charpentier (2003). The FORSPAN methodology
Mean Total Recovery 0.837 requires input of several variables for each assessment
per Cell (BCFG**) unit, including the geographic area involved, individual
Best-potential area NA 1.5 (30%) cell size (drainage area), number of tested and untested
Middle-potential area NA 0.84 (30%) cells, and success rate (Figures 6, 7). Accordingly, two
Low-potential area NA 0.35 (40%) Barnett Shale continuous-gas assessment units were
defined, described, and assessed based on framework ge-
Success rate 0.86 0.86 ology, geochemistry, thermal maturity, and historical
Estimated in-place 25 –35 25 –52 exploration and production data (Figures 8, 9). Geo-
resource (BCFG/mi2) logic considerations included

Mean total resource 3360 BCFG** 10,000 BCFG**  geographic boundaries of the thermal gas-generation
(undiscovered, technically and oil-generation windows for Barnett Shale deter-
recoverable gas) mined from vitrinite reflectance (Ro) measurements
 geographic extent of Ordovician Viola Limestone
*NA = not applicable.
**BCFG = billions of cubic feet of gas. and Simpson Group subcrop

560 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin


 geographic extent of lower Marble Falls Limestone
(Morrowan)
 isopach maps of the Barnett Shale with 100- and
200-ft (30- and 60-m) isopach contours
 geographic extent and thickness of the upper part
of Barnett Shale
Figure 6. Diagrams illustrating the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey methodology for assessment of
undiscovered oil and gas resources in continuous
(unconventional)-type accumulations. (A) Cell-
based model showing assessment unit bound-
ary, gridded cells, and tested and untested cells.
(B) Assessment unit boundary showing tested
area, untested areas, and area of untested cells
having potential for additions to reserves. Mean
cell size of 53.3 ac (21.5 ha) and minimum EUR
of 0.02 BCFG refer to the assessment param-
eters used for the Barnett Shale. Modified from
Schmoker (2002).
 geographic extent of intraformational Forestburg lime-
stone unit
The use of Ro as a measure of thermal maturity
to establish the gas window for the Barnett Shale, as
opposed to other maturity parameters (e.g., T max), is
Pollastro 561
Figure 7. Parts of the
form used in the FORSPAN
assessment model for
continuous accumulations,
U.S. Geological Survey
National Oil and Gas As-
sessment Project (NOGA).
(A) Page 1 is for the input
of data addressing the
characteristics of assess-
ment unit and number
of untested cells with po-
tential for additions to
reserves. (B) Page 2 is for
the input of data address-
ing the number of un-
tested cells with potential
for additions to reserves
(line 4) and total recovery
per cell. Modified from
Klett and Charpentier
(2003).

justified from laboratory studies reported by Jarvie from the tight Barnett Shale requires cracking of oil gen-
et al. (2001, 2005) of reaction products from the Bar- erated from indigenous organic matter. When thermal
nett Shale at various thermal maturities. Gas production maturity levels exceed Ro equivalents of about 1.0–1.2%,

562 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

Figure 8. Map showing the boundary of Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system (TPS), geographic extent of Barnett Shale in the Fort
Worth Basin, boundaries of the greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous gas assessment unit (AU) and the extended continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit, and productive and nonproductive tested cells, north-central Texas and southwestern Oklahoma.
Cells are equal to 0.25 mi2 (0.64 km2). Cell data are derived from IHS Energy well production database (IHS Energy, 2003).

gas content increases rapidly because of secondary crack-
ing of oil to gas. Jarvie et al. (2001, 2005) found that
hydrocarbons in the range of heavy oil and condensate are
the principal reaction products formed within the oil-
generation window and are equivalent to an estimated
range in Ro of 0.6–1.0%. At Ro equal to and greater than
about 1.0%, the conversion of low-sulfur type II kerogen
in the Barnett Shale is at about 88%, and the predomi-
nant product is wet gas. Thus, for this assessment, the
use of Ro = 1.1% was used from the isoreflectance
map of Pollastro et al. (2007) to approximate the gas-
generation window for the Barnett Shale.
The two Barnett Shale gas assessment units are
(1) the greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit and (2) the extended
continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit (Figures 8,
9). The greater Newark East fracture-barrier contin-
uous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit is a core area

Pollastro 563
Figure 9. Maps showing counties, assessment unit boundaries and their rationales, and producing and nonproducing wells used as cell
tests for the FORSPAN assessment of (A) the greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit, and (B) the
extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit. Well data are from IHS Energy well production database (IHS Energy, 2003).

564 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

of the Barnett Shale production that includes Newark
East field and where thick, organic-rich, siliceous Bar-
nett Shale is within the thermal window for gas gen-
eration (Ro  1.1%). In addition, Barnett Shale in this
assessment unit is overlain and underlain by imper-
meable limestone barriers (Pennsylvanian Marble Falls
Limestone and Ordovician Viola Limestone and Simp-
son Group, respectively) that confine and maximize
the effectiveness of induced fractures during well com-
pletion. Consequently, gas recoveries from Barnett
reservoirs in the greater Newark East field core area
(Figure 9A) commonly have higher EUR than else-
where in the basin.
The extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assess-
ment unit represents a less explored geographic area
where Barnett Shale is within the thermal window for
gas generation and is at least 100 ft (30 m) thick, but
where at least one impermeable limestone barrier is
absent and EUR calculated from well production data
are much lower (Figures 8, 9B). A third assessment unit,
the hypothetical basin-arch Barnett Shale oil assess-
ment unit, was defined but not assessed (Pollastro et al.,
2004a).
Boundaries and vertical well penetrations of the
greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous Barnett
Shale gas assessment unit are shown in Figures 8 and
9A; well data are from the IHS Energy well history
control database (IHS Energy, 2003). The northwest
boundary of the assessment unit is the 1.1% vitrinite
reflectance (Ro = 1.1%) contour of Pollastro et al. (2007)
and is used to define the lower limit of the gas-generation
window for the Barnett Shale (Jarvie et al., 2005). The
western boundary of the assessment unit marks the
western limit of the Ordovician Viola Limestone and
Simpson Group subcrop, and the southern boundary
is the southeast pinch-out of the overlying lower im-
permeable limestone part of the Pennsylvanian Marble
Falls Limestone. Thus, both western and southern bound-
aries are limits of the area where both lower and upper
fracture-barrier limestones are present within the Bar-
nett Shale gas-generation window. The eastern bound-
ary of the assessment unit is the Ouachita thrust front
and Muenster arch that define the approximate eastern
geographic extent of the Barnett Shale (Figure 9A).
Similarly, boundaries and well penetrations of the
extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit
are defined by geology and thermal maturity (Figure 9B).
In this assessment unit, the western and northwestern
boundaries are defined by the Ro = 1.1% contour. The
northeastern boundary is the limit of the lower and
upper fracture-barrier limestones, the eastern boundary
is the Ouachita thrust front, and the southern boundary
is the Barnett Shale 100-ft (30-m) isopach contour of
Pollastro (2003) and Pollastro et al. (2007).
General Assessment Process, Tabular Input,
and Justification
Parts of pages 1 and 2 of the FORSPAN assessment
input form ( Version 9) are shown in Figure 7; detailed
explanations of the form and the applied methodology
are given in Klett and Charpentier (2003). Assessment
of continuous gas accumulations using the FORSPAN
methodology requires the following input parameters
for each assessment unit:
 number of cells (interpreted from well history) that
have tested the assessment unit
 number of cells that were successful (EUR > 0.02
BCFG)
 historical EUR of wells (total for the assessment
unit and discovery thirds)
 total acreage of assessment unit based on geologic un-
certainty (estimated from geographic information sys-
tem [GIS] analysis with minimum and maximum)
 estimated cell size (drainage area): a distribution re-
flecting inherent geologic uncertainty
 percent of the area that is untested: an uncertainty
distribution
 percent of the area untested that has potential to
add reserves: an uncertainty distribution
 estimated future success rate: an uncertainty
distribution
 EUR for untested area: a distribution reflecting in-
herent geologic variability
The historical success rate is then calculated and
recorded for tested cells. Estimated ultimate recovery
distributions used for assessing undiscovered resources
are extrapolated and estimated from EUR values cal-
culated for producing wells.
The 2003 U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the
Barnett Shale (Pollastro, 2004a) was performed using
only vertical well production and history because there
were only a few horizontal wells penetrating the Barnett
Shale as of September 2003, and those wells had only
minimal production histories; thus, EUR was difficult to
evaluate. Note that, since 2003, the development strat-
egy for the Barnett Shale has shifted mostly to drilling
horizontal wells, so future assessments will require eval-
uating EUR values for that well type. For example,
Pollastro 565
Figure 10. Plot of monthly gas produc-
tion in thousands of cubic feet (MCF)
for Barnett Shale vertical wells with mul-
tiple completions, Newark East field, Den-
ton County, Texas, showing the change
in flow rate and EUR as a result of recom-
pletion. (A) Dual completion, Devon Energy
Production Co., Peterson AL well, Texas.
(B) Triple completion, Devon Energy Pro-
duction Co., 3 Baker James GU well, Texas.
Data are modified from IHS Energy well
production database (IHS Energy, 2006).

between the period of January 2003 and April 2005,
more than 1100 Barnett Shale horizontal wells had been
drilled or permitted in the Fort Worth Basin, with more
than 150 operators in the play.
In the 2003 assessment, the minimum total recov-
ery per cell used was 0.02 BCFG. However, complica-
tions were encountered in estimating EUR for histori-
cal wells because 73% of all Barnett Shale producing
wells were completed since January 2000 (Figure 2)
and, thus, have short production histories that resulted
in a high level of uncertainty in EUR calculations. Be-
cause multiple recompletion of older Barnett verti-
cal wells has become routine practice to increase to-
tal recovery (Figure 10), EUR distributions for both
single- and multiple-completion wells were generated
and evaluated.

566 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

Greater Newark East Fracture-Barrier Continuous Barnett
Shale Gas Assessment Unit
Exploration and production histories were established
for about 1700 vertical wells that produce gas from the
Barnett Shale in the greater Newark East fracture-barrier
continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit (Figure 9A).
Estimated ultimate recovery distributions in this as-
sessment unit were defined by evaluating the perfor-
mance of existing vertical producing wells categorized
as (1) single completions, (2) multiple completions, and
(3) historical discovery thirds (Figures 11, 12). Wells with
an EUR less than 0.02 BCFG (below minimum and con-
sidered unsuccessful tests) were removed from the dis-
tribution but are counted as tested cells. The total num-
ber of tested cells was 1716, with 1621 cells each having
a total recovery of greater than 0.02 BCFG (Figures 8,
9A; Table 4), thus resulting in a historical success rate
of 94%. Both historical and estimated future success
rates are reported on page 3 of the FORSPAN input
form (not shown in Figure 7) and given in Table 4.
The distribution of producing vertical wells in the
assessment unit having an EUR greater than the mini-
mum (>0.02 BCFG) is shown in Figure 11A; the median
EUR is about 0.52 BCFG, and the maximum is about
7 BCFG. When the data are plotted in exploration-
discovery thirds, median recovery decreases progres-
sively from about 1.3 to 0.55 and to 0.2 BCFG in early-
third, middle-third, and late-third wells, respectively
(Figure 11B). Medians for the discovery thirds are re-
ported on page 1 of the FORSPAN form (Figure 7;
Table 4). No geologic risk was assigned to this assess-
ment unit.
Considerable uncertainty exists in EUR distribu-
tions calculated for most vertical Barnett Shale gas
wells at the time of the 2003 assessment because 73%
of them had been producing only since January 2000
(Figure 2). This is of particular concern because the
ultimate success of Barnett wells is based largely on
multiple completions commonly performed after a
given well has been on production for at least 3 – 4 yr
(Figure 10). For example, data used in the present study
show that all wells having multiple completions were
initially completed before 2000 (Figure 13A). Thus,
wells in the database with multiple completions and
highest calculated EUR values were drilled early in the
history of the Barnett production and constitute much
of the early discovery third shown in the EUR distribu-
tion for all wells (Figure 11B). Therefore, low EUR val-
ues calculated for the late third are an artifact of few
reporting years.
The distribution of EUR values for 156 wells hav-
ing dual completions is shown in Figure 12A and B.
The median for all dual completions (Figure 12A) is
about 1.7 BCFG; medians plotted in discovery thirds
(Figure 12B) are about 1.4, 1.8, and 2.0 BCFG, for early,
middle, and late thirds, respectively. In contrast, the me-
dian recovery for single-completion wells in the as-
sessment unit is about 0.45 BCFG (Figure 11C), and
medians from discovery thirds of single-completion
wells are about 0.9, 0.44, and 0.22 BCFG, respectively
(Figure 11D). The EUR distribution for 21 wells having
three completions was also evaluated and is shown in
Figure 12C; in these wells, EUR ranges from about 0.45
to about 5 BCFG, with a median of about 1.8 BCFG.
The second and third parts of the FORSPAN input
form (Figure 7) are the most critical input param-
eters used to calculate undiscovered resources and in-
clude (1) the total area of the assessment unit (line 1 of
Figure 7A; Table 4); (2) the area per cell having po-
tential for additions to reserves (line 2 of Figure 7A;
Table 4); (3) percentage of total assessment unit area
that is untested (line 3 of Figure 7A; Table 4); (4) per-
centage of untested assessment unit that has potential
for additions to reserves (line 4 of Figure 7A; Table 4);
and (5) total recovery (expressed as EUR) per cell. The
mode of 995,153 ac (402,724 ha) for line 1 (Figure 7A;
Table 4) was determined directly from GIS mapping;
minimum-size and maximum-size areas were estimated
using ±5% uncertainty about the mode. These variables
reflect relative uncertainties in the geographic distri-
bution of the specific geologic and thermal-maturity
conditions that were used to map the assessment unit
boundaries.
The area per cell for untested cells having potential
for additions to reserves (line 2 in Figure 7A) was de-
termined following a review of historical production
and well spacing and discussions of drainage perfor-
mance of Barnett wells (interference, recovery factors,
etc.) with several operators in the Barnett play. A mode
(most likely) cell size of 40 ac (16 ha) was selected be-
cause most current lease agreements require wells to
be drilled on a 40-ac (16-ha) spacing. The conventional
practice used by Devon Energy Corporation (which
acquired Mitchell Energy and Development Corpora-
tion in 2001), the largest producer and leased-acreage
holder in the Barnett Shale play, was to drill vertical
Barnett wells on a 55-ac (22-ha) spacing and then in-
fill at a 27-ac (11-ha) spacing (Devon Energy Corpo-
ration, 2003). Discussions with several operators in-
dicated that some Barnett wells show interference
when drilled on a 27-ac (11-ha) spacing, indicating that
Pollastro 567
568
Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

Figure 11. Graphs showing the distribution of EUR greater than minimum recovery of 20 mmcf calculated from Barnett Shale vertical gas wells in the greater Newark East
fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit for (A) all wells; (B) all wells as historical thirds (early, middle, and late); (C) single completions only; and (D) single
completions as historical thirds. The intersection of the EUR curve with the bold vertical yellow line at 50% of the sample approximates the median value. The EUR analyses are by
Troy Cook, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Figure 12. Graphs showing the distributions
of EUR greater than the minimum recovery of
20 mmcf calculated from the Barnett Shale
vertical gas wells in the greater Newark East
fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas
assessment unit for (A) dual completions,
(B) dual completions as historical thirds, and
(C) triple completions. The intersection of the
EUR curve with bold vertical yellow line at 50%
of sample approximates median value. The
EUR analyses are by Troy Cook, U.S. Geological
Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Pollastro 569
570

Table 4. Summary of FORSPAN Input Data for U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Barnett Shale

Greater Newark East Fracture-Barrier

Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Unit Extended Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Unit
Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin

Number Number
Historical Number of Tested Cells and Success Rate of Cells Ratio of Cells Ratio

Number of tested cells 1716 134

Number of tested cells with total recovery per cell 1621 78
greater than or equal to 0.02 BCFG
Historical success rate (%) 94 58

Historical Median Recovery per Cell First Third Second Third Third Third All Wells First Third Second Third Third Third All Wells

Median recovery for discovery thirds and 1.3 0.55 0.2 0.52 0.52 (0.07) 0.28 (0.08) 0.25 (0.17) 0.28 (0.14)
all wells (no fracture-barrier areas) (BCFG)

Number of Untested Cells with Potential for

Additions to Reserves* Minimum Mode Maximum Calculated Mean Minimum Mode Maximum Calculated Mean

1. Total assessment unit area (ac) 945,395 995,153 1,044,911 995,153 2,824,000 3,138,000 3,295,000 3,086,000
2. Area per cell having potential for additions 10 40 110 53.3 10 40 110 53.3
to reserves (ac)
Uncertainty about the mean (ac) 40 60 35 65
3. Percentage of total assessment unit area that 90 91 93 91.3 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.8
is untested (%)
4. Percentage of untested assessment unit area 75 88 95 86 35 55 90 60
that has potential additions to reserves (%)

Future Success Rate

Estimated success for undiscovered cells (%) 75 88 95 86 50 65 90 68.5

Total Recovery per Cell

Total recovery per cell for untested cells having 0.02 0.7 10 1.01 0.02 0.2 5 0.34
potential for additions to reserves (BCFG)
*For lines numbered 1 to 4 and total recovery per cell for Barnett Shale assessment units, 2003 U.S. Geological Survey assessment of Barnett Shale (Pollastro, 2004a).
 Figure 13. Historical
well data from the greater
Newark East fracture-
barrier continuous Bar-
nett Shale gas assess-
ment unit. (A) Histogram
showing the number of
Barnett Shale vertical
wells identified as having
dual completions versus
first year of production;
data are a derivative of
the IHS Energy well pro-
duction database (IHS
Energy, 2003). (B) Sta-
tistical probability analysis
of EUR for all wells. Data
show a 25% probability
(at the 24, 42, 58, and
75 percentiles) of a max-
imum EUR of 10 bcf or
greater and about half
that at a 75% probabil-
ity. Data are generated
by Troy Cook, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Denver,
Colorado.

the mean cell size for assessment purposes should be
larger. A 110-ac (44-ha) cell size was used for the maxi-
mum cell size on line 2 (Table 4) because it is esti-
mated by operators that a horizontal Barnett well
would drain about two 55-ac (22-ha) spacing units (or a
110-ac [44-ha] cell equivalent). A 10-ac (4-ha) cell size
was used at the minimum because, at optimum drain-
age conditions with an estimated in-place resource of
about 150 BCFG/mi2 (57.91 BCFG/km2) (Devon En-
ergy Corporation, 2003) and a 7–8% recovery factor, a
vertical well successfully produces more than the min-
imum of 0.02 BCFG on a 10-ac (4-ha) drainage unit
(Table 5). Cell sizes at a minimum of 10 ac (4 ha),
maximum of 110 ac (44 ha), and mode of 40 ac (16 ha)
produce a calculated mean cell size of 53.3 ac (21.5 ha)
(line 2, Table 4). A 53.3-ac (21.5-ha) cell size at the
mean was considered reasonable because it is in close
agreement with the conventional 55-ac (22-ha) spacing
unit used by Devon Energy Corporation. Uncertainty
about the mean was expressed on line 2, where a mini-
mum of 40 ac (16 ha) and a maximum of 60 ac (24 ha)
were used, indicating that the mean cell drainage area of a
Barnett well without interference is likely to fall within
this range.
The percentage of the assessment unit area that is
untested is reported on line 3 of Figure 7A and Table 4.

Pollastro 571
Table 5. Calculated Estimate of Total Gas Recovery*
Total Gas Recovery per Cell (BCFG)
GIP Recovery
(bcf/mi2) Factor 10 ac 27 ac 40 ac 53 ac 110 ac
143 0.08 0.18 0.5 0.72 1.0
143 0.20 0.45 1.2 1.79 2.4
197 0.08 0.25 0.66 0.98 1.3
197 0.20 0.62 1.64 2.46 3.3
*In billions of cubic feet (bcf) for various cell sizes (in acres) versus recovery
factor and gas in place (GIP). Data are from Mavor (2003) and Adams
(2003) based on minimum shale thickness of 200 – 250 ft (60 – 76 m).
The untested area is determined by subtracting the
percent of the tested area, as calculated from the num-
ber of tested cells and mode and mean cell sizes, from
the total assessment unit area. The calculated mean per-
cent of untested area within the greater Newark East
fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assess-
ment unit is 91.3% (Table 4).
Line 4 (Figure 7B; Table 4) reports the percent of
untested assessment unit area that has potential for
additions to reserves. This part of the FORSPAN form
is commonly determined in conjunction with estima-
tions of future success rates reported on page 3 (not
shown) of the form. The historical success rate is 94%
(Table 4). Although the entire assessment unit area is
included as a geologic sweet spot, major fault zones are
high-risk areas and commonly nonproductive (Bowker,
2003). Other areas within the assessment unit where
the Barnett Shale contains thick intraformational lime-
stone units may also result in unsuccessful cells. Ac-
counting for potentially unsuccessful areas, the minimum,
mode, and maximum success rate for this assessment
unit was estimated at 75, 88, and 95%, respectively,
with a calculated mean of 86% (Table 4). Thus, percent-
ages for line 4 were determined by multiplying 100% of
the untested assessment unit area by the distribution
of the estimated future success rates, giving a calculated
mean of 86% of the untested assessment unit area as
having potential for additions to reserves.
The final assessment input parameter is the total
recovery per cell, which is entered as the minimum,
maximum, and median on page 2 of the FORSPAN
input form following line 4 (Figure 7B). The mini-
mum recovery per cell is set arbitrarily at 0.02 BCFG.
The maximum recovery per cell for the untested cells
in the assessment unit was estimated at 10 BCFG. The
maximum calculated EUR for historical Barnett wells
in the greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous
572 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit was about 7 BCFG
(Figures 11, 12). The justification for a 10-BCFG maxi-
mum is as follows: (1) An EUR probability analysis,
shown in Figure 13B based on the original EUR distri-
bution of Figure 11A, indicates a 25% chance of hav-
2.0
ing a 10-BCFG well; and (2) analysis of early produc-
5.0
tion histories of horizontal wells completed in 2003
2.3
in the Barnett indicates that EUR could approach 8 –
7.0
10 BCFG (C. Adams, 2003, personal communication).
Therefore, considering that future cells will be drained
from horizontal well completions, a 10-BCFG maxi-
mum seems reasonable.
Using the data of Figures 11A and B and 13B, a
median EUR of 0.7 BCFG was estimated for untested
cells having potential for additions to reserves. A per-cell
recovery for the untested cells in this assessment unit
having a distribution with a minimum of 0.02 BCFG,
a median of 0.7 BCFG, and a maximum of 10 BCFG
produces a calculated mean recovery of 1.01 BCFG/cell
(Table 4).
Extended Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Unit
The extent of exploration and development in the ex-
tended continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit is
much less than in the greater Newark East fracture-
barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit,
having begun only a few years prior to the 2003 U.S.
Geological Survey assessment and with most of the ac-
tivity occurring subsequent to the assessment. As a con-
sequence, historical production data are minimal. Other
factors affecting an assessment of this assessment unit
include the following: (1) The stratigraphic section of
Barnett Shale is thinner; (2) at least one enclosing im-
permeable limestone (fracture barrier) is absent; (3) com-
pletion methods are in the early stages of development
for horizontal wells; (4) the assessment unit area is three
times larger than the greater Newark East fracture-
barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit;
and (5) no sweet spots were defined.
Exploration and production histories were estab-
lished initially from 134 vertical wells completed from
1983 to 2003 that penetrated, tested, or produced from
the Barnett Shale within the extended continuous Bar-
nett Shale gas assessment unit (Figures 8, 9B). Distri-
butions of EUR values for these wells are shown in
Figure 14. Wells with an EUR less than 0.02 BCFG
were removed from the distributions but are recorded
as tested cells. Seventy-eight of the 134 tested cells have
an EUR greater than 0.02 BCFG, indicating a historical
success rate of 58% (Table 4). Barnett Shale production
Pollastro

Figure 14. Graphs showing distributions of EUR greater than the minimum recovery of 20 million cubic feet (MMCF) calculated from Barnett Shale gas wells in the extended continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit for (A) all wells; (B) all wells as historical thirds (early, middle, and late); (C) western group wells; and (D) western group wells as historical thirds. The
573

intersection of the EUR curve with bold vertical yellow line at 50% of sample approximates median value. The EUR analyses are by Troy Cook, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
is proven within the assessment unit; thus, no geologic
probability risk was factored into the assessment.
The distribution of EUR values for the 78 ver-
tical wells having greater than minimum recovery
( < 0.02 BCFG) within the extended continuous Bar-
nett Shale gas assessment unit is shown in Figure 14A.
Maximum calculated EUR for this distribution is about
2.4 BCFG, and the median is 0.28 BCFG. A secondary
analysis of EUR was also performed on 19 wells located
away from the Newark East field along the west edge
of the assessment unit in Hood and Palo Pinto coun-
ties (Figure 9B). The EUR distribution for these wells
(Figure 14C) shows a median of about 0.14 BCFG and
a calculated maximum of about 0.42 BCFG (Table 4).
When plotted in exploration-discovery thirds, medi-
ans are 0.07 BCFG, 0.08 BCFG, and 0.17 BCFG for
early-third, middle-third, and late-third wells, respec-
tively (Figure 14D; Table 4).
The areas determined for the extended continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit are as follows: mini-
mum 2,824,000 ac (1,142,832 ha); mode 3,138,000 ac
(1,269,903 ha); maximum 3,295,000 ac (1,333,439 ha),
and mean 3,086,000 ac (1,248,859 ha) (Table 4). The
uncertainty in assessment unit boundaries was estab-
lished using +5% of the mode for the maximum and
 10% of the mode for the minimum. The greater un-
certainty placed on the minimum reflects an inability to
reliably draw the west boundary on the basis of limited
data points determining the thermal gas-generation
window and the 100-ft (30-m) thickness contour of the
Barnett Shale (Figure 9B).
The distribution of area per cell used in the greater
Newark East fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale
gas assessment unit (mode 40 ac [16 ha], minimum 10 ac
[4 ha], and maximum 110 ac [44 ha]) was also used for
the extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment
unit. Greater uncertainty was expressed about the mean
cell size, however, because there is minimal explora-
tion and drilling. Thus, for the mean, 35 ac (14 ha) was
used at the minimum, and 65 ac (26 ha) was used at
the maximum. Nearly all (99.8%) of the more than
3,000,000 ac (1,214,056 ha) of the extended contin-
uous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit area is untested
(Table 4). Future success rates were estimated at a min-
imum of 50%, a mode of 65%, a maximum of 90%, and
a calculated mean of about 68% (Table 4). Thus, the
mean success rate for the untested areas within the as-
sessment unit is higher than that calculated from his-
torical exploration, which seems justified because of
recent advances in completion technology and the ap-
plication of horizontal drilling.
574 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin
The percent of untested area within the extended
continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit that has
potential for additions to reserves (Table 4) was deter-
mined by applying an estimated future success rate.
For this purpose, a minimum of 70% was used because
30% of the area has less than 200 ft (61 m) of shale,
resulting in a minimum of 35% (line 4) of untested
area that has potential for additions to reserves (0.50 
0.70 = 0.35). The 200-ft (61-m) isopach contour for
the Barnett is justified here because estimates for gas
in place in the Barnett Shale, reported by Adams (2003)
and Mavor (2003), assume a minimum thickness of
200–250 ft (61–76 m) of organic-rich shale. The maxi-
mum for line 4 was determined by multiplying 100%
of the untested assessment unit area by the maximum
future success rate of 90%, and the mode determined by
multiplying the mode of future success rate of 65 by
85% of the area. In summary, the resulting minimum,
mode, and maximum percent of untested assessment
unit area that has potential for additions to reserves in
line 4 are estimated at 35, 55, and 90%, respectively,
with a calculated mean of 60% (Table 4).
The total recovery per cell for untested cells having
potential for additions to reserves (recoveries >0.02 BCFG)
was determined from EUR distributions of all 78 wells
(Figure 14A) and their historical thirds (Figure 14B)
within the extended continuous Barnett Shale gas as-
sessment unit and for similar EUR distributions for
the 19 wells in the western part of the assessment unit
(Figure 14C, D, respectively). The minimum recovery
per cell is set at 0.02 BCFG. The median EUR for all suc-
cessful wells is 0.28 BCFG. The median EURs for their
historical thirds are 0.52 BCFG, early third; 0.28 BCFG,
middle third; and 0.25 BCFG, late third. The maximum
recovery per cell from all EUR distributions ranges from
about 0.9 to 2.4 BCFG (Figure 14A, B). The median EUR
for all 19 wells in the western part of the assessment unit
is 0.14 BCFG, and EURs for their historical thirds are
0.07 BCFG, early third; 0.08 BCFG, middle third; and
0.17 BCFG, late third.
The median recovery per cell estimated for un-
tested cells having potential for additions to reserves for
the extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment
unit was 0.2 BCFG, with the understanding that there
is much uncertainty in the historical data and in estimates
for untested cells. The maximum recovery per cell was
estimated at 5 BCFG, which is half of the maximum
used in the greater Newark East fracture-barrier con-
tinuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit. Although
the Barnett Shale is thinner and lacks at least one en-
closing impermeable limestone barrier in the extended
Table 6. 2003 U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Undiscovered, Technically Recoverable Gas and Natural Gas Liquids in the
Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, Texas*

Total Undiscovered Resources

Gas (BCFG**) NGL (MMBNGLy)

Oil or Gas F95 F50 F5 Mean F95 F50 F5 Mean

Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum Systems

Greater Newark East Gas 13,410.69 14,638.36 15,978.42 14,659.13 406.84 573.70 809.00 586.37
fracture-barrier continuous
Barnett Shale gas
assessment unit
Extended continuous Gas 8305.14 11,361.66 15,543.04 11,569.73 282.01 445.28 703.09 462.79
Barnett Shale gas
assessment unit
Hypothetical basin-arch Oil Not quantitatively assessed
Barnett Shale oil
assessment unit

Total undiscovered 21,715.83 26,000.02 31,521.46 26,228.86 688.85 1018.98 1512.09 1049.16
Barnett Shale
resources
*Results shown are fully risked estimates. For gas fields, all liquids are included under the natural gas liquids (NGL) category. F95 represents a 95% chance of at least
the amount tabulated. Other fractiles are defined similarly. Fractiles are additive under the assumption of perfect positive correlation.
**BCFG = billion cubic feet of gas.
y
MMBNGL = million barrels of natural gas liquids.

continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment unit, the use
of horizontal wells in future exploration may result in
recoveries approaching 5 BCFG. In summary, the es-
timated minimum, median, and maximum input val-
ues for untested cells (0.02, 0.2, and 5 BCFG, respec-
tively) result in a calculated mean per-cell recovery of
0.34 BCFG for untested cells in the assessment unit
(Table 4).
Assessment Results
The results of the 2003 U.S. Geological Survey as-
sessment of the continuous gas accumulation in the
Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth Basin are shown in
Table 6. A mean undiscovered resource volume of
14.6 TCFG was estimated for the greater Newark East
fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas assessment
unit, with a range from about 13.4 to 16.0 TCFG at the
F95 and F5 percentiles, respectively. A mean undis-
covered resource volume of 11.6 TCFG was estimated
for the extended continuous Barnett Shale gas assess-
ment unit, with a range from about 8.3 to 15.5 TCFG at
the F95 and F5 percentiles, respectively (Table 6). The
greater range in volume for the extended continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit reflects the greater
uncertainty in the estimates for this minimally explored
and developed area. Thus, an estimated mean total vol-
ume of 26.2 TCFG having potential for additions to
reserves is assessed for the two Barnett Shale assessment
units. This mean volume, combined with 3–4 TCFG of
proved reserves in the Barnett Shale, indicates a poten-
tial giant shale-gas resource of about 30 tcf and greatly
exceeds previous published assessments of potential re-
sources within the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin,
Texas.
SUMMARY AND COMMENTS
Thermally mature, organic-rich Mississippian Barnett
Shale is distributed across most of the Bend arch –
Fort Worth Basin; it is the primary source rock for oil
and gas produced from conventional reservoirs of Pa-
leozoic age in the area since the early 1900s. In the past
decade, however, almost 2 tcf of thermally generated

Pollastro 575
gas has been produced from a continuous accumula-
tion within the formation itself, mostly from the New-
ark East field in the northeastern part of the basin. A
combination of essential petroleum system elements
(source rocks, favorable conditions for generation and
migration, reservoir rocks, traps, and seals) form the
Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system that encom-
passes both known and undiscovered resources in the
Bend arch–Fort Worth Basin area.
Historical exploration and production in the Bar-
nett Shale have focused on the Newark East field, where
a combination of geologic and thermal-maturity con-
ditions is most favorable for vertical well completions
and maximum gas recovery, including the following:
(1) It is organic rich, averaging 4 – 5 wt.% total organic
carbon; (2) the formation lies within the thermal gas-
generation window, with an estimated in-place resource
of more than 140 BCFG/mi2 (54.05 BCFG/km2); (3) it
is 300–700 ft (91–213 m) thick; (4) it is overlain and
underlain by impermeable, low–fracture-gradient lime-
stones; and (5) its upper and lower parts are separated
by an additional impermeable low – fracture-gradient
limestone. These conditions define an area of about
1,000,000 ac (404,685 ha) termed the greater Newark
East fracture-barrier continuous Barnett Shale gas as-
sessment unit.
More recently, acquisition of leased acreage and
subsequent exploration has stepped out to the south
and west of the Newark East field core area and in more
than a dozen Texas counties. In the extension of ex-
ploration for gas in this area of more than 3,000,000 ac
(1,214,056 ha) where geologic conditions are consid-
ered less favorable, the development of the Barnett
Shale is enhanced by horizontal drilling. In this area,
termed the extended Barnett Shale continuous gas as-
sessment unit, the formation also (1) lies within the
thermal gas-generation window; (2) is about 100–350 ft
(30–106 m) thick; lacks an upper part and an intrafor-
mational limestone unit, as well as at least one enclosing
limestone barrier; (3) is underlain by porous, wet, and/
or karsted Ellenburger Group dolomite; and (4) con-
tains gas that is commonly much drier than at Newark
East field.
Exploration of the Barnett Shale continuous gas
accumulation in the Fort Worth Basin has grown rap-
idly, with about 85% of the wells placed on produc-
tion since January 2000. Rapid growth in drilling activ-
ity, new developments in completion practices, and the
more recent application of horizontal drilling are ex-
pected to improve EUR estimations and the reliability
of other input parameters for assessing future resources.
576 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin
In summary, much uncertainty still exists in cal-
culating the resources of this giant continuous accu-
mulation based on EUR, cell size, and untested areas
because (1) Barnett gas potential is large, and develop-
ment is still in its early stages; (2) most vertical wells in
the Barnett are concentrated in the Newark East field,
which represents only a small part of the total area of
potential Barnett production; (3) only few horizontal
completions in the Barnett were tested having only short
production histories at the time of this assessment;
(4) technology and completion practices continue to
rapidly evolve, as the play has now turned mostly to
horizontal completions (Figure 2); and (5) much of the
area within each assessment unit is unexplored and un-
tested in the Barnett. For these reasons, it is necessary
to conduct periodic U.S. Geological Survey assessments
of the Barnett Shale continuous gas resource to re-
flect changing knowledge and perceptions of this giant-
potential resource base.
Using historical production data and production
practices for Barnett Shale vertical wells at the peak of
vertical well completions and prior to a transition to
horizontal completions (Figure 2), the U.S. Geological
Survey assessed a mean of 14.6 tcf of undiscovered gas
resource having potential for additions to reserves in
the greater Newark East fracture-barrier continuous Bar-
nett Shale gas assessment unit, and a mean of 11.6 tcf
undiscovered gas resource in the extended continuous
Barnett Shale gas assessment unit.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, C., 2003, Barnett Shale: A significant gas resource in the
Fort Worth Basin: Transaction of the Southwest Section, AAPG
Annual Convention, Fort Worth, Texas, AAPG Datapages, 1 p.,
CD-ROM, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents
/abstracts/2000sw/index.htm.
Ball, M. M., and W. J. Perry, 1996, Bend arch – Fort Worth Basin
province (045), in D. L. Gautier, G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi,
and K. L. Varnes, eds., 1995 National assessment of United States
oil and gas resources — Results, methodology, and supporting
data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, re-
lease 2, CD-ROM.
Bowker, K. A., 2003, Recent development of the Barnett Shale
play, Fort Worth Basin: West Texas Geological Society Bulle-
tin, v. 42, no. 6, p. 4 – 11.
Bowker, K. A., 2004, The Barnett Shale (Ft. Worth Basin) as an
exploration model (abs.): 2004 Rocky Mountain Section, AAPG
Meeting, Denver, Colorado: http://www.searchanddiscovery
.com/documents/abstracts/2004rocky/bowker.htm (accessed
June 2006).
Brister, B. S., W. C. Stephens, and G. A. Norman, 2002, Structure,
stratigraphy, and hydrocarbon system of a Pennsylvanian pull-
apart basin in north-central Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1 –
20.
Bustin, R. M., 2005, Gas shale tapped for big play: AAPG Explorer,
v. 25, no. 2, http://www.aapg.org/explorer/divisions/2005/02emd
.cfm (accessed June 2006).
Curtis, J. B., 2002, Fractured shale-gas systems: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 86, p. 1921 – 1938.
Devon Energy Corporation, 2003, The Barnett Shale: Regional report,
http://www.devonenergy.com/operations/features/corpnews
_barnett_shale.aspx (accessed February 10, 2004).
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2002, Top 100 oil and
gas fields, U.S. crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
reserves: 2002 annual report, appendix B, p. B4: http://www
.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude
_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appb.pdf (accessed May
2004).
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2004, Annual energy out-
look 2004 with projections to 2025: U.S. Department of En-
ergy, Energy Information Administration report DOE/EIA-0383
(2004), 278 p.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2005, Annual energy re-
view 2004: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration report DOE/EIA-0384(2004), August 2005,
435 p.: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aer (accessed June 2006).
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2006, Annual energy out-
look 2006 with projections to 2030: U.S. Department of En-
ergy, Energy Information Administration report DOE/EIA-0383
(2006), 236 p.: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/ (accessed June
2006).
Faraj, B., et al., 2004, Gas potential of selected shale formations
in the Western Canadian sedimentary basin: GasTIPS, Winter
2004, p. 21– 25: http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Reference Shelf
/GasTIPS/GasTIPS-Winter04.pdf (accessed December 2004).
Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes,
eds., 1996, 1995 National assessment of United States oil and
gas resources — Results, methodology, and supporting data:
U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2,
one CD-ROM.
Hill, R. J., D. M. Jarvie, J. Zumberge, M. Henry, and R. M. Pollastro,
2007, Oil and gas geochemistry and petroleum systems of the
Fort Worth Basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 4, p. 445 – 473.
IHS Energy, 2003, U.S. production and well history control data-
bases on CD-ROM: Englewood, Colorado.
IHS Energy, 2006, U.S. production and well history control data-
bases on CD-ROM: Englewood, Colorado.
Jarvie, D. M., B. L. Claxton, F. Henk, and J. T. Breyer, 2001, Oil
and shale gas from the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, Texas
(abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting Program, v. 85, p. A100.
Jarvie, D. M., R. M. Pollastro, R. J. Hill, D. A. Wavrek, K. A. Bowker,
B. L. Claxton, and M. H. Tobey, 2004, Characterization of
thermogenic gas and oil in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas (abs.):
AAPG Annual Meeting Program, v. 13, p. A71.
Jarvie, D. M., R. J. Hill, and R. M. Pollastro, 2005, Assessment of
the gas potential and yields from shales: The Barnett Shale
model, in B. J. Cardott, ed., Unconventional Energy Resources
in the Southern Midcontinent, 2004 Symposium: Oklahoma
Geological Survey Circular 110, p. 37 – 50.
Jarvie, D. M., R. J. Hill, T. E. Ruble, and R. M. Pollastro, 2007,
Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett
Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic
shale-gas assessment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 4, p. 475 – 499.
Klett, T. R., and R. R. Charpentier, 2003, FORSPAN model user’s
guide: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-384, 37 p.,
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/pub/ofr (accessed May 2004).
Klett, T. R., J. W. Schmoker, and T. S. Ahlbrandt, 2000, Assess-
ment hierarchy and initial province ranking, chapter AR, in
U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team, eds.,
U.S. Geological Survey world petroleum assessment 2000 —
Description and results: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data
Series DDS-60, version 1.0, CD-ROM, disk 1, 31 p.
Kuuskraa, V. A., G. Koperna, J. W. Schmoker, and J. C. Quinn,
1998, Barnett Shale rising star in Fort Worth Basin: Oil & Gas
Journal, v. 96 (May 25, 1998), no. 21, p. 71 – 76.
Magoon, L. B., and W. G. Dow, 1994, The petroleum system, in
L. B. Magoon and W. G. Dow, eds., The petroleum system –
From source to trap: AAPG Memoir 60, p. 2 – 24.
Magoon, L. B., and J. W. Schmoker, 2000, The total petroleum
system– The natural fluid network that constrains the assessment
unit, in U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team,
eds., U.S. Geological Survey world petroleum assessment
2000 — Description and results: U.S. Geological Survey Digital
Data Series DDS-60, version 1.0, CD-ROM, disk 1, chapter PS,
31 p.
Mavor, M., 2003, Barnett Shale gas-in-place volume including sorbed
and free gas volume: Transaction of the Southwest Section,
AAPG Annual Convention, Fort Worth, Texas, AAPG Data-
pages, 1 p., CD-ROM.
Montgomery, S., D. M. Jarvie, K. A. Bowker, and R. M. Pollastro,
2005, Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, north-
central Texas: Gas-shale play with multi-tcf potential: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 89, p. 155 – 175.
Pollastro, R. M., 2003, Geologic and production characteristics uti-
lized in assessing the Barnett Shale continuous (unconventional)
gas accumulation, Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system,
Fort Worth Basin, Texas: Barnett Shale Symposium, Novem-
ber 12 – 13, 2003, Ellison Miles Geotechnology Institute at
Brookhaven College, Dallas, Texas, 6 p.
Pollastro, R. M., 2004, Assessing the giant natural gas resources of
the Barnett Shale continuous (unconventional) accumulation,
Barnett-Paleozoic total petroleum system, Bend arch – Fort Worth
Basin, Texas (abs.): AAPG Annual Convention Program, v. 13,
p. A112, CD-ROM.
Pollastro, R. M., R. J. Hill, D. M. Jarvie, and M. E. Henry, 2003,
Assessing undiscovered resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic total
petroleum system, Bend arch – Fort Worth Basin province, Texas:
Transactions of the Southwest Section, AAPG Annual Conven-
tion, Fort Worth, Texas, AAPG Datapages, 18 p., CD-ROM,
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/pollastro/index
.htm (accessed June 2006).
Pollastro, R. M., R. J. Hill, T. A. Ahlbrandt, R. R. Charpentier, T. A.
Cook, T. R. Klett, M. E. Henry, and C. J. Schenk, 2004a,
Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Bend
arch – Fort Worth Basin province of north-central Texas and
southwestern Oklahoma, 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet 2004-3022, 2 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3022/ (ac-
cessed June 2006).
Pollastro, R. M., R. J. Hill, D. M. Jarvie, and C. Adams, 2004b,
Geologic and organic geochemical framework of the Barnett-
Paleozoic total petroleum system, Bend arch – Fort Worth Ba-
sin, Texas (abs.): 2004 AAPG Annual Convention Program, v. 13,
p. A113, CD-ROM.
Pollastro, R. M., D. M. Jarvie, R. J. Hill, and C. W. Adams, 2007,
Geologic framework of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Barnett-
Paleozoic total petroleum system, Bend arch – Fort Worth Basin,
Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 4, p. 405 – 436.
Schenk, C. J., and R. M. Pollastro, 2002, Natural gas production in
the United States: National Assessment of Oil and Gas Series,
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-113-01, 2 p.
Schmoker, J. W., 1996, Method for assessing continuous-type (un-
conventional) hydrocarbon accumulations, in D. L. Gautier,
G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, eds., 1995
national assessment of United States oil and gas resources —
Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological
Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2, CD-ROM.
Pollastro 577
Schmoker, J. W., 1999, U.S. Geological Survey assessment model
for continuous (unconventional) oil and gas accumulations —
The ‘‘FORSPAN’’ model: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin,
v. 2168, 12 p.
Schmoker, J. W., 2002, Resource assessment perspectives for un-
conventional gas systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1993 –
1999.
Schmoker, J. W., C. J. Quinn, R. A. Crovelli, V. F. Nuccio, and
T. C. Hester, 1996, Production characteristics and resource
assessment of the Barnett Shale continuous (unconventional)
578 Assessment of Gas in the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin
gas accumulation, Fort Worth Basin, Texas: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 96-254, 20 p.
Texas Railroad Commission, 2006, Interactive online Texas oil
and gas production data, Newark East field, Barnett Shale:
http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/PDQ/home.do (accessed June
2006).
U.S. Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team, 2000, U.S.
Geological Survey world petroleum assessment 2000 —
Description and results: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data
Series DDS-60, Version 1.0, four CD-ROMs.