The authors regret to have made few errors in the explanation of the Validation and Forecast section (Step 4) on page 695 especially in relation to when a q∞ value should be used. The correction to that paragraph for step 4 is seen below; “The term q∞ which can be zero, positive or negative was added to provide a better fit to some field data that showed an intercept instead of a straight line to the origin when plotting q vs t(a,m) (Kanfar and Wattenbarger, 2012). It is important to note that (Joshi and Lee, 2013) observed in their research on a Barnett shale well that using a non-zero q∞ can lead to unrealistic results especially when only 6-12 months of historical production data are available. (Joshi, 2012) concluded that, for a well with production history greater than 24 months, not using a q∞ value = 0 leads to an optimal way to forecast production using the Doung's method. Typically, none of the methods used in this paper would be effective for prediction when less than six months of production data are available irrespective of the shale play (Joshi and Lee, 2013)”. The second correction is on step 2 on page 695. It should read 10ˆ0.3262. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.