Files
new-orphan-wells/docs/chapter4-variables.md

152 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Chapter 4 Variable Reference
## The Geography of Transition: Distribution and Consequences of Orphaned Wells
---
## Research Questions
1. How are orphaned wells spatially distributed and do they concentrate in historically fossil-dependent communities?
2. Do states with strong fossil industry dependence have formal energy transition governance mechanisms?
3. Do states frame orphaned well remediation as an engineering problem or a justice problem?
4. How does spatial distribution relate to political tensions over responsibility and funding?
---
## Core Analytical Variables
### Well Distribution
| Variable | Source | DB Location | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Well count by state | USGS DOW | `v_wells_by_state.well_count` | 27 states |
| Well count by county | USGS DOW | `v_wells_by_county.well_count` | 5-digit GEOID |
| Well count by tract | USGS DOW | `v_wells_by_tract.well_count` | 11-digit GEOID |
| Well density (wells/km²) | Calculated | `v_wells_by_tract.wells_per_km2` | Land area only |
| Well type (normalized) | USGS DOW | `wells.well_type_normalized` | 12 categories |
| Well status | USGS DOW | `wells.status` | State-specific terminology |
### State Governance Framework (RA-coded)
| Variable | Source | DB Location | Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transition office count | Climate Policy Dashboard | `v_state_governance.transition_office_count` | 0, 1, 2+ |
| Office fossil language | Climate Policy Dashboard | `state_transition_offices.code_fossil` | 0/1 |
| Office equity language | Climate Policy Dashboard | `state_transition_offices.code_equity` | 0/1 |
| Prioritization system type | IOGCC 2023 | `state_prioritization.system_type` | Text description |
| Technical factors used | IOGCC 2023 | `state_prioritization.tech_factors` | Semicolon list |
| Rural/urban in scoring | IOGCC 2023 | `state_prioritization.code_rural_urban` | 0/1 |
| Vulnerability/EJ in scoring | IOGCC 2023 | `state_prioritization.code_vuln` | 0/1 |
| Surface land use in scoring | IOGCC 2023 | `state_prioritization.code_surface` | 0/1 |
### Derived Classification
| Variable | DB Location | Logic |
|---|---|---|
| `framework_type` | `v_state_governance` | Justice if `code_vuln=1`; Mixed if `code_rural_urban=1`; Engineering if system documented but no EJ/density; Unclassified otherwise |
| `office_language_type` | `v_state_governance` | Fossil + Equity / Fossil only / Equity only / Office exists no language / No transition office |
### Environmental Justice Indicators (requires ACS join)
Join on `wells.tract_geoid` = ACS `geoid`:
| Variable | ACS Table | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Median household income | B19013 | Tract-level; proxy for economic vulnerability |
| % Non-white | B03002 | Calculated from race/ethnicity totals |
| % Below poverty line | B17001 | Federal poverty threshold |
| Median housing age | B25035 | Proxy for legacy industrial neighborhood |
| % Unemployed | B23025 | Labor market conditions |
---
## Key Queries
### State governance summary (activate after RA data loaded)
```sql
SELECT state, state_name, well_count_dow,
framework_type, office_language_type,
code_vuln, code_rural_urban, code_fossil, code_equity,
est_liability_mid_usd
FROM v_ch4_state_analysis
ORDER BY well_count_dow DESC;
```
### Engineering vs. justice states, well count comparison
```sql
SELECT framework_type,
count(DISTINCT state) AS state_count,
sum(well_count_dow) AS total_wells,
round(avg(well_count_dow)) AS avg_wells_per_state
FROM v_ch4_state_analysis
GROUP BY framework_type
ORDER BY total_wells DESC;
```
### Highest-density tracts (for mapping)
```sql
SELECT tract_geoid, tract_name, county_name, state_usps,
well_count, wells_per_km2, tract_land_km2
FROM v_highest_density_tracts
LIMIT 50;
```
### Wells in tracts below median income (EJ analysis — requires ACS)
```sql
SELECT w.state, count(*) AS wells_in_low_income_tracts
FROM wells w
JOIN acs_b19013 a ON w.tract_geoid = a.geoid
WHERE a.median_hh_income < 50000
GROUP BY w.state
ORDER BY wells_in_low_income_tracts DESC;
```
### State transition office presence vs. well burden
```sql
SELECT sg.framework_type,
sg.office_language_type,
count(DISTINCT sg.state) AS states,
sum(sg.well_count_dow) AS total_wells,
avg(sg.well_count_dow) AS avg_wells
FROM v_state_governance sg
GROUP BY sg.framework_type, sg.office_language_type
ORDER BY total_wells DESC;
```
---
## Analytical Strategy (Chapter 4)
### Section 1: Mapping the Distribution
- National map: well locations by `well_type_normalized`
- State-level choropleth: well count and well density
- County-level choropleth: `v_wells_by_county` joined to TIGER county boundaries
- Key finding to highlight: OH + PA + OK = 47% of all documented orphaned wells
### Section 2: Fossil Dependence and Governance
- Crosstab: states by framework_type × well count
- Test: Do high-burden states have transition offices? (office_count > 0 vs. well_count)
- Key contrast: PA (no transition office, engineering frame) vs. CO (Just Transition Office, equity language)
### Section 3: The Justice Dimension
- Map: well density by tract overlaid with % non-white or % below poverty
- Identify tracts where both are elevated — the "double burden"
- Use `v_highest_density_tracts` for case study selection
### Section 4: Political Tensions
- Connect framework_type to state political context (add `state_politics` table if needed)
- Argument: justice framing is not randomly distributed — correlates with state political economy
---
## Data Limitations for Chapter 4
1. **DOW dataset is documented wells only.** True orphaned well count is almost certainly higher. API estimates 2 million+ undocumented orphaned wells nationally.
2. **Definitional inconsistency.** California "idle" wells differ legally from other states' "orphaned" definition. Flagged in `data_file_notes`.
3. **Type field missingness (59.3% Unknown).** Major states (OH, PA, KY) did not classify type. Limit type-based analysis to states with complete type data or use normalized categories cautiously.
4. **Snapshot data.** Data collected 20192022; plugging programs have been active since, so current counts are lower.
5. **Spatial precision.** No formal accuracy tests. Some coordinates converted from PLSS — precision is lower for KS and MT wells.