203 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
203 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
# Data Sources and Provenance
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Primary Dataset: USGS Documented Unplugged Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells (DOW)
|
||
|
||
**Citation:**
|
||
Grove, C.A., and Merrill, M.D., 2022, United States Documented Unplugged Orphaned Oil and Gas Well Dataset: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P91PJETI.
|
||
|
||
**Related report:**
|
||
Merrill, M.D., Grove, C.A., Gianoutsos, N.J., and Freeman, P.A., 2023, Analysis of the United States documented unplugged orphaned oil and gas well dataset: U.S. Geological Survey Data Report 1167, 10 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/dr1167.
|
||
|
||
**ScienceBase item:** https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/62ebd67bd34eacf539724c56
|
||
**DOI:** https://doi.org/10.5066/P91PJETI
|
||
**Interactive map:** https://energy.usgs.gov/usdowdb
|
||
**Published:** August 22, 2022
|
||
**Data currency:** July 1, 2019 – June 2, 2022
|
||
|
||
### Coverage
|
||
- **117,672 wells** in **27 states**
|
||
- States: AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY
|
||
|
||
### Orphaned Well Definition
|
||
Varies by state. Included if state designates as orphaned, or if ALL of the following apply:
|
||
1. No production for average of 12 months (6–24 months depending on state)
|
||
2. Well is unplugged
|
||
3. No responsible party for future use or plugging
|
||
4. Location is documented
|
||
|
||
### Data Collection Method
|
||
- Direct requests to state oil and gas regulatory agencies (email, phone, or website download)
|
||
- Location format conversion performed using BLM Township Decoder and KGS LEO 7.0 (Kansas and Montana only)
|
||
- No other manipulations beyond reformatting and explanatory notes
|
||
|
||
### State Agencies (27 sources)
|
||
|
||
| State | Agency | Data Description |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| AL | Alabama Oil and Gas Board | Abandoned wells |
|
||
| AK | Alaska Oil and Gas Compact Commission | Orphan wells |
|
||
| AR | Arkansas Dept. of Transformation and Shared Services GIS | Abandoned orphan wells |
|
||
| CA | CA Dept. of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) | Idle wells |
|
||
| CO | Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission | Orphan wells |
|
||
| IL | Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources | Temporarily abandoned wells |
|
||
| IN | Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources | Orphan abandoned wells |
|
||
| KS | Kansas Corporation Commission | Abandoned wells |
|
||
| KY | Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet | Orphan wells |
|
||
| LA | Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources | Orphan wells |
|
||
| MI | Michigan Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) | Orphan wells |
|
||
| MS | Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board | Orphan and potentially orphan wells |
|
||
| MO | Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources | Orphan and abandoned wells |
|
||
| MT | Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation | Orphan wells |
|
||
| NE | Nebraska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission | Abandoned and shut-in wells |
|
||
| NV | Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology | Abandoned and shut-in wells |
|
||
| NM | New Mexico Oil Conservation Division | Orphan wells |
|
||
| NY | NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation | Unknown status wells |
|
||
| ND | North Dakota Dept. of Mineral Resources | Abandoned wells |
|
||
| OH | Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources | Orphan and potential orphan wells |
|
||
| OK | Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Oil and Gas Conservation | Orphan wells |
|
||
| PA | Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection | Orphan wells |
|
||
| TN | Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation | Forfeited wells |
|
||
| TX | Texas Railroad Commission | Orphan wells |
|
||
| UT | Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining | Orphan wells |
|
||
| WV | West Virginia Dept. of Environmental Protection | Abandoned wells |
|
||
| WY | Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission | Orphan wells |
|
||
|
||
### Data Quality Notes
|
||
|
||
**Coordinate accuracy:** No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted. Coordinates are state-provided. Some were converted from PLSS descriptions using BLM/KGS tools (KS, MT).
|
||
|
||
**Type field completeness:** 9 states submitted data without type classification (blank field): OH, PA, KY, KS, IN, NM, TN, AK, and Oklahoma has ~1,081 blank rows. These are coded `Unknown/Unspecified` in `well_type_normalized`. This is a source-data limitation, not a processing error.
|
||
|
||
**Status terminology:** Status language is not standardized across states. Ranges from "Abandoned Orphaned Well" (explicit) to "AB" (code), "Idle" (CA usage), or state-specific terms. Do not compare status values cross-state without normalization.
|
||
|
||
**Alaska wells (12):** Very small count; Alaska data may underrepresent actual orphaned well inventory.
|
||
|
||
**California wells (3,338):** Classified as "Idle" per CalGEM definition — California's statutory definition of idle wells differs from other states' orphan definitions. May warrant separate treatment in analysis.
|
||
|
||
**File checksums (MD5):**
|
||
- `US_orphaned_wells.csv`: `52539416efe461884034fb8d9bb184b2`
|
||
- `US_orphaned_wells.zip`: `5a454abeae6d11bd837e3c5c29cb1ea0`
|
||
- `US_orphaned_wells.xml`: `1122b28bb82aea35c880f643c3570335`
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Census Tracts: 2021 TIGER/Line Cartographic Boundary File
|
||
|
||
**Source:** U.S. Census Bureau
|
||
**File:** `cb_2021_us_tract_500k` (1:500,000 scale)
|
||
**Coverage:** 85,230 tracts, all 50 states + DC + territories
|
||
**CRS:** NAD83 (EPSG:4269), reprojected to WGS84 (EPSG:4326) for database storage
|
||
**Vintage:** 2021 (aligns with 2017–2021 ACS 5-year estimates)
|
||
**Download:** https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/cartographic-boundary.html
|
||
|
||
### Spatial Join Notes
|
||
- 117,156 of 117,672 wells (99.6%) matched via `ST_Within`
|
||
- 516 wells on tract boundaries resolved via `ST_DWithin` (5km) then KNN (`<->`)
|
||
- 4 wells on state borders were misassigned to neighboring state tracts and manually corrected to match USGS state attribution
|
||
|
||
### ACS Join Key
|
||
Use `wells.tract_geoid` (= `census_tracts.geoid`, 11-digit FIPS) to join to any ACS table. The 2021 5-year estimates are the recommended vintage.
|
||
|
||
**Suggested ACS tables for EJ analysis:**
|
||
|
||
| Table | Content |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| B19013 | Median household income |
|
||
| B03002 | Race and Hispanic/Latino origin |
|
||
| B17001 | Poverty status |
|
||
| B25035 | Median year structure built (housing age proxy) |
|
||
| B23025 | Employment status |
|
||
| B15003 | Educational attainment |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Plugging Cost Estimates
|
||
|
||
### Raimi et al. (2021) — Primary Reference
|
||
|
||
**Citation:**
|
||
Raimi, D., Krupnick, A., Shah, J.S., and Thompson, A., 2021, Decommissioning Orphaned and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells: New Estimates and Cost Drivers. *Environmental Science & Technology*, 55(15), 10224–10230. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02234
|
||
|
||
**Organization:** Resources for the Future (RFF)
|
||
**Estimates:** Low $9,000 / Median $76,000 / High $280,000 per well
|
||
**Method:** Bottom-up engineering cost model using 2.1 million documented wells; variables include depth, casing, age, location, regulatory requirements.
|
||
**Scope:** National (onshore U.S.)
|
||
**Use in this project:** Primary basis for `state_liability` calculated fields.
|
||
|
||
### EPA OLEM (2018)
|
||
|
||
Older EPA estimate widely cited in policy documents. Central estimate $25,000. Considered low by most recent literature due to pre-inflation data and exclusion of complex well types. Use with caution.
|
||
|
||
### Carbon Tracker (2020)
|
||
|
||
**Citation:** Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2020. *Fault Lines: How Diverging Oil and Gas Company Strategies Link to Stranded Asset Risk.*
|
||
Emphasizes investor/financial risk framing; useful for Chapter 5 stranded asset discussion.
|
||
|
||
### IOGCC (2023)
|
||
|
||
State-reported figures aggregated by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Methodology varies significantly by state; use for within-state comparisons, not cross-state.
|
||
|
||
### Pennsylvania DEP (2022)
|
||
|
||
Actual program expenditure data from PA DEP plugging contracts 2016–2022. Mid estimate $68,000. PA is one of the most data-rich state programs and can serve as a benchmark for high-documentation states.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## IIJA / Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding
|
||
|
||
**Legislation:** Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, signed November 15, 2021
|
||
**Program:** Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Program
|
||
**Administering agency:** Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Dept. of the Interior
|
||
**Total appropriation:** $4.7 billion over 5 years
|
||
|
||
### Program Structure
|
||
|
||
| Phase | Amount | Mechanism | Status |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| Initial grants | $25 million | Formula to states with existing programs | Announced 2021 |
|
||
| Phase 1 formula grants | $150 million | Formula based on documented well counts | Announced Nov 2022 |
|
||
| Phase 2 performance grants | $4.275 billion | Competitive, based on state plugging performance | Ongoing |
|
||
| Federal lands | $115 million | OSMRE direct plugging on federal land | Ongoing |
|
||
|
||
**Phase 1 per-state allocations in `state_liability.iija_phase1_formula_usd`** are approximate figures from DOI press releases (Nov 2022). Verify exact amounts from official OSMRE grant letters before publication.
|
||
**Source:** https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases
|
||
|
||
### Coverage Gap
|
||
Using Raimi et al. (2021) median estimates ($76,000/well × 117,672 wells):
|
||
- **Estimated national liability:** ~$8.94 billion
|
||
- **IIJA Phase 1 total:** ~$310 million
|
||
- **Coverage:** ~3.5% of median estimated liability
|
||
|
||
This gap is the central financial argument of Chapter 5.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## State Governance Data (RA-collected)
|
||
|
||
### Transition Offices
|
||
|
||
**Source:** Climate Policy Dashboard — Just Transition Offices and Staff
|
||
https://www.climatepolicydashboard.org/policies/climate-governance-equity/just-transition-offices-and-staff
|
||
**Coding protocol:** See `Undergrad Student Instructions.md` in project research files
|
||
**Coded by:** Julian Tong, RA
|
||
**PI supervision:** Dr. David P. Adams
|
||
|
||
### Plugging Prioritization Schemes
|
||
|
||
**Source:** IOGCC Prioritization Report, July 10, 2023
|
||
https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/iogcc/documents/publications/prioritization_report_7.10.23.pdf
|
||
**Coding protocol:** See `Undergrad Student Instructions.md`
|
||
**Coded by:** Julian Tong, RA
|
||
|
||
### Theoretical Framework
|
||
|
||
The engineering/justice typology (Adams) classifies state prioritization approaches:
|
||
|
||
- **Engineering:** Prioritizes technical risk factors (methane, groundwater, pressure) without explicit equity/density dimensions
|
||
- **Justice:** Explicitly incorporates DAC scores, EJ indexes, or disadvantaged community status into scoring
|
||
- **Mixed (density-aware):** Uses population density or urban/rural classification but not explicit EJ language
|
||
|
||
The `v_state_governance.framework_type` column implements this classification automatically from RA-coded variables.
|