Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Ecosystem services benefits from the restoration of non-producing US oil and gas lands

Nature Sustainability volume 4, pages 547–554 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Fossil fuel infrastructure has important land-use impacts within the United States, including the environmental consequences of affected land that persists beyond the lifespan of wells. Here, we estimate the ecoregion-specific fifty-year present-value net benefits of restoring lands that are associated with non-producing wells in the conterminous United States on the basis of select ecosystem services—agricultural sales and carbon sequestration. We identify more than 430,000 restorable wells that occupy more than 800,000 ha of land. The present value of ecosystem services benefits was US$21 billion (2018) while the restoration costs were US$7 billion. Deciduous forests, grasslands and Mediterranean ecoregions had large net benefits, whereas arid and semi-arid regions were often negative. Focusing on select ecoregions of the United States would provide higher returns on investment in the form of environmental and economic benefits. Although our results suggest an ecoregional hierarchy, the restoration of all abandoned fossil fuel lands will have benefits at the local, regional and national scales, including food security, protection of biodiversity and restoration-related job opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The effects of oil and gas development on landscapes across the United States.
Fig. 2: The benefits and costs of oil and gas lands eligible for restoration over a fifty-year time period.
Fig. 3: Map of restoration values in EPA Level II ecoregions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Raw data calculations and ecoregion information are available at Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ksn02v738). Questions about these data should be directed to the corresponding author. Individual well information is proprietary, but available on subscription to https://www.enverus.com/. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Allred, B. W. et al. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science 348, 401–402 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Trainor, A. M., McDonald, R. I. & Fargione, J. Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS ONE 11, e0162269 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Moran, M. D., Taylor, N. T., Mullins, T. F., Sardar, S. S. & McClung, M. R. Land−use and ecosystem services costs of unconventional US oil and gas development. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 237–242 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Covert, T., Greenstone, M. & Knittel, C. R. Will we ever stop using fossil fuels? J. Econ. Perspect. 30, 117–138 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hosseini, S. H. & Shakouri, H. A study on the future of unconventional oil development under different oil price scenarios: a system dynamics approach. Energ. Policy 91, 64–74 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. EIA Tight Oil Estimates by Play (US Energy Information Administration, 2020); https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php#crude

  7. Jordaan, S. M., Keith, D. W. & Stelfox, B. Quantifying land use of oil sands production: a life cycle perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 024004 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kreuter, U. P. et al. Framework for comparing ecosystem impacts of developing unconventional energy resources on western US rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manage. 65, 433–443 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McClung, M. R. et al. The threat of energy diversification to a bioregion: a landscape-level analysis of current and future impacts on the US Chihuahuan Desert. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 1949–1962 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drohan, P. J., Brittingham, M., Bishop, J. & Yoder, K. Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians. Environ. Manage. 49, 1061–1075 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Butt, N. et al. Biodiversity risks from fossil fuel extraction. Science 342, 425–426 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Machol, B. & Rizk, S. Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity health impacts. Environ. Int. 52, 75–80 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson, D. M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S. & Mattar, L. Analysis of production data from fractured shale gas wells. In Proc. SPE Unconventional Gas Conference SPE-131787-MS (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010); https://doi.org/10.2118/131787-MS

  14. Cooper, J., Stamford, L. & Azapagic, A. Shale gas: a review of the economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Energ. Technol. 4, 772–792 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kang, M. et al. Direct measurements of methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18173–18177 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fry, M., Brannstrom, C. & Sakinejad, M. Suburbanization and shale gas wells: patterns, planning perspectives, and reverse setback policies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 168, 9–21 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackson, R. E. et al. Groundwater protection and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field‐based hydrogeological research. Groundwater 51, 488–510 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Alker, S., Joy, V., Roberts, P. & Smith, N. The definition of brownfield. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 43, 49–69 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell, A. L. & Casman, E. A. Economic incentives and regulatory framework for shale gas well site reclamation in Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Tech. 45, 9506–9514 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. What is Ecological Restoration? (Society for Ecological Restoration, 2020); https://www.ser-rrc.org/what-is-ecological-restoration/

  21. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. The Gold Book (Bureau of Land Management, 2007); http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/viewpub.php?id=52

  22. Chilingar, G. V. & Endres, B. Environmental hazards posed by the Los Angeles Basin urban oilfields: an historical perspective of lessons learned. Environ. Geol. 47, 302–317 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh, K. B. Split estate and Wyoming’s orphaned well crisis: the case of coalbed methane reclamation in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Case Stud. Environ. 1, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brandt, A. R. et al. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343, 733–735 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Riddick, S. N. et al. Measuring methane emissions from abandoned and active oil and gas wells in West Virginia. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 1849–1856 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Andersen, M. & Coupal, R. Economic issues and policies affecting reclamation in Wyoming’s oil and gas industry. In Proc. 2009 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation - Revitalizing the Environment: Proven Solutions and Innovative Approaches (ed. Barnhisel, R. I.) 1–17 (American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2009); https://go.nature.com/2NS8D24

  27. Davis, L. W. Policy monitor—bonding requirements for US natural gas producers. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 9, 128–144 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ecoregions (EPA, 2018); https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions

  29. Olmstead, A. L. & Rhode, P. W. A History of California Agriculture (Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Univ. California, 2017).

  30. Stern, N. The economics of climate change. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 1–37 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yi, H., Güneralp, B., Filippi, A. M., Kreuter, U. P. & Güneralp, İ. Impacts of land change on ecosystem services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol. Econ. 135, 125–135 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Moran, M. D., Cox, A. B., Wells, R. L., Benichou, C. C. & McClung, M. R. Habitat loss and modification due to gas development in the Fayetteville Shale. Environ. Manage. 55, 1276–1284 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kumar, A. Impact of oil booms and busts on human capital investment in the USA. Empir. Econ. 52, 1089–1114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018 (EPA, 2020); https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018

  35. Veldman, J. W. et al. Tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 65, 1011–1018 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McClung, M. R. & Moran, M. D. Understanding and mitigating impacts of unconventional oil and gas development on land-use and ecosystem services in the US. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 3, 19–26 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Boxall, P. C., Chan, W. H. & McMillan, M. L. The impact of oil and natural gas facilities on rural residential property values: a spatial hedonic analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 27, 248–269 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gopalakrishnan, S. & Klaiber, H. A. Is the shale energy boom a bust for nearby residents? Evidence from housing values in Pennsylvania. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 96, 43–66 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McKenzie, L. M. et al. Birth outcomes and maternal residential proximity to natural gas development in rural Colorado. Environ. Health Perspect. 122, 412–417 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jemielita, T. et al. Unconventional gas and oil drilling is associated with increased hospital utilization rates. PLoS ONE 10, e0137371 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Grover, H. D. & Musick, H. B. Shrubland encroachment in southern New Mexico, USA: an analysis of desertification processes in the American Southwest. Clim. Change 17, 305–330 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Teague, W. R. et al. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 156–164 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Palmer, M. A. et al. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327, 148–149 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Barlow, N. L., Kirol, C. P. & Fedy, B. C. Avian community response to landscape-scale habitat reclamation. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108850 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ott, J. P. et al. Energy development in the Great Plains: implications and mitigation opportunities. Rangel. Ecol. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.05.003 (2020).

  47. Enverus Platforms and Products (Enverus, 2019); https://www.enverus.com/industry/exploration-and-production/

  48. Nallur, V., McClung, M. R. & Moran, M. D. Potential for reclamation of abandoned gas wells to restore ecosystem services in the Fayetteville Shale of Arkansas. Environ. Manage. 66, 180–190 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Muehlenbachs, L. A dynamic model of cleanup: estimating sunk costs in oil and gas production. Int. Econ. Rev. 56, 155–185 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Höök, M., Hirsch, R. & Aleklett, K. Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world oil production. Energy Policy 37, 2262–2272 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Preston, T. M. & Kim, K. Land cover changes associated with recent energy development in the Williston Basin; Northern Great Plains, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 1511–1518 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fisher, B. & Turner, R. K. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 141, 1167–1169 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Janisch, J. E. & Harmon, M. E. Successional changes in live and dead wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiol. 22, 77–89 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Keith, H. et al. Managing temperate forests for carbon storage: impacts of logging versus forest protection on carbon stocks. Ecosphere 5, 1–34 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Peet, R. K. in Forest Succession (eds West, D. C. et al.) 324–338 (Springer, 1981).

  57. Houghton, R. A. The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850–1990. Tellus B 51, 298–313 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yan, Y. Integrate carbon dynamic models in analyzing carbon sequestration impact of forest biomass harvest. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 581–587 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Avirmed, O., Lauenroth, W. K., Burke, I. C. & Mobley, M. L. Sagebrush steppe recovery on 30–90‐year‐old abandoned oil and gas wells. Ecosphere 6, 1–10 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Auffhammer, M. Quantifying economic damages from climate change. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 33–52 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Greenstone, M., Kopits, E. & Wolverton, A. Developing a social cost of carbon for US regulatory analysis: a methodology and interpretation. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7, 23–46 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Social Cost of Carbon: Identifying a Federal Entity to Address the National Academies’ Recommendations Could Strengthen Regulatory Analysis GAO-20-254 (US Government Accountability Office, 2020).

  63. NASS Census of Agriculture (US Department of Agriculture, 2017); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/CDQT/chapter/1/table/

  64. Haggerty, J. H. et al. Tradeoffs, balancing, and adaptation in the agriculture-oil and gas nexus: Insights from farmers and ranchers in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 84–92 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. McGranahan, D. A., Fernando, F. N. & Kirkwood, M. L. Reflections on a boom: perceptions of energy development impacts in the Bakken oil patch inform environmental science & policy priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 599, 1993–2018 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Swinton, S. M. et al. Economic Value of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture. The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).

  67. Crutzen, P. J., Aselmann, I. & Seiler, W. Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous fauna, and humans. Tellus B 38, 271–284 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stoy, P. C. et al. Methane efflux from an American bison herd. Biogeosciences 18, 961–975 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to Reclaim Orphaned Wells GAO-10-245 (US Government Accountability Office, 2010); https://www.gao.gov/assets/310/300223.html/

  70. USFWS & NPS Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Project Proposal (US Department of the Interior, 2014); https://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/Abandoned%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Well%20Plugging%20and%20Site%20Reclamation.pdf

  71. Well Site Cleanup (OERB, 2018); https://oerb.com/well-site-clean-up

  72. NASS Farm Resources, Income, and Expenses (US Department of Agriculture, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2019/chapter09.pdf

  73. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Taylor, N. T., Davis, K. M., Abad, H., McClung, M. R. & Moran, M. D. Ecosystem services of the Big Bend region of the Chihuahuan Desert. Ecosyst. Serv. 27, 48–57 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Miller, R. E. & Peter, D. B. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  76. Breisinger, C., Thomas, M. & Thurlow, J. Social Accounting Matrices and Multiplier Analysis: An Introduction With Exercises Vol. 5 (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2009).

  77. Benedek, Z., Fertő, I. & Szente, V. The multiplier effects of food relocalization: a systematic review. Sustainability 12, 3524 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Awokuse, T. O., Ilvento, T. W. & Johnston, Z. The Impact of Agriculture on Delaware’s Economy (Univ. Delaware College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2010).

  79. Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II User Guide (US Department of Commerce, 2013).

  80. Burney, S. & Davis, A. The Importance of Agriculture for Kentucky (Univ. Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, 2015).

  81. Clymer, A., Briggeman, B. & Leatherman, J. The Contribution of Farmer Cooperatives to the Kansas Economy (Kansas State Univ., 2019).

  82. Deller, S. C. Wisconsin and the Agricultural Economy (Univ. Wisconsin-Madison, 2004).

  83. Ferris, J. & Lynch, L. The Impact of Agriculture Maryland’s Economy (Univ. Maryland Center for Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy, 2013).

  84. Ferris, J. N. An Analysis of the Importance of Agriculture and the Food Sector to the Michigan Economy (Michigan State Univ., 2000).

  85. Gabe, T. M., McConnon, J. C. & Kersbergen, R. Economic contribution of Maine’s food industry. Maine Policy Rev. 20, 36–45 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kinghorn, M. The Economic Contributions of Indiana Agriculture (Indiana Business Research Center, Indiana Univ. Kelley School of Business, 2015).

  87. Lopez, R., Joglekar, D. & Zhu, C. Economic Impacts of Connecticut’s Agricultural Industry (Univ. Connecticut, 2010).

  88. Mortensen, J. Economic Impacts of Agricultural Production in Arizona (Univ. Arizona, 2004).

  89. Rahe, M., Van Dis, K., Weiland, J. & Gwin, L. Economic Impact of Local Food Producers in Central Oregon (Oregon State Univ., 2017).

  90. Schmit, T. The Economic Contributions of Agriculture in New York State (2014) (Cornell Univ. College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, 2016).

  91. Shideler, D. Contribution of Agriculture to Oklahoma’s Economy: 2015 (Oklahoma State Univ., 2015).

  92. Swenson, D. & Eathington, L. Multiple Measures of the Role of Agriculture in Iowa’s Economy (College of Agriculture, Iowa State Univ., 2002).

  93. Taylor, G. The Economic Impact of Agriculture on the Economy of South Dakota (South Dakota State Univ., 2008).

  94. Thompson, E., Johnson, B. & Giri, A. The 2010 Economic Impact of the Nebraska Agricultural Production Complex (Univ. Nebraska, 2010).

  95. Vukovic, T. Economic Analysis of the Food and Agriculture Sector in Nevada (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2019).

  96. Johnson, K. A. et al. Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecol. Econ. 79, 71–79 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Enverus for providing complimentary access to their well database. S. M. Jordaan and W. E. Snyder provided feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sofia Varriano

    Present address: College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

  2. Luke H. Lefler & Varenya Nallur

    Present address: College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Economics, Hendrix College, Conway, AR, USA

    William Haden Chomphosy

  2. Department of Biology and Health Sciences, Hendrix College, Conway, AR, USA

    Sofia Varriano, Luke H. Lefler, Varenya Nallur, Maureen R. McClung & Matthew D. Moran

Authors
  1. William Haden Chomphosy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sofia Varriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luke H. Lefler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Varenya Nallur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maureen R. McClung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew D. Moran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.H.C., M.D.M. and M.R.M. designed the study. S.V., L.H.L. and V.N. collected data. W.H.C., M.D.M. and M.R.M. designed models, analysed data and were the primary writers. All of the authors edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew D. Moran.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Julia Haggerty, Urs Kreuter, Mark Paschke and Srikanta Sannigrahi for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–3 and Figs. 1 and 2.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Excel file of raw data used to generate Fig. 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haden Chomphosy, W., Varriano, S., Lefler, L.H. et al. Ecosystem services benefits from the restoration of non-producing US oil and gas lands. Nat Sustain 4, 547–554 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00689-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00689-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene