Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

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


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.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

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.

Data availability

Raw data calculations and ecoregion information are available at Dryad ( Questions about these data should be directed to the corresponding author. Individual well information is proprietary, but available on subscription to Source data are provided with this paper.


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

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  6. EIA Tight Oil Estimates by Play (US Energy Information Administration, 2020);

  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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    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);

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

    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).

    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).

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. What is Ecological Restoration? (Society for Ecological Restoration, 2020);

  21. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. The Gold Book (Bureau of Land Management, 2007);

  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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    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);

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ecoregions (EPA, 2018);

  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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  34. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018 (EPA, 2020);

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ott, J. P. et al. Energy development in the Great Plains: implications and mitigation opportunities. Rangel. Ecol. Manage. (2020).

  47. Enverus Platforms and Products (Enverus, 2019);

  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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    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).

    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);

  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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bonding Requirements and BLM Expenditures to Reclaim Orphaned Wells GAO-10-245 (US Government Accountability Office, 2010);

  70. USFWS & NPS Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Project Proposal (US Department of the Interior, 2014);

  71. Well Site Cleanup (OERB, 2018);

  72. NASS Farm Resources, Income, and Expenses (US Department of Agriculture, 2019);

  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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    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).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


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

Authors and Affiliations



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

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).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

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