MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297259270 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c03268

Documented Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells Across the United States

2022· article· en· W4297259270 on OpenAlexafffund
Jade Boutot, Adam Peltz, Renee C. McVay, Mary Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesEnvironmental Defense FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsWater wellFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceGeologyGroundwaterEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orphaned oil and gas wells are unplugged nonproducing wells with no solvent owner of record to plug and mitigate them, such that the responsibility often falls on government agencies and the general public. Unplugged wells pose risks to the environment, climate, and human health. To develop a national framework to quantify the environmental benefits of plugging and optimize mitigation, we analyze oil and gas well data from state agencies across the United States to estimate the number of documented orphaned wells over time and evaluate their attributes. We find at least 81,857 documented orphaned wells as of September 2021 and 123,318 as of April 2022, representing 2% and 3%, respectively, of all estimated abandoned wells in the United States. We identify at least 20,286 potentially documented orphaned wells as of September 2021 (0.5% of all estimated abandoned wells in the country), of which 8% became documented orphaned wells as of April 2022. We estimate annual methane emissions to average 0.016 ± 0.001 MMt of CH4 for the 123,318 documented orphaned wells as of April 2022, corresponding to 5–6% of the total methane emissions estimated by the U.S. EPA for all abandoned wells. Although well type (i.e., oil vs gas) is generally available (83% of the 81,857 documented orphaned wells as of September 2021), only 49% and 16% of the wells have information on depth and last production date, respectively. Overall, documented orphaned wells and their attributes, including location, well type, depth, and last production date, require additional characterization and studies to constrain the uncertainties. Nevertheless, our identification and analysis of documented orphaned wells represent the first steps toward characterizing the full set of wells eligible to be plugged and remediated with the federal funding available in the U.S. via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Our results can also be useful for the management of the hundreds of thousands, potentially a million, undocumented orphaned wells likely to exist across the nation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207