IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-26-07.html

Costs and Benefits of Decommissioning Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells: Evidence from Six States

Author

Listed:
  • Raimi, Daniel

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Cilento, Christina

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

In 2021, the US federal government provided billions of dollars to decommission orphaned oil and gas well sites. This program was touted by federal policymakers from both major political parties as a “win-win” for the environmental and economic benefits it would provide. In this analysis, we examine the costs and benefits of that program using data from roughly 2,150 well sites across six states. We estimate the effects of this spending on employment, methane abatement, and property values. On average, decommissioning costs were roughly $67,000 per well site, but with wide variation. Nine sites exceeded $1 million, while five sites reported the lowest costs of just $1,000. Total costs were roughly $145 million, and we estimate benefits on the order of $30 to $40 million, mostly from higher property values. For the small number of wells where methane was measured, decommissioning costs exceeded the social benefits of methane abatement in 75 to 80 percent of cases. Our results should be interpreted with caution because of extensive data limitations and the sensitivity of results to key methodological assumptions. Prioritizing decommissioning for wells with the highest environmental impacts, such as high rates of methane emissions, would easily pass cost–benefit tests in most cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Raimi, Daniel & Cilento, Christina, 2026. "Costs and Benefits of Decommissioning Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells: Evidence from Six States," RFF Working Paper Series 26-07, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-26-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/5245/WP_26-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-26-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.