Environmentalists Should Favor Fracking, Says Berkeley Professor
It would be a great mistake to leave shale gas out of the Paris climate conference's agenda, said Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. Natural Gas Europe had the pleasure to speak with him about shale gas in the United States, Europe and China. Muller, author of the book Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking, suggested that shale gas offers the second best approach to greenhouse gas mitigation. According to him, renewables are still too expensive, especially for poor nations.
Professor Muller, in your book Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking, you argue that the consequences of global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by shale gas developments under appropriate regulation. Do you think that the US regulation is appropriate?
US regulation is state-by-state. Some states (e.g. New York, New Jersey) currently have a moratorium on fracking - as does France. A moratorium is an overreaction that spreads undue concern. It is sufficient to institutionalize industry best practice. Regulations need to focus on the release of flowback and produced water from the wells, to assure that any water released to the environment has been properly purified and treated. No natural gas should be vented, but flaring is acceptable.
What are your views on the European laws about fracking? Do you believe they guarantee safe developments?
I am not familiar with those laws, except to the extent that they prohibit fracking.
In your book you refer to the positive global consequences of shale gas developments. Are there any geographical areas for which the disadvantages are more evident than the advantages?
Not that I am aware of.
When you speak about Chinese shale gas you sound pretty optimistic. Do you think that water dearth could be a problem for developments in some Chinese regions?
No, because all the shale regions have good supplies of underground brines. There is no need to use fresh water. US practice has been rapidly shifting away from fresh water use.
You also state that the high price paid in China and Europe for importing natural gas opens the doors to shale explorations. Can the development of liquefied natural gas impact negatively on the attractiveness of shale gas?
I expect just the opposite. LNG is typically expensive, and in the US, the presence of shale gas has destroyed the import market for LNG. In fact, our import facilities are currently being converted for export.
You also quote the data by the Health Effects Institute suggesting that air pollution led to 3.2 million deaths in 2010. Do you think that there could be/there are deaths related to fracking?
The air pollution from natural gas is reduced by a factor of 400 (direct PM2.5) to 4000 (indirect PM2.5 from SO2). So there would still be air pollution, but greatly reduced. There need be no adverse health effects from water pollution, if it is properly regulated. The local illnesses claimed in the movie “Gasland” were all false.
What is your message to environmentalists who suggest that our society should decrease its reliance on fossil fuels, and focus on renewable energies?
The poor nations can’t afford that option yet. We need time for the costs of renewables (including their required energy storage means) to drop further. The developed world should emphasize technology that the developing world can afford to adopt. That means that we need to bring down the cost of natural gas further, and that can be done by continuing to develop the fracking technology.
Can the revival of the World Trade Organization ease multilateral agreements? Do you think that the recent success in Bali can pave the way to successful negotiations in 2014 at the Paris climate conference?
I am optimistic. The WTO can recognize the benefits of shale gas, and help create universal standards that can keep the local pollution dangers to an acceptable level.
Do you think that shale gas should be included in the agenda of the Paris climate conference?
It would be a great mistake to leave it out. Shale gas offers the second best approach to greenhouse gas mitigation. The best approach is energy conservation. The two together offer great hope.
Sergio Matalucci