Read Jim Emberger's full article at www.noshalegasnb.ca/opinion-we-dont-need-a-review-on-shale-gas
As Originally Published Telegraph Journal, September 24, 2026
As Originally Published Telegraph Journal, September 24, 2026
Locations of wells around Hillsborough, one in close proximity to village water supplies. Fracking, the process of producing shale gas, has been a somewhat hotly debated issue in New Brunswick and that discussion is deeply personal for members of Albert County. Albert County sits on shale formations that have been identified as containing natural gas potential. Before the provincial moratorium in 2014, our region had several exploration wells dug in places like Albert Mines and Rosevale, with active hydraulic fracturing associated with oil development in the Stoney Creek area.
In an opinion piece written by Jim Emberger of the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance and originally published in the Telegraph Journal on September 24, 2026, Emberger argues that New Brunswick does not need a new review of its shale gas moratorium. He maintains that developments over the past decade have strengthened the reasons for maintaining the moratorium rather than created a case for reconsidering it.
Emberger begins by questioning Premier Susan Holt’s decision to put the moratorium under review. He notes that Holt had previously defended the reasons for the moratorium and referred to shale gas as a “last century fuel.” He argues that reopening the issue, with the explanation that “things have changed,” does not justify the expense of another review.
A major focus of Emberger’s argument is water. He points to changes in the amount of water required for hydraulic fracturing, writing that an average shale gas well used approximately 3,000 cubic metres of water in 2008, compared with nearly 24,000 cubic metres according to 2024 industry figures. He argues that this increase is particularly concerning in areas experiencing drought.
Emberger also raises concerns about the wastewater produced through hydraulic fracturing. He describes it as “dangerously contaminated for humans, and prohibitively expensive to clean,” and argues that underground injection does not necessarily permanently contain the wastewater. According to his commentary, research has also raised concerns about migration of injected wastewater and earthquakes associated with pressurized disposal wells.
Health research is another central part of the article. Emberger argues that there is now considerably more long-term research available than there was when the moratorium was introduced. He writes that the past decade has produced “dozens of long-term, peer-reviewed studies” examining health effects associated with shale gas extraction. He further states that:
“Virtually every public health and medical institution in the province has officially and publicly informed the government of this new knowledge.”
Emberger also challenges the idea of natural gas as a transitional or “bridge” fuel. He points to methane leakage throughout the natural gas infrastructure and argues that improved measurement technology has shown greater leakage than previously estimated. In his words:
“Few outside the fossil fuel industry now view gas as a ‘bridge fuel,’ particularly now that available renewable energy is a proven, cheaper, climate friendly alternative.”
The author connects the shale gas debate to broader concerns about climate change, including droughts, forest fires, floods and extreme storms experienced in Atlantic Canada. He argues that the province should be reducing greenhouse gas emissions rather than considering policies that could contribute to additional emissions.
Emberger ultimately maintains that the original conditions surrounding the shale gas moratorium have not been met. He concludes:
“The moratorium conditions concerning people, health, science, safety and environment obviously cannot be met.”
He argues that, as a result, there is no justification for conducting another fiscal review of the moratorium.
At the time of publication the results of whether or not to lift the moratorium are not clear. However, if you would like to voice your concern to members of government, you can do so by going to www.sierraclub.ca where you will find drafter letters, forms, and contact information to help you do so.
Emberger begins by questioning Premier Susan Holt’s decision to put the moratorium under review. He notes that Holt had previously defended the reasons for the moratorium and referred to shale gas as a “last century fuel.” He argues that reopening the issue, with the explanation that “things have changed,” does not justify the expense of another review.
A major focus of Emberger’s argument is water. He points to changes in the amount of water required for hydraulic fracturing, writing that an average shale gas well used approximately 3,000 cubic metres of water in 2008, compared with nearly 24,000 cubic metres according to 2024 industry figures. He argues that this increase is particularly concerning in areas experiencing drought.
Emberger also raises concerns about the wastewater produced through hydraulic fracturing. He describes it as “dangerously contaminated for humans, and prohibitively expensive to clean,” and argues that underground injection does not necessarily permanently contain the wastewater. According to his commentary, research has also raised concerns about migration of injected wastewater and earthquakes associated with pressurized disposal wells.
Health research is another central part of the article. Emberger argues that there is now considerably more long-term research available than there was when the moratorium was introduced. He writes that the past decade has produced “dozens of long-term, peer-reviewed studies” examining health effects associated with shale gas extraction. He further states that:
“Virtually every public health and medical institution in the province has officially and publicly informed the government of this new knowledge.”
Emberger also challenges the idea of natural gas as a transitional or “bridge” fuel. He points to methane leakage throughout the natural gas infrastructure and argues that improved measurement technology has shown greater leakage than previously estimated. In his words:
“Few outside the fossil fuel industry now view gas as a ‘bridge fuel,’ particularly now that available renewable energy is a proven, cheaper, climate friendly alternative.”
The author connects the shale gas debate to broader concerns about climate change, including droughts, forest fires, floods and extreme storms experienced in Atlantic Canada. He argues that the province should be reducing greenhouse gas emissions rather than considering policies that could contribute to additional emissions.
Emberger ultimately maintains that the original conditions surrounding the shale gas moratorium have not been met. He concludes:
“The moratorium conditions concerning people, health, science, safety and environment obviously cannot be met.”
He argues that, as a result, there is no justification for conducting another fiscal review of the moratorium.
At the time of publication the results of whether or not to lift the moratorium are not clear. However, if you would like to voice your concern to members of government, you can do so by going to www.sierraclub.ca where you will find drafter letters, forms, and contact information to help you do so.
RSS Feed