Most Asked Questions

The Case Against Shale Gas

The following letter was sent to New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant and members of the Liberal Caucus on 22 February 2016.

Dear Premier Gallant:

The Commission on Hydrofracking will soon submit its report and the government will make its decision on the future of shale gas in the province.   We have to ask: “After 5 years of examining the pros and cons, what evidence has accumulated to support each side?”

To answer this question we have put together a short summary of the latest news and scientific information on a few of the major issues at the heart of the discussion.  We hope you will take the ten minutes necessary to read the attached document.

The  executive summary follows.

Read More…

Shale Gas Experiment – Dr. John Cherry Presentation

Video of Dr. John Cherry’s ‘Shale Gas Experiment” presentation in Fredericton, November 17, 2015.  See our previous post for details, written statements and press coverage of Dr. Cherry’s visit. Thanks to Rob Turgeon (Apple Hill Video), who enabled us to provide the full presentation online.

 

Read More…

The Shale Gas Experiment

“From my hydrogeological perspective, shale gas development should be viewed as a big experiment for which we have minimal scientific basis for predicting the outcome for impacts on groundwater quality of stray gas.”
~Dr. John Cherry

In recent years, New Brunswick media have been filled with the opinions and scientific claims of both opponents and supporters of shale gas development. To provide clarity about some of these claims and to continue its efforts to bring objective science on the issue of shale gas to the citizens of New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance invited respected hydrogeologist, Dr. John Cherry to Fredericton.

Read More…

All the facts about fracking impact not in yet

JIM EMBERGER COMMENTARY
The Daily Gleaner, October 31, 2015 

In its letter to the New Brunswick Commission on Hydrofracturing (reference “‘Social license’ needs definition, say Tories”, by Adam Huras, Telegraph Journal, 17 October 2015, ), the Progressive Conservative party asks for an explanation on how “clear and credible information about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on health, environment, and water can be obtained without hydraulic fracturing occurring in New Brunswick.”

It’s amazing that educated people would ask such a nonsensical question. When confronting a high-risk situation only a fool would ignore the experiences of others who have faced and studied those risks.

Read More…

Shale Gas Lobbyists ignore implications for public health, ethics and will of the people

Tory MLA shamelessly urges breaking of campaign promise

MONCTON, NB (18 March 2015) – The supporters of the shale gas industry – the industry itself, the PC-Opposition energy and various editorialists – have lately been calling for the lifting of the moratorium. Their sole, well-worn and questionable economic argument for this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the two basic reasons for a moratorium in the first place.

The primary reason for a moratorium is concern for public health. Increasingly numerous peer-reviewed studies have now associated shale gas extraction with a host of serious health problems from cancer to congenital heart defects, which is cause enough for alarm. More importantly, each study points out how much more we need to know.

Read More…

New Brunswick Election: NBASGA Looks between the Lines of the Electoral Debate

New Brunswickers who are looking for the facts about shale gas are not getting them from the current political debate. They are often being deliberately misled or else are confused by politicians who don’t understand the issues, themselves. And they are definitely missing out on critical information.

Read More…

More Serious Questions Concerning Waste Water Dumping Proposal

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance says: The more we investigate, the more questions need answers.

Moncton, NB (18 August 2014) – After researching written documents and interviewing Nova Scotians involved with the history of Atlantic Industrial Services’ (AIS) activities in that province, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) believes that even more questions must be answered about the proposal to dispose of fracking wastewater in Dieppe.

Read More…

Dieppe Wastewater Dumping Raises Concerns

Atlantic Industrial Services Waste Water Dumping Proposal Raises Serious Concerns
New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance asks: Is this another example of backroom ‘public consultation’?

PDF Download:

Moncton, NB (11 August 2014) – Recent news reports on a proposal by Atlantic Industrial Services (AIS) to truck 30 million litres of fracking wastewater from its Debert, NS facility into Dieppe for dumping in the municipal sewage system has generated many questions by environmental groups and residents in the tri-community area. Dieppe City Council may be hearing some of them at their council meeting tonight.

The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) applauds the City of Dieppe for its cautionary approach, but questions – once again – the lack of public consultation initiated, since the application for the EIA was dated June 6, 2014, yet it was 60 days before the proponent presented to the Dieppe City Council.

The New Brunswick EIA regulations clearly state: “Open and transparent public involvement is required for all registered projects….The opportunity for public involvement benefits citizens most when they take an active role at an early stage in the process, and clearly articulate their specific questions or concerns.”

“Does informing City Council – and only Dieppe City Council – 60 days later constitute an acceptable standard for public consultation under NB regulations?” asks Jim Emberger, spokesman for NBASGA. “What about the other tri-city councils? The Greater Moncton Sewerage Commission? What about the general public’s right to know? Wouldn’t the department of Environment and Local Government want to be up front and transparent, particularly when the issue is a new and precedent-setting industrial procedure taking place during a contentious debate on the underlying issue of shale gas?”

NBASGA, after reviewing the EIA document, asks why a company from the United States, processing waste in Nova Scotia, buys a defunct waste disposal company in New Brunswick that has no facilities other than a garage, access to the municipal sewage system, and an old certificate for waste disposal.

“This situation raises several questions,” says Emberger. “The most pressing is this: If this water is supposedly safe enough for Dieppe, then why did Nova Scotia refuse it?”

The wastewater in question has been a problem for the company for several years, the problems originating when local residents discovered that the company had dumped seven million litres of ‘untreated’, radioactive water into the Windsor sewage system without advising anyone. This led the Colchester County municipality to veto any further dumping. Now the company is looking to New Brunswick to help solve its disposal problems.

“If this EIA is approved, then the government has facilitated a ‘backdoor’ solution to a problem it has not addressed in its rules for industry or in public discussion. This situation clearly illuminates the fact that this government has no idea how to do safely dispose of waste water from fracking. And yet, Corridor is currently fracking in Penobsquis and in Elgin and we have further gas and oil wells pending in Albert County. Where is this waste being disposed of?”

PDF Download: