Tom.jpg?resize=75%2C95Tom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.


An Albany County, New York judge just told Andrew Corruptocrat Cuomo his DEC’s excuse for sitting on a propane fracking application was palpably absurd.

A rather blunt and amazing fracking decision just came down from an Albany County, New York Associate Supreme Court Justice Catherine Cholakis on January 3rd. She called one DEC’s defense’s for sitting on a propane fracking application four years “palpably absurd” and ordered the agency to proceed with a review of the submission. It doesn’t mean a permit will ultimately be issued for the propane fracking discussed in Jim Leonard’s guest post here on Tuesday, but it does force DEC’s hand. It’s a big win for the rights of upstate landowners to develop their natural resources.

The New York State Southern Tier is treated like a colonial territory by the Cuomo administration. The DEC lords assigned by the governor to manage the affairs of residents have said hydraulic fracturing is bad for them. They’ve denied landowners the ability to harvest their natural resources using this technique. Necessity being the mother of invention, the landowners have said “well then, let us do propane fracking.” They submitted an application to Andrew Cuomo’s DEC, which has now sat on the thing for nearly four years and refuses to even respond anymore.


That’s the short summary of what happened until Tioga Energy Partners filed a lawsuit demanding DEC at least hold a hearing on its application. That has now resulted in a remarkable decision and order to DEC by the Albany County Supreme Court Justice.

This county court decision and order, therefore, can and probably will be appealed but it’s a win, nonetheless. Moreover, the simple cogent arguments made by Justice Cholakis are going to be hard to refute. Here are the relevant excerpts, which speak for themselves (emphasis added):

Petitioner commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel respondents to schedule and hold an administrative hearing pursuant to ECL § 23-0305(6) on its application for two well-drilling permits. Petitioner also seeks an order compelling respondents to process its application as expeditiously as possible, as required under ECL § 23-0501(3). Respondents have moved to dismiss the petition. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied…

The first of these wells would be drilled vertically into the Utica Shale formation; the second would be drilled horizontally into the Marcellus Shale formation… What sets petitioner’s project apart from others is that it would employ gelled propane in lieu of water as the agent used for drilling the wells. Fracking with gelled propane has never been done in New York, though the technique is in use elsewhere.

Petitioner filed its formal applications in the spring of 2015. At respondents’ request, petitioner provided additional information on its applications in July and October 2015. On April 15, 2016 respondents issued a “Notice of lncomplete Application” (NOIA) which indicated that certain necessary information was lacking from the applications. Petitioner responded with additional information on August 3, 2017.

On October 13, 2017 respondents issued another NOIA… Petitioner provided its responses to the second NOIA on October 30, 2017. Respondents subsequently requested some additional information. Petitioner submitted responses to these ·requests on November 10, 2017; February 8, 2018; and February 15, 2018.

Since this latter date, respondents have made no additional requests for information. They have issued no other NOIA. Petitioner has made numerous inquiries on the status of its applications. Some of these generated no response; others were met with terse answers which can be paraphrased; in sum and substance, as “We’re working on it.” Respondents ultimately told petitioner to address its questions to their counsel. Upon doing so, petitioner was told by  respondents’ counsel that ‘”all aspects of the referenced applications remain under Department review. We are still evaluating what additional information/materials may be required from the applicant. We have no additional information at this time, and will notify you as soon as we do’”

On August 20, 2018 petitioner filed with respondents a “Petition for Hearing.” This document recited a brief history of the permit applications and requested a hearing pursuant to ECL § 23-0305(6). According to petitioner, respondents neither scheduled the requested hearing nor responded substantively to a followup letter dated September 25, 2018. This lawsuit followed.

The present proceeding, in the nature of a mandamus to compel, seeks an order directing respondents to schedule a hearing; to provide notice of the hearing; to conduct the hearing; and to direct respondents to process the well drilling permit applications as expeditiously as possible…

Respondents contend that the issues raised by petitioner are not ripe for judicial review because there has been no final action on the part of the administrative agency involved. Respondents, however, are missing the point: petitioner does not seek review of respondents’ actions; petitioner seeks an order compelling respondents to act… when an agency refuses to act in an area where action is mandated, Article 78 relief is available in the absence of a final determination…

Respondents also contend that ECL § 23-0305(6) does not create a right to a hearing. The provision in question states:

The department may act upon its own motion or upon the application of any interested person. On the filing of an application concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the department, pursuant to this article, the department shall promptly fix a date for a hearing thereon, and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given. The hearings shall be held without undue delay after the filing of the petition. The department shall make its order within sixty days after the conclusion of the hearing (emphasis added)…

The only decisional authority provided by respondents in support of their position is an unpublished decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ) (Matter of Advocates for Cherry . Valley, DEC Case No. OHMS-66175 ). In Matter of Cherry Valley, the ALJ denied an adjudicatory hearing on a well drilling permit application where that hearing was requested by a public interest group. The ALJ’ s decision was based upon the language of ECL § 23-0305(2), which states, “No rule, regulation, order or amendment thereof … shall be made … without a public hearing.” The ALJ reasoned that, since a well drilling permit application is not a “rule, regulation, order or amendment thereof,” no hearing was required.

The reasoning of Matter of Cherry Valley is clearly flawed. The mere fact that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of rules, regulations and orders does not allow the inference that only rules, regulations and orders require a hearing. Under the ALJ’ s line of reasoning, since no person can become a lawyer without a bachelor’s degree, anyone with a bachelor’s degree must be a lawyer. This is palpably absurd…

In short, the right to a hearing in this particular context may reduce to nothing more nor less than the right to transparency, the right to require an agency involved in a complex process to allow interested parties some assurance that their matter is being handled with appropriate care and diligence.

Finally, respondents argue that mandamus to compel does not lie in this case. They contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order a discretionary administrative determination. As with their analysis of ripeness, however, respondents miss the point of petitioner’s argument. Petitioner is not asking the Court to order respondents to grant their well drilling applications; instead, petitioner is asking the Court to order respondents to move forward with the process of reviewing their applications. Petitioner understands that the granting or denial of the applications is a discretionary determination outside the ambit of CPLR Article 78. The jurisdictional foundation of the petition is built on the proposition that, while respondents have the discretion to grant the well drilling permit applications or to deny them, respondents do not have the discretion to ignore them.

That’s a nice analysis. Governor Corruptocrat can order his DEC what to do but he can’t tell them to stonewall on an application, which is precisely what’s happening. The DEC staff is not the problem here; they were processing the application, albeit at a crawl, until some politrical hack above them obviously said “sit on it.” The DEC attorney, who’s only representing the governor, is also not to blame. There is but one person to blame and that is America’s dumbest governor who, if he had a brain rather than a voracious political appetite, would realize this is the way to go in opening the door a crack for the Southern Tier without ruffling too many fractivist feathers.

The post New York State DEC Slammed for Trying to Bury Propane Fracking appeared first on Natural Gas Now.


Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. said Jan. 16 its quarterly profit from continuing operations more than doubled as the company benefited from strong performance in its pipeline and terminal business. Pipeline segment earnings jumped 39% to C$13.5 million, led by the Canadian part of the Cochin pipeline, which transports light condensate from the U.S. to Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Kinder Morgan sold the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline to the Canadian government in August for C$4.5 billion and on Jan. 16 reiterated that it was looking at all options, including a sale, following that transaction.

Screen-Shot-2018-08-19-at-5.01.30-AM.jpgKelsey Mulac
Cabot Oil & Gas
External Affairs, Pittsburgh

The state-of-the-art Lackawanna Energy Center is now fully operational, providing reliable and efficient power with natural gas supplied by Cabot Oil & Gas.

Back in 2016, Cabot entered into a long-term sales agreement to supply natural gas to the Lackawanna Energy Center. Now, the Lackawanna Energy Center is officially up-and-running!

The following press release is reposted from Invenergy via PR Newswire:

The innovative, highly-efficient power plant is the largest project Invenergy has developed, constructed and operated; It was completed ahead of schedule with a LEED Gold-certified control building.


Lackawanna Energy Center

CHICAGO, Jan. 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Invenergy, a leading privately-held global developer and operator of sustainable energy solutions, today announced commercial operations at Lackawanna Energy Center. The facility is located just outside of Scranton, Pennsylvania, historically known as the “Electric City” for its early adoption of electric lighting.

The 1,485-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle electric generation facility has the capacity to power more than 1 million American homes. The plant will generate more than $50 million in revenue for its host community, the Borough of Jessup, Pennsylvania, over the life of the project. Thirty full-time operations positions were created in addition to the project having provided jobs for over 1,200 workers at peak construction.

With its highly-efficient design and operational flexibility, Lackawanna Energy Center is expected to displace generation from older, dirtier units in the PJM Interconnection, the largest organized power market in the U.S. The facility’s Administration and Control Building is LEED-Gold certified, featuring a solar array on the roof and a design that is 60% more energy efficient than similar conventional buildings.

“We are tremendously proud to go online with the Lackawanna Energy Center, the largest and most technically sophisticated power plant Invenergy has ever developed, built and operated,” said Michael Polsky, Invenergy Founder & CEO. “This milestone is an incredible achievement for our team and project partners, who have delivered on our commitment to generate clean power, good jobs, and local community investment through this project.”

Invenergy partnered with Kiewit Power Constructors on facility construction. Construction began in March 2016, and stayed ahead of an aggressive construction schedule despite delays including stoppage due to Winter Storm Stella in the spring of 2017. The facility features an innovative single-shaft design where each of three 500-megawatt power islands are comprised of a combustion turbine and steam turbine that share a single generator, maximizing facility efficiency while still allowing for the independent operation of each natural gas turbine.

“Designing and building the Lackawanna Energy Center required the largest staff and craft workforce ever assembled by Kiewit Power Constructors Co.,” said Dave Flickinger, Executive Vice President, Kiewit Corporation. “It’s been an excellent experience partnering with Invenergy, who values worker safety and project execution as much as we do. We’re proud to have been part of the team that successfully delivered this important project.”

Lackawanna Energy Center generates power from three General Electric 7HA.02 high-efficiency, air-cooled natural gas combustion turbines. In addition to world-class energy efficiency, the HClass units enable operational flexibility that allows the facility to generate baseload power as well as to respond quickly to variations in energy demand, supporting the continued growth of renewable resources in the region.

“GE and Invenergy’s long-standing relationship brings together two organizations focused on powering the world more efficiently and sustainably with the world’s most advanced technology,” said Chuck Nugent, President and CEO of GE Power’s Gas Power Systems business. “We are proud to continue this relationship and to supply Invenergy’s state-of-the-art Lackawanna facility with the HA turbine, the world’s largest and most efficient gas turbine.”

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporate supplies all of the natural gas fuel to the facility. South Jersey Resources Group, LLC, a subsidiary of energy holding company South Jersey Industries provides fuel management services.

A fund managed by the Global Energy & Power Infrastructure team at BlackRock Real Assets is a major investor in the Lackawanna Energy Center. BlackRock is a global leader in investment management, risk management and advisory services. “We are incredibly proud to invest in a facility of this caliber on behalf of our clients,” said Mark Florian, Head of the Global Energy & Power Infrastructure team at BlackRock Real Assets. “The innovative Lackawanna Energy Center will reduce the carbon footprint of the nation’s energy system and provide reliable and efficient power for a growing population. Invenergy’s demonstrated expertise and experience as a leading sustainable developer has made them an invaluable partner on this project.”

Since the start of construction, Lackawanna Energy Center has invested more than $285 million in the local economy, including $170 million in wages and benefits for workers. Project partners have also made over $400,000 in donations to several non-profit organizations in Jessup and the surrounding communities. Six students at Lackawanna CollegeSchool of Petroleum and Natural Gas have had their education furthered through Invenergy’s Advanced Energy Scholarship.

About Invenergy 

Invenergy drives innovation in energy. Invenergy and its affiliated companies develop, own, and operate large-scale renewable and other clean energy generation and storage facilities in the Americas and Europe. Invenergy’s home office is located in Chicago and it has regional development offices in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan and Europe.

Invenergy and its affiliated companies have developed more than 21,700 megawatts of projects that are in operation, construction or contracted, including wind, solar, natural gas-fueled power generation and energy storage projects. For more information, please visit

Reposted, with permission, from Well Said Cabot.

The post Lackawanna Energy Center Goes Live, Cabot Supplies Fuel appeared first on Natural Gas Now.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) introduced legislation (H.R. 436) this week seeking to reestablish an Obama-era rule for fracking on federal lands, a bill that stands virtually no chance of passing.

The rule was repealed by the U.S. Department of Interior in December 2017 “to prevent the unnecessarily burdensome and unjustified administrative requirements and compliance costs of the 2015 rule from encumbering oil and gas development on Federal and Indian lands.”

In introducing his bill, Rep. Soto is trying to bypass a 2016 court ruling reaffirming that states, not the Bureau of Land Management or Environmental Protection Agency, have the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their borders, even if it occurs on federal and Indian lands. The “Fracking Jurisdiction Act” (H.R. 484) would “grant the Secretary of the Interior and the EPA Administrator jurisdiction to regulate hydraulic fracturing,” according to Rep. Soto.

Duplicative and Unnecessary

Contrary to Rep. Soto’s assertion that his legislation would “solve that issue” of whether the federal government has jurisdiction to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming already determined that BLM and EPA do not have this authority. Judge Skavdahl’s 2016 ruling is pretty clear, stating, “…the Bureau of Land Management lacked Congressional authority to promulgate the regulations.” He continues,

“The Constitutional role of this court is to interpret the applicable statutory enactments and determine whether congress has delegated to the Department of Interior legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. It has not.” (emphasis added)

More importantly, Judge Skavdahl explained the unnecessary and duplicative nature of the original rule:

“The Fracking Rule’s focus is on three aspects of oil and gas development – wellbore construction, chemical disclosures, and water management ( 16,128 & 16,129) – each of which is subject to comprehensive regulations under existing federal and/or state law.” (emphasis added)

A 2018 report from the Groundwater Protection Council reinforced this ruling:

“Regulation of oil and gas field activities is managed best at the level where regional and local conditions are understood and where rules can be tailored to fit the needs of the local environment. While some related oil and gas regulation does occur at the local and federal governmental level, on most issues the greatest experience, knowledge, and information necessary to regulate effectively rests with state regulatory agencies.” (emphasis added)

As Western Energy Alliance (WEA) president Kathleen Sgamma said when the rule was repealed,

“It was clear from the start that the federal rule was redundant with state regulation and politically motivated, as the prior administration could not point to one incident or regulatory gap that justified the rule. Western Energy Alliance appreciates that BLM under Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke understands this rule was duplicative and has rescinded it. States have an exemplary safety record regulating fracking, and that environmental protection will continue as before.” (emphasis added)

Burdening American Energy Producers

The BLM regulation was estimated to cost $345 million per year. Prior to the rule’s rescission, BLM estimated that rescinding the 2015 Fracking Rule would have cost savings ranging from $14 million to $34 million per year. But a comprehensive impact analysis by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and WEA found those savings would exceed $220 million annually. In fact, IPAA and WEA explain,

“By choosing a number of impacted wells within the actual range of completions over the last two years, and almost thirty percent lower than the number of wells that BLM used in its calculations, the Associations assert that their cost estimates are conservative and may understate the actual cost savings associated with rescinding the 2015 Rule.” (emphasis added)

The Associations break down this cost analysis as follows:


Source: IPAA, WEA comments to BLM, 2017


The fracking process is strictly regulated at the state level, and a federal court has affirmed that regulatory structure. Additionally, as IPAA president and CEO Barry Russell has said, there’s a legitimate case to be made that regulating fracking at the federal level would be duplicative:

“Our companies have already demonstrated that even without the implementation of the 2015 federal rule, we play a part in the solution to reducing carbon emissions. Under the strong environmental leadership of state regulators, clean-burning natural gas, unlocked by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, has helped the United States cut its carbon emissions to near 30-year lows. The Obama-era rule is nothing more than duplicative federal overreach that would limit access to public lands and cost independent producers tens of thousands of dollars per well to implement without any measurable environmental or safety benefits. Simply put, a federal hydraulic fracturing rule would hurt America’s energy dominance, economic growth, and well-paying U.S. jobs.” (emphasis added)

Screen-Shot-2019-01-15-at-5.14.55-AM-233x256.jpgJames Leonard
President, National Association of Royalty Owners – New York Chapter


Tioga Energy Partners is suing New York State DEC over unconscionable delays in processing its application to do propane fracturing to recover natural gas.

The Snyder Farm Group consisting of five Tioga County landowners along with Tioga Energy Partners, LLC, (TEP) a New York based operator, announced in July, 2015, they had filed an application for a permit to drill a horizontal gas well into the Marcellus Shale and, instead of water, proposed to use liquefied propane to complete the well. Back in May, 2017, I wrote “Evidently, the Department of Environmental Conservation has been reviewing the application very, very closely.” As it turns out, “very, very closely” was a gross understatement.

Based upon the DEC staff’s review of the hundreds of pages of documents submitted, a Notice of Incomplete Application (the “NOIA”) was issued in April 2016. While the title seems ominous, experienced lawyers say this was actually a very good thing. In short, the DEC issues the publicly available NOIA which specifically identifies any additional items required before the application process can continue. The additional NOIA information requested was very extensive, full of highly detailed and unusual requests and took more than a year for TEP to fully comply with.

In August 2017, TEP submitted its response for the additional information. The DEC then issued a second NOIA in October 2017 with a few remaining questions and comments. No new studies were requested or required. TEP provided its response only a little over two weeks later. Minor additional information requested by DEC was also subsequently provided.

Since February 2018, the DEC has not requested any additional information from TEP. However, the DEC has also not provided any substantive response to TEP’s response to the 2nd NOIA, nor has the DEC initiated any communication with TEP.

In April 2018, TEP contacted DEC for an update on the applications. This was the first of at least twelve separate written inquiries to the DEC on the status of TEP’s applications between then and July 2018. The DEC has not provided a list of any additional information it believes is needed to complete its review of the applications. In fact, despite repeated requests, the DEC has not provided even a timeframe when it may know the timeframe within which it might answer TEP’s questions.


Having no response from the DEC for over eight months, TEP has had enough. On October 23, 2018, TEP filed a “Verified Petition” in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany demanding the Department and Commissioner Basil Seggos set a date for a hearing on TEP’s applications no later than fifteen days after the date of the Order of the Court, to provide notice of such hearing, to actually hold the hearing and to direct the DEC to “expeditiously process” TEP’s applications as mandated by New York law.

I will report on the outcome of TEP’s legal actions in a future article. In the meantime, you may enjoy reading an article, published in the April 2017 issue of the Buffalo Law Review, entitled “Hey New York, You Can Frack: An Examination of How Liquefied Petroleum Gas Sidesteps New York’s Fracking Ban to Provide a Legal and Practical Approach for Horizontal Drilling In New York’s Marcellus Shale.”

At the time of writing, Kelsey Hanson, the author of that article, was a third year law student at the University of Buffalo School of Law. Kelsey argues why LPG should be approved under current law. Yes, she’s discussing the very same propane we all use in our BBQ grills at home. Until New York has a different Governor and the fracking ban is reversed, these applications for LPG fracturing are our last remaining hope for developing our natural gas resources for the economically struggling Southern Tier region of New York.

The post Tioga Energy Partners Sues New York State DEC Over Propane Frack appeared first on Natural Gas Now.

Tom.jpg?resize=75%2C95Tom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.


Damascus Citizens for Sustainability is a group of mostly New Yorkers pretending to be members of a Pennsylvania community. Heinz has given them $352,000.

Damascus, Pennsylvania is where I grew up and where my family and I still own property. My ancestors in the area go back more than 200 years. They include some of the original loggers who represented the first major natural resource industry in the region. That industry survives to this day. Sadly, it and the economic livelihood of the area is threatened today, though, by groups such as the Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.

Damascus Citizens or “DCS,” as it likes to refer to itself, is a group of mostly New York City folks who prefer to think of Damascus as their home and nobody else’s. Call them the Undocumented Damascus Citizens. They oppose natural gas development needed by real Damascus citizens to pay the bills. And, the Heinz family is financing their opposition.

A reader sent me a link to this DCS page. It thanks supporters for helping to make their match. Knowing the Heinz Endowments has been a funder of the group, I decided to see if they were the match offeror. I can’t definitively say it is but I did discover just how much Heinz has given Damascus Citizens.

Heinz has financed their “Damascus” shills to the tune of $352,000 over the last six years. The average grant has been over $70,000 and the 2018 haul was $90,000. The latest 990 return for DCS in 2016 shows a budget of less than $150,000 so it appears Heinz could be paying as much as 60% of their bills today.


This is important because DCS claims to be a publicly supported organization. Public support, as defined by the IRS, doesn’t include any entity contributing more than 2% of an organizations total support unless that entity is also public supported. The Heinz Endowments is not. Rather, it is a private foundation with a very private agenda. This doesn’t mean the group is in a violation of the rules, technically speaking. It does mean, though, that up to 60% of the DCS revenue is anything but public support.

Interestingly, the organization, also says it does no lobbying of any kind but there is a clear violation of that rule as these screen shots from it’s website prove:

DCS-287x512.pngThis is grass-roots lobbying by the IRS definition  and while DCS is allowed to some of it, it cannot do it and say it doesn’t at the same time. But, then this is DCS and this is what Heinz pays them to do. It’s the Heinz way of getting around another IRS rule that says it can do absolutely no lobbying.

And, what else is DCS  doing? Well, it’s match page offers this (emphasis added):

In 2019, DCS will be working with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to achieve passage of their proposed ban on fracking. We will also be working to ban the import of frack waste into the Basin and to ban the export of our clean water to support fracking elsewhere.

This would seem to be grass-roots lobbying regarding what is, in effect, DRBC legislation. Whether it is or isn’t, though, is beside the point. The real question is what does DCS mean by “working with” anyway? Is DCS really working with the DRBC, or is this merely the boastful claim of a bunch of Manhattanites who suppose they’re at the heart of the action when then they’re really no more sycophants shouting out silly huzzahs from the sidelines. A quick perusal of their extremely shallow amicus brief in the WLMG lawsuit suggests the latter.

Still, one wonders. The DRBC has a history of working hand-in-hand with the Delaware Povertykeeper a/k/a Riverkeeper, which is hardly a surprise considering they’re both funded by the William Penn Foundation. Heinz has funded the Povertykeeper and it dominates the DRBC committee structure. It also enjoyed a cozy relationship with the agency under the previous Executive Director. And, who forget these love letters:


Finally, there’s this, from a crazy letter DCS sent welcoming the current Executive Director:

Over the years, your predecessor, Ms. Carol Collier, found our knowledge of the Basin and our local, legal and scientific water-use expertise beneficial to the Commission and welcomed our participation in the Commission’s deliberations, even when we were raising hard questions about some of her decisions. We hope to find you will be equally open and equally professional regarding the kind of community-based dialogue that is essential to successful management of the Basin’s resources….

At the same time, we must share with you our dismay at the churlish comments of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), Tom Shepstone and other pro-oil and gas spokespeople who celebrated Carol Collier’s resignation and the end of her “ignominious era.”

So, maybe DCS really is “working with” the DRBC. If so, it’s not only the William Penn Foundation that’s setting the agenda but also Heinz and, of course, the two trust-funder groups have been collaborating on other related matters for some time, being the money behind StateImpactPA, PennFuture and so many other of the usual suspects and usual gentry class attacks on the interests of the common man.

The post Heinz Invests $352,000 in Fake Damascus Citizens Group appeared first on Natural Gas Now.

US Petrochemical Conference & Exhibition Is Coming

Welcome to the home of Petrochemical & Chemical project development in the U.S Northeast! Renowned as the most significant meeting place for Petrochemical & Chemical professionals active in the US Northeast, The Northeast US Petrochemical Conference & Exhibition 2019 (June 20-21st, Pittsburgh) is where major players meet to network, strategize and share business.

NEP19 has fast become a next generation event, hosting 2000+ of the petrochemical industries top professionals from across the full value chain. The 2019 event will be bigger than ever before, seeing more global business leader dialogue sessions and strategic panel sessions, alongside in-depth workshops and innovative tradeshow content.

For more info download our brochure here:

Join our world-class experts, industry leading CEO’s, and innovative service providers as they highlight and address the most pressing industry challenges, new technologies, latest industry developments and upcoming opportunities connected to the rise of the Marcellus & Utica shale plays in discussion that will change the industry for decades to come – be sure you get in on the action!

Speakers already confirmed include:

  • Wayne Smith, Chairman & CEO, BASF
  • Jerry MacCleary, Chairman & CEO, Covestro
  • Cal Dooley, President & CEO, American Chemistry Council
  • Mike Jacoby, President & CEO, APEG-JobsOhio
  • Joe Thompson, SVP – General Manager Downstream & Chemicals, Bechtel
  • Steve Hedrick, CEO, Appalachia Development Group
  • Steve Schlotterbeck, Former CEO EQT Corporation (Member of Board of Directors, Energy Innovation Center Institute)

For more info download our brochure here:

If you are looking to make waves in the Northeast make sure to put Northeast Petrochemicals 2019, June 20-21st in your diary.