ECMC Commission Hearing - April 21, 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsXIGYInjk

[00:04] Good morning.
[00:06] This is the Energy and Carbon Management Commission for the state of Colorado.
[00:11] It is the 21st of April, a Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m.
[00:14] A special meeting um with a business agenda.
[00:16] We'll start with a roll call.
[00:19] Thank you.
[00:22] Commissioner Acriman here.
[00:25] Commissioner Cross present.
[00:27] Commissioner Mezner here.
[00:29] Commissioner Oath here.
[00:31] Commissioner Robbins here.
[00:34] Mr. Chair, you have five commissioners present.
[00:37] All right. Good morning.
[00:37] Um, good to be with everyone this morning.
[00:40] Um, as I mentioned, this is a special hearing um on a particular matter.
[00:42] We do not have a consent agenda.
[00:45] Um, we're going to meet again tomorrow, so we'll have a consent agenda then.
[00:48] We also do not do commissioner comments as we normally do.
[00:52] Instead, we roll right into docket 24122000313.
[00:58] This is an oil and gas development plan.
[01:01] Uh the applicant is Creststone Peak Resources Operating LLC represented by
[01:06] Resources Operating LLC represented by Miss Jo.
[01:09] Uh we have two positioners, Maverick Mineral Partners, uh number two LLC represented by Steven Lewis Prescott.
[01:19] Uh we also have uh uh Star um and that's represented by Mr. Foot.
[01:22] Um to sort of summarize process here, um we have had multiple hearings on this docket uh including a 511 hearing in person at a venue near the application lands.
[01:36] The most recent hearing was December 10th.
[01:39] At the hearing on a 4 to1 vote, the commissioner state the matter and requested Creststone working with sister agencies and star to develop further ALA analysis.
[01:50] Since then, Creststone has filed additional materials and STAR has responded.
[01:55] Creststone u I believe maintains the applied for location is preferred with that.
[02:00] Today we will hear from Creststone uh then Maverick on the mineral dispute and then STAR on the OGP application and location and uh then we
[02:09] application and location and uh then we will hear back from Creststone and will hear back from Creststone and rebuttal.
[02:14] The commissioners will then deliberate.
[02:15] I would note and I've had discussions with AG Budro about this that ECMC commissioners action before us today is one of three action items to either well maybe four.
[02:29] We've got the Maverick petition. So that's set aside. That's one issue.
[02:34] And then on the OGDP that is petitioned by STAR the commission can either approve, deny or conditionally approved the location as set forth in the applications.
[02:45] the commissioners do not have authority to approve a different lootication identified in the ALA analysis or otherwise and that's because we don't have a 2A or 2B or all the other uh information associated with any of the alternate locations.
[03:00] Also, consistent with our rules, um we've taken uh a number of different opportunities for public comment and public comment is not uh on the agenda.
[03:09] Public comment is not uh on the agenda for today.
[03:12] For today.
[03:14] So before I get into the order of play, um let me recognize council of record, Miss Jo.
[03:19] Yes. Good morning, Chair.
[03:21] Uh Mr. Lewis Prescott.
[03:24] Good morning, chair. Thank you.
[03:25] And Mr. Foot.
[03:27] Good morning, Mr. Chair.
[03:28] All right. Good morning.
[03:31] Um here's what I understand is the order of play today.
[03:33] Uh Creststone will go first um to present their supplemental information or whatever else they desire for us to hear.
[03:40] Um they are allocated 45 minutes.
[03:44] Following their presentation, there is an opportunity for Q&A by commissioners.
[03:49] Uh any Q&A does not uh is not attributed to the 45minute time allocation.
[03:55] Maverick would be next uh with an allocation of 10 minutes.
[03:58] Similarly, Q&A could follow that does not is not attributed to the 10 minutes.
[04:03] And then finally or not finally but and then star would go next uh with 10-minute time
[04:11] would go next uh with 10-minute time allocation Q&A to follow etc.
[04:15] allocation Q&A to follow etc. And then Creststone has a rebuttal.
[04:18] Creststone has a rebuttal. They have the burden of proof with 10 minutes and Q&A.
[04:21] burden of proof with 10 minutes and Q&A.
[04:23] I would anticipate following that that we would have deliberations.
[04:26] deliberations. I would suggest to commissioners it might make sense to deliberate on the Maverick um uh matter first and then deliberate on the Creststone OGDP and the STAR petition on that.
[04:28] might make sense to deliberate on the Maverick um uh matter first and then deliberate on the Creststone OGDP and the STAR petition on that.
[04:33] deliberate on the Creststone OGDP and the STAR petition on that.
[04:35] the STAR petition on that.
[04:40] Um with that uh Miss Jo, did I miss anything? Are you in agreement with the order of play?
[04:43] with that uh Miss Jo, did I miss anything?
[04:44] Are you in agreement with the order of play?
[04:46] order of play?
[04:49] Thank you, Chair. In full agreement.
[04:51] Uh Mr. Lewis Prescott, my understanding as well. Thank you, Mr. Foot.
[04:52] my understanding as well. Thank you, Mr. Foot.
[04:55] Mr. Foot. Um, that's my understanding, Mr. Chair. I can't say we necessarily agree with it, but we understand that's the process the chair has set forth.
[04:58] agree with it, but we understand that's the process the chair has set forth.
[04:59] the process the chair has set forth.
[05:01] Fair enough. Uh, so, Miss Jo, we're going to go first. Do Do you have witnesses that need to be sworn in?
[05:05] going to go first. Do Do you have witnesses that need to be sworn in?
[05:06] witnesses that need to be sworn in?
[05:08] I do, Chair. I have two. I have Mr. Nathan Bennett and Mr. Dan Harrington.
[05:10] I do, Chair. I have two. I have Mr. Nathan Bennett and Mr. Dan Harrington.
[05:13] Nathan Bennett and Mr. Dan Harrington.
[05:15] All right. AG Bedro, if you could swear the witnesses in, that would be helpful.
[05:20] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll ask each of the witnesses to raise their hand when I call your name.
[05:23] State your first and last name and swear to tell the truth.
[05:27] Dan Harrington.
[05:29] Hi, Dan Harrington. Swear to tell the truth.
[05:32] Nathan Bennett.
[05:34] Good morning, Nathan Bennett. I swear to tell the truth.
[05:35] Thank you.
[05:38] And Mr. Thomas, you're keeping track of time for us.
[05:42] That is correct, Mr. Chair.
[05:44] Thank you, Hearings Manager Thomas. All right, Miss Jo, you're recognized.
[05:49] Great. Chair, thank you so much. if we could go ahead and share our PowerPoint.
[05:57] Wonderful. Thank you. Well, good morning commissioners, staff, council, and members of the listening public.
[06:02] My name is Jamie Jo of Jo Energy Law, and I along with my partner Kelsey Wazalinki continue to represent Creststone Peak Resources Operating LLC for the state Sunlight Long Oil and Gas Development
[06:13] Sunlight Long Oil and Gas Development Plan application in docket number 241200313.
[06:19] Thank you for the opportunity to present this supplemental information requested by this commission on December 10th, 2025 and directed by your December 12th, 2025 order number 5351577 to you today upon a thorough review and evaluation of the November 19th, 20th, 21st, 25th, and December 3rd and 10th formal hearing transcripts.
[06:43] It's Creststone's understanding that the seventh hearing on the state sunlight long OGDP is limited to the scope of the directives in the December order and Creststone has prepared its materials, testimony, and presentation based upon this understanding.
[06:57] As such, for purposes of efficiency, Creststone has limited the number of presenters to two key Creststone representatives and will only call upon our prior 17 subject matter experts if necessary.
[07:09] Creststone would like to thank STAR and its leadership for meeting with Creststone in person on January 7th, 2026 to
[07:15] In person on January 7th, 2026 to address STAR's evolving concerns with the state sunlight long location, its desires for additional protections on the pad, STAR's three proposed alternative locations, and STAR's intent on reducing the operations timeline and proximity of the equipment and wellheads on the state sunlight long pad to the homes already located over 3,100 ft away.
[07:39] Creststone applied every aspect of the January 7th discussion with STAR to the supplemental information provided to this commission on April 6 and 15th and as you'll hear during this hearing today.
[07:50] Specifically, Creststone conducted an expansive alternative location analysis that includes all three of STAR's proposed alternative locations, addressed and evaluated cumulative impacts, and the adverse effects of STAR's proposed locations on public health, safety, welfare, environment, and wildlife and biological resources, provided substantive considerations as to each star proposed location.
[08:15] And most importantly, Creststone has revised its development
[08:17] Creststone has revised its development plans pursuant to STAR's comments relating to reducing the number of wells to be drilled on the state sunlight long pad from 32 to 24 and redesign the pad so the wellheads and facilities are further away from the already 3,100 ft to the nearest RBU in the star neighborhoods.
[08:37] Creststone would also like to thank this Colorado State Land Board, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for their time and engagement over the past several months to assist Creststone in responding to the nine requirements in the December order.
[08:52] Their attention to the commission's directives continue to illustrate the high bars that each of these entities maintain to best protect the public and wildlife.
[09:01] Creststone also appreciates the AY's continued engagement on the development of best management practices and mitigation measures that confirm the protection of public health and safety, welfare of the environment, and wildlife and biological resources.
[09:15] Through various consultations with these state agencies, Creststone
[09:18] with these state agencies, Creststone will apply over 90 best management practices and mitigation measures to the state sunlight long location.
[09:24] These best management practices and mitigation measures are in addition to the many avoidance factors that Creststone had already applied to the location when proposing it in the first place.
[09:35] Creststone maintains the state sunlight long location is the most protective location to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment, wildlife, and biological resources.
[09:46] The state sunlight long location is compliant with the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Act and is compliant with the commission's rules.
[09:54] The state sunlight long OGDP holds a director's recommendation confirming that the state sunlight long OGDP complies with all applicable rules and recommended approval with specific conditions of approval, all of which have been committed to by Creststone.
[10:10] After seven hearings on this OGDP, there is no doubt that the state sunlight long OGDP and the state sunlight long location is the most vetted, most analyzed, and most
[10:20] most vetted, most analyzed, and most evaluated location by multiple local, state, and federal agencies and stakeholders, including STAR, and it continues to be an approvable and compliant application.
[10:32] Creststone respectfully requests approval from this commission today without any further continuences or requests for additional information as any further delay would prove detrimental to all involved.
[10:43] Before I turn the presentation over to Mr. Dan Harrington and Mr. Nathan Bennett.
[10:48] We wanted to confirm with this commission opposing council and the listening public that Creststone is also fully compliant with the commission's December order mandating that Creststone provides supplemental information in response to nine express directives.
[11:01] This slide two and the next one as well each detail the specific directive to Creststone and where Creststone will address each directive within the presentation today and also the corresponding exhibits submitted on April 6th in compliance with the December order.
[11:16] We intend to use slides two and three as a reference source if
[11:20] two and three as a reference source if needed throughout the hearing.
[11:23] needed throughout the hearing.
[11:25] Given the depth of information submitted by Creststone in compliance with the December order, Creststone prepared and submitted an executive summary that outlined Creststone's complex analysis, detailed discussions and outreach to various stakeholders and agencies, as well as its time-consuming work and efforts since the December 10th 6th hearing date.
[11:44] A few highlights of the executive summary are included on this slide with specific emphasis on the fact that Creststone did meet with representatives of STAR about their concerns and to gather their input on the supplemental ALA.
[11:58] And as a result, Creststone redesign the state sunlight long pad site, reducing well count by 25% and shifting wells and facilities eastward further away from the RBUs within 3100 ft.
[12:12] We provided a background on the court case involving Range View's water rights at Lowry Ranch that was decided finalizing the number and location of planned reservoirs.
[12:20] location of planned reservoirs.
[12:22] Creststone conducted a field tour of supplemental ALA sites with representatives of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado State Land Board staff and Lowry's tenant rancher and all land use, wildlife and train and vegetation factors were examined for the alternative sites.
[12:37] and the Colorado State Land Board concluded an amendment process to the surface use tier and no surface occupancy map for Lowi Ranch wherein Creststone's lease was amended to reflect the updated tier and no surface occupancy maps and also to incorporate additional voluntary COAs into the lease itself.
[12:57] As a result of each of these previous points, Creststone performed analysis and fulfillment of the elements of the December order by preparing a supplemental rule 304B2 ALA that included a total of 11 alternative locations with the three original ALA locations submitted with the ODP, three locations proposed by STAR, two locations proposed by Colorado Parks and
[13:21] locations proposed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and then three additional locations.
[13:24] Creststone also engaged in a supplemental rule 304 C19 cumitive impacts plan update that included the evaluation of incremental impacts reflecting the evolution of the state sunlight long sighting analysis, the incorporation of impacts from offsetting non-cruststone operated activity and the modification of expected impacts from the state sunlight long following the well count reduction including significant reduction in the duration of operations, an increased wellhead and equipment setbacks from residential building units to the west.
[13:59] This slide illustrates the timeline of the aforementioned actions since the December 10th hearing and also demonstrates the need for the length of time Creststone took to submit the additional information in compliance with the December order.
[14:13] As this commission well knows, the work done by operators on OGDPS does not happen overnight.
[14:18] It takes extensive time and efforts to conduct the necessary
[14:22] efforts to conduct the necessary evaluation and analysis for sighting.
[14:25] In this instance, Creststone took the commissioner's deliberative statements and resulting December order at their word, and the products submitted on April 6th and April 15th must be recognized and acknowledged by this commission as an express compliance with all directives.
[14:42] To be clear, the commission's directive was not to move the state sunlight long pad, but to conduct additional analysis supporting the proposed sunlight long location in light of other potential alternative locations.
[14:56] This has been done and it's clear that these analysis demonstrate that not only is the state sunlight long OGDp approvable application, but it is also the best location as all 11 locations present concerns around county regulations, wildlife, land use, and cumitive impacts.
[15:13] With that, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Mr. Dan Harrington to present a portion of his supplemental information in compliance with the December order.
[15:21] Mr. Harrington, the floor is yours.
[15:25] Thank you, Miss Jo. And uh good morning, commissioners, and uh and observers.
[15:30] Uh first, we'd like to provide a quick reminder of the proposed Sunlight Long development plan and discuss some changes Crescent has implemented since December in response to stakeholder feedback.
[15:41] Here you'll see the original state Sunlight Long proposed site outside of pertinent state and county setbacks along with a map showing the access road, three-phase pipeline, and proposed DSUs.
[15:52] As you as you will recall, the state sunlight long as proposed triggered zero of the ECMC's ALA criteria and it had an envirro screen score of 14.69, one of the lowest seen in the DJ basin.
[16:08] Further, the state sunlight long as proposed was approved by Arapo County in May 2025 following their 2024 rulemaking with a number of key COAs including oil, gas, and water pipeline takeaway and mandatory electrification for the drilling and production phases and a
[16:26] drilling and production phases and a single site occupation.
[16:29] single site occupation.
[16:31] reminder, the Colorado State Land Board executed an S SOA SUA for this specific site.
[16:37] Uh while the site is not an HBH about 1 and one quarter miles of the existing access road needing improvement is within within mu deer HBH and Creststone agreed with CPW to prioritize improvements outside of winter season.
[16:49] CDPHE had no objections to this site and the proposed BMPs and ECMC staff did issue a director's recommendation for approval.
[16:59] Next, I'd like to discuss our plans to reduce the size and impact of the state sunlight long site.
[17:05] As Miss Jo referred to in her opening, SM met with Mr. Foot and STAR representatives in January.
[17:12] While STAR's clear motive was a wholesale move of the pad site, we also discussed their specific concerns with the original site.
[17:18] What we heard was sensitivity to operational duration and setbacks and feedback that reduction in that duration and an increase in setbacks would be meaningful to STAR.
[17:27] Setbacks would be meaningful to STAR.
[17:29] So, we re-examined our development plan in an effort to help mitigate these concerns.
[17:33] Accordingly, SM will commit to reducing the planned well count at state sunlight long from 32 to 24 wells.
[17:39] This change will reduce operational duration by about 25% and will similarly reduce other impacts which we will discuss in our cumulative impact summary.
[17:48] Further, this cut and well count allows us to reconfigure the pad moving wellheads and facilities generally eastward.
[17:56] As a result, the pad surface both operations and production phase will be reduced and setbacks from homes to the west and Aurora reservoir will increase generally in the 50 to 100 foot range.
[18:06] You can see a summary table below.
[18:09] Here is the revised pad plan in black line work superimposed over the prior pad plan and gray line work.
[18:15] This plaid depicts the interim reclamation production phase.
[18:19] As you can see, this pad is significantly smaller with well heads and facilities that bias towards the east side of the pad with the wells now in a single row.
[18:25] Creststone commits
[18:28] now in a single row.
[18:30] Creststone commits to working with staff to amend its form 2A and 2B submissions as well as any associated exhibits or plans deemed necessary to implement this plan.
[18:34] And with that, I will turn the presentation over to Mr. Nathan Bennett to discuss the supplemental ALA and communive impacts analysis.
[18:44] Thank you, Mr. Harrington. Good morning, commissioners.
[18:48] My name is Nathan Bennett and I am the director of permitting and compliance for Creststone Peak Resources.
[18:53] I will be providing insight into the supplemental analyses that were conducted resulting from the commission's December 10th order instructing Creststone to address nine specific requirements.
[19:02] Creststone in conjunction with CPW and STAR identified a total of 11 potential alternative locations, all of which underwent a series of comprehensive desktop and infield analyses to address the potential viability of each.
[19:15] Analyses were conducted using the best available data to assess alternative locations as well as the preferred state sunlight long location in the context of the rules and regulations of Arapjo County ECMC CPW's assessment of wildlife
[19:29] County ECMC CPW's assessment of wildlife resources and certain habitat.
[19:32] The state resources and certain habitat.
[19:33] The state landboard's management practices landboard's management practices principles and aggles guidance and preference contractual obligations.
[19:38] Existing and future land use and the associated disturbance.
[19:42] Current and future infrastructure considerations including roads, pipelines, and utilities and cumulative impacts.
[19:49] Including but not limited to emissions, traffic, odor, noise, and occ uh excuse me, operational duration.
[19:56] Over the course of today's presentation, the alternatives considered in the results of our analysis will be discussed via s via a series of master maps and sight specific considerations.
[20:06] This map details the 11 alternative locations shown in magenta and the preferred state sunlight long location shown in green that were subject to the supplemental analysis.
[20:16] This map details the current state landboard tiering system for Lowry Ranch.
[20:22] These tiers were updated following changes in previously adjudicated reservoir boundaries and reservoir sites and to add greater protections to preserve the natural values of the ranch.
[20:29] These changes were
[20:31] values of the ranch.
[20:33] These changes were accepted by the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners on March 12th, have been incorporated into the Lowry Ranch oil and gas lease as enforcable contract provisions.
[20:40] And this final agency action was a key component in the completion of the supplemental filings.
[20:44] In this instance, the color red depicts those areas where surface occupancy is prohibited, also referred to as NSO, no surface occupancy or tier one.
[20:53] These areas are considered sensitive within the ranch.
[20:58] Conversely, the bright green color depicts areas where surf surface occupancy is preferred or tier 4.
[21:05] These areas have been previously disturbed over the history of the property.
[21:10] The map shown on this slide details the adjudicated and confirmed boundaries of reservoir B situated at the top center of the map and reservoir C situated in the bottom right of the map.
[21:20] For both reservoirs, the applicable Arapjo County buffers are shown detailing that several of the alternative locations fall within the reservoir setbacks.
[21:27] Given the spatial spatial location of the alternatives relative to the reservoirs
[21:33] alternatives relative to the reservoirs topography and hydrologic assumptions.
[21:35] topography and hydrologic assumptions, reservoir B has an applicable 5,280 ft.
[21:39] reservoir B has an applicable 5,280 ft setback, whereas reservoir C has an applicable 30,000 ft setback.
[21:41] setback, whereas reservoir C has an applicable 30,000 ft setback.
[21:44] The existing Aurora reservoir and the applicable Arapjoye County setback of 3,000 ft from the reservoir boundaries are shown on this map.
[21:46] The existing Aurora reservoir and the applicable Arapjoye County setback of 3,000 ft from the reservoir boundaries are shown on this map.
[21:49] applicable Arapjoye County setback of 3,000 ft from the reservoir boundaries are shown on this map.
[21:50] 3,000 ft from the reservoir boundaries are shown on this map.
[21:54] From a wildlife perspective, this map details not only the designated high priority habitat within Lowry Ranch, but also details other notable wildlife resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[21:56] From a wildlife perspective, this map details not only the designated high priority habitat within Lowry Ranch, but also details other notable wildlife resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[21:58] details not only the designated high priority habitat within Lowry Ranch, but also details other notable wildlife resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:00] priority habitat within Lowry Ranch, but also details other notable wildlife resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:02] also details other notable wildlife resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:04] resources, for example, raptor nests that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:07] that both CPW and the landboard have interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:08] interest in as captured in agency comments during the various consultations.
[22:09] comments during the various consultations.
[22:12] The blue polygons shown on this map represent 500t buffers around aquatic features located within or immediately adjacent to the ranch.
[22:14] The blue polygons shown on this map represent 500t buffers around aquatic features located within or immediately adjacent to the ranch.
[22:16] represent 500t buffers around aquatic features located within or immediately adjacent to the ranch.
[22:18] features located within or immediately adjacent to the ranch.
[22:20] adjacent to the ranch.
[22:20] These water courses generally flow from south to north and are an important component of the local hydraology.
[22:22] courses generally flow from south to north and are an important component of the local hydraology.
[22:25] north and are an important component of the local hydraology.
[22:28] the local hydraology.
[22:28] During the supplemental analyses, we determined it was important to highlight and illustrate the Sandy Foothills
[22:30] During the supplemental analyses, we determined it was important to highlight and illustrate the Sandy Foothills
[22:31] determined it was important to highlight and illustrate the Sandy Foothills
[22:33] and illustrate the Sandy Foothills Ecological Site Description, a natural Ecological Site Description, a natural resources conservation surf uh service resources conservation surf uh service division of the landscape.
[22:40] quote, "based on recurring soil, land form, hydraology, geology, and climate characteristics that differ from other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and its ability to respond similarly to management actions."
[22:54] End quote.
[22:57] In the case of Lowry, this area is represented by certain soil types and associated vegetation, which when combined are commonly referred to as Piedmont grasslands.
[23:05] The presence of these features became increasingly more important when given their absence at the preferred state sunlight long location and their presence across the ranch elsewhere.
[23:14] Also shown on this map is the presence of agricultural fencing maintained by the agricultural producer another leie on the ranch.
[23:22] This pasture system, as defined by the network of fencing, supports rotational grazing practices of the regenerative agricultural principles embraced by the landboard and employed by the producer, thereby allowing
[23:33] by the producer, thereby allowing grazing areas to rest and recover between grazing periods.
[23:39] At least 60 such pastures exist throughout the ranch, including upland areas, Piedmont grasslands, and riparian corridors.
[23:47] This final map is a culmination of the previous maps combining the individual components into a single representation.
[23:53] Also included in this map is the Arapjo County occupied structure setback of 3,000 ft which has not been previously depicted in this presentation.
[24:02] When combined, it is readily apparent and self-evident that the preferred state sunlight long location is the location that is most protective of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife and biological resources.
[24:17] STAR's attempt at developing quote a feasibility zone end quote where they perceive a viable location may exist falls short.
[24:24] For one example, they ignore the presence of Sandy Foothills ESD, certain wildlife criteria, and the presence of riparian areas.
[24:31] In an effort to more clearly summarize
[24:34] In an effort to more clearly summarize the findings of our supplemental ALA, a stoplight chart was prepared using the colors of a traffic light to indicate how the 12 locations considered scored against a three-tier ranking.
[24:43] For example, green complies with ECMC or Arapjo County rules, poses no concern, and is operationally viable, whereas red indicates a significant concern or an outright prohibition due to code, regulation, external feedback, or a combination thereof.
[24:59] It's important to note that STAR attempted to create their own stoplight chart.
[25:02] However, they failed to consider many important variables, including certain rules and regulations of both ECMC and Arapjo County.
[25:11] For example, under CPWAL number nine, star shows a green dot indicating there are no conflicts with either sets of rules.
[25:18] There is without a doubt a residential building unit residing less than 2,000 ft from the current working pad surface of the AL9 state LLA location.
[25:28] The next dozen or so slides provide a summary of various considerations identified during Creststone supplemental analyses.
[25:35] Supplemental analyses.
[25:37] These considerations include Creststone's considerations include Creststone's assessment as to why each of the 11 alternative locations are not preferred or viable for the development of the 7,680acre OGDP in the underlying mineral development area.
[25:46] Note comments received from CPW or the state land board are included as well.
[25:53] For the purpose of time, I will not address each of these in detail as they were included in the written submissions on April 6th.
[25:58] We welcome commissioner questions on any alternative location presented.
[26:05] Following the analysis and consideration of using two or more oil and gas locations to access and develop 7,680 acres of subsurface minerals in this O OGP.
[26:17] Creststone determined using more than one location results in greater impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife and biological resources.
[26:25] Serious consideration was given to state landboard as surface owner of the ranch.
[26:29] The need for duplicative infrastructure, cumulative impacts, operational timelines, the permitting requirements of Arapjo County is relevant local.
[26:36] of Arapjo County is relevant local government, and to the subsurface government, and to the subsurface development of accessible minerals.
[26:41] To be clear, Gresstone's findings determine that greater impacts resulting from the development of more than one oil and gas location can be entirely avoided through the use of the preferred state sunlight long location.
[26:54] Thus, Creststone maintains that the proposed sunlight long location is the most protective of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife and biological resources relative to all possible alternatives.
[27:06] In accordance with the order, Creststone conducted a supplemental analysis to address and evaluate cumulative impacts from the state sunlight long location.
[27:14] Importantly, this ana an analysis needed to start with a development originally contemplated in the Lowry Ranch comprehensive area plan and focused on the development plan for the western extended ranch since April 2023, which coincides with the filing of amended rule 314 CAP application.
[27:31] Two well pads and a total of 33 horizontal wells have been eliminated by consolidating development to a single
[27:38] Consolidating development to a single well pad, the preferred state sunlight well pad, the preferred state sunlight long location.
[27:42] More than 25,000 truck trips, more than 1.4 million truck miles, and more than 2,000 metric tons of mobile greenhouse gas emissions have been eliminated.
[27:50] Significant pre-production emissions have also been eliminated by not drilling an additional 33 wells, including but not limited to 660 tons of methane emissions, approximately 83,000 tons of CO2 emissions, and approximately 71,000 pounds of total hazardous air pollutant emissions.
[28:10] As Mr. Harrington testified earlier today, Creststone is proper proposing certain modifications to the state sunlight long location that will, among other things, reduce the well count from 32 to 24 horizontal wells.
[28:24] This well count revision will reduce the drilling and completion phases of pre-production operations by approximately 25%.
[28:31] This reduction equates to approximately 215 fewer days or over six fewer months of pre-production operations when
[28:39] of pre-production operations when compared with the original ODP filing.
[28:42] compared with the original ODP filing.
[28:44] A shorter operational duration due to fewer wells results in pre-production emission reductions of more than 20% and the elimination of more than 5,300 truck trips.
[28:51] With fewer wells, Creststone was also able to shrink the working pad surface and reconfigure surface equipment and impertinances, resulting in an increase in the distance from residential building units to these surface improvements.
[29:01] For example, the distances from the closest RBU to the nearest piece of equipment is now 3,476 ft and the distance to the nearest wellhead is now 3,538 ft.
[29:16] A total of 11 potential alternative locations were analyzed in the context of cumulative impacts.
[29:24] Through the preparation of this supplemental analysis, several major themes were evident when when assessing the potential alternatives.
[29:31] These themes will be summarized as details can be found in the narrative discussion filed as exhibit 132.
[29:37] One such theme is transportation
[29:39] One such theme is transportation corridors and the and associated truck traffic.
[29:44] An overwhelming majority of the alternative locations would require marketkedly different hall routes than what is being proposed with state sunlight law.
[29:51] In several cases, traffic would need to access the ranch from uh from the south via countyline road.
[29:56] This transportation corridor would traverse more than 26 miles from the ranch to get back to Watkins Road to utilize the county approved hall route, resulting in approximately 1.2 2 million additional truck miles in an increase of approximately 1,900 metric tons of mobile greenhouse gas emissions while utilizing public roadways.
[30:16] Furthermore, although the roadways that exist within Lowry Ranch are not publicly accessible, there are standards and improvements that will be required to you to utilize them.
[30:25] For example, the widening of the road running surface, establishing ditch lines and drainage controls in accordance with state and local regulations, and potential obligations resulting from the map flood planes.
[30:35] Notably, any roadway expansion will result in an increased disturbance,
[30:40] will result in an increased disturbance, thereby impacting current and future agricultural operations and riparian corridors within the ranch.
[30:47] As has been mentioned previously in today's testimony, the consolidation and elimination of proposed locations on the western extent of Lowry Ranch has resulted in the elimination of 33 horizontal wells and approximately 46 acres of earth disturbance.
[31:00] Emissions from pre-production operations, including construction, have been reduced.
[31:06] These tables summarize the elimination of pre-production emissions through eliminating 33 horizontal wells.
[31:12] With the well count reduction at the proposed state sunlight long location discussed today, additional emissions reductions will be achieved, including more than 13,000 tons of CO2 and more than 500 lb of total hazardous air pollutants.
[31:27] Another theme Creststone identified is the potential to impact water quality through accelerated erosion and sedimentation resulting from new earth disturbance from the construction of linear infrastructure.
[31:36] For example, pipeline rights away and access roads.
[31:41] pipeline rights away and access roads.
[31:43] The propo the proposed access road and pipelines have been cited in a manner to minimize potential impacts to surface waters including the existing Aurora reservoir by designing these corridors to be hydrologically isolated from the reservoir itself.
[31:56] More importantly, there are no crossings of Black Shack Creek or Cole Creek required from the proposed state sunlight long location.
[32:02] However, many of the alternative locations require the crossing of Cole Creek and its associated riparian areas, thereby introducing new surface disturbance to these sensitive interior areas on the ranch that are otherwise avoidable.
[32:16] Creststone is over compliant with it with with its NOx emissions by 29% is an on and is on target with its greenhouse gas emissions intensity.
[32:25] The proposed state sunlight long location will use three-phase pipeline takeaway utility power for drilling and production operations, maintenance vessels, three-phase meters, and bulk separation.
[32:36] Utility power in the use of produced water pipeline may not be viable if an alternative location was used, thereby
[32:42] alternative location was used, thereby resulting in increased emissions.
[32:44] resulting in increased emissions relative to what is being proposed with state sunlight laws.
[32:48] The transportation route for the preferred location is much shorter than the alternative route required for several of the alternatives.
[32:55] Noise and odor nuisances will be managed in accordance with state and local regulations.
[33:00] All pre-production production operations will be in compliance with ECMC rule 423.
[33:05] Many of the BMPs incorporated at state sunlight long are intended to help reduce fugitive odors, including the electrification of the drilling rig and production facilities and the use of group 3 drilling mud.
[33:17] While grid connection is already planned and approved by Excel for the state sunlight long location, it is not clear that grid power would be available at any of the alternative locations, which would represent an increase in emissions and in the potential to impact stakeholders from those alternative locations.
[33:34] Wildlife and the associated habitat have been a key component of the supplemental ALA.
[33:40] Creststone worked with CPW and state land board to better understand their management priorities and opinions.
[33:43] their management priorities and opinions in relation to the 11 alternatives and in relation to the 11 alternatives and the preferred location.
[33:48] Both agencies were active participants in the field consultation that occurred in mid January and included references to certain species in their responses including but not limited to swift fox prairie dogs and others.
[34:00] I testified earlier today about the significance of the Sandy Foothills ecological site description of the NRCS within Lowry Ranch, which is contained within the Great, excuse me, the Western Great Plains Foothills and Piedmont Grassland Ecological System defined by the Colorado Heritage Natural Natural Heritage Program, excuse me.
[34:18] The seven soil types shown on this slide are key components to the NRCS ESD and are present throughout the ranch.
[34:25] Since the preferred sunlight long location is not underlane by the soil type shown on the previous slide, Creststone engaged an independent thirdparty consultant to perform a Pedmont habitat assessment at the preferred location in seven alternative locations and alternative pipeline routes.
[34:42] The results of this assessment were submitted as exhibit 133 and inform the
[34:46] submitted as exhibit 133 and inform the stop light chart discussed on the stop light chart discussed on the previous slide.
[34:49] The preferred state sunlight long location does not impact this habitat whereas many of the alternative locations do either directly via the wellpad or indirectly via the pipeline access road or both.
[35:01] Lastly, the preference of the colesie a producer who runs more than 600 head of cattle on the ranch and has made significant investments in fencing and water distribution systems to to serve their operations as a desire to keep future disturbance resulting from oil and gas development out of the important Pedmont areas and reparium corridors.
[35:20] Staying out of these areas helps protect the biological resources managed as part of those a operations.
[35:27] The state land board provided comments that are also consistent with this preference.
[35:32] This table summarizes the Lowry cap proposed well count, the individual OGDP well counts necessary to realize development and two OGDP well counts proposed by another operator.
[35:43] In short, a total of 166 new wells were proposed
[35:46] A total of 166 new wells were proposed by Creststone in the CAP.
[35:48] Factoring in well count reductions to date, those proposed by Mr. Harrington today and the proposed wells by another operator in this area, the total anticipated well count is a total of 149 wells.
[36:00] It is important to note Creststone anticipates uh drilling 105 total wells across all locations proposed as part of the Lowry cap.
[36:10] This is more than a 35% reduction in the total number of wells contemplated by the comprehensive area plan.
[36:17] That is Creststone intends to drill approximately 63% of the total number of wells it originally proposed to develop throughout the ranch.
[36:24] These changes result in a market decrease in cumulative impacts including emissions relative to what was assessed in the comprehensive area plan.
[36:33] A summary of the voluntary enhanced systems and practices to be applied at the preferred state sunlight uh long location is shown on this slide.
[36:40] The incorporation of these ESPs at state sunlight long are consistent in in compliance with order number 5351490.
[36:51] Although pre-production operations commenced on Lowi Ranch at the state Llata location in August 2025, there have been an influx of noise complaints filed with ECMC in Arapjo County beginning in midFebruary of this year.
[37:03] To date, there have been no findings of non-compliance by ECMC or Arapjo County.
[37:08] Continuous noise monitoring has determined that noise thresholds have not exceeded the permissible sound levels in ECMC rule 423.
[37:16] Furthermore, the continuous noise monitoring data conforms with the noise modeling results submitted with the ECMC approved noise management plans for the pertinent OGDPS.
[37:24] Creststone has and will continue to work with ECMC staff on these matters.
[37:31] Pursuant to order requirement number eight, Creststone repeatedly engaged CPW on the preferred state sunlight long location and the supplemental alternative locations as is evidenced by the timeline shown on this slide.
[37:44] CPW's findings and consultation notes following the January 13th infield consultation were provided as exhibit 123.
[37:49] I will now turn the presentation
[37:52] I will now turn the presentation back to Mr. Harrington.
[37:54] Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Here, I'd like to uh present an overview of order requirement number two, which required Creststone to analyze the amount of non-reoverable minerals that would result from each ALA site.
[38:03] Uh during the November hearing, Creststone presented testimony about drilling and completions technical factors that limit stepout and side sale footage to the landing point as well as overall completed lateral length.
[38:20] And that analysis is apply apply this analysis applies those limitations to each of the 11 ALA sites.
[38:25] The original state sunlight long was chosen because of setback constraints as well as the fact that can develop the entirety of the proposed state sunlight and state long DSUs.
[38:35] Applying the technical limitations to each ALA site, we developed an estimate of the amount of mineral acreage that could not be developed from each site, resulting in unreasonable and none unnecessary non-development.
[38:47] The majority of ALA sites cannot develop the entirety of both DSUs. The table on the
[38:52] entirety of both DSUs.
[38:54] The table on the bottom summarizes this modeled non-developed acreage from each site,
[38:57] and we'll now go through each site in turn.
[38:59] First, we have the original State Sunlight long site circled here in yellow
[39:05] located as central to the proposed development area as setbacks allow.
[39:09] Both DSUs can be fully developed and you can see the statistics at the top there.
[39:13] I'll go through the remaining slides relatively quickly, but it should be obvious moving this up eastward will result in undeveloped acreage at the west end of each DSU.
[39:23] For AL8 site number one, we estimate that the entirety of section 19 and the west half of section 30 shown here in red would not be developable for a total waste of 960 acres.
[39:35] Third of location 2 would allow for full development of both DSUs, but as Mr. Bennett discussed earlier, this ALA site is very close to Aurora Reservoir and is unpermittable in Arapo County regulation.
[39:50] ALA number three only misses about 320
[39:53] ALA number three only misses about 320 acres, but it is essentially touching.
[39:56] acres, but it is essentially touching planned reservoir B and is unpermittable.
[40:01] And then we'll get back to the eastward ALA sites, each of which would fail to develop the western end of one or both DSUs.
[40:07] DSUs. This is AL4.
[40:10] And the remaining slides should be self-explanatory.
[40:12] And in the interest of time, we'll flip through them quickly, but we're happy to answer any questions.
[40:18] We proceed through those.
[40:26] ALA9 which is one of the CPW proposed reoccupation of state LLATA site.
[40:30] It is worth noting that this is under 2,000 ft from one RBU and under 3,000 ft from another for which Creststone obtained informed consent for its phase 2 2025 operations but not for a third occupation of the site.
[40:54] Here's ALA10. This is another site that is not permittable under Arapo County reservoir setback requirements.
[41:02] All right, on to order requirement number three.
[41:06] Order requirement number three involve the relationship of the ALA sites to the Maverick Mineral position and whether any will allow for development.
[41:14] In our November testimony, Cresto maintained that we could not effectively reach and develop the MA maverick mineral position from the state sunlight long site.
[41:22] Sites f east further east and south are even more out of range, which applies to most of the ALA sites.
[41:26] AL2 and three would likely allow for development of Maverick Minerals.
[41:30] However, as discussed above, both of these sites are below the Arapo County reservoir setbacks.
[41:38] Order requirement number five asked for an investigation of seeking variances to the Arapo County setback regulations.
[41:46] Uh first a quick overview of the setback regulations.
[41:48] The base setback is 1 mile 5280 ft.
[41:51] That setback is reducible to
[41:55] 5280 ft.
[41:58] That setback is reducible to 3,000 ft via administrative staff waivers if the pads can be shown to be downgraded to topographically isolated from the reservoir or planned reservoir.
[42:05] The county has approved sites below 5280 ft and above 3,000 ft on the basis of that variance, including the state sunlight long itself.
[42:16] Our setback map shows a 5280 ft setback for sites upgradient from a reservoir and a 30,000 ft setback for sites downgrading with the reservoir, but that does already presume that first tier of setback variance.
[42:30] Next, further reduction in reservoir setbacks are possible, but come with some important caveats.
[42:36] First, further reductions have to go through a board of county commissioner vote rather than an administrative process.
[42:41] Second, the operator must demonstrate certain requirements for the further reduction to be considered.
[42:45] Two are critical.
[42:47] One is the consent of the owner and operator of the reservoir.
[42:49] Second though is a demonstration of the necessity of a further setback reduction due to
[42:56] further setback reduction due to topographic or other special conditions.
[42:58] topographic or other special conditions of the site location.
[43:01] of the site location.
[43:01] In so far that as we have an approved site, the state sunlight long that is fully compliant with Rapo County setback rules and it has in fact been approved under those standards.
[43:11] It's impossible for us to represent to the county that a further reduced setback is required to build this site.
[43:17] this site.
[43:17] Lastly, the Arapjo County regs do have hard reservoir setbacks that cannot be waved.
[43:22] 2,000 foot for downgradient site, 30,000 foot upgradient.
[43:25] Those hard setbacks would apply to some of the ALAs.
[43:31] To summarize, state sunlight long is upgradient and more than 50 to 80 ft from plan reservoir B downgradient and more than 3,000 ft from Aurora reservoir and was approved administratively because its location was existed exists and was approved.
[43:48] Creststone cannot demonstrate the necessity of a further reduced exception setback to the Arapo County Board of Commissioners.
[43:56] Stepping back further, we want to
[43:57] Stepping back further, we want to reiterate the impact of the Arapo County reservoir setback requirements have on the landscape here.
[44:03] And a reminder that this map already assumes the lesser administrative setback waivers were applicable due to topography.
[44:11] Lastly, when we overlay county required riparian setbacks, which is w which are waveable down to 500 ft, which is what what is shown here, the landscape is even further constrained.
[44:24] Order requirement number six is a verification of the status of Aurora East Reservoir.
[44:30] The plans for Aurora East Reservoir, while reflected in the original Lowry lease tier map, were abandoned by Aurora in 2018.
[44:37] That abandonment was reflected in the 2020 Lowry asset management plan highlighted on the left as discussed in the hearing in November.
[44:45] Further, Colorado State Land Board re-engaged with Aurora Water as part of their tier map amendment process in January 2026 and the city reiterated it its abandonment of these plans and expects expressed new desire to retain its boundary in the tier map.
[44:59] to retain its boundary in the tier map and that's summarized on the right.
[45:04] Next, in December, Colorado District.
[45:06] Next, in December, Colorado District Water Court Division 1 issued decree.
[45:09] Water Court Division 1 issued decree which among other things reflected.
[45:11] which among other things reflected changes to Range View's water rights at.
[45:13] changes to Range View's water rights at Lowry Ranch.
[45:15] Lowry Ranch. Those changes included removal of the rights to defunct planned.
[45:18] removal of the rights to defunct planned reservoirs A and D and clarification of.
[45:21] reservoirs A and D and clarification of the boundaries of planned reservoirs B.
[45:22] the boundaries of planned reservoirs B and C.
[45:25] and C. The map you see below is directly from the court decree.
[45:28] from the court decree. Notably, the revised boundaries of planned reservoirs.
[45:30] revised boundaries of planned reservoirs B and C are reflected in all of.
[45:31] B and C are reflected in all of Crestston's maps today, as well as in.
[45:34] Crestston's maps today, as well as in the Colorado State Land Board's revised.
[45:36] the Colorado State Land Board's revised Lowry lease tier map, which we'll cover.
[45:39] Lowry lease tier map, which we'll cover next.
[45:40] next.
[45:40] Order requirement number seven involved engagement with Colorado State Land.
[45:43] engagement with Colorado State Land Board on revisions to the Lowry lease.
[45:44] Board on revisions to the Lowry lease tier map, specifically around NSO tied.
[45:46] tier map, specifically around NSO tied to planned reservoirs, as well as other.
[45:49] to planned reservoirs, as well as other changes.
[45:51] changes. Following the water court decree just discussed in December, the.
[45:53] decree just discussed in December, the Colorado State Land Board undertook an.
[45:55] Colorado State Land Board undertook an amendment to the Lowry lease in early.
[45:57] amendment to the Lowry lease in early 2026 to true up the tier NSO map to.
[46:02] 2026 to true up the tier NSO map to present conditions and future land use.
[46:05] Present conditions and future land use planning at Lowry Ranch.
[46:07] Additionally, the Colorado State Land Board sought to add an additional NSO primarily for wildlife protections.
[46:11] It's important to note that as a result of this tier map amendment process, the amount of NSO land at Lowry Ranch actually went up.
[46:17] That NSO is rationally aligned to better protect wildlife and to reflect current plans at the ranch.
[46:24] And I'll provide here a quick overview of the changes.
[46:30] First, NSO with defunct reservoirs was removed.
[46:33] Those are those being Aurora East reservoir as confirmed by the city as well as planned reservoirs A and D is confirmed by the water court degree.
[46:49] Next, NSO associated with the current planned reservoirs B and C was added and specifically aligned to the reservoir boundaries represented in the water court degree and confirmed directly with pure cycle.
[47:00] Pier Pier cycles request an
[47:03] Pure cycle. Pier Pier cycles request an additional NSO buffer of 250 ft was.
[47:06] Additional NSO buffer of 250 ft was added around the planned reservoirs.
[47:10] Added around the planned reservoirs.
[47:12] Third, in consultation with Colorado state landboard wildlife experts, uh,
[47:14] state landboard wildlife experts, uh, state land board added a 500 foot NSO buffer around Blackjack Creek and its tributaries.
[47:19] This addition, this addition was supported by CPW.
[47:26] Fourth, there was a small area of non-NSO land within the Coal Creek NSO buffer, which is an important buffer area, perhaps ironically, tied to Konico Phillips' original State Sunlight 2322 pad site with a 2A approved in 2018.
[47:41] Creststone is not planning to pursue the site and consented to returning it to NSO.
[47:47] Finally, here is the final Lowry lease tier map as presented by Colorado State Land Board staff to the board in March.
[47:54] Creststone as Lei was party to this process and fully consent to these tier map changes.
[48:00] Again, the changes are aligned with the current use and plans at the ranch included and include
[48:04] at the ranch included and include additional wildlife protections and the additional wildlife protections and the changes amount to more NSO at the ranch.
[48:09] changes amount to more NSO at the ranch.
[48:12] This tier map was adopted by 50 by the Colorado State Land Board and is reflected in all Creststones materials you see today.
[48:16] reflected in all Creststones materials you see today.
[48:18] With that, I will turn the presentation back to Miss Just.
[48:21] the presentation back to Miss Just.
[48:21] Thank you, Mr. Harrington.
[48:22] Chair, that concludes our direct presentation on the supplemental information submitted on April 6th in compliance with this commission's December 12th, 2025 order.
[48:28] commission's December 12th, 2025 order.
[48:31] We're open to any questions you may have and thank you for your consideration.
[48:38] Okay, thank you very much.
[48:40] Um, we're going to take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back with questions.
[48:43] I do want to inform the members of the public that are listening in uh that for the first time ever and we were unaware of this, we have maxed out our Zoom capacity for public to listen in at uh 1,000 participants.
[48:58] Uh I will note for the public that public comment was not
[49:04] the public that public comment was not uh a part of today's presentation and so uh a part of today's presentation and so if you have tried to get in and you if you have tried to get in and you can't get in, you'll still be able to can't get in, you'll still be able to hear and view the full uh hearing today hear and view the full uh hearing today and your uh rights relative to and your uh rights relative to participation are not impacted because participation are not impacted because this will all be posted on YouTube.
[49:22] I would also note for the record that we have been um uh looking very quickly have been um uh looking very quickly into if there's an ability to increase into if there's an ability to increase capacity.
[49:30] Uh there is not.
[49:35] Um the cost to increase capacity would require a purchase order under Colorado um administrative purchasing whatever.
[49:40] And so we can't do anything further with so we can't do anything further with this today.
[49:44] We apologize for this uh unforeseen uh consequences, but we will make everything available for the public um following today's hearing so that make everything available for the public um following today's hearing so that everybody can can get a full everybody can can get a full understanding of what happened today.
[49:59] Um okay, with that, uh let's return at 10:00 a.m. and we'll start with questions at that point in time.
[50:28] All right, we are back uh at the Energy and Carbon Management Commission on the state sunlight long OGDP.
[50:36] Uh before we move further, let me deal with some process issues.
[50:38] Hearings manager Thomas, if you could elevate.
[50:46] All right, hearings manager Thomas uh talk to me about capacity in Zoom.
[50:50] Um I think you mentioned that uh we are below the thousand threshold at this point.
[50:56] Is is that right?
[50:58] I mean which would mean that everybody's in that wants to be in.
[51:00] That's correct.
[51:02] We're currently at 925 attendees.
[51:05] The capacity here is a thousand.
[51:06] So there is room for additional people to join at this time.
[51:09] Okay.
[51:10] And then you've found a workaround.
[51:14] If we find a a bunch more folks that want to get in over the thousand, we can figure out a workaround.
[51:17] Is that right?
[51:19] Yes.
[51:21] And I'll notify you if we hit that point.
[51:23] Um it would involve disrupting the hearing and having folks resign on.
[51:25] Um if that's a bridge we would like to cross, we can do so um at that time.
[51:31] cross, we can do so um at that time.
[51:33] Okay.
[51:33] That is not a bridge that I want to cross at this point in time.
[51:35] But uh let's just keep monitoring it and uh let me know if if we get back to uh a capacity issue, then we will cross that bridge at the time um that we come to it.
[51:37] Does that sound fair?
[51:41] All right.
[51:41] And for those listening in, we're doing our best.
[51:44] Uh this is a unique situation.
[51:46] Uh we've not had this situation before.
[51:49] We didn't anticipate it.
[51:51] Um uh about this state government, we're doing our best to make sure that everybody is involved uh that wants to listen in.
[51:54] Um all right, we now have time for questions of the applicant.
[51:56] I routinely do not go first, but I'm planning on going first today and uh if my commissioners will accommodate that.
[51:58] Um all right, I got a number of questions.
[51:59] They're kind of all over the place.
[52:01] Uh just sort of throw them out there.
[52:05] None are more important than the other.
[52:07] They're all important.
[52:09] Um, so we asked you to do alternative location analysis and you did 11.
[52:32] location analysis and you did 11. Appreciate that.
[52:35] Um, appreciate your meeting with STAR and speaking with them as well as meeting with the other state agencies.
[52:41] In particular, I'm interested in your um, perspective on why the preferred location is more protective than ALA1 and and or four.
[52:54] Thank you, Chair Mr. Bennett.
[52:59] Thank you, Miss Jose. Thank you, Chair Robbins.
[53:03] Uh, as it relates to alternative location one, and perhaps Miss Wazalinki could skip to share her screen and move to slide 21.
[53:12] uh we identified significant concerns uh relative to the access route um the hall route transportation corridor that would be required to access AL1 in addition to concerns with uh wildlife and biological resources as shown on this slide.
[53:30] Um, you know, on top of that, uh, we're not quite certain that utility power would
[53:34] quite certain that utility power would be able to get to that location.
[53:35] And so be able to get to that location.
[53:38] And so that is a differentiator between the, that is a differentiator between the, uh, already serviceable state sunlight
[53:40] uh, already serviceable state sunlight long with utility power from Excel, the
[53:43] long with utility power from Excel, the utility, uh, in the area relative to to
[53:45] utility, uh, in the area relative to to many of these alternatives, but
[53:46] many of these alternatives, but specifically alternative one.
[53:49] specifically alternative one.
[53:52] Importantly, uh, egress from AL1 with a pipeline would require the crossing of
[53:55] pipeline would require the crossing of numerous riparian areas, uh,
[53:57] numerous riparian areas, uh, particularly Cole Creek to tie into the
[54:00] particularly Cole Creek to tie into the existing transport, uh, you know,
[54:02] existing transport, uh, you know, hydrocarbon transportation system to the
[54:03] hydrocarbon transportation system to the north.
[54:06] north. That is state landboard designated NSO or tier one relative to
[54:09] designated NSO or tier one relative to our lease obligations.
[54:11] our lease obligations.
[54:14] Also importantly, uh any egress from that pad to connect to pipeline uh to
[54:17] that pad to connect to pipeline uh to the north would uh impact some high
[54:20] the north would uh impact some high quality PE pedmont grasslands as
[54:23] quality PE pedmont grasslands as determined by an independent thirdparty
[54:25] determined by an independent thirdparty consultant uh as well as comments from
[54:28] consultant uh as well as comments from the state land board that were provided
[54:30] the state land board that were provided uh following our infield consultation.
[54:33] uh following our infield consultation.
[54:35] There's some other wildlife resources in the area that both CPW and state land have acknowledged in their comments both in the field and some of their written submittals that relates uh candidly to a a prior swift fox den.
[54:44] Uh and lastly um one of the other considerations that went into uh the determination as to whether or not AL1 was was viable um was a proximity to some prairie dog towns uh nearby.
[55:02] CBW had mentioned this in their consultation and uh candidly some of those hurry dog burrows had been previously occupied by the burrowing owl although those are inactive nests um they are in close proximity to this location uh as well as some mu deer uh HPH.
[55:21] All right, I'm going to drill down a little bit.
[55:22] Talk to me about the hall route.
[55:25] Yes, sir.
[55:28] Uh, as has been mentioned in our supplemental uh, submitts, um, the the easiest way, perhaps the most
[55:35] The easiest way, perhaps the most environmentally friendly way to access AL1 is through the Southern Ranch egress off Countyline Road.
[55:42] So, as you can see from this uh sightspecific map that's shown here, to get to Quincy Avenue, which bounds the ranch on the north side for the purposes of of our development, you would have to cross uh Black Shack Creek to the west, Cole Creek to the east, cross through a reservoir uh buffer, you know, as promulgated by Rapco County.
[56:06] And so using uh the existing twotrack road network, we would head south from AL1, meander our way through the ranch to a point uh at the ranch boundary in County Line Road, head east uh several miles, head north uh several miles, and then back to the west to be able to get to Watkins Road, which as I mentioned in my testimony is Arapjo County's approved transportation corridor for our operations in this area.
[56:30] And is the 26 additional miles, is that what I think I heard from testimony?
[56:35] what I think I heard from testimony?
[56:38] Yes, that is correct.
[56:38] Um, you know, in addition to that road mileage, right,
[56:39] the truck mileage, there's certainly an impact u as it relates to mobile emissions from, you know, trucks that that burn diesel fuel.
[56:47] Are you allowed to cross Blackjack and Cole Creek um for the roads or is that not allowed or is that something that needs to be debated with the state land board?
[56:59] It's my understanding that both of those drainages are considered to be tier one, no surface occupancy areas, and the land board does have buffers around those features to protect those riparian resources.
[57:12] Prior conversations with the state land board about the potential to cross Cole Creek, so east of AL1, uh were not looked upon favorably.
[57:19] And so I'm reasonably certain that accessing uh going through those riparian corridors with an access road, excuse me, uh is a non-starter for the landlord.
[57:29] So when you say not looked upon favorably, that's from the land board.
[57:33] Yes, sir.
[57:33] It's my recollection.
[57:35] Yes, sir. It's my recollection.
[57:39] And so uh talk to me about the crossing of NSOs.
[57:42] Does the state land board allow that?
[57:44] Do they not look favorably upon it?
[57:47] Can they do a variance on it?
[57:50] What's the the additional information on that point?
[57:50] Yeah, a strict a strict reading of our lease agreement and the associated terms would prohibit, you know, crossing any lands that are deemed non-surface occupancy tier one uh relative to presentation in the depictions you saw here today.
[58:06] Uh does your lease allow you to ask for permission?
[58:09] Uh I believe that opportunity does exist.
[58:14] However, as previously indicated, prior conversations with the landlord about crossing these features in various locations, including a potential access road to get to AL1 uh did not appear to be favorable to them.
[58:25] And my indication was we would not get approval if we made such a request.
[58:30] All right. Talk to me about the not certainty of utility power.
[58:32] What the what does that mean?
[58:37] what does that mean?
[58:39] Much like the uh oil and gas industry,
[58:41] there's a significant amount of planning that the utility providers go through uh
[58:43] as they site their infrastructure um you know to connect from regional regional
[58:46] transport transmission lines, excuse me, uh down to sight specific uh access opportunities.
[58:54] In this instance, uh the ability to get an electrical right ofway from the landboard to take power from the nearest spot into AL1 has not been broached.
[59:06] Uh as you've heard from us previously, relative to power in this area, it's an extremely long lead item.
[59:11] We work very closely with Excel.
[59:14] They do their best to to service our needs. uh but excuse me to bring utility power to AL1 would probably take several years and require a number of permissions not only from state Lambor but more importantly from Arapjo County as it relates to the necessary rights way to get from that existing transmission system you know into the interior of the ranch to AL1.
[59:39] All right, another line of questions.
[59:43] Talk to me about the grass issue that was never approached.
[59:46] Uh, you know, uh, the prairie grass, the analysis of it, uh, the cattle rotation, you know, all of that is kind of new, as far as I can tell, new information in the record that is implicating uh, different sites, etc.
[59:58] Um, where did that come from?
[01:00:02] Why aren't we hearing from it now?
[01:00:04] Why was it not part of the record before?
[01:00:06] How important is it?
[01:00:09] Just give me some general understanding of the grass and the cattle rotation issues.
[01:00:13] Uh yes, Chairman Robbins, thank you for the question.
[01:00:18] Uh to put it simply, the Pedmont grasslands and coordination with the act producer were not an issue as it relates to the proposed state sunlight long location.
[01:00:29] I should mention that our oil and gas lease requires us to coordinate with all of the leises in this layered leasing situation within Lowry Ranch.
[01:00:38] Included within that is the agricultural
[01:00:40] within that is the agricultural producer.
[01:00:42] There's several recreational clubs out here that we need to coordinate with on on a yearly basis.
[01:00:46] And so when Creststone originally proposed state sunlight location, that location was reviewed by state landboard as well as their agricultural tenant.
[01:00:54] uh and neither party had any issues or challenges with how that pad was being cited, how that access was being planned to get to that location and so on.
[01:01:03] With the mandate to consider alternative locations above and beyond what were contemplated in the original OGDP filing, as we got to the more of the interior of the ranch, these things became more important.
[01:01:15] As I mentioned, the soils and vegetation types that are found within these Pedmont grasslands are not present in state sunlight law.
[01:01:22] And so as we navigated eastward into the interior, as you can see from the map shown uh that Miss Wislanki is sharing now, these soils are heavily prevalent in the eastern and southern portions of the ranch.
[01:01:35] When you have that good soil development and the the the proper environmental conditions, you see these grasses establish themselves.
[01:01:41] Grasses establish themselves.
[01:01:43] The agricultural producer relies on these areas, as I mentioned, as part of his rotational uh grazing practices.
[01:01:48] Uh his his herd, their herd um actually has improved these areas over time, believe it or not.
[01:01:54] And there's some signs behind that that perhaps I can't get into.
[01:01:57] Uh however, like I mentioned, as we navigated away from our preferred location, these things became more important.
[01:02:05] One, because they were present, and two, because the agricultural producer had concerns about disruption in his activities.
[01:02:12] Again, we're in a layered leasing situation here where we all have equal rights, if you will, within the within the ranch.
[01:02:19] And so, those were considerations that became very important as we diverged eastward from Sunlight.
[01:02:25] And do you know or did you ask the state land board about, you know, sort of trying to preserve those issues relative to the grasses and the cattle grazing while potentially thinking through the utilization of al
[01:02:42] thinking through the utilization of al some of the alternatives that might impact them?
[01:02:45] In other words, is it hard and firm that the grasses and the cattle prevail or is it a co-equal sort of relationship where we ought to be thinking about protections all the way around or do you know?
[01:02:57] I I will do my best to answer that question, Chair Robbins.
[01:03:03] Um I will say that the agricultural producer out here has made significant investment in into their operations within the ranch.
[01:03:09] There's a series of of of stewardship things, if you will, that the state land board requires him as an a producer to undertake.
[01:03:17] I've spoken to some of those today.
[01:03:21] His his preference, and he was uh a representative of that operation, was part of our January 13th field field consu consultation.
[01:03:27] His preference uh was State Sunlight Long is is the the best and most fitting location uh to be compatible with his operations and compatible with his future land use out here.
[01:03:37] Um, I can't speak to nor do I want to speculate about what a three-way conversation about a location other than
[01:03:44] conversation about a location other than state sunlight long may look like.
[01:03:46] state sunlight long may look like involving the a producer and the land.
[01:03:48] involving the a producer and the land board.
[01:03:50] But I will stress uh as I've mentioned previously today in the context of the alternatives that we reviewed, we believe that state sunlight long is the most protective of public health, safety, welfare, the environment and biological resources.
[01:04:04] All right.
[01:04:06] Um, some of these questions will be more apt for the state land board, but I understand they're not with us.
[01:04:10] If if they want to show up, that'd be lovely.
[01:04:11] Um, but at this point, I'm continue to ask questions of you.
[01:04:17] Um, you articulated changes to the state sunlight lawn location.
[01:04:22] The well count is uh reduced by 25%.
[01:04:28] uh that reduces the production time frame or work on site by 25% or thereabouts.
[01:04:37] Um correct me if I'm saying these things incorrectly.
[01:04:39] Um and then that also allowed for a reconfiguration of the well pad service with the
[01:04:46] of the well pad service with the facilities and the wells being located further east.
[01:04:52] Um first off, did I get that right?
[01:04:53] And then secondly, if I got that right, um, can you provide perspective?
[01:04:59] Was this the best? And I'm I'm not suggesting that's not good.
[01:05:05] It is good, but I'm trying to get on the record.
[01:05:09] Was this the, you know, the the furthest the best that that could be done uh given all the parameters of this oil and gas location?
[01:05:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[01:05:18] As to your first question, yes, the way I understood the the various facts that you recited, that is correct.
[01:05:26] Uh we have we are agreeing to reduce our wellc count from 32 to 24 and as a result, we're able to make some design changes to that location that moves our surface of pertinances further to the east from residential building units to the west.
[01:05:39] As it relates to your second question, I'm sorry, uh as it relates to your second question, uh Mr. Harrington uh
[01:05:47] second question, uh Mr. Harrington uh may want to chime in here.
[01:05:49] So Dan, if if you do, please let me know.
[01:05:52] Um as it relates to your second question,
[01:05:54] following our engagement with STAR, our in-person engagement with STAR at the beginning of the year, we heard very loud and very clearly that reduction in operational time frame was extremely important to them.
[01:06:08] that is reducing the time we're on location with pre-production operations as well as increasing the distance whatever that distance may be increasing the distance from homes to the extent we can.
[01:06:21] these design changes as Mr. Harrington alluded to uh do not happen easily nor do they happen overnight.
[01:06:27] And so we took those comments that feedback we received from STAR incorporated into this larger analysis came to the conclusion that Sunlight Long is the most protective location and set forth making these changes to uh you know gain distance from those residential building units and do what we could to reduce our operational time frame.
[01:06:45] 215 days I
[01:06:47] operational time frame.
[01:06:47] 215 days I believe is what I testified to.
[01:06:50] Uh that is a significant period of time that we will not be in pre-production operations at this location should it be approved.
[01:06:57] Mr. Harrington, anything to add?
[01:06:59] Yeah, Chair Robbins, just to address your uh final question around uh is this the best we can do in terms of the pad configuration.
[01:07:07] U just to point out a couple of features.
[01:07:09] Uh you can note that the weld wellhead to well head spacing here is extremely tight.
[01:07:14] That's honestly a little bit closer than we like to go, but we basically brought it down to the limit to be able to compress both well rows onto the east side of the pad and maximize that that setback distance uh further.
[01:07:27] If you look at the facility, I realize it's a little bit to a little bit tough to read with the overlays there, but those facilities are stacked pretty close together and and moved as far eastward as possible.
[01:07:37] So, the answer to your question is yes.
[01:07:39] So yes, this is as uh or or this reduction is as much as can be done uh on this site.
[01:07:49] as much as can be done uh on this site to try to accommodate the concerns.
[01:07:51] Is to try to accommodate the concerns.
[01:07:51] Is that correct?
[01:07:52] that correct?
[01:07:52] That's correct.
[01:07:54] It's it's very compact.
[01:07:54] Okay.
[01:07:57] Is it still safe?
[01:07:57] It is still safe.
[01:08:00] Yeah.
[01:08:00] We don't we wouldn't do that.
[01:08:03] wouldn't do that.
[01:08:05] Good.
[01:08:05] All right.
[01:08:11] all right.
[01:08:11] I think those I might have some questions later, but those are my initial questions.
[01:08:13] I think those I might have some questions later, but those are my initial questions.
[01:08:14] initial questions.
[01:08:14] I open the panel up for further questions from our commission.
[01:08:17] I open the panel up for further questions from our commission.
[01:08:19] for further questions from our commission.
[01:08:22] Eeny, meeny, miny, moy, catch a tiger by the toe.
[01:08:25] Eeny, meeny, miny, moy, catch a tiger by the toe.
[01:08:25] Uh, Commissioner Mesner, you won.
[01:08:27] the toe.
[01:08:27] Uh, Commissioner Mesner, you won.
[01:08:30] won.
[01:08:30] I like it when I'm a winner.
[01:08:34] I like it when I'm a winner.
[01:08:34] Um, thank you, Mr. Chair.
[01:08:37] Um, thank you, Mr. Chair.
[01:08:37] Thanks for the presentation.
[01:08:39] Um, I did have a few additional follow-up questions from uh the chair's questions.
[01:08:41] additional follow-up questions from uh the chair's questions.
[01:08:41] Um, and just trying to get a little more information about the different
[01:08:46] and just trying to get a little more information about the different
[01:08:48] and just trying to get a little more information about the different
[01:08:49] information about the different alternatives and um, making sure that I fully understand the analysis that was done and the things that were considered or maybe not considered.
[01:09:02] Um, I think I'm struggling a little.
[01:09:04] So, I think I'm struggling a little.
[01:09:07] So, alternative 4, I think you talked um, Mr. Bennett a lot about alternative one.
[01:09:10] I did have some questions about alternative 4.
[01:09:15] And first of all, I'm trying to understand the state land board tier that it's on because there seems to be conflicting information that's being provided in the exhibits that you've that you've given us.
[01:09:28] Um, you know, it seems like on slide 15, it's in a tier 4 designation, which is a preferred designation by the state land board.
[01:09:35] And it may maybe it's uh maybe it's slide 13.
[01:09:45] Um, I'm not It's in there somewhere because in the slides that I have, those earlier slides in
[01:09:50] that I have, those earlier slides in your presentation weren't numbered, page your presentation weren't numbered, page numbered, and so I'm just I'm not sure exactly which one it is.
[01:09:59] Um and then in slide 73 where you were kind of identifying different areas that have different tiers associated with the state land board.
[01:10:09] There seems to be no tier 4 designations in that part of the state landboard land the ranch.
[01:10:17] And so just trying to get a better understanding of whether alternative 4 is in a tier 4 preferred location or not.
[01:10:29] Yeah, thank you for the question, Commissioner Mesner.
[01:10:30] Um, Miss Watlinki, if you could go to slide 13 for example, start, that would be appreciated.
[01:10:39] Thank you.
[01:10:40] Uh, you're asking about where star ALA number four resides.
[01:10:47] Um, as you can see or will see from this map, it's it's my interpretation, and I believe Mr.
[01:10:51] interpretation, and I believe Mr. Harrington agrees that that location um Harrington agrees that that location um lies within lies within a tier three and tier 2 a tier three and tier 2 area as designated by the landlord.
[01:11:06] area as designated by the landlord. Tier three,
[01:11:08] Tier three, I maybe was getting confused with the different greens.
[01:11:10] I maybe was getting confused with the different greens. And so now I'm actually seeing that there's a slightly different green color for tier 4 versus tier three.
[01:11:13] And so now I'm actually seeing that there's a slightly different green color for tier 4 versus tier three.
[01:11:15] different green color for tier 4 versus tier three.
[01:11:17] Is that is that correct?
[01:11:21] We we apologize for the difference in colors here.
[01:11:24] Um ALA4 is mostly within uh tier three with a little bit of overlap into tier 2.
[01:11:28] Um ALA4 is mostly within uh tier three with a little bit of overlap into tier 2.
[01:11:30] Uh as you can see here and if if we want to jump to 73, you can kind of see it.
[01:11:34] Uh as you can see here and if if we want to jump to 73, you can kind of see it.
[01:11:36] The green becomes blue in slide 73.
[01:11:38] Okay, that's helpful.
[01:11:43] I think I was confusing myself there.
[01:11:45] Um, I can see it now.
[01:11:47] The different colors of green, so I thought that that was tier four.
[01:11:49] So, that does
[01:11:53] that that was tier four.
[01:11:56] So, that does um um that does help.
[01:12:00] Uh that does help.
[01:12:00] Uh now as far as alternative four goes as now as far as alternative four goes as well.
[01:12:07] um and as far as the you know rotational grazing the you know rotational grazing the regenerative grazing that's associated regenerative grazing that's associated with the agricultural operation on this with the agricultural operation on this ranch um utilizing primarily rotation.
[01:12:18] utilizing primarily rotation between different pastures and you have maps that show the different fencing associated with that.
[01:12:23] maps that show the different fencing associated with that.
[01:12:25] It does appear that both the preferred location and alternative for within the same pasture and so shouldn't have from a fencing standpoint at least um any impact associated with the grazing operations or the infrastructure associated with the grazing operations.
[01:12:33] and so shouldn't have from a fencing standpoint at least um any impact associated with the grazing operations or the infrastructure associated with the grazing operations.
[01:12:43] associated with the grazing operations.
[01:12:43] Is that fair?
[01:12:46] Is that fair?
[01:12:48] >> Appreciate the question commissioner Mesner.
[01:12:51] Uh it's my understanding that the the market difference between
[01:12:53] the the market difference between preferred state sunlight long and alle preferred state sunlight long and alle number four even though they appear to number four even though they appear to be in the same pasture is where they are be in the same pasture is where they are in the pasture relation in relation to in the pasture relation in relation to other features.
[01:13:06] Uh, importantly, Sunlight Long is further to the west, which gets away from that interior nature of the ranch where, as you can see from this map, the vegetation, the associated soil types, and other sorts of biological resources are perhaps marketkedly different than what's present at Sunlight Long.
[01:13:24] I can't speak to the specificity involved with how these pastures were created other than to say that we have engaged with the producer.
[01:13:34] As I mentioned, producer is accepting of Sunlight Long and was not accepting, my words, of many of the alternatives, including AL4 that we presented.
[01:13:45] Is that consultation part of the record?
[01:13:50] Uh, it is not.
[01:13:52] Okay. Thanks.
[01:13:54] Okay.
[01:13:54] Thanks.
[01:13:54] um trying to also understand a little um trying to also understand a little more about more about um um about this this particular situation.
[01:14:05] So we've got the rotational grazing.
[01:14:08] We've got the rotational grazing.
[01:14:10] We've got the preferred location which is in tier the preferred location which is in tier tier two I think.
[01:14:17] Um alternative four being a combination of and and correct me if I'm wrong.
[01:14:21] I'm just trying to make sure I understand.
[01:14:25] um the the alternative for location being in tier three with a little bit of tier 2 associated with it.
[01:14:38] Um the information that was provided on the record from the state land board um states that it is in tier two and three locations and um there's no information associated with the pipeline corridor.
[01:14:53] That was the extent of what I saw in the record from
[01:14:56] extent of what I saw in the record from the state land board.
[01:14:58] Unless I'm missing an exhibit that provides additional details specific to this location from the state land board and if so please direct me to that.
[01:15:07] Um is there commissioner me there is no explicit exhibit um detailing potential pipeline alternatives relative to state landboard uh and importantly the the taring maps.
[01:15:19] I will say, however, that there were a couple of pipeline alternatives that were considered in the Pedmont habitat assessment that we provided as part of our supplemental filings as well.
[01:15:29] More importantly, I can talk to you now as to how that infrastructure would be developed.
[01:15:35] And so if we're looking at AL4, and this is consistent with some of the pros on our on our slide, as well as what's contained in our narratives, pipeline uh egress from this location would be to the north, whether it was to the west and crossed Black Shack Creek or it went to the east and crossed Cole Creek or or northeast, northwest, however you want to frame that, it would impact these sensitive riparian areas
[01:15:56] impact these sensitive riparian areas that both the state land board is
[01:15:58] that both the state land board is protecting through the redesation of NSO
[01:16:01] protecting through the redesation of NSO throughout the ranch as well as the ag
[01:16:03] throughout the ranch as well as the ag agricultural producer uh and his use of
[01:16:06] agricultural producer uh and his use of those riparian areas as part of his his
[01:16:08] those riparian areas as part of his his grazing practices.
[01:16:10] grazing practices. So that's extremely important here.
[01:16:13] important here. Another factor uh related to AL4 is the transportation
[01:16:16] related to AL4 is the transportation corridor as I explained uh to chair
[01:16:18] corridor as I explained uh to chair Robbins in an answer to his question
[01:16:20] Robbins in an answer to his question earlier that the access would come south
[01:16:23] earlier that the access would come south of this location out on County Light
[01:16:26] of this location out on County Light Road at the southern egress of the ranch
[01:16:28] Road at the southern egress of the ranch and then to the east to the north and
[01:16:29] and then to the east to the north and back to the west you know roughly 26
[01:16:31] back to the west you know roughly 26 miles or thereabouts to connect to our
[01:16:34] miles or thereabouts to connect to our you know approved uh transportation
[01:16:37] you know approved uh transportation corridor uh via at Rapo County.
[01:16:41] corridor uh via at Rapo County. There's a couple of other factors here as well.
[01:16:44] a couple of other factors here as well. Uh there's some northern leopard frog
[01:16:46] Uh there's some northern leopard frog habitat that's less than 500 foot from
[01:16:48] habitat that's less than 500 foot from this proposed location. Um it's in high
[01:16:51] this proposed location. Um it's in high priority habitat both for new deer as
[01:16:54] priority habitat both for new deer as well as pong horn. There's some swift
[01:16:56] well as pong horn. There's some swift fox considerations that have been
[01:16:57] fox considerations that have been discussed previously and then the presence of prairie dog towns.
[01:17:02] presence of prairie dog towns.
[01:17:07] Yeah, thanks for that. Was there any as I mean so struggling with what's on the record here, right?
[01:17:11] And so trying to fully understand that but you know was state land board a producer county or CPW provided um kind of any specificity on these hall routes in order for them to provide formal comments on this?
[01:17:26] Appreciate the follow-up question. Uh hall routes were not necessarily a focus of our infield consultation with the agencies that were present.
[01:17:33] We truly focused on potential alternative locations um and what the pipeline access or access road corridors may look like within the confines of the ranch, not necessarily what the transportation corridor looks when you get exterior to the state landlord's ownership and property.
[01:17:51] Yeah. Even interior though, there wasn't any formal like map showing where the hall routes could be, the pipeline, the
[01:17:59] hall routes could be, the pipeline, the electrical infrastructure that would.
[01:18:01] electrical infrastructure that would enable the a producers, the state land board, the county or CPW to be able to provide more formal comments on the record.
[01:18:12] Appreciate the followup question, sir.
[01:18:14] Uh, we did discuss during that infield consultation what access roads may be utilized here.
[01:18:19] I think uh there was a general understanding that the crossing of Cole Creek was a was a hard no at least as it relates to an access road and so coming out of the ranch to the south was I think you know uh known by the participants.
[01:18:36] Similarly we talked through and I mentioned you'll see some representations of the pipeline maps in that Pedmont habitat assessment which CPW also had uh in their possession at times.
[01:18:48] Um, we did discuss again what those alternatives may look like from a from a pipeline infrastructure standpoint.
[01:18:55] I will say that uh as you know thirdparty pipelines uh don't necessarily fall under the uh rules and
[01:19:00] necessarily fall under the uh rules and regulations of ECMC but that is a consideration that we take into account particularly in the context of cumulative impacts and our overall disturbance footprint.
[01:19:09] And so those alternatives or potential alternatives were discussed.
[01:19:13] There's really uh there is not a good way to get into or out of this inter these interior components of the ranch either with with new build infrastructure or existing road corridors etc.
[01:19:26] Okay. Does the state sunlight long pad have uh access road and pipelines that cross NSO?
[01:19:38] I may defer to Mr. Harrington uh to answer part of this question.
[01:19:43] Um I will uh because he is much more intimately familiar with the recent changes in NSO relative to our oil and gas lease with the state landlord.
[01:19:52] I will say that we are improving an existing road that exists on the ranch.
[01:19:57] It's, you know, I'll call it a two-track road, you know, roughly 18 feet wide.
[01:19:58] And in in addition
[01:20:01] roughly 18 feet wide.
[01:20:03] And in in addition to that road improvement, which will to that road improvement, which will actually, you know, help with uh accelerate erosion and sedimentation, we will have storm water and drainage controls that do not exist today.
[01:20:11] We're going to construct the pipeline immediately adjacent to that road to consolidate that footprint um and reduce, you know, fragmentation above and beyond that that one single corridor.
[01:20:24] corridor. >> I appreciate that. I'm sure you're going to do that with any access road and pipeline you create, but the question really was, does it cross NSO?
[01:20:32] >> The answer to that, uh, Commissioner, is no, it does not.
[01:20:36] Um, as Mr. Bennett said, "We're improving an existing access road that is not in the latest round of NSO."
[01:20:42] >> Okay. Helpful. Thank you. Um uh so again, at least from what I'm seeing on the record, and please if I'm missing something, uh which I do sometimes, please let me know.
[01:20:57] But when I read the CPW written comments, at least it indicates that uh all 12
[01:21:05] least it indicates that uh all 12 potential locations we would be workable.
[01:21:07] potential locations we would be workable with CPW and the operator discussing and agreeing to various wildlife avoidance minimization and mitigation measures.
[01:21:10] with CPW and the operator discussing and agreeing to various wildlife avoidance minimization and mitigation measures.
[01:21:12] agreeing to various wildlife avoidance minimization and mitigation measures.
[01:21:15] minimization and mitigation measures.
[01:21:17] The one that I think got called out as far as not being recommended would be um A3 as it has the most wildlife impacts of the 12 potential locations.
[01:21:21] far as not being recommended would be um A3 as it has the most wildlife impacts of the 12 potential locations.
[01:21:24] A3 as it has the most wildlife impacts of the 12 potential locations.
[01:21:27] of the 12 potential locations.
[01:21:30] Is there other more formal because a lot of the considerations you're bringing up in some of these alternatives are wildlife related, but is there something else that I'm missing that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:31] because a lot of the considerations you're bringing up in some of these alternatives are wildlife related, but is there something else that I'm missing that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:33] you're bringing up in some of these alternatives are wildlife related, but is there something else that I'm missing that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:35] alternatives are wildlife related, but is there something else that I'm missing that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:37] is there something else that I'm missing that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:42] that would indicate that CPW would have problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:44] problems with any of the other locations?
[01:21:47] I appreciate the the question, Commissioner Mesner.
[01:21:48] I appreciate the the question, Commissioner Mesner.
[01:21:51] uh your your view of the consultation uh the the formal notes of the consultation are similar to ours.
[01:21:54] of the consultation uh the the formal notes of the consultation are similar to ours.
[01:21:56] notes of the consultation are similar to ours.
[01:21:58] Uh I think you recounted that accurately.
[01:22:03] accurately. Um I I I will say that from where we sit, we appreciate the AY's
[01:22:06] where we sit, we appreciate the AY's participation in this.
[01:22:08] We appreciate participation in this.
[01:22:10] We appreciate their willingness to consult multiple times on this project.
[01:22:13] uh specifically um frankly we have some concerns above and beyond uh what may be indicated in in CPW summary that I've talked through today.
[01:22:18] Uh for example high priority habitat and where that habitat is relative to some of the alternatives particularly AL number nine although that's an existing location that is within high priority habitat.
[01:22:33] We've heard from prior proceedings and we've we've engaged the agency on on what makes the most sense and if we can avoid HPH with a wellpad and the operations associated therewith, you know, we believe that that's the that's what we should do as good stewards to the environment, good wildlife uh stewards.
[01:22:50] Um, you know, additionally, I don't want to speak for CPW uh and and again, I'll stress that we do appreciate their consultation and involvement in this project over its, you know, life of several years.
[01:23:02] Okay, thank you.
[01:23:11] Couple of couple of couple of questions.
[01:23:15] Um, you know, again, trying to better understand the alternative location analysis, and Chair Robbins brought this up as well, but was there a formal consultation um initiated with Excel as far as making any kind of determinations or feasibility or or or um uh, you know, ability to serve letters or anything like that uh associated with any alternatives besides a preferred location?
[01:23:48] Uh, Commissioner Messer, no, that would that would be the next step in the process.
[01:23:54] Um, so as Mr. Bennett said, we can't definitively say they can't get to those other locations, but we do know they are farther from the source, uh, which is generally to the north and to the west.
[01:24:03] the west.
[01:24:03] Okay, thanks for that.
[01:24:05] And same with the county.
[01:24:11] Were they part of the uh consultation?
[01:24:14] Were they part of the uh consultation process as far as looking at alternatives or was it kind of a uh you overlaying the county regulations and making some determinations based on that?
[01:24:25] Uh, it was more the latter.
[01:24:27] Um, in so far as we have an approved permit from the county, we know that they implicitly approve of the or explicitly approve of the original state sunlight long site.
[01:24:38] As to the alternatives, I think we were pretty clear in our testimony.
[01:24:42] Um, some would not be permittable, others would.
[01:24:45] Um, and I don't I don't anticipate a whole lot of variance in the county's opinion of the application of the regs from what we presented.
[01:24:52] Yeah.
[01:24:57] And then how many times did you meet with Star on this?
[01:24:59] I I know the January one.
[01:25:02] Was there other all opportunities to go into any more depth on any particular locations or was that one?
[01:25:12] was that one?
[01:25:15] Sorry, apologies. Uh since the uh since the December hearing, we met with them once in person and there was some additional email correspondence as well.
[01:25:22] Okay.
[01:25:37] Yeah, I think you've answered my questions for now. Thank you very much.
[01:25:42] Thank you, Commissioner Mesner.
[01:25:44] Commissioner Cross.
[01:25:46] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I'll say my voice is getting better.
[01:25:48] It's still not 100%, but I'll I'll try to make sure I annunciate so you can hear me through this raspiness still.
[01:25:56] Um, I do appreciate the presentation. Um, a lot of my questions have been answered, but I would like to go into some more detail on a few of them.
[01:26:05] Um, I think key to me is one of the things talked about is the potential hall route for a lot of these alternatives that was discussed by
[01:26:12] these alternatives that was discussed by both Chair Robbins and Commissioner Mesner as well as the pipelines.
[01:26:16] And this was something that was discussed back in December when we had the presentations on these as well.
[01:26:24] Um it and especially following up on some of Commissioner Mesner's questions, one of the things that he asked about was whether the state land board looked at the proposed hall routes or what the hall routes would be under some of these alternatives.
[01:26:37] And you you indicated that it was not specifically looked at for the entire hall route because that's more of a Rapo County's issue versus theirs.
[01:26:46] It was more looked at as the access um issue.
[01:26:48] Is that correct?
[01:26:52] Yes, Commissioner Cross, if I understand uh correctly, that is correct.
[01:26:55] We we talked about interior access roads to get from these alternatives to a external public road, not necessarily what happens once we're on a county road.
[01:27:05] And I I think similarly with the proposed Sunlight Long location, um
[01:27:14] proposed Sunlight Long location, um was it a similar situation there where was it a similar situation there where they looked at access for that but not necessarily the proposed hall route for that?
[01:27:22] that?
[01:27:22] Yes, I think that's a fair statement.
[01:27:24] As as has been mentioned, we are improving an existing road to access proposed state sunlight long, not creating a new disturbance and the land board uh was on board with with that approach.
[01:27:38] board with with that approach.
[01:27:38] Okay.
[01:27:38] Um, can you give us a little more detail on what understanding that the hall routes going south and east and and I guess before we get there, the the hall routes under the alternatives would have to go south and then east before going north to get up to Watkins.
[01:27:57] Um, you mentioned that Arapjo County approved the hall route with respect to Watkins and and can you give a little more detail on why that is?
[01:28:06] Is it to avoid the people to the west?
[01:28:06] Um can you give a little more detail on that?
[01:28:12] Perhaps I can feel this one uh commissioner if you don't mind.
[01:28:13] Uh the
[01:28:15] commissioner if you don't mind.
[01:28:17] Uh the propos the original proposed hall from state sunlight long runs north through nonso area entirely on the ranch.
[01:28:24] Uh hit it hits Quinsey Avenue and turns east which is off this map.
[01:28:30] I apologize.
[01:28:32] In an entirely non-residential area that's industrial andor adjacent to the ranch to the intersection of Watkins Road from which we get to I7.
[01:28:43] Um from the south central AL sites, there's two ways you could do the access road.
[01:28:47] You could go west over Black Shack Creek, which is the uh NSO to the west of AL1.
[01:28:53] You could go east over Cole Creek.
[01:28:57] Um as Mr. Bennett testified, uh, those are newly formed NSO.
[01:29:02] We, you know, we can't build access roads through those.
[01:29:04] So, the alternative is you head south.
[01:29:06] If you head south, you're about um roughly a mile and a half to County Line Road, then about six miles east, then about six miles north,
[01:29:15] miles east, then about six miles north, then several miles back west to that intersection with Watkins Road.
[01:29:20] So the in the difference between the state sunlight long hall route and that southern hall route is 20 plus miles and the alternate hall route would go past some homes whereas the western hall route doesn't go past anything.
[01:29:37] Okay. And did you have conversations with Rapo County about the potential for any of the hall routes going to the south and did they have any any concerns with that?
[01:29:51] Um, frankly, we didn't because of the incremental distance in the hall route increases or impacts to such a degree.
[01:29:57] We don't we don't think they're very wise.
[01:29:59] Um, I'm not going to stand here and say that the county would never approve those because I don't I don't think that's true.
[01:30:03] Um, but it's certainly disadvantageous relative to the approved route.
[01:30:07] Okay. Um and similarly when it comes to the pipelines going in and out, obviously the pipelines are going to be a little bit different um potentially
[01:30:16] a little bit different um potentially going underneath.
[01:30:18] going underneath um and boring through the the riparian.
[01:30:21] um and boring through the the riparian areas.
[01:30:22] I don't know if you had any conversations with that.
[01:30:25] Um it sounds like a lot of the conversations were specific to not messing with the NSO.
[01:30:26] specific to not messing with the NSO when it came to the hall routes, the access routes.
[01:30:31] Um, but one I'm curious about whether there is any discussions about potentially boring pipelines underneath the connect and if not can you provide a little bit more information on how the pipeline route would have to look.
[01:30:33] about whether there is any discussions about potentially boring pipelines underneath the connect and if not can.
[01:30:35] underneath the connect and if not can you provide a little bit more information on how the pipeline route would have to look.
[01:30:41] you provide a little bit more information on how the pipeline route would have to look.
[01:30:42] Um, I know there was some discussion of additional rights away that would be required etc.
[01:30:45] Um, but if you could give a little bit more detail on that in terms of um, not just approvals from others, but also kind of what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:30:47] I know there was some discussion of additional rights away that would be required etc.
[01:30:49] Um, but if you could give a little bit more detail on that in terms of um, not just approvals from others, but also kind of what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:30:51] if you could give a little bit more detail on that in terms of um, not just approvals from others, but also kind of what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:30:53] detail on that in terms of um, not just approvals from others, but also kind of what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:30:57] approvals from others, but also kind of what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:30:59] what the the path would look like and what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:31:02] what kind of disturbance we'd be looking at.
[01:31:05] at.
[01:31:05] I appreciate the question, Commissioner Cross.
[01:31:07] And Miss Wisaleni, if you could jump to slide 19, that would be appreciated.
[01:31:09] jump to slide 19, that would be appreciated.
[01:31:11] appreciated.
[01:31:13] Um, so I'll start with did we consider
[01:31:17] Um, so I'll start with did we consider boring these riparian areas?
[01:31:19] And the boring these riparian areas?
[01:31:19] And the answer is yes.
[01:31:22] We we did a engineering assessment um to determine whether or not we could cross Cole Creek in this instance.
[01:31:29] That riparian corridor is roughly 1,700 ft.
[01:31:31] Cross it successfully with a boring operation and and you know achieve uh what would be a you know an open cutless crossing at Cole Creek.
[01:31:44] Our preliminary results of that assessment determined that it probably is not possible um given the length and more importantly what we believe exists in the shallow subsurface and the areas needed adjacent to those reparian corridors to affectuate a bore that long.
[01:31:59] Importantly um Weslinki could you go up to slide 19 just to focus on the Pedmont soils and grassland types.
[01:32:09] If we were to bore uh Cole Creek, we would be disrupting highquality Piedmont soil um to the east.
[01:32:19] highquality Piedmont soil um to the east of Cole Creek that both the state landlord has indicated in their comments, I believe it was on AL7 and AL8 uh is high quality and is very important to that rancher uh as did the producer himself.
[01:32:36] Um, so just to to uh kind of give you an idea of of of what I was referring to, you could see the shaded areas that are particularly contiguous on the east side of Cole Creek, which for all intents and purposes is the center of the map.
[01:32:47] And you can see those pastures, if you will, those divisions running north south.
[01:32:52] If we were and I and I stress our preliminary assessment seemed to indicate we would not be successful, but if we were to be successful in boring Cole Creek, uh the exit bore on the east side of of that drainage would be smack dab in the middle of of high quality Pedmont grass land that both the land board indicated is important to them, more importantly is important to their producer who indicated the same as well.
[01:33:17] From an alternative perspective into the
[01:33:20] From an alternative perspective into the comment that uh Commissioner Mezner made previously, if we were using the southern egress of the ranch for our hall route, theoretically the pipeline would be colllocated with that access road.
[01:33:35] So we would go, as Mr. Harrington testified about a mile and a half south of those locations to a point on County Line Road and then have to build a pipeline east uh north and and west to tie into regional pipeline networks.
[01:33:48] Candidly, that would probably uh not provide for oil pipeline.
[01:33:54] In other words, we currently have three-phase takeaway planned for state sunlight long.
[01:34:00] Certainly, um, having to go south and east, uh, with pipeline infrastructure would eliminate the ability to use, uh, produce water takeaway via pipeline.
[01:34:10] And on the oil side would probably also eliminate the ability to use, uh, oil pipeline to move oil um, from the location off the ranch, you know, downstream of market.
[01:34:18] And is
[01:34:20] you know, downstream of market.
[01:34:21] And is there a reason it would become there a reason it would become unavailable because of the operational difficulties in moving it or simply the ability to get the pipeline?
[01:34:29] It's actually both.
[01:34:32] And so uh as you may be aware um when you move oil through a pipeline, there's various maintenance activities that need to occur uh frequently to ensure that one that oil is still moving efficiently through that pipeline and two that you're there are no restrictions or constrictions.
[01:34:49] probably a better way to put it forming within that pipeline due to precipitate from the from the fluids that you're moving through that line.
[01:34:56] It's often referred to as pigging.
[01:34:59] Um depending on the weight of the crude oil produced, and Mr. Harrington probably knows that off the top of his head, you're required to more frequently pig your pipelines to ensure that the interior diameter, the inside diameter of that pipe is free of restriction.
[01:35:14] Um as well as the longer the distance uh of a of a pipeline um be it gas, be it oil,
[01:35:22] a of a pipeline um be it gas, be it oil, the more frequently you need to increase your flowing pressures to get point from to get from point A to point B.
[01:35:30] And so if we assume that it would be a 26 mile pipeline uh to get from any of these interior locations back to the existing pipeline system, it's reasonable to assume that there would be a number of compressor stations on the oil line in addition to the gas line required throughout that that uh right ofway or throughout that corridor to make sure you're able to flow your product from its source to its destination.
[01:35:55] And do you have an idea of the additional emissions that would be resultant from those additional compressor sts?
[01:36:04] I do not.
[01:36:11] that's helpful and I want to ask sort of a related question to to the idea of potentially going south.
[01:36:19] Um, one of the things that was discussed by STAR and and addressed by you as well was uh I
[01:36:25] and addressed by you as well was uh I believe it's called the Overland Ranch.
[01:36:27] believe it's called the Overland Ranch Plan Community.
[01:36:29] Um, and you mentioned that using specific I believe it was specifically the ALA number four would be within 3,000 ft.
[01:36:35] And I wanted to ask um as I'm obviously not an expert in Arapjo County's regulations um but within the regulations that Arapjo County has, is that for ex the 30,000 ft setback is that for existing homes or is that for planned future homes as well?
[01:36:57] >> Uh I can take this. Thanks for the question.
[01:36:59] Uh, Commissioner, uh, first, if you look on this map, if you see section 34, uh, uh, to the southwest there, um, do you see the southern half of section 34 is not shaded?
[01:37:12] >> Yes, >> that that is the planned Overland Ranch community.
[01:37:15] Um, to answer your specific question, Arapo County regs uh, refer to platted lots or existing lots.
[01:37:20] Uh, Overland Ranch, the only the west half
[01:37:26] Overland Ranch, the only the west half has been platted.
[01:37:27] They're they're starting on the west and moving east.
[01:37:30] So technically it's not within 3,000 ft of a current platted lot, but we're trying to look ahead a little bit and we presume that the east half will eventually be platted as well.
[01:37:41] And do you have an idea what the timeline is for the platting of that to occur?
[01:37:45] We we we don't.
[01:37:47] Okay.
[01:37:49] And that's part of the reason I was curious is, you know, looking specifically at at this map that's provided, it it looks like there's perhaps already some groundwork that's been done.
[01:38:00] I wasn't sure if that was the case or if that's um something existed and that's why they're proposing that area for the community, but um that's why you're looking you're looking at you're looking at dirt work that is uh literally being done now for the ranch.
[01:38:17] Okay.
[01:38:19] um for the for the ranch or for the the community.
[01:38:22] Sorry, for the Overland Ranch residential community.
[01:38:25] Okay. Um
[01:38:29] as we talk about as we talk about some of the changes that you have proposed um and I I want to go into a few different aspects of both the pre-production as well as the production operations of this.
[01:38:42] So you indicated it's gone from 32 to 24 wells.
[01:38:45] Correct.
[01:38:49] Correct.
[01:38:50] What I didn't see was the layout or the wellbor spacing plans further out.
[01:38:56] I was seeing it kind of at the seeing it kind of at the kind of at the pad level, but do you have a depiction of what the wellar spacing would be for those 24 um as it extends out in the laterals?
[01:39:12] We actually did not submit that.
[01:39:15] Um it's it's it's simply up spacing, right?
[01:39:19] Um our focus today was on the path layout.
[01:39:22] Okay.
[01:39:24] Um and part of my question for that was going to be is it going to change the well spacing um as proposed.
[01:39:33] the well spacing um as proposed.
[01:39:34] Obviously, there's going to be less wells, so there's going to be a little bit more spacing between the wells.
[01:39:37] But I wasn't sure if you were planning to go further north to make sure you'd hit additional minerals, if you were going to go further south and cut off some to the north, kind of what the plan was with respect to that.
[01:39:50] Yeah. Our intention is to keep the DSUs and the proposed DSU setbacks the same and simply to widen the space in between the wells.
[01:39:59] Okay. Um, still anticipating being able to drain the minerals as necessary.
[01:40:07] Correct.
[01:40:08] That that's correct.
[01:40:11] But it would not have any impact on potentially draining Maverick's uh minerals to the to the north.
[01:40:15] Correct.
[01:40:18] No, we we would not put any well closer to uh than and discuss adhering to Maverick's mineral position.
[01:40:24] Okay. So that you would still have the same overall um arguments as it pertains to um it would not be the frack lengths would not be significant enough to to
[01:40:33] would not be significant enough to to drain any of Maverick's minerals.
[01:40:36] That's drain any of Maverick's minerals.
[01:40:36] That's correct.
[01:40:38] And we we will still retain the non reduced 600 foot setback offsetting Maverick Maverick's minerals to uh to mitigate their concerns.
[01:40:45] mitigate their concerns.
[01:40:45] Okay.
[01:40:49] Um and and I'll get into a little bit later.
[01:40:53] I I think the the idea of some of the changes that need to be done to the 2A, the 2B, etc.
[01:40:57] Um that would have to be done if the proposed changes were to go through.
[01:41:04] Um, were those proposed changes discussed with CDPHE?
[01:41:12] Uh, the
[01:41:15] Uh, the Mr. Bennett, maybe you could speak to the specific conversation with CDPHE, but at the end of the day, our PAD is staying within the same envelope, but shrinking and with fewer wells and fewer surface equipment, so it's it's simply less impactful.
[01:41:33] Yeah, I appreciate that, Mr. Harrington.
[01:41:34] Yeah, I appreciate that, Mr. Harrington.
[01:41:36] and and Commissioner Cross, thank you for the question.
[01:41:40] Um, CDPHE uh did not have any changes based on the original consultation.
[01:41:43] As Mr. Harrington says, we are reducing equipment on location.
[01:41:45] Um, and so there is no concern.
[01:41:49] That's my understanding.
[01:41:51] uh in that regard as it relates to changes uh relative to what we're proposing here.
[01:41:54] We have discussed what happens next if this is approved with ECMC staff.
[01:41:58] We've committed to working with them to understand what their needs are or will be for these types of changes.
[01:42:00] And we do recognize that there is an existing process out there when an OGDP needs to be amended that we intend to follow again with staff's guidance.
[01:42:03] Um, and next up on my list was going to be the utilities, but I think uh, Commissioner Mesner's questions with respect to the utilities and the availability answered what I had specifically um, for clarification purposes, it's not an issue of you saying they won't be
[01:42:35] an issue of you saying they won't be able to get it.
[01:42:37] It's just a matter of saying and I guess related to that, it's not an issue for you as to potential additional costs to bring in the infrastructure needed to be able to electric to get electric drilling rigs, but you're more so concerned about we would have to get approvals for the additional infrastructure if it was going to be further east.
[01:43:01] Approvals for the additional infrastructure as well as the impacts for installing it.
[01:43:08] Apologize, Mr. Bennett.
[01:43:11] Oh, excuse me. Okay. Um, one of the other questions that I I wanted to try and make clear and hopefully it'll clear things up for everybody involved here.
[01:43:21] Um, given the three-phase takeaway, are there production facilities on the Sunlight Long location?
[01:43:29] Yes, there are production facilities. We're going with a three-phase meter and a limited number of bulk separators.
[01:43:34] Okay. uh that does allow us to reduce
[01:43:37] Okay. uh that does allow us to reduce our our footprint that's a much more compact design than individual uh well separators.
[01:43:44] Um that was a change we made in the earlier iteration of the site.
[01:43:47] Um and from from there the fluids will go into the three the three pipelines.
[01:43:51] Okay. So there will it's it's not going to be a completely temporary situation where you're drilling and then it's gone.
[01:43:59] There will at least be the separators and and some meters up front.
[01:44:03] Yeah, we do we do have to have separators and meters there, but we will have no permanent tanks.
[01:44:11] Okay. Um it it and I I had some questions as as well as it went to the Petemont soils.
[01:44:20] Um again, most of them I think have been asked and answered already and so I'll try and avoid that.
[01:44:24] But so I'm clear there was obviously some discussion with the state land board on the important of the Pedmont soils and the grassland as it pertained to the agricultural
[01:44:37] It pertained to the agricultural operations um on the ranch.
[01:44:41] Operations um on the ranch.
[01:44:45] But I'm curious as well, was there any specific concerns expressed by the state land board or the rancher on the ranch or CPW or anybody else about um I know there was some discussion about the boring through the soils.
[01:45:01] Mr. Bennett, you mentioned some of the ideas of um subsurface, some of the issues potentially with that.
[01:45:09] Was there any specific discussions about not necessarily the grassland aspect of it, but with respect to the soils itself um and potential impacts that that could have?
[01:45:24] Appreciate the question, Commissioner Cross.
[01:45:26] I heard several elements that that I hope I can address accordingly.
[01:45:30] As you may have seen from our CPW consultation, CPW expressly stated they did not contemplate Petemont grasslands.
[01:45:40] did not contemplate Petemont grasslands and their findings that their findings.
[01:45:41] and their findings that their findings were were t were strictly limited to wildlife in certain wildlife habitats.
[01:45:47] wildlife in certain wildlife habitats as it relates to both well I'll start.
[01:45:49] as it relates to both well I'll start with the land board.
[01:45:50] with the land board.
[01:45:50] Yes, my understanding the state land board has invested time and money over years to rehabilitate these grasslands and protect these values that are intrinsic to this area for some of the reasons I mentioned in my testimony previously.
[01:46:01] to this area for some of the reasons I mentioned in my testimony previously.
[01:46:04] As it relates to the agricultural producer uh who who grazes this property, it it's my understanding that he too holds these values, you know, to be very important and and extremely important to his operations.
[01:46:10] uh who who grazes this property, it it's my understanding that he too holds these values, you know, to be very important and and extremely important to his operations.
[01:46:13] my understanding that he too holds these values, you know, to be very important and and extremely important to his operations.
[01:46:15] values, you know, to be very important and and extremely important to his operations.
[01:46:17] and and extremely important to his operations.
[01:46:19] operations.
[01:46:19] Part of the uh benefit if you will of regenerative agricultural practices or rotational grazing is this is my understanding so forgive me is it mimics uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:22] Part of the uh benefit if you will of regenerative agricultural practices or rotational grazing is this is my understanding so forgive me is it mimics uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:24] regenerative agricultural practices or rotational grazing is this is my understanding so forgive me is it mimics uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:26] rotational grazing is this is my understanding so forgive me is it mimics uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:30] understanding so forgive me is it mimics uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:32] uh these practices mimic what happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:34] hundreds and hundreds of years ago when the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:37] the eastern plains for example were uh highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:40] highly populated with with bison right and those animals would stay again my
[01:46:41] and those animals would stay again my understanding in a particular area for a short fine period of time until their food source ran out or predator uh arrived or or some something like that and they would move on only to come back at a later date.
[01:46:51] And so given the investment and the importance of these grasslands to the land board and others including the natural heritage program as well as the nature conservancy, Arapjo County has these grasslands mentioned in some of their comprehensive planning documents as well.
[01:47:07] Uh and and the the benefit both from a rotational grazing practice as well as a food source to the rancher.
[01:47:14] um the disruption of the soils which I think is the crux of your question uh is is important that you know that continuity or that continuity uh stays as is particularly in these areas interior ranch and on the eastern side of Cole Creek where we have large continuous blocks of Pedmont that have been successful and have improved over the last 15 plus years with these new practices that have been applied to grazing within Lowry Ranch by by their tenants.
[01:47:41] So similar to what we hear from CPW when
[01:47:43] So similar to what we hear from CPW when it comes to hyperarity habitat at times.
[01:47:46] It comes to hyperarity habitat at times of having those kind of that contiguous of having those kind of that contiguous area and not the not any kind of breakups within the migration corridors.
[01:47:51] Area and not the not any kind of breakups within the migration corridors etc.
[01:47:55] Breakups within the migration corridors etc.
[01:47:58] Um, they're interested in the same thing as it comes to ranching and the availability of that.
[01:47:59] Thing as it comes to ranching and the availability of that.
[01:48:01] Availability of that.
[01:48:03] Yes sir. Fragmentation I think is equally important or lack thereof right.
[01:48:06] Equally important or lack thereof right is equally important to agricultural producers.
[01:48:08] Is equally important to agricultural producers. Certainly the individuals we're dealing with here as well as CPW, you want to keep those habitat or that habitat uh intact and and undisturbed.
[01:48:10] Producers. Certainly the individuals we're dealing with here as well as CPW, you want to keep those habitat or that habitat uh intact and and undisturbed.
[01:48:13] You want to keep those habitat or that habitat uh intact and and undisturbed.
[01:48:15] Habitat uh intact and and undisturbed.
[01:48:19] Yeah, thank you. Um, I think those are my questions for now. Thank you.
[01:48:29] I think those are my questions for now.
[01:48:31] Thank you.
[01:48:35] Okay, I think Commissioner Acriman was next.
[01:48:37] Okay, I think Commissioner Acriman was next.
[01:48:40] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the questions of my fellow commissioners.
[01:48:42] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the questions of my fellow commissioners.
[01:48:43] Um, there might be just a
[01:48:45] commissioners.
[01:48:47] Um, there might be just a little bit of repetition here, but with a purpose, and so I I will forego some of the questions that have been answered um satisfactorily.
[01:48:57] I I wanted to kind of re-examine the wildlife concerns that we just talked about.
[01:49:03] I I um you know the question was asked uh why not ALA's 1 and 4 and the primary one of the primary points of of of response was well we have wildlife concerns there but in CPW exhibit 123 and I'm sorry the operators exhibit 123 where CPW's uh analysis falls uh alternative location analysis one falls into the same wildlife category as the preferred site which is you know moderate impacts uh ostensibly making it from a wildlife perspective equal to the preferred site um in uh bias for or against while alternative location 4 falls into a more preferable category uh you know
[01:49:47] a more preferable category uh you know the least impactful and so I'm struggling with holding up wildlife concerns in this in this case.
[01:49:54] wildlife concerns as reasons for you know shying away from those sites as primary reasons for shying away from those sites while not, you know, kind of recognizing that the preferred location has the same kinds of or same level of concerns as at least one of those.
[01:50:13] And I I uh that's just kind of a statement to lead me to kind of where I'm going with my really I think just one question or point of discussion here.
[01:50:24] Um recognizing that CPW in exhibit 123 said, "Hey, we can make all these work. Please don't do number three."
[01:50:28] Right. But other than that, we can we can make them work, but we did categorize them for you.
[01:50:36] Um, so we started this hearing with a statement, as I understood it, that was that the purpose of the ALA was to I I was writing as quickly as I could, but to provide information supporting the
[01:50:48] to provide information supporting the proposed site in light of analysis of other sites.
[01:50:54] And I'm struggling with that concept a little bit.
[01:50:55] Uh, well, more than a little bit here.
[01:50:58] I I didn't I didn't see our order as such.
[01:51:00] I think the order specifically and explicitly ordered a comprehensive and narrative analysis of all feasible alternative oil and gas locations on Lowry Ranch lands.
[01:51:09] And I won't read the whole thing uh but it includes feasible locations to the east which I think is a very different order than saying uh you know give us support for the existing site in in light of examining other sites.
[01:51:24] this appears to to be what was done in that argument with uh wildlife on sites one and four um as opposed to the preferred site.
[01:51:33] So I guess this is what I'm boiling down to is that to me there's a big difference between objectively examining alternative sites as opposed to specifically identifying all concerns with other sites in order to bolster the argument for a preferred location which
[01:51:49] argument for a preferred location which certainly leads to selection bias.
[01:51:54] certainly leads to selection bias.
[01:51:55] and I'm I'm leading to I guess a question here.
[01:51:58] Um, you know, in making an argument for the proposed site, did you really look at any other alternative location through the same lens?
[01:52:05] You know, i.e. with the intent of actually making an argument for that site rather than all arguments against those sites in preference for the preferred site uh with the only positive argument.
[01:52:18] Uh, and my concern is just, you know, as was illustrated with that wildlife discussion, I I'm trying to struggle and figure out if all other sites have been analyzed through the express lens of emphasizing any weaknesses as definitive and express reasons not to use those sites, while the preferred sites really just being analyzed through the lens of emphasizing positive characteristics and as definitive reasons to use that site.
[01:52:42] Again, bolstered by this discussion on alternative locations one and four associated with wildlife.
[01:52:48] um even though some of those sites may objectively be
[01:52:51] some of those sites may objectively be at least indistinguishable or even at least indistinguishable or even superior in some cases such as the ALA4 wildlife impacts.
[01:52:58] So, can you please help allay this concern that's building in me as I read these materials and I'm listening to the testimony here today that this was truly an objective analysis that really and squarely attempted to do what at least in my opinion we ordered in the pre previous hearing which was objectively and and uh earnestly seek for an alternative location.
[01:53:24] Uh that would be uh that that would work.
[01:53:28] Um, a little bit of a broad question, but I'd appreciate it if you can kind of address those points and help me kind of figure out what your point of view was in this alternative location analysis.
[01:53:39] I appreciate the the question, Commissioner Acriman, and and really do appreciate the lead in.
[01:53:42] Um, I'll try and start where it makes the most sense.
[01:53:46] Forgive me if if it comes out peace meal.
[01:53:48] Uh that is to say um following the
[01:53:53] meal. Uh that is to say um following the proceedings in December of 2025.
[01:53:55] proceedings in December of 2025 Creststone went back to the canvas and Creststone went back to the canvas and it was blank right we ignored state.
[01:54:01] it was blank right we ignored state sunlight long it's an important consideration we needed to consider it.
[01:54:04] consideration we needed to consider it in the context of the order we needed to consider it in the context of future operations because it is a protective location but we looked at the southern part of the ranch east of Sunlight Law and we started over and we began putting pieces, if you will, back onto that canvas, right, under which we we conducted our analysis.
[01:54:27] And so the first piece that that went onto that canvas and was later uh, you know, reviewed again was was our lease requirements relative to NSO and in the taring.
[01:54:37] And then we inserted state sunlight long.
[01:54:40] And then we inserted the locations that we previously included as part of an ALA that was submitted voluntarily to ECMC but was required for our county permit.
[01:54:52] permit. And then we looked at the locations that
[01:54:54] And then we looked at the locations that STAR had proposed in their filings in late November as part of a prior hearing.
[01:55:00] And we put those on the map and we started bu building that map, layering that map much like the state land board layer layers leases on their properties.
[01:55:09] We layered that map. We laid that canvas and really allowed our analysis to move forward.
[01:55:16] I understand your concerns relative to AL1 and AL4 and the references to wildlife.
[01:55:22] That's just one of many considerations we undertook during this analysis.
[01:55:27] And so let's for a minute pretend that we didn't address wildlife on any of the locations, including the preferred sunlight lawn location.
[01:55:36] and we looked at those other criteria that we've testified to today and that are included in our filings.
[01:55:41] I will say that I think it's exhibits 113 or 111 through 121 which are individual location by location narratives.
[01:55:50] There are both both positives and negatives included in those narratives that really
[01:55:54] included in those narratives that really summarize the considerations we put forth during our analysis.
[01:55:59] Back to my last point.
[01:56:01] If we ignore or discount presence or absence of wildlife at any of these locations, I'll just start with AL number one.
[01:56:10] Um, I go back to riparian areas and the need to cross those riparian areas either with access roads or or pipelines or both.
[01:56:18] If we look at, you know, a an access that does not cross a riparian area, that being Black Shack or Cole Creek, we go south, this other of the ranch, that's an additional 26 milesi on public roads that are otherwise avoidable.
[01:56:32] There's some other things that fall within that AL1 location that we took very seriously.
[01:56:38] When you factor in the totality of all these including wildlife and our non-biased very objective review, we believe and stand by the fact that State Sunlight Long is the most protective location of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, wildlife, and biological resources for the for the reasons we testified today.
[01:57:01] Thank you for that response, Mr. Bennett.
[01:57:03] And in the end, I I I want to state for the record that when I read materials, I do so from an objective standpoint.
[01:57:10] And I and I make the assumption that they're being put forth from an an objective standpoint.
[01:57:16] I I do want to just record that I think some of the testimony today uh makes it difficult for me to think that there wasn't some biased lens associated with uh attempting to prove up the existing site.
[01:57:29] And so I continue to struggle with that.
[01:57:31] And I do appreciate your response.
[01:57:33] I I think that's all I have for now, Mr. chair.
[01:57:36] Thanks.
[01:57:38] Okay.
[01:57:40] Thank you very much.
[01:57:43] Uh, Commissioner Ag Bedro, um, before we turn to Commissioner Oath.
[01:57:45] Uh, do you have any comments?
[01:57:47] I appreciate the points made by Commissioner Acriman, do you have any comments on, you know, this process is is new and unique.
[01:57:53] We've not done it before.
[01:57:56] Do you have any comments on what the task was and and you know what the operator's burden is
[01:58:02] operator's burden is and this equivalation of the ALA and
[01:58:06] and this equivalation of the ALA and then you know here we are back at
[01:58:07] then you know here we are back at sunlight long and if not that's fine
[01:58:10] sunlight long and if not that's fine too.
[01:58:13] too. I just saw you elevated.
[01:58:15] Uh thanks Mr. Chair. I think
[01:58:17] Commissioner Aman accurately described
[01:58:19] what was in the commission's order from December 12th as to what Creststone was
[01:58:21] ordered to do. a comprehensive and narrative analys an analysis of all
[01:58:24] narrative analys an analysis of all feasible alternative oil and gas
[01:58:26] feasible alternative oil and gas locations in the Lowry Ranch. And then
[01:58:28] locations in the Lowry Ranch. And then there's quite a lot of detail in there.
[01:58:31] there's quite a lot of detail in there. Um as to I believe you asked about the
[01:58:33] Um as to I believe you asked about the burden um you know the burden is in
[01:58:36] burden um you know the burden is in OGDPS is always on the applicant to
[01:58:39] OGDPS is always on the applicant to demonstrate whether or not their OGDP
[01:58:42] demonstrate whether or not their OGDP complies with ECMC rules and so as it
[01:58:45] complies with ECMC rules and so as it would apply to the proposed location uh
[01:58:47] would apply to the proposed location uh whether that proposed location meets
[01:58:49] whether that proposed location meets ECMC rules. uh particularly or usually
[01:58:52] ECMC rules. uh particularly or usually in the in the context of the information
[01:58:54] in the in the context of the information provided in the form 2A um as to and
[01:58:57] provided in the form 2A um as to and then sorry I forgot your third question
[01:59:01] then sorry I forgot your third question
[01:59:03] me too but thanks for providing some perspective on that.
[01:59:06] Sure.
[01:59:09] Sure.
[01:59:12] All right, Commissioner Oath.
[01:59:15] Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
[01:59:15] I really um only have a couple of questions because most of my questions have been covered.
[01:59:23] Um, so with respect to the redesign of the proposed site, you noted that you were able to reduce the number of wells,
[01:59:28] as we've talked about a number of times, but that that also allowed you to shift the facilities further east and so that they're now um over 3,200 ft away from the nearest uh residential building unit.
[01:59:43] And going back um previously, I think that the number was that they were just over 3,100 ft.
[01:59:49] Am I remembering that correctly?
[01:59:50] So, we're talking about a difference of about 100 feet.
[01:59:55] Uh the uh thank you for that question.
[01:59:55] The difference the delta in wellheads to the nearest RBU is exactly 100 ft.
[02:00:02] We improved it by 100 ft.
[02:00:03] improved it by 100 ft.
[02:00:03] Okay. Thank you.
[02:00:07] Okay. Thank you.
[02:00:07] And then um can you talk to me about your if the prop your proposed development schedule so timeline for construction drilling and completions um as we stand here today?
[02:00:19] I think when we talked last November you were looking at constructing in the first quarter of 2026.
[02:00:23] So um would just like an update.
[02:00:25] Yes. Uh if we um if if we get to approval, uh we are likely going to look at uh access road construction starting in 2026.
[02:00:37] We get to pad construction around the end of the year.
[02:00:42] And if you may recall, we are attempting to do pad construction during uh leopard frog rumination season, which is uh during the winter.
[02:00:49] So that would be the objective.
[02:00:51] um is it total duration um we'd be looking at roughly 327 days for drilling and completion at the reduced wall count.
[02:01:05] So drilling would begin in you're thinking first quarter of 2027 and go ultimately kind of through all of 2027 and and and you're still contemplating one occupation.
[02:01:17] Uh we are we are committing to one um occupation.
[02:01:20] So that's that is the plan.
[02:01:23] Um as to the specific timing uh it does depend how construction goes.
[02:01:26] Uh you'll recall that this is a UXO mitigation area.
[02:01:31] So we need to have UXO sweep crews out with our road and uh pad construction.
[02:01:36] So it's a little hard for us to be super specific on construction timing, but starting sometime in in the first half of 2027 is is definitely desirable.
[02:01:48] Commissioner Oath, if I might add, that the time frames that Mr. Harrington referenced, as I testified to, are significantly less than what was originally contemplated in our OGDP, roughly 215 days less.
[02:01:57] Uh, as Mr. Harrington also mentioned, there are a number of wildlife considerations that are incorporated in our activities here.
[02:02:07] are incorporated in our activities here.
[02:02:09] Northern leopard frog season, the presence of HPH as it relates to access road construction.
[02:02:14] And so when you combine all those together, it is going to be a very well choreographed ballet in terms of how we are able to proceed with this project.
[02:02:23] Okay. Thanks. That's all I had.
[02:02:27] Okay. Thanks. That's all I had.
[02:02:30] Further questions for the applicant?
[02:02:34] Commissioner Mesner.
[02:02:36] Uh thanks. Just a couple of follow-ups based on my other commissioner's questions or the other commissioner's questions.
[02:02:43] And it's okay if you may not know this, but I'm trying to remember um as we look at or consider the landscape for the potential for hall routes or pipelines south.
[02:02:58] There was another operator that has an approved location, I believe, in that vicinity with a requirement for um takeaway to occur from the south.
[02:03:12] Um, takeaway to occur from the south.
[02:03:14] And so I guess I'm and in that hearing.
[02:03:17] And so I guess I'm and in that hearing, and I'm not trying to bring that hearing into this hearing, but it seemed like it was contemplated that it was possible to be able to tie into Takeaway on the southern part of the Lowry Ranch.
[02:03:31] I guess I'm wondering why you think it may not be possible.
[02:03:39] Uh, thank you, Commissioner.
[02:03:42] Um, I can't I think I believe we're talking about GMT's operations.
[02:03:47] Um, I can't speculate to the specificity of their plan, but I do know that is their pipeline, rightly likely right sized for their operation.
[02:03:55] Um, and notably, they aren't building along the shortest route, which would be due north through that um through the NSO area.
[02:04:03] They are choosing to go all the way around um on the south side.
[02:04:09] Um, so so >> but potentially technically feasible though
[02:04:14] though if if we want the impacts of 20 miles of build instead of three.
[02:04:17] Yes.
[02:04:19] Yeah, I understand that.
[02:04:20] I'm just trying to understand the technical feasibility as we look at the landscape of the different alternatives.
[02:04:24] So, uh, appreciate that.
[02:04:28] Um, and then and then I just wanted to get a little more information about the spacing element uh with the new well configuration and appreciate always a good idea uh to use the least amount of wells possible in order to be able to completely drain uh drilling and spacing unit but um what is that in feet the spacing between the wells now that you are able to fully drain the the DSU.
[02:05:01] Uh the the distance between the wells will grow up to roughly, I believe, 600 ft radius, close to 600 feet.
[02:05:15] feet.
[02:05:17] Um at 600 ft, you feel like you can hit all of the minerals at a at a radius.
[02:05:22] It's safe to say that six wells or that 24 wells will recover less total oil than 32 wells.
[02:05:28] That's just physics.
[02:05:31] But we will be able to evenly drain the DSUs of those number of wells.
[02:05:37] Okay.
[02:05:40] Um thanks.
[02:05:42] Those are the only two followups I had.
[02:05:47] Uh, any further final questions for the panel at this point?
[02:05:56] All right, Miss Jo, thank you for the panel.
[02:05:58] Um, hold your folks in obeyance.
[02:06:01] We're going to probably want to hear from them one more time after we hear from the rest of the parties to this.
[02:06:06] Let's take a 10-minute break and return at 11:26.
[02:06:09] Thank you, Chair.
[02:18:08] U hello.
[02:18:10] Um, welcome back.
[02:18:13] Uh, the host has disabled my video.
[02:18:16] Um, all right.
[02:18:21] Now, the host is allowing me to appear visually.
[02:18:22] I don't know if I have a problem the way I look or what, but uh, welcome back.
[02:18:27] Um, all right.
[02:18:30] We've now had uh the presentation from Creststone and we've had the Q&A.
[02:18:32] Uh I think at this point uh Mr. Chair, I see your visualiz.
[02:18:35] Did you have anything further at this point?
[02:18:38] I did not, Chair.
[02:18:39] I just didn't know if there was anything needed prior to moving on to Maverick.
[02:18:40] Okay.
[02:18:42] Then um with that, uh I believe we will um elevate uh Mr. Steven Lewis Prescott and he has an opportunity to present uh Maverick's uh whatever case they have at this point in this proceeding.
[02:18:43] Thank you, Chair.
[02:18:45] Uh thank you, Commissioners Creststone, Star, and the public for uh being here today.
[02:18:48] And thank you for giving Maverick a chance
[02:19:09] Thank you for giving Maverick a chance to respond to uh Creststone's new proposal for the state sunlight OGDP.
[02:19:14] Maverick prepared a brief statement and asked me to uh present it today.
[02:19:19] Maverick maintains that granting the OGDP will result in statutory violations related to correlative rights waste and drainage.
[02:19:29] Maverick has two primary points to make at this time.
[02:19:33] Maverick's first point pertains to feasibility of developing Maverick's minerals from Creststone's preferred location.
[02:19:41] Crestone's new slide 54 regarding alternative location number five shows that Creststone can feasibly develop almost all of Maverick's acreage in the south south half of section 18 from Creststone's original and preferred surface location.
[02:19:55] For demonstrative purposes I'll share an extrapolation of Crestston's slide 54.
[02:20:02] I believe I can do it this.
[02:20:10] Am I sharing the wrong document or do you see the from Cresome slide 54?
[02:20:21] Yes.
[02:20:23] Yes.
[02:20:24] Okay, great.
[02:20:27] Shar, if I may, I apologize. Um just for purposes of the record, we're just going to register an objection to this um
[02:20:32] to register an objection to this um based upon the requirements of the prehering order that we're required to file anything um on the 15th.
[02:20:38] Just for purposes of the record. Thank you.
[02:20:40] Thank you.
[02:20:44] Okay. Objection noted.
[02:20:47] Here we see the area that would be developed in the unit for alternative location number five.
[02:20:53] um you see it in the top and this again is coming from Creststone slide 54.
[02:20:58] And if we extrapolate that area in green to the preferred location, this extrapolation down below, we see that the area to be developed would include most of Maverick's acreage right here.
[02:21:13] most of Maverick's acreage right here.
[02:21:16] So again, this is just responding to and showing that feasibility is there for developing Maverick's minerals.
[02:21:22] developing Maverick's minerals.
[02:21:24] Maverick's second point pertains to Creststone's burden of proof in his new proposal.
[02:21:28] proposal. This is something Commissioner Cross questioned Creststone about earlier related to reduction of wells and lack of a wellboard diagram presented.
[02:21:37] Creststone's response to the questions failed to discuss some key points.
[02:21:41] Treson's new presentation proposes a reduction in the number of wells and does not state how many wells will be drilled east versus west.
[02:21:48] will be drilled east versus west.
[02:21:50] This is a material subsurface change, but Creststone did not address issues related to Maverick's minerals such as drainage with a new proposal.
[02:21:57] drainage with a new proposal.
[02:21:58] This is an issue for Creststone which has the burden of proof and has to show that the OGDP complies with the energy and carbon management commission act including protections related to waste correlative rights and drainage.
[02:22:10] rights and drainage.
[02:22:12] All the evidence presented and relied upon previously by the commission regarding drainage and
[02:22:14] the commission regarding drainage and drainage distance and violations of drainage distance and violations of Maverick's statutory rights and Maverick's statutory rights and protections was premised on drilling 32 wells in the OGDP with a defined number of wells drilled east and west.
[02:22:22] The new proposal is 24 wells, but the DSU size doesn't change and we don't know how many of those wells will be drilled to the west.
[02:22:32] This impacts that analysis.
[02:22:35] It impacts the analysis of drainage, waste, and correlative rights.
[02:22:40] Fewer wells in the same size unit indicates the need for greater frack distances for economic and efficient recovery since there is more space necessarily between the wellbors.
[02:22:51] This further supports Maverick's evidence that significant drainage occurs from 600 ft to 1260 ft as seen in exhibit B16 from Maverick's previous presentation.
[02:23:02] So, the new proposal from Creststone would only increase the likelihood of uncompensated drainage of Maverick's leases.
[02:23:08] Because Creststone has failed to disclose the necessary information for Maverick and the commission to analyze Creststone's revised proposal and its
[02:23:16] Creststone's revised proposal and its impacts on Maverick's leases, Maverick impacts on Maverick's leases, Maverick does not believe Creststone has met his burden of proving the revised OGDP will not drain Maverick's leases, will not cause waste, and will protect correlative rights.
[02:23:28] Thank you again for your time and consideration.
[02:23:31] Those are the only two points Maverick wished to make today.
[02:23:34] All right. Thank you very much.
[02:23:35] All right. Thank you very much.
[02:23:37] Commissioners, do you have questions on the two points for Maverick?
[02:23:44] All right. Seeing none, Mr. Lewis Prescott, we'll let you move on and stick around.
[02:23:48] Uh we've got a continued large day ahead of us.
[02:23:51] Thank you.
[02:23:53] Thank you.
[02:23:55] All right. Um let's see if we can keep going.
[02:23:57] Um Mr. foot. Are you with us?
[02:24:03] I am.
[02:24:04] Uh, are you ready to go?
[02:24:07] Yes. I'm trying to pull up a PowerPoint slideshow.
[02:24:09] I think that's being pulled up now.
[02:24:11] If you can see it, then I will be ready to go.
[02:24:13] Uh, yes, we see it.
[02:24:15] It's not in U. Nope.
[02:24:19] Uh, yes, we see it.
[02:24:19] It's not in U.
[02:24:19] Nope.
[02:24:19] There you go.
[02:24:21] Now it's in presentation mode.
[02:24:23] Before you move into your Do you have any witnesses or is it Are you just going to present on behalf of Star?
[02:24:27] Just my presentation.
[02:24:28] Okay.
[02:24:28] Very good.
[02:24:31] Then go ahead.
[02:24:33] All right.
[02:24:33] Great.
[02:24:33] Well, uh, good morning still, commissioners.
[02:24:34] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[02:24:38] Um, so before we get going on substance, um, Star needs to, uh, say a word or two about process for the record.
[02:24:47] Um, community groups have always been at a huge disadvantage when going against the industry, but nowhere has it been more apparent than this supplemental uh, submission process.
[02:24:57] Star reached out to Creststone in good faith in December to try to have an iterative discussion about the Sunlight Long location.
[02:25:04] We met at the beginning of January and clearly outlined our preference for a different location to protect health and safety of the community and the reservoir.
[02:25:13] Star has always advocated for a different location, but where specifically has always been up for a good faith discussion, but instead of any kind of
[02:25:21] discussion, but instead of any kind of followup, four months later, Star got followup.
[02:25:23] four months later, Star got noticed at 10:30 on a Monday night of all these supplemental materials dropped by Creststone and then without any consultation is given a week to fully analyze and file a slideshow and written comments coming in at a fraction of the pages that Creststone submitted.
[02:25:38] Um, somehow this was the exact process Creststone verbalized a preference for in a status conference with the hearings officer in January.
[02:25:46] Yet also somehow that suggestion became the dictated process with zero conferral or consultation with intervening parties.
[02:25:53] But from the perspective of what Creststone actually submitted, it was clearly designed to justify the original conclusion just like its first alternative location analysis but with more exhibits.
[02:26:06] and it still doesn't really comply with the commission's December 12th order.
[02:26:11] For example, did Creststone really examine all feasible locations as the commission ordered or did it ignore identifiable locations that could have been feasible?
[02:26:21] We'll talk a little bit more about that later.
[02:26:22] talk a little bit more about that later and actually there's been some Q&A about that previously, but suffice it to say that previously, but suffice it to say here, Creststone did not seem sufficiently motivated to explore all feasible locations.
[02:26:34] In addition, Creststone's cumulative impacts analysis did not follow the commission's order, which required a robust impacts evaluation considering all the other recently approved OGDPS in the area and how Sunlight Long would contribute to those impacts.
[02:26:49] This is particularly relevant here because Sunlight Long is one of many OGDPs being developed around the same time in the same general area and it happens to be closest to where a lot of people live.
[02:27:00] Creststone instead spent most of its analysis talking about how it is reducing impacts of the current Sunlight Long location versus prior tabletop versions of Sunlight Long and not how Sunlight Long and Creststone's preferred location will actually significantly impact wildlife and public health given the other development in the area.
[02:27:23] In a couple of slides, we're going to reprint the map we put in our written response, which outlines what we're calling the feasibility zone because we can't really come up with anything catchier than that.
[02:27:36] Uh there are three locations, Cresto detailed within an approximately 325 acre area in sections 25 and 26 that fall within this feasibility zone.
[02:27:44] We'll highlight those three locations.
[02:27:47] And while you're thinking about those locations, perhaps you can also engage in a thought experiment.
[02:27:53] That is, had this 325 acre area been the only land available to Creststone to develop minerals in this geographic area, would Creststone have one, drawn its DSUs the way it did?
[02:28:06] And two, would Creststone be able to get county and ECMC approval for a site in that area?
[02:28:13] Star submits the answer to those questions is number one, no.
[02:28:16] Creststone would have drawn its DSUs differently to capture as many minerals as possible.
[02:28:20] And number two, yes, it would have been able to gain approval
[02:28:24] would have been able to gain approval for a location in that area.
[02:28:27] for a location in that area.
[02:28:29] Keep in mind, STAR has actively participated in suggesting alternative sites.
[02:28:33] And to be frank, for a group of non-industry, non-technical experts, the sites STAR came up with turned out to be pretty darn good.
[02:28:40] But this proceeding shouldn't be a community group trying to do Creststone's job and an intervening party meeting the applicant's burden.
[02:28:47] Creststone should be focusing on coming up with a feasible location that follows the mitigation hierarchy instead of trying to find ways to pick apart everyone else's suggestions.
[02:28:57] Before going fully into the feasibility zone, it needs to be restated again that Creststone's preferred sunlight location, sunlight long location is not protective of public health and does not follow the mitigation hierarchy.
[02:29:10] Other locations avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts much more effectively than Cresto's preferred location.
[02:29:17] In addition, despite taking four months to work through, and file its supplemental materials, Creststone still failed to follow the commission's order.
[02:29:25] failed to follow the commission's order.
[02:29:28] For example, paragraph 14A of the order says Creststone must submit a comprehensive and narrative analysis of all feasible alternative oil and gas locations on Lowry Ranch lands.
[02:29:37] And Creststone didn't do that here.
[02:29:39] Instead, it found things wrong with everybody else's suggestions without trying to come up with something that truly worked.
[02:29:46] Additionally, the commission will recall paragraph 14B of its order, which said, "As to each potential oil and gas location considered, Creststone must analyze the relationship between any targeted but non-reoverable minerals and any improvements in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, which it just didn't do.
[02:30:06] Instead, Cresto merely declared his preferred location protective, overlooked any adverse impacts, particularly to public health, and then found things wrong with all the other alternative sites.
[02:30:16] There was no analysis of the relationship between alternative sites and increased protectiveness.
[02:30:21] Their thought process seemed to have been, well, we think our preferred site is protective, so we don't really need to go into any further
[02:30:27] don't really need to go into any further details than that.
[02:30:30] This feasibility zone outlined in lime green really represents the sweet spot between competing interests in this case.
[02:30:38] It's all non-tier one state landboard land and the vast majority of minerals within Creststone's DSUs can still be accessed while following the mitigation hierarchy.
[02:30:46] Again, think about Creststone applying for an OGDP within this area.
[02:30:50] It absolutely would be approvable.
[02:30:52] Star feels quite confident the obstacles mentioned related to ALA's 1, four, and five in Creststone supplemental materials could be overcome just like they were overcome with Creststone's preferred location.
[02:31:06] For example, getting a waiver for a hall route to cross a tier one land which Creststone did for its preferred location last year.
[02:31:13] Now, are there adverse impacts with ALA's one, four, and five?
[02:31:18] Yes, of course.
[02:31:20] Just like there are with Creststone's preferred location and with all of Creststone's other locations within the CAP, Creststone's attempts to disqualify most other alternatives
[02:31:29] disqualify most other alternatives because those pipelines would cross riparian areas and tier one lands.
[02:31:33] just simply ignores the fact that its current already approved locations already do that.
[02:31:37] It wasn't disqualifying for those locations, but somehow they would be disqualifying for Sunlight Long's alternative locations.
[02:31:46] Creststone submitted its own stoplight graph in supplemental exhibit 122, but Creststone's graph left off something vitally important, and that is the impact of its preferred location on public health in neighborhoods and at the reservoir.
[02:32:01] So, this is what a stoplight graph would look like if it took those essential things into consideration.
[02:32:06] You'll notice we put four alternative locations in here.
[02:32:11] Ala9 was suggested by the CPW and Star thinks that's a great location with the fewest adverse impacts.
[02:32:18] But STAR is also realistic in that it leaves out almost 40% of the minerals from Creststone's DSUs.
[02:32:23] The other locations, that is ALA's 1, four, and five, all fall within the feasibility zone, and they all have far
[02:32:29] feasibility zone, and they all have far less impacts overall than Creststone's preferred location.
[02:32:34] For example, CPW's information shows ALA 4 and 5 would be more protective of wildlife than Creststone's preferred location.
[02:32:43] It certainly would also be more protective of public health.
[02:32:49] ALA1 is neither more nor less protective of wildlife than Creststone's preferred location according to the CPW, but far more protective of public health.
[02:32:56] And comparing Creststone's preferred location versus ALA's 1,4 and 5, none of those locations will be without wildlife impacts and access road impacts.
[02:33:05] It's telling how Creststone uses wildlife impacts and pipelines and roads as disqualifiers in its analysis of alternative locations, yet does not apply the same standards to its preferred location.
[02:33:17] And let's not forget, there's already existing oil and gas operations in those general areas.
[02:33:23] Clearly, those operations were approvable and possible, and they are now operating.
[02:33:28] So when you look at a more
[02:33:30] So when you look at a more representative stoplight graph, it becomes even that much clearer that ALA's 1 and five are very good options that follow the mitigation hierarchy and access the most minerals.
[02:33:42] ALA4 is a good option, too.
[02:33:44] It gets a yellow light for being close to a planned future development to the southwest, as has been currently um discussed in Q&A.
[02:33:50] However, it should be noted Arapo County and the ECMC did not see that as an issue when approving the GMT secret stash OGDP last year, which is closer to that future development than ALA4 would be.
[02:34:05] The bottom line here is if Creststone isn't going to follow the mitigation hierarchy, the Sunong OGDP should be denied.
[02:34:12] If Creststone is going to continue dancing around alternative sites in an effort to further justify its preferred site, the OGDP should be denied.
[02:34:20] If Creststone is interested in truly finding an alternative site that follows the mitigation hierarchy, STAR has always said it's interested in participating in those solutions-based discussions.
[02:34:33] So, so, if the commission is not inclined to, if the commission is not inclined to deny the ODP because of the reasons that I just stated, we would ask the commission to continue to stay the application until Creststone finds a truly feasible alternative location because they are out there.
[02:34:45] Either way, STAR asked this commission to make sure Sun Night Long is not developed in its currently proposed location.
[02:34:52] Thank you very much, commissioners, and um be happy to take any questions.
[02:35:03] All right, commissioners, questions for Mr. Foot.
[02:35:08] Commissioner Cross.
[02:35:11] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Foot, for the presentation.
[02:35:13] And I want to ask a little bit of clarifying question as it as it pertains to the stoplight demonstrative that you you applied there as well.
[02:35:22] What was your basis for this will be helpful as we pull it up here to make sure I.
[02:35:32] Yeah, apologies.
[02:35:32] I should have just kept.
[02:35:34] Yeah, apologies.
[02:35:34] I should have just kept it up.
[02:35:37] Um, as you look at slide seven there, you have the red for the distance to homes, distance to the reservoir.
[02:35:45] Um, and then the yellows and ALA number four for distance to home.
[02:35:52] What was your what was your measuring distance?
[02:35:54] What what qualified as green versus red versus yellow?
[02:35:57] I don't think we had a specific distance in mind that we were measuring.
[02:36:00] I think the red stoplight best represents the fact that um Creststone did not talk about this at all in their stoplight graph and and in their presentation.
[02:36:11] They completely left out the fact that this uh new this site even if it would go down to 24 from 32 wells would still be very impactful to people that live in the general location.
[02:36:20] Okay.
[02:36:21] Part part of the reason I was curious about this is the proposed site even before the changes was about 3,100 feet away from the closest RVU.
[02:36:30] Correct.
[02:36:31] Correct.
[02:36:33] But under ALA number four, wouldn't even with the proposed locations, wouldn't it
[02:36:35] with the proposed locations, wouldn't it be 3,000 ft away from that?
[02:36:38] be 3,000 ft away from that?
[02:36:40] And this is where I'm partially curious about where yellow versus red comes in.
[02:36:43] Um I know Commissioner Arian talked about some implicit bias as you're as you're looking at the alternatives, but doesn't that depict the same thing here if you're kind of arbitrarily saying the 3,000 ft here is red, but the 3,000 ft there is yellow?
[02:36:58] there is yellow?
[02:37:00] Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that question.
[02:37:03] Um, so yes, the difference here of course is that there's no homes that are currently built and and even um half of the area is still not even platted.
[02:37:10] So we don't know when homes are going to be built in the overland area.
[02:37:13] Um but um I think it's I I suppose fairly safe to assume they're not going to happen within the next year.
[02:37:20] And so it's yellow because yes, it's close to at least the drilling completions phase would be close to an area that at some point will be homes, but it's far different than the 865 homes within a mile that currently exists of the preferred location.
[02:37:34] Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
[02:37:36] Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
[02:37:38] And the other thing I wanted to try and talk about was you mentioned the hall route and and I don't want to testify for you, so I just want to make sure I'm I'm consistent with what your argument is.
[02:37:51] Um the biggest obstacle that they're talking about is not being able to do the access route for the hall route as well as the pipelines.
[02:37:59] Um because as as Creststone is saying here, they would have to go through tier one NSO.
[02:38:04] Um but you're saying that that that could be a possibility still.
[02:38:09] Um if it's shown not to be a possibility, does that change your opinion on the viability of these other sites?
[02:38:17] Well, so first I I do want to say I we don't really have access to uh all of their hall routes and pipeline routes information.
[02:38:27] So we'll just have to kind of make assumptions based on what we've heard today.
[02:38:33] But um but secondly, um it's hard for me to speculate.
[02:38:37] um it's hard for me to speculate.
[02:38:40] I mean, I think it's pretty apparent that mean, I think it's pretty apparent that they haven't really gone that route to
[02:38:42] they haven't really gone that route to see if they can get exceptions, assuming
[02:38:44] see if they can get exceptions, assuming whatever the hall route and the pipeline
[02:38:46] whatever the hall route and the pipeline route would be.
[02:38:49] Um, but at that point in time, if they came back after this was
[02:38:51] time, if they came back after this was stayed and said, "We tried with CPW, we
[02:38:53] went through a process to get an exception, and they just said no."
[02:38:56] I mean, I think that would be meaningful
[02:38:58] information.
[02:39:00] Um, but I think I would want to know after that, okay, is this
[02:39:01] the only route that you could use an alternative or is there another route
[02:39:04] that could be used that would maybe be a couple miles uh longer?
[02:39:06] Um, have all the options been completely addressed here
[02:39:09] and we just have no options left?
[02:39:11] Those are the types of questions that I would
[02:39:13] want to know before um answering your
[02:39:14] question specifically.
[02:39:16] >> And and so I assume by that, especially as you said, is there another route that
[02:39:18] would potentially be another couple
[02:39:20] miles longer?
[02:39:23] the the potential incremental increase for for truck
[02:39:24] miles.
[02:39:27] Um, which is something that was raised by several STAR members during
[02:39:29] the 511 hearings.
[02:39:32] Um, I take it you have not done any kind of analysis on
[02:39:40] not done any kind of analysis on emissions resulting from the incremental emissions resulting from the incremental miles for a potentially longer hall miles for a potentially longer hall route.
[02:39:46] route.
[02:39:48] Well, I think that we have that from Creststone's commutive impacts analysis and um I'm not here to say that additional miles would be preferable.
[02:39:55] additional miles would be preferable.
[02:39:56] Um, certainly with GHD emissions, although one could argue if we were totally concerned about GHD emissions, we wouldn't be doing this in the first place.
[02:40:01] we wouldn't be doing this in the first place.
[02:40:03] But putting that aside, I think that when you weigh all the impacts all together, um, there's some impacts that I think should get more weight than others.
[02:40:11] I think should get more weight than others.
[02:40:14] And the one of the really important impacts that's again represented on the stoplight graph is the fact that the preferred location is very close and will have really big impacts on a heck of a lot of people.
[02:40:22] impacts on a heck of a lot of people.
[02:40:24] And so there's a public health impact, an acute public health impact with that kind of location.
[02:40:30] kind of location.
[02:40:30] Okay. Thank you for that's my only questions.
[02:40:36] Commissioner Mesner,
[02:40:43] Thanks.
[02:40:47] Thanks.
[02:40:47] Um, just a couple questions.
[02:40:51] Um, you know, I appreciate Star taking the time and effort to propose locations.
[02:40:57] Um, I guess my question is what's your like what's your sense of your clients um like where your clients at?
[02:41:04] I mean, let's say the applicant decides that they're going to choose one of your locations.
[02:41:10] Does that mean that the STAR as an organization wouldn't oppose um them moving forward with one of those locations and would remove their opposition to this?
[02:41:24] Um if one of the locations within the feasibility zone were proposed, I don't think Star would be opposing this.
[02:41:33] Okay, that's my only question.
[02:41:36] Thank you.
[02:41:40] Thank you.
[02:41:42] Appreciate that.
[02:41:42] Um, you know, as part of the testimony today,
[02:41:44] know, as part of the testimony today, one of the, uh, one of the points that came up with choosing some of those locations farther to the east was the questionability of whether or not they could be electrified.
[02:41:54] Um, you know, pursued to the CAP requirements.
[02:41:57] Um, Secret Stash in the end, as I recall, ended up not being able to be electrified.
[02:42:03] I I maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong there.
[02:42:04] Am I wrong there?
[02:42:04] I might be wrong.
[02:42:08] Yeah. Uh my point is that if it if if we ended up with a uh situation where a pad couldn't be electrified, uh does that cause star concern over and above the great reduction in emissions that would be achieved if it were drilled from an electrified pad in a current and preferred location.
[02:42:27] Does that make sense?
[02:42:28] Yes, I think it would.
[02:42:30] Although at this point it's pure speculation.
[02:42:33] Um if this was something um I guess maybe related to a question that Commissioner Cross has earlier.
[02:42:39] If Creststone had gone through all the steps and Excel had definitively said we just can't build power out there then we're in a
[02:42:45] power out there then we're in a different situation than we are now.
[02:42:46] different situation than we are now.
[02:42:48] right now what we have is well this could be an issue.
[02:42:50] We just don't really know and it's really hard to find that to be definitive.
[02:42:56] definitive.
[02:42:57] Thank you. And so I asked that question in clarification to Commissioner Mesner's question that uh to to kind of drive home the point that all things equal, STAR may not be in opposition, but if it materially changed things, it could cause concerns uh for Star.
[02:43:04] all things equal, STAR may not be in opposition, but if it materially changed things, it could cause concerns uh for Star.
[02:43:12] could cause concerns uh for Star.
[02:43:14] Would that be accurate in stating that we can only operate off the information that we have.
[02:43:16] we can only operate off the information that we have.
[02:43:18] What we have currently is the well, I'm not going to resummarize it for you, but if if if there were something if something was to come back in this application saying you can't electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:20] the well, I'm not going to resummarize it for you, but if if if there were something if something was to come back in this application saying you can't electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:23] something if something was to come back in this application saying you can't electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:25] in this application saying you can't electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:27] you can't electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:29] electrify, you just cannot electrify ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:32] ALA1, ALA4, but you could five, that could change the analysis.
[02:43:34] Absolutely. But we can't base that off of Creststone just saying this may be a problem when it we don't have any information about the information that they've tried to obtain in the discussions they've had with Excel.
[02:43:36] But we can't base that off of Creststone just saying this may be a problem when it we don't have any information about the information that they've tried to obtain in the discussions they've had with Excel.
[02:43:38] just saying this may be a problem when it we don't have any information about the information that they've tried to obtain in the discussions they've had with Excel.
[02:43:40] it we don't have any information about the information that they've tried to obtain in the discussions they've had with Excel.
[02:43:41] the information that they've tried to obtain in the discussions they've had with Excel.
[02:43:43] we we can't cross-examine
[02:43:45] with Excel. we we can't cross-examine something that we don't have.
[02:43:47] something that we don't have.
[02:43:49] Yeah, thank you. Understood. Was just trying to get a feel for that and so thank you.
[02:43:53] Um I guess my other question is that you know from our perspective, at least from my perspective as a commissioner, I'm looking at things from a very cumulative standpoint, right?
[02:44:01] What a very utilitarian standpoint in determining the best location, which location does the greatest amount of good given the constraints and uh benefits and costs that we have.
[02:44:13] And so I I understand that stars at least I believe that stars uh primary objection is proximity to homes and that is something that that you know certainly we think of that said it's within uh it's squarely within uh the standards that we've set forth as acceptable in our regulations in the past and um so then I'm left to kind of ponder okay but then it it it includes crossing NSO potential sensitive riparian areas you're modifying a pipeline and a hall route to include significantly more
[02:44:45] route to include significantly more emissions and truck traffic.
[02:44:49] emissions and truck traffic.
[02:44:51] I guess I just am looking for your response on kind of the the cumulative impacts perspective.
[02:44:53] Are you focused squarely on proximity to homes or do you have concerns uh or all those other concerns allayed so long as there's no proximity to homes?
[02:45:05] Yeah, thank you commissioner.
[02:45:08] So um I I think well again I think the slide is instructive to our thinking.
[02:45:10] Um of course we look at all of the impacts.
[02:45:12] We look at the impacts ranging from grassland to wildlife to other impacts as well as how close it is to a lot of people and um how close it is to people is an important that's a very important consideration.
[02:45:28] Um however if it was somewhere else that had extensive impacts to wildlife I think that would be part of what STAR would consider when making its recommendations.
[02:45:33] But when it comes to this area and the feasibility zone, the wildlife impacts, as has been noted in prior conversation by yourself and others, are actually less on two of these locations than the preferred
[02:45:46] these locations than the preferred location.
[02:45:46] And so that is a good thing.
[02:45:48] location.
[02:45:48] And so that is a good thing.
[02:45:48] What would be very much less is the
[02:45:49] What would be very much less is the impacts on people with these locations.
[02:45:52] impacts on people with these locations.
[02:45:52] Um, and as to the issue about having to
[02:45:56] Um, and as to the issue about having to cross riparian areas, again, not ideal.
[02:46:00] cross riparian areas, again, not ideal.
[02:46:00] Um, when you put in a large operation
[02:46:02] Um, when you put in a large operation like this, there's going to be impacts.
[02:46:04] like this, there's going to be impacts.
[02:46:04] period.
[02:46:04] So the question is how can you
[02:46:07] period.
[02:46:07] So the question is how can you and I think Commissioner Arian you um
[02:46:09] and I think Commissioner Arian you um addressed this or you said this very
[02:46:11] addressed this or you said this very well.
[02:46:11] How is it that you can overall
[02:46:13] well. How is it that you can overall look at the impacts and what's going to
[02:46:15] look at the impacts and what's going to have the least amount of cumulative
[02:46:16] have the least amount of cumulative impacts when you consider the fact that
[02:46:18] impacts when you consider the fact that there are 865 homes within a mile of
[02:46:21] there are 865 homes within a mile of this proposed location.
[02:46:21] Even if it's 24
[02:46:23] this proposed location.
[02:46:23] Even if it's 24 wells, that's going to be substantial
[02:46:25] wells, that's going to be substantial impacts on those people and the
[02:46:26] impacts on those people and the reservoir, not to mention um and so I
[02:46:31] reservoir, not to mention um and so I think all those need to be put into
[02:46:32] think all those need to be put into consideration.
[02:46:32] And if there is other
[02:46:34] consideration.
[02:46:34] And if there is other areas that are farther away um that
[02:46:37] areas that are farther away um that don't have uh extensive wildlife
[02:46:39] don't have uh extensive wildlife impacts, then those should be considered
[02:46:43] impacts, then those should be considered feasible.
[02:46:43] And the commission's order was
[02:46:45] feasible.
[02:46:45] And the commission's order was to examine all feasible locations.
[02:46:45] As to
[02:46:48] to examine all feasible locations.
[02:46:51] As to the riparian areas, it's again not ideal, but this is also something not unique.
[02:46:55] Even within this development, there are other locations that that have their pipelines that cross riparian areas.
[02:47:03] And so we don't like that, but we also don't think that it's something that should disqualify a uh ALA consideration which Creststone has attempted to do.
[02:47:13] You're muted, Mr. Hackman.
[02:47:14] You're muted.
[02:47:15] Thank you.
[02:47:17] Thanks, Mr. Foot.
[02:47:20] And then just some followup there um on the uh on the hall routes and uh specifically um you know if hall routes are shifted to the south there then it was testified that they would pass much closer to existing residential areas albeit not the residential area inhabited by the majority of the members of STAR.
[02:47:36] It would be a different residential area with significantly increased emissions.
[02:47:45] And so this is a a very difficult social issue that we deal with is that you know the farther from me is better but from
[02:47:49] the farther from me is better but from our perspective our perspective you know cumulatively you know cumulatively uh you know farther from point X but uh you know farther from point X but closer to point B must be considered by us as well.
[02:47:58] And so do the additional uh significant emissions of a southern uh hall route uh and the proximity to of that hall route to existing residential areas uh cause you concern some concern or is that not really part of the equation for STAR?
[02:48:18] I think it would of course cause concern, but the big distinction here again is that these are residences that have not been built yet.
[02:48:23] And also with the knowledge that the biggest truck impacts by far are during the construction, drilling, and production or the pre-production phases, then um I mean, we don't know when the houses are going to be constructed, but I think it's safe to assume um they won't be constructed before those biggest impacts are done.
[02:48:42] So, not a perfect situation, but not quite the same as if the route had to go through a another densely populated already built
[02:48:50] another densely populated already built up area, which is would not be the case up area, which is would not be the case here.
[02:48:55] here.
[02:48:55] Thanks for your response, Mr. Foot.
[02:48:56] Thanks for your response, Mr. Foot.
[02:48:56] Thanks for your work on this and for uh that of your client.
[02:49:00] that of your client.
[02:49:00] Thank you.
[02:49:02] Thank you.
[02:49:02] Further questions for Mr. Foot?
[02:49:11] All right, Mr. Foot.
[02:49:11] Um, just to kind of provide you and again, I appreciate your involvement here.
[02:49:16] provide you and again, I appreciate your involvement here.
[02:49:18] I appreciate STAR's involvement.
[02:49:18] Um, you guys have done a good job of providing good perspective to commission as we um contemplate ponder this proposal.
[02:49:20] Um, you guys have done a good job of providing good perspective to commission as we um contemplate ponder this proposal.
[02:49:22] good job of providing good perspective to commission as we um contemplate ponder this proposal.
[02:49:26] to commission as we um contemplate ponder this proposal.
[02:49:31] contemplate ponder this proposal.
[02:49:31] Um, first, uh, and as I pointed out at the outset, are you in agreement that the commission is not really in a place to pick and approve a a different site than the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:34] first, uh, and as I pointed out at the outset, are you in agreement that the commission is not really in a place to pick and approve a a different site than the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:37] outset, are you in agreement that the commission is not really in a place to pick and approve a a different site than the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:39] commission is not really in a place to pick and approve a a different site than the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:41] pick and approve a a different site than the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:43] the one that has been that is part of the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:46] the application that we are constrained to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:47] to either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:49] conditionally approve the site that is part of the application and that's
[02:49:51] part of the application and that's because we don't have all the underlying.
[02:49:52] because we don't have all the underlying documents for the other sites, the 2A, 2Bs, cumulative impacts, etc.
[02:49:57] I don't know if I would totally agree with that.
[02:49:59] I I think I could argue that it could be a condition of approval that the commission could um could hand down under the rules, but uh we may have to agree to disagree about that.
[02:50:10] How would we do that if we don't have all the underlying uh permit requirements?
[02:50:14] Uh there's not been a completeness review of any of the other sites.
[02:50:16] There's not been a 2A.
[02:50:17] There's not been a 2B.
[02:50:19] There's not been a cumulative impact.
[02:50:20] So, I'm going to push back a little bit.
[02:50:22] How is it that you even think that we have an ability to approve it approve a different site versus you know I I think what your client would say is deny this site and give uh direction to pursue a different site.
[02:50:33] That would be the cleanest.
[02:50:34] Yes.
[02:50:36] But um I think a condition of approval would be um it could be approved as long as you submit a form 2A uh that complies with our order and our order is it should be somewhere within zones or sections 25 and 26.
[02:50:47] Uh the feasibility zone, whatever you want to call it.
[02:50:50] Um, it
[02:50:52] whatever you want to call it.
[02:50:54] Um, it would be kind of a not an elegant way to do it necessarily, but I think one could argue it could be under the rules and the commission's authority.
[02:51:00] the commission's authority.
[02:51:01] Okay.
[02:51:05] Um, so my my next question, it's kind of a sort of a fundamental question.
[02:51:11] Um, in your slide, uh, you've got your stoplight analysis and distance to reservoir for state sunlight long proposal is red.
[02:51:19] distance to homes is red.
[02:51:28] Um, what rule or rules of the energy and uh energy and carbon management commission are not being complied with that would um allow you and your client to determine that the proposed location is not compliant.
[02:51:46] And that question is actually broader.
[02:51:49] Upon what rule or rules are you relying upon to uh request this
[02:51:52] relying upon to uh request this commission deny the state sunlight long application and its proposed location?
[02:51:59] I think the commission can deny this based on uh CRS 3460106 2.5A which says in exercising the authority granted by this article 60 the commission shall regulate oil and gas operations in a reasonable manner to protect and minimize adverse impacts to public health safety and welfare in the environment and wildlife resources and shall protect against adverse environmental impacts on any air, water, soil or biological resource.
[02:52:28] resulting from oil and gas operations.
[02:52:31] So the language there I would argue protect is different than minimize adverse impacts.
[02:52:36] It's in addition to if it's found to not be protective and we argue and we've said many many times and there's evidence in the record sufficient evidence in the record to support this is not a protective location as currently proposed.
[02:52:50] So I'm going to point you to the statute which I think is one better than the that you all
[02:52:53] is one better than the that you all could rely upon to deny this because it's not protective.
[02:52:56] it's not protective.
[02:52:56] Okay. Okay, thank you very much.
[02:53:00] And a correlary to that is you're not um providing us with uh a spec specific rules that we've adopted that are are not being met, but rather it's the reference to 2.3461 and 6 2.58.
[02:53:13] Is that right?
[02:53:15] right?
[02:53:17] There are a number of rules that that incorporate this standard that I think um one could cite, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.
[02:53:23] But there are a number of rules that talk about the necessity to protect and minimize adverse impacts and I think those rules would follow the analysis that I gave you on the statute.
[02:53:32] Okay.
[02:53:32] The only one that I found is 307B which reads uh approval the commission may approve an oil gas development plan that complies with all requirements of the rules and protects minimizes adverse impacts to public health safety welfare and the environment and wildlife resources.
[02:53:47] Uh correlarily if the commission determines that and this is Romanet 2 uh if the commission
[02:53:54] Romanet 2 uh if the commission determines that oil gas development does
[02:53:56] determines that oil gas development does not provide necessary reasonable
[02:53:57] not provide necessary reasonable protections for or minimize adverse
[02:54:00] protections for or minimize adverse impacts to public health safety welfare
[02:54:02] impacts to public health safety welfare of the environment wildlife resources or
[02:54:04] of the environment wildlife resources or fails to meet the rules of the
[02:54:05] fails to meet the rules of the commissions.
[02:54:09] So that's as I read it that's our rule adoption of section 2.5.
[02:54:12] So, I I'll uh I'm just trying to help here, but I really want to get a record that's correct here.
[02:54:19] Um, so I find rule 307 to incorporate section 2.5 of the statute.
[02:54:22] I do not find uh other sections of our rules that further uh adopt that.
[02:54:28] I think we've the all the other rules that I've looked at are more specific um
[02:54:33] and they codify the provisions of 2.5.
[02:54:36] Um do you have anything further to add or are you in agreement at this point?
[02:54:40] Well, I think the word or in there is quite a telling word and I would love to have an opportunity and star would have
[02:54:46] loved to have an opportunity to further brief this issue if it's dispositive in your decision-making.
[02:54:53] Well, I think that's the whole point of
[02:54:54] Well, I think that's the whole point of the petition is to provide us with the analysis, but I I'll I'll I'll leave it at that.
[02:55:02] Any further questions of Mr. Foot?
[02:55:09] All right. Thank you very much for your participation.
[02:55:12] Thank you to the participation of your client with us this afternoon or Yeah, it is.
[02:55:17] It's an afternoon.
[02:55:19] It's 12:05.
[02:55:19] Um I'm inclined to take a break, give commissioners an opportunity to go over our notes, uh get a little bite to eat before we move forward.
[02:55:29] Um Commissioner Mesner.
[02:55:32] Yeah, Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could request an executive session on some legal questions regarding uh this application and proceeding that it could happen before lunch.
[02:55:46] It could happen over lunch.
[02:55:46] Um but did have some questions that I think it would be important before I deliberate.
[02:55:53] Okay. Um hold on just a second, Miss Jo.
[02:55:57] Okay.
[02:55:57] Um hold on just a second, Miss Jo.
[02:55:59] Um when one commissioner asks for executive commission uh executive session, our uh general perspective is that we will have an executive session because we want to honor the concerns and thoughts of um that um
[02:56:13] I think I've skipped something uh which is um before we get to that and I apologize Miss Jo.
[02:56:20] I'm not trying to move forward, but I believe if I let you say something, you would say, "Hey, wait.
[02:56:26] I had rebuttal rain.
[02:56:29] Chair, that's that's true.
[02:56:31] And we have nine minutes.
[02:56:31] Um, we had 10 minutes.
[02:56:33] Um, we are ready to go.
[02:56:35] We think it could be actually good to maybe wrap up this portion.
[02:56:39] I agree completely and I apologize for jumping the gun.
[02:56:42] Okay, commissioners, what we're going to do is we're going to do rebuttal and then if there's any Q&A on rebuttal um and then I anticipate we'll take a break that will encompass the executive session that we assuming all of us agree that we want to go into that.
[02:56:57] So with that, uh Miss Jo, thank
[02:57:00] that.
[02:57:03] So with that, uh Miss Jo, thank you for reminding me subtly and you are recognized for rebuttal.
[02:57:05] Thank you so much, Chair.
[02:57:07] Um, Creststone would like to start this rebuttal by addressing several statements made during Star and Maverick's positions or presentations.
[02:57:13] Mr. Bennett, could you please provide the commission with Creststone's position on STAR's presentation?
[02:57:17] Thank you, Miss Jo.
[02:57:19] First, I would like to start by addressing STAR's feasibility zone map.
[02:57:23] There are several glaring mistakes with the drawing provided by STAR.
[02:57:26] The proposed reservoirs are incorrectly labeled.
[02:57:28] There is no reservoir A.
[02:57:30] What is shown are reservoir B in the north and reservoir C in the south.
[02:57:34] Importantly, Star used incorrect buffers around the Aurora reservoir as the applicable buffer is 3,000 ft and around reservoir C as well as the applicable buffer there is also 3,000 ft.
[02:57:45] All this information was accurately represented in Creststone's filings and used to inform our supplemental analyses.
[02:57:51] As for STAR's purported feasibility zone, consistent with my earlier testimony, there are a number of challenges with what has been deemed quote feasible for viable alternative locations.
[02:57:56] Much of this area
[02:58:01] Alternative locations.
[02:58:03] Much of this area falls within the Sandy Foothills ESD and areas that have been determined through field assessment to contain good habitat coverage and indicator species with limited negative habitat indicators in terms of Pedmont grassland habitat.
[02:58:13] Other challenges include the overlapping of this area with portions of a quarter mile swift fox den buffer which is a feature CPW specifically referenced in its recent consultation.
[02:58:23] Two other factors that STAR fails to acknowledge in their feasibility assessment are the proximity of this area to riparian corridors, both from a county setback perspective and potential impacts to these features from linear infrastructure and the required transportation corridor and corresponding hall route as this area would require the use of the southern ranch egress and corresponding hall route previously discussed today.
[02:58:44] Regardless of the status of overland ranch, this transportation route traverses past a lot more homes than the proposed route does.
[02:58:52] Second, there are fatal flaws with STAR's version of a stoplight chart.
[02:58:56] Rather than belaboring these points, I will make two quick observations.
[02:59:00] First, the key points shown in the table are extremely limited.
[02:59:02] shown in the table are extremely limited in regards to everything that was analyzed and considered in these supplemental assessments, as well as the fact that STAR fails to rank cumulative impacts resulting from their preferred alternatives, which is inconsistent with their external messaging, social media propaganda, and other forms of media communications.
[02:59:20] Most importantly, as this commission knows, there are no residential building units within 3,000 ft of the proposed state sunlight long location, which confirms compliance with both ECMC and Arapjo County sighting requirements.
[02:59:34] Yet, STAR has this colored red.
[02:59:37] Ironically, there are two residential building units within 3,000 ft of AL number 9, one of which is less than 2,000 ft from the present- day working pad surface.
[02:59:46] Yet, Star has this colored green.
[02:59:48] In my opinion, their logic is flawed.
[02:59:51] And in this context, I once again offer that the proposed state sunlight long location is most protective of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife and biological resources.
[03:00:01] I will now turn the presentation over to Mr.
[03:00:02] Turn the presentation over to Mr. Harrington.
[03:00:04] Harrington. >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett. I just have one very quick point as relates to Maverick's uh testimony.
[03:00:11] U Mr. Prescott's comment that fewer wells will necessarily result in a larger drainage radius assumes that the wells are draining a tank and that recovery will not be impacted by the well count.
[03:00:23] As I stated in my testimony, we do in fact expect somewhat less recovery from 24 versus 32 wells.
[03:00:33] And also none of those wells will be closer to Maverick's mineral position than the originally proposed wells.
[03:00:38] Again, separated by a 600t non-reduced setback.
[03:00:41] This should mitigate any concern Maverick has about drainage of their minerals.
[03:00:43] Thank you.
[03:00:45] >> Turn back to Miss Joington.
[03:00:47] >> Thank you, Mr. Harrington.
[03:00:49] Commissioners, it is with absolute certainty that the state sunlight long OGDP form 2A and two 3,840 acre corresponding drilling and spacing unit applications meet each and every requirement of the act and ECMC rules.
[03:01:03] requirement of the act and ECMC rules and that the state sunlight long OGDP is
[03:01:05] and that the state sunlight long OGDP is an approvable and compliant application.
[03:01:07] an approvable and compliant application.
[03:01:10] You have seven hearings with substantial subject matter expert testimony and exhibits before you as well as a director's recommendation to for approval to rely upon to make your decision to approve this application today.
[03:01:19] Neither STAR nor Maverick have come close to meeting their burden of proof and have continuously failed to show that the state Sunlight Long ODP is not compliant with the act rules or other applicable laws.
[03:01:33] Each petitioner has been given their due process right to participate in this hearing as a party.
[03:01:39] But that right does not give rise to a denial of a clearly approvable regulation compliant application on any basis presented by either petitioner or on any political or public prejuditial influence reasons that may be considered by this commission.
[03:01:54] STAR specifically has shown its political agenda by partnering with known national activist groups to stop the state sunlight long development on multiple occasions and in fact all future development in the CAP
[03:02:04] fact all future development in the CAP as evidenced by their opposition on
[03:02:06] as evidenced by their opposition on April 7th to another pending CAP
[03:02:08] April 7th to another pending CAP location, the state Blanca that's
[03:02:10] location, the state Blanca that's located over two miles away from their
[03:02:12] located over two miles away from their community.
[03:02:14] They've presented misleading information in its April 15th submission
[03:02:16] information in its April 15th submission and during its presentation today and
[03:02:19] and during its presentation today and most importantly have shown that they're
[03:02:20] most importantly have shown that they're willing to add incremental inc imp
[03:02:22] willing to add incremental inc imp impacts to an art.
[03:02:23] impacts to an art.
[03:02:26] Mr. Chair, I apologize, Miss Jo. This has nothing to do with the supplemental
[03:02:27] filings. This is way beyond the scope.
[03:02:29] Mr. Chair, we've just asked for Miss Jo to move on.
[03:02:31] to move on.
[03:02:32] Mr. Chair, I'm doing a short closing.
[03:02:35] Go ahead. and shown that they're willing
[03:02:37] to add incremental impacts to an RBU
[03:02:40] owner within 2,000 ft of an existing pad
[03:02:43] so long as STAR members themselves are not impacted.
[03:02:45] not impacted. This is not advocacy or collaboration.
[03:02:47] This is activism. To conclude, for the final time, Creststone
[03:02:49] conclude, for the final time, Creststone respectfully and expressly requests that
[03:02:51] respectfully and expressly requests that this commission deny the Star and
[03:02:53] this commission deny the Star and Maverick petitions approve the
[03:02:56] Maverick petitions approve the approximate 7,683.1
[03:02:58] approximate 7,683.1 acre State Sunlight Long OGDP for the
[03:03:01] acre State Sunlight Long OGDP for the requested new horizontal wells to be
[03:03:06] requested new horizontal wells to be developed from one new oil and gas developed from one new oil and gas location within the state sunlight long.
[03:03:10] location within the state sunlight long OGDP boundary to approve the associated form two for the state sunlight long.
[03:03:15] form two for the state sunlight long pad. approve the two 3,840 acre drilling and spacing units attached to the state sunlight long application and finally.
[03:03:23] sunlight long application and finally make an express finding that the state sunlight long OGDP will protect and minimize adverse impacts to public health safety welfare of the environment and wildlife resources and will protect against adverse environmental impacts on any air, water, soil or biological resource in compliance with CRS 3460 1062.5A.
[03:03:44] 1062.5A. Thank you so much for your consideration and your time over the last seven hearings.
[03:03:50] hearings. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh any questions for the rebuttal panel?
[03:04:00] All right. Seeing none, uh Agedro, if you could visualize.
[03:04:07] you could visualize.
[03:04:11] All right, couple of questions.
[03:04:13] Um, we have a commissioner requesting executive session.
[03:04:15] We need to take a break for lunch.
[03:04:18] Um, we've concluded the evidence and testimony, I believe.
[03:04:20] Um, the question of opening or or closing the record is also before us.
[03:04:22] Um, do you want to opine on any or all the above?
[03:04:28] Um, I I suppose as to the executive session, uh, you can certainly entertain a motion for that, um, as we usually do or as the commission usually does.
[03:04:39] And uh it would be you know sort of up to you if you want to do that and then take a break and come back um or or you know whatever order you want to do that in.
[03:04:47] Otherwise I have have no uh issues with anything you just described.
[03:04:51] All right.
[03:04:53] Um Commissioner Master, do you want to make a motion on the executive session?
[03:04:58] Yeah.
[03:05:02] Um, I'll make a motion to enter into executive session to receive legal advice association associated with the
[03:05:08] advice association associated with the application before us.
[03:05:10] application before us.
[03:05:13] Second. Um, any further discussion on the motion?
[03:05:15] Commissioner Acriman.
[03:05:16] Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[03:05:18] And I apologize if I'm jumping the gun and you're getting to this, but I think my preference would be to have an executive session before breaking for lunch and being able to compile.
[03:05:26] You anticipated where I was going. Okay.
[03:05:28] Um, what I'm thinking about doing is voting on the executive session, assuming that that is a yes vote.
[03:05:35] Then we're going to break from this panel and I I'd like 15 minutes before we get into executive session because I want to go make some lunch and then do executive session at 12:30 until however long it takes and then return back to uh open session at 1:30.
[03:05:51] Um, so that gives us a chance to get a little bite to eat, have executive session, take a break, go out for a walk, and then come back and then do deliberations.
[03:06:01] That those are my ideas.
[03:06:03] I don't know if that works with everybody else.
[03:06:05] I'm seeing nodding of heads in affirmative fashion, so that sounds good.
[03:06:07] Um, all right. With that,
[03:06:10] sounds good.
[03:06:10] Um, all right.
[03:06:12] With that, uh, let's vote on the executive session motion.
[03:06:13] All those in favor signify by saying I.
[03:06:15] I.
[03:06:15] I.
[03:06:15] Any opposed?
[03:06:19] All right.
[03:06:19] That motion carries.
[03:06:22] Okay.
[03:06:22] for the folks that are listening in um 787 of you.
[03:06:25] Thank you very much for being a part of the process today.
[03:06:29] Uh the commission is going to take a break for lunch and also to go into executive session.
[03:06:34] The way executive sessions work, we're going to leave this meeting and we're going to go into a different Zoom meeting with our lawyer um to receive uh advice concerning this OGDP and executive session, which we were allowed to do under Colorado's open meetings laws.
[03:06:50] Um, we're going to do that during our lunch break.
[03:06:52] Um, and then, uh, we're going to come back at one, no sooner than 1:30.
[03:06:57] Um, and then at that point in time, we will announce that the executive session is over, that we made no decisions, and that we're going to move back into open session.
[03:07:04] And then at that point, we'll move move into deliberations on this proposed GDP.
[03:07:11] proposed GDP.
[03:07:13] Did I get all that right, AG Bedro?
[03:07:13] Uh,
[03:07:15] yes, Mr. Chair.
[03:07:17] And before we leave for executive session, I have something to read into the record.
[03:07:21] Please do.
[03:07:21] Uh, pursuant to open meetings law, the commission is entitled to enter into executive session at this regular meeting to receive legal advice pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 246423A2.
[03:07:32] During the executive session, the commission will receive legal advice regarding ECMC docket number 2412000313.
[03:07:41] That's the Creststone Sunlight Long OGDP.
[03:07:45] Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, you already had a motion and a second and a vote, so I think we're good to go.
[03:07:51] Okay.
[03:07:51] And for those that are listening in, um, you can either zoom out of the meeting and come back at 1:30 or you can stick around.
[03:07:58] We're just going to hold this meeting open.
[03:08:00] Uh, but nothing's going to happen until 1:30 at this meeting itself.
[03:08:05] So hopefully that's uh apparent and everybody understands that.
[03:08:10] Um, we will see everyone back here at 1:30 on Tuesday, April 21st.
[03:08:10] Thanks.
[03:08:31] All right.
[03:08:31] Uh, welcome back.
[03:08:31] It is 1:31.
[03:08:33] All right.
[03:08:33] Uh, welcome back.
[03:08:33] It is 1:31.
[03:08:35] Sorry to be the last one back to the party.
[03:08:38] This is the car Colorado energy and carbon management commission.
[03:08:40] We are taking up the state sunlight long matter.
[03:08:43] Um, we did uh take a break for lunch and we also did an executive session.
[03:08:46] And since we did an executive session, I'm now going to recognize attorney general Budro to take us out of EES.
[03:08:47] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[03:08:49] We are returning from executive session.
[03:08:51] During the executive session, the commission received legal advice regarding ECMC docket number 2412000313.
[03:08:53] That's the Creststone Sunlight long OGDP.
[03:08:55] The executive session was conducted pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute section 246 4023A2.
[03:08:57] No deliberations were held, no votes were taken, and no decisions were made.
[03:08:58] Uh Mr. Chair, you can entertain a motion to exit executive session.
[03:09:00] No entertained.
[03:09:02] So move.
[03:09:07] Second.
[03:09:31] Second.
[03:09:34] All those in favor of exiting executive session signify by saying I.
[03:09:37] I. I.
[03:09:40] Any opposed?
[03:09:42] All right, we are leaving executive session.
[03:09:44] Um, okay.
[03:09:49] At this point, we have uh I think heard all the evidence to be submitted in this matter.
[03:09:55] Uh, Miss Jo, um, I see you're with us.
[03:09:56] Is that just because you're here for questions or did you have something you needed to make on the record?
[03:10:01] No, nothing on the record.
[03:10:03] I just was on screen because it was our hearing.
[03:10:05] Thank you.
[03:10:06] Thank you very much.
[03:10:09] All right.
[03:10:12] Um I think we've got a couple of things before us.
[03:10:15] So we um have AG Bedro sort of listen in to make sure I've got this right.
[03:10:19] Um we need to act on the Maverick petition.
[03:10:23] Um and we also need to act on or deliberate and act on the OGP application as submitted by Creststone
[03:10:31] application as submitted by Creststone which was contested by petitioner star.
[03:10:34] which was contested by petitioner star.
[03:10:34] Uh those are the two items before us.
[03:10:36] Uh those are the two items before us.
[03:10:36] Correct.
[03:10:36] Aged.
[03:10:40] That's correct, Mr. Chair.
[03:10:42] That's correct, Mr. Chair.
[03:10:42] Okay.
[03:10:45] Um I think we could probably take them up in whichever manner that we desire.
[03:10:47] them up in whichever manner that we desire.
[03:10:47] Uh last go around on December 10th when we started deliberations, we deliberated on the Maverick matter first.
[03:10:50] desire.
[03:10:50] Uh last go around on December 10th when we started deliberations, we deliberated on the Maverick matter first.
[03:10:52] 10th when we started deliberations, we deliberated on the Maverick matter first.
[03:10:54] deliberated on the Maverick matter first.
[03:10:54] Uh it is a little more concise and perhaps it makes sense to deliberate on that matter first.
[03:10:56] first.
[03:10:56] Uh it is a little more concise and perhaps it makes sense to deliberate on that matter first.
[03:10:59] and perhaps it makes sense to deliberate on that matter first.
[03:10:59] uh going to withhold judgment as to whether we deliberate and or make a decision there before we move on to the second matter.
[03:11:02] on that matter first.
[03:11:02] uh going to withhold judgment as to whether we deliberate and or make a decision there before we move on to the second matter.
[03:11:03] withhold judgment as to whether we deliberate and or make a decision there before we move on to the second matter.
[03:11:05] deliberate and or make a decision there before we move on to the second matter.
[03:11:05] before we move on to the second matter.
[03:11:08] Um if folks are okay with that, then that's the direction I would suggest we go.
[03:11:11] Um if folks are okay with that, then that's the direction I would suggest we go.
[03:11:12] that's the direction I would suggest we go.
[03:11:14] go.
[03:11:14] Commissioner Oath.
[03:11:16] Commissioner Oath.
[03:11:16] Uh thanks, Mr. Chair.
[03:11:18] Uh thanks, Mr. Chair.
[03:11:18] I I certainly think that can work.
[03:11:21] think that can work.
[03:11:21] Just one other um I guess potential idea to put out there for reaction from you all is um kind of a consideration or discussion on whether or not we find that uh Creststone
[03:11:23] Just one other um I guess potential idea to put out there for reaction from you all is um kind of a consideration or discussion on whether or not we find that uh Creststone
[03:11:28] for reaction from you all is um kind of a consideration or discussion on whether or not we find that uh Creststone
[03:11:30] a consideration or discussion on whether or not we find that uh Creststone
[03:11:34] or not we find that uh Creststone complied with our December order.
[03:11:36] complied with our December order.
[03:11:39] For me, it goes to both of the topics that you outlined, but I I certainly can um also just, you know, have discussion on Maverick first and then um go from there.
[03:11:48] Okay.
[03:11:50] Um, that's fine if we want to start there.
[03:11:53] Uh, I'm not sure that uh, well, we can debate that as we go.
[03:11:58] Um, Commissioner O, do you want to start deliberation on the this issue?
[03:12:04] I suppose I asked for that.
[03:12:06] Um, thanks, Mr. Chair.
[03:12:12] Sure.
[03:12:14] Um, you know, I guess I'll I'll I'll I'll be fairly brief on on this at least to open up the conversation.
[03:12:21] Um, we did receive a lot of supplemental information.
[03:12:23] Um, and I appreciate uh all of the time and work that went into that on behalf of all of all of uh the the folks who were engaged in that.
[03:12:31] And that
[03:12:36] folks who were engaged in that.
[03:12:36] And that includes uh the operator, the applicant,
[03:12:39] includes uh the operator, the applicant,
[03:12:39] that includes um the both of the parties,
[03:12:42] that includes consulting agencies, that includes our staff.
[03:12:45] Um and I want to really acknowledge that um anytime we stay a an application, there is um a lot of cost that goes and time that goes into that.
[03:12:59] Um and I um recognize that.
[03:13:02] Um, and as I have been reviewing the record and listening to the testimony today and re evaluating or I guess comparing what I have um, been able to glean from the record with what is outlined outlined um, pretty extensively in our December order.
[03:13:22] You know, I do find that um there were items six, seven, and eight in our December order that I do believe Creststone has um provided and provided um that the information in those um areas and that has to do with, you know,
[03:13:37] areas and that has to do with, you know, the status of the East Aurora Reservoir.
[03:13:40] the status of the East Aurora Reservoir um um a report on engagement with the land board and some progress related to the no surface occupancy tiers.
[03:13:45] the no surface occupancy tiers.
[03:13:48] um as well as um engagement with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and um kind of their their take on um potential um alternative locations.
[03:14:00] Um, however um I am struggling um in the other respects.
[03:14:09] Um, and so I guess I'll take Maverick first since we talked about maybe that that initially.
[03:14:15] Um, you know, I went back and and noted that in December what I said in deliberations was recognizing that Creststone has the applicant carries the burden.
[03:14:24] They have to demonstrate that their DSU complies with the statute and the regulations.
[03:14:30] And that includes demonstrating that the proposed DSU would not result in waste of Maverick's minerals.
[03:14:34] Um, and you know, I said at
[03:14:38] minerals.
[03:14:40] Um, and you know, I said at the time that Mad Brook may have a point that finding a viable and approvable surface location to to develop its minerals may not be possible due to various setbacks and because it would require drilling in a location that would have significant public health, safety, welfare um, uh, implications.
[03:14:56] However, it may also be that in order for Creststone to develop those minerals that Crustto would need to change the surface location to one that's further to the west or closer to the reservoir and within the county's setbacks.
[03:15:07] And in that case, the location would be too impactful to public health, safety, welfare of the environment, and wildlife resources, which would mean that non-development of Maverick's minerals would not constitute waste under the statute.
[03:15:20] And you know, at the time there was some information in the record on this, but I noted that I I wanted to see that further developed prior to making a determination on whether or not the proposed DSU DSU will result in waste.
[03:15:33] And unfortunately, I find myself uh in a situation where I don't see that the
[03:15:38] situation where I don't see that the supplemental information substantially developed this area of the record.
[03:15:43] and so really find myself no closer to being able to make a determination on uh this part of the hearing.
[03:15:52] Um with respect to um alternative locations, um there is certainly a lot more information provided about the respective alternative locations.
[03:16:05] Um, but we continue to not have information about the viability of variances or exceptions related to the riparian areas, nor specific information about the viability of electric power at the alternative locations.
[03:16:17] And then no ultimately no discussion about the cumulative assessment of those potential impacts with relative minimization of impacts to public health.
[03:16:25] And so it again it may be that the proposed location is the one that most fully minimizes impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, wildlife resources on the whole, but I find that we requested information from Creststone to help us more fully
[03:16:40] Creststone to help us more fully evaluate this.
[03:16:43] Um and and I'm just in a in a position where I don't feel that I have that information.
[03:16:50] Um, so I will just I guess stop there and really look forward to hearing other thoughts.
[03:16:55] Sure. Thank you for bringing that up.
[03:16:58] Um,
[03:17:01] I'll go second.
[03:17:06] I um believe that there is compliance with the December 10th order.
[03:17:09] There was a lot of information that was asked.
[03:17:11] I believe they provided a lot of information.
[03:17:14] uh I go back to my deliberative thoughts uh from December 10th and I was ready to deny the Maverick's uh request at that point in time.
[03:17:21] I'm still in that position.
[03:17:23] Um and so I didn't need as one commissioner additional information uh to get to a place where I felt like Maverick or Creststone um had met their burden.
[03:17:34] Um, you know, frankly, I think the issue between Maverick and Creststone is more a civil issue between the parties and
[03:17:41] a civil issue between the parties and they need to be dealing with this.
[03:17:42] they need to be dealing with this outside of our vein.
[03:17:46] Um, and um, so I I'm not of the opinion that uh, you know, whether the December 10th order uh, provided additional information or not, I was already of the opinion that I didn't need that information.
[03:17:59] So, um, you know, that's just kind of a different philosophical place to be.
[03:18:02] And so, you know, again, I really appreciate my fellow commissioners, and none of us are right, wrong, or otherwise.
[03:18:07] We just, you know, we're looking at it from five different prisms, and that's why the uh legislature created uh a five member board on that front.
[03:18:16] Um, with regard to the second piece, the, you know, compliance with regard to what we asked for them to do on ALA locations and and the OGDP.
[03:18:25] um, you know, I'm sufficiently confident that they've done a, you know, pretty darn good job of evaluating, uh, 11 locations now.
[03:18:35] Um, some of which are STARS and some of which are from CPW and some of which are from Creststone themselves.
[03:18:39] Uh, there's a lot of
[03:18:41] themselves.
[03:18:41] Uh, there's a lot of information.
[03:18:44] Um, I look at what we're trying to do and I I get back to just kind of the general uh uh burden of proof.
[03:18:48] It's the burden of proof of the operator to establish that um they're moving forward with a proposal and they have the burden of proof of whether that proposal is approvable under our rules.
[03:18:59] Uh in order for that to take place, it needs to ensure that it is uh in compliance with our rules.
[03:19:02] Um, I'm not going to opine as to whether this proposal is in compliance or not, but I believe there is extensive additional information provided to help us get to an understanding of of the efficacy of of this proposal versus, you know, looking at some other places.
[03:19:21] As I started uh with the hearing today, um you know, we're in a we're not in a place to approve a different location other than the one that is preferred by the applicant and that the 2A's and the 2Bs assessment is around it.
[03:19:38] Now, the applicant is taking a chance that that's not approvable and I'm not sure where
[03:19:42] not approvable and I'm not sure where the commission's going to go on that.
[03:19:44] the commission's going to go on that.
[03:19:46] but I appreciate the additional information around the ALA's.
[03:19:49] I get it, Commissioner Oath, and appreciate the fact that, uh, you know, there's not final information about viability or variances or electric power.
[03:19:56] Um, true.
[03:20:01] Um, however, that's the applicant's choice.
[03:20:03] It's, you know, we don't create, we don't modify applications before us.
[03:20:08] We act on the application that's before us.
[03:20:10] and the applicant has come forward and they think they provided the necessary information to get an approved location at the state sunlight long location.
[03:20:18] Um that's their risk.
[03:20:22] Um you know and I don't know that they have to evaluate the efficacy of all the other locations in order to have the entitlement right to move forward with the location they want to move forward with us which is what they've decided to do.
[03:20:34] So, I'm with that I'm I'm um comfortable the December 10th order was complied with.
[03:20:41] I also would say that
[03:20:44] was complied with.
[03:20:46] I also would say that I'm not sure that u you know at the end of the day we're adjudicating whether the petitioner has defended the maverick petition regard to the mineral leases and defended the uh or or provided enough uh proof in the record to get an approval on the state sunlight lawn.
[03:21:04] So, you know, irrespective of compliance with December 10th order or not, it's really those two things that are in important before us.
[03:21:12] Um, obviously for for commissioners, if they feel, you know, non-compliance to December 10th is is a sticking point, that's fair.
[03:21:21] Um, but I do find compliance and I'm ready to move forward.
[03:21:25] Um, so that's two different commissioners deliberative thoughts.
[03:21:28] I look forward to hearing other deliberative thoughts.
[03:21:30] Commissioner Cross beat out Commissioner Mesner this time by hair.
[03:21:33] So, we'll go in that order.
[03:21:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Oath, for your comments as well.
[03:21:41] Um, I'll start off saying that first of all, my opinions have not changed with
[03:21:45] My opinions have not changed with respect to the Maverick um petition.
[03:21:49] Respect to the Maverick um petition.
[03:21:52] During the last hearing in December, um I I stated that I do not believe the testimony was credible from Maverick about the ability to drain um the the minerals from their lands from their min mineral leases.
[03:22:09] And I don't find anything different today.
[03:22:13] Frankly, I I think a lot of the concern from a Maverick position that I had was looking at it in terms of there would have to be significant differences in drainage compared to what all our state engineers say to what every operator in the DJ basin and statewide says about how much is actually being drained.
[03:22:40] Um the fact that there was the slight deviation in the northernmost wellbor slightly south.
[03:22:45] the northernmost wellbor slightly south to ensure that no drainage of Maverick's minerals um would be drained.
[03:22:51] I I think is is just an additional thing that says yes maybe the operator is not going to try and recover as much as they potentially could but they're trying to make sure that they're at least addressing concerns so they're not draining another person's mineral lease.
[03:23:06] Um, I think that if the drainage were different, we would have different templates for DSUs, different templates for wellbor spacing.
[03:23:17] Um, and my opinions on these matters have not changed since the December hearing.
[03:23:23] Um, I was curious not seeing the proposed wells um, with the change in the wellbor from 32 to 24 to see if there was going to be anything further north.
[03:23:33] I didn't presume that there would be given the operational uh concerns that the operator had the applicant had stated during the last hearing.
[03:23:42] Um and but I wanted to make
[03:23:45] hearing.
[03:23:47] Um and but I wanted to make sure that there wasn't going to be any sure that there wasn't going to be any potential issues with that.
[03:23:50] Um and and so I I think just quickly on the Maverick, I think I'm in a position
[03:23:53] Maverick, I think I'm in a position where um I would deny Maverick's petition because I don't think there's
[03:23:58] something um specifically with with respect to Commissioner O which you said, I agree there may be stranded
[03:24:05] resources, but I think that's also a situation that is partially of Maverick's making as well.
[03:24:10] Um, I think there's always an inherent risk that leases will not be developed.
[03:24:15] And if you're specifically buying mineral leases with the hopes that someone else will develop them, that's not always going to be the case.
[03:24:25] And I think that's especially the case when you're in the middle of a high density area.
[03:24:30] Um, they're near a lot of RBUs, they're near a lot of water resources, etc.
[03:24:35] And so I think there's always going to be a risk with an investment like that that you may not get the outcome you want.
[03:24:41] Um, and I think that's one of the things we're seeing here.
[03:24:42] I think it is important to note that the very first
[03:24:46] important to note that the very first version of what was proposed, um, did have a pad that was proposed further north and it would have been able to get some of those leases.
[03:24:55] Um, and I think that's where part of this dispute has come from.
[03:25:01] But as regulatory requirements changed, specifically with the Arapjo County and their reservoir setbacks, um, that specifically made it so they wouldn't be able to use that pad and wouldn't be able to develop that.
[03:25:11] And again, I think that's ultimately a business risk.
[03:25:13] That is something that is not a waste, is not a drainage here.
[03:25:18] It's not a relative rights issue.
[03:25:20] I think this is more so um an unfortunate thing that happens with business investments sometimes.
[03:25:27] Um as it pertains to STAR's petition and specifically the alternative location analysis.
[03:25:34] Um I want to kind of take a little bit of a step back.
[03:25:39] Um, and I think that some of what we heard from the alternatives location analysis presented by the applicant here as well as some of
[03:25:47] by the applicant here as well as some of the questions that we heard from the questions that we heard from commissioners today.
[03:25:52] Um, commissioners today.
[03:25:52] Um, there's a lot of discussion and also there's a lot of discussion and also from what we heard from from Mr. Foot as well, there was a lot of discussion of an implicit bias um with respect to the proposed alternative.
[03:26:04] Um, I think ultimately there's going to be an implicit bias when you're looking at an alternative location analysis because ultimately that is the location that an operator, an applicant has put forward as what they think is the best option.
[03:26:23] Um, I I would note that this is not something that under our rules would have required an alternative location analysis.
[03:26:30] Um, it is something we asked for.
[03:26:33] Um, I'm comfortable with the decision that was made in December that people wanted additional information on the alternative location analysis given that it's something we wanted.
[03:26:43] Um, and I do think that that was provided here.
[03:26:45] And I think one of the key things of it is the
[03:26:48] think one of the key things of it is the applicant testified that they tried to look at this as a blank slate.
[03:26:52] They try to look at the pros, the cons of each location, which which legitimately worked, which didn't work.
[03:26:59] And I would note in their in their stoplight um thing that they proposed, there would be options that would also have all grains.
[03:27:10] Um and so I think that it's not that they said the sunlight long was the only location that they could potentially develop.
[03:27:16] I don't think at any point in time they said that, but I think they said when balancing everything together, that's what they got.
[03:27:22] Um, I think if you look through more than just the the hearing presentation, if you look through a lot of the supplemental exhibits that came through, I think there's a lot of good information in there.
[03:27:33] Um, for example, if you look at specifically supplemental exhibits 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, it specifically goes through all the different um the different alternative locations and provides a lot of different considerations from an ECMC perspective.
[03:27:49] considerations from an ECMC perspective and and meeting our regulatory and and meeting our regulatory requirements from Arapo County requirements from Arapo County considerations meeting their regulatory considerations meeting their regulatory requirements as conversations with state requirements as conversations with state landboard considerations, CPW landboard considerations, CPW considerations, mineral develop considerations, mineral develop considerations, CDPHE considerations, considerations, CDPHE considerations, etc.
[03:28:04] Um, and I think when you take a close look at that, it's important to see some of the things that are good in there as well.
[03:28:09] Um, for example, when you look at their alternative location number one, it's not the alternative location they chose, but at the same time, they do point out a lot of the pros, some of the things that would specifically work for that, such as there's no alternative location analysis that would that would apply specifically to ALA1, that it's not within a disproportionately impacted community, that it's not in a flood plan.
[03:28:33] They put forward a lot of the pros for this as well, as well as putting forward some of the different concerns with it.
[03:28:39] Um, and I do think that that's important to note.
[03:28:40] It wasn't simply as Mr. Foot said, they just declared that their proposed site is protective and found issues with all the other sites.
[03:28:47] I don't think that's the case at all.
[03:28:49] Um, I think that
[03:28:52] that's the case at all.
[03:28:55] Um, I think that the fact that they've taken steps to the fact that they've taken steps to specifically look at how they could work with STAR to try and make changes to their pads to try and at least allay some of the concerns that STAR's members have had.
[03:29:10] um is a good step in terms of being a good neighbor to what they're to what their development is trying to propose.
[03:29:17] Um I I think for me a couple of the things that stood out um I also want to quickly point out you know I I do think that one of the areas that was hard for me was looking through um whether an NSO would be possible or a variance to the NSO would be possible.
[03:29:39] Um it's unfortunate we don't have a specific note from the state land board that there's absolutely no way we're going to do this.
[03:29:50] Um but I do think even when you read their somewhat limited information that they provided on the alternative
[03:29:54] that they provided on the alternative locations, I think it does a pretty good job of saying, "Hey, this this is a problem.
[03:29:58] And I know alternative one and four were two that we looked at a lot.
[03:30:02] And if you look at their comments on alternative location number one, they specifically talk about um the fact that they're worried about the Pedmont grassland soil.
[03:30:10] Um they're also talking they also specifically note to concern that the ALA pipeline would go through Cole Creek and then through high quality Pedmont grassland.
[03:30:19] Um and so while that's not a yes, it's not a no, it's not a don't even try.
[03:30:23] Um, you know, I do think it's it's worth recognizing that prior considerations, prior discussions with state land board about not going through those NSOs for something like an access road, for something like boring through a pipeline that, um, as Mr. Bennett testified today, um, may not even be possible trying to bore underneath those riparian wetlands.
[03:30:50] Um, and to me I think that it's also it it's becomes more of an issue for
[03:30:57] it it's becomes more of an issue for some of the considerations I think that.
[03:30:59] some of the considerations I think that than we would have otherwise.
[03:31:01] than we would have otherwise.
[03:31:03] ultimately this is state land board's land.
[03:31:06] Um, and if they're saying this is this is our tier one, this is the NSO.
[03:31:08] this is what we don't want people to to touch, I think that says a lot.
[03:31:13] Um, I do understand that there could be variances, but nothing is indicated from.
[03:31:14] variances, but nothing is indicated from what they've said to us that that's something they're willing to consider.
[03:31:21] And when they specifically note having to go through riparian NSO lands, I I think that that does lead credence to.
[03:31:23] to go through riparian NSO lands, I I think that that does lead credence to the applicant's statement that they're probably not going to approve any kind.
[03:31:29] the applicant's statement that they're probably not going to approve any kind of variance for that.
[03:31:31] And also, I think it may not be something that would want to be done.
[03:31:33] Um, you know, I I know Mr. foot was saying that uh they already are going through NSO lands, but as was testified to by the applicant today.
[03:31:36] it may not be something that would want to be done.
[03:31:38] Um, you know, I I know Mr. foot was saying that uh they already are going through NSO lands, but as was testified to by the applicant today.
[03:31:41] testified to by the applicant today, when you look at all the NSO lands as they exist today with the state land board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:45] going through NSO lands, but as was testified to by the applicant today, when you look at all the NSO lands as they exist today with the state land board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:47] board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:48] when you look at all the NSO lands as they exist today with the state land board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:51] they exist today with the state land board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:53] board, the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:55] the proposed hall route out from the proposed site as well as the.
[03:31:57] the proposed site as well as the pipelines do not go through in any NSO.
[03:32:00] pipelines do not go through in any NSO.
[03:32:00] And so to me, I think that's also a strong consideration in favor of the proposed location.
[03:32:05] Um, I I think a couple other things that stuck out to me.
[03:32:10] Um, I I had some some concerns with some of the statements Mr. Foot had in terms of the kind of conclusory nature without any kind of supporting evidence to that.
[03:32:28] Um, one of the things that he said is this site is not protective of public health.
[03:32:33] Um, but we haven't had anything that's specifically shown why it would not be protective of public health.
[03:32:40] Um, I think one of the things that's concerning to me is the same thing I miss mentioned in our December hearing.
[03:32:45] Um, a lot of the concerns that they're trying to tie it to is studies that are even saying, listen, 3 miles out, 8 miles out, you're still going to have concerns.
[03:32:54] So, I think that there's also a consideration of at what point in time do we draw the
[03:32:58] of at what point in time do we draw the line?
[03:33:02] And so the fact that STARS members are saying they would be okay with alternative location 4 or they would be al okay with alternative location one but that's not even within outside the parameters of what they're saying what they're relying on for public health studies that they're saying is is problematic gives a little less credence to that argument.
[03:33:20] Um and so I I think in the same way that there was some concerns as as I said Mr. foot.
[03:33:27] They just declared their proposed site protective and found issues with others.
[03:33:31] I think at the same time, you're also seeing from the other side, they're just trying to find uh problems with the proposed site.
[03:33:37] I think, you know, in in the contrary stoplight demonstrative provided by Star, the fact that Mr. Foot said they didn't have anything specific in terms of distances tied to it.
[03:33:47] It was a little bit the the distance, but it's also the number of people involved.
[03:33:52] And yeah, this one's red, but this one's yellow.
[03:33:54] But there's also an RBU within 2,000 ft
[03:33:58] But there's also an RBU within 2,000 ft of alternative 9, but that one's green.
[03:34:00] Of alternative 9, but that one's green.
[03:34:04] And it it does have a little bit of of bias going the other way, that that doesn't really sway me in that sense.
[03:34:09] Doesn't really sway me in that sense.
[03:34:10] Um, I do want to say when it comes to some of the the reasoning for the alternative location.
[03:34:18] Choices done by the applicant, and by that specifically, I'll point out wildlife.
[03:34:25] I don't put a lot of credence into that.
[03:34:29] Um, I think the fact that CPW said all of these sites could be workable from their perspective leads a lot more to me than to say, well, I would say this is a yes or this is a no because of a wildlife area.
[03:34:46] Um, I do think it is laottable that the applicant is saying we have these other reasons, but on top of that, we're also going to avoid high priority habitat.
[03:34:58] going to avoid high priority habitat.
[03:35:00] On top of that, we're also going to avoid potential impacts to the leopard frog.
[03:35:03] potential impacts to the leopard frog.
[03:35:05] On top of that, we're going to avoid swift or swift fox dens.
[03:35:09] I think I think that's a lotable goal.
[03:35:12] Um, but I don't put too much credence into that given that CPW has said it doesn't mean it's not workable.
[03:35:16] Um, I'll say as you kind of work down the next step for me was kind of that grasslands issue.
[03:35:22] Um, I think at that point in time, you set aside CPW's thoughts on it because they're worried about specifically their wildlife, whereas the the state land board is going to be worried about their other tenants as well as um how they're managing the service from their perspective.
[03:35:43] And so I do put a little bit more credence into the argument that they want to protect those grasslands.
[03:35:47] Um, I certainly provide put more credence into the fact that they want to protect the NSOs.
[03:35:50] um that's that's simply how they chose to manage it from the very beginning.
[03:35:55] Um but at the same time, the fact that the grasslands
[03:35:59] time, the fact that the grasslands argument is completely new.
[03:36:02] I don't put as much credence into that as some of the other issues.
[03:36:08] Um I think for me it's ultimately comes down to to two things.
[03:36:10] Um number one, the kind of declaratory comment that this site is not protective.
[03:36:19] I just don't buy.
[03:36:21] And I specifically don't buy it because it does meet all our rules.
[03:36:23] It has the best BMPs that we've asked for from everyone.
[03:36:28] They're doing electric production.
[03:36:29] They're doing electrified drilling.
[03:36:31] They're doing three-phase takeaway.
[03:36:33] They've moved the they've minimized the site.
[03:36:36] They're using the tankless site.
[03:36:38] They're they're doing they've done changes to the hall routes that have been asked for and everything else.
[03:36:42] And so I think when you look at it from from a perspective of what they're doing from a best management practice perspective, the the best things that we've seen from any operators in any application in the state were seen in this application.
[03:36:57] And I think the other thing to me is we're
[03:36:59] I think the other thing to me is we're also having to look at this not from a perspective solely and I do take note of and it's a large part of what drives my questions and and clarifying points for the operators but this is not to me not protective because a large number of people are opposed to it.
[03:37:18] The fact of the matter is this is still more than 3,000 ft away from the nearest RPU.
[03:37:24] there's still going to be um all those good BMPPS that are done with it.
[03:37:29] And to say that that proximity to people is not protective means we've now put ourselves in a hole and essentially every other site that's at least that close we have to go back and look at.
[03:37:43] Um, whether it's within one RBU within 3100 ft or more.
[03:37:50] Um, but to say this site is not pro protective while those other sites are protective when it has all those BMPPS, I have a very hard time trying to reach that conclusion that it would not
[03:38:01] reach that conclusion that it would not be protective without putting into
[03:38:03] be protective without putting into question every other one of our
[03:38:04] question every other one of our decisions that we've made prior to
[03:38:06] decisions that we've made prior to today.
[03:38:10] today. Um, but to me, the biggest thing when it comes down to the alternative
[03:38:11] when it comes down to the alternative location analysis as well is that
[03:38:16] location analysis as well is that I'm ultimately forced to look at not are
[03:38:19] I'm ultimately forced to look at not are other sites possible, but what's going
[03:38:22] other sites possible, but what's going to ultimately be the best decision from
[03:38:25] to ultimately be the best decision from an overall standpoint. And what I see in
[03:38:28] an overall standpoint. And what I see in in the feasibility zone, as Star put it,
[03:38:31] in the feasibility zone, as Star put it, is
[03:38:33] is other locations that I think even the
[03:38:37] other locations that I think even the applicant would agree, they could drill
[03:38:39] applicant would agree, they could drill from, but there's going to be problems
[03:38:41] from, but there's going to be problems with it. You're going to have to have an
[03:38:43] with it. You're going to have to have an access route that's going to have to go
[03:38:45] access route that's going to have to go either through NSO, which is unlikely or
[03:38:48] either through NSO, which is unlikely or not going to happen, or you're going to
[03:38:50] not going to happen, or you're going to have to go around and create a lot of
[03:38:51] have to go around and create a lot of additional truck miles. And to me, those
[03:38:54] additional truck miles. And to me, those additional truck miles are going to be
[03:38:55] additional truck miles are going to be far more problematic, far more
[03:38:57] far more problematic, far more disturbing to
[03:39:00] disturbing to everyone. Um, not just the public
[03:39:02] everyone.
[03:39:05] Um, not just the public health, but also um what the state land health, but also um what the state land board has wanted to do, what everyone board has wanted to do, what everyone else in the area um has to deal with.
[03:39:09] else in the area um has to deal with.
[03:39:12] It's going to create additional It's going to create additional emissions.
[03:39:14] going to create additional emissions.
[03:39:16] Excuse me, starting to lose my voice again.
[03:39:17] It's going to create additional emissions.
[03:39:19] it's going to create additional traffic hazards.
[03:39:22] Um that are the specifically the kind of things that STAR members have spoken about to us in their public comments.
[03:39:26] Um and I think it's things that we do need to worry about.
[03:39:28] And I think when you look at it from a pipeline perspective, I see the exact same problem as well.
[03:39:31] Even if it is something that you could potentially bore underneath the riparian areas and try and get it further to the north, that's still a lot of additional disturbance and additional disturbance that could harm habitat that um ideally CPW is trying to protect.
[03:39:50] And even if they said it could be workable, the state land board is trying to protect as well.
[03:39:53] Um and and I don't think that additional disturbance I don't think the additional emissions that are attendant
[03:40:02] additional emissions that are attendant to that are a reason to say yeah let's go ahead and move this site.
[03:40:07] I think ultimately when I look at it the applicant has met all of our rules um and all of Arapjo County's rules.
[03:40:15] It's done what the state land board has asked of them.
[03:40:18] Um CDPHE has said they're okay with it and CPW has said they're okay with it.
[03:40:25] And so when I look at it in a totality, um I appreciate the extra work done on the ALA, but ultimately it's not a matter of can we just find something that's better.
[03:40:35] It's they've explained why this is preferable site to those other sites.
[03:40:38] And I agree especi especially with the decreased hall route and pipeline route issues in in particular that this really is the most protective site that they can do and given the the extensive BMPs um and COAs that they've agreed to such as the electrified drilling and production.
[03:40:58] Um I do think it's protective and meets our rules and is approvable.
[03:41:05] Looking for my mute button. Commissioner Messer.
[03:41:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate uh thoughts from my fellow commissioners.
[03:41:16] I agree that there's three topics that I think we're deliberating on here.
[03:41:20] I think one is to whether approve or to deny Maverick's petition.
[03:41:25] Um I would agree with Commissioner Oath that there's a decision point here on whether or not Creststone has um met the requirements associated with the order.
[03:41:36] and then ultimately a decision point on whether to approve, deny, um stay or approve with conditions the um application that's before us.
[03:41:49] And so I think right now we're being asked to maybe deliberate on the first two.
[03:41:54] And so that's what I'm going to do right now.
[03:41:56] And so the first one uh is the the Maverick petition.
[03:41:59] And so, you know, as I look at it,
[03:42:07] And so, you know, as I look at it, Creststone has the burden to prove uh.
[03:42:09] Creststone has the burden to prove uh that its proposed DSU meets all four requirements associated with rule 305B.
[03:42:16] And those requirements are number one that it protects and minimizes minimized adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare, and the environment and wildlife resources.
[03:42:27] Number two, that it prevents waste of an oil and gas resources.
[03:42:31] Number three, that it avoids the drilling of unnecessary wells. and number four that it protects correlative rights.
[03:42:40] Um, and so as I as I look at those, I think there's there's a few different arguments that uh Maverick has made and ultimately I have to, you know, opine on whether or not I think Cresence met its burden.
[03:42:58] Um, you know, the two primary ones that I think Maverick's claims were were that the wells within Creststone's proposed DSU would drain oil and gas from outside of.
[03:43:07] would drain oil and gas from outside of the DSU and is a correlative rights and the DSU and is a correlative rights and waste issue.
[03:43:12] waste issue.
[03:43:14] That depends on the technical testimony about drainage.
[03:43:19] Um, so having listened to the testimony and the evidence associated with that, um, you know, I don't think that, uh, that claim is has merit.
[03:43:31] I think Crestston's met their burden on that claim and, um, and so don't find that to um, have merit.
[03:43:41] But the second claim that Maverick makes is that the proposed DSU would strand Maverick's minerals.
[03:43:46] Is there no other viable options to develop Ma Maverick's uh minerals?
[03:43:52] You know, I think this is primarily a waste issue.
[03:43:54] Uh and waste is defined in the act as locating wells in a way that reduces the quantity of oil and gas ultimately recoverable,
[03:44:02] which is Colorado Revised Statute 346010345.
[03:44:08] Um, I do think that this argument from Maverick, uh, this claim from Maverick does have merit, and I don't think, uh, ultimately, that Creststone has met its burden to show that this would not strand Maverick's minerals.
[03:44:28] Um, it's clear, at least from the testimony and evidence on the record that was provided, that trying to locate a site in order to be able to access these minerals is not viable.
[03:44:40] Um, it would implicate impacts associated with public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources.
[03:44:52] Um, you know, and and would cause waste issues.
[03:44:55] Um, you know, I think there was a lot of information that was provided on different areas.
[03:44:59] Um, but in applying the rules to those different potential locations, I do not see viable location.
[03:45:05] And so I do see this as a claim with merit and um would agree with Maverick.
[03:45:11] merit and um would agree with Maverick on that particular item.
[03:45:15] on that particular item.
[03:45:17] on the second item um which is ultimately did Creststone comply with the December order.
[03:45:23] the December order.
[03:45:27] Um, you know, I would agree that uh this application um does not require an alternative location analysis as per our rules.
[03:45:38] except for there is a rule that does allow for the commission to require an application and this commission in the CAP hearing did do that and so therefore it is required as part of this application and it is not a voluntary alternative location analysis.
[03:45:52] alternative location analysis.
[03:45:54] In addition, the December order provided additional explicit uh information that was being requested as to um what this commission needed in order to make an alternative loca location analysis determination on this particular application.
[03:46:11] particular application.
[03:46:13] Um, I do agree at least with Commissioner Acriman's comments earlier,
[03:46:16] um, that the ALA provided was generally an argument that other locations won't work and the proposed location will.
[03:46:25] uh but I question whether it did really evaluate the feasibility and uh comprehensively analyze uh the locations and particularly in my opinion alternative location for um I will note that in the order it indicates that the commissioners requested Creststone submit the following additional information and an analysis in support of the OGDP application and the first item a was a comprehensive ive comprehensive and narrative analysis of all feasible alternative oil and gas locations on Lowry Ranch lands, including those feasible locations east of the proposed location and further from dense residential development from which the minerals can be accessed, including consideration of technical
[03:47:12] including consideration of technical feasibility using all available technology and potential land use approval from Arapo County and the state land board.
[03:47:22] Um the lack of clear information on the record from the state land board to me is a problem here.
[03:47:32] Uh as a as a proponent of rotational and regeneration uh regenerative grazing um and actually having applied the Savory Institute holistic plan grazing approach myself um I think the testimony mischaracterizes its application.
[03:47:49] Um both the proposed application uh uh sorry both the proposed location and alternative 4 would have substantially similar impacts to regenerative grazing and lack of testimony on the record from the state land board or the permit.
[03:48:06] I do not think that there is any proof that it would impact operations.
[03:48:09] Um,
[03:48:13] it would impact operations.
[03:48:15] Um, from a wildlife standpoint, I think alternative 4,
[03:48:17] alternative 4, you know, is shown to be superior to the proposed location.
[03:48:22] Uh, there's no evidence on the record for a comprehensive analysis of the potential for electricity, pipeline alignment, access roads, and permit and lease feasibility.
[03:48:34] Um, I appreciate the testimony that was given today, but that's not recorded proof or evidence on the record of these things that would be required in my opinion in a comprehensive analysis of the alternative locations.
[03:48:48] And I think the other locations have similar deficiencies that I'm highlighting here in alternative 4.
[03:48:56] Um, so ultimately from my perspective, um, you know, I'm I don't think that the applicant has met the requirements associated with the December order.
[03:49:07] I don't know as I have the information to make a determination on things like
[03:49:13] make a determination on things like Commissioner Oath indicated.
[03:49:19] Um, and so I think that's where I'm at right now is I think that's where I'm at right now is that, you know, I'd like the applicant to try again and to provide that to try again and to provide that information that was requested in the information that was requested in the December order so that we can have what so that we can have what we requested in order to enable us to we requested in order to enable us to make our decisions.
[03:49:32] I'll withhold the question on the third piece.
[03:49:35] Um, and I do have thoughts on that as well if we ultimately go there, but those are my thoughts on the first two.
[03:49:40] Thank you, Commissioner Mesner.
[03:49:43] And then, if I've done my math, that puts you on the spot, Commissioner Acriman.
[03:49:50] Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[03:49:52] My fellow commissioners are uh as always quick um quickminded and quick on the draw.
[03:49:57] I um I'll hit the two uh uh issues as outlined by Commissioner Meshner as well, starting with the the Maverick one.
[03:50:04] And um you know, I'll start with the end in mind.
[03:50:06] The bottom line is I'm not I'm not generally my my position has
[03:50:14] not I'm not generally my my position has not changed.
[03:50:15] I'm not generally not changed.
[03:50:15] I'm not generally supportive of the Maverick petition.
[03:50:20] Um, supportive of the Maverick petition.
[03:50:20] Um, you know, and it comes back to some of the original arguments from the uh the hearing that from a drainage perspective, what it really came down to for me is that it really is tough to require compuls compulsory cooperative action um upon any operator based upon the testimony that was given an unproven and not widely accepted setback of distance of 1300 ft which was what was argued at the time.
[03:50:44] Um, absent broader independent evidence suggesting that's appropriate to, you know, deviate from previously established engineering norms, I've got to go with the previously established engineering norms, making that testimony difficult to to uh make a positive decision on.
[03:51:01] Really, that hearing really marked the only time I had ever heard those distances, uh, which is, uh, a significant point upon which the testimony and argument was based.
[03:51:08] And uh
[03:51:15] you know while I could make a couple other points there I think I think I'll skip that and just essentially say that at the at the conclusion of that portion of the hearing my comment was that if we stayed the application and an impass still existed between Creststone and Maverick at the next hearing being today.
[03:51:35] The most productive approach, at least for me, to make a decision would be for each side to examine and argue the specific facts of compliance or non-compliance with each provision of the rules or act as set forth on slide three of Maverick's closing argument.
[03:51:50] Um, absent any significant further discussion today uh along any of those lines or or any in general, I my position has not changed either and I'm not generally supportive of the Maverick petition.
[03:52:02] As far as the order, that's a harder one for me.
[03:52:12] Um, I I think uh give me one second here. I got to scroll back through my notes.
[03:52:19] I really I think an argument and can and.
[03:52:21] I really I think an argument and can and has in this hearing by fellow commissioners be made that the order was or was not really uh entirely complied with on different fronts.
[03:52:29] And I think we could probably have a hearing on each point in the order to determine each point's varying level of exposition and compliance.
[03:52:37] And don't get me wrong, Mr. Chair, I'm not advocating for that path.
[03:52:41] But I but but I'm saying that to kind of illustrate that the order was detailed.
[03:52:46] Yes.
[03:52:48] But it was pretty broad in nature on many fronts and I think by its nature required some degree of distillation by the operator uh in its execution.
[03:52:59] An example would be I think this was the second point analysis of the relationship between any targeted but non-reoverable materials and any improvements in protection of public health, safety and welfare of the environment and wildlife resources.
[03:53:11] And and I think these points were touched on in the materials and in some discussion but uh not significantly detailed and so
[03:53:19] but uh not significantly detailed and so then the argument to me becomes well is that compliant or is it not?
[03:53:24] And again I think an argument could be made either way.
[03:53:29] Um, and so I I I found that as I was examining the materials, I kind of found myself asking that question uh throughout.
[03:53:34] And so I I kind of kept in mind that I thought the order was really supplemental to the OGDP as a whole.
[03:53:41] And Commissioner Mester is exactly correct in that we ordered the ALA and required the ALA ALA and that was fully within our uh the commission's perview to do so.
[03:53:50] And thus it was required but it came about as a further exposition and a further um a further request for information from the operator and we wanted to add some detail as to the the tenor of the uh information that we were looking for.
[03:54:07] And so to me in the scope of fairness of rule applicability, the question to me might be reframed as was the
[03:54:20] Was it sufficiently acceptable?
[03:54:22] Was the operator's uh effort sufficiently acceptable within the general context of ALA work that's generally accepted by uh the commission?
[03:54:30] And if so, I think reasonable compliance could be argued.
[03:54:35] And so while I'm I am very much on the fence on this and I absolutely think that there were deficiencies that could have been very helpful in our discussion today, I fall down narrowly on the side of I think based on applicability of our rules and the context in which we generally consider ALA's uh in considering OGDPs.
[03:54:57] I fall down very slightly on the side of I I would argue that yes, the uh efforts were reasonably compliant with um the order that we gave.
[03:55:06] So those are my thoughts on those two issues so far, Mr. Chair.
[03:55:11] Okay. Thank you, commissioners, for the uh thoughts.
[03:55:16] I think that's really helpful for us to determine next steps.
[03:55:20] helpful for us to determine next steps.
[03:55:27] and I I think if I've um and so I'm just charting through things.
[03:55:29] Uh, we've got the So, Commissioner Oath, you brought up compliance with the December 10th order.
[03:55:33] Did they, you know, is there sufficient compliance with the December 10th order?
[03:55:39] And I think if I'm reading what I'm seeing, um, there are two commissioners that have concerns that the December 10th order was not complied with.
[03:55:50] There are two commissioners that think the December 10th order was complied with and there's one commissioner that falls just to the side of complied with versus not complied with and that would be Commissioner Acriman.
[03:56:00] So that's two and a half or three to two on the compliance with December 10th order.
[03:56:11] Um, so if that's the case, then I think the commission as a whole, despite the fact that there may not be consensus on that,
[03:56:21] that there may not be consensus on that, is in a place to move forward with.
[03:56:24] is in a place to move forward with consideration of both the Maverick petition first and then the OGP.
[03:56:29] petition first and then the OGP with the understanding that the commissioners that have concerns about compliance of the December 10th order, that may sway your decision-making process.
[03:56:37] process. on either or both of the next two things.
[03:56:42] two things. I'm just trying to capture where we are.
[03:56:44] I'm just trying to capture where we are. Does anybody disagree with that captured place?
[03:56:53] Okay, I'm seeing none. Um, that's where we will pretend to be as we move forward with next steps.
[03:57:00] with next steps. Um, I think the next step then would be consideration.
[03:57:02] As as I mentioned, I think we should make consideration of the Maverick uh petition first.
[03:57:09] petition first. Uh that does have implications of whether we can move forward with consideration of the OGP.
[03:57:16] Um I believe I've heard comm myself,
[03:57:22] Um I believe I've heard comm myself, Commissioner Arian, and Commissioner.
[03:57:23] Commissioner Arian, and Commissioner Cross uh in a place in which the Maverick petition is most likely uh denied.
[03:57:30] I believe I've heard from Commissioner Oath and Commissioner Acriman.
[03:57:33] Maverick commission the petition is most likely approve or deni uh Maverick petition is approved.
[03:57:44] Um however I don't want to foreclose further deliberation on this component.
[03:57:48] So I will open up deliberations on the maverick or further deliberations on the maverick petition at this point in time knowing that nobody's come to a firm conclusion and we like to listen to each other before we make final decisions.
[03:58:02] Any further deliberation on the Maverick?
[03:58:04] Commissioner Mesner, >> just a point of clarification.
[03:58:07] You had indicated that Commissioner Acriman was uh in support of approving it, I think, in lie of me.
[03:58:17] So, um >> Oh, I got that backwards.
[03:58:18] Thank you. >> Okay.
[03:58:22] I just wanted for the record to uh confirm that. And um you know, for me
[03:58:24] Confirm that.
[03:58:26] And um you know, for me again, it's it's the straight applicability of the uh of the rule that I'm looking at.
[03:58:32] And so, um, you know, I don't think rule 305B, um, is is unclear.
[03:58:35] Um, and so that's why I'm at where I'm at.
[03:58:41] So, >> fair enough.
[03:58:42] Thanks for the clarification.
[03:58:44] Further deliberations, Commissioner Oath.
[03:58:46] Oath.
[03:58:46] >> Maybe just to thanks, Mr. Chair, and and thanks for guiding us through this when we kind of all went in different directions.
[03:58:53] So, appreciate appreciate you getting us um lined up.
[03:58:55] Um, I guess to restate my where my current thinking is on this is that I have concerns and questions about waste.
[03:59:05] I I just find that I ultimately don't feel like I have the information uh I need to find one way or the other.
[03:59:17] And given that it's Creststone's burden here, then where I am is that I just feel that Creststone has not met their burden to demonstrate that there would not be waste of these mineral resources.
[03:59:24] And so I guess that
[03:59:26] mineral resources.
[03:59:29] And so I guess that puts me yes in the category of approving the petition.
[03:59:31] the petition.
[03:59:33] Very good. Anything further, Commissioner Acuran and Commissioner Cross, before we call for the vote or I guess we can't call for a vote until we have a motion.
[03:59:41] Commissioner Arian.
[03:59:42] Yeah, I'll just I mean, and I understand certainly where my fellow commissioners are coming from.
[03:59:49] I I think that uh I'm swayed significantly by the testimony of the original hearing and I don't feel like uh I I don't feel like um a compelling case was made by Maverick to justify furtherance of the petition.
[04:00:01] I think it uh you know continuing there's there's a number of fronts.
[04:00:05] Certainly continuing to argue that it won't be able to find a viable location while arguing that another operator explored the minerals from its location is amongst those.
[04:00:15] I think that I think the burden of proof to me was largely met um in the original hearing and that's what I'm generally uh basing my my conclusions on still.
[04:00:22] Thanks.
[04:00:27] Conclusions on still. Thanks.
[04:00:34] Further deliberative thoughts.
[04:00:38] All right. Uh, just to move this forward, I move that just to move this forward, I move that we deny Maverick's petition.
[04:00:41] Do we have a second?
[04:00:43] Second?
[04:00:44] Second.
[04:00:46] Motion and a second. Do we have discussion on the motion?
[04:00:50] Seeing none, uh, hearings manager Thomas, can we get a roll call?
[04:00:56] Yes. Commissioner Acriman, yes.
[04:01:00] Commissioner Cross, yes.
[04:01:03] Commissioner Mesner, no.
[04:01:05] Commissioner Oath, no.
[04:01:07] Chair Robbins, yes.
[04:01:10] Mr. Chair, that motion passes three votes to two.
[04:01:14] Okay.
[04:01:15] Okay. Um, with that, uh, I believe we move into, uh, deliberations on the OGTP itself.
[04:01:28] I don't often start, but I think I'm going to start today if that's okay.
[04:01:33] Um, where do we find ourselves?
[04:01:36] Well, we had I think we've had seven hearings on this matter.
[04:01:42] Uh the most recent hearing was on December 10th and at that hearing we asked for more uh ALA analysis.
[04:01:49] Um we heard today from the applicant that they um attempted to do the best with that including starting with the clean slate in terms of their analysis.
[04:01:59] uh they came back to um the determination of the state sunlight long as the preferred location and I would note that ultimately the applicant has the not only the burden of proving an approvable location but the uh determination of what location they're going to move forward with.
[04:02:22] Um that is an operator's right.
[04:02:25] Uh I would also note that they've modified the state sunlight long in positive ways.
[04:02:27] Uh
[04:02:30] state sunlight long in positive ways.
[04:02:34] Uh they've produced the wells uh 32 to 24 I believe.
[04:02:36] They've increased the setbacks to the working pad surface in the wells and to the facilities.
[04:02:41] Uh I would note that the uh increase in setbacks is is not huge.
[04:02:44] It's 100 feet or so.
[04:02:47] Uh but it is going in the right direction I would think.
[04:02:49] Uh again the operator has the right to push for a preferred location.
[04:02:51] Um, and then I go back to sort of looking at where I stood prior to all of this work by the operator um, and STAR in response to the, uh, April 6th, I think, submittal.
[04:03:07] Uh, I noted back in my original comments uh, in December that I felt like this was an approvable location.
[04:03:16] In fact, with um the fact that Arapjo County approved it that the city of Aurora water uh had no concerns with it and their entire existence is to preserve water for the
[04:03:31] existence is to preserve water for the city of Aurora.
[04:03:34] And so I put a lot of deference to the fact that the city of Aurora water department um felt like the proposed application did not have concerns with the Aurora reservoir.
[04:03:46] Um, CPW is comfortable with the location.
[04:03:52] CDPHE is comfortable with the location.
[04:03:55] The state land board back in the day provided an eight-page letter and felt that the proposed location was protected and they were okay with it.
[04:04:01] Um, they noted the work that they did on the lease to get to that location with a lot of stakeholders, Aurora, Arapjo, the tier map, the land owners.
[04:04:11] They asked for and the road was moved.
[04:04:15] Um, I will note that I would have appreciated some additional information from state land board relative to the alternate location analysis order from December 10th.
[04:04:25] Uh, but they are a sister agency and uh, you know, it's their prerogative in terms of what they decide they want to do or not.
[04:04:32] what they decide they want to do or not do.
[04:04:35] Uh, there is a one-page memo in the record from state land board.
[04:04:38] Um, I find that it, you know, it doesn't say no, but it doesn't really say yes.
[04:04:43] It just sort of provides some perspective around the proposed different locations.
[04:04:50] I noted on the record in December 10th that the environment score here is a 14.7.
[04:04:56] I think I heard today 14.6.
[04:04:59] Um, and I noted back then and I still note today that this is, you know, generally when we're looking at oil and gas locations that are in and near people, um, it is, you know, we're looking at environ scores of 40, 50, 60.
[04:05:14] Um, this is the lowest score, uh, for a proposed location in near people in Well County, Rapo County, Aurora.
[04:05:25] Um, that's significant.
[04:05:28] We required this application to electrify all phases in the cap and they
[04:05:32] electrify all phases in the cap and they are planning on doing that.
[04:05:34] There's three-phase takeaway um minimal trucks.
[04:05:36] It's all piped.
[04:05:40] And then I would note in my notes here it says setback met.
[04:05:43] All right.
[04:05:47] There's a lot for those two words.
[04:05:51] In 2019, we were informed under SP1 19181 that we needed to create a protective protocol for the state of Colorado and that we would move away from fostering oil and gas development and we would move toward regulating in a protective manner.
[04:05:55] We spent two plus years coming up with our rules that took that broadscale uh authority provided to us and and refining it down to rules that we've been implementing ever since.
[04:05:58] And those rules contained a 2,000 foot setback with four offramps.
[04:06:00] So when when I say setback is met, um
[04:06:36] So when when I say setback is met, um the homes here are 3100 feet away or greater.
[04:06:39] Um so to say setback is met is is not without meaning.
[04:06:47] And I guess I would put in here, you know, I ask the star attorney on the record, what rule or rules are not being met?
[04:06:57] And as best I can tell the rules, and I mentioned back in December 10th, and I may have counted this wrong, but I counted up 146 rules, specific rules relative to OGDPS, and we've been applying them consistently since 2021.
[04:07:16] There's one more rule, and that's the rule I cited to Mr. Foot, who I appreciate as an attorney.
[04:07:22] He's a wonderful attorney, and he helped draft 181.
[04:07:27] He called it evolutionary recently in the paper, but not revolutionary because he said that if it was revolutionary, it probably wouldn't have gotten through the state legislature.
[04:07:34] Um, but the rule that I cited to
[04:07:37] Um, but the rule that I cited to Commissioner Foot is rule 307.
[04:07:40] Commissioner Foot is rule 307.
[04:07:43] And it says, as I pointed out previously, that the commission may approve the oil and gas development plan if it complies with all requirements of the commission rules um and minimizes adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare of the environment, wildlife resources.
[04:07:59] Uh on the contrary uh 307B2 if the commission determines that the plan does not provide necessary reusable protections or minimize adverse impacts to public health safety welfare of the environment wildlife resources or fails to meet the requirements of the rules and I appreciate uh attorney foot noting the or and I think that's important.
[04:08:19] Um so this rule is establishing that you got to meet our rules and you also need to uh provide burden of proof to the commission that your proposal uh is reasonable has reasonable and necessary protections for or minimize adverse impacts.
[04:08:34] Now, I would note for the record that we have not been placed in a
[04:08:39] record that we have not been placed in a situation in which we are debating situation in which we are debating whether to approve or deny a location whether to approve or deny a location based solely upon rule 307.
[04:08:50] based solely upon rule 307. Not whether it meets our rules.
[04:08:52] I think it's uncontroverted that it meets all of it's uncontroverted that it meets all of our rules, but whether on top of meeting our rules, but whether on top of meeting our rules, are there reasonable and our rules, are there reasonable and necessary protections to protect and necessary protections to protect and minimize adverse impacts to public minimize adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare of the health, safety, welfare of the environment, wildlife resources?
[04:09:05] environment, wildlife resources? This is a case of first impression and I want to articulate my thoughts and I want to articulate my thoughts around what rule 307 means and what it around what rule 307 means and what it doesn't mean.
[04:09:14] doesn't mean. And in my mind what it and in my mind what it is intended for is where if you apply is intended for is where if you apply the 146 rules and in instances where you the 146 rules and in instances where you know some or more of them are not met or know some or more of them are not met or where there is a aberration where there is a aberration that our rules did not contemplate that our rules did not contemplate and through evidence and testimony we and through evidence and testimony we remain concerned that there are not remain concerned that there are not reasonable and necessary protections to
[04:09:39] reasonable and necessary protections to minimize adverse impacts.
[04:09:42] Then and in that and I would call it a a more extraordinary case, we still have the right to deny.
[04:09:50] So I'll say that again. This is just one commissioner's opinion, but we need to be eloquent to all the folks that are listening in and there are uh a number of folks 621 listening in and there'll be others down the road.
[04:10:07] Rule 307 I believe needs to be defined.
[04:10:13] based upon application of our rules. And it needs to be utilized by the commission in instances in which there are extraordinary circumstances that our rules don't contemplate or where in instances in which there are, you know, some areas in which the rules may not be met or if they are met, then there's still this denial criteria.
[04:10:36] And I say that because under Colorado law, and I'm a
[04:10:39] because under Colorado law, and I'm a I'm a fatigued lawyer at best, um, our rules need to be sufficiently specific for our operators to understand how to comply with them and for our stakeholders to understand how to understand them and how to apply them.
[04:10:54] And if we don't provide some parameters around how we're applying 307B, I believe we've done a disservice um to the work that we did to create the mission change rules to come up with the 2,000 foot setback and to otherwise create the most protective regulatory environment in the state, in the nation, and thus the world.
[04:11:16] I agree with what you said, uh, Commissioner Cross.
[04:11:18] I also have concerns that if um we say no here, then we might as well do away with the 2,000 foot setback and we ought to start over and think about what is the appropriate setback.
[04:11:35] And that might be a worthy mechanism.
[04:11:37] I'm I'm not saying that is or is not.
[04:11:38] I'm just saying that
[04:11:41] that is or is not.
[04:11:43] I'm just saying that the applicant is entitled to application.
[04:11:45] the applicant is entitled to application of the rules on the books at the time of the application and those are the rules that I'm applying.
[04:11:49] that I'm applying.
[04:11:52] So, that's my segue down the 307 path.
[04:11:59] again, um, getting back to the merits of this application, I'm I'm now past the setback MET piece.
[04:12:05] There were no DIC's, there were no schools, there were no RBUs.
[04:12:11] Uh, the Arapjo County was okay with the noise.
[04:12:13] I know there's been a lot of uh, noise complaints.
[04:12:17] I believe that the applicant tried to address those issues.
[04:12:20] Uh I believe that if this uh proposal creates issues relative to noise, we're going to hear about it and we're going to enforce aggressively.
[04:12:26] Visually, uh this application is not going to be seen except for the top of the direct Derek when it's drilled and then it's going to be behind a uh cut bank or or slope and it will not be seen after the initial production.
[04:12:42] after the initial production.
[04:12:45] Again looking at other things that we've looked at this location is one of the more approvable locations and I would um point out that uh again uh the direction we were given by the legislature which is hard direction to implement um which is not to ban oil and gas but to ensure there is a protective regulatory environment and that's what we're trying to do and I know there's a lot of folks that disagree that we do that very well.
[04:13:10] Well, I can promise you that these five commissioners are trying to do this very well and I may end up on the on the back side of a vote here.
[04:13:18] That's perfectly fine.
[04:13:20] That's the deliberative process and that's what we're supposed to be doing.
[04:13:27] I did note in my questions that I liked alternative locations one and four.
[04:13:32] Um I like the fact that they were further west.
[04:13:35] I like the fact, but I didn't like the fact that they created more emissions and more truck traffic and that they created potentially trying to move through NSOs and with pipelines.
[04:13:43] move through NSOs and with pipelines.
[04:13:46] And I'll conclude my comments and I'm looking forward to hearing from everybody else.
[04:13:49] is what we were told to do in 2019 and what we've been trying to do since then on Wednesdays.
[04:13:57] and I don't like Wednesdays.
[04:14:00] is to uh uh take as applied the rules to potential proposed locations and that creates balance.
[04:14:11] The rules created a balance.
[04:14:14] It's a balance as to protection of human receptors which are currently 2,000 ft.
[04:14:19] And here we're at 3100.
[04:14:22] It's a balance as to protection of public health, including emissions, including electrification, including pipelines, including no trucks, including three-phase takeaways.
[04:14:32] At the end, I find that the state sunlight long location achieves the balance that we are told to look for.
[04:14:43] And so, at the end of the day, I will be
[04:14:44] And so, at the end of the day, I will be a yes vote.
[04:14:47] a yes vote.
[04:14:48] Further deliberative thoughts from fellow commissioners.
[04:14:53] Commissioner Acri.
[04:14:56] Commissioner Acri.
[04:14:59] Thanks. I'll go next. Mr. Chair, I uh uh this has been tough, right?
[04:15:01] Right. I think it's been tough for everyone involved and I think it's been tough for us included.
[04:15:06] And the thing that's made it tough has been significant public outcry.
[04:15:12] Right. I I think so because we want to listen to what people have to say and we did our very best to ensure that they were heard and that their uh their desires were incorporated within reason to the extent that we had authority within the rules and statutes.
[04:15:27] I I I think that's been a difficult process.
[04:15:32] Um, you know, I've mentioned a couple of times in previous hearings this dichotomy for overall oil and gas development versus gas development near me.
[04:15:42] We deal with this in the state in in in many instances and it's a difficult
[04:15:45] in many instances and it's a difficult this is a very difficult thing to deal
[04:15:47] this is a very difficult thing to deal with.
[04:15:50] Um, and to your point that we that we do have oil and gas development in this state.
[04:15:53] uh and there will be places to develop oil and gas until uh you know we decide as a state that we're not developing oil and gas.
[04:16:00] There has to be a process to develop oil and gas.
[04:16:02] And so in in enacting that process, uh the legislature and us as a commission enacted rules that we thought were uh not just reasonably protective, but as protective as any rules in the world, uh because that's the standard that Colorado sets.
[04:16:22] And so I I think of things from that perspective often when I'm thinking about uh these applications.
[04:16:28] Um, on top of that, we have other bodies, you know, other than us that participate in these in these decisions before they ever come to us.
[04:16:37] And, uh, so the statements that I made in the in the past hold true.
[04:16:41] You know, local governments, as I've noted before, uh,
[04:16:46] governments, as I've noted before, uh, are the government of uh, of the citizens that are elected by the citizens specifically to represent the desires of those citizens.
[04:16:56] at at its essence that's the best place to enact desires for desire's sake of a citizenry is at the local government level in this case the local government is broadly in favor of this development and I have to make the assumption that the local government that has been elected by the local electorate is representing to the best of its ability the broad desires of its citizens uh as the uh the the local government bought body with broad discretion to explicitly and specifically represent those citizens and their desires and their collective will and the as the uh the entity with uh significant control over land use decisions within their jurisdiction.
[04:17:39] Um I don't take their uh recommendations lightly.
[04:17:42] I think they're important for us to consider as we as we move forward
[04:17:47] us to consider as we as we move forward with developments.
[04:17:49] with developments. Uh as far as ECMC is concerned, you
[04:17:52] Uh as far as ECMC is concerned, you know, our role is a little bit different.
[04:17:55] We establish, as the chair pointed out, energy and carbon management rules within our statutory allocated subject matter jurisdiction um at the direction of the legislature and we ensure compliance with those rules and are tasked with providing uh consistency and predictability for operators who work in a very complex uh business and regulatory structure.
[04:18:13] It's a very difficult task and that's why uh you know uh we stay up nights and I'm not saying that that others don't as well.
[04:18:23] These are significant and and large decisions.
[04:18:27] So, that said, during the CAP hearing, uh, I I stated specifically, if this cap's approved, I'd expect there to be significant continued and ongoing efforts to work with county leaders in the community regarding practices that are found to be acceptable to the county and the community as a whole during its future consideration of oil and gas specific sites.
[04:18:46] And I specifically pointed out
[04:18:48] sites.
[04:18:50] And I specifically pointed out the sunlight long pad at the CAP the sunlight long pad at the CAP hearing.
[04:18:52] hearing.
[04:18:56] Um and at that OGDP hearing for the sunlight longpad, uh the testimony at that time and OGDP application materials demonstrated to me that despite the commission's or I guess my encouragement to work with the community, you know, the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:18:59] sunlight longpad, uh the testimony at that time and OGDP application materials
[04:19:01] demonstrated to me that despite the commission's or I guess my encouragement to work with the community, you know, the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:03] demonstrated to me that despite the commission's or I guess my encouragement to work with the community, you know, the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:05] commission's or I guess my encouragement to work with the community, you know, the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:08] to work with the community, you know, the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:09] the proposed sunlight long pad hadn't changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:12] changed materially really between the CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:15] CAP application and the OGDP application uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:17] uh with the exception of operator desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:19] desired changes or consulted changes with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:22] with a a sister agency with one of our sister agencies.
[04:19:24] sister agencies.
[04:19:27] Um, and at the time, you know, my my driving factor was, can the commission staff and the operator confidently state that the pro proposed location is the best location for that pad or was it simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:29] driving factor was, can the commission staff and the operator confidently state that the pro proposed location is the best location for that pad or was it simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:31] staff and the operator confidently state that the pro proposed location is the best location for that pad or was it simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:33] that the pro proposed location is the best location for that pad or was it simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:36] best location for that pad or was it simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:39] simply and I concede that it was an available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:41] available location that complies with our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:43] our rules, our setback rules and other rules.
[04:19:47] rules. um you know the the the regulations placed
[04:19:49] you know the the the regulations placed that they place within the direct discretion of the commission asking for an alternative location analysis when none is required and or other further analysis uh and so that resulted in a state of the December hearing and the additional ALA work uh pursuant to that and ultimately today's hearing and I noted in the December hearing that Creststone's approach on most points of the OGDP were strong and approvable I don't think there there can be an argument about that.
[04:20:15] Commissioner Cross, and I'm paraphrasing, so apologize, Commissioner Cross, but he testified there that the operator's approach and the resultant enviral score was one of the best we'd ever seen, and that's been reiterated here today, and it's objectively true.
[04:20:31] Uh so that makes it even more difficult with significant public opposition, right?
[04:20:36] Um it's factually correct according to our regulations and standards.
[04:20:39] That's factually correct.
[04:20:42] Uh that said, to me at that point, it was absolutely appropriate to seek alternative locations to see if something, you know, under the commission's authority in 304
[04:20:50] under the commission's authority in 304 uh B2 A2 and 307B3.
[04:20:54] uh B2 A2 and 307B3 to see if there was something out there.
[04:20:55] to see if there was something out there that that that would work in a fashion.
[04:20:58] that that that would work in a fashion that was uh more protective.
[04:21:01] that was uh more protective, specifically that was more protective.
[04:21:03] specifically that was more protective.
[04:21:06] Um there have been significant and numerous assertions throughout these hearings from the impacted public that the proposed pad isn't compliant with the act.
[04:21:11] Um and when pressed the answer is always a general uh lack of compliance with public health, safety, welfare, the environment and or wildlife resources.
[04:21:21] And so an ALA was appropriate at that point.
[04:21:23] Let's explore further and see uh the details as to whether something can be more protective under the rules that we that we've uh imposed.
[04:21:33] Um.
[04:21:34] and especially since Senate Bill 181 uh focused on ensuring that alternative location analyses applied to oil and gas locations and facilities that are proposed to be located near populated areas.
[04:21:44] And we took that into account in our subsequent rulemakings.
[04:21:46] And so my statement at the time was that we direct crush dome in accordance with those.
[04:21:52] crush dome in accordance with those rules to prepare a narrative analysis.
[04:21:54] rules to prepare a narrative analysis that identifies all potential alternate.
[04:21:57] that identifies all potential alternate locations from which the targeted.
[04:21:58] locations from which the targeted materials can be accessed that may be.
[04:22:00] materials can be accessed that may be considered for the sighting of an oil.
[04:22:01] considered for the sighting of an oil and gas location and specifically my.
[04:22:04] and gas location and specifically my direction at the time was to examine.
[04:22:05] direction at the time was to examine sites farther east.
[04:22:08] Uh and those requirements were included in the order.
[04:22:10] requirements were included in the order.
[04:22:13] So the question to me now is were the terms of the December order executed and.
[04:22:15] terms of the December order executed and legally legally and appropriately and.
[04:22:18] legally legally and appropriately and you know I think we've all opined on that.
[04:22:20] and and was a a bit of a fulcrum issue and did the ordered analysis.
[04:22:23] issue and did the ordered analysis clearly reveal any better overall.
[04:22:26] clearly reveal any better overall alternative according to our standards.
[04:22:29] alternative according to our standards and uh so what I was looking for in this.
[04:22:32] and uh so what I was looking for in this hearing is really the same thing I've.
[04:22:34] hearing is really the same thing I've been looking for all along which is.
[04:22:35] been looking for all along which is objective information to substantiate.
[04:22:37] objective information to substantiate the best legally acceptable site within.
[04:22:40] the best legally acceptable site within the confines of statute and our.
[04:22:42] the confines of statute and our regulations, but also demonstrated.
[04:22:44] regulations, but also demonstrated efforts to work with the community.
[04:22:46] Um, so from the operator's perspective, the
[04:22:52] so from the operator's perspective, the operator I think has squarely and
[04:22:54] operator I think has squarely and significantly and sufficiently
[04:22:56] significantly and sufficiently demonstrated that this application is
[04:22:58] demonstrated that this application is within the confines of existing
[04:23:00] within the confines of existing commission rules.
[04:23:04] Um, as far as cooperating with the community, the the
[04:23:06] cooperating with the community, the the operator did make significant changes to
[04:23:08] operator did make significant changes to the pad as noted by the chair, even
[04:23:11] the pad as noted by the chair, even though they may be, according to SM's
[04:23:13] though they may be, according to SM's testimony,
[04:23:15] testimony, options that drain the res the resource
[04:23:18] options that drain the res the resource a bit less effectively.
[04:23:21] Um, and so I I know I know that wasn't taken lightly.
[04:23:23] know I know that wasn't taken lightly.
[04:23:26] And you know, to the points that I brought up during the hearing, I do have
[04:23:27] brought up during the hearing, I do have some difficulty discerning whether this
[04:23:28] some difficulty discerning whether this ALA was executed really to objectively
[04:23:31] ALA was executed really to objectively seek the best location or to
[04:23:33] seek the best location or to substantiate a desired outcome.
[04:23:35] And admittedly, that's a concern I have with
[04:23:37] admittedly, that's a concern I have with pretty much every single ALA that we
[04:23:39] pretty much every single ALA that we that we view.
[04:23:42] And uh that may be a weakness in the ALA system.
[04:23:44] It may be something that we can further discuss
[04:23:45] something that we can further discuss and determine.
[04:23:47] But to Commissioner Cross's point, uh I mean clearly if an
[04:23:51] Cross's point, uh I mean clearly if an operator has a preferred location,
[04:23:52] operator has a preferred location, they've chosen that preferred location
[04:23:54] they've chosen that preferred location because they do believe it's the best.
[04:23:55] because they do believe it's the best location.
[04:23:57] It might be, you know, it might have some bias towards the operator's needs rather than the community's needs.
[04:24:00] But that said, that's where our rules come into play and it must uh it must absolutely um demonstrate compliance with every single one of our rules.
[04:24:09] Um, so you know, if this was if this had some flavor of substantiating a desired outcome, I don't like that.
[04:24:21] I just don't like it.
[04:24:24] I I also didn't definitively I'm not able to definitively determine that those were the motives of SM as they were uh as they were assessing these alternative locations.
[04:24:34] I think they did a relatively detailed job on many fronts of assessing locations and provided enough information to me to help me understand that uh yes, there are different trade-offs with every single location.
[04:24:45] And clearly a location farther to the east would be away from uh these homes and clearly a location to
[04:24:54] uh these homes and clearly a location to the east would uh have additional impacts that don't exist um on this site.
[04:24:59] Uh so definitively where does that put me at as a decision maker?
[04:25:04] It puts me in a a position where there's no definitive evidence that uh there's a more protective site based on the the work that's been done and the testimony that's been given.
[04:25:15] Um
[04:25:18] when it comes down to STAR, I appreciate STAR's significant efforts on this front.
[04:25:26] Um and the future will tell kind of where we go based on these efforts.
[04:25:28] Uh overall, um I I think uh you know, being able to hear specifically from an impacted community was very important.
[04:25:39] Um I I think we've we we've done that before.
[04:25:42] We have other uh applications that we've approved that were near much nearer than this to residential development and we've had some significant discussion about that and it's something that we wrestle with on on a day-to-day basis.
[04:25:52] once again pointing us back to the importance of
[04:25:54] pointing us back to the importance of establishing establishing uh setbacks based on best based on best uh setbacks based on best based on best available science and a significant available science and a significant public process which I'll get to in a public process which I'll get to in a minute.
[04:26:04] minute. So I think the meat of it here is that STAR I think the meat of it here is that STAR was unable to materially demonstrate any was unable to materially demonstrate any lack of compliance with any state land lack of compliance with any state land board, county or ECMC rule.
[04:26:19] and and and that's compelling um and difficult to to talk about.
[04:26:25] Uh I think the primary argument here ended up consisting of shifting the burden to another area shifting the burden to another area andor other impacts rather than an andor other impacts rather than an overall reduction of impact of the overall reduction of impact of the development as a whole if it were moved.
[04:26:37] development as a whole if it were moved. um you know they stated that impact is you know they stated that impact is reduced generally through distance and I reduced generally through distance and I think that's objectively true but think that's objectively true but distance farther away from one thing is distance farther away from one thing is distance closer to another and uh the distance closer to another and uh the the the trade-offs were not the the trade-offs were not demonstrabably demonstrabably uh definitive for me to say yes this is
[04:26:56] uh definitive for me to say yes this is objectively a better approach um on on
[04:27:00] objectively a better approach um on on any of the alternative locations.
[04:27:03] any of the alternative locations.
[04:27:05] Mr. Mr. Chair, I I'll I'll paraphrase you a little bit in or reiterate that I
[04:27:08] you a little bit in or reiterate that I general public desire is important.
[04:27:10] general public desire is important.
[04:27:13] It's important. Um I think in this case it was augmented by a significantly
[04:27:15] was augmented by a significantly arguable dose of broader environmental
[04:27:18] arguable dose of broader environmental activism that resulted in actually some
[04:27:21] activism that resulted in actually some very distasteful actions and very uh
[04:27:24] very distasteful actions and very uh actions that were deletarious to the the
[04:27:26] actions that were deletarious to the the cause of STAR.
[04:27:28] cause of STAR. Uh and so it's unfortunate for those uh uh you know
[04:27:31] unfortunate for those uh uh you know emphatic members of STAR that are
[04:27:32] emphatic members of STAR that are seeking after uh a grassroots well-being
[04:27:35] seeking after uh a grassroots well-being uh situation.
[04:27:39] uh situation. Uh but that said it that made it also difficult to draw the line
[04:27:41] made it also difficult to draw the line and determine uh whether residents were
[04:27:44] and determine uh whether residents were truly being represented or whether this
[04:27:46] truly being represented or whether this is a broader environmental activist uh
[04:27:48] is a broader environmental activist uh type movement or somewhere in between
[04:27:50] type movement or somewhere in between which is where I landed.
[04:27:53] which is where I landed.
[04:27:55] Um, I also had in my notes uh, regulation
[04:27:57] I also had in my notes uh, regulation 307B2.
[04:27:59] 307B2.
[04:28:02] I think, you know, Mr. chair, you more eloquently made the points that I was going to make that were very similar to what you had to say that there does seem to be a bit of a lever there, but I would also agree on the record that this is a lever where it's clear and demonstrable that there is some deficiency that we can enumerate and determine is an actual deficiency that somehow is not uh it is not uh addressed or protected by our rules under the same standard.
[04:28:29] And I don't I don't find there to be uh I don't find there to be a situation um like that uh in this in this hearing.
[04:28:39] And so my decision really comes down to the applicability of actual law, which I think it should.
[04:28:44] Um I think in the end that's our job is to ensure that we have the best laws but also ensure that those laws are followed not just by operators but by ourselves by the public and by others that have
[04:28:58] by the public and by others that have interest in the development or or lack interest in the development or or lack of development of oil and gas in Colorado as uh determined and tasked to us by the legislature.
[04:29:08] I'm significantly disappointed with Creststone's post December involvement uh with STAR uh especially given my stressing them working with the community uh throughout this process.
[04:29:20] That said, it's incumbent upon me to point out that my verbal direction to the operator during previous hearings to undertake best efforts to work with the community was not ultimately an executable legal standard.
[04:29:34] It was uh it was a pleading.
[04:29:37] It was a direction.
[04:29:40] It was simple verbal direction behement.
[04:29:42] Yes, but nonetheless still only verbal direction on the part of one commissioner that doesn't have or that doesn't set a legal standard or have legal executable implications.
[04:29:50] That said, I I believe that that the operator could have done a better job once engaging with STAR in late December to work more closely with STAR.
[04:29:58] Uh and and
[04:30:01] Work more closely with STAR.
[04:30:02] Uh and and maybe they don't come to any kind of conclusion together, but at least then there was an opportunity to try to work together.
[04:30:08] That was very demonstrable at this hearing.
[04:30:11] Um I'm disappointed, but that's not a legally executable standard.
[04:30:14] Um that is the standard that that to some degree led me to seek in December to uh work within the commission's authority to mandate an additional alternative location analysis.
[04:30:29] The intent there was to compel uh cooperation with the concerned community in the uh absence of uh grassroots and voluntary um significant uh cooperation.
[04:30:39] And I think to some degree uh it did further the cause.
[04:30:44] In the end, there's no demonstrable non-compliance with statute or regulation on the part of the operator in this application.
[04:30:51] There's reasonable compliance with the commission's legal imposition of additional ALA information.
[04:30:55] And it comes right down to the fact that this application is compliant with our rules which are among
[04:31:01] compliant with our rules which are among the most protective in the world and are the most protective in the world and are based on best available science based on best available science legislative mandate.
[04:31:06] And while this has been a lengthy process, it was a much more involved and lengthier process to establish those rules through lengthy and significant expert discussion and uh significant public discussion, debate and rulemaking.
[04:31:22] And um if we find a deficiency associated with and I mean an an ethical deficiency or a philosophical deficiency associated with this application.
[04:31:32] I think the proper way to handle that is to talk about whether our rules uh are on point associated with the points that were that were raised.
[04:31:38] it it it doesn't free me up to deny this application based on a potential hypothetical of potentially more protective appropriate rules that weren't vetted through a uh expert rulemaking process.
[04:31:53] So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to be a uh approval vote on the application uh hearing.
[04:32:00] Thank you, Commissioner Arian, for the
[04:32:01] Thank you, Commissioner Arian, for the deliberative thoughts.
[04:32:08] Commissioner Master.
[04:32:14] Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[04:32:14] Um, I've got like six pieces of paper here that I'm going to be working through and so this is going to be a little bit all over the place and I apologize for that.
[04:32:24] Um, you know, a lot of times I I come into a deliberation like this and um I have a lot of thoughts that I've already put down and after reading applications and public comments and um consultations and um and today I didn't do that.
[04:32:44] So today I really wanted to listen.
[04:32:46] I wanted to absorb.
[04:32:50] I wanted to really understand um the different perspectives and and see you know where I ended up.
[04:33:00] Um you know ultimately I think this is this
[04:33:02] you know ultimately I think this is this is as indicated before this is a really challenging situation and it's a challenging situation for all the parties that are involved.
[04:33:10] Um, as I've indicated before, I also think it was a situation that created opportunities that created opportunities for potential coordination, collaboration, communication, um, you know, between the different parties that were involved with this.
[04:33:29] Um you know and in my experience uh this this type of like interaction uh most often creates the best solutions to difficult situations like this.
[04:33:42] Um you know this is ultimately the process that ECMC went through in review of this application.
[04:33:49] You know first in the CAP process and now in the ODP process.
[04:33:55] Um, you know, it has continued to create opportunities for the different parties to step away from the posturing to be
[04:34:03] to step away from the posturing to be able to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work to find compromise amongst ultimately entities that may be neighbors.
[04:34:12] Um, you know, and unfortunately as of today, that has not come to fruition.
[04:34:18] You know, we have two parties that for the most part are still entrenched in their positions.
[04:34:24] uh that it is my way or the highway.
[04:34:26] Uh and the result of this leaves me as a commissioner in the position to review the application as presented and whether or not it meets our rules or not.
[04:34:37] Uh, and that's ultimately the role I'm in as a commissioner in a quasi judicial proceeding as to determine whether or not an application as presented meets the burden of proof that it meets both the rules and the act.
[04:34:58] uh and in the rules or in the act and
[04:35:03] uh and in the rules or in the act and the rules there's a term reasonable and
[04:35:06] the rules there's a term reasonable and necessary in there that ends up being a
[04:35:08] necessary in there that ends up being a really important part of the
[04:35:10] really important part of the considerations uh that we apply in our
[04:35:13] considerations uh that we apply in our quasi judicial roles uh as commissioners
[04:35:17] quasi judicial roles uh as commissioners um you know and while we apply judgment
[04:35:21] um you know and while we apply judgment as we review applications and apply the
[04:35:23] as we review applications and apply the rules and many of our rules are
[04:35:26] rules and many of our rules are performance-based
[04:35:27] performance-based Um, you know, some are subjective,
[04:35:32] Um, you know, some are subjective, many are subjective, uh, and many are
[04:35:35] many are subjective, uh, and many are objective. Um,
[04:35:38] objective. Um, but any judgment that I apply still has
[04:35:40] but any judgment that I apply still has to be tied to the rules and the terms
[04:35:43] to be tied to the rules and the terms reasonable and necessary.
[04:35:46] reasonable and necessary. Uh, and it can't solely be tied to an
[04:35:48] Uh, and it can't solely be tied to an unsubstantiated opinion, uh, or a
[04:35:51] unsubstantiated opinion, uh, or a personal belief. Um,
[04:35:55] personal belief. Um, you know, and there's a few things here.
[04:35:57] you know, and there's a few things here. I mean the you know the statute that
[04:36:00] I mean the you know the statute that ultimately creates the rules that we
[04:36:02] ultimately creates the rules that we promulgate you know is created by the
[04:36:05] Promulgate you know is created by the whole legislative body and the governor.
[04:36:07] Whole legislative body and the governor and not an individual legislator or two.
[04:36:10] And not an individual legislator or two.
[04:36:15] It is ultimately the work of months.
[04:36:17] Sometimes multiple years in the development of the statute that ultimately creates the rules.
[04:36:22] Ultimately creates the rules.
[04:36:24] The rules that are promulgated ultimately go through earsl longs process.
[04:36:30] Sometimes in you know developing the different elements of the rules that are also a public process that has the opportunity for parties and the public to be involved to help determine how statute gets promulgated into rules.
[04:36:47] Statute gets promulgated into rules.
[04:36:51] Um and that whole process, you know, creates ultimately the tools that we as commissioners utilized in order to make determinations on applications.
[04:37:00] Determinations on applications.
[04:37:02] You know, I think that there's a lot of rules that obviously apply to this.
[04:37:04] I think other commissioners have already
[04:37:06] think other commissioners have already talked about some of the talked about some of the uh really good things that are uh a part of this application.
[04:37:12] I think we as commissioners have been stringent in our expectations of this applicant, which you know that's sometimes necessary.
[04:37:18] I wish it wasn't so necessary that we had to continue to ask for additional information to continue to ask for more to continue to try to push and see what was possible.
[04:37:38] Uh but we did and we that is ultimately what created a long drawn out process was you know continuing to need more continuing to push for more to continue to try to develop opportunities for communication collaboration and see if there's not an opportunity to come up with a win-win situation.
[04:37:54] uh you know but ultimately that didn't happen here.
[04:38:00] um you know the ALA and I think it's important um you know as we look at alternative location analysis to kind of
[04:38:07] alternative location analysis to kind of go back to the mission change rule.
[04:38:09] go back to the mission change rule making.
[04:38:11] making and you know.
[04:38:14] and you know reacquaint ourselves to the reason that.
[04:38:16] reacquaint ourselves to the reason that we developed alternative location analysis.
[04:38:18] we developed alternative location analysis but you know statement of basis.
[04:38:20] analysis but you know statement of basis and purpose indicates that the.
[04:38:22] and purpose indicates that the alternative location analysis is the.
[04:38:25] alternative location analysis is the commission's primary and best tool to.
[04:38:27] commission's primary and best tool to avoid adverse impacts because the most.
[04:38:30] avoid adverse impacts because the most effective way to avoid adverse impacts.
[04:38:32] effective way to avoid adverse impacts is through citing decisions.
[04:38:35] is through citing decisions. Accordingly, CRS 34601035.5A.
[04:38:40] Accordingly, CRS 34601035.5A provides independent statutory authority.
[04:38:42] provides independent statutory authority for the commission to adopt an.
[04:38:43] for the commission to adopt an alternative loca location analysis.
[04:38:46] alternative loca location analysis process.
[04:38:48] process as a tool for avoiding any category of.
[04:38:50] as a tool for avoiding any category of adverse impacts regardless of whether.
[04:38:53] adverse impacts regardless of whether those impacts might otherwise occur in a.
[04:38:55] those impacts might otherwise occur in a popular populated area or not.
[04:38:59] popular populated area or not. Uh and so the alternative location analysis was a big deal here.
[04:39:02] Uh and so the alternative location analysis was a big deal here. That's why.
[04:39:04] That's why there was an alternative location analysis that was pushed for in the CAP.
[04:39:09] analysis that was pushed for in the CAP process.
[04:39:13] That was why that uh in in process.
[04:39:16] That was why that uh in in December we asked for a more robust and comprehensive alternative location analysis to provide opportunities for communication and collaboration between the parties in this situation.
[04:39:25] Uh, you know, I've already indicated that I think that there's still lots of missing pieces that would have been certainly been helpful in determining whether the different locations that were analyzed, you know, were were more protective or not.
[04:39:43] Um, you know, I I think that there were other parties that could have been participating in that process, including the state land board, you know, including the permit for the grazing permits, including Arapjo County, and like looking at different alternatives to try to figure out if there was a win-win situation here.
[04:40:04] I think one meeting with STAR as a party to this was completely inadequate.
[04:40:07] Um I
[04:40:11] to this was completely inadequate.
[04:40:15] Um I also indicate also in my opinion believe that there is uh there was a problem with communication on both sides here um and people being entrenched in their positions.
[04:40:26] And so this was an opportunity for us as a judicial quasi judicial body to like push the envelope a little bit to see if there was opportunities for a solution here.
[04:40:40] And uh I'm not sure that people realize um the envelope, how far the envelope got pushed.
[04:40:46] Um but it did get pushed.
[04:40:49] Um you know, I think it's important to look at the 2,000 ft setback and you know, how ultimately that was determined in our rules.
[04:41:01] You know, and you know, in the statement of basis and purpose on page uh 219, it talks about that based on substantial
[04:41:11] it talks about that based on substantial evidence in the administrative record,
[04:41:13] evidence in the administrative record, the commission determined that a 2,000 ft distance was necessary and reasonable
[04:41:17] to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts to public health and welfare.
[04:41:23] welfare. Senate Bill 1918's changes to the commission's mission and statutory authority direct the commission to regulate oil and gas operations in a reasonable manner to protect and minimize adverse impacts to public health which is CRS 3461062.5A.
[04:41:39] Senate Bill 1918 also defined minimize adverse impacts to public health.
[04:41:48] Uh sorry. Senate Bill 19181 also defined minimize adverse impacts to mean to the extent necessary and reasonable to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources to a avoid adverse impacts from oil and gas operations and b minimize and mitigate the extent and severity of those impacts that cannot be avoided which is CRS 3460 1035.5.
[04:42:16] Senate Bill 19181 thus required the commission to first avoid any potential impacts, then minimize and mitigate those potential impacts that cannot be avoided.
[04:42:26] And while distance is not the sole or predominant method to avoid, mitigates, mitigate or minimize adverse impact, it can avoid uh impacts or significantly reduce the severity of the adverse impacts.
[04:42:40] For all these reasons, the commission determined that a 2,000 ft distance met the standard set by Senate Bill 1918.
[04:42:48] The commission's statutory mandate is to protect public health and wildfire by first avoiding adverse impacts.
[04:42:55] Substantial evidence in the record demonstrated that a 2,000 ft distance would avoid a significant number of impacts and is therefore necessary, particularly for school facilities and child care centers.
[04:43:08] The commission's choice of 2,000 ft is also reasonable for at least two reasons.
[04:43:13] First, the evidence in the administrative record did not demonstrate that a greater
[04:43:17] did not demonstrate that a greater distance would result in any significantly greater avoidance of impacts.
[04:43:22] Second, in rule 604b, the commission recognized that other regulatory tools may avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts and therefore provided additional requirements that an operator may meet to site a proposed working pad surface between 2,00 inside 2,000 ft.
[04:43:44] So the 2,000 foot setback is a setback that this commission in our rules has been applying um since the promulgation of the rules in 2021 since the implementation of SB1 19181.
[04:44:01] Arapo county as the local government uh has arguably some of the most protective oil and gas regulations in the state.
[04:44:11] um and has increased that setback in Arapo County from 2,000 ft to 3,000 ft.
[04:44:18] Arapo County from 2,000 ft to 3,000 ft.
[04:44:20] You know, I do ultimately understand that they deferred the determination of the applicability of their rules not to the board of county commissioners themselves, but rather to staff.
[04:44:30] Uh but that doesn't negate the distance setback that is required from the local government.
[04:44:38] As a former local government official, local government is the place that is most accessible to the public and is the most um the best way to affect land use decisions within your jurisdiction.
[04:44:52] And um SP19181 provide explicit authority to the local government to make land use decisions associated with oil and gas development.
[04:45:05] So to have the local government which promugated these rules ultimately determine that it was appropriate is compelling to me.
[04:45:15] Public input is also an essential part of our process and has uh always been an
[04:45:19] of our process and has uh always been an important part of my decision-m.
[04:45:22] important part of my decision-m.
[04:45:22] I've also indicated that the challenge in this situation is that outside of this quasi judicial process because there was no collaboration or compromise on a on a location, you know, my job is to take that public impact and apply it to the rules associated with the application.
[04:45:49] And as I as I apply the rules or as I hear the public comment, many of the public comments were really difficult to apply to specific rules that I was going to be able to utilize in any kind of decision-m.
[04:46:03] However, there was much public comment and particularly testimony um uh by Mr. foot uh and the witnesses in this proceeding um was helpful and was certainly influential in my decision-m.
[04:46:21] Certainly influential in my decision-m.
[04:46:24] I think that today's testimony was a little bit challenging in hearing that the application of rule 307 was ultimately the determining factor.
[04:46:33] Um and that one um that one is a little bit a little bit challenging to apply uh on on its own.
[04:46:48] Um, and you know, the rule, the statement of basis and purpose says that in rule 307, the commission adopted procedural requirements for the commission's review of a proposed oil and gas development plan.
[04:47:02] And like the director, consistent with Senate Bill 1918's changes to the commission's mission and statutory authority, the commission may choose to deny a proposed oil and gas development plan uh that otherwise complies with the commission rules.
[04:47:16] If in the commission's judgment, the proposed oil and gas development plan does not comply with the act by adequately protecting and minimizing
[04:47:22] adequately protecting and minimizing adverse impacts to public health,
[04:47:23] adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and
[04:47:25] safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. And so in order to
[04:47:27] wildlife resources. And so in order to be able to apply that specifically,
[04:47:30] be able to apply that specifically, there has to be um compelling evidence
[04:47:34] there has to be um compelling evidence to essentially negate some of the rules
[04:47:38] to essentially negate some of the rules in my opinion. So I may be applying this
[04:47:40] in my opinion. So I may be applying this slightly different than Chair Roger or
[04:47:42] slightly different than Chair Roger or uh sorry, Chair Robbins. Um
[04:47:46] uh sorry, Chair Robbins. Um but it would have to essentially negate
[04:47:48] but it would have to essentially negate some of the rules um in order for it to
[04:47:51] some of the rules um in order for it to be able to apply which ultim ultimately
[04:47:53] be able to apply which ultim ultimately becomes a very difficult burden. Um you
[04:47:57] becomes a very difficult burden. Um you know and has to also come in with a
[04:48:00] know and has to also come in with a reasonable and necessary application.
[04:48:03] reasonable and necessary application. Um and so I did struggle with being able
[04:48:08] Um and so I did struggle with being able to apply that rule specifically to this
[04:48:11] to apply that rule specifically to this application.
[04:48:12] application. um and being able to use it solely uh as
[04:48:16] um and being able to use it solely uh as the rule to make a determination to deny
[04:48:20] the rule to make a determination to deny an application. Um
[04:48:25] you know, I do think that situations like this ultimately create change.
[04:48:32] I think there's opportunities for change um coming from situations like this and I do think that this will create change.
[04:48:41] The amount of public influ in uh interest in this, the amount of participation in this um you know is the same type of situation that ultimately created Senate Bill 1918 that ultimately created the rules that we promulgated and implemented in 2021.
[04:49:01] Um, and I wouldn't be surprised uh for better or for worse, depending on who you're talking to, if this situation doesn't have a become a similar catalyst.
[04:49:12] Um, and so in the end, like I said, the best outcome would have been ultimately to find a compromise here. um which I think was possible.
[04:49:22] But you know in my judgment in applying reasonable and necessary application of the rules in the act um I do find that
[04:49:28] the rules in the act um I do find that this application does meet um does meet.
[04:49:31] this application does meet um does meet the rules in the act um as I sit in my seat as a quasi in a quasi judicial.
[04:49:34] the rules in the act um as I sit in my seat as a quasi in a quasi judicial proceeding as a commissioner.
[04:49:37] proceeding as a commissioner.
[04:49:41] So, thank you, Commissioner Messer.
[04:49:43] thank you, Commissioner Messer.
[04:49:46] Others with deliberative thoughts, Commissioner O.
[04:49:47] Commissioner O.
[04:49:50] Guess that leaves me.
[04:49:53] Um, well, first I want to thank my fellow commissioners for all of your comments.
[04:49:55] fellow commissioners for all of your comments.
[04:49:59] I agree with so many statements and opinions and findings um that you all have expressed.
[04:50:02] statements and opinions and findings um that you all have expressed.
[04:50:05] Um and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the thorowness that all of you have brought to this discussion.
[04:50:07] appreciate the thoughtfulness and the thorowness that all of you have brought.
[04:50:09] to this discussion.
[04:50:13] Um you know I I I think I want to start with noting that my analysis is is not that this location and and particularly the application as a whole particularly with the best management practices that have been proposed.
[04:50:15] think I want to start with noting that my analysis is is not that this location.
[04:50:19] and and particularly the application as a whole particularly with the best management practices that have been proposed.
[04:50:21] a whole particularly with the best management practices that have been proposed.
[04:50:23] management practices that have been proposed.
[04:50:25] Um it my analysis is not that it could not be approvable.
[04:50:28] um nor have
[04:50:31] it could not be approvable.
[04:50:34] nor have I made a finding that the application as proposed is not protective of public health.
[04:50:39] Um I don't think that that is a conclusion that can be reached here.
[04:50:45] Um I think the proposal itself includes sufficiently protective elements and has even been improved uh since our last hearing on this matter.
[04:50:54] Um what weighs heavily on me here is uh the rule that um has been brought up a number of times and it's whether or not Creststone has met its burden under rule 307B to demonstrate that the application minimizes the potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources.
[04:51:14] And you know I can I continue to puzzle over this.
[04:51:19] Um I think there's a real possibility that that is the case that um a number of the alternative locations even the ones that you know I think most of us zeroed in on as as being um uh real potential having real
[04:51:35] being um uh real potential having real potential.
[04:51:37] um those may on balance raise potential.
[04:51:40] um those may on balance raise too many potential impacts or maybe even too many potential impacts or maybe even not be viable due to inability to obtain.
[04:51:43] not be viable due to inability to obtain variances or exceptions for impacts to.
[04:51:46] variances or exceptions for impacts to riparian areas or the line power issues.
[04:51:50] riparian areas or the line power issues.
[04:51:53] Um I I am struggling with uh finding that we have that information.
[04:51:56] Um I feel that what we have are some questions and.
[04:51:59] uncertainty and speculation.
[04:52:02] Um I I've really appreciated the comments made here in deliberations.
[04:52:04] comments made here in deliberations.
[04:52:08] Um I think Mr. Chair raised them.
[04:52:10] Um I think Mr. Chair raised them.
[04:52:11] Commissioner Acriman, you had have raised them also about you know being.
[04:52:14] raised them also about you know being really thoughtful about how we apply.
[04:52:16] really thoughtful about how we apply this rule and whether the level of.
[04:52:19] this rule and whether the level of information that we are we have.
[04:52:22] information that we are we have generally found to be acceptable and how.
[04:52:24] generally found to be acceptable and how that compares to what we are asking for.
[04:52:27] that compares to what we are asking for here.
[04:52:30] I think you both make really important points, really wise points.
[04:52:32] important points, really wise points.
[04:52:35] Um, you know that consistency and predictability is an important predictability is an important consideration.
[04:52:39] Consideration.
[04:52:39] I think at the same time um when we do consider these applications on a case-byase basis um and and and for good reason, right?
[04:52:48] So that we can evaluate each of the applications in the context of all of the kind of incredibly complex variables that are involved.
[04:52:58] And so I think we have, you know, these two important considerations kind of consistency with flexibility.
[04:53:05] Um and and so you know, we end up ultimately needing to strike the right balance.
[04:53:12] And that's not certainly not a perfect science.
[04:53:15] And and certainly um I think it's easy to see that reasonable people in difficult circumstances may differ on where that balance rests in in each case.
[04:53:25] And so I think for for where I am today, I would much prefer to stay the application and and ask Crest to further provide more information to help me make a determination on whether the
[04:53:35] me make a determination on whether the proposed location truly does minimize.
[04:53:38] proposed location truly does minimize impacts on the whole.
[04:53:42] Um on the on the balance of all the considerations and admittedly I'm fairly close to feeling
[04:53:43] balance of all the considerations and admittedly I'm fairly close to feeling that I have the information necessary to make that determination.
[04:53:47] that I have the information necessary to make that determination.
[04:53:48] and not just to make a determination, but to potentially make a finding that the proposed location does not only meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:53:51] make a determination, but to potentially make a finding that the proposed location does not only meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:53:53] make a finding that the proposed location does not only meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:53:54] location does not only meet the minimum requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:53:56] requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:53:58] requirements of the regulations, but also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:54:01] also that the location does meet the requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:54:03] requirements in 307B, that it minimizes the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:54:05] the impacts on the whole overall of the potential um alternative locations.
[04:54:09] Um, but while I think the information on the record comes close to getting me to a position to make that finding, I think given the gaps that I have mentioned previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:11] but while I think the information on the record comes close to getting me to a position to make that finding, I think given the gaps that I have mentioned previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:13] record comes close to getting me to a position to make that finding, I think given the gaps that I have mentioned previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:15] position to make that finding, I think given the gaps that I have mentioned previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:17] given the gaps that I have mentioned previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:20] previously, I feel that I can't find today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:22] today that based on the information in the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:24] the record that um the applicant has met his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:26] his burden to prove that the proposed location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:29] location minimizes the potential impacts to the largest extent possible.
[04:54:32] to the largest extent possible. Uh so that's where I am.
[04:54:37] Further deliberative thoughts.
[04:54:47] All right.
[04:54:52] Um if we are done with deliberations, I suppose it's time for a motion.
[04:54:57] Um I believe we have the outstanding issue relevant to the fact that uh Creststone had in its uh testimony today as well as the April or the uh yeah the April 6th I believe it was information made some commitments that are different and there would need to be a COA to address that through an administrative process with staff or at least That's my thought.
[04:55:29] Um, and so if I could elevate AG Pedro, um, if you could provide us with some thoughts about that issue, not knowing
[04:55:38] thoughts about that issue, not knowing where folks are going, but I just want where folks are going, but I just want to kind of we would need to work through to kind of we would need to work through that if we're moving forward.
[04:55:44] that if we're moving forward.
[04:55:44] Thanks, Mr. Chair.
[04:55:47] Yes, it's my understanding that if the commission moves for an approval um based on Creststone's commitment to reduce the well count from 32 down to 24 and the contraction of the uh location and working pad surface that some of the details in their 2A and 2B and other documents associated with the OGDP might need to be updated.
[04:56:12] Um, I have some COA language that could work uh here and um but again, this is all assuming the commission is going to move for an approval of the OGDP.
[04:56:19] Happy to read out the COA language though.
[04:56:24] All right.
[04:56:24] Well, why don't we see if we've got a motion for approval um with a second and then we can in a discussion on that motion, you know, perhaps amend it to make sure that uh we capture that information.
[04:56:38] Uh, but I don't want to presuppose anything at this point in
[04:56:40] presuppose anything at this point in time.
[04:56:41] time.
[04:56:43] All right, commissioners, we're moving into a motion stage.
[04:56:46] into a motion stage.
[04:56:49] I'll move for approval.
[04:56:49] We have a motion.
[04:56:52] I'll second.
[04:56:54] We have a motion in a second.
[04:56:57] Is there further discussion on the motion and the second outside of the COA piece that Budro will talk to us in a bit?
[04:57:03] Commissioner Mman.
[04:57:05] Thanks, Mr. chair.
[04:57:07] Um, you know, I think you heard in my deliberative uh deliberative thought,
[04:57:10] uh deliberative thought,
[04:57:12] um, that I thought that this application would be, um, you know, approvable as presented,
[04:57:15] would be, um, you know, approvable as presented,
[04:57:19] but I also acknowledged Commissioner Oath's request to stay the application in order to be able to get additional information in order for her to be able to make a decision.
[04:57:21] Commissioner Oath's request to stay the application in order to be able to get additional information in order for her to be able to make a decision.
[04:57:25] I think that's a reasonable request from a commissioner.
[04:57:26] And as I apply reasonable and necessary to my thoughts and decision- making, I think if the commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:28] commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:29] commissioner.
[04:57:31] And as I apply reasonable and necessary to my thoughts and decision- making, I think if the commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:34] commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:36] decision- making, I think if the commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:38] commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:39] commissioner wants some additional information and it's a reasonable
[04:57:41] information and it's a reasonable request, which is part of our December request, which is part of our December order, um then um I would be in support of that.
[04:57:47] And so uh I think on this one I will uh on this motion I'll vote no so that I can preserve the opportunity perhaps for Commissioner Ellis to get the information that she requests.
[04:58:03] Okay. Further discussion on the motion.
[04:58:09] Agent Bedro, do you want to read us your conditions of approval language?
[04:58:13] Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. Um, the condition of approval associated with the topic I just discussed would be a motion to approve the OGDP with the proposed changes by Creststone as documented at Creststone exhibit 132 page 10 with the following condition of approval.
[04:58:34] Operator shall provide an OGDP sundry for updates to the form 2B along with a form four sundry with the changes to the
[04:58:43] Form four sundry with the changes to the permit application materials that were permit application materials that were described in the commission hearing for the sunlight long OGDP docket number 2412000313 heard on April 21st, 2026.
[04:58:57] Sunundry approvals must be obtained prior to initiating construction.
[04:59:02] So that's the COA associated with the uh permitting issues that I discussed before.
[04:59:08] And that I would also note that the director's recommendation at pages 9 through 11 includes a list of conditions of approval recommended by staff.
[04:59:19] All right.
[04:59:22] Um Commissioner Cross, uh are you comfortable with the that friendly amendment to the motion?
[04:59:27] I am.
[04:59:31] All right.
[04:59:31] I will re uh do the second.
[04:59:33] So, we continue to have a motion and a second on the table uh for discussion.
[04:59:37] Further discussion by commissioners.
[04:59:44] All right.
[04:59:47] I I I'll just respond to um Commissioner Oath and and also to the uh comments made by Commissioner Mesner.
[04:59:56] you know, I understand um Commissioner Oath and um generally I'm of the opinion that uh you know, we try to accommodate all commissioners thoughts, concerns, questions.
[05:00:09] Uh I also don't know that this is going to get any easier.
[05:00:13] Um and I don't know that I'm going to be, at least me, I'm going to be swayed by additional information um in the record.
[05:00:23] Uh, and so while I certainly acknowledge your point, um, I'm not sure it's going to ultimately change the thing that I'm in charge of, which is consciously taking a vote and making a decision based upon what's before me.
[05:00:36] Um, we've had seven hearings on this and lots and lots of public comment.
[05:00:40] I thoroughly and am impressed and appreciative of Star's work here.
[05:00:46] appreciative of Star's work here.
[05:00:48] I agree with you, Commissioner Messer, agree with you, Commissioner Messer, that this is the sort of thing that can sometimes facilitate change and uh that's good for our state and that's good for all the work that we're doing.
[05:00:57] So, I'm not inclined to undo my second, I guess, is where I'm going.
[05:01:03] Commissioner O. >> Um I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
[05:01:05] I would just make a comment that I I fully understand um that thought that um to be honest the last place I want to be is in place to to stay this and have another hearing because as I noticed earlier or noted earlier um I I recognize that that comes with a fair amount of of energy and cost and work for a lot of parties.
[05:01:25] And so, um, if, um, you know, other commissioners feel that they have the information they need and it's not going to change the outcome for them, that's I it's a it's an outcome I certainly respect and understand.
[05:01:37] >> Thank you for those comments. Further discussion on the motion.
[05:01:44] All right. Seeing none, hearings.
[05:01:46] All right.
[05:01:46] Seeing none, hearings.
[05:01:47] Manager Thomas, if we could have a roll call.
[05:01:51] Yes. Commissioner Acriman.
[05:01:52] Yes.
[05:01:54] Commissioner Cross.
[05:01:55] Yes. Yes.
[05:01:57] Commissioner Mesner.
[05:01:58] No.
[05:01:59] Commissioner Oath?
[05:02:01] No.
[05:02:02] Commissioner Robbins?
[05:02:03] Yes.
[05:02:05] Mr. Chair, that motion passes three to two.
[05:02:07] Okay.
[05:02:12] All right.
[05:02:14] That concludes the business before the commission today.
[05:02:17] Uh again, as we've said numerous times, we want to thank the all the folks that have been involved in what is not an easy uh process for the state of Colorado.
[05:02:29] I would hope folks realize that everyone's acting in good faith and and doing the best that we can and uh thank the applicant, thank the petitioners, thank staff, uh and thank my fellow commissioners.
[05:02:44] With that, I would move to adjourn.
[05:02:47] To adjourn.
[05:02:48] Second.
[05:02:48] Second.
[05:02:51] All those in favor signify by saying I.
[05:02:51] All those in favor signify by saying I.
[05:02:52] I.
[05:02:52] I.
[05:02:52] I.
[05:02:52] I.
[05:02:54] Any opposed?
[05:02:54] Any opposed?
[05:02:56] We got another hearing tomorrow, folks.
[05:02:56] We got another hearing tomorrow, folks.
[05:02:56] See you then.

ECMC Commission Hearing - April 21, 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsXIGYInjk

Summary

TL;DR — The Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) held a special hearing on Creststone Peak Resources' oil and gas development plan (OGDP) for the State Sunlight Long project. After extensive deliberation and review of supplemental analyses, including alternative location assessments and public comments, the commission voted 3-2 to approve the OGDP, denying Maverick Mineral Partners' petition.

Key points

• The hearing focused on Creststone's OGDP application and Maverick's petition concerning mineral rights and potential drainage.

• Creststone presented a revised plan, reducing the well count from 32 to 24 and reconfiguring the pad to increase setbacks from residential areas, following feedback from STAR and other agencies.

• STAR argued that Creststone's preferred location was not protective of public health and that alternative locations within a "feasibility zone" were more viable and less impactful, while Maverick raised concerns about potential drainage and stranded minerals.

• Commissioners debated the extent to which Creststone complied with the December order for alternative location analysis, with differing opinions on whether the analysis was objective or biased towards the preferred site.

• The commission ultimately found that Creststone's proposed location met regulatory requirements and implemented significant best management practices, leading to its approval despite public opposition and concerns raised by STAR and Commissioner Mesner regarding potential impacts and the thoroughness of the alternative analysis.

Takeaway — The ECMC approved Creststone's State Sunlight Long OGDP, finding it compliant with regulations and sufficiently protective, while denying Maverick's petition due to insufficient evidence of drainage or stranded minerals.