Below is a transcript of Chair Robbins’ testimony during the March 26, 2025 deliberations on the Draco Oil & Gas Development Plan (OGDP). Please excuse any transcription errors.
Chair Robbins: Thanks to all my fellow Commissioners for the deliberative thoughts. I think if anything this should demonstrate once again to the 139 people listening in that we really work hard to make the appropriate determination for the state of Colorado with regard to these sorts of things. I too am in favor of the application for the reasons as articulated by my fellow Commissioners. I believe it addresses the avoid, minimize, and mitigate hierarchy. I appreciate the best management practices and I too want to echo Commissioner Akerman’s points that I think this process has demonstrated to us and to the communities we serve the opportunity to ensure that even relevant approximate local governments can have an ability to be at the table and I think that’s what we’ve done here.
Commissioner Ackerman, I’m kind of in agreement with you on the timing piece. I would probably be okay with the May 2028 timeframe noting that our processes have created some additional delays. If there’s anything we can do to maybe use best efforts once again to get it all done within October of 2027, I’d be comfortable with that too. That’s what I really would like to see.
I am in agreement with you Commissioner Oeth if someone is purchasing and buying they’re going in with full knowledge of the development that is ongoing here, and so I feel comfortable with that.
With regard to the 96 percentile, I kind of went back and looked and I think every location within Weld County in the non-attainment area is going to score that way on version 1.0 of the enviro screen. I think that’s one of the reasons that they made a change to that in 2.0. I’d love to have Ms Sorensen talk to us a little bit about that outside of a specific application so that we can make sure we’re comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
I think that’s enough for me. I’m comfortable moving forward with this application. Commissioner Cross, I would like to maybe pick on you a little bit on the timing piece and maybe get some perspective from you. I know you had spoken to that a little bit as well. I think we’re all kind of struggling to sort of figure out the best way there.
Commissioner Cross: I think that the agreement reached between Southern Land Company and the operator here is the appropriate timeline to use. I think it is important to note that even when we had this hearing back in November, the Town of Erie even suggested that the agreement reached between the land owner and the operator was appropriate at that time. So admittedly I was a little bit surprised that they had then created sort of the hard deadline of October 2027.
I think with respect to the other some of the other issues that were addressed by the Town of Erie today, I do recognize the discussion of avoiding kind of another Coyote Trails in the future and I think that that’s somethi ng that we’re all already taking under consideration and looked at both in the CI and said that we do plan to do a little bit more under the 308, 311, 312 type issues to make sure that we don’t get that kind of issue again in the future. So I do think that even with that discussion that was raised by Erie, it’s something that we’re already looking to as well.
But specifically with respect to time, I do think it’s important to stick with what was originally agreed upon between the parties and not enforce a stricter timeline that, as was even shown, even with the stricter timeline, it’s still something that the operator is trying to meet but also recognizes that it would be very difficult to meet.
Chair Robbins: Do you want to frame that into a motion?
Commissioner Cross: I would be happy to do so, and I do want to add one more thing, I think just for the record there. I do appreciate Commissioner Messer’s comments about the fact that we do have the protection within the 2,000 ft there. I do think it’s important to state for the record that the 2000 foot setback we have is not a hard setback. We could have made it a hard setback but we did include the substantial equivalence protection for that and in trying to make sure that any protections provided would be substantially equivalent to a setback of 2,000 ft distance here.
I at least for one, it’s important to note that it’s not a hard setback so we don’t have any confusion with stakeholders for that, but I do think that the electrified facility, the electrified drilling, and the partially electrified completions is a good way to try and meet that substantial equivalence requirement, especially given that pre-production, while not the only time that it applies, pre-production is when most of the negative effects to Public Health and Welfare do occur. But I wanted to make sure that I just put that on the record as well.
But that said, I would approve for, I would move for approval of the application as provided here today, keeping the timeline of hard deadline of three years and/or the, I believe it was May 13, 2028, as agreed upon between Southern Land Company and Civitas with respect the timeline by which completions needs, or by which production needs to go into place.
Commissioner Ackerman: I can second but would you consider an amendment, Commissioner Cross, that also included best efforts to attempt to complete pre-production by October of 2027?
Commissioner Cross: I’m fine with that.
Chair Robbins: A motion and a second. AG Davenport, are you still with us? Just given the length and breadth of this hearing, I don’t want to move to thinking about motion unless you feel that we’ve adequately captured a motion for consideration.
AG Davenport: I just want to confirm a couple of other things. As the Commissioners are well aware, Extraction had a number of, Civitas had a number of BMPs that were summarized in slides 29 and 30 of their presentation today. My assumption is the motion includes incorporation of all those BMPs as well. Commissioner Cross?
Commissioner Cross: That would be my assumption, yes. I believe those were from what was in the initial application.
AG Davenport: Just confirming that, and then also Erie did suggest other BMPs or COAs in their presentation that I did not hear in your motion other than “best efforts” in regard to October 2027. Then my understanding is your motion does not include the other requested conditions Erie had.
Commissioner Cross: My motion would not. I think with respect to the agreements recognized, I think as discussed, I think that’s something that can be worked out in litigation. And then also with respect to the rulemaking, I did not want to include that in there, but that’s why I wanted to make sure that I noted it is something that the commission is already taking under advisement and working on.
AG Davenport: Thank you Mr. Chair, those are my clarifying questions on the motion. And of course, Miss Fulcher just popped up so…
Ms Fulcher: Thank you Chair. I just wanted to clarify that slide 30, which the commission is considering adding to its motion, does contain a summary of the requested BMPs that Mr. Frank was referring to, and that would be the soil gas surveys and the transportation impact analysis. So we are committing to that and that would be a BMP as well.
AG Davenport: I apologize, Mr. Chair, may I make comment? I was focused on my clarifying question in Erie’s requests for COAs regarding including their agreements being included within the permit as enforceable permit conditions by ECMC. And my clarification was whether or not Commissioner Cross’s motion included those COAs specifically, and it did not, correct?
Chair Robbins: All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have further discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Messner: Thank you Chair. I will be voting against this motion, but I just want to make one point in rebuttal to Commissioner Cross’s statement. This application was not reviewed under substantial equivalency. It was actually reviewed under informed consent and so there wasn’t a showing or a determination on substantial equivalency, and so I think that’s important to point out for the record as well. So thank you.
Chair Robbins: Very good. Further discussion on the motion? All right, first all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
And then those against the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
All right, so motion carries 4 to 1, and I believe we are done with the Draco Oil and Gas Development Plan permit and its application. Thank you to staff once again for the behind-the-scenes work that happens to get us to a place where we’re able to make some considerations here.