Below is a transcript of Commissioner Ackerman’s testimony during the March 26, 2025 deliberations on the Draco Oil & Gas Development Plan (OGDP). Please excuse any transcription errors.
Commissioner Ackerman: I appreciate my fellow Commissioners and their thoughts. I appreciate all the significant efforts on all sides, as has been expressed by others on this application. I particularly appreciate the thoughtful consideration of local jurisdictions, the staff, the director, and my fellow Commissioners.
I’ll be relatively brief as well. This application is a good illustration of why our deliberative process is so important to addressing ECMC’s mission, which is really simple to understand but complex to execute: protecting public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. That’s the purpose of the Act, and the method of executing that is generally promulgating and enforcing rules pursuant to that mission.
Nonetheless, all potential issues, situations, and complications can’t be included in regulations, hence the need for deliberative processes such as the one we’ve undertaken over the last several months on this application. I elaborated on a number of points in the previous hearing that I won’t repeat today, but that still stand in my mind.
I just want to focus on my primary issue from that hearing. I also thought this was a high-quality application on its face, as far as best management practices and operations. I voiced at the time that my reason for advocating for a stay on this application was simply pending further discussion with the town of Erie.
Erie residents are the primary impacted populace of this development. The town of Erie at that time voiced concerns about its lack of opportunity for discussions and consideration as the proximate local government, especially regarding alternative location number four, which is within the town of Erie. If selected, this would have made Erie the relevant local government with significant permitting control.
In my opinion, local governments are generally in the best position to evaluate and recommend placement of land use developments. Local government officials are the primary government officials charged with implementing the will of their specific residents, generally preferential to the will of the state as a whole, which is a component of our charge. As Erie residents were the primary impacted populace, I wanted to ensure that Erie had ample opportunity to propose and discuss sites with Extraction that were within Erie’s jurisdiction, particularly given some of the concerns they expressed at the last hearing.
As per testimony today, opportunity for that further discussion and analysis has taken place, and I believe Extraction made a significant effort to coordinate further with the town. It’s my understanding, as I think Commissioner Messer voiced as well, that that process did not result in any strong advocacy from Erie for moving forward with a process that would move the location within Erie’s jurisdiction in alternative location number four or elsewhere.
We did hear about potential significant opportunity for violation associated with runoff events and other concerns associated with alternative location number four or 4.1. I specifically heard, and did not hear refuted, that Erie did not prefer any other site over the proposed Draco pad site.
What I did hear pursuant to those discussions was that Erie proposed a path forward today that worked for them. That was to develop the proposed Draco pad with three stipulations:
- Comply with all agreements and permits, including the mitigation agreement.
- Address the previously abandoned well sites survey and actions through the agreement. My understanding is that Extraction is complying with those.
- As stated by Mr. Frank, most importantly, a limit on pre-production without exception for no later than October 15, 2027, for the completion of pre-production activities.
I think Extraction’s plan largely complies with these stipulations. I think it’s reasonable to extend that timeline a bit given the lengthy application process and agreement with the developer, given our stay on this issue, and given Extraction’s assertion that today’s hearing is the first time the operator has heard of that timeline.
To me, this stay resulted in an extended process that afforded the proximate local government, the town of Erie, significant opportunity to advocate for assuming more operational permitting control through advocating for consideration of alternative location number four, setting forth a consideration for some other site within their jurisdiction. Once again, I think this is appropriate since Erie residents are those that are to be impacted most likely, and Erie actively and decidedly opted not to advocate for that role.
As such, my primary concern from the previous hearing has been addressed. I’m satisfied that this OGP is compliant with ECMC rules and processes. That said, I continue to strongly advocate, and I believe it was Commissioner Massner that brought this up previously, for neighboring jurisdictions to discuss Good Neighbor agreements that would address these types of multi-jurisdictional issues. This would give them an advantage in moving forward hand in hand where boundaries are in play, working together to be more in line when it comes to what the relevant local government and proximate local government are advocating for.
That said, Commissioners and Mr. Chair, I intend to vote in favor of this.