The Energy and Carbon Management Commission heard a central property‑rights argument from Maverick Mineral Partners on Nov. 21: the company said Crestone’s amended Lowry Ranch cap excluded Maverick leases in the south half of Section 18 and that proposed development will drain those minerals without compensation.

Kevin Harringer, an independent leaser and Maverick witness, told the commission his firm’s leasehold in the ‘south half, south half, south half’ of Section 18 contains roughly 59 net acres that were originally inside the Lowry Ranch cap. He said Crestone’s amended cap left “a donut hole” that excluded 90% of Maverick’s leasehold from the proposed Sunlight Long DSU, and he asked the commission to remedy the exclusion by either expanding the DSU or splitting the proposed unit into separate east and west DSUs.

Petroleum engineer Thomas Smith presented empirical parent‑child comparisons from local pads and testified those data show depletion and performance differences consistent with drainage traveling more than 1,000 feet in Watkins. He criticized the use of copy‑and‑paste volumetric parameters across multiple applications and said production‑based parent‑child studies better reflect real reservoir responses. “Volumetric analysis is a model based on unmeasured assumptions and questionable input... This is the wrong tool and method for the job at hand,” Smith said in his testimony.

Maverick proposed two straightforward remedies: a 660‑foot expansion to include the 80‑acre tract claimed as Maverick’s, or splitting the Sunlight Long unit so operators drill east‑ and west‑facing laterals from separate DSUs. Maverick’s counsel said the inclusion would allow the firm to pay its pro‑rata share of development costs and receive proportional production revenues rather than have production credited to other owners.

Civitas/Crestone witnesses disputed the claims and defended their engineering evidence showing shorter perpendicular drainage estimates (200–300 feet) and noted practical constraints — lease terms, surface‑occupancy clauses and regulatory setbacks — that shaped pad siting. The commission paused the matter and will continue evidence on Nov. 25.