Today, I'm going to continue on my self-study summary of the Dominant/Servient Estate Theory as covered in the Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Second Edition.
The authors note that generally, the mineral owner's rights are established at the time of severance. This means that a landowner who severs the mineral estate from the surface must thereafter consider the mineral estate when they are developing the surface - you can't harm or destroy the minerals. Likewise, you can't subdivide the surface and put in covenants that limit or prevent the development of oil, gas, or other minerals in such a manner that deprives the mineral owner of their rights. This is also the case for subsequent purchasers of the surface estate, who then take their parcels/tracts subject to the mineral owner's pre-existing rights. The authors note, and in drafting Oil and Gas Title Opinions, this is where we would most often see this come up, that the mineral owner's implied rights of surface use are not affected by subdivision deed restrictions which might limit the use of the lots for residential purposes only. Finally, the authors note that a grantor who reserves the minerals and the right to use all the subsurface water for oil and gas exploration and production are not affected by surface subdivisions.
In the next paragraph, the Authors note that unless it's expanded by subsequent agreement, the rights of surface and subsurface use imbued on the mineral estate are limited to the surface estate from which it is severed. This is to say that if I own the minerals under Blackacre and the minerals under Whiteacre, I cannot use the surface of Blackacre to develop the minerals under Whiteacre without a separate agreement with the surface owner(s) of Blackacre. The text lists the disposal of salt water - you can inject salt water beneath the leased premises, but not for water from wells off the lease. The text does list an apparent exception.
Pooling or unitizing provides a different issue, and one which the authors address quite well.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
The Dominant/Servient Estate Theory, Part 1
This is the first subsection to the Rights of Surface and Subsurface use section of Chapter 2 in Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Section 2.
When we look at the mineral fee ownership and the different rights, one of the rights we briefly mentioned in our last post was the implied right to use the surface in ways necessary to carry out oil and gas production operations. As an aside, I have seen numerous deeds where there has been a severance of the mineral estate but the mineral owner has waived their right to enter on the land - keep an eye out for this on your conveyances. It should be elementary to conclude that entering on the surface in order to carry out exploration, drilling, producing, transporting and marketing operations could in many circumstances result in interfering with the right of the surface owner to use the surface. How to deal with that - first we have to determine which estate is dominant. In Texas, we have case law that has established the mineral fee as the dominant estate, and the text cites numerous cases on point (I will limit my reference herein to Vest v. Exxon Corp., 752 F.2d 959 [5th Cir. 1985]). This means that the mineral fee owner can actually enjoin actions by the surface owner or lessee that interfered with reasonable use, operation and development of the mineral estate (again, more case references here - see the text for the particular cases). The text also discusses the historical chain of the doctrine that established the mineral estate as dominant back to the Kingdom of Spain, where Spanish law held all minerals were owned by the sovereign, and he necessarily had the right to use the surface of privately owned land for mining purposes.
The implied right to use the surface includes several activities that are often exercised by a company that has executed an oil and gas lease with the mineral owner. This includes conducting seismic tests (I can't remember but I think I saw an episode of Psych where the guys came across seismic testing equipment - maybe it was Monk?), building storage tanks, building roads (to get to the drillsite), and using the landowner's water for drilling and secondary recovery operations (secondary recovery includes adding pressure to the minerals subsurface to push more of them to the wellbore for production).
We will cover more of this subject on another post.
When we look at the mineral fee ownership and the different rights, one of the rights we briefly mentioned in our last post was the implied right to use the surface in ways necessary to carry out oil and gas production operations. As an aside, I have seen numerous deeds where there has been a severance of the mineral estate but the mineral owner has waived their right to enter on the land - keep an eye out for this on your conveyances. It should be elementary to conclude that entering on the surface in order to carry out exploration, drilling, producing, transporting and marketing operations could in many circumstances result in interfering with the right of the surface owner to use the surface. How to deal with that - first we have to determine which estate is dominant. In Texas, we have case law that has established the mineral fee as the dominant estate, and the text cites numerous cases on point (I will limit my reference herein to Vest v. Exxon Corp., 752 F.2d 959 [5th Cir. 1985]). This means that the mineral fee owner can actually enjoin actions by the surface owner or lessee that interfered with reasonable use, operation and development of the mineral estate (again, more case references here - see the text for the particular cases). The text also discusses the historical chain of the doctrine that established the mineral estate as dominant back to the Kingdom of Spain, where Spanish law held all minerals were owned by the sovereign, and he necessarily had the right to use the surface of privately owned land for mining purposes.
The implied right to use the surface includes several activities that are often exercised by a company that has executed an oil and gas lease with the mineral owner. This includes conducting seismic tests (I can't remember but I think I saw an episode of Psych where the guys came across seismic testing equipment - maybe it was Monk?), building storage tanks, building roads (to get to the drillsite), and using the landowner's water for drilling and secondary recovery operations (secondary recovery includes adding pressure to the minerals subsurface to push more of them to the wellbore for production).
We will cover more of this subject on another post.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Attributes of the Mineral Estate
Here in Texas, the state Supreme Court has attributed five "essential attributes" that imbue to the ownership of a severed mineral estate, including (1) the right to develop, (2) the right to lease, (3) the right to receive bonus payments, (4) the right to receive delay rentals, and (5) the right to receive royalty payments.
The text of Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Second Edition then suggests that it might help to understand these attributes might be better understood by separating them into two types of of actions that a mineral fee owner might take. The right to develop, which would include exploring, drilling, producing, transporting, storing, and marketing, as well as the implied right to use the surface in ways necessary to carry out said operations and the right to authorize others to do so.
The remaining attributes would result from a transaction whereby the mineral fee owner grants the aforementioned rights to a mineral company (usually through what's called an "oil and gas lease"). The right to lease, listed second above, would also be referred to as the "Executive right," while the bonus (usually a lump sum payment on the execution date of the lease as consideration for transferring the right to develop), delay rentals (periodic payments for the right to defer drilling), and royalties (a right to a stated fraction or percentage of the value produced without any deduction for costs) are financial benefits that the lease usually provides to the executive right holder.
Now, it's possible to have a lease situation where the parties have divided ownership of the mineral fee. As an example, the text describes a situation where one person might share the lease royalty, but not the bonus or delay rentals, and then states that the situation in question would require a determination as to where another benefit (atypical) is a royalty. Of course, the parties could always agree to a different arrangement.
Moreover, it's important to note that a mineral owner is not required to choose only between choosing to lease or choosing to develop. Other options, such as participating in a Joint Operating Agreement (for example), are available to the mineral fee owner as well.
There is more to this particular section, please read the text itself for a more thorough understanding - as I've mentioned before, this is more as a study aid for my personal benefit while buffering my knowledge base.
The text of Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Second Edition then suggests that it might help to understand these attributes might be better understood by separating them into two types of of actions that a mineral fee owner might take. The right to develop, which would include exploring, drilling, producing, transporting, storing, and marketing, as well as the implied right to use the surface in ways necessary to carry out said operations and the right to authorize others to do so.
The remaining attributes would result from a transaction whereby the mineral fee owner grants the aforementioned rights to a mineral company (usually through what's called an "oil and gas lease"). The right to lease, listed second above, would also be referred to as the "Executive right," while the bonus (usually a lump sum payment on the execution date of the lease as consideration for transferring the right to develop), delay rentals (periodic payments for the right to defer drilling), and royalties (a right to a stated fraction or percentage of the value produced without any deduction for costs) are financial benefits that the lease usually provides to the executive right holder.
Now, it's possible to have a lease situation where the parties have divided ownership of the mineral fee. As an example, the text describes a situation where one person might share the lease royalty, but not the bonus or delay rentals, and then states that the situation in question would require a determination as to where another benefit (atypical) is a royalty. Of course, the parties could always agree to a different arrangement.
Moreover, it's important to note that a mineral owner is not required to choose only between choosing to lease or choosing to develop. Other options, such as participating in a Joint Operating Agreement (for example), are available to the mineral fee owner as well.
There is more to this particular section, please read the text itself for a more thorough understanding - as I've mentioned before, this is more as a study aid for my personal benefit while buffering my knowledge base.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
More on Adverse Possession
I've already started a summary of the Texas Law of Oil and Gas Second Edition's section on Adverse Possession. This post will be a continuation of that summary.
One thing to consider with regard to a severance vis a vis the statute of limitations is that the severance *must* occur prior to the claimant's entry onto the surface. Put another way - an adverse claimant who takes possession of a tract of land that is not severed takes possession of the entire tract (the surface and the minerals). A subsequent severance would be subject to that possession and would require the ouster of the claimant. The authors note a limited exception where the owner conveys the surface estate to the adverse possessor by a deed wherein he reserves the mineral interest.
The next section of the text then discusses Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., where the court held that when there's a purported severance by a person who doesn't held good title the subsequent occupancy/entry of the surface will not affect the title of the mineral estate. Please note that the court here was dealing with a claim under the 5 year statute of limitations. On the other hand - a severance completed by the adverse claimant who maintains the surface "has no more effect on the running of the statute of limitations than a severance by a true owner after an adverse entry takes place." (see Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Page 2-7). The text also notes that the most common cases involve oil and gas leases that the adverse claimant who occupies the surface. So, if you adversely claim a tract, and then execute an oil and gas lease, you need the continued surface occupancy to benefit the mineral estate. The opposite has been held to be true, as well, where an adverse possessor who conveyed the surface and reserved the minerals - where there is a continuous surface occupancy by the grantee, the limitation title to the mineral estate is ripened.
Now, you can acquire title to a mineral estate through adverse possession where the estate's been severed, however, according to Blocker v. Davis (241 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1951, write ref'd n.r.e.), "such a dominion exercised over said minerals as would have become notice to owners of the mineral estate" must be exercised. This would probably include drilling followed by production (continuous) of minerals over the severed estate. The text also provides other examples - check the book for those.
The text also discusses claims to limitation title by a lessee that remained in possession and continued to produce after the lease terminated because of a period of Non-production, e.g. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Pool (124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003), but it's best to read this on your own, as well... particularly given the length of this post already.
Next time, we'll get into section 2.1[A][1]b - Attributes of the Mineral Estate
One thing to consider with regard to a severance vis a vis the statute of limitations is that the severance *must* occur prior to the claimant's entry onto the surface. Put another way - an adverse claimant who takes possession of a tract of land that is not severed takes possession of the entire tract (the surface and the minerals). A subsequent severance would be subject to that possession and would require the ouster of the claimant. The authors note a limited exception where the owner conveys the surface estate to the adverse possessor by a deed wherein he reserves the mineral interest.
The next section of the text then discusses Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., where the court held that when there's a purported severance by a person who doesn't held good title the subsequent occupancy/entry of the surface will not affect the title of the mineral estate. Please note that the court here was dealing with a claim under the 5 year statute of limitations. On the other hand - a severance completed by the adverse claimant who maintains the surface "has no more effect on the running of the statute of limitations than a severance by a true owner after an adverse entry takes place." (see Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Page 2-7). The text also notes that the most common cases involve oil and gas leases that the adverse claimant who occupies the surface. So, if you adversely claim a tract, and then execute an oil and gas lease, you need the continued surface occupancy to benefit the mineral estate. The opposite has been held to be true, as well, where an adverse possessor who conveyed the surface and reserved the minerals - where there is a continuous surface occupancy by the grantee, the limitation title to the mineral estate is ripened.
Now, you can acquire title to a mineral estate through adverse possession where the estate's been severed, however, according to Blocker v. Davis (241 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1951, write ref'd n.r.e.), "such a dominion exercised over said minerals as would have become notice to owners of the mineral estate" must be exercised. This would probably include drilling followed by production (continuous) of minerals over the severed estate. The text also provides other examples - check the book for those.
The text also discusses claims to limitation title by a lessee that remained in possession and continued to produce after the lease terminated because of a period of Non-production, e.g. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Pool (124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003), but it's best to read this on your own, as well... particularly given the length of this post already.
Next time, we'll get into section 2.1[A][1]b - Attributes of the Mineral Estate
Friday, April 12, 2013
Texas Oil and Gas Law - Adverse Possession, Part 1
It's been a while, but we're back. The last time we spoke, we discussed the mineral estate generally. Today, we will go over the concept of Adverse Possession with regard to the mineral estate.
When the surface estate and the mineral estate are jointly owned (i.e. there has been no severance), then adverse possession extends to the minerals underneath. In other words, if you acquire title to the surface estate through limitation title, then you also get the mineral estate (the whole bundle of sticks).
Now, when we talk about adverse possession with respect to the mineral estate, the first issue that must be addressed is when the severance occurred, as well as whether the severance was a total severance or a partial severance.
Let's tackle the easiest portion first - if the mineral estate was completely (100%) severed from the surface estate prior to the first date of occupation of the surface by the claimant, then the claimant cannot acquire any interest in the mineral estate. This is logical, as the mineral owner's estate is separate and distinct from the surface.
Now, if there was a partial severance, which has been known to happen, then the adverse possessor would be able to gain limitation title to the portion reserved (i.e. the non-severed portion).
The authors of Texas Law of Oil and Gas note that a surface owner in possession is in no better position than an adverse possessor. The state has had several cases where the surface owner has asserted limitation title to the mineral based on continuous surface occupancy that did not reserve the mineral severance (and based on tax payments), the state has noted that even where the instrument that separate the surface and the mineral rights was not recorded, possession of the surface under a chain of title that contains a mineral severance cannot be adverse to the mineral estate.
We will continue with Adverse Possession on another post.
When the surface estate and the mineral estate are jointly owned (i.e. there has been no severance), then adverse possession extends to the minerals underneath. In other words, if you acquire title to the surface estate through limitation title, then you also get the mineral estate (the whole bundle of sticks).
Now, when we talk about adverse possession with respect to the mineral estate, the first issue that must be addressed is when the severance occurred, as well as whether the severance was a total severance or a partial severance.
Let's tackle the easiest portion first - if the mineral estate was completely (100%) severed from the surface estate prior to the first date of occupation of the surface by the claimant, then the claimant cannot acquire any interest in the mineral estate. This is logical, as the mineral owner's estate is separate and distinct from the surface.
Now, if there was a partial severance, which has been known to happen, then the adverse possessor would be able to gain limitation title to the portion reserved (i.e. the non-severed portion).
The authors of Texas Law of Oil and Gas note that a surface owner in possession is in no better position than an adverse possessor. The state has had several cases where the surface owner has asserted limitation title to the mineral based on continuous surface occupancy that did not reserve the mineral severance (and based on tax payments), the state has noted that even where the instrument that separate the surface and the mineral rights was not recorded, possession of the surface under a chain of title that contains a mineral severance cannot be adverse to the mineral estate.
We will continue with Adverse Possession on another post.
Monday, April 01, 2013
The Mineral Estate
Once a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate on a tract of land, that mineral estate becomes a fee simple estate in and of itself. This means that it's not subject to abandonment and also receives, as the authors of Texas Law of Oil and Gas Second Edition note, the benefit of the doctrine of accretion (the gradual buildup of land from water). Moreover, you can receive ad valorum taxes separate from what's imposed on the surface estate and contracts regarding the mineral estate must comply with the Statute of Frauds, et al.
Because it's a fee estate, the owner of the mineral rights has the same basic rights that any other fee owner has, including the right to use, convey, and dispose of the property, as well as creating lesser estates (such as a Life Estate).
Adverse Possession is the next section, but it takes up a decent amount of space, so I'll address that another time.
Because it's a fee estate, the owner of the mineral rights has the same basic rights that any other fee owner has, including the right to use, convey, and dispose of the property, as well as creating lesser estates (such as a Life Estate).
Adverse Possession is the next section, but it takes up a decent amount of space, so I'll address that another time.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The Legas Effect of a Severance
Today we enter into Chapter 2 of Texas Law of Oil and Gas. The first section of Chapter 2 is "The Mienral Estate and The Surface Estate.
When we look at general property law in Texas, from the time of Patent, the owner of the land owns the oil, gas and other minerals below the surface in Fee Simple (the authors cite Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 107 Tex. 226, 176 S.W. 717). It is, however, possible to sever the ownership interest between the surface and the oil, gas and other minerals. The most often means of doing so is via a mineral reservation in a deed, however, it's also possible for there to be a conveyance of the oil, gas and other minerals via deed or other conveyance.
There are legal consequences and other considerations involved in a severed estate. For example, the authors cite Glasscock Underground Water Conservation District v. Pruit (915 S.W.2d 577 - Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, n.w.h.), where surface owners claimed that their having joined a water conservation district bound the owners of the severed mineral estate to... annex the land described in (a petition) be annexed into the Glasscock Underground Water Conservation District. However, the court held that the owners of the mineral estates held equal right to use, dispose and tax the water. The conclusion reached by the court was that the surface owner also owns the water beneath his land, so he can entrust exclusive jurisdiction of it tot he district he chooses to join, howeve,r the subsurface water owner does not have the exclusive right to use. The owner of the dominant mienral estate has a right to use water belonging to the surface estate for various exploration and development purposes (this would be a part of the bundle of sticks included in the mineral estate), and only if the owners of the mineral estates remain in the Santa Rita Water District and began withdrawing water for secondary recovery would there be the need for conflicting assertions of jurisdiction and regulation. This sounds to me a bit as if the court punted on the issue, but that's what the conclusion is.
Tune in next time when we delve into the Mineral Estate.
When we look at general property law in Texas, from the time of Patent, the owner of the land owns the oil, gas and other minerals below the surface in Fee Simple (the authors cite Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 107 Tex. 226, 176 S.W. 717). It is, however, possible to sever the ownership interest between the surface and the oil, gas and other minerals. The most often means of doing so is via a mineral reservation in a deed, however, it's also possible for there to be a conveyance of the oil, gas and other minerals via deed or other conveyance.
There are legal consequences and other considerations involved in a severed estate. For example, the authors cite Glasscock Underground Water Conservation District v. Pruit (915 S.W.2d 577 - Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, n.w.h.), where surface owners claimed that their having joined a water conservation district bound the owners of the severed mineral estate to... annex the land described in (a petition) be annexed into the Glasscock Underground Water Conservation District. However, the court held that the owners of the mineral estates held equal right to use, dispose and tax the water. The conclusion reached by the court was that the surface owner also owns the water beneath his land, so he can entrust exclusive jurisdiction of it tot he district he chooses to join, howeve,r the subsurface water owner does not have the exclusive right to use. The owner of the dominant mienral estate has a right to use water belonging to the surface estate for various exploration and development purposes (this would be a part of the bundle of sticks included in the mineral estate), and only if the owners of the mineral estates remain in the Santa Rita Water District and began withdrawing water for secondary recovery would there be the need for conflicting assertions of jurisdiction and regulation. This sounds to me a bit as if the court punted on the issue, but that's what the conclusion is.
Tune in next time when we delve into the Mineral Estate.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Cycling Operations
I'm going to start today's post with a word for word restatement of the first sentence in the Cycling Operations section of Texas Law of Oil and Gas, Second Edition (by Ernest E. Smith and Jacqueline Lang Weaver):
From an operational standpoint cycling operations are somewhat similar to pressure maintenance and, like pressure maintenance, are typically undertaken early in the life of a reservoir.
Companies use cycling when we have reservoirs with both condensate ("wet gas") and law-condensate gas ("dry gas") - note this is a very cursory overview of the difference between wet and dry gas. For a better description, look here. If the operator allows the internal pressure of a reservoir to decline too much, then the heavier hydrocarbons could liquefy, which would make them unrecoverable. In order to help prevent this from happening, companies will produce the wet gas, take out the heavy hydrocarbons, and then re-inject the dry gas left over back into the reservoir to help maintain pressure, and push the remaining wet gas toward the wells which allows for a longer life of the reservoir.
The authors note that a loss of title case for cycling operations is not as strong as that for pressure maintenance. Chemically, dry gas is different than wet gas, so one can argue an earlier in time reduction to possession. Additionally, the authors report that there is often some expectation that the dry gas will be produced at a later time (this would be part of why they participate in cycling operations).
There is still a problem inherent in injecting dry gas into a reservoir with multiple operators with multiple producing wells.
The authors cite Corzelius v. Harrell (Tex. 509, 186 S. W. 2d, 961) as a related, though not on point, case - where the courts and the parties appeared to assume that the rule of capture applied to reinjected dry gas.
That's the end of Chapter 1. Next time, we'll move on to Chapter 2 - Types of Interests.
From an operational standpoint cycling operations are somewhat similar to pressure maintenance and, like pressure maintenance, are typically undertaken early in the life of a reservoir.
Companies use cycling when we have reservoirs with both condensate ("wet gas") and law-condensate gas ("dry gas") - note this is a very cursory overview of the difference between wet and dry gas. For a better description, look here. If the operator allows the internal pressure of a reservoir to decline too much, then the heavier hydrocarbons could liquefy, which would make them unrecoverable. In order to help prevent this from happening, companies will produce the wet gas, take out the heavy hydrocarbons, and then re-inject the dry gas left over back into the reservoir to help maintain pressure, and push the remaining wet gas toward the wells which allows for a longer life of the reservoir.
The authors note that a loss of title case for cycling operations is not as strong as that for pressure maintenance. Chemically, dry gas is different than wet gas, so one can argue an earlier in time reduction to possession. Additionally, the authors report that there is often some expectation that the dry gas will be produced at a later time (this would be part of why they participate in cycling operations).
There is still a problem inherent in injecting dry gas into a reservoir with multiple operators with multiple producing wells.
The authors cite Corzelius v. Harrell (Tex. 509, 186 S. W. 2d, 961) as a related, though not on point, case - where the courts and the parties appeared to assume that the rule of capture applied to reinjected dry gas.
That's the end of Chapter 1. Next time, we'll move on to Chapter 2 - Types of Interests.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Pressure Maintenance
Well, it's been a while since I've done a post on Oil and Gas Law, but that's changing now.
When last we spoke on the subject, we discussed Gas Storage. Today, we're going to address a related subject, Pressure Maintenance.
One of the ways of storing gas is through injecting gas into a producing reservoir. Essentially, what you're doing is increasing the efficiency and lengthening the life of an oil reservoir spurred by solution gas expansion or from a "gas-cap drive." (the authors of the Book link to Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann Sec. 91.176). They do this by removing gas that has been produced with the oil and then they will re-inject it at various places in the oil reservoir. to help keep up the pressure that produces the oil.
Inasmuch as gas and oil migrate, there is no way to ensure that the gas that is re-injected will not end up moving to other parts of the oil reservoir and then be produced by other companies who might hold a lease on a different spot. The question that would arise when it's re-produced would be, "who owns it?" As of the time of printing of Texas Law of Oil and Gas (second edition), there has not been a Texas case on point - the authors note that this is native gas withdrawn and replaced, citing the correlations to the wild animal theory. Additionally, gas withdrawn for reinjection is done so expressly not for future withdrawal, but to make the efficient production of oil last longer.
The authors cite a couple cases related to the subject that differentiate between a true pressure maintenance situation where multiple parties own leases in a reservoir and where only one does, as well as reinjection into a depleted gas reservoir for storage, but the crux of the matter is, while not decided as a matter of law, ownership of native gas that has been reinjected for the purpose of prolonging production of an oil well would belong to the subsequent producer of said gas.
When last we spoke on the subject, we discussed Gas Storage. Today, we're going to address a related subject, Pressure Maintenance.
One of the ways of storing gas is through injecting gas into a producing reservoir. Essentially, what you're doing is increasing the efficiency and lengthening the life of an oil reservoir spurred by solution gas expansion or from a "gas-cap drive." (the authors of the Book link to Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann Sec. 91.176). They do this by removing gas that has been produced with the oil and then they will re-inject it at various places in the oil reservoir. to help keep up the pressure that produces the oil.
Inasmuch as gas and oil migrate, there is no way to ensure that the gas that is re-injected will not end up moving to other parts of the oil reservoir and then be produced by other companies who might hold a lease on a different spot. The question that would arise when it's re-produced would be, "who owns it?" As of the time of printing of Texas Law of Oil and Gas (second edition), there has not been a Texas case on point - the authors note that this is native gas withdrawn and replaced, citing the correlations to the wild animal theory. Additionally, gas withdrawn for reinjection is done so expressly not for future withdrawal, but to make the efficient production of oil last longer.
The authors cite a couple cases related to the subject that differentiate between a true pressure maintenance situation where multiple parties own leases in a reservoir and where only one does, as well as reinjection into a depleted gas reservoir for storage, but the crux of the matter is, while not decided as a matter of law, ownership of native gas that has been reinjected for the purpose of prolonging production of an oil well would belong to the subsequent producer of said gas.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Cruisin'
Okay, home and rested!
So, this was my first ever cruise, and I chose to go with the whole family, as well as with my father and step-mother. We had fun.
Because it was our first cruise, and because there were so many of us going, we decided to go with Carnival, as it provided the best value and the timing was best suited for when we wanted to sail. If you decide to go, check multiple lines (I looked at Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian, the latter of which did not have anything in the Western Caribbean, at least not in the time frames we were sailing), and different departure ports. I was able to save about $800 by driving to New Orleans for our embarkation as opposed to the same cruise out of Galveston one day earlier. Even factoring in gas, lodging, and meals, that was still over $500 less that we had to pay.
The cruise ship itself sort of felt aged, decor-wise, but it was about 15-20 years old, so that seems reasonable. I would say the food was decent to fair; not outstanding, but with Carnival, I was not expecting 5 star dining. I did buy the soda card, which was about $35 for me and $25 for my son - this gave us unlimited soft drinks on the boat (normally $4 a glass), but I drink soda pretty regularly, so I made out ahead by going this route.
Alcohol is not cheap, but there's so much to do that finding time to have more than one or two glasses would take real effort.
There is plenty to do on the cruise ship, yet at the same time, we found plenty of time where we were trying to figure out what to do "now." We're not young, and I'm not exactly in beach shape, so hanging out by the pool trying to tan was not really in the cards for me - mental note, I need to drop about 25 lbs before my next cruise.
The shore excursions were pretty cool - we saw some Mayan ruins (Dzibilchaltun), which were impressive, and we hired a private driver for our tour of Cozumel, which was definitely money well spent. We took a tour of a tequila factory as well as a chocolateria, where the kids got to grind their own cocoa beans for hot chocolate. Definitely a good things for youngsters.
On the cruise, there are kid's areas - Camp carnival for kids up to age 11, Circle C for ages 12-14, and O2 for 15-17. These areas are full of fun activities for the kids, but there are limits on the hours of operation - I think we managed about 2-3 hours at a time with the kids in these areas. My 14 year old more or less just had run of the ship, but the other two we kept closer tabs on. There were some kids who were just left to fend for themselves, and in my opinion, shouldn't have been, but that's a different story. All in all, we had a great time.
One thing we did on the ship was a wine tasting/pairing, which was really good.
Now, Carnival ships have had a rough go of it lately, with Costa Concordia, Triumph, Dream, and Legend each having varying degrees of calamities strike. Unfortunately, our ship also had some problems, however, nothing so severe as to prevent us from getting to and from the various ports safely. We had an issue with steering due to a malfunction on the starboard azimuth (I don't know what it does, but it apparently affects steering), which required a technician to be flown in to Progreso to work on during our shore excursion.
We really enjoyed our cruise, and I would be more than happy to do another one. I have already tentatively started trying to plan a family cruise for Summer 2014, hopefully somewhere new - maybe Jamaica and Grand Cayman, or, if I could swing it, the Mediterranean. If you decide to take a cruise, sailing to Progreso and Yucatan is an absolutely great first cruise.
Sorry I went on so long, but once I started recapping the cruise, I couldn't find a good place to stop - there's a lot more to share, but this covers the basics pretty well.
So, this was my first ever cruise, and I chose to go with the whole family, as well as with my father and step-mother. We had fun.
Because it was our first cruise, and because there were so many of us going, we decided to go with Carnival, as it provided the best value and the timing was best suited for when we wanted to sail. If you decide to go, check multiple lines (I looked at Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian, the latter of which did not have anything in the Western Caribbean, at least not in the time frames we were sailing), and different departure ports. I was able to save about $800 by driving to New Orleans for our embarkation as opposed to the same cruise out of Galveston one day earlier. Even factoring in gas, lodging, and meals, that was still over $500 less that we had to pay.
The cruise ship itself sort of felt aged, decor-wise, but it was about 15-20 years old, so that seems reasonable. I would say the food was decent to fair; not outstanding, but with Carnival, I was not expecting 5 star dining. I did buy the soda card, which was about $35 for me and $25 for my son - this gave us unlimited soft drinks on the boat (normally $4 a glass), but I drink soda pretty regularly, so I made out ahead by going this route.
Alcohol is not cheap, but there's so much to do that finding time to have more than one or two glasses would take real effort.
There is plenty to do on the cruise ship, yet at the same time, we found plenty of time where we were trying to figure out what to do "now." We're not young, and I'm not exactly in beach shape, so hanging out by the pool trying to tan was not really in the cards for me - mental note, I need to drop about 25 lbs before my next cruise.
The shore excursions were pretty cool - we saw some Mayan ruins (Dzibilchaltun), which were impressive, and we hired a private driver for our tour of Cozumel, which was definitely money well spent. We took a tour of a tequila factory as well as a chocolateria, where the kids got to grind their own cocoa beans for hot chocolate. Definitely a good things for youngsters.
On the cruise, there are kid's areas - Camp carnival for kids up to age 11, Circle C for ages 12-14, and O2 for 15-17. These areas are full of fun activities for the kids, but there are limits on the hours of operation - I think we managed about 2-3 hours at a time with the kids in these areas. My 14 year old more or less just had run of the ship, but the other two we kept closer tabs on. There were some kids who were just left to fend for themselves, and in my opinion, shouldn't have been, but that's a different story. All in all, we had a great time.
One thing we did on the ship was a wine tasting/pairing, which was really good.
Now, Carnival ships have had a rough go of it lately, with Costa Concordia, Triumph, Dream, and Legend each having varying degrees of calamities strike. Unfortunately, our ship also had some problems, however, nothing so severe as to prevent us from getting to and from the various ports safely. We had an issue with steering due to a malfunction on the starboard azimuth (I don't know what it does, but it apparently affects steering), which required a technician to be flown in to Progreso to work on during our shore excursion.
We really enjoyed our cruise, and I would be more than happy to do another one. I have already tentatively started trying to plan a family cruise for Summer 2014, hopefully somewhere new - maybe Jamaica and Grand Cayman, or, if I could swing it, the Mediterranean. If you decide to take a cruise, sailing to Progreso and Yucatan is an absolutely great first cruise.
Sorry I went on so long, but once I started recapping the cruise, I couldn't find a good place to stop - there's a lot more to share, but this covers the basics pretty well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)