Running along

I've not made many posts, recently, but I can say that, after my first half marathon, I chose, for some reason, to sign up for the Woodlands half marathon at the end of February. 

Actually, I do know the reason - my friend signed up, and I told him that if he were to sign up, then I would, as well. 

The weather was cold - 38 degrees at the outset.  Not my favorite temperature for starting.  It was a good run, though.  I found the 2 hour pace group and stuck right behind or even with them for the first 12 miles, even managing to chat with a few folks here and there. 

As we got back to where the corrals were placed, I heard one of the pacers state that we had about 6 minutes left to run, at which point, I started to increase my speed.  I can't say that I sprinted, as there's really no such thing as a sprint in my legs after 12 miles, but I definitely sped up.  I don't know how far ahead of the pace group I was, but I finished at 1:58:50, which was about 3.5 minutes faster than my time at the Galveston half marathon. 

I don't really do pictures, so you will have to take my word for it, but, rest assured, I felt good, if chilly, afterwards.

Half Run

And, after 4 months of training, I found myself at the starting line of the Galveston Half Marathon.

I'm still not very comfortable referring to myself as a "runner," but I did manage to run the full half marathon.  I did feel for the guys and gals who were running the full marathon, as they still had another lap around the course. 

13 miles is a long, long way to run.  I started off well, running between 8:30 and 9:00 for the first 6-7 miles.  Then I started to get tired.  I got slower and slower throughout the run, which is unfortunate, as I was about 2 and a quarter minutes shy of the pace I'd hoped to complete the half marathon.  I don't have the results available yet, but my app on my phone indicates that I finished somewhere around 2:02. 

The route was nice.  You turn the corner, go up a little bit near the Pleasure Pier (which just sounds like something from Pinocchio to me), turn right and you're on the seawall. Running on the seawall was gorgeous - you can't be any closer to the beach, and there's hardly anyone out in the water. you run along the seawall for a mile or so, then do a short turnaround and head back for a few miles before you go up a small incline and through some resorty-looking area, then back around and into Galveston city again.  The meanest thing the planners did was make the stretch after the last turn like 10 city blocks. These aren't normal city blocks, though - these are industrial strength, Texas sized city blocks, to match the Texas sized last mile, which by my estimation was about 7.3 standard miles. It's rather disheartening to run block after block without seeing the finish line get any closer. But, I did keep going. I'm happy to say that I did run the entire race, and then very quickly made it to the port-o-can, because I had to go from about the 0.4 mile mark.

I think, if they were to ask my input, the one thing I'd request, not that they care, or that it might even be feasible, is that they reverse the route, so that you're running along the seawall for the last portion of the race.  That 10 block run at the end would be much less daunting at the beginning, in my opinion.

Galveston was a nice location for a half (or full, I'm sure) marathon, but I'm not sure I'm going to sign up again next year.  We'll have to see how I'm feeling.  I was really wiped by the end of this.  Part of it might have been the temperature - I'd been training between 30-50 degrees, but the run day temperature was in the mid-60s, which was less pleasant than I'd hoped, oddly. 

I do feel better now, if a little tired.
 

Running For Some Reason

So, back in October, I decided that I needed to start exercising again, as I saw my weight starting to creep upwards again.  I didn't have time to go to the gym every day, as my work has me driving about a 200 mile round trip each day, so I had to come up with a different plan.

For convenience sake, I opted to go for a quick run in the mornings before I headed out. 

Long story short, after about 2 months, I decided to sign up for a half-marathon.  I will be running the Galveston Half Marathon in about 2.5 weeks, this after buying my first pair of actual running shoes shortly after Thanksgiving. 

I'll let y'all know how it turns out.

Confounding

So after our TKD class recently, we went out for a "Staff Meeting," wherein the adult students/instructors get together at a local restaurant and chitchat about things while having drinks. 

During our meeting, one of the guys mentions that our community has a Hindu temple in it and while mentioning it, he noticeably cringed.  As he does this, I ask him, "And that is a problem?"  He at first starts to say no, but in the middle of his sentence, changes course and then expresses to me that he does have a problem, because (and I'm abridging this quite a bit) in his mind, there are two religions in this world, one which believes you are imperfect and must atone for said imperfection, and one which says you can achieve perfection through good acts, and that is the wrong one.  He then expresses to me that America was founded on religious principles, and cites, among others, "In God We Trust" on our currency as evidence.  I pointed out that it was not put on our (paper) currency until 1955 (I was mistaken, it appears to have actually been 1957), to which another one of our colleagues said I was right, but that I was also wrong - he didn't expound on how I was wrong other than to agree that the United States was founded on Christian ideals. 

The conversation then moved to the situation in Iraq and with ISIS/ISIL and why this is the end of days and why doomsday preppers are not all bad (I never said the preppers were bad, but I did say that ISIS could be compared to what might happen if our doomsday preppers decided to organize and try to push for what they believe is inevitable/right - mostly joking), but I digress.

The issue that this conversation brings for me is the notion, again, that this country is a Christian Nation, or that we exist based on Christian principles.  As to the latter, we have plenty of evidence that this nation is not a Christian Nation based on the founder's acts - notably, the Constitution, our governing document, which in its corpus makes no reference to God whatsoever, and the only mention of religion is in Article VI, Paragraph 3, which recites that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  I've already written in the past regarding Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church as well as his Letter to Levi Lincoln regarding same, as well as a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, PA.  Further, we have the Treaty of Tripoli, which includes in its body the sentence "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, —as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of (Muslims) —and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."  Unfortunately, I was unable to expound on my position, because explaining these facets requires far more time and effort that "we are a nation founded on Christian Principles" does, and it was time to get going...

I have stated before - the United States is a nation founded by Christians.  It is not, however, a Christian Nation.  This is an important distinction, and one which is lost on many people, including, perhaps, my dinner friends. 

Taekwondo Student Oath

I've noticed in the past that several Taekwondo Dojangs operate under the tenets of Taekwondo, as I referenced in a previous post.  In addition to these tenets, I've found that our school also obeys a student oath.  While there appears to be a relatively similar oath among different schools, our particular dojang works under the following five guidelines:

1: I shall observe the tents of Tae Kwon Do.
2: I shall respect the instructor and fellow students.
3: I shall never misuse Tae Kwon Do.
4: I shall be a worthy representative of Tae Kwon Do.
5: I shall strive for self-improvement and will always be eager to learn.

Of these, I find that our child students appear to have the most difficulty with number 5.  There are times where it appears as though they are simply going through the motions.  This appears to happen most often around the 5th kub (Blue Belt in our school), or about half-way to the Black Belt examination.  I personally refer to this as the doldrum stage of Taekwondo.  While it's imperative for the instructors to attempt to keep the students interested, it can be difficult to make children want to learn when it's clear they aren't.  Often times, this is where you can see which students are in class because their parents want them there (they already spent this much time, effort and money, the student must finish, *or* "my kid is going to do *x*"), as opposed to the ones who are their because they want to finish what they started, or truly enjoy what they are doing.

For my part, I usually try to really get the kids interested by showing them the utility of what they learn, as well as increasing the bag work and especially the kicking - the parts that are "fun," while still trying to direct them in the proper form/technique.

Good times.

Tenets of Taekwondo

When I first enrolled in Taekwondo back in 2001 when I arrived in San Angelo, I took classes from an instructor who may have been skilled in Taekwondo.  However, as many people no doubt have picked up over the years, skill at an activity does not equate to the ability to teach said activity (see, e.g. Thomas, Isaiah). 

When I started up with Taekwondo again back in 2012, it came as some surprise to me that the was more to the art than just learning patterns and how to defend one's self.  I learned that there were principles, a dogma, to Taekwondo - which are referred to as the "tenets" of Taekwondo.

Perhaps these tenets are not universal to all schools or forms of Taekwondo, but I've since come to find the same tenets referenced by other schools, both in ITF and WTF styles. 

The Tenets of Taekwondo, as our school teaches them, are as follows (please forgive any misspellings on the hangul, it's been over a decade since I used it with any semblance of regularity):

Ye Ui (예의) = Courtesy
Yom Chi (렴치) = Integrity
In Nae (인내) = Perseverance
Guk Gi (극기) = Self-Control
Baekjul Boolkool (백절 불 굴) = Indomitable Spirit

While our school expounds on these tenets, I will not repost what the school wrote, however, in the event there are questions as to what is meant by any particular tenet, I will be willing to share my personal take on any one or more.

On Progression of Minors in Taekwondo

Back in March, my youngest son and I both tested and achieved our first Dan (1st Degree Black Belt) at our Taekwondo school.  This was a pretty significant occasion for both of us.  My daughter will be testing for her black belt in the fall.

I will note a couple things - first, my son is 9, and he's been taking classes for about 2.5 years.  I understand that typically this is below the average time frame for promotion to a first Dan, however, it is not outside the minimum parameters found at Taekwondo-network.com.  By comparison, I started in Martial Arts in the mid-90s, and all the time I trained combined, I'd say I probably took closer to the 3 year average, though by strict calendar counting, it took me about 18.

I've read on various websites opinions by various practitioners as to whether a minor (particularly someone below the mid-teens) can accurately reach a black belt rank.  After mulling over what I've read on the matter in opposition to children attaining black belts, I think I would have to disagree with that opinion. 

The general premise from what I can gather is that minors should not be able to achieve a black belt because they cannot physically hold their own against an adult.  I believe this to be an unfair comparison.  By this measure, then one could argue that unless you can match the talents of every black belt of your Dan in a particular style, then you should not be entitled to hold said black belt. 

In one tournament I attended, one of the individuals I sparred against was in his mid-60s and had a pacemaker.  At the time, I was an 8th gup, and I believe he was 5th.  I was able to beat him pretty handily, as I was more physically capable than he was.  By extending the argument that a minor could not hold his own against an adult, one would putatively have to hold the position that my opponent that day would not be entitled to achieve his Dan, as he was not able to keep up with an (at the time) overweight, out of shape middle aged guy, so there's no way he'd have been able to keep up with a 1st degree, fit 20 year old.  I disagree with this notion.

The black belt is, as much as anything, a symbol of accomplishment - a sign that you have mastered the patterns presented and that you have an understanding of the practical application of the motions contained therein.  If we were to take a peer-based approach to the examination of this, as opposed to a mass-based approach, then it would seem to me that a minor who has mastered these concepts has indeed earned their ranking.  Withholding a Dan certificate, or arguing in favor of withholding, simply because of one's age seems more a matter of pride as opposed to any rational position, if one takes this approach. 

Another argument I've read is that children lack the mental acuity to appreciate the value/importance of a black belt.  This, again, in my opinion, is a very subjective argument.  I've seen 30-40 year olds who have less mental wherewithal than my 9 year old.  I've seen some 12-13 year olds who, if you were to tell me they ran their households, I'd have absolutely no problems believing you.  Conversely, I know multiple 20-somethings who still don't know how to write a check properly.  Age does not, simply by passing, bring wisdom or understanding.  Using mental maturity as a lodestar does not provide, to me, much of an argument against promoting minors.  If a child can show mastery of skills and a sense of respect for the benchmark he or she has achieved, it is my opinion that it would be petty to withhold said recognition based solely on one's prejudice as to mental maturity. 

Again, these are simply my opinions.  I do not profess to be "right," nor do I believe that because someone holds an opinion contrary to mine that they are "wrong."  I am merely unconvinced that theirs is the correct position. 

A little bit on Taekwondo

So, as I think I've mentioned before, I got my introduction to martial arts back in the mid 1990s at a school in the Monterey/Seaside California area, which taught Tang Soo Do.  I didn't mind the school, but had to leave after a few months owing to a PCS.

Fast forward about 4 years and I find myself in San Angelo, Texas, where I decide to resume my training at a taekwondo school in town.  Several warning flags pop up as I sign up - first, he wants a 6 month contract, second, he doesn't seem to be focusing too much on patterns, and third, in the time I went there, I don't remember ever sparring at all, though we did do several 1-step run throughs with what he referred to as "the hapkido."

I can't say with any real certainty that the instructor was a bad instructor, or that he was giving substandard training - I just know that the training he offered wasn't a match for what I sought.

Approximately 2 1/2 years ago, in an effort to get my youngest son active in something, we decide to check out the Taekwondo program at the local YMCA (my daughter was already taking Gymnastics there, and so the location was chosen out of convenience as much as anything else).  The program is a supplemented ITF program (i.e. the school studies the tul patterns as opposed to the poomse, however, the primary instructor has added several patterns that are referred to as "free spar" patterns to complement the tuls).  My son took to this like a duck to water - he appears to be a natural, at least as far as the patterns goes.  He's impatient with his sparring, though he does enjoy the sparring. 

The school does a pretty good job of combining the patterns with the sparring, though I do wish that we were able to integrate the 1-step sparring a little more, just to help with the spacing and timing training. 

Some of this is due to the scheduling difficulties inherent in training at a YMCA, as there is only room to have 3 consecutive one-hour classes twice a week. 

At any rate, I do enjoy the classes, and the kids appear to enjoy them, as well.

More on TKD later.

Tournament Post-Mortem

So, I've not competed in 3 taekwondo tournaments, with a fourth coming up next month.  The Apple completed his fourth and the Princess her third, so we are all on pace for testing for our black belts on schedule.

It does give me some concern that my school requires tournaments as a prerequisite for testing for black belt, but I do understand the utility of it.  I just wish it wasn't so expensive (6 tournaments x 3 individuals x $75 - $1350 just for the tournaments, to say nothing of the equipment or the tuition for classes, which I understand and accept), or that there were alternatives available (say, for example, a seminar or something to substitute for one or two tournaments, or something). 

At any rate.  I only did patterns this time.  I probably should have sparred, but with just me and the two childrens, I thought it best to let me miss out on the fighting so that I could get them home at a decent hour.

I've done better in tournaments, so while I'm disappointed, I'm content to know that I'm really just there this time to check a box.  One more and I can test for my black belt, and 3 more in order to get the certificate.

The Apple should be able to get his certificate when he tests in the spring, and the Princess and I should get ours when she tests in the fall.

Too Early in the Morning

But we're driving off to go show off our patterns and whatnot.

I'm a little anxious, as I am wont to be on the day of the tournament, but it's one more down, and then we are that much closer.

The kids should do well.  They are sharp, and don't seem to let the nerves get to them.

Meanderings

So we have a Taekwondo tournament coming up this weekend.  This will be my third, the Princess's third, and the Apple's fourth, which means he has enough tournaments to be eligible to test for his black belt at the next Black Belt testing date, which I believe is in March of next year.  We have another tournament next month in San Antonio that we are planning on attending, which would qualify the princess and myself for the belt, and would put the Apple one test away from earning his certificate to accompany his belt.

Y'all don't really know this, because, well, I don't think any of you read this anymore, but even if you did, I really haven't posted much about it, but I'm pretty giddy in that over the past almost 5 months, I've been working at getting myself into a shape that isn't round.  I've been relatively successful.  In all, before my workout this morning, I had lost 39 pounds, give or take, from where I was at the outset of this endeavor.  I have been trying to incorporate more cardio and weights into my daily routine, as well as two one-mile walks with the dog, and my aforementioned taekwondo. 

It's been tough to lose it, but I can honestly say that I feel better with it off.

Movie Night

So the wife and I had a movie night last night.  We chose a couple romantic-comedies with foreign flair (yes, I went with Rom-Com - but there was a dearth of Meg Ryan, so I think we're okay). 

The first movie we watched was a French movie called "Romantics Anonymous."  This was a cute film - a Chocolate maker with severe social anxiety gets hired at a chocolaterie (or however you spell it), thinking she was going to make chocolate, but is actually hired as a sales rep by the head of the company, who also has a social disability, particularly with regard to talking to women.

The movie was cute, and there's no way that a movie of this nature could get released from Hollywood.  I don't know if I'd watch it again, but it was not bad.

The other movie we watched was Outsourced.  We watched this movie a few years back, right when we got Netflix, and thought it was cute then.  I actually enjoyed it more the second time.  This is a movie about an American sales manager whose department gets outsourced to India and he has to go out to Mumbai (I think) to train the new manager and sales representatives on being more passably American on the telephone.  It is my understanding that the television show was spun off/premised on this movie, but I'm not sure. 

There are parts where the movie is a bit slow, the acting isn't always top notch, and in a couple spots the pacing does seem a little forced, but the characters are likeable, and the movie is well worth the time.  Particularly on a date night at home. 

I recommend both, but definitely think Outsourced is an under the radar gem.

Physical Fitness

I started my first course in Martial Arts about 15-16 years ago while I was in Monterey.  I can't remember exactly which school I attended (it's entirely possible the school has closed down since then), but I remember they did Tang Soo Do and they also had a cardio kickboxing class that my friend attended. 

Unfortunately, I was unable to commit myself to continuing with Tang Soo Do after 3-6 months, particularly after I moved from Monterey.  I found myself out of martial arts completely until about 2001, when I signed up with a Taekwondo dojang in San Angelo, TX.  I was unimpressed with the quality of instruction there, and did not stay longer than about a month.

It wasn't until I got my youngest (the Apple) into Taekwondo a couple years ago that I really started considering getting back into martial arts.  I feel a little odd taking martial arts classes at the Y (I keep hearing Daniel LaRusso saying "Not at the Y, a real school!"), but I find the instructors are good people, they teach the kids well, and so I figured I'd take a chance with it.

My son is currently 2 steps away from black belt, and should be testing for candidate within the month.  I am one belt behind him and my daughter, who started up a few months after me, is just past her halfway mark. 

I don't know how much more physically fit taekwondo has made me, as we only have classes 2 nights a week for an hour at a pop, but I know that it did help.  Adding the cardio and weights to the mix has really been the biggest benefit for my current bit of getting healthy. 

I'm taking a short break from getting back to work, and just felt like rambling a little.

Losing Touch

I swear I've not completely given up on this blog, but I just don't find myself with anything interesting to write.

Since my last post, I started working out more, and eating (somewhat) more healthily.  The goal was to not get winded while walking up the stairs to check on the kids... I take that as a sign that I was not in great health. 

Since then, I've lost 35 pounds, give or take (39 if you count the post-workout weigh-in, but since we're in Texas I attribute most of that to water weight lost through sweating). 

Feeling better.

The Dominant/Servient Estate Theory, Part II

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.