In recent years, Texas legislators have been trying to address issues surrounding property rights as it pertains to pore space. The Supreme Court case ruling for Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC earlier this year sets a precedent for similar cases moving forward.
The team at Fee, Smith & Sharp is committed to staying up to date on these policy changes, and helping businesses and property owners determine how they may affect them.
What Was the Recent Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Pore Space Ownership
In May of 2025, the Court of Appeals for the 13th District ruled in the case Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC stating that the ‘American Rule’ applies. According to sources discussing Pore Space Ownership and Related Issues, the American Rule dictates that the surface owner retains rights to the pore space only after the minerals have been extracted. Essentially, the pore spaces are not minerals, and if they do not contain minerals, the entities to mineral rights do not hold claim to them unless otherwise specified in a contract.
How Does the Supreme Court Ruling Affect the Field
When companies mine areas for salt, it can leave a cavernous space behind. While this used to just be a byproduct of mining, technological advancements allow us to use them as storage facilities for oil and gas, making them a valuable asset. This ruling may mean significant changes:
- Significant change in leverage when it comes to negotiating in favor of surface land owners
- May result in a decrease of profitability of the land you intend to use
- Highlights the importance of clear contract language to avoid ambiguity that may lead to discourse
While the clarity on ownership makes some components of pore space ownership more clear, it may complicate may other aspects regarding how the land may be used, who has rights to use it, and under what conditions. Who is required to give, when surface usage interferes with the ability to appropriately extract minerals? At what point is the method of extraction or usage of subsurface land unreasonable?
Complications with the Dominant Estate Doctrine
Some of the criticisms of the ruling are that it may cause further complications regarding how usage rights may be affected as they relate to the Dominant Estate Doctrine which addresses the usage of surface land for the purposes of mining and mineral extraction.
This rule typically says that the needs of the mineral rights owner are dominant to the surface rights owner. This means that if the mineral rights owner needs a piece of surface land to reasonably extract the minerals, their need takes precedent over whatever needs the surface rights owner may have.
While the general consensus is that using pore space for gas or oil storage is not a reasonable function of mineral extraction, others have concerns of how it may affect access to their minerals, should the surface rights owner decide to use the spaces in that way.
How Does this Affect Your Current Agreement?
If you are a mineral rights owner, you may be worried about how this affects your property rights moving forward, especially if you were planning on utilizing the pore space for additional profit. As you move forward or secure new mineral rights agreements, you should consider whether you want to have a specific stipulation allowing property rights, or under what circumstances rights may change. This may include:
- Review the terms of your agreement to determine whether you agreed to specific terms regarding pore space rights
- Consider whether you are already using pore spaces. If you are, it may be time to speak with an attorney to prepare for potential negotiations from surface property holders
- You may choose to renegotiate the terms of your agreement in light of this ruling, as they surface rights holders have a clear advantage
When it comes to protecting your assets, it is almost always a smart idea to speak with an attorney who can guide you through the new expectations and help you determine your least risky path forward. The right course of action is highly dependent on your current use of the space and the terms of your current agreement.
Protecting Yourself in Future Mineral Rights Agreements
When it comes to protecting your rights in future endeavors, or even contract re-negotiation, you may want to approach the situation differently. One of the first steps is to speak with an attorney who is staying up to date on changes. This can prevent costly disagreements in how you are able to use your property. Additionally, you can:
- Make sure that pore space usage terms are clearly addressed to avoid ambiguity that leads to litigation
- Make sure you are familiar with the Texas Accommodation Doctrine and ensure you address any areas that may need clarity regarding usage
- Clarify what each party understands to be ‘reasonable use’ of surface land
While you cannot prepare for all possible points of contention or disagreement, a well drafted and thorough contract can help you avoid some of the more common conflicts, and may outline the appropriate steps to resolve the issue, such as arbitration.
Call the Team at Fee, Smith & Sharp for Guidance and Support Regarding Your Mineral Property Rights Agreement
At Fee, Smith & Sharp, our team is committed to supporting businesses through these changes. We understand that this ruling may mean that you face challenges to your usage rights that have been left uncontested so far. If you have concerns about a current agreement, or want to ensure you are adequately prepared for a new one, do not hesitate to reach out.
Our team is comprised of experienced, fearless, and proven trial lawyers who are ready to aggressively advocate for your business interests. We have offices in Dallas, Houston, and Austin, which are all equipped to help you. Call us today to schedule a consultation and discuss your options.
