A recent ruling from the Supreme Court of Texas has clarified a long-standing legal gray area in the oil and gas sector: who owns the space beneath the surface of the land after minerals have been extracted. In a decision that carries significant implications for carbon sequestration and subsurface storage projects, the court held that, unless otherwise agreed, the surface owner retains the rights to that space.
The case, Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC, centered on a dispute over salt caverns created by mining operations in South Texas. After extracting salt from beneath the land, Underground Services Markham (USM) claimed the right to use the resulting caverns for storage of off-site oil and gas. Myers-Woodward, which owns the surface estate, argued that it held those rights. The court agreed with Myers, stating clearly that empty space beneath the surface is not itself a mineral and thus not part of the mineral estate unless specifically conveyed.
The ruling hinged on the language of the deeds. USM argued that its mineral rights included the salt formations and thus, by extension, the caverns left behind. But the court noted that the original conveyance to USM’s predecessor only transferred ownership of the minerals, not the voids left by their removal. As the court plainly put it, “empty space is not salt.”
This decision aligns Texas with the growing consensus that pore space and other subsurface formations belong to the surface owner unless a deed explicitly states otherwise. In doing so, the court rejected earlier interpretations that had leaned toward granting those rights to mineral owners. This marks a pivotal clarification for industries involved in underground storage, particularly carbon capture and sequestration.
As companies look to reduce emissions through underground carbon storage or reuse depleted formations for enhanced oil recovery, knowing who owns the pore space is a critical first step. The court’s opinion removes much of the ambiguity and gives developers a clearer path forward. While the mineral estate remains dominant in Texas—meaning mineral development typically takes priority over surface uses—this case reminds stakeholders that subsurface storage, if unrelated to mineral production, is not a guaranteed right for the mineral holder.
Importantly, the court also rejected the idea that USM, as the mineral estate holder, had the right to use the storage caverns for its own purposes unrelated to its salt mining operations. That distinction could set a key precedent for future disputes, particularly where mineral developers attempt to repurpose subsurface space in ways that do not directly support mineral production.
For carbon sequestration developers and others exploring the commercial use of underground formations, the takeaway is that surface ownership of pore space is now the default rule in Texas. This not only strengthens the legal footing for deals involving carbon capture and geological storage but also increases the importance of negotiating clear agreements with both surface and mineral owners to avoid conflicts down the line.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Austin are weighing legislation that could further solidify this legal position. House Bill 2762 and Senate Bill 1258, both under committee review, would codify the principle that pore space belongs to the surface estate. These efforts suggest that the court’s opinion may soon be supported by state law, adding another layer of clarity for developers and landowners alike.
This case also serves as a signal to surface owners. With more certainty about their rights, they may be more willing to explore new uses for their land—including leasing pore space for oil storage, gas reinjection, or research and development. For a state that continues to lead the nation in energy production and innovation, that clarity is a powerful catalyst.
In the end, the Texas Supreme Court has not just ruled on a property dispute—it has reshaped the legal landscape for subsurface resource use in the state. By affirming the rights of surface owners to the space beneath their land, the court has helped lay a foundation for the next generation of energy and environmental development.
