Opinion ID: 2409450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ownership of the lignite

Text: Our holding as to the lignite is based on two opinions of this court. The first is Acker v. Guinn, 464 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.1971), a unanimous decision. Acker was expressly affirmed by our first opinion in this case, Reed v. Wylie, 554 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1977), a divided opinion. In Acker , the reservation was also of oil, gas and other minerals. The question was whether surface and near surface iron ore was reserved as a mineral. The record in Acker was that iron ore was found extensively in Cherokee County and other areas in eastern Texas. The ore deposits are solid beds varying in thickness from a few inches to three or four feet. These deposits conform generally to the contour of the earth's surface. They outcrop on the surface at places and range in depth to as much as fifty feet below the surface. The ore must be mined by a process known as the open-pit or strip-mining method. 464 S.W.2d at 350-351. In terms of its location with respect to the surface, methods by which it must be mined, and the effect of production upon the surface, the ore is quite similar to gravel and limestone. Id. at 352. Without referring to an outcropping on the particular tract in question, we held that, as a matter of law, the iron was not intended to be reserved as a mineral. The intent of the parties to the grant and reservation was held to be a general intent and not a specific intent. Unless specifically referred to, a person granting or reserving an interest in oil, gas and other minerals by lease or other conveyance would not generally have intended that his surface be destroyed in order for the grantee to recover the unnamed minerals. Our first opinion in Reed v. Wylie, after reviewing and affirming Acker , had two holdings relevant here. They may be summarized: 1. [t]he surface estate owner must prove that, as of the date of the instrument being construed, if the substance near the surface had been extracted, that extraction would have consumed or depleted the land surface. 2. On the other hand, if lignite lies at the surface of the land, no further proof would be required to establish the title of Reed [the surface owner] to the lignite.... The problem then is, what did we mean by at the surface of the land? It is undisputed that the surface of the land in question has already been completely strip mined. The facts and circumstances of this case began before the execution of the instrument in question. In 1949, Wylie et al., at a time when they owned the surface and three-fourths of the mineral estate, executed a lease to others expressly granting the right to the lessees to extract coal and lignite from the land in question by strip mining. It was recognized that at least part of the surface would be destroyed, and the Wylies were to be paid $50.00 per acre for the portion of the land destroyed or rendered useless. In 1950, after the above strip mining lease, the Wylies conveyed the subject tract to the predecessors in title of Reed by the instrument in question. As stated, it conveyed the land in question but reserved to the Wylies an undivided interest in all oil, gas and other minerals. So at least the Wylies, having executed the strip mining lease in 1949, contemplated that the lignite would be strip mined. As to whether the lignite was at the surface, the facts are these: there are affidavits that persons in the area had been on the land, and farmed and hunted the land; and they never had seen any lignite on the surface of the land. Lignite outcrops on the surface at one part of the land in question, we will call the Reed tract, in the bed of a gully or ravine. It also outcrops at many points in the same county. One outcrop is within a half mile of the Reed tract, and another within two miles of the Reed tract. There is testimony that as lignite comes toward the surface, the exposure or moisture causes lignite to oxidize or to deteriorate in quality. The low grade lignite becomes smut or clinker. The smut or clinker is not of sufficient value to be mined because of its low BTU content and its higher ash content. The testimony is that it would be very unusual to see the hard lignite at the top of the surface because of the oxidizing process. On the Reed tract, the smut or clinker begins at about seven or eight feet from the top of the surface. The hard lignite begins at twenty to twenty-two feet in one vein, and runs almost parallel to the top of the surface. A second vein of hard lignite on the Reed tract begins at about twenty feet and extends to a depth of eighty feet. While there is testimony that lignite is presently stripmined in the area, there is also testimony that many years ago, lignite was mined in Texas by underground mining, using the room and pillar method; and there is evidence that this lignite could have been mined by that method. The test laid out in our first Reed v. Wylie opinion, that the person claiming lignite as part of the surface estate must prove that near surface lignite must have been recovered by strip mining methods, does not apply, however, if the lignite lies at the surface of the land. What did the opinion mean by at the surface of the land? The Wylies contend that the surface means the top of the ground. The Reeds contend that the surface means more than that,that there is some depth to the surface of the earth. The experts used the terms outcrop and subcrop. The Wylies' expert, Lamb, stated in his affidavit without contradiction that an outcrop occurs when the lignite seam is at the surface or is only obscured by soil from a high level such as a bank with a shallow cover of 3 or 4 feet. A subcrop occurs when the land is well below the surface ... at a depth of 5 feet or greater. The word surface has so many definitions in various cases that it is incapable of an exact definition. Websters New International Dictionary, 2nd edition, unabridged, has a definition of surface as (3) miningworking or worked at or near the surface. So the question is not what some other case said, or even what this dictionary says, but what this court meant by at the surface. The court did not say outcropped at the surface, or on top of the surface, but at the surface. By that we did not mean only on the top of the surface, as one would find an object on the surface. The opinion used the word surface as having some depth,a depth shallow enough that it must have been contemplated that its removal would be by a surface destructive method. In our opinion, the above summary judgment evidence constitutes proof, as a matter of law, that lignite was at the surface. The fact that persons did not see lignite on the land as they walked upon it, therefore, does not conflict with a holding that lignite was at the surface. We hold that the lignite, described in the summary judgment proof, was at the surface as a matter of law. Therefore, under the instrument in question, it was owned by Reed, the owner of the surface estate.