## Facts

- A Texas ranch’s surface estate and mineral estate had been severed by an earlier conveyance reserving “all oil, gas and minerals,” without expressly reserving control of subterranean structures or the subsurface earth.
- Lightning Oil Company held an oil-and-gas lease on the severed mineral estate underlying part of the ranch, with rights to explore for and produce minerals and to use the property as reasonably necessary for those purposes.
- Anadarko held a lease on minerals beneath an adjacent tract and sought to develop those minerals by drilling from well sites located off that adjacent tract.
- Anadarko obtained an agreement from the ranch’s surface owner allowing Anadarko to place well pads on the ranch and drill a wellbore that would pass through the subsurface beneath Lightning’s lease area before turning toward Anadarko’s target minerals under the adjacent tract.
- Lightning sued for subsurface trespass and sought an injunction to prevent Anadarko from locating well sites above Lightning’s mineral estate and from drilling through the subsurface beneath it.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Anadarko, and Lightning appealed.

## Issues

1. When a mineral estate is severed, whether the mineral lessee has the right to exclude a third party, acting with the surface owner’s permission, from using the deep subsurface to drill through the mineral estate to reach adjacent minerals.
2. Whether a wellbore’s passage through the subsurface beneath a mineral lease constitutes actionable subsurface trespass absent evidence of material interference with mineral development or a sufficient injury to a legally protected interest.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Anadarko.
- The court held that, absent an express grant or reservation to the mineral owner, the surface estate owner controls the subsurface “matrix” (the physical earth and formations) and may authorize non-interfering subsurface uses.
- The court concluded Lightning’s lease granted rights to the minerals and reasonable use necessary to develop them, but not a general right to control or exclude all subsurface uses within the earth beneath the surface.
- The court determined the proposed drilling did not constitute a compensable subsurface trespass on this record because Lightning failed to show a sufficient injury, including any substantial impairment of its ability to develop its minerals.

## Legal Principles

- A severed mineral interest gives rights in the minerals and implied rights to use the surface (and incidental subsurface use) as reasonably necessary to develop the minerals, but it does not necessarily convey control of the subsurface earth’s physical matrix.
- Unless the mineral conveyance or reservation expressly transfers control of subterranean structures, the surface owner retains control of the subsurface matrix and may permit third-party uses that do not unreasonably interfere with mineral development.
- Subsurface trespass requires injury to a legally protected interest; a minimal, non-substantial invasion or negligible destruction of minerals, without evidence of interference with the claimant’s development rights, is insufficient for damages or injunctive relief.
- A mineral lessee’s right to develop does not automatically include an exclusive right to exclude all other non-interfering subsurface activities authorized by the surface owner.

## Conclusion

The court held that the ranch’s surface owner could authorize Anadarko to drill a wellbore through the subsurface beneath Lightning’s severed mineral lease to reach adjacent minerals, and that Lightning did not show the kind of injury required to support an actionable subsurface trespass claim or obtain an injunction.


Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, 480 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015)