The definition of "
mineral rights" might go to court in
Tennessee. There, mineral rights owners have been denied access to one of their properties because the target of their intended mining is a sandstone. The surface rights owners claim that sandstone is not a "mineral" and they seem prepared to defend that position in court.
This new interest in sandstone production in Tennessee is related to a huge increase in dimension stone demand that has been building nationwide over the last few years.
(See an October 1, 2006 article on Dimension Stone Demand)A couple of weaknesses in the surface owners' position is that coal is the typical "mineral" mined in this portion of Tennessee - and coal is not a mineral because it is made of organic material. The sandstone might actually be closer to the definition of a "mineral" than coal because it is made of mineral quartz grains.
Anyone can do a quick search of the web and find a number of documents authored by state and country governments that explain mineral rights for citizens. Rocks such as sandstone, limestone, and dimension stone are generally included as "mineral" commodities in those documents. Oil and natural gas are also often thrown into the mineral rights category as well.
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ogs-land-oilandgas-mineral-rights.PDF
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/MM/gym1.html
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex1124?opendocument
It will be interesting to see if this goes to court and how it plays out. This is a good example of how land buyers should be careful and how those who write documents that transfer "mineral rights" should specify any "minerals" that might be of future interest.
Read more details about the Tennessee
mineral rights dispute at CNEWS.
Labels: Minerals
