Our Mineral Rights explained Texas Constitution of 1866 – 1876 affirmed by the Supreme Court

Private title to all land in Texas emanates from a grant by the sovereign of the soil (successively, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the state of Texas). Under the laws of Spain and Mexico, mines and their metals or minerals did not pass by the ordinary grant of the land without express words of designation. In one of the earliest acts of the Congress of the Republic of Texas, this rule was adopted, and it was continued in force after Texas had become a state. A grantee of land before 1866 therefore had no interest in the minerals in the land unless that interest was expressly granted. By a provision of the state Constitution of 1866, which was carried over in substantially the same language into the constitutions of 1869 and 1876,qqv the state released to the owner of the soil all mines and mineral substances therein. This constitutional provision had retrospective effect; the landowner was given complete ownership of the minerals in all lands that passed from the sovereign before the effective date of the Constitution of 1876. [source]

Since 1876, it has been assumed that a grantee of land from the sovereign has received all minerals unless they are expressly reserved. Since 1895 substantial acreage of the public domain has been conveyed by the sovereign with a retention of rights to the minerals. Under the Relinquishment Act of 1919, as subsequently amended, the surface owner is made the agent of the state for the leasing of such lands, and both the surface owner and the state receive a fractional interest in the proceeds of the leasing and production of minerals. A considerable portion of the land of the state has been allocated to various educational and eleemosynary institutions, some of which has not been sold but merely leased for mineral development.

The extent that a landowner also owns the minerals in his tract, he may legally sever such minerals from the surface estates. The owner of the minerals may produce them himself. The usual practice, however, is for a lease to be executed by the mineral owner to an operator who undertakes to develop the minerals. Although several lease forms are in use, their provisions are generally uniform; the significance of the variant provisions is not to be minimized, however. Typically, under a lease the operator assumes all expenses of operations to develop the mineral resources in return for a conveyance of 7/8 interest in them; the landowner or lessor retains 1/8 interest free and clear of all costs. This interest of the mineral owner or lessor is what is correctly known as royalty, although the term is sometimes more loosely used to describe an undivided interest in minerals arising out of an instrument other than a mineral lease.

Legally, oil and gas are minerals. About 2/3 of the 254 counties in Texas produce oil. About 54,000,000 acres of land in the state were under oil and gas lease in 1947. Since the mid-1950s oil and gas royalties have increased. The basic royalty on oil and gas was increased from 1/8 to 1/6 by the public school and other state land boards in 1955 and by the Board for Lease of University Lands in 1960 on gas and in 1961 on oil. The practice of overriding royalties being utilized as a portion of leasing and development promotion fees in the oil and gas industry, in amounts ranging from 1/32 to 1/4, has increasingly become a common practice. By 1995 royalties for state-run lands of the Permanent School Fund had a minimum standard of 6.25 percent of the gross value. Royalties in Texas, however, are usually negotiable and depend on a number of factors, including type of mineral and deposit.

Misconceptions:

1) Relinquishment is from oil and mineral rights comments made by Lance Bruun Unclaimed Mineral Rights Commission interview Kens5

Bruun is referring to taxation, not relinquishment of land rights or entitlement.

The Texas Supreme Court in 1928, in Greene v. Robinson: 
Rather than holding the Relinquishment Act unconstitutional, the Court “construed” the Act in a 

way that would pass constitutional muster. It held that the Act did not relinquish the oil and gas to the

landowners; instead, it made the landowners the agent of the State for the leasing of oil and gas rights, 

and granted to the landowner the right to one half of all bonuses, royalties and other benefits 

accruing from those leases.

Texas Property Law, enacted in 1840, authorizes and gives them the right to file 

claims against mineral proceeds from unclaimed oil and gas wells whose owners 

have never been found, which are located in the respective land grants awarded 

their ancestors.  

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Jr., “Sal del Ray: Who Owns the Mineral Rights in Texas,” Journal of the American Studies Association of Texas 13 (1982).