An interesting controversy has erupted in Mississippi. Two private companies claim that they own the rights to minerals under certain parcels of land in Simpson County. Property owners have denied the companies access to their land to explore for oil and gas. A Simpson County judge has ordered the land owners to provide access.
A proper understanding of property and property rights would avoid this controversy. Morally, there is no such thing as “mineral rights.” Rights pertain to freedom of action–the freedom to take the actions one deems best. In this instance, that means the freedom to take the actions necessary to discover, extract, and use minerals. But anyone exercising this freedom must respect the rights of others to act as they judge best. If discovering, extracting, or using subsurface minerals requires access to land owned by others, then the land owner’s permission must be secured.
Property rights mean the freedom to create, attain, use, keep, and trade material values. No property right can exist until a resource has been transformed into a human value.
The pseudo-concept of “mineral rights” is founded on the premise that a land owner also owns the subsurface minerals. Some states, such as Mississippi, allow for “mineral rights” to be severed from the land. This means that a property owner can retain ownership of the land, but sell the “mineral rights.”
But if a land owner has done nothing to discover, extract, or use the minerals below his land, he cannot claim ownership of those resources. He has done nothing to transform them into a material value. Indeed, he doesn’t even know what, if any, minerals exist below his land. Properly understood, the minerals are an unowned resource available to anyone who can transform them into a material value.
If a individual or company can discover and extract the minerals under land that they do not own, they have a moral right to do so. But they do not have a right to invade other’s property or damage other’s property in order to do so.
This is just another example of the conflicts that result when an improper understanding of property and property rights is used as the foundation for law.