By: Andrew Schock & Ty Green
First published April 3, 2026 as an Oil and Gas Update by Jackson Kelly
Mineral owners and energy companies now have more direction on the meaning of “other minerals” in Ohio deeds. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently decided Faith Ranch & Farms Fund Inc., v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n., in which the question before the court was whether an exception of the “right to mine and remove . . . coal or other minerals of any vein” excepted and reserved the oil and gas rights. Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1145, ¶ 28. The Supreme Court of Ohio looked to the “context in which the phrase is used” to determine that the oil and gas rights were not excepted or reserved. Id. at ¶ 28.
At issue in this case was a 1953 deed conveying parcels of land, the grantor reserved the “right to mine and remove . . . coal or other minerals of any vein.” The Appellants argued that the reservation of rights as to “other minerals” excepted and reserved the oil and gas rights, while the Appellee argued that the reservation did not except or reserve oil and gas rights.
The Court looked at the words “other minerals” and “vein” when determining if their ordinary meaning encompassed oil and gas. The court determined that the phrase “other minerals” may, but does not necessarily, include all oil and gas—it depends on the context.
Additionally, the use of the word “vein” supported a finding that the reservation did not include oil and gas because of the context when looking at the reservation as a whole. The Court used the definition of “vein” from 1942, which indicated that it was commonly understood to refer to “a vein of coal.” Faith Ranch & Farms Fund Inc., at ¶ 22.
The Court examined additional language surrounding the term “other minerals” and found that the clause did not use words that were commonly associated with extracting oil and gas. Words such as “‘derricks,’ ‘pipe lines,’ ‘tanks,’ ‘the use of water for drilling,’ and ‘machinery used in drilling or operating oil or gas wells,’” Id. at ¶ 21, citing Detlor v. Holland, 57 Ohio St. 492, 503 (1898). The context, combined with the absence of terms commonly used for extracting oil and gas indicated that the exception and reservation did not except or reserve the oil and gas rights.
Based on this decision, the phrase “other minerals” must be interpreted in the context of the entire deed to determine if oil and gas rights are excepted or reserved. Courts will look to the context in which the phrase is used to determine what the parties intended. Here, the context indicated that the parties did not intend to except or reserve the oil and gas rights.