Mineral Rights Forum

America’s conversation place for mineral owners

Reeves County, TX - Oil & Gas Discussion


Reeves County, TX - Oil & Gas Discussion

Oil & gas discussion group for those interested in Reeves County, TX. Share your experience regarding lease bonus, royalty rates, drilling activity, and oil & gas news.

Members: 714
Latest Activity: 31 minutes ago

Discussion Forum

Lease rates and offers in Reeves County, TX

Started by Reagan "R.T." Dukes. Last reply by JM Wilson 31 minutes ago. 984 Replies

Use this post to share and discuss your lease offers.  The more we know about what is being offered the better decisions we'll all make.  Share your bonus, royalty rate, and any other provisions you…Continue

Keywords: lease bonus, lease rates, lease offers, royalty rate, Reeves County TX

Possible sale of mineral acres

Started by Mel Gierhart. Last reply by M A Smith 7 hours ago. 3 Replies

We have an estate member that is possibly interested in selling all or part of their mineral acres for the following locations: Blk 13, sec 179 (approximately 14 nma) and Blk 51 T8S, sec 27…Continue


Started by JT. Last reply by M A Smith 7 hours ago. 13 Replies

Hello Reeves County,Is anyone willing to weigh in on the pros and cons of lease "term" and the option or not having the additional option to be pick up. On a 3 year primary "paid-up" oil & gas…Continue

Activity on my property.

Started by William Sweeney. Last reply by Clint Liles 8 hours ago. 1 Reply

It's block 7,sorry about that. Thank you

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Reeves County, TX - Oil & Gas Discussion to add comments!

Comment by Melody a moore-jaehne on February 17, 2017 at 4:02pm
My friend has 3.1 acres in Balmorea Block F. I'm trying to run some title on his minerals to see if he can drill a water well. I'm seeing zero reservations on his Deed and the Deed before him. I don't live in that county and the online site would be costly. The acreage is close to the water and my belief is that the minerals were tied up in the RAct in the early 1900's. Can any of you help me?

Comment by Wade Caldwell on February 17, 2017 at 3:54pm
Comment by M A Smith on February 17, 2017 at 1:05pm

Bobby:  It should also be noted that "Retained Acreage" clause in the standard Relinquishment Act Lease Form used by the General Land Office of the State of Texas (used for leases of mineral classified land) follows the nomenclature you described.

Comment by M A Smith on February 17, 2017 at 12:58pm

Bobby:  Yes, there is a great deal of confusion about which is which, and there is a lot of debate about the nomenclature.  The terms themselves have no legal status.  They are just a description of the clauses.  They often appear in a lease as "retained acreage" or some variant. One must read the actual clause to see what it entails.  Yours is the older definition of how they were described.  Many recent references have the reverse of that usage.  That's the direction I took.

A website following your definition:


Websites following my definition:





Comment by Bobby Grace on February 17, 2017 at 11:18am

I believe you have the horizontal and vertical Pugh Clauses reversed.

A Horizontal Pugh Clause releases depths below (and / or above) a particular depth, while a Vertical Pugh Clause releases acreage outside a pooled unit.  Most Pugh Clauses I've seen in the last twenty years have been both Horizontal and Vertical.

Comment by M A Smith on February 17, 2017 at 10:47am

Todd:  I was referring to a "vertical" Pugh Clause.  

There are two kinds of Pugh clauses, “vertical” and “horizontal.”  The purpose of a vertical Pugh Clause is to release depths in a pooled unit below the deepest producing zone at the end of the primary term or after cessation of continuous drilling operations. A variant of the vertical Pugh Clause may also release all depths except the producing zone, even the shallower zones.  This is less typical, and lessors will push back on it.  They will, however, give you the version releasing deeper zones.

The horizontal Pugh Clause operates to release all lands not included in a pooled unit.  It releases land at the surface as to all depths.

In theory, neither of these should affect royalties.  They release acreage and zones that are not contributing to production in the pooled unit from which you receive your proportional share of royalties of production from the pooled unit acreage.  The pooling, on the other hand, would affect your royalty if some of your acreage were excluded from the unit or if someone else's happened to be included, thereby changing the shared proportions.

Comment by Clint Liles on February 16, 2017 at 10:38pm

Thanks Buzz for the info.

Clint Liles

Comment by Buzz Van Meter on February 16, 2017 at 9:53pm
Todd/Clint -- the Breithorn #2H well was drilled but not completed. I don't know if vertical or horizontal. Later -- Buzz
Comment by Clint Liles on February 16, 2017 at 8:40pm


The permitted location next door to the S/W in Section 60/Apache Corporation/Approved July 25, 2016/not sure if this well(389-35183) was ever drilled/was to check out the Sandbar(Bone Springs), Wolfcamp formation and also designated as a Wildcat well.  

Link to approved drilling permit for well 35183:


GIS Map of Reeves County Section 74/Block 13/A-1879:


Clint Liles

Comment by Todd W on February 16, 2017 at 8:13pm

M A Smith, I appreciate the info but I guess I need more education...are you referring to the Pugh clause? We are in a lease that states,"from the shallowest depth covered by the lease to 100ft below the stratigraphic equivalent of the base of the deepest producing formation of any well or wells in the pool." how does this affect royalties?


Members (714)


© 2017   Created by Kenny DuBose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service