# Lease offer for "pughed out" deep interests

**URL:** https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/lease-offer-for-pughed-out-deep-interests/89871
**Category:** Midland County, TX
**Created:** [October 29, 2026, 11:25am UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/lease-offer-for-pughed-out-deep-interests/89871 "2026-10-29T11:25:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Erics42](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@Erics42](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/u/Erics42)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2026, 11:25am UTC](https://www.mineralrightsforum.com/t/lease-offer-for-pughed-out-deep-interests/89871/1 "2026-10-29T11:25:09Z")

</div>

You learn something new every day. We have received a lease offer in Midland County, TPRC T4S Blk38 Sec42 and Blk39 Sec48. These sections have been developed and continue to produce primarily through XTO. The original leases do not discuss depths or formations. The offer from Lone Peak Energy claims that minerals below the Wolfcamp and Atoka formations, and below the top of the Barnett formation have been “pughed out” of the existing leases. As the lessor, we feel obliged to protect the interests originally leased out. What evidence should I look for to prove that XTO’s lack of deeper development would have released their rights to these depths? If they have been released, or “Pughed Out”, what is the current market for the lease bonus?