OIL & GAS Leases

I have a question about a term in a new lease in Montague Co. but it pertains to most TX leases, I think.

My relative recently signed a lease and now has questions about the terms. This sound familiar doesn't it.

The lease was a re-lease after option ran out for about 500 acres in one tract.

This land is located in three surveys but is joining and has previously been leased on one contract.

The oil company has now offered to lease only one of the surveys of about 118 acres which is described in the lease.

In the lease contract there is written," Notwithstanding any particular description, it is nevertheless the intention of Lessor to include within this lease, and Lessor does hereby lease, not only the land so described but also any and all other land owned or claimed by Lessor in the herein named survey or surveys, or in adjoining surveys, and adjoining the herein described land up to the boundaries of the abutting landowners, the leased land being hereinafter referred to as "said Land."

My Question-Should we have used a Pugh Clause or severed the two un-described tracts by another method??

Is the Lessor prevented from leasing the two other tracts ?? I think probably yes.

Since nothing else was done will the Lessee, after drilling a well will he be able to hold the other tracts by production?? Again I think yes.

I am an expert on leasing. I had better define this by saying I am an expert on what not to do. Please give me advise or tell me you told me so anyway.

The advise I would give myself now is why did you not take the contract to an O&G lawyer first.

In the past few years I have seen so many of my relatives do the same thing then we find out what we did, is too late.


I would strike the clause. If the lessee has not used due diligence, it's their fault. Only grant what they describe.


Normally, this doctrine only applies to small adjacent tracts, but it is safer to strike it. You can propose the leased land include adjacent “strips and gores” but this language is too broad.