None of the mineral leases sold in today’s monthly lease sale included properties in the Haynesville Shale parishes of northwest Louisiana.

The state Mineral Board collected more than $3.7 million in bonuses, but it all went for leases in south Louisiana, according to a news release from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

So far, the state has collected $198.6 million since July 1, with the majority of that coming in July and August of last year during the height of the Haynesville Shale leasing frenzy.

This month, the 30 leases covered 11,306 acres, mostly located on the coastal parishes of Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines and Terrebone. Rounding out the 12 parishes involved in the sale were Calcasieu, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, LaSalle, Ouachita, Richland, St. Martin and West Baton Rouge.

The majority of activity in the April lease sale was in south Louisiana, too, with 26 of the 30 tracts leased located in the southern end of the state.

Here are 2 excerpts from the Document from the Department of the Treasury entitled—

General Explanations of the Administrations

Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue Proposals

On the excise tax on the Gulf of Mexico…. Reason for the Change –

According to the Government Accountability Office, the return to the taxpayer from OCS production is among the lowest in the world, despite other factors that make the United States a comparatively good place to invest in oil and gas development. An excise tax on OCS production would advance important policy objectives, such as providing a more level playing field among producers, raising the return to the taxpayer, and encouraging sustainable domestic oil and gas production.

For the remaing tax increases or incentive repeals they more or less had the same reason with just a few minor differences….this was the explanation for repealing the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit…

The credit, like other oil and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than would occur under a neutral system. To the extent the credit encourages overproduction of oil, it is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources through a cap-and-trade program. Moreover, the credit must ultimately be financed with taxes that result in underinvestment in other, potentially more productive, areas of the economy.

If there is any question that our industry is under attack, i think these explanations answer that question LOUD & CLEAR !