"The Obama administration's proposed $10.25 tax on each barrel of crude oil produced in the United States would be one of the biggest tax increases on gasoline in history, a report released Thursday showed". And, also kill the US fracking industry, not to mention propping up the Saudi's

Report: Obama's oil tax would mean huge tax hike for gasoline

Kyle Feldscher

The Obama administration's proposed $10.25 tax on each barrel of crude oil produced in the United States would be one of the biggest tax increases on gasoline in history, a report released Thursday showed.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a Congressional Research Service report showing historical increases in the federal gasoline tax in an attempt to put the oil tax in perspective. While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

The tax could add between 20-25 cents per gallon, and the report shows that one-time increase would be the largest increase in the gas tax since it was passed in 1932.

The federal gas tax was raised 5 cents in April 1983 and December 1990, the biggest jumps in the climb from 1 cent per gallon in 1932 to the current 18.4 cents per gallon.

The Obama administration's proposed $10.25 tax on each barrel of crude oil produced in the United States would be one of the biggest tax increases on gasoline in history, a report released Thursday showed.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a Congressional Research Service report showing historical increases in the federal gasoline tax in an attempt to put the oil tax in perspective. While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.

The tax could add between 20-25 cents per gallon, and the report shows that one-time increase would be the largest increase in the gas tax since it was passed in 1932.

The federal gas tax was raised 5 cents in April 1983 and December 1990, the biggest jumps in the climb from 1 cent per gallon in 1932 to the current 18.4 cents per gallon.

The Obama administration has not fleshed out many details of the proposed tax, such as what products made from a barrel of oil would be taxed and how much. A typical barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gasoline and 12 gallons of diesel fuel when refined.

The service reported transportation and home heating costs would increase if the oil tax became law. Oil companies would be less likely to hire new workers and explore for new oil sources as well.

Colorado Supreme Court strikes down local fracking bans

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, May 2, 2016

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court dealt a devastating setback Monday to the state's environmental movement by throwing out local bans on hydraulic fracturing.

The court ruled that the outright ban approved in Longmont and five-year moratorium passed in Fort Collins conflict with state law authorizing and regulating hydraulic fracturing, an extraction process used by the oil and gas industry.

Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, which challenged the bans in court, called the decision "not just a win for the energy industry but for the people of Colorado who rely on affordable and dependable energy and a strong economy."

"It sends a strong message to anyone trying to drive this vital industry out of the state that those efforts will not be tolerated at any level," Mr. Haley said in a statement.

Meanwhile, opponents of fracking decried the ruling, saying it flies in the face of a community's ability to safeguard its health.

"Today's decision deals a devastating blow not just to Longmont residents, but to all Coloradans who have been stripped of a democratic process that should allow us the right to protect our health, safety and property from the impacts of this dangerous industrial activity," said Lauren Petrie, Rocky Mountain region director with Food & Water Watch.

Colorado moved to the center of the anti-fracking movement with measures approved by voters in a half-dozen communities, primarily liberal college towns with little or no energy-industry ties, to stop oil and gas development, starting with the fracking ban added to the Longmont city charter in 2012.

"Applying well-established preemption principles, we conclude that an operational conflict exists between Longmont's fracking bans and applicable state law," said the court's decision. "Accordingly, we hold that Article XVI is preempted by state law and, therefore, is invalid and unenforceable."

Environmentalists have attempted for several years to place an anti-fracking measure on the statewide ballot, so far without success. Several signature-gathering efforts that would allow communities to halt oil and gas development within their borders are underway.

The measures have been opposed by Colorado Republicans and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, a former geologist who famously drank fracking fluid to demonstrate its safety.

Fracking foes said the ruling would galvanize their campaigns to qualify initiatives for the November ballot.

"In a politically motivated decision, the court agreed with Governor Hickenlooper in ruling that we're not allowed to protect our backyards and schoolyards from fracking. This is shameful," said Food & Water Watch Colorado in a statement. "And it's exactly why we need to pass the Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development ballot measures this November."

Jonathan Lockwood, executive director of the free-market group Advancing Colorado, said the decision "is protecting our democratic process and their ruling will help protect our health, safety and property from the attacks of dangerous special interest groups."

Fracking: a farmer's revenge

When Oscar-Winning Actress Breaks Court Injunction to Protest Fracking on His Land, Farmer Decides to Get Major Revenge

Apr. 29, 2016 11:14am Dave Urbanski

When Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson joined a group of protesters near a proposed fracking site earlier this week, the farmer who leases the English land apparently didn’t take kindly to their presence.

Emma Thompson at the protest (Image source: YouTube)

As Thompson and her sister Sophie took part in a satirical “bake-off” under a tent to highlight cuisine created with renewable energy for a Greenpeace video, the farmer added his own flavor to the ingredients.

Manure.

Image source: YouTube

Several videos caught the farmer driving a truck in circles around the small encampment Wednesday, spraying liquid manure toward the protesters.

Image source: YouTube

Thompson was under the tent the entire time and wasn’t hit, but the BBC said others with her indeed were in the line of fire.

“Well, it’s a very powerful message, isn’t it? Whoof!” Thompson told the BBC later, waving her hands toward her nose. “And I was doing me frosting at the time, and I just said, ‘Keep calm and carry on frosting. That’s what I did.’”

Image source: YouTube

Protesters have been banned from the area since a 2014 court injunction, the Guardian reported. And others besides the farmer weren’t happy that Thompson and company violated it.

“There are a lot of jobs at stake potentially,” Lee Petts of the North West Energy Taskforce told the BBC. “And that may not mean much to Emma Thompson, as one of the world’s most highly paid actors, or to Greenpeace, but it means a lot to local people that want jobs in place.”

Here’s the Greenpeace video showing Thompson and her sister’s reactions to the farmer spraying the manure:

Fracking

Coyote Blog points out the growing similarities of the US to Atlas Shrugged:

The similarity between the the text of the recent NY report on fracking and the fictional state attack on Rearden Metal in Atlas Shrugged is just amazing.

Here is the cowardly State Science Institute report on Rearden Metal from Atlas Shrugged, where a state agency attempts to use vague concerns of unproven potential issues to ban the product for what are essentially political reasons (well-connected incumbents in the industry don't want this sort of competition).  From page 173 of the Kindle version:

[Eddie] pointed to the newspaper he had left on her desk. “They [the State Science Institute, in their report on Rearden Metal] haven’t said that Rearden Metal is bad. They haven’t said that it’s unsafe. What they’ve done is . . .” His hands spread and dropped in a gesture of futility. [Dagny] saw at a glance what they had done.

She saw the sentences: “It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted. . . . The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted. . . . Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out. . . . Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be of value.”

“We can’t fight it. It can’t be answered,” Eddie was saying slowly. “We can’t demand a retraction. We can’t show them our tests or prove anything. They’ve said nothing. They haven’t said a thing that could be refuted and embarrass them professionally. It’s the job of a coward.

From the recent study used by the State of New York to ban fracking (a process that has been used in the oil field for 60 years or so)

Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF [high volume hydraulic fracturing] activity is limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about potential public health impacts that need further evaluation....

...the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State....

The actual degree and extent of these environmental impacts, as well as the extent to which they might contribute to adverse public health impacts are largely unknown. Nevertheless, the existing studies raise substantial questions about whether the public health risks of HVHF activities are sufficiently understood so that they can be adequately managed.

Why is it the Left readily applies the (silly) precautionary principle to every new beneficial technology or business model but never applies it to sweeping authoritarian legislation (e.g. Obamacare)?