Law Process Abuse

Below is an example of how big business through lobbying can get what seems on the surface, something that should not be allowed, to get exceptions.

Imagine the type of loopholes financial companies have. Those loopholes aren't as easily discoverable as 32 million gallons of diesel injected into the ground.

In any event, this may have somewhat to do with investing, at least in the companies involved. My main reason to post is to simply state the following.

1) All entities (people, companies, cities, states, countries, etc) will always try to do what benefits them.

2) The LAW is the ultimate loophole, as companies who implement fraudulent or reckless actions, are basically shielded from lawsuit.

3) Since lawmakers are in for only 2 to 8 years, payback of being voted out of office is not sufficient punishment. The public loses and the companies and politicians get all the financial benefit.

I am an optimist, there is a fix, there always is. The public needs to learn to read large, cryptic laws meant to hide wording and uncover the effects. I don't see this happening. Therefore the law process needs overhaul, with strict structure and concise wording required on laws. We need to take lead from Wikipedia, or other open documentation sites to gain public scrutiny with wording.

The darkness must be lifted, so in the light of the public eye, such hidden changes to the law won't stand. Until we demand process change, expect much more of the same.

Below article is snippets from NY Times, click to read full article.

Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the energy bill of 2005.

Critics now refer to this as the "Halliburton Loophole." Halliburton is a major provider of fracturing services and was the chief company lobbying for the exemption at the time.

Bill drafters forged a compromise on the use of diesel. Fracturing would still be regulated if drillers mixed diesel into the solution. A 2004 EPA study had recommended against further study of the dangers of fracturing in underground sources of drinking water but said that using diesel was worrisome.

The three leading providers of fracturing services had already signed a "memorandum of agreement," or MOA, with EPA not to use diesel. Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger then accounted for 95 percent of the "frack jobs" in the country.

But the agreement with service providers covered only a narrow set of circumstances -- drilling into underground sources of drinking water to get methane from coal beds. It also lacked any enforcement provisions.

So a driller could legally inject diesel for most types of fracturing. The driller just needed to get an "underground injection control" permit from EPA or state regulators.

....

"Drilling companies have won exemption from just about every piece of federal environmental law except the requirement to get permits if they use diesel in their fracking fluid," said Dusty Horwitt of the Environmental Working Group. "This report shows they haven't even complied with this limited provision. How can communities trust these companies to drill responsibly?"

Simple answer, don't act surprised that any entity, left unchecked, will maximize their interests at expense of others. This country needs less victims and more participants in the process.