Quote:nemonowan wrote:The railroad companies are responsible for the railroads.They're also responsible for the locomotives and the train operators. They don't have authority on what can be can be carried and how it is shipped. That responsibility falls on the shippers. So tank cars would be the shipper's responsibility and the maintenance of said cars fall under their responsibility. I am not sure about supporting infrastructure like bridges. It might fall under the state or it might not.Quote:ordnance11 wrote:No, the problem is that all those thing take time and money to build, which would at best delay and reduce the profits from the extraction. And we can't have that, can we?Quote:Logan Darklighter wrote:The problem with building pipelines would be NIMBY. Oil refineries built closer to the extraction sites would be more technologically feasible, but you're talking a huge capital investment.
This would be less of a problem if we were allowed to build any pipelines or new refineries closer to the sites of extraction.
But we have built nothing like that in over 30 years. We haven't been allowed to.
Using rail transport, there is no need to invest in any more infrastructure. And if there are 10 blasts or spills per year, like analysts predict, it's not they who pay the bill.Of course, using reinforced railcars designed for volatile liquid transport, improved brakes, regular rail maintenance and replacement, keeping to sane speed limits, all would help to reduce and mitigate accidents, but the rail companies refuse to do that, because again, it costs money.
So when a derailment happens, you can see the finger pointing starting immediately.
And if you think this is bad, wait when Yucca Flats Nuclear Waste facility opens for business and they have to ship the waste...by rail.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell