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.