complaining about 30 year old single hull tanker incidents when modern tankers have double hulls and significant failsafes is a red herring. So is using tanker incidents in other jurisdictions. Statistically, what is the risk, given 0 incidents in the previous 60 years, and the impossibility of 0 risk, of a future tanker incident? Transport Canada considers the increased risk minimal.
Minimal isn't none. There is no red herring being used. Oil companies only take the safety measures they are forced to take. We don't trust them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_train
Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost.[30] Since 2011, the Canadian government has required tank cars with a thicker shell, though older models are still allowed to operate.[31]
Older models are still allowed to operate therefore oil companies will continue using them to save money.
The oil industry may use safer tankers but they will still cut corners where they can therefore safer technically doesn't mean safer in practice.
To rehabilitate its reputation the oil companies would have to begin behaving responsibly. I am certain that won't happen. Even as they desperately push for pipelines they won't clean up old wells. No one talks about the lifespan of pipelines or who will pay to remove them from the ground once the companies stop using them.
So where in any undertaking is there no risk? The proper term should be acceptable risk - risk acceptable to competent authority.
What does rail car regulations have to do with ships? Your criticism of oil companies is misdirected - it should be directed at the regulators and government agencies that enforce said regulations. Blaming oil companies for derailments makes as much sense as blaming your dry cleaner because your toilet leaks.