And there are plenty of other politically sensitive areas in the US and around the world, some of them quite large, to say nothing of the countless thousands and thousands of medium to smaller scale areas, many privately held. As production increases and marketing become easier with increased name recognition and an expanding base of happy customers, greater cost efficiencies should also result.
Good point. Many corporate industrial sites are way way undersecured. Still.
Lobbyists blitzed a sensible Senate bill in the post-9.11 era which was sponsored by NJ Sen Corzine which seeked to move some chemical processes to less hazardous chemicals (so storage tanks in populated areas would be less of a risk). Again, lobbyists killed it.
In the NYC area, you can just walk up to these tanks, reporters have shown time and time again. Watch out and God help us if any of these are bombed. Then (modern) fence security will sprout like springtime flowers.
Industry does not seem to want to act, prefers to react, when increased security expense would impact the bottom line. And since government is in industry's pocket, government is not mandating proper wholesale, national chemical site security to my knowledge, it is still at the discretion of the industries themselves.