With respect to the issue of the value added, I think we should probably step back a wee bit on this point. Certainly more than half of the oil sands produced in Canada today is upgraded in Canada. Canada's refining and upgrading capacity is running at about 85% right now, which is still lower than most global standards. So if you will, there's more capacity that we would want to look at.
At the same time, certainly the market determines where the best value comes from the resources in terms of its ability to sell those products to customers. Certainly we live in North America. North America is a completely integrated market. Energy flows across the border in both ways.
Certainly one of the things we live with is that there is already an existing capital stock of refineries and upgraders across North America, and some of those happen to exist in the United States and some of them exist in Canada. Certainly in eastern Canada, Irving's refinery exports the predominant output from its refinery into the eastern seaboard of the United States, because that's the dynamic of the eastern seaboard. In the western part of the country, more of the crude oil exits the country and the refining happens more in the United States. But overall, Canada still is a net exporter of value-added petroleum products. So I think it's really important to contextualize all of the aspects, and certainly the NEB act does not spell out that the NEB's public interest test is to test what alternative uses of the energy might be. The test is whether or not there's adequate supply for Canadians and there will be supply for Canadians in the foreseeable future. So given that we have capacity that's not being utilized and given that there's a North American context, I don't see where the difference would be.