I have two questions. One is of Mr. Clarke and the other of Mr. Pellerin. They're probably a little more exploratory than probative, as all the other questions are.
I come from Guelph, where there's Cargill and there's the University of Guelph. I prefer to look at solutions other than simply throwing money at something right away, to be candid. I see this either as a short-term problem, in which case $25 million or so might solve it, or a long-term problem. Right now, from what I've heard, I think it is going to be a longer-term problem. You know the saying that you can't solve today's problems with the same level of thinking that it took to create the problems in the first place. I'd like to think that maybe we can go beyond this level of thinking.
My question to Mr. Clarke is this. I'm not sure about this, but given the costs that are incurred right within the plant versus the cost of shipping the SRMs further away—to Rothsay, or wherever—is it not possible to build a cogeneration plant whereby all this material could be put into a co-generation plant, could produce electricity, produce fertilizer from the product that's left over, produce heat to heat the plant itself, as well as Cargill, if it's located beside Cargill, and spend the money in a little more creative way in solving the problem than just continually throwing money at it?
I'm not suggesting that's not the solution, but can't we look beyond just putting money at this, Mr. Clarke?