Thank you.
I really ought not to say very much about the question of lists. I don't feel I know enough about the pros and cons of that to give you a good answer. I think we all would agree that things should be done faster than slower, and that whatever can be done to speed up the process should be done.
Having said that, we can't cut corners. I think, if I could remark on it, there's a lot of suggestion from time to time that somehow the processes take so long that an investment opportunity is lost. I would argue, actually, that if there is a good business case for a project, it's going to happen whether the review takes six months or a year. If it doesn't go, it's probably because there wasn't a good business case in the first place.
I'll give you an example. It's a great myth in the city of Calgary that Tom Berger spiked the original pipeline, that it didn't happen because of him. Well, the reality is that it didn't happen because they didn't have a good business case. The banks were no longer prepared to give them any money to do it. So maybe he did them a favour.
A good review should improve a project, not stop it necessarily. I mean, there's always the possibility that it should be stopped, but most of the time, it should be made better.
I don't know how much more I can say about that. I did suggest some things....
I think you're telling me to wind up, so I will.