Yes. Thank you for that question.
First I want to comment on the land acknowledgement reference you made. That was a significant oversight on our part. I am disturbed that we did not do that at the beginning of the meeting. I will tell you that it is common practice for us, as a company, to routinely offer land acknowledgements at our meetings. I don't know the circumstances of that particular day, but it was wrong. We should have offered a land acknowledgement. We discussed that internally and we recognized that it was a mistake. We have raised very clear expectations on the importance of recognizing the land and the important relations we have with the Indigenous communities in all of our operations and all of our offices. Again, I'm apologetic for that, and I expect we will do better in the future.
With regard to the water issue itself, again, as we undertook a very rigorous testing process to understand the extent of this issue at Kearl, all of our sampling has confirmed that there has not been any impact to the drinking water supplies. However, to the point you made, the vacuum of information, the lack of our providing updates, created a lot of uncertainty in the communities—