Because it's cheaper, not economically impossible to do it in the ocean today, that doesn't mean to say that all costs are fairly articulated. In other words, you've got to pay for oxygenated water, and you've got to pay to deal with the waste that the farm would produce on land. So your operating costs would be higher than they would be in ocean. That doesn't mean to say that you're economically infeasible to do it.
We can get into the economics. Let me share some of them with you. To build a 1,000-tonne farm would cost you about $12 million, and it would take you about $6 million a year to run that farm. The revenue from it from fish alone would be about $11 million. If you utilize the waste stream--and this is incredibly important for everybody to understand--when you take fish from the open ocean, you're capturing nutrients from the open oceans, and you're exploiting them to build and grow fish. But a huge amount of that waste, the ammonia gets turned into nitrates, and the solid waste is actually feedstock. If you use that and capture that with associated aquaponics, you can put another $4 million on the bottom line of your numbers every year by growing lettuce, tomatoes, peppers. Two hundred kilograms of living fish will support 3,000 head of lettuce every six weeks. Today that economic benefit is being just dumped in the ocean.
So to net it out, you can be in the business, if you only do fish, of making $5 million a year profit on an investment of $12 million. If you do hydroponics and capture that waste, you can push that to $9 million. If you charge a premium for your chemical and therapeutant-free fish that you're capable of delivering now, you can get up to almost $19 million a year in revenue, which will leave you with $13 million a year after costs, pre-tax.