Thank you, Mr. Blais.
That perception is explained in the document I submitted to you. For us, this was a communications disaster because Mr. Robillard's article contains an enormous number of falsehoods and exaggerated and controversial points. It was devastating for us, particularly for the image the Amundsen enjoys and our work with the Canadian public. It somewhat comes back to the question that the Honourable Mr. Donnelly asked about the problem of perception in this matter.
This was a lesson for us. In fact, we have learned to be suspicious. To that point, we had been very well treated by the media, but suddenly, because we were associated with the oil industry, we lost our reputation. That was very tough and very frustrating, particularly for me.
I could talk to you at length about the approach Mr. Robillard used. I was very disappointed. It's extremely important for the public to be made aware of these complex and delicate issues, for the public to understand why we are associating with the industry to study the potential impacts and risks of exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea.
Our purpose isn't to help the industry secure a licence from the National Energy Board. Our purpose is to provide data to all stakeholders so that the decision is made on the best possible scientific basis. We aren't working for the industry; we are in partnership with the industry. We are also not drilling in the Beaufort Sea.