I'm very well aware of that, and I simply do not agree with that. John Holder and his company have developed inland aquaculture, closed containment coho salmon aquaculture facilities, in Montana right now. And as I said, there are plenty of places outside the coastal area where land is much cheaper, as is hydro.
In terms of sustainability of closed containment, it was pointed out to us that land-based closed containment aquaculture involves fairly large cement facilities, so once a facility like that is built, that land use is irrevocably changed to an artificial environment, whereas for net pen aquaculture, the bottom may be affected for a few years, but once the net pen is removed, the bottom recovers. So how do you look at the permanent land use change because of inland closed containment and the moving around of net pen aquaculture and the subsequent recovery of the ocean floor?