I don't know if I'd call it a bubble or not. I think you have definitely seen the amplification of price, of a fundamental supply and demand situation, by investors. Now there's debate over what that amplification is.
My view of the world is that $170 billion going into anything is going to have pretty significant distortions on the price, especially when the markets are much smaller than the typical capital markets that capital market investors usually invest in. So I think it's had a fairly significant impact on the price, and if that's the case, then it does call into question the level of investment that's appropriate. To a certain extent, what you may be getting is more investment than you would otherwise get today, front-end loading it. The problem with that is that what you don't want to see for true energy security is that investment to suddenly go away if prices come down significantly, because they shouldn't have been up as much as they were. That's the issue with bubbles.
You go back to the housing market; you go back to the Internet situation. A lot of supply that was planned to come on ended up not coming on, and so the demand that was anticipated in fact didn't actually materialize, but the plans and the financing and so forth that were anticipated came into being and they were left sort of holding the bag, if you will.