Just to clarify, the goal of the study that was conducted in Europe, and that I think also applies to Canada, was to figure out where the expertise is. Currently the expertise is clearly in reactors but also in processing. If you look at where the processing areas are, you can see that they are mainly in Canada, Holland and in Belgium. So it is true that there is expertise potential that we can use.
In Europe there's currently a mid-term project—I'm referring to 2016, which is in five or six years—and that is the Dutch project, Pallas. There's also a project in the south of France, the Jules-Horowitz project, whose purpose is not to manufacture molybdenum but rather to serve as an alternative producer, a backup to the Dutch reactor, and the third absolutely worthwhile project is the one involving the university reactor in Munich, Germany, which along with the Jules-Horowitz's project will provide backup to the Dutch initiative.
This is all clearly being designed with a view to providing lasting production that will be able to cover European needs—that is very clear. In other words, this will serve as an alternative to the Dutch HFR, but will not have the capacity to meet global needs. The idea is to double production capacity in order to fill any gaps or replace reactors if and when they are undergoing maintenance.
I'd like to say clearly what I said earlier: we need to conceive a transatlantic initiative with at least one North American equivalent because that is the greatest area of global consumption. I think it is important that there be an equivalent project on the other side as well.