That's a good question. I'll be honest with you. We haven't really looked at it from a cost perspective. It's more from an efficiency perspective, basically following the directions given by this committee and by the government and opposition House leaders in their letters. That's where we look at all the options that way.
Once we have all the options defined and we know what's being offered, then we can decide. Then we can cost them out and find out exactly for a final decision, but at this point, I don't have details on it.
It sounds like what you're saying makes sense. One is less expensive than the other. That would be the logical assumption, but what I've found with assumptions sometimes is that I'm not always right when I assume one thing and then find out that we didn't take everything into consideration. A lot of work has been done in the background for both of those cases to make sure that they are implementable.