On the sustainability issue with the oil sands, a lot of it depends on the timeframe, because you can say yes, each individual deposit is not sustainable--you're going to run out of it at some point--but mining's been with us for 10,000 years and it's going to be with us for another 10,000 years. It's the timeframe you put things in, and it's the transformation of that capital. When that capital, and it's a natural capital, is sitting in the ground, it is valueless. It doesn't have any value until you invest in it to take it out of the ground and get a return on it. That return allows you to transform it into financial capital--that's the wealth generation component. Those rent revenues that return to government through royalties and corporate income tax rates allow governments to invest in the human resource capital.
The human ingenuity we create at the end of the day allows us to develop the substitutes and develop the different approaches that ultimately will see us use renewable energy resources at some point in the future. It will allow us to--and we're going to continue to have to--use coal. Canada doesn't need to sink one more drill hole in coal. We've got 400 years of supply. It's a cheap energy resource, but given the other dimensions to it, it will only have continued use if we solve the greenhouse gas dimension associated with it, so that we protect the other elements of natural capital, like clean air, etc.
The question is, do we have the wit to manage this in a manner that contributes to those other forms of capital in an optimum way, without damaging other systems irreparably? That's where public policy and the issue of focus have to be, and where you should want to invest in terms of what we're doing as an industry and what government should look at in solving some of these problems.