Yes, I understand it's happening, but I think there's a certain logic here that says if you're going to take the oil sands production, you need that for domestic production. I know it's not your decision to make. You're not a regulator. You probably think it would be a great thing. In fact, looking at everything on these charts, we know that everybody is going to make a lot of money, and that's great. I have no problem with profit.
But it's interesting. Some of the countries you compare Canada with, Kazakhstan and Brazil--I don't know if you looked at all the money, because there's a fair bit of leakage in countries like that, too, in terms of returns.
Nonetheless, I'd like to come back to Mr. Woynillowicz. I'm sorry if I have the pronunciation wrong.
You talked about the cost to do the carbon capture and sequestration and the water recycling. The technology is generally available, but there is a cost. What pressures would be on Syncrude or the companies that are operating in the oil sands to go aggressively after that? It's going to affect their bottom line. So if no one says you have to do it, if no one provides any incentives, if no one does anything, how is that going to happen on an accelerated basis? We're going to be pumping out more CO2.
On the water issue, I think I'm getting close to an answer. I wish people would just come clean on it. But it looks like there's a timing problem. The water goes into these ponds...and I could never figure it out. If it's going into the ponds and we're getting 90% recycle, how is it that the Athabasca River Basin is under siege? It doesn't make any sense. So there's clearly a timing problem. As long as the production keeps growing the way it is, we're going to have this timing problem and we're going to have this problem, it seems to me, with the Athabasca River Basin.
So how are we going to get these technologies accelerated? These companies aren't going to take a $12 a barrel hit to their bottom line just to be good corporate citizens.