Thank you for those questions. I will invite my colleagues to address a number of them.
The first one was framework versus a national energy strategy with set or determined values embedded in it. Our view, which runs through the presentation, is that the track record of the former national energy policy as a value-determined strategy speaks for itself. It's not some place we want to go back to. We think markets do a much better job of allocating resources appropriately. No, we do not see a framework in the sense of a deterministic strategy. We see a framework in terms of an articulated set of government policies, and understanding those and then fine-tuning them to optimize investment conditions to ensure that markets are allowed to work well.
In terms of the last question--and I want to link it to markets, coal sequestration and its cost structure--about why we would do that when we think wind, for instance, or other alternatives would be cost-competitive with those projected costs, again, I think if you let markets work, they will either select for or against a clean coal strategy in future. If other alternatives are more economic and more attractive, they will emerge as the winners and those that are more expensive will not tend to flourish.
In our view, we in Canada think we have an abundant coal resource. If we are to use it, we have to make it environmentally compatible with our future commitments and expectations. There are technologies that would allow us to do that. If they are cost-competitive and can be made reliable and cost-competitive, we should use them. If we cannot get to that point, then we won't use them. It's that simple.
Efficiency based on Europe and Japan--when prices in Canada reflect those in Europe and Japan, we will see the same technologies deployed here. It's only economically rational that the technologies deployed address energy in the same way as other inputs. We optimize toward more or less energy depending on the price and the price of the technology choice you have. The trend is certainly toward a standardization in products and equipment that is more globally consistent, so European and Japanese products and equipment standards for efficiency will increasingly be interchangeable with ours in North America. I see that as closing the gap. At one time, we had huge differentials in energy prices.
Today those prices are coming together and technology is developed globally. All the manufacturing, the big equipment, most of the motors that drive manufacturing and industry come from a limited number of global technology sources. When you map technology you find you're going back to core technologies, and generally we see a closing of that gap through international standardization, another thing we are adopting in Canada. I sit on the board of the Standards Council of Canada. One of the things we do a lot of is adopting international standards for equipment; we see more and more of that.
I will pass on the natural gas crisis question---the LNG, the oil sands, and the oil subsidies questions---to my colleagues who are more directly involved.