I'm very happy to do that.
First, when the decision was made just over a year ago, that was based upon third party advice and our own internal expertise, applied against a very challenging problem, which was to try to resolve a technical and licensing issue that up to that point in time had defied resolution.
When we looked forward at the pathway and asked, what do we need to spend, how long is it going to take, and what kinds of risks do we have to assume in order to go further and try to bring the MAPLEs to a position where they are able to be licensed, we made the decision that it was not the right way for us to go, it wasn't an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money, and it was indeed chasing a possibility that had a relatively low probability of success. In our view, that decision and that judgment still holds.
As a result of that, we took steps to bring the reactor into an extended shutdown state, and that's where it resides today. It is, in our view, years away. Even if we decided tomorrow morning to restore the MAPLE reactors to some state whereby they could potentially produce isotopes for medical purposes, it is years away, hundreds of millions of dollars away, and entails very, very high technical risk. We don't believe those are appropriate pathways for us to follow, and there is no scenario we can imagine whereby the MAPLEs could be brought out of their current state and be any solution to the near-term isotope shortage.