Thank you very much. That's an excellent question.
In terms of the scenario, if you like, of reducing coal from the fuel mix entirely as a solution to climate change, we actually think that strategically would not be a wise move. From a Canadian point of view, given the size of the resource that we have in Canada--a large known cost, easily accessible, low-value fuel that is excellent for power generation--coal is a wise fuel to maintain in the fuel mix. We believe that diversity of Canada's fuel mix is important. Secondly, there are places in Canada, particularly places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where alternatives for large-scale generation are not many. There might possibly be a massive nuclear build, but not hydro as in Quebec. In fact, if we can solve the emissions problem associated with coal, then we can turn a potential liability into a massive competitive advantage for Canada. I believe this is exactly what we should be doing with CCS.
To the second part of your question around capturing one third of the emissions from our pioneer project, I wanted to emphasize that this is a prototype project. In fact, we fully intend to capture 100% of the emissions from that project, but this is a pre-commercial-scale demonstration project to prove the technology. We believe that once we do that and drive the costs down to where they need to be, we will apply carbon capture to 100% of our emissions stream, not just from one plant but from all our plants.