Thank you for the question.
To your first question, looking at the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments, the answer is absolutely. Our belief is that in order to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we need a portfolio approach. Of course, a group like the Pembina Institute is going to advocate for, let's say, higher expenditures in fighting climate change than we may actually receive. But we don't want investments in CCS necessarily to be at the cost of investments in renewables and energy efficiency. We think that through a variety of economic instruments and an adequate carbon price we can actually achieve all three at the same time. I want to make that point clear.
As for the carbon being used for enhanced oil recovery, it really begs a good life-cycle analysis to see what happens. If the carbon does come, do we have a net savings? The answer is in many cases yes. Certainly in the early stages, in order for CCS to be viable they need that revenue tranche. All three of us have spoken about the financial gap. When you're able to bring in a revenue source such as EOR, it helps decrease the gap. In some cases they'd use water flooding and bring that oil up regardless, so why don't we use CO2 and save our water?
However, as I say, some studies have come out recently that indicate that the life-cycle benefits need to be better understood, and we would support that kind of analysis.