As I mentioned, the information was quite difficult to obtain from the gulf. The technologies that exist today have been improved through time. Basically, we want to recover the oil and not the water, for one. Secondly, introducing dispersants to oil spills is controversial, because in fact we're adding chemicals, for one. We're adding another product, and this product reacts with the oil, making it less adhesive to recovery operations. So it can hamper recovery operations if there's too much, depending upon the quality of the oil, etc. There are many, many factors.
I think Mr. Cullen had a very good question earlier with respect to the Arctic recovery versus non-Arctic. There does not exist today technology that can recover oil from ice or under ice, in snow. This is very important to think about. If we have a spill like the gulf spill, we're skimming oil from water, or we'll have to separate the oil from the water. It's already an emulsion. That's also very difficult. There are many different environments. The technology... There are different types of machines. In the gulf they're having difficulty. In fact, the Exxon Valdez, for example, was a ship that released oil in a bay. The oil in the gulf is being released from one mile below the surface, so by the time it reaches the surface, it's already dispersed. So imagine this, for example, in the Arctic. You can't lay boom around ice; you can't recover oil from the surface because it's hampered by the ice or under the ice. So it's quite a different scenario. There is really no solution or method today that we're aware of that can actually recover oil from the Arctic.
The gulf spill is unique in a way. It's not a rupture that's containable. By the time it got to the surface there was such a volume that it was beyond containment. This is why we see this 40% of the area of the gulf that is already closed for fishing. The surface area is massive. There are many different aspects.