I apologize for that paragraph being confusing, but the reference to 10 years was to mean that it may take a decade or so to actually set up and implement the vision that we're talking about.
When you're talking about recovering full costs for things like isotope production, you recognize that you have waste management issues and costs of processing the isotopes on site. All those costs are unique to the isotope production mission, so all of them have to be recovered; otherwise, you're subsidizing that mission.
The NRCan expert review panel specified that you'd recover about 10% to 15% of your reactor costs from isotope production. That's where the multi-purpose nature of the facility is an advantage, because when you're looking at capital operating costs, you divide them among the various missions. You're not recovering all those costs necessarily from that mission; most of those costs are in support of, or would be recovered through, the other missions.
However, all the costs that are unique to isotope production have to be covered. We're not in a position to present the business plan, per se, of how all that would work, but we do know that the costs of production are only about a tenth of the end user market price, so there's significant room to grow without greatly affecting the end users if the business model around that changes.
We mention informally that in order to recover those costs, there would be an increase in the price by a factor of about three at the production standpoint. Essentially what we're saying is that whatever those costs are, let's charge it. We're not in a position to do the calculations and determine that it's going to cost a certain amount and then what the price would be; whatever the price is, let's charge it. That's operating on a sound business model.