On your first question on the total liability, all I will give you is what I have read in the press. I think the latest figure I read in the press is that the total cost is estimated to be $100 billion. That's for everything: cleaning up the communities, the infected communities, and the facility itself, etc. I don't know the validity of those numbers. I'm not aware of those things. My answer is picked right from the press.
In our assessment, and I'll ask my colleague Mr. Howden to give you more details, it is up to the proponent, the client, to come to us with arguments about the safety case. It's up to them to demonstrate to us why the proposed facility would be safe for the environment, for people, and for security in the proposed location, if you like.
That's no different in any location. I don't necessarily see that as any different from operating a mine in the northern climate, for example, where they have to deal with some of those same kinds of harsh realities, the harsh weather, etc.—but the current proposal is to dig deep underground. We would have to look at what that means in terms of its impacts, in terms of the operation. So I cannot tell you a priori what it's going to be, but we have a definitive kind of requirement for the proponent to prove to us that it's going to be safe for the environment, for the people, for security.