There are a lot of underpinning assumptions in those questions that I'd like to deal with.
The first one is the notion that ethanol doesn't have a good energy return. This is something that we've heard for quite some time. At the advent of ethanol when it was first considered for the Model T, there was a concern with the energy return that you would get, but you no longer see that. You do see a significant energy boost for the energy that we invest into it. It's going to be different based on your process. As I noted in my remarks on cellulosic ethanol, which is something that can be bolted onto a traditional ethanol facility, you get a much better return. But it is an energy positive balance. It's going to depend on your facility. I don't know what kind of facility is going to go into Oshawa. I've seen some of the discussion in the media. I don't have a position on it one way or another.
The second question is a much more interesting one. If you had asked the same question about gasoline in 1945 what would your answer be? We wouldn't necessarily know. I would tell you that separate and apart from the fuel aspects of ethanol, which are mandated—and those mandates are incredibly important and you see them everywhere in the world—the octane enhancement of ethanol is very valuable in terms of getting performance out of the fuel. It's an octane performance that exists without some toxic substances, like things that are listed under CEPA as toxic, benzene for example. I think the answer to your second question is the more interesting one in that it is a very nice way to enhance the performance of fuel and as such oil and gas companies should use it in the future as an octane enhancer as well as a fuel.