I don't think it's just a matter of accessing the U.S. market. A lot of it is the geography within the U.S. market. If we were accessing the northeastern U.S. or the gulf coast or the U.S. west coast, that would be a different situation. The problem is that all that oil is being stranded in one place, in the midwestern U.S., which is what's depressing the price.
I find it interesting that this differential has just opened up over the last couple of years. It's a completely new phenomenon, and yet it's spurred.... I've heard ideas about putting in a pipeline through the west coast; running one up through Alaska and accessing the west coast; that if B.C. is going to be difficult, there's the idea of running something up the Churchill. We're now talking about converting one of the gas pipelines to eastern Canada, and of course increasing our flow to the south.
We're basically looking in every direction because there's a lot of money on the table. This morning I calculated that if our export price had increased at the same rate as our import price of oil, we would have picked up $8.5 billion in 2012. That's the best estimate I can come up with on how much money has been left on the table because of this.
If you throw $8.5 billion on the table, you're going to get a lot of ideas, but I suspect that because there's so much money involved, you just need one or two of these projects to go through and that will eliminate this unusual differential.