Sure. The first one isn't the most conventional type of risk most people would think of, but it's the risk that it's easier to get pigeonholed, and we as a country have been pigeonholed in the U.S.—I would argue somewhat unfairly—as a dirty energy purveyor, and we could be much more than that.
As Ms. Crockatt commented, we do have some clean oil sands operations, cleaner than conventional, but they're not zero carbon or even close to approaching zero carbon. We could get quite close to zero carbon if we were to take the ATCO Group's plan and use the abundant thousands of megawatts of hydro power in northern Alberta to steam out the oil—use that electricity to steam out the oil. If we did that, it would be pretty hard for U.S. environmentalists and Robert Redford to oppose the import of Canadian oil that was zero carbon.
For the other one, I'd like to use the metaphor of a horse. I think we've taken a bit of a one-trick-pony approach on our energy strategy, and it has been a lot about exporting our oil, particularly our oil sands oil. When the world changes and our biggest customer finds that they have more oil than they thought they had, and we can't build our pipelines because the environmental community is a much more powerful force than we thought they were at preventing those pipelines, we wake up feeling a little like the person in The Godfather when he unfortunately found his favourite horse's head in bed with him. It's not a pretty picture for our economy.
It never pays to put all your eggs in one basket. Not only does it make it harder for us to export our oil, by not having green energy being produced in Alberta that's abundant and economic in the hydro form, but it also makes us quite vulnerable when we put all our eggs in that hydrocarbon basket.
So for both reasons, for the sake of the oil industry and for the sake of economic green energy generation, it makes a lot more sense to diversify into both clean and conventional energy.