First, on the issue of the tanker panel, we think it's a very positive move that the federal government has announced. As I said a moment ago, even if you can squeeze 1% improvement out of the safety record of our industry, let's go for it and use the tanker panel as a way to get that. We're very supportive of that.
In terms of the contribution to the economy, that's a very tough one for us to gauge. If we go from 300,000 barrels a day to 890,000 barrels a day, in the case of the Kinder Morgan project, what that translates to in terms of economic gain for the local area, it's a difficult number.... I don't have that number.
However, the east-west discussion that you raised is a very interesting one. The difficulty, when you look at the economics of moving the oil west, of course, is that you still need a customer. You need a customer if you move the oil to the east. The problem you would have is that going forward, by any economic forecast, the main growth area for oil consumption is not in the western hemisphere; it's in the eastern hemisphere. You have to move that oil east. You have to move it to Asia. The problem is that you would potentially meet tidewater in eastern Canada through those pipelines. Then you would actually be the furthest distance from those markets, of any supply market in the world.
When you look at West Africa, Venezuela, and the Middle East, all are supply areas. Eastern Canada would be a very long way from ultimate destination, and with oil consumption declining in Europe and North America, it would have to be a very careful judgment as to whether that eastern connection ultimately would achieve the objectives that Canada is seeking to generate.