In the case of Mexico, as an example, it's physically a much smaller country and it's much more logistically accessible. The Mexican government has recently—I do not have exact dates off the top of my head, but they have completed a major regional mapping program of their entire country, analogous to what we currently have under way in the GEM program.
By comparison, it's our vast territory, the relative inaccessibility, and frankly, the absolute expense of going to the unmapped or inadequately mapped parts of Canada that are preventing us from having a national scale data set that's comparable to that of other countries. We're the second largest country in the world. All of our inadequately mapped areas are in the territories effectively where it's remote, difficult, and there are short field seasons. It's a financial and logistical challenge to undertake the techniques that Dr. Percival pointed out, to do the homework, to get on the ground, to do the ground truthing to come up with those maps, which are not the best available but are adequate to support the investment decisions with sufficient precision. And the precision varies within an individual map area. Some areas are more covered by drift and we don't know with certainty where the different bedrock units are; we can infer it from the geophysical measurements. In other places, where the bedrock is well exposed, we can put our fingers on the difference between this rock type and that rock type, and we know with absolute certainty where that boundary occurs between those things.
So it really is a combination of the size and the remoteness of Canada where the remaining inadequately mapped areas are. Other countries have had perhaps a more logistically straightforward way of doing it. Australia and Mexico have both recently invested in programs similar to GEM to bring their national knowledge bases up to modern standards. We're doing the best we can now with the current five-year program.