Yes, there are a couple of different options going east, a couple of different options going west, from Alberta and, of course, south as well.
I think that what you're seeing is the fact that anyone with a commodity is best served by having a variety of folks they can sell to, whether the commodity is grain, potash, oil, apples, or maple syrup. It's the same thing; it's a positive market dynamic. It's also an ability to tap into various hubs that meet a variety of customer needs and opportunities in that fashion.
For context, the way I look at it, first of all, the issue of the value added or not added from a tube of steel a metre under the ground is really important in terms of those job choices, but not very important in terms of the infrastructure planning. You're still going to need to move energy and it will be more economical if you have that infrastructure in place. It gives you options and choices in changing service and direction, as we've seen in the Line 9 example over time.
Also in terms of scale, keep in mind that if Canada moves to produce to the level that it aspires to, we would essentially need as a country six Northern Gateways across the country, or in different directions, to meet that gradual increase in production over the next 20 years. So it's not an either-or proposition in these projects. It's not an either-or proposition in terms of destination, but certainly there are great opportunities in a variety of markets and the connection to the east has some wonderful direct implications in terms of existing refining interests and opportunities for consumers and jobs in the downstream. On a global refining basis—and Monsieur Cloutier would know this much better than I—these are very competitive undertakings, with high volume, large scale, and very stringent environmental demands. If we in Canada can provide alternatives for the feedstock to help them be even more competitive and more secure, that's good for Canadians.