I'll approach the answer to that question in two ways.
One is that the model itself is designed to leverage. What that means, of course, going back to my water technology testing example, is that companies don't have to do everything. They don't have to test every technology. They can count on their collaborators inside of COSIA to do an awful lot of work, because they know they're going to get those results back. Just the concept of leverage itself, by definition, is about 13:1, all things being equal. It's a little more complex than that, more complex than you might have expected, but basically, a company can get the same amount of innovation done—discovery, development, demonstration, and deployment—much more cheaply and quickly because they're actually in the alliance itself. That's one thing I would say.
The second thing is that much of the environmental performance improvement that these companies are relentlessly pursuing, frankly, is about waste. It is about how we could use less energy and how we could waste less energy. How could we use less water? How could we take the waste of tailings and turn it into a resource, or not produce it in the first place?
Fundamentally, the concept of producing waste is not good for these companies, just like it's not good for any company, any individual, or any sector. Fundamentally, if they produce less waste, it's almost always an economic advantage to those companies, because it reduces their operating costs in a co-benefit way. If we find them a way to decrease GHG emissions, it really means that they're not using as much energy and they're lowering the cost base. It's the same for water. It's the same for not disturbing wetlands to begin with. It's the same for not producing as much tailings to begin with. Fundamentally, at the environmental nexus is an issue of cost and environmental performance.