It seems like we're caught up on this term of “environmental characteristics” as though we have to take that out of it because that wasn't a term that was used when we were talking with the various provinces and so on. However, is that not exactly what you're saying—that we look at environmental characteristics and have to make decisions, and that the regulators are going to make decisions based on the environmental characteristics?
I'm just having trouble trying to figure out why we don't just include that. Again, if we know we're on the right track and it really is “environmental characteristics” and that's what regulators have to deal with, why can't we take the time to include that and find the wording that Mr. Patzer is attempting to put together? Is it not the “environmental characteristics” that each of those regulators have to pay attention to?