Well, at the risk of being argumentative, except that if there's more oil by rail, it's more oil passing through bigger cities. The one accident we've had that has been quite catastrophic and expensive was in a small town. I guess we don't know exactly what the total cost of all that was, but it was up in the hundreds of millions. I think everybody understand that.
In the context of a big city such as Toronto, where we have a lot of oil going by rail in communities of literally 10,000 people a stone's throw away from rail track, clearly there's an increased probability of an accident in a dense urban community that's going to cost well in excess of what's happened in Lac-Mégantic for a few hundred million dollars. I would have thought that those are the kinds of things that would have been taken into account in the risk assessment.
If yours is different from theirs, and you don't know how they came up with theirs, is there not an industry standard for determining liability that you would have employed?