I think the better judgment was to not run that risk as long as there was a credible--and I emphasize the word credible--plan in place to try and maximize the chances that the taxpayers were going to get a return on their money.

Well, let me ask you this, then. Based upon assuming that there is a reasonable improvement in market conditions...

Again, I think all of us want to address climate change. We just want to do it in a way that actually solves the problem.

And does not just harm our economy without solving the problem.

As I recall, in the beginning stages of Korea it also meant that our performance suffered because we were just trying to make the best of a bad situation. We shouldn't consciously put ourselves in that spot.

Does this concern either of you? There are some alternative routes we've explored.

What are the prospects for getting this done and how long will it take if we can't get it done?

When a marine uses a term like 'emasculate' the situation must be fairly dire.

I want this to be a very cooperative relationship.

That would be at the top of your priority list?

You can't meet an increased demand with a constant supply.