My point was this: How is Algar fitting in with the normal flow of project reviews? We don't know, which is exactly my point. Shouldn't we know?

Was ERCB approval longer than normal? I think so, but there should be a metric out there showing under normal conditiions what timeline is usual. Do normal project reviews take 18 months, but Algar only took 15? Maybe this project was actually quicker, but do we know?

Were there more problems, or more difficult problems with Algar? I don't think so, but what is the normal number of problems with projects? What are the types and difficulties of problems, and where did Algar fit in to the mix? No idea. Does a project normally experience 6 minor problems and 2 major problems, etc?

How long does the Cabinet usually take to process recommendations? There should be a chart for this, for example 2005 - 30 days, 2006 - 40 days, 2007 45 days, 2008 25 days … (purely hypothetical)

How many recommendations for project improvement did the ERCB make as a percentage of projects? 2006 - 20%, 2007 - 75% … they're probably doing a great job, but is there visibility? Wouldn't it benefit all parties to make this information available?

I'm wondering if there are internal metrics they're just not sharing for whatever reason. Of course the numbers are much more complex than I've intimated, just examples of what I'm interested in.

Anyway … I'll get off the soap box, sorry if it's considered digression from the normal conversation. It would just be nice to have a better grasp of the big picture.