On the first issue, our view is that we were looking at foreseeable incidents. In establishing the $650 million limit we weren't looking at a catastrophic loss because we did not believe that would be an appropriate parameter to determine an operator's insurance, the worst-case catastrophic loss, similar to Chernobyl. We did not anticipate that we would set the operator's liability. We looked at something that could be foreseeable, in terms of evacuations, etc. In fact, we found, after looking at the Magellan study, that the $650 million was well placed, far in excess of what that study had found.
