I couldn't answer that. We'd have to ask the scientists. They do retrospective analyses to try to understand what happened so they can make better predictions in the future. It's not clear that we'd end up in the same spot in that kind of scenario, because there was going to be a decline regardless of the decision taken in 2009. There would have been a decline into 2010. The question is, what would have been different in 2009 from what we did? Would we have ended up with less of a dip or not? I think you'd have to ask the scientists and they might have to do some retrospective analysis.
We were going to go down, in our opinion, and we are probably going to stay down in 2011 in the same general vicinity. I'm speaking out of turn here, because the science advice is only now being analyzed. But that's the circumstance. Whether we would have hit the same level had we taken a lower TAC in 2009, I'd have to ask the scientists to make that kind of a call.