On the question of Eskom's deal with the smelters, Mr Flaherty pointed out that Eskom wished to abide by those contracts but was concerned with trying to get a better deal out of them. The contracts had been in place for many years, dating back to times when South Africa had surplus electricity supplies and had wanted to grow industry, and therefore those contracts made sense in that context at the time. In 2009, circumstances changed and the contracts then had adverse effects on Eskom. Eskom would have liked to rescind them, but had no legal basis to do so, and it was problematic to involve the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) and the government. He noted that the price was confidential; both Eskom and BHP Billiton had to have their confidentiality protected. Billiton had other competitors in the field of aluminium and had shareholders to whom it was accountable. He confirmed that the remaining R4.5 billion loss on Eskom's balance sheet as at 31 March 2010 did basically reflect the future losses from Bayside and Hillside in terms of the megaflex price.