Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Barrick Gold Third Quarter 2010 Results Conference Call. During today’s presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode and afterwards, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) And as a reminder, this conference is being recorded, Thursday, October 28, 2010. And I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Deni Nicoski, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Operator. Before we begin, I will bring to your attention the fact that we will be making forward-looking statements during the course of this presentation. For a complete discussion of the risks, uncertainties, and factors which may lead to our actual financial results and performance being different from the estimates contained in our forward looking statement, please refer to our year end report or our most recent AIF filing. With that, I’ll hand it over to Aaron Regent, President and CEO of Barrick.

Thanks, Deni, and good morning, and thank you for joining the Barrick third quarter conference call. I’m joined here today by Jamie Sokalsky, Peter Kinver and Kelvin Dushnisky, and there are other members of our senior management team as well, who will be available to answer questions later on the call. I’ll start by covering some of the highlights of the quarter and then provide an update on our projects. And then I’ll turn the call over to Jamie to take you through our results in more detail and our views on the outlook for gold, after which we’d be happy to take any questions that you might have. To summarize, we are pleased with the results, our results in the third quarter. Our production levels in cash costs were on plan and combined with the increase in the gold price resulted in record financial results. Third quarter production was 2.06 million ounces, which was produced at a cash cost of $450 per ounce. The realized gold price for Barrick was $1,237 per ounce, resulting in cash margins of $783 per ounce, which is over 50% -- a 50% increase when compared to last year and that translates, when applied against our production into record cash flow and earnings. Cash flow for operations was $1.28 billion and over $3.3 billion year-to-date, and third quarter net income was $837 million or $0.85 per share. On an adjusted basis, net income was $829 million or $0.84 per share, which translates into an annualized return on equity of about 18%. Our project pipeline continues to more forward, in particular Cortez is performing ahead of expectations and we’ve also made meaningful progress in identifying new growth and investment opportunities within our existing asset base. As a result, we have set a new production target…

Thanks, Aaron. As Aaron has already mentioned, we’re having an excellent year with production growing and our margins expanding. Gold production of 2.06 million ounces in the third quarter was 8% higher than the same period a year ago and we’ve held the line on cash costs, despite the realized gold price averaging some $266 higher per ounce than in the third quarter of 2009, which drives higher royalties in our cash costs. In fact, on a year-to-date basis, the higher gold price has added about $12 per ounce in royalties and production taxes to our cash costs compared to last year. As Aaron also mentioned, cash margins increased 52% to a record $783 per ounce and on a net cash cost basis, margins increased 48% to almost $900 per ounce. And that’s at an average realized price of $1,237 in the quarter and we’re trading about $100 per ounce higher than that right now. This margin expansion, combined with both higher gold and copper sales, drove record net income of $837 million or $0.85 per share. Adjusted net income rose 75% to $829 million or $0.84 per share from the same prior year period. This of course, also translated into robust operating cash flow of about $1.3 billion in the third quarter, the third quarter in a row we’ve generated over $1 billion in cash flow and that represents a 40% increase from the same quarter of 2009. And our free cash flow generated in the first nine months of this year is very healthy at almost $1.5 billion, despite our investment in our large high return development projects. And given our positive view of gold prices, we expect this trend of year-over-year margin expansion to continue this year. Assuming our total cash cost guidance of about $455 per…

Thanks, Jamie. In closing, we are pleased with the progress we’ve made this year, gold has performed well and the outlook continues to be positive. Our operations have also performed well and costs have been controlled, which has allowed us to substantially increase our operating margins. When applied against our production this is translated into record financial results. Our project pipeline continues to advance, Cortez has performed ahead of expectations. A new projects are being identified like the Turquoise Ridge Super Pit. We’ve made good progress at identifying other opportunities within our existing asset base, which allow us to deploy capital at attractive rates of return and grow our production to reach our target of 9 million ounces within the next five years. So, that concludes our formal presentation and operator at this point we’d be happy to take questions.

Absolutely. Thank you. (Operator Instructions) And our first question comes from the line of John Bridges with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Aaron, Jamie, everybody. So, it sounds as if we’ve go to just of our old financial model from four or five years ago when we had a similar system to the IFRS, I guess. And quickly on the Veladero, what sort of production profile should we expect with that one going forward, it seems to be quite volatile?

Maybe I can answer that, John. Veladero has had a very good year, which we’ve been saying and we will see a slight drop in production next year from its current levels where the grades will get down from about 0.06 to about 0.04. So, this year has been a very good year but we will see reduction next year.

Thanks. Thanks a lot, Pete. And then the follow-up. On this glacier issue, is this an issue in the State of San Juan has a different attitude toward the glacier rules than the federal government and it’s a battle between the two entities?

I don’t know if there’s necessarily a different attitude, I think the common objective, which we share as well, is the desire to take steps to protect glaciers and para glaciers. So, I think that’s the common ground amongst everybody. I think the question though is who has the jurisdiction over resources within a province and the -- our interpretation of the constitution is that that is a provincial area of responsibility. And so we view it that the provincial legislation is what they express it but that’s something that will be, I guess, some of that will be clarified. And I should add that the province sees it that way as well.

Any timeline on how that’s going to get clarified?

Very hard to predict. But I think that, as I said in my remarks, as far as we’re concerned, we’re fully compliant with the provincial legislation. And in any event, we have gone through extensive measures from a -- in the preparation of the environmental impact assessments, the reviews that have taken place, the scrutiny of the EIS has been quite extensive both on its land on the Argentinian side. So we don’t anticipate that there should be any issues and as I said, we’re in compliance with our permits and we’re in compliance with the provincial legislation.

Yes. Thanks a lot. That was very helpful and congratulations on the quarter.

Thank you.

Thanks John.

And our next question comes from the line of Greg Barnes with TD Securities. Please go ahead, Mr. Barnes.

Yeah. Thank you. Similar question with John’s doubt, this one about Cortez Hills and saying that you expect production to decline little bit in Q4 and then rebound in the first quarter in 2011. How does that grade profile look to you over the over next year or so?

Should I answer that, Greg. And yeah, I think, Greg, we’re experiencing grades that are currently substantially higher than reserve grades and we will probably be making adjustment to our reserve grades at the end of this year. How much, I can’t say, but I think the production next year should be very similar to this year especially if we put a positive correction in.

Okay. Great. And the second question. Aaron, at Goldstrike, I understand you’ve been working to increase the capacity utilization of the autoclave? Can you discuss what you’re doing there and how you expect that to move going forward?

Sure. We have a project which we call our (inaudible) project. And I’d say that the project is going well and so, we think we would anticipate that the utilization of the autoclaves will probably be longer than I think what has been telegraphed in the last little while. With, other than that, I don’t know Peter if you want to?

Yeah. I can, well, the test work’s been very successful so we anticipate and in prior years we would sort of saying that the Goldstrike production was a drop under the million ounce kind of annual production, but now with this viable technology we hope to see the production Goldstrike say -- stay more at its current levels.

What have you done in terms of the work on the autoclaves?

Well we convert them. It’s not a difficult process, it’s just changing the environment in which the autoclaves operate and the estimated CapEx (multiple speaker) about $200 million.

Okay. Which you’ll incur when?

I’m not too sure, but probably starting next year.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Thanks, Greg.

And our next question comes from the line of Patrick Chidley with HSBC. Please go ahead.

Morning, gentleman. And I wonder if you can maybe elaborate a little bit more on this Turquoise Ridge Super Pit, just in terms of strip ratio, average grade and what needs to happen to push that into reserves, because I notice it’s quite a lot larger than even your total resource for 100% of the project.

Right. Well, we are in a preliminary stage, so there’s a number of components that there’s work to be done to be more precise. But in terms of strip ratio, the strip ratio will be high. This will be a very large pit, bigger than Goldstrike in fact. So it will be there will be a lot of material that has to use. I think the one positive, however, is that there is oxide material at the top part of the pit which will help pay for the stripping costs, so that will be a benefit. I think the, if I recall, the cutoff grade we used for the conceptual study was about 0.04 and so that’s what we’re working with right now. In terms of next steps, it’s really drilling and so we’ll have an extensive drilling program, which is underway right now and we’ll be ramping it up. Our budget, I think we’ll be spending about $30 to $40 million over the next 12 months on that. And then in parallel we’ll be doing, I would say, metallurgical test work and other aspects to put us in a position where we should have a pre-feasibility study done, potentially well a Phase 1 pre-feasibility study towards the end of next year.

Okay. Just on the 20 million ounce figure, is that something that’s kind of in an inferred category now?

We have Rob Krcmarov who’s the head of our exploration here. Maybe, I’ll ask Rob if you want to take that one.

Okay. I think our reserve base is a little over 5 million ounces at the moment. We’ve got a significant M&I. We also have inferred, but we have a very large mineral inventory in excess of 3 or 4 million ounces which we are hoping to convert during the next 12 months also and there’s more beyond that that we’re aware of isolated drill hole intercepts right around the periphery.

Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. Great. Thanks very much.

Okay. Thanks.

And our next question is from the line of Jorge Beristain with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead

Good morning, gentlemen and great quarterly result. My question is just again, following up a little bit on this opportunity at Turquoise Ridge, assuming that you do a pre-feas during 2011. When do you think you could expect to see some of that potential incremental 600 or 650,000 ounce per year potential to start to hit your P&L?

This is a, what we sort of characterize is five to 10 project. So, it’s not going to come in within the next five years. I think the schedule as I laid out pre-feased by the end next year which will be refined, bankable probably 12, 13 and then permitting, permitting could take a considerable amount of time, maybe up to four years or so. So, if everything comes together we could anticipate production in the 2018, ‘19 type timeframe.

Okay. And my other question just was an update on Pueblo Viejo. We’ve heard that the potential power link up may delay the start-up of that project by about one quarter. Could you comment a little bit more as to what is exactly the nature of the delay in getting power to that site? Is it applications, permitting or is it just a physical constraint in the power lines to the site?

The permits we’re working on relates to the power transmission line and we had submitted a original routing and had been working with the Ministry of Environment on that routing, who has suggested changes to it. So that’s what we’ve been working through and we’ve agreed to that. So, we anticipate getting the approvals imminently, so there’s no I think structural issues or anything related to that. But the, I think getting those in hand has taken a bit longer than we anticipated so our ability to start construction of the transmission line has been delayed. And we are looking at other alternatives to get power to site to allow us to start the commission of the plant, including putting (inaudible) sets on site. Also, potentially pulling power off the grid and putting them in that line to connect to that grid and pulling power off the grid. So, we are working on alternatives, which if there is a delay in getting the our transmission to line to site, there are alternatives to bridge that to allow us to commission the plant to start us to producing. So, there are a number of different things we’re working on, I think that in full disclosure we just wanted to highlight that the transmission line is a critical path item and we just wanted to be clear on what’s happening there, so there wouldn’t be any surprises later on. But I should sum up by saying that our goal continues to be production in the fourth quarter.

Okay. Thank you.

And our next question comes from the line of Kerry Smith with Haywood Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Operator. Just on Pascua-Lama, how would you report your costs here Jamie, are you intending to report them as you’ve kind of given the net of the silver credit or will you do some kind of co-prior to accounting process?

Well, I think what we’re really looking at is, continuing to report it I’d just say on the same basis as we’ve done on a by-product basis, certainly with respect to our cash costs and such. We may show in the income statement the metal streams separately on the revenue side but as far as our normal reporting of cash costs and in line with the industry, we’d look at doing that on a by-product basis.

Okay. And what silver price would you think about doing on a co-product basis, because silver is plainly higher than what you used?

Yeah. Well, I think the -- there is a correlation with gold and silver, and so I don’t think it’s really going to hang on what -- what the price of silver is. I think really what we’re going to be looking at is a by-product, because we also have to look at the project in relation to the size of the company as well, in terms of gold revenue and silver revenue. So, it’s not really going to hang on the silver price.

Okay. And just at Pueblo Viejo, you’ve got 75% of the capital committed. How much of the contingency have you actually used so far? Can you just remind me how much the total contingency was?

The total contingency if I can remember was 12% to 14%, Kerry, I think. And we’ve still got sufficient contingency in place and I was recently down there, and there’s no major, anything glooming out there that’s could consume all that contingency. So, we’re still quite confident at this stage that we’ll get to the end at the $3 billion mark.

Okay. But so I guess, the way it sits today, you’ve used about three quarters of the contingency as well in the process of the construction that kind of roughly how it’s worked out there?

If you want the exact amount, I’ll get it for you, I’d be guessing now.

Okay. I was just wonder…

Yeah. We’ve got, yeah, sorry.

Sorry. Just wondered if you might have saved a little bit on the CapEx? If we should expect the number to be a little bit under budget but maybe you’ve kind of used a pro rata share as you’ve gone through the process?

Yeah. I think that’s safe to say, yeah.

Okay. And then just one last thing, Aaron, on Reko Diq, you mentioned in your comments that you still need to finalize the mineral agreements, I can’t remember exactly what the status is but can you just remind me what has to be done there or if that’s something that we should worry about, if there’s issue with getting this mineral agreement in place with the government?

There’s a -- within our joint venture agreement that we currently have, there’s a process that -- that I -- sets out next steps. And first is, submission of the Bankable Feasibility Study, which point both parties have a period of time to decide whether or not they’re going to participate or not participate in the project. So, we’re kind of in that period right now. And in addition, we’re, as I mentioned in my comments, working with the Balochistan authorities on the project agreement, which will, just like the shareholders agreement which will dictate sort of the governance of the project. With respect to the mineral agreement, the requirement is to complete the EIA which is underway and we should be submitting it shortly, so once we have the BFS combined with the EIA then we’ll look to follow a application for the mining lease.

Okay. Okay. So really it’s the EIA that drives the mineral -- the mining license as it were?

Right.

Okay. Okay. That’s great. Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

And our next question comes from the line of Mark Liinamaa with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hello. Relative to your plans to get to 9 million ounces, just, I guess big picture, what are the challenges as you get to a certain sizes maintaining that type of level? What do your internal models suggest as far as how sustainable that is from a purely organic perspective? Thanks.

Well, in the 9 million ounce target, we -- it incorporates full production from (inaudible) and Pascua-Lama, and then the addition of incremental production from our -- a number of our current mines that’s what gets us there. It doesn’t incorporate the full production from Casale or Donlin, or Turquoise Ridge or some of the other projects that we’re working on or other things that we might identify from a expiration success. So those are other projects that, depending on the time when they come in, will help us continue to support our production base. But and I would be disingenuous if I said that it’s not a challenge, it’s not without challenges to not only get to the 9 million but to maintain the 9 million. So, we do have lots of work to do. But, it’s a five-year goal, now we have five years to make sure we take steps to ensure we’ve got a strong production base between the years five and 10 from now.

Thanks. And maybe just one kind of broad one as well. As you’re talking to your investors, your shareholders and there’s always the debate between growth and capital returns. And certainly, I sense a fairly wide divide on that. What, can you comment on what you’re hearing from folks, what they prefer, as far as the -- how you take advantage of the current environment? Thanks.

I think you’ve summed it up, I don’t think there is a one common view. I think there are different, different views. I think, from our perspective, we look at, investing and return in capital as both important objectives and I think that, if you look at the excess cash that we generate now, I think the first comment is to continue to invest in the projects we are currently constructing. And I think, so long as there are high returning investment alternatives, I haven’t met a shareholder yet who says that’s not a good thing to do with your capital. But, I think we will continue to monitor our financial situation, our capitalization and if we’re in an over capitalized position then we will be looking to rectify the situation by returning capital back to shareholders. So, I think, we’d like to have balanced approach of being able to invest in the business and also be returning capital back to the shareholders, preferably, through growing dividends.

Thanks, Aaron. Good luck.

Okay. Thank you.

And our next question comes from the line of David Haughton with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Good morning and thank you for hosting the call. I have a question with regard to Cortez. A number of different ore streams coming through here, we’ve got open pit ore going through the mill, we’ve got heap leaching underground. What’s the broad contribution that we had seen during the last quarter and going forward of each of those components?

All right. And I’ve got a split here in front of me. The underground contributed 94,000 ounces, the open pits 232,000 ounces and the old pipeline roughly 39,000 ounces. And the cash cost splits between them the overall costs as Aaron mentioned was $277, the pipeline ounces were $375 and the new mine were $210.

With the currently mining above reserve grade, is that largely due to the contribution of very high grade underground material?

Well, it was positive reconciliations in the pit and the underground, more notably in the undergrounds. So what we’ll do is do an evaluation at the end of this year and we may have a positive increase or adjustment.

And for the underground mining, what kind of mining rate are you looking at for the year, are we talking about 0.5 million tons plus sort of thing?

100, sorry, in the quarter we did 111,000 tons. So it’s roughly 100,000 tons a quarter.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that. I’d noticed in regards to Barrick Energy, not a significant component to the business now, but a number of acquisitions had been undertaken over the last number of months, what’s your strategy with regards to Barrick Energy, what’s your plans going forward?

Well we -- our strategy is to, like what we’re doing with all of our assets, is to increase and grow the value of each of our regions and the Barrick Energy is a business that we also want to increase the value and grow the value. And so, we have this platform and I’d say it’s an exceptional management team and so, there have been a number of opportunities to make some bolt-on acquisitions to strengthen the overall business that we have and can we grow the critical mass of the business. Right now it’s a business which is relatively small. Small in liquid and so in terms of the options and what we might be able to do with it, we are somewhat limited. And so, one of the things we are doing is, as I said looking at bolt-on acquisitions assets that are in close proximity to our existing assets. Where we can realize various synergies, get the business to a position where then we have more flexibility to do with it if we so choose. But, in the interim, the investments we’re making are at very good rates of return and quite complementary to the overall company, so it’s a business that we’re -- the business that’s doing well.

All right. Thank you, Aaron. That’s the end of the questions.

Okay. Thank you.

And our next question is from the line of Barry Cooper with CIBC. Please go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

Yeah. Good day, everyone. Aaron, just wondering what is involved in this supplementary environmental impact study that’s being done by the government on Cortez and what are they kind of doing on a day-by-days basis vis-à-vis monitoring your activities or are they actually collecting baseline data or what?

Okay. That’s a good question, Barry. I’ve got Kelvin Dushnisky here, so maybe I’ll ask Kelvin to answer that.

Sure, Barry. The supplemental EIS was really focusing on three areas on Cortez Hills, one was respirable dust, so modeling that according to a new standard that was introduced and the second was emissions associated with hauling ore from Cortez Hills to Goldstrike, and the third related to dewatering. So all three of those have been addressed, the project’s now gone through public review and is tracking very well for our record decision the end the year or early into next year and we see no complications with that.

So is there, so I take it then, nothings being done right now other than it’s kind of sitting on someone’s desk, is that right?

Yeah. Well, it’s going through the process, so it’s being reviewed by interdepartmentally through the agencies that need to review and signoff and that’s been tracking well. So, it’s kind of following the process that needs to follow. U.S. Bureau of Land Management is handing the process very well, we think and so we’re very confident with the schedule.

So, then the initial investigation, I guess then or the supplemental aspect, if you want to call it, was a monitoring of that which you were already doing? Let’s say, for the latter part of 2009 to the early part of 2010?

Correct. This is a focused EIS. Just on areas where following the first review, you recall there was a challenge and the government limited the subsequent review to those particular three areas. We had data already to be able to address them and so this was just a matter of re-packaging, adding to the evaluation and then re-submitting.

Okay. So then looking at things, I guess, I assume that there being a prudent operator that it is, that a lot of these things would have been given a checkmark and therefore the chances of a rejection or an overturning or whatever you want to call it is probably pretty minimal that they will just give this the rubber stamp?

Yeah. We wouldn’t want to call it a rubber stamp. We’re very confident that the project will be approved.

Right. Okay. And then another question with, could one of you flush out just some of the actions that are taking place there at Buzwagi, how much of this underperformance is related to operational issues at, let’s call it the mine site level, i.e. in the deposit and how much are extraneous to the mining, i.e. what’s happening on a social side of things?

Well, Barry, I’ll tackle that first and I may ask Peter. And I think it’s a bit of both. The operation has been impacted by a fuel theft syndicate and that had required us to basically let go of about 60 operators within the mine -- mining department, which is about 40% of our staff. And so that, result of that, we’ve not been able to mine higher grade material and we’ve been processing low grade stockpiles. We think that probably impacted our production by about 30,000 ounces or will impact it by 30,000 ounces this year. That situation being fixed, we’ve got, we’ve just got a bunch of other Barrick people who are there, operating the mine right now, training people, so those ounces we’ll get back, they haven’t gone anywhere, they’re just in the pit, so we’ll get them. So that’s not a -- that’s just a timing issue. The other side which is operational is reflects the mining of transitional ore and so there have been, I guess challenges within the processing plant in terms of mining transitioning ore, I don’t know Peter, if you want to comment on that?

Nothing really much to add. But this impact on the fuel theft is pretty serious because it impacts the whole way the mine was operating from morale perspective. So, I was out there recently, I think the mine’s been well engineered and I think the whole body is robust, so it’s just a question of making sure that we can operate it on an even keel and we should see better results, I think.

So this theft had been ongoing for a while? Do you have any idea of how much material was stolen?

It was, it’s a substantial amount of, I don’t want to give you any numbers, but it was a substantial amount. It involved a whole host of people, including security people, people who were supposed to be looking after the fuel, there was coercion and collusion at many levels.

Okay.

I guess Barry, what we say is it’s still under investigation, so we’re probably a little bit constrained in terms of what we can say.

Right. Okay. Thanks a lot. That’s all my

Okay. Thanks Barry.

And our next question is from the line of Steven Butler with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Guys, good morning. Just a couple, one quick question here. Looking at the opportunities you cite in your MD&A for mind life extensions, beyond of course, Turquoise Ridge opportunities, you particularly mentioned Lagunas Norte has six years of potential life and Cowal four years potential extension of life. Is that simply a matter of gold price guys or is that really new drilling information that’s come to light, or is it a simply a preview to year end with a higher gold price in mind? Thanks.

Maybe, I’ll answer that, Steven it’s a mixture I think, in the Lagunas Norte case, we’re looking at treating ores that would not be minimal on the heap leach project lower recovery type materials. At Cowal it’s a couple of satellites. All bodies at a lower gold price were not viable and now viable. We also have some pretty exciting opportunity at both Hemlo and Bald Mountain, at Hemlo, excuse me, Hemlo is certainly is higher gold price, we’re look at a possible six-year life extension, where we can do a major lay back of the Hemlo pit and it would add roughly 175,000 ounces for six years. So, it’s a combination of but obviously the higher gold price would drive bigger pits and bigger opportunities.

Sorry Peter, just to clarify, Lagunas Norte you said ore is not minimal to heap leach? Are they now looking at heap leach there given the gold price and offset, of course by so paltry recoveries or is it simply a different processing technology?

Yeah. We’ll be looking at using a CIL..

Okay.

… standalone process, yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Steve.

And our last question comes from the line of David Christie with Scotia Capital. Please go ahead Mr. Christie.

Good morning, guys. Just quickly on the, there’s a comment in your release there on the Chilean taxes and royalty changes that are happening. You could maybe just give me a little color on how you think that’s going to affect your numbers going forward?

Sure, Dave. It’s Jamie. The -- we’re still looking at the impact on our operations there, but it’s going to affect Zaldivar at $3 copper price and going forward on an undiscounted basis, it’s probably about $100 to $150 million over the life of the mine. That’s undiscounted so discounted quite a bit less. And then Cerro Casale will be at a copper price of about $3 and $1,200 gold, it’s probably somewhere in the range of $150 to $200 million, again over the life of the mine on an undiscounted basis. So we’re still assessing the impact of this and some of this is a voluntary type of charge, a royalty but overall those, that’s the order of magnitude and it has no effect on Pascua-Lama, I should mention that as well.

And what royalty and tax are you assuming in that 150 to 200 million bucks?

Well that’s, it’s a sliding scale as you know and so when I mention those numbers, as the prices go up, there’s a sliding scale so it goes anywhere from sort of 4% up to 15%, so it’s a various scenario. So, can’t…

Okay. I understand.

… have certain percent on it.

Okay. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Thanks, Dave. I understand that’s the last question. So on behalf of my colleagues we’d like to thank everybody for joining our call today. We appreciate your interest and great questions, and feedback. And we look forward to re-convening in February to discuss our fourth quarter results. So with that, we’ll terminate the call and have a great day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a great day everyone.