Good morning. My name is Valarie and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2013 Financial Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions). Thank you and I would now like to turn the call over to Bridget Freas, Director of Investor Relations. Bridget you may begin.

Thank you, Valarie. Welcome everyone to our fourth quarter and full year 2013 earnings conference call. I am Bridget Freas, Director of Investor Relations. We have posted slides to accompany our remarks on our website at www.coeur.com. Please review the cautionary statement on slide two and the risk factors in our 2013 Form 10-K for risk and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from today’s forward-looking statements. Joining me are Mitch Krebs; Peter Mitchell; Frank Hanagarne; Joe Philip, and dialing in from Palmarejo is Hans Rasmussen. Mitch.

Thanks Bridget, hello everyone and thanks for joining is today. I know it’s a busy day and busy time here with year-end results. We’re going to start following a different approach and format for these calls starting with today’s call. I’ll cover a few key highlights and then we’ll get right into the Q&A, we want to make this time as efficient as possible for you guys and don’t want to just sit here and read back to you what you can already reach in the release and in our slides. So I’ll have about 10 minutes of comments and then we’ll get right to it, you can ask anyone here anything you’d like. Another thing we’ll be doing differently going forward is how we report our costs. There are four big changes that I want to highlight; one is, as you saw in the release we’ll start reporting all in sustaining costs per silver equivalent ounce metric for all of our operations combined. Now that number of last year was $18.94 for the full year and it actually dropped in the fourth quarter to $16.92, which was about a 12% decline. The second change is that we’ll report our primary silver mine costs on a cost applicable to sales per silver equivalent ounce. And then we’ll do the same for our one gold mine Kensington. So the three primary silver mines in the fourth quarter their cost on that basis were $11.97 and for the full year were $13.81. And then applying that same methodology to Kensington the cost per ounce were $667 an ounce in the fourth quarter and $890 an ounce for the full year. Slide eight in the deck shows these metrics for each operation. The third change is going away from the byproduct calculation on…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Michael Dudas.

Hey. Mitch and everybody good morning and I commend your new outlook from the financials and how you’re thinking about it and I think it’s going to be helpful.

Hey. Mitch and everybody good morning and I commend your new outlook from the financials and how you’re thinking about it and I think it’s going to be helpful.

Thanks Mike.

First I guess with Palmarejo, continuing your thought about some of the drills results to offset Guadalupe's removal, when will we get better sense of that and is it little too early to see that we can find some more ounces going into 2015 given some of the work you done?

First I guess with Palmarejo, continuing your thought about some of the drills results to offset Guadalupe's removal, when will we get better sense of that and is it little too early to see that we can find some more ounces going into 2015 given some of the work you done?

And Hans I know is calling in from Palmarejo, feel free Hans to chime-in or Frank but we are, as we speak updating our resource model and our mine plans to incorporate all that drilling from late last year. As you know it’s an ongoing process that never really does stop but I do think here in the first half we will have some updated mine plans that will reflect even more drilling here in the early part of this year but we will communicate it and that will give a little more visibility and then as we go into 2015 and see the results of what we all think is a much better, more positive, more strategic drilling plan at Palmarejo here in 2014. I think that’s really when we will see some greater visibility in terms of that, and be able to communicate it externally in terms of the longer term view for the Palmarejo. Hans, I don’t know if you have anything to add to that from Palmarejo?

Later in the year, we will definitely have an update from Palmarejo, right now we are looking at the programs and it probably will be the most focused program ever in terms of taking multiple resource models, sitting down with multiple groups within Coeur and deciding actually where to drill. And out of our decisions here which are occurring right now in Palmarejo, we are focused on mainly the open pit, extending life of the open pit because that’s the most of the tonnes and grades are coming from right now. And then later we will work on the extending the life of the underground but that’s what I am doing like you said and update will come later in the year. But the future looks really good right now, I am looking at the models and where we are going to drill.

Okay. I hope that helps Mike.

I appreciate that. Yes, it does. Second, I have two more questions, one, from La Preciosa, can you share some critical path thoughts or what we have been seeing as you get closer to finishing the study midyear, is it more from a recovery capital productivity issues and how much of an offset on the tax side, is being coupled with the economics?

I appreciate that. Yes, it does. Second, I have two more questions, one, from La Preciosa, can you share some critical path thoughts or what we have been seeing as you get closer to finishing the study midyear, is it more from a recovery capital productivity issues and how much of an offset on the tax side, is being coupled with the economics?

Joe, you want to take that and Peter, you want to chime-in on the tax piece after Joe?

Mike, this is Joe. We have been having a lot of fun with the La Preciosa study here in last couple of months. Everybody has talked a lot about the negative aspects of the new mining royalty but there is actually some very positive things going on as well. Mexico has opened up the ability to generate electricity and we found some very significant opportunities to save money on our power cost. We are very pleased with the results of our metallurgical studies and finding some ways to trim down the capital, so we are quite excited about it. And then strictly from a tax perspective, the tax does add some additional cost to our existing operation of Palmarejo and also La Preciosa, they are measured in 2014 in the sort of $2 million to $3 million range. And in terms of the impact on La Preciosa, we are looking at ways to mitigate the impact, cut the tax thing such as operating leases for the mining fleet and other areas to address ways to reduce the impact of the EBITDA tax on La Preciosa and areas that will be more than offset by the benefits which was identified.

Excellent, Peter, thank you. And just one final quick question on core capital, how do you see it a year from now? Do you anticipate maybe getting more like royalty companies to acquire or do you anticipate you will see some opportunities that you will be acting on to increase the cash flow. So, it sounds like a very interesting concept to turnover the company and of course with returns you should want to, kind of make growth pretty quickly? Thanks.

Excellent, Peter, thank you. And just one final quick question on core capital, how do you see it a year from now? Do you anticipate maybe getting more like royalty companies to acquire or do you anticipate you will see some opportunities that you will be acting on to increase the cash flow. So, it sounds like a very interesting concept to turnover the company and of course with returns you should want to, kind of make growth pretty quickly? Thanks.

Yes, it is interesting and it is a differentiator for us and our company and attractive and complementary business to the traditional mining side. We are focusing on cash flowing royalties that can have an immediate impact and in a year from now, I think this year, Mike, our free cash flow will be around $10 million out of core capital. I think it’s easy to see it more than doubled in a year from now in terms of current cash flow. There are some, with the challenging capital markets that we have seen. Companies looking to obtain funding from core capital through the sale of a royalty or stream, we are evaluating those. It’s not our number one priority but it does give us another arrow in the quiver as we think about ways to expand the business and achieve higher return. So, that’s kind of how we view core capital.

Your next question comes from Chris Lichtenheldt.

Good morning everyone. I want to say the same. I like this cash cost and the transparency with respect to the royalty, et cetera. It is all very helpful. My first question is with respect to Kensington. Earlier this week you obviously released a significant, your reserve included a significant decline in the grade, reserve grade for Kensington. I wondering if you can help us understand a little bit, or what you hope to do to offset the lower grades going forward in order to make that mine profitable?

Frank you want to take that?

Hi Chris this is Frank, the reserve grade that you see in our recently published statement is a reflection of ore that will be delivered to the mill but also the development ore, it means the classification as a reserve although at a lower grade development material that has to be moved to get out higher grade material. So as we -- that overall pull the reserve grade down incrementally year-over-year. Now that’s what’s encompassed in that reserve grade in the times involved, as mine and carry out our mine plans we still target delivery of materials to the mill, point of arrays between 0.18 and 0.19 ounces per tonne. And we have the flexibility to decide depending on actual development rate taken on a day to day basis whether it’s just wasted or it can be stock piled for further future years, we have those options and we take full advantage of that as we carry out the operational plan for the mine. And we actually have developed the capacity or the ability to share -- remove within the process facility a low grade stream of material, which really puts us in a position to be able to produce some of that what is lower grade development or coming out of the mine, to a sizing step remove low grade material and strip that off to the side and substantially upgrade the grade of material and advances on to its flotation plan. So we try to keep the mill at 0.18 to 0.19, we’re able to do a few things in the grinding circuit to remove our sub-economic grade material which enhances the grade of what’s in the flotation plan and we have been doing that and doing this, late in 2012 we expanded the capacity to do this in 2013 and have further plans to take further advantage of this going forward.

So when we talk about our four buckets of maximizing cash flow and one of them is revenue enhancements, this reject circuit is a great example of our revenue enhancement opportunity, fair to say?

That’s right, that’s the criteria very well.

That helps, that definitely helps. So the low grade material in Kensington is in the reserve because you have to mine it anyway, is that part of the reason?

No we have to remove it to get out other ore but it’s also met the criteria to be considered a reserve. It is economic.

Okay, I’ll leave it out there for now. And secondly, with respect to the Palmarejo reserve, is there any Guadalupe in there? Or should we assume you have removed all that now?

No it’s in there, with reserve prices of 25 and 14.50 as economic and reserve, so that sits in the total Palmarejo reserve, we just chose not to prioritize those tonnes.

Would you be able to tell us how many tonnes and ounces?

I know it’s broken out in the PR that we have filed. I don’t have numbers here handy, we can certainly point you to those.

Yes. We can dig it out then. I appreciate that. Then my last question quickly in Rochester in the third quarter you mentioned part of the issue is the permitting, et cetera. I do recall from the last conference call, I think there was a lot stacked at the beginning of Q4 that I guess we have to assume didn't produce as expected. Can you give us a little color on what the leach cycle actually is there? How much of your recovery you achieve in the first month or three months, based on what you previously expected?

We have a recovery profile which tells us that over 18 year period our maximum recovery for silver will be 62%. That relates to that very long time into the near-term and the first year of leaching of crushed material we averaged a 75% recovery rate. Any incidental run of mine material that we put out early there would recover at about 35%. That’s in a one year timeframe. And then it’s about 60 to 90 day cycle that we need to time our movement to threshold our after breakthrough has been achieved and that’s when we know that solutions grades will decline and sort of how we manage things in the near term, long-term model actually quarter-to-quarter. So those are the relative timings that we work out.

How are those different from gold?

Gold recovers very, very quickly, we have an ultimate recovery of goal of 92% I don’t know if it’s placed within probably the first six months of reaching that but we have it under reach. So it’s nice to get the goal out more rapidly.

Your next question comes from Craig Johnston.

Hi there. All my questions have been answered. Thanks.

Okay.

Your next question is from John Bridges.

Just wondered if we could dig a bit deeper into the disconnect at Rochester on the recovery. You mentioned the delays with permits and that sort of thing, but is there something else happening there which is new and affects the outlook for the operation?

No. John this is Frank. Its combination of things that we’re on in late last year and we’ve had a number of construction projects underway and where the Q1 had opened the door to begin leaching on fresh ore was completed at the end of the third quarter. We began leaching the material had been stacked over two to three month prior to that on October 1st that was all related to phase one of the expansion but there was a phase two which included increasing capacity on that leach pad up side hills of the valley that it is nestled in. You can envision that heap leach pad, that area that we filled in with ore and also began leaching during the phase two of the project. It’s sort of like a horseshoe shape. We were able to get substantial volume of ore placed in there in the fourth quarter and under leach as we sequence with the environmental permit timing and cycle. There were some short-term delays in receiving these permits, but generally we did pretty well. It was really just that volume of ore that was placed behind the buttress, which ties to what we call the phase one expansion and it’s depth, that we have to know to rely on when will it breakthrough and start to report to the process facilities. That time is a bit longer than we had expected.

Okay.

We did get pretty rapid breakthrough in those thinner sections that went around that horseshoe I am trying to describe. We did get a nice bang out of that, but it was offset by the center of mass for the whole pad which was the central core, and it was producing but at lower grades, and volumetrically it kind of diminished the effect that we got out of that horseshoe.

Okay. So you grow much bigger in reserve to go out there so it’s going to keep you busy for few years?

Yes.

Thanks a lot guys. Good luck.

Thanks.

The next question comes from Andrew Kaip.

Look I’ve just got a question on the corporate level last year’s corporate G&A escalate quite rapidly with the move to Chicago and now you’re forecasting somewhere in the $43 million to $48 million range. How should we expect that to flow, should it be slightly higher in the first half of the year and then declining or do you think you’re going to see it stabilize and be pretty constant through the year?

Yes, Andrew its Peter. Our anticipation is that’s going to be pretty level loaded through 2014 with that and certainly the impact to drop from 2013 to 2014 relates to having completed the moves at the end of September as well as some other cost but during 2013 some legal expense and consulting expense some related to some trade back of the transaction so that’s completed and move itself as well.

Again to add to that Andrew is 50 year but it without a doubt last year as we saw lot of companies cutting back G&A we were going in the opposite direction but that can do a little bit of a unsettling feeling but I just know we were feel confident and I think as we get here into 2014 we’re seeing the benefits of having of corporate office that’s well designed to support the kind of company that we are. And for years we did have that and so for lot of unique reasons going in the opposite direction than a lot of companies last year is exactly what we needed to do to just the kind of catch up from an organization standpoint. And I think if we really want to have the kind of consistent results, better planning, better execution that we all wan there at this company we need exactly what we have in place now. And I think when you look at it on a G&A as a percent of revenue and I think now we’re finally in the kind of middle of the pack whereas before I think we were running too lien and without the kind of resources and skills that a company like ours need. So I think what we’ve done in 2013 has really put us in a position to be the kind of company we want to be going forward.

All right. And at certain times when you ramp out on infrastructure you probably ramped to a larger capacity than what you think do you think that there are potential savings within your corporate organization that you’ll be able to realize over the next couple of years?

Sure. We put ourselves in a position to be very scalable. So as we grow G&A doesn’t need to grow around and that’s as part of the plan so I think from that perspective I do see on a relative basis or on a percentage of revenue basis it would decline as we grow as we plan to if we were in a price environment that require us to go the other direction sure we could pull in the horns if we needed to nearly sensitive to cutting into the bone and putting us in a position where moves the ability we want a high efficient and quality company. And so I think putting in place what we have now and staying we’re going focusing on how we can drive more efficiencies out at the operating level and in the projects and in our planning that’s where the savings is really going to come.

All right, thanks very much.

Thanks.

There are no further questions at this time. I’ll turn the call over to Mitch for closing remarks.

Okay, well we appreciate you taking the time again now you’re busy as I think you’ve heard from all of us we’re excited about the year ahead and we’ll remain focused on operating our mine safety and continuing to reduce our cost and delivering on our guidance and the expectations that we set. We look forward to updating you as our progress advances over the course of the year. And thanks again for your time this morning.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.