Thank you, Bob. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the conference call. Sorry we're a few minutes late. We've had some technical difficulties with our website address. For those of you joining us by telephone, this presentation is being webcast on the Century Aluminum website, www.centuryaluminum.com, or if that address is not working, you can use www.centuryca.com. Please note that website participants have the ability to advance their own slides. The following presentation, accompanying press release, and comments, include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements relate to future events and expectations and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Century's actual results or actions may materially differ from those projected in these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and we assume no obligation to update these statements. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. For risks related to these forward-looking statements, please review Annex A in our periodic SEC filings, including the Risk Factors and Management's Discussion and Analysis sections of our latest annual report and quarterly report. In addition, throughout this conference call, we will use non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the Appendix, which contains the reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures. This presentation, including the Appendix, is available on our website. I'd now like to introduce Logan Kruger, Century's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Shelly. Welcome, everyone, to the second quarter conference call. Other participants include Wayne Hale and Mike Bless, also in Monterey today, is Bob Nielsen and Steve Schneider. Shall we move onto slide four? It's a bit of an overview of this quarter. We've had a strong second quarter for this year. The robust alumina markets continued. The LME average price for the second quarter of 2008 was $2,940 per ton. This is an increase from $2,730 a ton in the first quarter of this year, and $2,765 a ton from the second quarter in 2007. Price support from supply constraints, a weak dollar and rising costs; this is particularly emphasized with power supply and the cost of power worldwide. Our operating income and free cash flow was strong, in the face of cost pressures, as you well know. US smelters are operating well; production is at or above capacity at all our facilities. We completed the termination of the forward sales contracts and Mike will discuss this in some more detail. Grundartangi is producing above nameplate capacity. As you're aware, we commissioned the final expansion last year. We've commenced construction at Helguvik project in the south of Reykjavik, in Iceland, in the second quarter. Our investment in the Chinese anode facility is complete. In addition, the Jamaica refinery project with China Minmetals is moving forward to a full feasibility study. We continue to pursue further growth opportunities and overall we feel good about a strong second quarter. Can we move onto slide five? I'm going to say a few comments on Helguvik; Wayne will obviously deal with some more detail. The construction commenced in the second quarter. We still anticipate first metal in the last quarter of 2010. The likely high-end production range for phase one is about…

Thanks, Logan. Let's turn to slide nine. Domestic smelters operated well during the quarter in all areas. Of particular importance, the cost of production has been impacted by raw material cost increases, particularly in alumina, energy and petroleum coke. To mitigate, we continue to improve the use efficiency of energy and raw materials and review the use of alternative materials, particularly in the anode coke area. In review of power, I'll leave it over to Mike to discuss that detail later. At Hawesville, the capacity upgrade program is on schedule and in line with projected costs. As I discussed last quarter, in February, Appalachian Power filed for a 16.7% increase in tariff rates in Ravenswood to be effective July 1, 2008. Among others, we participated in a settlement that reduced the increase to 11%. As an ongoing focus to secure long-term power for the company, executives met with government officials and Appalachian Power to review future power options. Progress continues; albeit slowly with the Big Rivers unwind. And I remind you, this is to secure the long-term cost based power for Hawesville until 2023. As one would expect with the involvement of multi stakeholders, all elements of the unwind are reviewed from different perspectives. Several contractual elements remain under review, which will delay the close of the unwind until the fourth quarter. Despite the delay, we remain confident that the unwind will be completed. 15% of the total power requirement remains open over the second half of the year and we're working with E.ON and Big River to obtain preferable market based supply until the conclusion of the unwind. In Iceland, Grundartangi continues to improve. All operating metrics are being met or exceeded. In sustainability, that area [inaudible] health, environment and safety, we continue to see year-on-year improvement in reducing…

Thanks very much, Wayne. And if everybody could turn, please, to slide 14. As usual, I'll make comments referring to the financial information that comes right after the earnings release, so if you could have that available, too, it'll make my comments easy to follow along with. First, to talk about the constituents of the growth in sales. Logan talked about the increase in the LME over the quarter. As he noted, the cash LME was up about 8%, Q2 over Q1. Importantly, if you look at it on a one month lag basis, the average daily LME close was up 17%. That's important to note as most of you know, all of our sales contracts are keyed off of the one month lag price. So our direct sales domestically here, as well as our toll sales in Iceland, all are priced off of one month lag. Just to continue along that theme, our alumina contracts, LME based in the US, obviously from Mt. Holly and Ravenswood, are also priced on a one-month lag basis. The only major contract LME base that we have that's priced off of the prompt month is the power contract in Iceland. So again, that's 17% growth figure is the key one here in terms of the growth in the LME. And if you look at the end of the financial data following the press release, the operations data, if you had a chance to look at that, you'll see that our average realized price is up 17% as well, realized price per ton, obviously. And adjusting for that last bit of cash flow hedges that settled in January this year, as you'll recall, we had 9,000 tons of cash flow hedges that were left in 2009, those were all gone at the end of…

Thanks Mike. We continue to be positive on the aluminum fundamentals. The Helguvik groundbreaking and the start of the project execution is very pleasing for us. It's on time and remains on budget. Capital projects in the US for incremental production are being implemented and we expect the results to come through in the next couple of years. Our investment in the anode capacity in China has been good for us and we believe it's a long-term strategic hedge against supply of anodes to our important facilities in Iceland. The Jamaica refinery project progressed to a full feasibility study. In addition, we continue to pursue our global project pipeline. At this stage, I'd like to invite questions from those who'd like to offer. Thank you. Question-and-Answer Session

[Operator Instructions] Our first question from the line of Kuni Chen with Banc of America.

Hi, good afternoon everybody.

Hi, Kuni.

HI, Kuni.

How are you?

Fine.

Just first question, obviously the group as a whole has been under some pressure in recent weeks and sentiment has been a bit negative. What are your thoughts on what may happen in China, post the Olympics? Any views on the potential for some deceleration in the back half of the year and into 2009, as far as China's consumption of aluminum?

It's an interesting question. I think that's part of what the concerns are, generally going around the market, Kuni. I don't think that we can see any deceleration. The key issues for us that we see on the alumina demand is consumption and that seems to be growing. But more importantly, the implementation of the growth of the infrastructure and that continues at a pace. That's not Beijing centric. That continues to be outside in more areas that are less developed. And the third level or the third phase of infrastructure development continues to be there. And I think the real testing question is what is personal consumption going to be like in China over the next couple of years? And the indication, if you look at the intensity of use, we didn't have that in our slides today. If China continues on the path that we've seen over the last five years or so, it gets halfway through what the US is, Kuni. You know, that's going to cause another 10 million tons of aluminum metal required just for China alone.

Right. Okay, that's good, that's helpful. One other question and I'll turn it over, and this is just more of a generic question on acquisitions or potential acquisitions. If, hypothetically, there was a single smelter operation somewhere in the world that was available for sale, assuming it had a stable long-term power contract, among, say it's a second quartile cost curve type operation, would you look at this as kind of purely a financial decision or is there also a strategic component to your decision making, where you might look to avoid certain regions, like let's say the US or Europe? I just want to get your general thoughts on that.

Kuni, I'm glad the way you phrased it, because we don't comment on specifics, but let's take your hypothetical question. I mean, you know we've got a disciplined approach to this. We look if it makes industrial logic, so the first part will be where is this? Does it fit with our business? Is it in a region in the world that could be attractive to us? And I must note at this point that our US assets have obviously changed in their level of attractiveness, as you will know; erosion of currency and obviously less rapid increase on power pricing. Then we want to know, can we make money on that hypothetical example, can see get a risk adjusted cash flow return on it? We obviously would look at financing it. And the last question, Kuni, is can we add as a team, add any more value to that in fitting it in our business? And lastly, we just would look at anything, but it will have to go through that screening process. We're pretty efficient at doing that. And if it goes through that screening process then it will get more attention as it may go forward. But let's leave it as a hypothetical question. I don't know if Mike or Wayne have got any further comments. Thanks, Kuni.

Okay. Thanks guys.

Thanks, Kuni.

Thanks, Kuni.

Next from the line of David Lipschitz with Merrill Lynch. Go ahead sir.

Hi, everyone.

Hi, David.

Quick question for you. In terms of you said that your realization was up 15%, that the LME was up 17%, why would that be, what happened that you weren't up as much as the LME?

David, I don't know offhand. And so I'd have to prove that out, I'd have to look through it. My off the cuff guess is the impacts of the small amount of cash flow hedges still in January. I'd have to prove that out, but I think that's probably a reasonably good guess, because obviously we had 9,000 tons in Q1 that wasn't subject to market pricing.

I know, but you said that was on line 1717, you said without that it was 15. We can talk off line about that.

Okay.

My second question, I don't know if I missed it, you said first to second quarter production was pretty much flat, is that correct?

Correct.

Hot metal production, David, was spot on. The smelters, domestically US based are all operating above capacity. We gained about 1,500 tons of inventory which as you know for us is pretty small, and that's just a timing issue of the quarter. I don't know if Wayne has got any other…?

No, I think you hit it.

Okay, the first, it's the window in inventory.

Exactly right.

Okay. And my third and final question is what is your fully diluted share count right now going forward? Let's say we're starting 2009 and everything, what would be your fully diluted share count?

Let me build it up for you, David, rather than answer it, because the fully diluted or the diluted question obviously depends on the stock price that you need to know and calculate any dilution from the convert. But let me give you all the shares. So we had just over 41 basic shares exiting the quarter. Then you add to that 16 million underlying shares from the preferred in the unwind transaction, add to that 7.475 million shares, including the shoe in the offering, and then add to that the convert. Now the total notional shares in the convert of course are 5.7 million. From an accounting standpoint, when you calculate diluted shares, obviously not all those shares are outstanding based on the way that you do your accounting for the diluted shares. This quarter it was an additional 3.5ish million shares from total diluted shares, most of that was from the convert, some of the rest of it was from options and performance shares.

Okay. That's it. Thank you.

Okay, David.

Thanks, David.

Thank you. Next from the line of Brett Levy with Jefferies. Go ahead.

Hi, guys. You guys are going to be an 800 million EBITDA a year company very soon. You're a consolidator. You've got lots of free cash flow. Talk about your growth strategy, your acquisition strategy.

Thanks for the question. It's Logan, and I'll ask Mike and Wayne to comment as well. I think we don't distinguish between any points of the growth strategy, but we can tell you we have got a well planned project development and that starts off with Iceland with the Helguvik project. The first phase comes on towards the end of 2010, at about 180,000 tons, and has the potential with the technology to go to a full 360,000 ton potline, and that's dependent on the delivery of geothermal parts. In addition, we're developing our project in Jamaica with our partners, China Minmetals, and that also goes to feasibility now. By the end of 2009, it comes to the floor for a decision and we feel very confident of that project. It's looking good. It's gone through the conceptual stage. We've got the right support; the resources seem to be there, so we're happy about that. In addition, we obviously continue to look at additional projects. We bought into an anode facility in China. We're very pleased about that, with tens of millions of contributions. And in addition to that, we're also adding on some incremental capacity and capital in our existing facilities, including Grundartangi in Iceland and our US smelters. So in a nutshell that's it. Other pieces as was brought earlier by Kuni, would we look at other opportunities? The answer is very definitely, yes, but that's got to meet the criteria that makes a sensible investment for us and the shareholders. Mike, can you comment?

I guess the only further comment I would add is the obvious one. We've talked about this before and it's not specific to Century, obviously. There's not a lot of M&A per se in the sector, as we all know, or those of you who follow the sector specifically. There are just not a lot of assets either for sale or that eventually become bought and sold, and so to Logan's point, most of the growth in this industry is either by way of greenfield projects, major brownfield projects, capacity creep high return projects, quick paybacks like we're doing in the US and at Grundartangi. But those assets that do come on the market or that might be available; we look at every single one.

And to reiterate the former analyst's question, is the US completely off the spectrum in terms of things you'll consider?

I'll try and recap what I said to Kuni, maybe it was missed inside of some of the discussion. Our existing US assets in terms of their cost position, have improved for two major reasons. One is the erosion of the US currency, and two the less dramatic increases or less step function increases for the power supply. So, we would not restrict ourselves to any area of the world. We'd look at it on a risk basis. And so we're not restricting it to the US or anywhere else. There are few places in the world and we don't need to name them today, but that politically won't be a sensible place for us to go, so we'd avoid those. But otherwise, I think we leave them up and we risk adjust as we see fit for the area where a project or whatever circumstance may arise.

And the last question is it seems like alumina is a little over-supplied right now and bauxite is a question mark. Would you make a big acquisition in bauxite?

Yes, I think we've always said that as part of our strategy we would go upstream. So, we've got ourselves into what we think is an attractive project in Jamaica with China Minmetals, and the first stage of that would be a refinery producing alumina at some point in the future as the project proceeds, of 1.5 million tons. We've also just note that the upstream or bauxite alumina businesses have quite an attractive return, so we continue to look at that. So, we've already got one in place and continue to look at more. But just on the pricing of alumina worldwide, I think it depends on where you are in the world. The Pacific Basin seems to have more accessible supply at this stage than the Atlantic Basin, so you have to think about freight and freight differentials affecting the pricing in those two areas.

All right. Thanks, guys.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And next from the line of Terence Ortslan with TSO & Associates. Go ahead, sir. Terence Ortslan - TSO & Associates: Thanks. Just on the Helguvik smelter, you are now at approximately 32% for the engineering and 20% for procurement. The way it's advancing, where are you going to be towards the end of the year, let's say, number one? And number two is that, how much of the contingency has already happened in the sense of progress here and how much is the contingency in the project?

Terence, its Logan. I'll let Wayne give you a rundown and then I'll answer some additional at the end.

If I understood your question correctly, how we worked into the contingency yet, there has been no contingency spent on the project yet. So as I said earlier, we're very pleased with the present progress in both schedule and cost.

I think the two other things; Mike mentioned that we will have spent cash of about $150 million by the year-end. It's a little bit less than we expected it would be, beginning of the year, but we're not concerned about it. Our commitments are way above that. So, we went in the first quarter, as you know and beginning of the second quarter and went and spent time and effort securing long lead-time items like rectifiers and other things that are very key for a smelter. On the procurement side, just a corrective, of the 160-plus packages, about 40 of those are going to be placed or already have been placed. So, we're well up maybe just over 20%. And that's pretty good progress, I think for a project at this stage. The challenge remains, of course, Terry, as you know, how do you handle the cost pressures and we're very focused on that. One advantage of course is we've just recently completed a major brownfield expansion at Grundartangi. So, we've got a good sense of what the local costs have done. There's also been a favorable impact recently and we'll see how that loss of the Icelandic krona, about 30% to 40% of the project expenses will probably occur in Icelandic krona. Terence Ortslan - TSO & Associates: I was just at a previous conference call in our sector. What they've done is they assumed that as the process into the final turnkey is kind of like 40% increase in the cost so they kind of budgeted for that. And it's a similar timeline as yours, which just kind of amazes me, because it's kind of surprising [inaudible] that and assuming 40% in a capital intensive sector seems to be a norm nowadays from the point of view go to final construction delivery.

Terry, we've just come through a major program which was on budget and on schedule. We've taken escalation into consideration. We don't comment on what other projects you're seeing. We know that there are the challenges. Our experience so far is good. But we recognize that that's going to be the challenge for us. I mean, for the full 360,000 ton smelter, our capital estimate for that is about $5,100 to $5,300 per ton, but the first phase, the 180,000 ton is front-end loaded with some major equipment. So, that's about $6,500 per ton. And we're in an area where the economy slowed down a little bit. Obviously, the exchange rate is a little bit more favorable and we've just come off doing something like this with a very established team. So, those advantages hopefully we can continue to leverage in this project. Terence Ortslan - TSO & Associates: One other question, Logan. I always get hung up on your chart on this Chinese fourth quartile cost curve. The fourth quartile cost cut off from 2005 to 2007, how much did it change that it's shifting in so much into 78%?

Terry, this is actually I think a percentage of production. I don't think it's a cost thing. I'm just looking at Shelly.

It's just production.

So the point that we're trying to make on that slide, and I'll embellish a bit on it, is that most of the new production capacity in the fourth quartile has come from China, so they're now 75%, approximately, of the fourth quartile of producers of metal in the world. In addition, we know reasonably well that the top 10%, the top decile of the Chinese producers in China are operating at a cash cost, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, of around $2,900 per ton. So, the point is, most of the new production in the fourth quartile is Chinese, and there is a fairly high percentage of them that are already at $2,900 per ton of cash operating cost. Terence Ortslan - TSO & Associates: Very strong message, Logan, very strong message. Thank you.

Thanks, Terry.

Thank you. And next from the line of Oscar Cabrera with Goldman Sachs.

Good afternoon, everybody. Oscar Cabrera with Goldman Sachs. The first question is, Logan, you answer one of my questions; your alumina joint venture with Minmetals is going to be 1.5 million tons.

You're right.

Are there plans to increase that number and do you have enough bauxite reserves?

Yes. I can tell you that obviously we would look to expand that. We are working on the resources to convert them to reserves. We know the area. It's adjacent to our St. Ann's property, so we do know the area. And Giulio Casello, our Head of Business Development has just recently been there. So obviously, we have that in mind, Oscar. It's too early for us to say. We'd prefer to get the first piece done. That's the tradition and the way we work at Century, and then we'll tackle the next piece after that. So, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but we like the project, we like the place it is. It's good quality bauxite. We know how it behaves. And we're enjoying having the Chinese as a partner, because they'll bring construction expertise and engineering expertise at a competitive price in this world of building capital projects.

Okay. Because I mean that's just a follow-up on that. The arrangement of the joint venture as you have it, do they have off-take?

Yes. I think the natural thing in these joint venture agreements is both partners can do two things; take their piece of the action or they off-take and go and do what they like with it or combine and market it through a combined marketing group. I think the natural odds with both partners would likely take their own off-take, and I think that's the preferred arrangement.

Okay. It just goes to the last part of the question, which is, from an integration perspective, is your team's preference to be fully integrated or you don't mind being long alumina?

We don't mind being long or short. The only question we ask on the alumina or the upstream side is it making money in global terms? So even though Gramercy supplies all sort of leads, we still test Gramercy's cost against the market to see how that will impact our business. So the decision to go upstream is not driven by the wish to be integrated, it's driven by this is a great project, it's upstream, it's got good margins, we like the look of it, it's in an area, we like the partnership. It's a good project. If we had nothing else on our books, we would do this project because it makes a lot of sense to our shareholders. And the fact that it will give us a position in the market of alumina towards our supply in the smelting side is good, but that is a freight debate, where you will swap out freight differentials for delivery. So, it doesn't drive us to be integrated. We'd prefer not to use that, because I think that hides a few things on both sides.

Okay, thanks very much.

Thanks, Oscar.

Thank you. And next from the line of David Gagliano with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

I just have a quick question, Mike, just to clarify the commentary on the near-term costs. The combined sequential cost increases for raw material and energy, I think you said it was a total of $12 million to $15 million incremental, Q3 versus Q2, or is that spread over between…?

No, that's Q3 versus Q2.

Okay, that's what I needed to know. And then just as a follow-up, how sensitive is that? Are those numbers on the energy side and the natural gas prices for example and what in that gas price are you assuming?

I mean, those two are just electrical power and raw materials, basically carve in. We looked at all our raw materials and the contract prices in the forecast and the rest of the raw materials aren't showing very much increase, if any at all. And so it really is carve in. I think if I could rephrase your question, the sensitivity to really the refinery product complex is what you're talking about. And to a certain extent, the merchant market or third-party market for anodes, because that's a reasonably thin market, subject to some volatility. But basically, our contracts have a fixed price element and an element that references basically at the end of the day, oil prices. And so, we know what the pricing is for Q3 right now, based on where oil has been. To the extent that that kind of eased off a little bit, we could see some positive comparisons in Q4. Don't know. On the electrical power side, I think in terms of Ravenswood, that structural increase is here to stay. Hawesville, that as I said, is somewhat temporal. That will go away or the unpriced element will go away when we get the Big Rivers unwind done by the end of the year, as Wayne detailed. And as we've said before, on Mt. Holly, it's really a quarter-to-quarter thing. We work with their forecast, we diligence them, we ask a lot of questions, we understand the best we can. Obviously coal prices are the major determinant there. So that's kind of a rambling answer, David, to your question. But nat gas is really a separate issue for us. That's really embedded in the Gramercy increased costs, Q2 over Q1, about which I talked. $4 million of that $6 million was nat gas. And obviously as you remember, we came in somewhat hedged, came to be somewhat hedged, but not largely hedged. So, we saw the brunt of the market increases in that gas, Q2 over Q1. To the extent that that continues to ease, maybe we'll have some good news there as well. Too early to tell.

Okay, perfect. Thanks a lot, Appreciate it.

I think, David, just last comment. David?

Yes, I'm still here.

We wanted to obviously reflect what was going on in the market, so that's why we gave you these numbers.

Very helpful, I appreciate it. Thanks.

Thanks, David.

Thank you. And our next question from the line of Marty Pollack with NWQ Investment Management. Go ahead.

Just wondered if you might talk about risk mitigation? Obviously, in a sense you've got a fairly nice price environment, the forward curve is attractive and you've just unwound your forward curve. But is that potentially still one way you might address risk in the future? One of the forecasts that I've seen at Citigroup, I think, is talking about $2.00 aluminum price. Is there a price where you would say hey, this is a good place to do it?

Marty, it's Logan. Mike probably will comment as well. We like being fully exposed to the market. And we don't have any views on taking a position on risk mitigation going forward. I presume you're saying selling forward, and we don't. Obviously, it would be remiss of us not to look at this on occasion, but I must emphasize, we like being leveraged to this market. We like what the market's telling us. We like the fact that the fundamentals are sound, the supply side is constrained. In previous slides, Shelly produced a thing that shows that just reasonable growth, you're going to need 44 new smelters in 2012, each one of 360,000 tons. And we've just had two cancellations of major new projects in the last three or four months, including one today. So, I think we like our position, but to be fair, we would always look at this. We don't have any view because you have to answer the question is what is going to happen to the cost as well. And you have to take that into consideration. Mike?

Yes, Marty, just one further comment. As we said when we announced the unwind a couple of weeks ago and then talked about it, it's our view today that we ought to be unhedged, generally, and that is what the majority of investors in the sector are seeking, and that they believe that they need some kind of protection they can create that position themselves. The important difference from a couple of years ago, of course, when you talk about risk mitigation, absolutely appropriately in my opinion, is that when we put on this major position a couple of years ago, it was indeed risk mitigation. We had just made an acquisition and had a major project, i.e. the eventual tripling in size of that plant, for which we needed some cover in order to mitigate market risk to go get that project done. And today, obviously, the company is in a much different position in terms of the diversity of the assets, the cost competitiveness of those assets, and just in terms of financial strength. And so, that to us as managers is a key difference of today versus then.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Marty.

Thanks, Marty.

Next from the line of Sam Martini with Cobalt Capital. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys.

Hi, Sam.

Hi, Sam.

Just a clarification on the cost side. The $15 million in costs, Mike, that's US alone?

No. On the power side, Sam, I was just commenting on electrical power for the US. Of course, Iceland varies based on the LME. So to answer your question on the power side is, yes. On the raw material side, no, it's global. As I said, about two-thirds of that, you know, the $6 million to $7 million carbon piece, two-thirds of that is finished anodes for Iceland.

And how much, Mike, did anode go up across the complex in Q2 versus Q1?

Across the complex, again, is only Iceland, because we make our own anodes, we buy our own carbon, buy our own pitch and bake our own anodes in the smelters in the US. But in Iceland it was only up for the whole complex. I'm sorry. I will answer your question. Only up $2 million carbon, Q2 over Q1, $2 million bucks.

That seems pretty terrific. I guess a question, Logan, maybe this is for you. If you look at the costs that Mike laid out and the power in the US, and the coke in the US, and the anode generally in Iceland, and some of the other considerations that we're all watching on the more upstream side of the equation, you talk about China and you talk about liking your position, maybe qualitatively, maybe with some numbers you choose, can you talk about how you're seeing specifically Western Europe and Chinese costs in relation to your own? How do you envision their costs changing as you watch what's going on in your business? What do you think is happening in their business and can you talk about your competitive position, as you watch what you're seeing on your competitors' side in the differing geographies, again, specifically Western Europe and China?

I don't want to comment on the competitors, but I'll deal with the regional diversification or the regional areas. I think our US smelters have appreciated in position on the cost competitive curve. For example, Ravenswood maybe has come out of the fourth quartile and down into the third quartile. Obviously, you can then assume that Mt. Holly and Hawesville have relatively improved their position as well. Iceland has perhaps gotten a little bit more expensive, but they're still good and we've got the volumes up there and mainly that's driven by the power being LME linked.

Maybe Logan, you said Ravenswood is up 11% as of July 1. What do you think of Western European smelters going to be up for Q3?

I think you'll just have to take a simple currency thing and do what's happened to the euro versus the US dollar over the last 12 months, and the fact that a lot of those contracts in the European smelters, Sam, are very short-term, subject to revision, and you look at the electrical or power pricing index in Europe and you can project I think numbers that will make that 11% seem quite reasonable. I think in China there are two or three things that will happen. One is the price of coal and the availability has got to a point where the electrical or power providers cannot make a margin, because the price of coal and the price they're getting for their power are just not making it. So a number of them have actually walked away from generation. So, I think taking that and perhaps the movement in currencies continually, I think China, probably the currency will grow in strength overtime. I think the positions are going to be quite interesting to see. The top 10% cost producers in both Europe and China are around about $2,900 a ton.

And that was at June 30 or that is pro forma this last move in coal?

You can take it to--let's assume it's a year-end. These are directional numbers, but I think they're pretty well researched by a number of people. And then you now have to apply what escalation you would like to put in Europe for carbon products, parts, labor or whatever, and then do the same in China. I don't think people are avoiding these costs, unless you do what Wayne and his team are doing and improve your utilization and come up with alternatives. So, I think in summary, we like the improvement of our position in the USA in terms of cost, but we want to now maximize our opportunity by bringing on some incremental throughput in all our operations in the US. And you're aware of that. We've spoken quite extensively about it.

Okay. And on the anode side, just a question on the Chinese anode. You are receiving products from them right now or is that still on the come?

I think Wayne's got some good news on that. Would you like to comment?

Yes. We just had a recent report from Grundartangi of good excellent performance of these anodes in the smelter, so we are using them in Grundartangi and they are performing excellent.

Thanks so much.

Thanks, Sam.

Thanks, Sam.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from the line of David Lipschitz with Merrill Lynch. Go ahead please.

Yeah, just a quick follow-up. The power contracts in Iceland, is that on a one-month lag or is that on just a quarter basis?

On a current basis, yes.

Okay. And secondly, have you had talks about the new Iceland smelter in terms of how you're going to put it--is it going to be toll blending, is it going to be just normal smelter? How are you going to structure that?

It's too early, 2010 is some time off, but we like the tolling arrangements. It's whether we can actually find, David, a similar toll that will be as attractive as the present ones, compared to what the market is. But early, we're looking at both options at this stage.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, David.

Thank you. And from the line of Tony Rizzuto with Dahlman Rose. Go ahead. Anthony Rizzuto - Dahlman Rose & Company: Thanks, gentlemen.

Hi, Tony. Anthony Rizzuto - Dahlman Rose & Company: How are you doing? My questions have actually been answered. I appreciate it.

We have no further questions at this time. Please continue.

Well, thank you very much everyone, for taking the time to listen to our call today. We look forward to speaking to you again soon. Thank you very much and goodbye.

Thanks, Tony.

Thanks, Tony.

Bob, any further questions?

There are no further questions at this time. Please continue.

Well, thank you very much everyone for taking the time to listen to our call today. We look forward to speaking to you again soon. Thank you very much and good-bye.

Thank you. And folks, that does complete your conference for today. Thanks for your participation and you can now disconnect.