Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for standing by, and welcome to the fourth quarter 2009 earnings conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later there will be a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be given at that time. (Operator instructions) And as a reminder, this conference call is being record. At this point, I’d like to turn the meeting over to our host, Ms. Shelly Lair. Please go ahead.

Thank you, David. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the conference call. For those of you joining us by telephone, this presentation is being webcast on the Century Aluminum website www.centuryaluminum.com. Please note that website participants have the ability to advance their own slides. The following presentation and discussion may 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 differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements. For summary of the risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from those expressed in these forward-looking statements, please review Annex-A and refer to Century's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008; Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009; and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information provided in this presentation and discussion is based on information available as of February 23, 2009. Century undertakes no duty to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as the result of new information, actual events, future events, or otherwise. In addition, throughout the conference call, we will use non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP financial measures can be found in the appendix of today's presentation, which is available on our website. I'd now like introduce Logan Kruger, Century's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Shelly. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We welcome the opportunity to report on our progress. So let's get started and move on to slide number four. Given the events of the last 12 months or so, I think it makes sense to take a step back and provide a quick review before we summarize Century’s achievements and therein where would we go from here. It goes without saying that the shock of 2008 and 2009 were unprecedented in most of our lifetimes. The rapid and sharp drop in the economic activity and the resulted impact on the value of almost all assets were breathtaking to say the least. Commodities, as you know, given the direct exposure to the global economic activity, were affected in an outsized manner. I will comment in more detail on the market in a few moments. Suffice it to say that we believe that we are in a dynamic environment with positive, long-term forces at work. But some substantial near-term uncertainties remain. In a nutshell, global economic activity appears to be at least to have stabilized. China, in particular, has shown a remarkable recovery and returned to robust growth. Despite some recent concerns about the governance intent in China to restrain certain perceived excesses, we continue to believe and think these particular concerns might be exaggerated. Aluminum is tight in physical markets virtually everywhere in the world. On the other side of that coin, this physical tightness, which is certainly keeping premiums high and maybe having an impact on the actual price as well, is largely supported not by fundamental forces, but by interest rates and other financial factors. In addition, the much reported inventories, both in warehouses and elsewhere, are likely to be a drag in the metal prices…

Sure. Thanks, Logan. We have in place an experienced team made up of a combination of (inaudible) employees and representative of the Icelandic engineering firms who have helped us on the successful expansion at Grundartangi. We have been making deliberate and steady progress on the project, engineering and construction together. In addition, they have spent a great deal of time working with the major suppliers to ensure these companies are ready to support our timing and other objectives when we are ready to restart the major construction. Lastly, the project team has worked to put in place the organizational structure, processes, and systems to support the full project level of activities and requirements. Logan?

Thanks, Wayne. Our best estimate is that we should be in a position to resume major construction activity at the project site around the middle of this year. There are many variables that go into this estimate, but the largest is the finalization of a contract with our power supplies and the confirmation that they are in firm position to finance and thus deliver the power per [ph] at an agreed schedule. I’d also like to note that we continue to have strong support from all parties in Iceland, including unions, local communities, and the coalition government. Thank you very much. Wayne, would you give us the operating report?

Sure. Thanks, Logan. Let’s turn on to slide number 11. From an operational perspective, we finished the year strong and have made a good start for 2010. Hawesville is now maintaining stable operations at four full pot lines, roughly 80% of its capacity. The work is required to restart (inaudible), which had been allowed to sit on a service, is successfully behind it. As Logan has mentioned, Hawesville’s management team has taken a clean sheet of paper approach to the plant’s cost structure and have taken some very good actions thus far on this basis. These actions span every facet of the plant’s cost structure, including operations, purchasing, sales and the organization. (inaudible) is now is not only to be certain these actions can be sustained, but to seek additional reductions as well. Its requirement is especially important as the power rate support we negotiated with E.ON all the way after 2010. On this basis, Hawesville’s effective power price will rise substantially in 2011, all other things being equal. Mike will provide some additional detail on this. Based upon this, we need to optimize every part of the plant’s operations to ensure we are in the best position to keep it viable long into the future. We will soon be entering into negotiations with the union leadership to renegotiate the labor contract that expires on March 31. And we continue to speak with our major customer at Hawesville about future arrangements after our current contract expires in early 2011. Both of these discussions are important to the future of the plant. Lastly, on Hawesville, as we have discussed in the past, we purchased some downside price protection for 2010. Mike will provide some additional detail on this as well. Moving to Grundartangi, the local team has continued to drive excellent…

Thanks very much, Wayne. If we could turn to slide 13 please, and as usual I will make reference in my comments to the financial information as well as the earnings release. So if you could have that handy, it will make my comments easier to follow. Okay. Slide 13, as usual we are showing here a sequential comparison of the quarter that just ended through the prior quarters, so obviously Q4 to Q3 here. Before diving into the income statement data, let’s take a quick look at the market to put it into context. The cash LME price was up 11% on average quarter-to-quarter and on a one month lag basis, up 10%. Our realized unit prices were in line with that. In the US, up 12%, and in Iceland, up 10%. Turning to shipment volumes, you can see these data at the end of the financial information on the page entitled Operations Data. Our domestic and total shipments in Iceland were each one percent sequentially. And as you’ve seen, as Wayne described, Grundartangi again produced at an annualized rate of 276,000 metric tons, a good 5% to 6% above its rate of capacity. So putting those price and volume data together, net sales in dollar terms up 12% quarter-to-quarter. I’m back on the income statement data now in the earnings release. On that net sales increase of $28 million quarter-to-quarter, gross profit rose $16 million, a couple cost items to note for you first power in Iceland was up $3 million quarter-to-quarter. Of course, that’s entirely pegged to the market. Pot relining expenses at Grundartangi in Iceland were up $4 million quarter-to-quarter. This is due to a proactive decision we have made to institute per industry norms and practice a regular pot relining program that you don’t have…

: As important, we preserve the company’s growth options, principally the Helguvik project, which we hope to create future value for the long-term. While we believe the industry could well experience volatility and even some turbulence during the next year or so, we are confident that the longer-term fundamentals will reward those like ourselves or invest in the world-cost capacity. With that, David, we’d like to take questions from those who are calling in.

Absolutely. (Operator instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Kuni Chen with Banc of America. Please go ahead. Kuni Chen – Banc of America: Hi, good day, everybody.

Hi, Kuni. Kuni Chen – Banc of America: Just first off on the hedging issue, so if I kind of back into this, it’s basically all of the output out of Hawesville, maybe about two into 1,000 tons in 2011 – or 2010, rather. And can you just sort of update us on your thought process around hedging going forward? I guess with the power cost tapping up significantly in 2011, maybe your bias as to continue to look to hedge that out.

Sure. Good question, Kuni. It’s Mike. I’ll answer the first part of the question and ask if Logan or Wayne have any input on the second. So – that's a little bit more than we did what you’re calculating there. If you take a step back and look at, let me just say, the way we approach it and then you can get to the number, number one, the portion of the production that naturally hedged versus the linkage of the alumina price to the metal price. And so with alumina prices contract rates over the long-term being in, say, the 14% range, you’ve got almost 30% of your production obviously. Two tons of alumina per ton of metal naturally hedged. And you wouldn’t therefore ever want to hedge 100% or you’d be effectively over-hedged. So starting at that 70%, we didn’t hedge that whole 70%. We hedged a chunk of it. More than half of it in the sort of two-third to three-quarters region. And the philosophy again was that we are not looking to sell forward here, we’re looking to protect a plant, especially in this transition period. So as we said at the time that we entered into these contracts, we bought protection or principally good old fashioned just put options, insurance, right around at Hawesville’s cash breakeven cost for 2010. Going forward we’re going to be looking at a lot of options as we look at both our options to mitigate the risk at the power take or pay and the LME price in 2011 and going forward. And Logan, Wayne, do you want to say anything else?

I think I’ll just add one thing. Obviously, Kuni, we are protecting the downside and trying to preserve upside potential. So I think that’s the only addition I would add to what Mike has said. Kuni Chen – Banc of America: Okay, fair enough. And I guess as far as the thought process on Ravenswood, what’s the bigger hurdle there? Is that the steel workers or power contracts? And can you just give us a sense on kind of CapEx and timing that would be involved in a potential restart?

I’m going to ask Wayne to answer that one, Kuni.

Yes, Kuni, this is Wayne. Insofar as the major issues as we’ve identified in the past, power is the most significant followed by obviously labor contract and then wrapped around that is the conducive LME environment. And so we are progressing the discussion of an enabling power agreement with the leadership of the state, and I have to say it’s progressing really well and we are confident that we will see some direction there. Kuni Chen – Banc of America: Right. It’s upon to you that you have a power contract that floats with LME or it could be more fixed and then you could hedge up the metal price?

I think it’s too early – I think the answer is we’re trying to position ourselves to take advantage of a period of improved market conditions. And the power contract – the LME linked experimental rate is in place and has continued. But let’s not prejudge what we may think is appropriate on our CDA or the contract with the steel workers comes to an end in August. So you need to get these in some sort of sequence and then consider your options in the prevailing market. Kuni Chen – Banc of America: All right. Got you. I’ll turn it over. Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Kuni.

And our next question comes from the line of Justine Fisher with Goldman Sachs. Justine Fisher – Goldman Sachs: Hi, how are you?

Very well, thank you. How are you doing? Justine Fisher – Goldman Sachs: I’m okay, thanks. So just regarding the Hawesville power contract increasing enough, it’s pretty significant on an annual basis if you take the 17 million a quarter. So would you guys – I mean, what’s the ability to shut Hawesville down if you can’t find a better agreement there?

Well, let me – I'll let Wayne address the latter half. In the first half, the better agreement is in place. I mean, the difference is the – what's producing the step-up obviously is a short-term arrangement to which we agreed with E.ON when they exited the power – as the power supply and we signed a long-term agreement with Big River is a cost-based power agreement. So our view after doing a tremendous amount of work on this and employing all sorts of experts and advisors and consultants is that in terms of smelting capacity – I'll ask Wayne to comment in the United States. This is about as good a contract as you’re going to get. And so the real issue here is making sure that we have the flexibility to do what we need to do if we were to have to take some capacity off at Hawesville. I’ll let Wayne or Logan –

Yes, Mike, I think you’ve hit upon the major issues there as far as the cost of the power. And insofar as we plan, of course we did significant work, as I’ve mentioned in 2009, to remove costs from the facility and we continue to do that this year with a special program to actually squeeze out all the things we need to squeeze out in the discretion of the step-up in the power. Insofar as curtailment, with the Hawesville facility as it presently stands under the existing agreement with the union leadership, we have no trailing liabilities with the people at this moment in time. So it’s not obviously simple to shut down, but obviously we don’t have a financial trail.

The other one on the power contract, obviously it’s a 12-month notice period. So obviously we will be looking at this. Wayne’s team has done a great job of getting the cost position in a better position. So now we have to look what 2011 is the next steps we can deal with. (inaudible) earlier question around downside protection. Justine Fisher – Goldman Sachs: Right. But I mean, on a quarterly basis, it could be $70 million out of whatever your EBITDA would be that year. A $70 million swing is a $17 million a quarter at 2011.

That’s right. No different, and we’ve been talking about this since last summer we entered into the contract. Justine Fisher – Goldman Sachs: Right, right, okay. Just checking. Thank you so much.

Sure. Thanks, Justine.

And our next question comes from the line of Mark Liinamaa with Morgan Stanley. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: Good evening, all. Could you comment a little bit more about the production issues that you are having at Mt. Holly, what’s going on there, and what the likelihood of coming up with a favorable power contract reset is?

Okay. This is Wayne talking. Basically, as I said earlier, we’ve through the operational facility we have experienced some challenges in regards to raw material supply, both in coke and capital blocks. It appears that the leadership there has that in hand and things are actually progressing quite well back to normal production. Insofar as the power agreement, the local leadership there in association with ourselves and our partner have been in discussion with Sandy Cooper [ph] who is the power provider. Insofar as gaining an additional ground in how we can reduce the cost of that power contract, certainly I have to say in the discussions we’ve had thus far, with the Sandy Cooper, there has been added discussion, and certainly some interest in managing the contract differently and providing direction. So we are pleased thus far. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: Okay, thanks for that. And you mentioned labor discussions at Grundartangi. Can you just comment a little bit on what the tone of those, given all of the turmoil that's gone on over in Iceland? Thanks.

Certainly. As I mentioned, we have been in discussion with the local labor unions since the beginning – since prior to the contract conclusions. Now we’ve been a bit delayed for a couple of issues over there, one of which was an additional union one representation that had now been concluded in. I’m pleased to say that we are back into serious negotiations with the union and there has been no indication that they will not be concluded successfully. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: And is it mostly a wage issue? Is there anything else in particular that they are looking for?

I think – Mark, it’s Logan. We haven’t missed a beat in Iceland with this operating team right through the middle of all of the challenges. It’s just normal discussions that have been exacerbated by currency affects et cetera, but I think we will get an equitable solution, as normally these negotiations, they fluctuate up and down, but they come to a conclusion. And I think this one will just be the same. And I do want to emphasize that right through the very difficult times we have not missed a moment worth of production, and safety and the performance just continue to be world-class. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: And when does the agreement end?

It’s already ended. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: It’s already ended. So you just –

And just again, to Logan’s point, this is the cooperation they have between the labor unions and ourselves to manage the process and the plans at the same time without the indication of problem. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: Great. Thanks and good luck with everything.

Thanks, Mark.

Thanks, Mark.

I have a question from the line of Brett Levy with Jefferies. Brett Levy – Jefferies: Hey, guys. In the sort of context of the current financing market, do you think that 198 or so of cash is a little bit too much? As you look at the sub-piece of the converts, are you more inclined to go towards cash supplements when they mature or are you going to continue – or are you inclined more towards using more stock to take out the converts?

Brett, it’s Mike. A couple things on the cash. Of course in answer to your question, I think our – I don’t want to call it – maybe a base case now that does get cash settled. So once anything changes, I think that’s a reasonable assumption to make. We will always consider being opportunistic, and if market conditions change and we come to the view that handling it a different way might make sense for our share owners will do it. But I think is a base case for everybody to consider that’s a decent one. In terms of the other use to cash, we’re assessing right now, as I said, we’ve got a very major project that we’re aiming to restart later in the year. So it can be a world-class facility, just like the current one, even better. And so we’ve got make sure that we’re adequately capitalized to support all of that. So I’d say sort of steady-state for now. We’re obviously cash flow positive nicely on a consolidated basis at the current LME. So we will see developing through the year, but on the converge especially I’d say. Let’s assume that those are going to be cash settled. Brett Levy – Jefferies: All right. And in all scenarios, are you guys the 100% equity holder, or significantly close to 100% equity holder in the new project?

Yes. I mean, that’s a great question. As we’ve said before, we are looking at – we are looking at a lot of alternatives. And so as I said before, we would absolutely always be the majority owner developer operator of the plants, but if it makes sense to do something strategic here with somebody who could not only add capital, but I think importantly add whether it’s commercial, weight to the project, or supplies or in any way could help get the plant constructed faster. That’s something we would look at. So I’d say in the next couple of quarters, this will all be coming to a fruition. Brett Levy – Jefferies: All right. And then speaking of JVs, can you guys talk a little bit about where you view the major issues are and what you and your partner kind of at least some preliminary thoughts are doing about those problems?

You’re talking about Mt. Holly, Brett? Brett Levy – Jefferies: Mt. Holly. Yes, Mt. Holly.

I think this is Wayne’s -

Yes. Again, as I stated previously, the problems I think I have been overcome, and now the plan is to presently coming back to normal operations. So it was a dislocation, and since the material supply that’s been corrected. Brett Levy – Jefferies: So what do you think breakeven costs there, or cash costs would be at Mt. Holly going forward?

Yes. We don’t break out, as you know, Brett, smelter-by-smelter. We’ve given you the domestic costs for the year. I’m going to make a couple comments on that. We used to say, and long-term it’s still probably true. I’ll come back to what I mean by long-term. I think it’s probably evident already that the costs between Hawesville and Mt. Holly for different reasons were about the reason. That Hawesville had a better power price, but Mt. Holly was a more moderate efficient plan. And so we kind of equaled out. Obviously this year because of the E.ON support, the cash cost at Hawesville is lower. But once that support terminates by the contract with E.ON at the end of the year, that equilibrium will, within spitting distance, returns. So on the sheet there we gave you, I forget which slide it is now, towards the end of –

Slide 17.

Thanks, Shelly. Slide 17. You get a sense of around where Mt. Holly’ cash cost is? Brett Levy – Jefferies: Thanks very much. I will get back in queue.

Thanks a lot.

Now for question from the line of Chris Doherty with Oppenheimer & Company.

Hi, Chris. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: Good evening. I just wanted to sort of drill down and clarify the cash costs. The cash costs that you list in the US of the 1,800 a ton to 1,850 a ton; does that include a normalized power cost at Hawesville?

No. That’s a great question. So those are 2010 items. I think it’s on the title of the slide, yes. And that’s why I specifically noted on that page when you look at the power cost that in 2011 you would have to adjust for that cost. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: I mean, if you assume that it's $70 million, I mean, that could be up to $365 per ton. I mean, is that the right math?

At Mt. Holly alone, it’s spread over all of the US, I think it’s going to be a lesser amount. Right?

But it did not order at Hawesville for the four line operation.

The Hawesville alone. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: And then in terms of the hedging charge this quarter, is that an aggregate mark-to-market or is that just the stuff that rolled off this quarter? So the question is, if LME prices stay flat to where they are right now, or were they average for the quarter, would you see any more charge or benefit on the hedges?

It’s in aggregate. As I said, I think when I made my comments, it was a recognition upfront in a non-accounting way. So it’s your latter statement – pardon me, your former statement, not your latter. Aggregate mark-to-market. So it’s in essence LME prices didn’t move, you wouldn’t see any further adjustments, all else being equal. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: Got it. Okay, thanks.

Thanks.

Thanks, Chris.

And we now have a question from the line of Tim Hayes with Davenport & Company. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: Hi, good afternoon.

Hi, Tim. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: Just a quick question. When you talk about Hawesville's alumina cost into 2010 that's comparable to Mt. Holly, is it comparable because it's also going up 1 percentage points, or is it just comparable that Mt. Holly's cost is going up and it’s going to be roughly the same in terms of the level?

I think they are comparable. They are not exactly the same. This is Logan. So I think – so it really just gives you a comparison. They work in the same region of pricing.

Yes, they are not materially different at all.

I think that also for 2010 has obviously some different supplies, a mixture of supplies. But that averages out and whereas Mt. Holly as the single supplier. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: Okay. Just to clarify 0– is Mt. Holly's percentage to LME – excuse me, is Hawesville's percentage to LME is also going up '09 to 2010?

Prior to 2010, we are purchasing from Gramercy.

Yes. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: Yes, okay.

You’re comparing a dollar price out of Gramercy and a larger portion of LME link. So you’ve got to be careful. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: So comparable in terms of percentage for LME for both facilities then?

Right. Tim Hayes – Davenport & Company: Got it. Okay. All right. That’s all I have. Thanks.

Thanks, Tim.

We have a question from the line of Tony Rizzuto with Dahlman Rose. Please go ahead. Tony Rizzuto – Dahlman Rose: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody.

Hi, Tony. Tony Rizzuto – Dahlman Rose: I've got a question on Hawesville, just a follow-up that line of question earlier. You’ve got a lot of obviously moving parts there, and with the labor discussions underway and the power price increases scheduled for 2011. If you guys don't – you are not able to achieve a more economic power price, what is the interplay with the customer relationship? It looks like you are also renegotiating your relationship maybe with Southwire there. How does that all interplay? And would you be able to effectively idle those facilities? Or would there be some type of cost that you would have to pay in addition to that? Would you be able to extricate yourself from that?

Tony, let me try and separate these into the different boxes and let’s see that we don’t perhaps get a bit of confusion here. And I’ll ask Mike and Wayne to interrupt. First of all, in terms of the contract negotiation, that contract obviously ends in [ph] March. We had obviously put in place some sort of contract that we think makes a lot of sense. And as Wayne noted earlier, there is no ongoing costs related to that contract as we see what happens with the negotiations now. So I think that is one element. On the power cost, we have got favorable consideration from E.ON, as the matter of closing out our original contract which ended in 2010. That’s been well known for long time. We did see an increase of cost based power from next year. If we stand back, one other thing that we are doing and have done very well in the last 18 months is many short costs at Hawesville. And I think obviously we want to make sure that we’ll continue to handle that in a manner that makes us in a position with this operation ongoing. The last piece is obviously on Southwire. That contract as it exists comes to end of March next year. And so we were obviously having discussions with that, but that as you would remember was a fairly long-term contract. And obviously it would be incorrect for us to make any comments on our discussions with Southwire. Mike, do you want to add anything?

The only thing I would add, Tony, if I may, is – because I’m discerning through the comments here. We’ll just put this in perspective. Obviously it’s a significant step-up, as Chris – I think it was Chris – quickly calculated. But to put it into context, and you can back into this really almost if you look at the cash costs that you’ve given you for both plans combined domestically. The current cash cost for Hawesville is significantly below what we call either the US average or our own average. And all else being equal, I can tell you even if you add in the step-up in power prices, you would get a cost sort of, let’s call it, pro forma for 2011, for want of a better term. That’s still sort of add – or probably – this should be probably below the current LME price. So just that kind of puts where we are into a little bit of context for you. Tony Rizzuto – Dahlman Rose: That’s very helpful. I appreciate that both, gentlemen. Thank you.

Thanks, Tony.

Thanks, Tony.

Thank you. (Operator instructions) We have a follow-up question from the line of Mark Liinamaa with Morgan Stanley. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: Yes. Logan, just earlier in your comments, you were talking about high-cost capacity in the US that was continuing to run, I believe. Can you just very quickly give us any comments on what you see going on there? Is that all stuff that's hedged forward and is unlikely to come down for the foreseeable future or is there any extenuating circumstances there? Thanks.

Yes, Mark. I didn’t say the US. I just said high-cost capacity. That’s why I specifically said in my notes, but I said worldwide. And I think there are examples of that around the world, and I would just contextualize them as, what I call, the so-called social producers and thus continue to operate and there has been some restarts of capacity in Europe. So I wasn’t particularly looking at the US. In fact, there has probably been some come off in the US in the last while, and that seemed to have stabilized. I’m not particularly looking at anyone. But as you’ve talked before, we stabilized production and supply by looking at the macro numbers, and the inventory number is not going up. But there is certainly some elements of producers that are certainly not making a cost at this point in time. Mark Liinamaa – Morgan Stanley: Thanks very much.

Thanks, Mark.

And we do have a question from the line of John Tumazos with John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

Hi, John. John Tumazos – John Tumazos Very Independent Research: Good evening, good evening. In terms of the Helguvik schedule, are there any EU programs for business development or loans – or I hate to use the word subsidies, but you know what I mean – or international development banks or aid programs specifically for Iceland or small EU nations or emerging companies that the project might be eligible for?

Sure, John, good question. Certainly no subsidies, as you alluded to, that’s a naughty word in the EU land. But the answer to your question is, yes. And let me talk specifically because we are – it's been a major part of our work to date on our potential financing. And so you may be familiar there. Each of the major European countries has an export credit agency. And the mission and mandate of those agencies is to obviously promote the products and services of those countries. And so what in essence you are able to do is to the extent that ECAs are interested, and we have some countries here in Europe from which a lot of our technology and products are coming. Switzerland and France are the two largest. Those ECAs are very interested in helping the projects. And what they do in essence is provide a quasi, self sovereign, I’ll call it guarantee that enable the financing structure to be put in place with attractive terms, both not only pricing but tenor as well. And so that's a long-winded answer to your question, yes, there are other sort of quasi, sovereign, pan-European financing agencies that are out there. The European Development Bank, the IDB, the Nordic Investment Bank, and we will be talking to all of them. But I think the ECAs are probably the real answer to your question. John Tumazos – John Tumazos Very Independent Research: ECA stands for?

Export Credit Agency. Each of the countries has a different name for their own, but ECA is a jargon is what they go by. And they are very used to working on structures like this. In fact, that’s what they do by mandate. John Tumazos – John Tumazos Very Independent Research: Are there particular things that might be called stimulus programs to emerge from recession, like America has?

Not in Europe – John Tumazos – John Tumazos Very Independent Research: I'm thinking the smelter in Iceland is much more virtuous than the Greek banking system.

I’ll leave that around on a Tuesday evening.

We’re not going to trying to offend a large portion of our audience. John, I think the answer is, we are not aware of this. We don’t see it. Certainly there seems to be programs, but they don’t seem to be particularly fashioned for our project.

Yes. John Tumazos – John Tumazos Very Independent Research: Thank you.

Thanks, John.

Thanks, John.

And we have a follow-up question from the line of Chris Doherty with Oppenheimer & Company.

Hi, Chris. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: Mike, I just wanted to clarify the accounting for the E.ON payments. So the actual cost in the cards includes a $17 million that you get reimbursed for.

Yes. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: Where does the credit come out of?

It’s on the cash – it's only on the cash flow statement. It’s in the line item called realized benefit – I have to find it exactly for you. If you got to cash flow statement and it’s about four lines down, realized benefit of contractual receivable. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: Okay. Where would that be on the balance sheet sitting, the actual receivable?

It would be – that portion would be, as Steve Schneider, our Chief Accounting Officer, is sitting here, it would be incurrent. And since it’s all 2010, I guess to answer my own question, it’s all incurrent because none of it is long-term. Chris Doherty – Oppenheimer & Company: So it's the other current assets, not the AR other?

You got it, Chris. You got it.

Thanks, Chris.

Thank you. And at this time, we have no additional questions in queue.

Thank you much, David. Thank you to everyone for joining our call today. We look forward to speaking to you again soon.