Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the fourth quarter 2010 earnings call. [Operator Instructions.] I would now like to introduce your opening speaker for today, Shelly Lair. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to the conference call. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that today’s discussion will contain forward-looking statements related to future events and expectations, including our expected future financial performance, results of operations, and financial condition. These forward-looking statements involve important known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. Please review the forward-looking statement disclosure in today’s slides and press release for a full discussion of these risks and uncertainties. In addition, we have included some non-GAAP financial measures in our discussion. Reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP financial measures can be found in the appendix to today’s presentation and on our website at www.centuryaluminum.com. I’d now like to introduce Logan Kruger, Century’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks Shelly. Thank you all for joining us today. We had a busy quarter in a business environment with improving market conditions. I'd like to make a few brief introductory comments before speaking in more detail about the market. So, let's turn to slide four. First, I'd like to give you a quick summary of our view of the external environment to set a context as we speak about the company's performance in 2010 and what we see before us for the year of 2011. Global demand growth continued at a reasonable pace during the last quarter of 2010. Annualized GDP growth grew at 3.2% in the U.S. in the fourth quarter and approximately 1.9% in the Euro Zone countries during the third quarter of 2010. Industrial activity has been strong, with most sectors, barring perhaps commercial and residential construction, exhibiting good to robust growth. As you're well aware, most developing economies have continued to produce strong results. In the fourth quarter, China's GDP was 9.8% and industrial production was 13.5% in the month of December. Brazil has been another excellent performer. As you are aware as well, inflationary pressures in these countries have continued to build, and governments are taking what will hopefully prove to be action sufficient to avoid severe dislocations. Growth in India has also continued on a strong footing. In particular, in the metals markets, and our sector specifically, commodity prices have found solid support with risks reasonably well balanced. And there seems to be some evidence for potential toward the upside. There are many factors supporting this environment, including the macro fundamentals, which I've just discussed. In addition, a continued increase in the cost of power and certain petroleum based raw materials will end up in the aluminum price. Mike will discuss in more detail…

Thank you Logan. Let's turn to slide number 11. In January, the repaired transformer arrived in Iceland. It has been installed, tested, and is now online and operating well. We are taking the month of February to complete some required maintenance on other transformers, and will ramp up amperage on line one at the end of the month. We continue to pursue our claim with our insurers for that portion of the lost volume caused by the seaborne damage during the original return trip. We continue to work on a variety of programs aimed at creating additional capacity and value within Grundartangi's existing footprint. Additional tons would produce good incremental cash flow and have an attractive payback. The multiyear program would require a modest commitment of capital in stages. We expect to be in a position to provide further detail over the coming months. As you may remember, the multiyear labor agreement we concluded in early 2010 had a wage reopener after the first year. We have engaged with the unions and are in active discussions with them. Our process is part of a broader set of wage negotiations going on in Iceland between employers and employee groups. Moving on to Hawesville, after many months of discussions and negotiations, we concluded a multiyear agreement with the steel workers in December. The process went on for a bit longer than we expected, but we are resolute to do everything possible to put in place a foundation for Hawesville that contributes to a long, productive, and cost-effective future. With that process behind us, we are continuing to improve the plant's performance and financial contribution. We entered into a new supply agreement with Hawesville's major customer to replace the long-term contract that was to expire in March of this year. The terms of…

Thanks very much Wayne. If we could turn to slide 13 please. And as usual, I'll refer to the financial information that follows the verbiage in the earnings release, so you might want to have that handy. As usual here, first I will compare the quarter that just ended to the prior quarter sequentially, so obviously Q4 over Q3 will be all the comparisons we're talking about here on this first slide. First, before we go to the change in sales, let's talk about the factors that drove that change. First, our realized unit prices in the U.S. were up 12%, and in Iceland up 13%. Those versus a one-month lag to LME price that was up 13% quarter to quarter. Turning to shipment volumes, if you had a chance to look at the operating data at the end of the financial information, you will - I need to note here first that like in the third quarter, in the fourth quarter we had about 3,100 metric ton of business at Grundartangi that was sold as direct sales rather than as tows, about the same amount as in Q3, so when you adjust for those data, you'll see that domestic shipments were up about 2% on both an actual and per-day basis, in Iceland up about 1%. I'd note, if you have the chance to look, that Grundartangi was producing and shipping at an annualized rate of 274,000 metric tons for the quarter. Obviously that was without the transformer in place for the entire quarter. And as you'll remember, that's almost the rate at which the plant was producing before the incident in early 2010. So we continue to get great [inaudible] out of Grundartangi. So, putting the pricing and volume data together, as you'll see we've got net sales…

Thanks Mike. Let's move on to slide number 20. We have made measured progress at the Helguvik construction site and on the project generally through the year of 2010. Importantly, we continued to assist the project's attractiveness over the longer term. On the prospect of both the capital cost and the plant's projected cost structure, we remain highly confident that Helguvik can be an attractive long-term investment. We continue to monitor very closely inflationary pressures around the globe and any impact that could have on the project's economics. Thus far, we have been able to maintain the original capital estimates. The environment in Iceland remains complex on a number of fronts. That said, the progress of the Icelanders have made is encouraging. The financial system is returning to some normalcy and economic activity is looking a bit brighter, although unemployment remains high. We remain as convinced as ever that Helguvik will bring meaningful benefit to the country and a good majority of Icelanders continue to agree with that point of view. At this point, the one remaining task is to come to final agreement with the power companies on the amendments to the power contracts signed in 2007. To ensure the project's long-term potential, we believe it is necessary to agree now on terms and the execution for the entire plant, and not just for the first 90,000 ton phase. We are hopeful that these various issues will be resolved over the coming months, and that we will be preparing to resume major construction activity this year. We will obviously keep you informed of any significant developments. Moving on to the final [inaudible] summary, slide 21. In summary, as evidenced in the data and the market conditions we are seeing, the environment looks reasonably attractive over the short to medium term. We are of course mindful of the very quick changes which can be brought about by geopolitical and similar factors. These positive contributions and conditions translate to our industry in the [inaudible] respect. The commercial activity and general sense of optimism we see among our customers, suppliers, and partners bodes well. We cannot see how the increases in power and major raw material costs will abate any time soon. This cost push, coupled with the anticipated demand versus supply growth over the coming years, is providing support for the commodity price. Of course, the anticipated excess demand must begin to eat into inventory levels that have remained stubbornly high for the last period. The business is performing well. Grundartangi and Hawesville each had a very good fourth quarter, and that performance has continued into the new year. We don't take these results for granted, and I've been very pleased with our team's execution. We are also finally seeing some improvement in performance at Mt. Holly. And with that I'd like to thank you and move on to questions.

[Operator Instructions.] Our first question comes from the line of Brett Levy with Jefferies & Co. Please go ahead. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Your 8% notes are coming up on a call price and a call date in May. Obviously the capital markets are much changed. Your financial performance is in a different place right now. What do you think the likelihood is that you take those notes out of their first call date?

Brett, no comment on that at this point in time. We're looking at that, but no decisions and no comment. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Okay. I know that you guys said for the Helguvik restart that everything seems to be kind of on the same cost and for the phase one and phase two. Assuming that you guys hit your target of restarting major construction this year, can you refresh everybody on sort of what the timing and amount necessary to be spent on phase one and phase two would be? Just sort of dollars per year and amount of production achieved.

I'll ask Wayne to chip in with any other comments if he'd like. I think phase one, just to remind everyone, is a capital investment of about $600 million. And it's about a 24-month construction period. We've got a good start on that, both engineering and being in the field. The next phases are approximately for 90,000 tons each, about $300-350 million each in total of about $1.65 billion, $1.7 billion over the full four phases. And that will be spread over some six years, approximately. You can use about 15-18 months between phases. We obviously update on a regular basis our contracts and quotes and bids, and so we are at this point in time still very positive and certain on our capital investment, particularly on phase one for the first 90,000 tons, which is at a higher level because you have to put in the infrastructure, particularly electrical rectification. Both Mike and Wayne may want to comment.

Just one comment for clarification. As Logan said, total capital costs for the first phase of $600 million, of which at the end of 2010 we've spent about $130 million. So the estimate to complete is somewhere in the high $400s. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: And by the end of completion, the total capacity of the plant will be what?

360,000 tons. It's the AP36 technology, so 360,000 tons per year. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: And that will be in year seven?

That's taking you to year seven. Again, it's dependent on power delivery over those various phases. Shelly may want to add something. Go on Shelly.

Yeah, I would say the seven years would assume continuous construction. It would be obviously our preference, but as Logan mentioned it's contingent on the power availability.

And just as a reminder to everyone, although some years have moved on, this is no different to the approach that we took at Grundartangi, which has worked pretty successfully. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Last question and I'll get back in queue. Is there kind of a target cash cost that you guys are aiming at in order to consider restarting Ravenswood? You have to get to, I don't know, $0.90 or $0.95, or whatever it would be.

I'll just make one quick comment. It's hard to answer that question because remember what we've said as we've gone through not only the analysis of this over the last 18 months, but negotiations with the power company and discussions with the political infrastructure in West Virginia the contract that we need here needs to protect the plant at lower LMEs. And so it's not just a - you can obviously read between the lines here - it's not that we just need a fixed cost that at a reasonable long-term LME, whatever the analysts say it is today, would result in a reasonable cash margin. It's that we need something that will be flexible enough to protect the plant invariably when commodity prices fluctuate.

I think you hit it pretty well Mike. But I think the key important points here are that we are in active discussions to conclude a power contract. And that, in addition to finalizing the labor negotiations which we have put aside until we conclude the power contract, those two together will help us understand what price point in the LME environment in which we are living whether or not we proceed. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: All right. One easier one. Puts for 2011. Percent of total production in the United States you've got puts on and the average put price that you've put into place at this point?

We're going to start charging you Brett, for excess. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: I'm done after this. Promise.

It's all right. Good question. So the way we look at it is not on a total production basis. We look at it as what we call unpriced production, just to remind you. And to remind you what that is, that's total production minus the natural hedge embedded in the alumina linkage. So on an unpriced basis, averaged through the year now we're at 40% of the unpriced total U.S. volume, and that includes the incremental volume that we have coming from [Lion's Side] that volume that we showed you on the 2011 modeling items page. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: And the price?

We don't disclose that.

If you're looking at the screen, you'll get the number.

And our next question comes from the line of Dave Gagliano with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Just a quick question on slide 18. Should be an easy one. Just the cash cost figures for 2011. That's very helpful. Could you give us the actual average cash costs in the U.S. and in Iceland for 2010?

We've tended not, historically, to give those data. As you know, people have become pretty adept at sifting through the financials, the so called guarantor financials, which break out pretty well Iceland versus non and getting a pretty good approximation for that. So I think we'd rather just keep it at that.

Just a reminder, you could - the change as you noted from 2010 to 2011 for the power costs at Hawesville, so - And I think we have indicated what that impact would be in previous discussions.

Right. Okay. So in the Q4 '09 earnings presentation, i.e. a year ago, you provided cash costs targets for 2010 of 1825 in the U.S. and 1700 per ton in this one -

Remember, to be comparable there, look at the LME price at which both of those ranges are given. So to be comparable there, plug in that same LME range into the cost that we've just given you on slide 18, and then you'll be able to calculate perfectly what the increase is.

And did those numbers - once we adjust it - did they actually come in as expected in 2010?

Yeah, pretty darn close. Very close as Logan said.

Our next question comes from Paretosh Misra with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Two questions. Number one, could you talk a bit more about your alumina purchase for Iceland in 2011? Are they going to be linked to aluminum? Or are they going to be - there might be some from the spot market itself? And related to that, at the end of 3Q you had about 35% of production that was hedged, but because of the alumina and electrical power contract. So what's the right way to think about that number as we look into 2011?

I'll ask Mike to give you the answer. [inaudible] Mike?

Yeah, sure. So for Iceland alumina, obviously other than the small amount of direct volume on which I've commented in the last two quarters, that's a towing arrangement there. And so the towing price that you get is - as we've disclosed many times - a percentage of the LME. And the right way to look at that is that it's reflective of receiving 100% of the metal price minus the alumina content. We note that those tows were entered into some time ago. You can get all the detail on the 10-K. So they would be reflective of a towing environment or an alumina environment at that point in time. Your second question, again not to duck it, is a tough one because it's a combination of two things. One is the implicit alumina price that I just described. Sort of one minus the towing fee, if you will. That's the first component to it. And the second component to it is of course the power price. Two issues there. One is it's hugely variable, obviously, because it's linked directly to the LME. So it's going to be - obviously at higher LME there's going to be a higher percentage of your cost of sales and the reciprocal at lower LMEs. And second is something that we have chosen, and I think rightly so, it's highly competitive, not to disclose in the past. And in addition we're precluded from doing so under the contracts themselves. Logan, I don't know if I've missed anything?

I don't think so. I think just you've got to think there's a small amount of tonnage that [inaudible] Grundartangi which was direct sales and that's just outside of the towing arrangement and I think it was about 3,100 tons. So the business that [inaudible] so I think Mike's description takes it down the right path.

And Paretosh, I believe you're at 35%. That was a blended number for U.S. and Iceland. Is that right?

That is correct.

It's a number, but I'm not sure how helpful it is, frankly.

You've got a number of moving [parts]. The parts, obviously, besides the alumina pricing, is also the power price in Iceland. So I think Mike's giving you guidance on this for you to think about.

Fair enough actually. Thanks, and good quarter. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of John Tumazos with Tumazos Independent. Please go ahead.

[inaudible] In the second half, when Chinese output fell 16% from June to November, there was no large inflows of imports into China. Do you understand how their consumption or apparent consumption fell so much? Whether they used plastic or steel in building materials, etc.? And secondly, with the deliveries into the warehouses in January and February, global apparent demand appears down 1-2% for the first quarter -

John, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to answer it any way that's going to be of great help to you, but if you look at Chinese IP, growth in last year was about 15%, 2010. But the year before, China had ramped up its total production to around capacity of about 18-20 million tons. There's some debate about that. So two things happened in China in the last six months of 2010. One, there was a restriction on power consumption to achieve certain environmental targets. And secondly, there was a bit of a requirement for people to turn off the use of power intensive industries, and there were a number of provinces in China that were affected. All in all, I think that drew on stocks that were already available in China. In fact, there is some indication that the Chinese sold out of their strategic reserve of metal as well. So I think the demand physically and what China was producing, plus the stocks that were liberated, kept China about whole last year. I think what we're debating now is how quickly in 2011 the curtailed capacity comes back, and there's some debate about that, both from a weather, economics, and a power cost and availability discussion. And how much demand, or apparent demand as you describe it, grows. The last number we had was about 15-16% of IP growth. So I think that's your question, and you saw in our notes, our discussion, that we saw some higher imports in China in January versus December of metal. So hopefully that helps you. The second question, would you like to just repeat it and I'll see if I can give you an answer?

The inventory deliveries to exchanges of about 325,000 tons so far in the first quarter, combined with world output below the June levels that were record, would work out to something like a 1-2% apparent demand decline. And I was wondering how you interpreted that.

I'm not sure I can interpret it like that. I think just you have to take it into account with some of my remarks earlier, which said that, you know, inventories came onto the LME because people perhaps reassessed their financing activities of these metal stocks. Mike?

Yeah, I think actually I was going to say the same thing as Logan, just in a different way. I can see your math, John, but my guess - well, it sounds like what the implicit assumption in your math is that those inventories - additions into the warehouses, were new production, whereas I think most market participants believe that they were simply stocks that were sitting in one place going into an LME warehouse where it's counted in a different way. And so, again I don't know if that's what you're doing, but -

I agree. That's what most people seem to think, John.

Right. All I'm doing is taking production that is less plus inventories that are rising. If I could be a pest on one more item? The U.S. aluminum association reported a 2% decline in wire and cable shipments last year for the North American region. Is that in any way an indicator of a lack of substitution for copper? And do you know of anybody in the wire and cable business building new wire mills to help aluminum take share?

I really can't make an observation -

[inaudible] is a customer of yours.

But I can tell you that demand for cable, [inaudible] including the USA, is high. And I think what I tried to do in the speaking notes, John, is we think the number supports that substitution was in the hundred thousands of tons, traditionally, and those are what the numbers indicate. What we are questioning, and a lot of other people are trying to think through, is that a four tons multiple copper to aluminum - does that substitution number change greatly?

Thank you.

[Operator Instructions.] And this time, speakers, we have no one else in the queue.

Thanks very much to everyone for joining us on the call today. We look forward to speaking with you again at the next quarter. Thank you.