Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for standing by and welcome to the Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct the question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time (Operator Instructions) And as a reminder, today’s conference is being recorded. I’d now like to turn the conference over to our host, Peter Trpkovski. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Gwenn. Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to today’s conference call. Before we begin, I’d 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 conditions. 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 statements disclosure in today’s slides and press release for a full discussion of these risks and uncertainties. In addition, we’ve included some non-GAAP financial measures in our discussion. Reconciliations 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. With that, I’d now like to introduce Mike Bless, Century’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Pete and thanks to all of you for joining us this afternoon. If we could just switch over to Slide 4 please, to give you a quick overview of the things we’ve been working on over the last couple of months. The quarter that just ended and then we’ll move on to talk about the industry and the operations. I will talk in the next slide in more details about the industry environment, but sufficed to say, we’re finding it hard to call a trend at this point on many of the key issues that impact our industry. In that respect we’re managing the Company in the near-term in this context with an eye towards the near-term downside. That having been said, I will talk in a few minutes about the demand and supply trends we’re seeing. Given these were become increasingly confident that we got more attractive at industry conditions on the horizon here the next year or two. Moving along, we had a really good quarter in the operations. We are very proud of it and I will give you some more details in a few moments. Most importantly safety was good was good across the business generally. Sebree had a difficult to start to the summer in the safety area and in the production in key metrics area and I will detail this in a minute. The plant has come back very nicely over the last couple of months. Very importantly, operating costs were down at Hawesville, down at Mt. Holly and down at Grundartangi. Before we go forward, I think it might be useful if we take a step back and look at the Company’s cost structure here and how it’s evolved over the last couple of years and I think importantly -- it’s important…

All right. Thanks, Mike. So if you could turn to Slide 8 please, I'll take you through the Company's financial performance for the quarter. Shipments were up 21% in Q3 and this was largely due to the Sebree acquisition in June. We also had a 15% increase in shipments at Hawesville as we reduced the surplus finished goods inventory that we built up in Q2 prior to receiving our approval to move the plant to market based power. Quarter-over-quarter the shipments were down about 5% at Mt. Holly were results of finished goods inventory. In Iceland, we had direct shipments of approximately 1,200 tonnes and total volume for Iceland was up just slightly as a result of the additional volume for the ongoing capacity creep project. On one month lag basis, the average cash LME price was down about 3.5% from Q2 to Q3. When you look at our realized unit prices, they were down approximately 2% in the U.S and 4% in Iceland. They both pretty much in line with the change in LME. We have seen some decline in the regional premiums, in reaction to the announcement of potential changes in the LME warehouse rule, but on one month lag basis, the impact on realized prices was minimal for Q3. Moving on to the income statement data, net sales were up 20% Q3 over Q2 due to higher shipments from Sebree and Hawesville. But that volume benefit was partially offset by weaker metal prices in the quarter. Continuing down to the operating loss line, this quarter we had just our normal adjustments for depreciation and amortization and lower cost of market inventory adjustments. After backing out these non-cash items, we had an operating loss of $4.5 million in Q3, which is down $6 million from Q2. Lower LME…

Thanks, Shelly. If we could turn to Slide 10 please, as normal I would like to end here before we take your questions just to give you a sense of some of the major items that we’re working on now and will be during the next couple of months. First and foremost at Hawesville, we need as I briefed earlier -- we need to finish the discussions with the regulators that are required to ensure the stability of the grid and our ability to import energy reliably and cost effectively. These are technical procedures governing the mitigation of risk when transmission lines are down for maintenance either on a scheduled or unscheduled basis. We believe this process should be in place and completed by the early part of 2014. And as I said I’ve quantified this before just a bit under 10% of the current delivered power price we’re paying at Hawesville that we’ve been paying since mid August will go away once this process is completed and Big Rivers’ is able to shut its generation station. Moving on to Sebree; we need to finalize the power contract with Big Rivers' and Cennergi and file that with the Kentucky Public Service Commission. As we said before this will essentially be the same arrangement as we have as Hawesville. In addition it shouldn’t have the complicating factor of the transmission issues of that which we, I just spoke. We believe this will be approved before the termination of the existing contract on the 31st of January. At Mt. Holly, just to remind you the current power arrangement with the off-system resource expires at the end of December, 2015. This is the deal as you may remember that we put in place in the middle of last year. Under the terms of…

Gwenn, if you could please take the first question on line.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) And our first question comes from Brett Levy with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Hi, guys excellent progress particularly on the cost front.

Thanks, Brett. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Can you give us little bit more color around, like the steps that are going to happen for Helguvik; if you bring the National Power Company in, sort of what have they said? Will the other two guys potentially expand aside? I know it's sort of a sensitive point in the negotiations but, obviously having a second plant in Iceland is a key part of your long-term strategic plans. I just want to get a sense as to sort of, how optimistic you are that maybe someone can come in and restart these conversations in a constructive way because they’ve installed for so long.

Yeah, it's good, thanks Brett, it's a good question. I would start by agreeing absolutely with your last comment about the importance of the project. Two, I’ll take yours in reverse order if it's okay. Two, absolutely not on the other two guys stepping aside; they continue to tell us that they want to participate in some way. We continue to wish them to participate in a pragmatic and sensible way. The real point here is that, we want to get this project going in the near term, and we think in order to do that we need the national power company, it’s called landsvirkjun of course to come in here. In answer to your first question, it's really too early to tell and as you would expect and hopefully appreciate Brett, this isn’t something that we want to negotiate in the public domain like this. But we have had some very constructive discussions here over the last month or two and we’ll see where those take us. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: All right, and then the second question is, I mean you guys have given clear metrics that at current prices, at least the U.S. production is going to struggle after all of the CapEx and everything else to be breaking even. What is your level of hedging, and I ask this every quarter, what is your level of hedging for the current quarter and any future quarters to sort of stabilize cash flow to neutral for the U.S. operations?

Sure. There is no hedges in place right now. There’s some very minor premium hedges that are on the books, but they’re de minimis and but there were no LME hedges spread on the books right now. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Any plans to put some on?

Something that we look at all the time; I know that you’d probably prefer more precise answer. It's a complex analysis as you would expect and tough in this environment to consider putting on hedges with metal kind of bouncing around 1,800. But it's something that we do look at all the time and I might add just to expand a little bit, you didn’t ask the question but perhaps it might be the next one that you ask. We’re also looking to doing a quite a bit of analysis as you would hope on alternatives to hedge our power exposure as we move here to become a major market purchaser of power. So that’s something that we’ll be focusing on here over the next couple of months. Brett Levy – Jefferies & Company: Thanks very much guys.

Thanks, Brett.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Sal Tharani with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mike.

Hi, Sal.

Mike, you had mentioned in the past also about your short position of alumina and that the contract, the index contracts certainly have gone up a lot 18% you mentioned. I was wondering if you are looking at the Ormet, Louisiana facility for any reason that you think it may fit in your portfolio.

Yeah, it's a good question Sal. As you would hope -- as you know we look at everything and as you would hope we would take a look at this one. Based on our analysis of the cash cost of that facility even basis current natural gas prices as you know alumina refineries are sensitive to the value of natural gas. It's not an economic facility, even if you look at current index prices of alumina, if you look at current LME reference prices, even if you use that metric 18% which we do and in fact expect to do down here over the next year or two. It's just -- it's a long winded way of saying, it just doesn’t dollar out.

Okay. But you have done your math on this thing?

Most certainly.

Okay. Just quickly, you mentioned something about you’re facing some higher transmission cost over the last 10 days; can you just elaborate a little bit more on that what's going on with it?

Yeah, what happens is, and again we do think it's just a short-term issue. What happens is that the owners of the transmission apparatus in the region or in any region, it happens to be Big Rivers' as you would expect. They do most of their heavy maintenance in the so called shoulder seasons. So they don’t, they try to leave maintenance undone if you will during the summer when power usage is at a high and take the lines down to maintain them in the fall as they call it the shoulder season, and we’ve seen some congestion in the area as they’ve done that. It's commenced at a time unfortunately where a generating unit or two went down in that plant, so you had kind of a double whammy there and that’s what lead to a spike here for a couple of days over the last 10 days in prices. I don’t want to overplay it here, I just -- it's top of mind for us right now and so it's something that we’re watching. But again, we think it's a temporary situation.

Yeah, how much of asset and transmission cost is of the total cost?

What this really is, is that transmission, let me make sure I explain this; transmission itself is fixed, that’s regulated tariff regulated by the FERC. This is simply the loss of some of that transmission that’s a bit of a hysterical term, but the fact that the lines were down for maintenance driving up actual energy prices in the region. So, I use transmission as a euphemism. What we’re really talking about here it's just an increase in the market energy prices caused by some of the regional transmission being down.

Great. Thank you very much.

Sure thing.

And our next question comes from Bruce Klein with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon.

Hi, Bruce.

Hey, I wanted just some color on spot power sort of what you’re -- what you’re sort of seeing out there now? That would be helpful. Thanks.

Yes, sure. The most liquid hub near Hawesville is the Indiana Hub, and that’s where for example if we were to hedge that’s where one would hedge. And the price of energy in the day ahead market, we always buy day ahead per our procedures with Big Rivers’ [you might so] [ph], you never want to buy at the real time market because prices there can be much more variable both up and down, but right now the day ahead prices are in the high 20’s between $28 and $30 per megawatt hour. And if you look out over five years there’s quite a liquid forward market, it's reasonably flat. Last time I looked at it, it was last week. It was up in five years and maybe 2.5 to 3 bucks in five years. So it's reasonably flat forward curve at this point.

Sorry, to make sure we’re comparing apples-to-apples. The numbers Mike is referring to are undelivered numbers, so on top of that you would need to add transmission cost.

Yeah.

Okay. I thought mid 30’s was the -- or mid to high …

That got to be right. So, Shelly is got it right. To that energy price Bruce, you would add about five bucks of a combination of the FERC regulated transmission tariff, which I refer to a couple of minutes ago and then as we’ve detailed in our arrangement with Big Rivers’ we pay a compendium of other fees, their fees for servicing us, a fee to Kenergy for actually providing the service and so the aggregate of the transmission and those other fees added by the roughly of about an 5 bucks or so per megawatt hour. So that’s how you get into the mid 30’s.

Okay, that’s helpful. And then the premium, the store with the LME, any sort of bigger picture or thoughts you have on how that sort of gets resolved or what that means to the premium?

No, I mean to be honest, no. We’re waiting like the rest of the industry to see. As you may have seen the LME somewhat tantalizingly made an announcement, I think it was Shelly two Fridays ago they came out with it?

Yes, (indiscernible).

Yeah, I think it was a week and half ago now saying that their Board has made a decision but they put out nothing sense them, there’s been – you’ve seen a lot of our peers in the industry have commented publicly, sent letters into the LME. Some of the various people who look at the industry, so your peers, Bruce to your firm have made public comments. But so far the LME is being reasonably [ph] tight lifted. We don’t have any, it's the amount of speculation about why they haven't, if they made a decision just gotten on with it and announced it, but it's a long vivid way of saying we don’t know anything more than anybody else knows at this point.

Okay, I’ll pass it on. Thanks guys.

All right. See you.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Tony Rizzuto, Cowen and Company. Please go ahead.

Thank very much. Hi, Mike and Shelly and congrats on the improvement in the cost, it looks good.

Thanks, Tony.

I just wanted to follow up a little bit because the comments such that you made in the press release about diminished volatility associated with the LME warehousing proposal. I was wondering, I was intrigued by that and I was wondering why those comments and if you could elaborate a little bit on what you meant there?

Yeah, I mean, I think just picking up of the last comment made, we’re not sure what the proposal was going to do. We had seen diminished volatility here over the last probably month and half, two months as you remember right after the LME made their original announcement there was quite a bit of volatility kind of the forward markets in all these various premium disappeared almost overnight. The stock prices, the cash prices on both came down pretty consistently for example the Midwest premium was at 11.8 and it came down to 9.8, I don’t know if it was linearly Shelly, but pretty consistently over maybe 8 to 10 weeks give or take.

Yes.

And then it's firmed up since then, Tony as you know it kicked back up to 10 and it's kind of just the stabilize, same thing in Europe with the duty paid premium and so, we -- it's hard to tell whether that people are sort of beginning to re-price these premiums under what they expect in the regime is going to be or just a lack of sort of direction causing people to freeze. But all we were trying to do there is make an observation that that kind of volatility that seemed to have come out of it at least right now.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Just a question on, you indicated that your fourth quarter CapEx will be a big quarter. I was wondering if you could give us any guidance at this point for ’14 and do you talk about sustaining and growth in that year?

Sure. We’ll just think, do it at a high level at this point Tony and then …

It's fine.

Yeah, yeah and then we’ll give you all the details we usually do in February. But we’ll continue along with the Grundartangi program. It won't be as big and not as it was in 2013, but it will be a happy amount I could see $15 million to $20 million easily, there Shelly is nodding her head up and down here. We’re thinking that the big decision there will be when, it won't be if, but when we decide to spend the fund to start up the second baked oven there and that will be, it's $10 million for the oven and another $3 million for a bunch of ancillary related stuff. So that will be $13 million at Vlissingen that either it will happen and just we haven't taken the decision yet Tony as to whether we’ll do it in 2014 or towards the beginning of the year back after the year 2015 that one is kind of up in the air at this point. Other than that Shelly, you want to go through, I mean maintenance is yeah, go ahead.

Yes, at Sebree now we’re at about $15 million to $20 million annually for maintenance CapEx. I think you hit [ph] what they want, Mike.

Yes.

All right, guys. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tony.

Thank you. And next we have a question from Timna Tanners, Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon.

Hi.

So since I just wanted to make sure – I’m sorry, if I missed it, but there was a one other (indiscernible) Friday for Sebree, was that the standard procedure then in terms with the process for getting your power contracts?

Yes. Sorry, I never want to call one of those standards because they’re very impactful when you do them, but as you may remember we did something similar at Hawesville. We were required to do it just because as the one notice itself said Timna, if for whatever reason if we weren’t able to have a new power contract approved before the 31st of January we would be forced that we wouldn’t have a choice. We would have no power. We would be forced to curtail the plant. That said, nothing is changed, you read -- you may have read I should say the order that the Kentucky PSC issued in August that even talked about Sebree as their expectation that it would be coming even though the order itself pertained only to Hawesville. The contract is virtually identical and frankly it's less complex, A; because we’ve already done it and B; because it doesn’t have the issues of the generation station right next to Hawesville, there’s no analogue at Sebree. And so we expect it to be approved in due course likely some time in the month, during the month of January.

Okay, great. Your confidence kind of answers that question I think. I think I was just a little confused, I’m sorry if you already talked to this, but I just want to make sure I understand it, what's the timeframe under which we should be expecting kind of the full benefits to flow through for both Hawesville and Sebree if you could? Thanks.

Sure, no problem. So, for Hawesville the answer it, this quarter, and then I’ll come back to this in a moment. Q4, this year for Sebree the full benefit won't be I suppose until the second quarter. So, I guess bottom line that’s the answer to your question, it won't be until the second quarter of 2014 until both plants have a full quarter on market power. As Shelly detailed, you may remember we talked about the potentials of our expected benefit to Hawesville. So as you may have heard, she detailed that power cost went down at Hawesville 7 million bucks this quarter and the plant was on market power for just about half a quarter. So that kind of annual run rate it's something in the sort of mid $50 million improvement we’re right on that estimate that we’ve been making for the year-to-date.

Okay, great. Thanks a lot.

Sure.

Thank you. And next we have a question from David Gagliano, Barclays. Please go ahead. David Gagliano – Barclays: Okay, great. Thanks very much. My question is about the 2014 cash flow. I want to ask a question that, I know you require some assumptions, but I’m hoping we can hone in a bit on the cash flow situation for ’14. Given the changes in the power cost at Hawesville, assuming you’re successful with renegotiating the power contract at Sebree and based on what you know about 2014 capital spending needs. Can you give us a rough sense as to what realized aluminum price and I when I say realized aluminum price I mean including premiums. What realized aluminum price you think you need to be essentially cash flow breakeven in 2014?

Yeah, Dave; so if we assume that both the Hawesville and the Sebree power contracts are on that market based power and power prices are around where they’re trending right now, all is breakeven with everything other than investment type CapEx would be in the high 1,700 around 1,775. David Gagliano – Barclays: And that’s for next year too, correct? And that is reduction, right …

And again, no investment CapEx …

That’s everything we know right now. So in essence, the answer is yes to the question. Other than as Shelly said, the discretionary go investment CapEx that we just detailed a couple of minutes ago. David Gagliano – Barclays: Okay. All right, perfect. That’s all I needed. Thanks.

All right, David.

And there are no addition -- actually we just got a question from [ph] Tony Risotto, Cohen & Company. Please go ahead.

I like to be called Risotto.

I like it too. You get me hungry, Tony.

I do like that. Actually I might try to have some tonight if I can.

There you go.

I just want to follow up on David’s question that 17 -- around 1,775; does that include -- that’s just LME, now that -- what kind of assumption would you guys be making there in terms of the premium over LME?

Yes.

That’s truly LME comparable. So that takes into account that benefit is at the premiums into our cost structure. So it's is the near cost Tony when we present cash cost, we present net cash cost and they’re reduced by premiums above the LME. So, when we talk LME it's truly a comparable number.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Tony.

There are no questions at this time.

Very good. Thanks everybody for participating this afternoon and we’ll look forward to talking with you in, suppose it will be February, if not before.

And ladies and gentlemen that does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Executive Teleconference. You may now disconnect.