Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions]. This conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host Mr. Peter Trpkovski. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Jonathan and good afternoon everyone and welcome to the conference call. Today's presentation is available on our website at www.centuryaluminum.com. We use our website as a means of disclosing material information about the company and for complying with Regulation FD. I would also 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 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. And now, I'd like to introduce Mike Bless, Century's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks very much, Pete, and thanks to all of you for joining us this afternoon. Before I get started I would just like to give you an update on Rick Dillon, our CFO. As you will recall we put out an announcement a couple of weeks ago about his health. First, we’d like to thank you and Rick to whom I have spoken almost every day of course would like to add his thanks to those of you who have enquired about him. I am happy to say that he coming along very well and he expects to be back in the seat at least on a part time basis maybe as early as mid to late next week. And then as we expected he will back in the seat full time by the end of March and it goes without saying we’re looking forward to having him back. So with that said if we could turn to slide 4 please, and as usual I‘ll take you through some of the highlights of the last couple of months during which we think we have made generally good progress on most fronts. This and the continuing volatile environment and I’ll talk about the market in just a couple of minutes. First and most importantly we completed the acquisition of the remaining interest in Mt. Holly on the 1st December that was the scheduled date. We are obviously very pleased to complete the transaction and now we are focused on the various integration activities, the most significant of which in the near term is the transition of the various business systems. We have had a closer look during the last two months and this has confirmed our long held perceptions of this plant, that it’s a terrific plant with an exceptional management…

Thanks Mike. If you could turn to slide 9 please, I’ll take you through the company’s financial performance for the quarter. Our U.S. shipments were up 3% in Q4 and this was largely due to the acquisition of the remaining 50% of Mt. Holly which closed on December 1st. In Iceland volume was up about 5% as a result of the ongoing expansion project as well as timing of shipments. So overall global shipments were up 4% quarter-over-quarter. On a one month lag basis the U.S. Midwest transaction price which includes both the LME and the regional premium was up 5% which is in line with our increase in U.S. realized prices. In Iceland we sold most of our metal on a two month lag. So on that basis the LME plus European duty paid premium rose 9% quarter-over-quarter which is also in line with the improvement in Grundartangi's realized price for Q4. Continuing down the P&L, in Q4 we had adjusted EBITDA of $92 million which compares to adjusted EBITDA of $80 million in Q3. This quarter we had two adjusting items for EBITDA including $5 million primarily related to a onetime non-cash pension charge and $3 million related to a charge for separation of former senior executives. So let me take you through some of the changes quarter-over-quarter. Higher all in aluminum prices increased EBITDA by $26 million, net of the impact of our LME based alumina and power contracts. And this is partially offset by $4 million of increased casting cost as we produced more value added products in Q4. Higher shipments primarily from Grundartangi and the additional stake in Mt. Holly contributed about $4 million to the quarter-over-quarter increase in EBITDA. At Hawesville operating cost was up about $3 million mostly due to increased maintenance cost.…

Thanks Shelly. Just to finish up here before we get to your questions, if we could turn to slide 15 and we will just give you a sense of what you ought to be expecting from us over the next couple of months. As I said, the post 2015 power contract at Mt. Holly is now a significant focus. Just to take a step back, as a reminder in mid 2012, we entered into a three and half year agreement and that agreement over the last couple of years is ahead of taking of power from Mt. Holly's traditional electric power supply as well as from an off system designated resource. About a year ago, a little longer than a year ago, in late 2013 going into 2014, we tried to reach an agreement for post 2015 service but we were unsuccessful in doing so. And thus we needed to tend to that termination notice in June which you saw us do for post 2015 service. As a reminder this was required to eliminate any further payments after 2015 if a new agreement can't be reached and the plant can't operate post 2015. After that we had relatively few discussions with the power supplier through the summer and into the fall. We have now reinitiated those discussions as the sole owner of the plant and thus far we have had a lot of very good back and forth. We got the full attention and responsiveness from the power provider, this is clearly important to them as well. We have not yet reached the framework of agreement with them as a complex series of issues being debated. And thus it is hard to speculate at this point the type of structure that could ultimately make sense to both parties. That having…

Thanks Mike. Justin you can go ahead and kick us off with the Q&A session please.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from Brett Levy with Jeffries.

Hey Mike, thank you for the candor and also thank you for all the good financial information as well.

Hi, Brett.

I mean can you guys talk a little bit about like any hedging, is sort of hedging out of the story now for North America or kind of what’s your thought and then also talk about the Midwest premium, I asked this on another aluminum call, I mean obviously $0.24 is a good number, you want to sort of make sure it holds up, what makes you think it does?

On hedging, Brett, thanks for the questions. I wouldn’t say it is out of the picture. I mean this is the age old debate right and we rehash it here if not daily then several times a week and this is the same old story where I may not talk about one example is natural gas, so you look at it $3.5 and you say well that’s a nice price and relative to you know where it’s been over the last couple of years and all of a sudden you wake up one day and the strip for next year is at $2.90 and you obviously humans are hopefully learning animals so you say, gosh, I am glad, I didn’t do that. So we continue to look at it Brett, I’d say we continue to look at it on a tactical basis. As you’ve heard us talk about in the past we do have a fundamental view that taking long term positions in these commodities markets. This is one point I'll make, and then I’ll make another is not the right thing to do. And number two, when you look at the key commodities that we would seek to hedge in our cost structure with the key obviously being Indiana Hub power on the one hand and natural gas on the other. You have to think long and hard. Again, this is consistent with what we been saying about only taking one side of that trade I suppose is one way to say it. So if you were to fix a portion of your electric power and your electric power constitutes let’s call it 35% of your cash cost of sales, can you responsibly do that without taking a position, i.e. selling forward 35% of your revenues. So that’s a…

And then on the power agreement front, is there any way of just kind of going back to your power suppliers and saying listen whether it’s natural gas or coal, your input costs are down. You should give us some sort of break on that and then to some extent when they come back to you are they asking for something that sort of asks for an adjustment backup again if these input costs ever go back up for them?

That’s a great question. You’ve been sitting, it’s like you have been sitting at the table here. So your question really is specific to South Carolina, to Mt. Holly because implicitly the answer to your question is yes, in Kentucky since we are buying on the market, I mean that marginal generation that prices our power and everybody else’s power in the dispatch order in affect has current power prices, pardon me, fuel prices in it. So coal and natural gas that is embedded in the price, in our LMP and our marginal price that MISO assigns to us every day. And so it is long winded way of saying yes, in Kentucky. You’re on to the right -- you are on the right path for some place like South Carolina. Of course power provided there has its own structure in terms of fuel cost and so one way to get about it would be to say okay, we will take our own. We will manage our fuel cost by ourselves. That will require some work to do. Obviously we are being treated as differently than other people on the system but it can't happen. And the other way that could happen perhaps more directly is to do a deal similar to the one that we did, the so called off system resource deal which we entered in mid 2012. That one has us exposed to directly to natural gas. The reason you don’t see as much volatility in our final power price at Mt. Holly because as I said as I have reminded you guys, it is a mix right now of, I don’t want to call it fixed, but reasonably fixed price power from the power company on the one hand and power from the third party resource that flows based on natural gas price on the other hand. I hope that answered the question.

No, good answer. I will get back in the queue, thanks.

Okay, thanks.

And our next question comes from Timna Tanners with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Hey, guys. Thanks and good afternoon.

Hi, Timna.

I guess I wanted to, I am still trying to understand what the gap is on Ravenswood and I know you characterized to those you are in the process and I get it but is there anything else that you can tell us to help us characterize the probability of that succeeding, you are one of the few companies that looks to be restarting and if you could talk to us about any further detail there and how much do you think about the price of the LME vis-à-vis that decision, I know it is about power but at some level does the LME price factor in?

Yes, that is good question Timna. I will take the second question first if I may. And so, the answer there is our view -- sort of mid to long-term view hasn’t changed. You can't make decisions like this based on as I said, we were up at 2100 just a couple of months ago, now we are down at 1800. Premiums are coming down a little bit but they are way, way up from like a year ago when we would have happily restarted the plant had we gotten the right power deal. So, again long winded way of saying of course we look at it and if we had our view, our view is no better than anybody else's that things were are looking really ugly in the world here over the next couple of years. Of course that [Technical Difficulty] but other than that we got to proceed here I think responsibly with the longer term view than that. It is very simple an answer to your first question. I mean the posted tariff of the power provider it is a regulated power market there, so there is -- they don’t like us to use this word but it is what it is, it’s a monopoly power provider there of course, as it is in most regulated -- all regulated regions in the U.S. And their posted tariffs just doesn’t work, doesn’t come close to working. As you know we have been voted very generous support by the State of West Virginia and so taking that and reducing the posted price from the power provider we are still not there and so that I think you use in my opinion the exact right word, that gap there is what we are trying to solve. And we haven’t gotten there yet. What we have on the table we think is a structure that should solve it and again I just -- it would be difficult to speculate at this point in time. We think it works but we are not quite there yet.

Well you have track record so that means something and that is why we are still hopeful as well. I guess --

We like to -- just to be clear we like to start that, we really would.

Yeah, I know it sir. Okay, then the only other thing I want to ask about is what you didn’t talk about which was Helguvik and maybe I missed it but is that still something that -- is it more on the back burner now or where does that stand?

No, it is -- thanks for bringing it up Timna, we didn’t mention it only because we don’t like to add filler. It is very much on the front runner but there just has been no substantive change since last time and so we probably should have put it on there. We were still very focused on it, we are in discussions with all the relevant parties as late as I can say. Yes, with all three within the last couple of weeks but two we have contracted in the larger companies that we have mentioned in the past that's not yet part of the power supply for Helguvik but we certainly would like to come in there. That's a national power company owned by the State of Iceland. And so it is just that there hasn’t been, there has been a lot of discussion and some developments but nothing that rises to updating you guys on this call.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks Timna.

Next will be John Tumazos with John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

Thank you very much for your very good performance, that helps job security of all the metals analysts to have somebody do some good things.

Thank you John. We’re concerned about our own as well, but thank you.

We certainly like to see your progress. Two questions, could you talk a little bit about the forward tax rate and the cash and book base as NOLs going forward first? And second looking beyond the 2015 year, further out, if you have some good earnings several back to back years how would your capital allocation priorities lean, oh I thought of nine different things. Paying down debt, paying down benefit liabilities, dividends, buybacks restarting West Virginia, Iceland expansions and acquisitions, raw materials, CAPEX in existing plants. Do you remember how there used to be a nickel quarterly dividend back 12 or 13 years ago, lots of ways to use money when it comes in?

Thanks John, but that is more -- we don’t get up to nine when we talk about at the board level but so let me take the tax rate first it’s pretty straight forward as of right now we’ll get to as you correctly imply on the book side of the U.S. there is zero provision right now because of the valuation -- because of the deferred tax asset. So it’s pretty simple on a cash basis. Obviously Shelly and Pete have given you the modeling assumptions, obviously based on your own commodity assumptions so take whatever models spits out for U.S. taxable income and obviously use a 0% tax rate until further notice and take what gets spit out for Iceland using 18% tax rate. That’s what we have right now. The statutory rate nicely being 20% but we have an investment agreement as you know that Cap was at 18%. So that’s one pretty straight forward NOLs. There is still a very large NOL in our books. You’ll see the size of it when we file our K here over the next couple of days but it’s just a little smaller then it was before. Because we had used a little bit of it as we start to generate taxable income in the U.S. I am happy to say it’s still fully allowed for, its still full valuation allowance against it and until further notice that’s the way it’s being carried on the books. Capital allocations, so look capital projects are always looked at this vis-à-vis our weighted average cost to capital and our hurdle rates. And the ones that we have on the docket for 2015, obviously some of them are maintenance related or sustaining. We believe they nicely make the grade. Using your example it is something that things continue to go well and commodity price continues to support it and we are going to look at it. I think at this point in time I should let Shelly comment, paying down debt is probably not something we would look at. We think we’re on behalf of the share owners reasonably capitalize from a leverage standpoint i.e. not over leveraged. So all those being equal at this point in time, I think we’d look at how we return capital to the share owners. As you know we haven’t done that in a direct sense for some time and everybody has his or her own way of looking at dividends versus repurchased but we would look at the play [ph] of that stuff. I hope we are talking to you about that over the coming couple of quarters.

Thank you.

Thanks.

And next question comes from Tony Rizzutto with Cowen & Company.

Hey Mike and Shelly, how are you guys?

Hi Tony, how are you?

Good, good, listen my first question is during the last call you talked about significant investments that you’re considering in both the U.S. and Iceland in value added product capability and I would assume that you’re looking at or evaluating maybe the electrical and auto markets, so kind of in a billet and slabs here, is that -- would that be correct to assume?

That’s very correct to assume.

Okay and then could you give us an idea about the magnitude of investment, you talked about your 15 kind of CAPEX but let’s think a little bit longer term, what could be the magnitude of those types of investments and how do you foresee that playing out just to go forward with that?

You bet Tony, good question. And so those as we’ve said we’d more significant than the small cash house projects that we had last year. So in the U.S. we are still working on this. We are working on evaluating the market and then the capital project but they are given that we have existing cast houses i.e. value added cast houses, some of the infrastructure there right now so you can leverage off of that. You got casting pits, how all these works you know they are talking about a couple 10s million of dollars but no more than that. Where as in Iceland you start from scratch, all you have right now, all we have right now of course is a ingot cast house that value added product line there that the foundry alloy is still being casted as ingot, that’s why the investment there were so low. So in Iceland number one reason you need to take down into area to put casting pits, ordering new equipment homogenization furnaces and sawing equipment and because of the seismic requirements in Iceland when you start touching the earth in such, you are talking about an order of magnitude above that. If in the U.S. you are talking about $20 million to $30 million investment. In Iceland you are talking about maybe 2.5 to 3 times that and so we are approaching all of that with a good degree of optimism but a good degree of caution as well. Both as I said on the capital side and on the market assessment side given that the market is moving around here a little bit. Obviously these are long-term investments. These projects would each take on the order of 18 to 24 months once you fire the starters pistol to before you started having your first cast, your first production, but you want to take a sober look at this before it moves forward.

Absolutely, Mike how far along are you at this point in the evaluation process?

Pretty far. I mean in Iceland we’ve got RFP at the vendors for close and I just reviewed them when I was there with the team a couple of weeks ago and our board is going to review them soon. And so there we are going to have a pretty good capital budget. I am reasonably confident because they are going to be good quotes. U.S. again, less equipment needs to be ordered. The U.S. at this point in time is more I’d say a market assessment Tony at this point which is fundamentally harder of course. Capital, you got good engineers and good quotes and you put in the contingency that’s reasonable and you are going to get it right hopefully if you execute well. The market is of course more esoteric debt analysis so that’s where I won’t say hit the pause button but we are trying to be careful here.

Well, you guys have made a lot of various good investments and so far so good. I want to switch gears a little bit and talk a little bit about Ravenswood, just if you can help me understand, I understand about power and obviously its critical for smelter but from my recollection it’s an old vintage smelter. I think it’s got or had relatively poor energy efficiency levels. So assuming you guys can obtain the kind of power contract that you would need from that monopoly power provider what kind of magnitude of investment might you be looking at there or is this something that you kind of got a deal in pocket with some of the subsidies that you might be able receive there from local and state constituencies?

Good question Tony, so the two parts to your question and two answers to it, so on the investment side we’ve continued to look at this, we’ve continued to question our assumptions and the start up cost are still coming in around where we thought it were. On the fix start up cost if you will i.e. non working capital start up cost because there is another way to term it. That’s still looking like a $40 million to $45 million investment of which only a third or so is CAPEX, maybe a bit more than that and the rest is preproduction labor, preproduction power, etc, i.e. cash cost that you have to bear before you start making product in cash flow. On the energy efficiency side you touched at a very good point. So given the vintage of that plant, sounds a bit defeatist but it’s just pragmatic, you are never going to be able to be as productive there in terms of unit of output or unit of energy input as you are, there are other plants. Even at our next productive plant down the curve, Mt. Holly being the most productive so the next one would be Hawesville. Even Hawesville would be I’d say 8% or 9% more productive from an energy efficient standpoint than Ravenswood and how that manifests Tony, I think you scratched that or hit it is and Timna hit this as well as -- I mean, let's just blunt, the price that we -- the power price that we require to start that plant, given the technology we just have to be very realistic about what it will take to operate that plan responsibly and profitably over the long term.

Okay, that's great stuff, I appreciate it Mike, thank you.

Thanks Tony.

[Operator Instructions]. The next question comes from Jorge Beristain with Deutsche Bank.

Hi, good afternoon Mike and everybody.

Hi, Jorge, how are you?

Hey, good thank you. I just -- I guess my question is really on the tolling, I guess you have given the implicit guidance of about 95,000 tons for 2015 and I was wondering if you could just give an outlook maybe our longer-term 2016-2017, if we should continue to see tolling fall off in Iceland?

Yes, that is good question. So, the guidance there is easy. I mean that is the amount that is still subject to the portion of the total -- the whole total that hasn’t expired yet. And so that should be a pretty good number assuming we produce it at that level and there is so many aluminums that gets shift at the first order that is delivered. The alumina is delivered and reproduced under that 10 year plus total. I think, long-term I think we would if I had to speculate at this point in time, we would guess that total to be replaced by direct sale for two reasons, one is to have a good tolling customer and a robust option for a toll. You need to have market participants who are on the one hand long alumina and on the other hand short metal i.e. want the product. And in order I will first put those into place, Shelly what late 90s, there were a lot of focus of big majors like that out there. They are just -- there are very few or really no market participants who have those attributes today and so, the world can change but if I had to speculate for a year when those are being replaced, it would, I would say more likely direct sales than totals.

And just to pile on that, that contract expires mid 2016 so that's the time frame we are looking at.

Thanks Shelly.

Perfect, and could you talk about the value added premiums at Sebree and Grundartangi, are they remaining the same. I think you mentioned on the call it was about $0.045 a pound, could you just talk about what's happening there with the value added premium?

Those are relatively stable. Those markets as we said, Sebree is the incremental margin there or the incremental value added production there is in foundry of billet. Smidges slab is well we will be making this year as well, small amount of slab. And at Grundartangi foundry alloy and thus far those premiums have kind of gone sideways in each of those markets. So that is the implicit assumption, you are correct.

Great, thanks very much.

Thanks.

And that does conclude the question-and-answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to you for any additional or closing remarks sir.

We very much appreciate your participation and good questions. Again today again we will be filing the 10-K here in the next couple of business days and we look forward to speaking with you in April as a group if not before. Thanks very much.