Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by and welcome to IAMGOLD Corporation's 2013 Third Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded on Wednesday, November 6, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. And I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Bob Tait, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, John. Welcome to IAMGOLD's conference call for the third quarter of 2013. Last night, we released our financial results for the quarter, which along with the company's financial statements, notes and MD&A can be found on our website at iamgold.com. Joining me on the conference call are Steve Letwin, President and CEO of IAMGOLD; Gord Stothart, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Carol Banducci, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Craig MacDougall, Senior Vice President, Exploration; and Tim Bradburn, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. Our remarks today will include forward-looking statements. I refer you to the cautionary language regarding forward-looking information in our disclosure documents and advise that the same cautionary language applies to our remarks during the call. We have prepared slides, which can be viewed via our website. I'll now turn the call over to our President and CEO, Steve Letwin.

Thanks, Bob and thanks, everyone, for joining us on the call. Well, let me start by saying how extremely pleased I am with the quarter. It's our third successful quarter in a row. We have demonstrated some great results. We have great traction and our team has really come together in our assault on costs. Our outlook for gold over the long term is optimistic but at the same time, we are prudently planning for lower gold prices. And I think you see that in our strategy, overall. Our approach to preserving liquidity is multidimensional. We will continue to reduce costs, we will continue to be highly disciplined around capital spending and this quarter our dividend policy will be under review. As I have previously stated, we will not do anything that would put our balance sheet in any kind of difficulty or undue stress. And preserving cash ensures we maintain the flexibility we need to take advantage of opportunities if and when they arise. We are blessed with a very strong balance sheet. We have a very strong cash position and we are not going to put that in any kind of jeopardy. On Slide 6, we have our third quarter highlights. In the third quarter, net earnings were $0.07 a share and net cash from operating activities before working capital was $0.18 a share. Third quarter attributable gold production of 228,000 ounces was up 11% year-over-year, and our third quarter cash cost of $807 an ounce and all-in sustaining costs of $1,216 an ounce were within guidance. And we are over 3 quarters of the way to achieving our cost reduction target. So overall, extremely happy with the quarter. On Slide 7, beating cost guidance in the first 2 quarters of the year led us to lower our…

Thanks, Steve, and good morning, everyone. Turning to Slide 14. Revenues in the third quarter 2013 of $294 million were $43 million lower than the same period last year. The decline reflects a 20% drop in the average realized gold price, which was only partly offset by a higher volume of gold sales. And the increase in gold sales is due to 2 factors: timing differences between production and sales and no sales from Mouska in the previous year due to the stock volume ore while the plant was being refurbished. In the third quarter of this year, Mouska recorded sales of 13,000 ounces. Note that 11,000 of those ounces were actually produced in the second quarter but not sold until the beginning of the third. While production was flat at Rosebel year-over-year, sales increased 9% due to a timing difference between production and sales in the previous year. This increase was partly offset by a decrease in sales at Essakane due to lower production resulting from the expected drop in grades. Slide 15 shows that we reported earnings of $25 million or $0.07 a share for the quarter. The net impact of the adjustment this quarter was minimal with adjusted earnings of $26 million. Compared to the second quarter of this year, when we adjusted for declines in the market value of marketable securities and equity investments, we in fact recorded a small reversal in the third quarter related to INV Metals. In the third quarter, 74% of the interest on the high-yield debt was capitalized. Based on expected capital expenditures for this year, approximately half of the annual interest will be capitalized. In the third quarter, our normalized effective tax rate was in line with guidance at 38%. Turning to Slide 16, net cash from operating activities before…

Thanks, Carol. Good morning, everybody. Starting on Slide 24, as our operating results show, we're seeing the benefits of our cost-reduction program. To date, we've achieved $38 million in cost savings at our operating sites with a target of reaching at least $54 million by the end of this year. With what we've achieved so far and understanding the work going on at the sites, I'm confident we'll deliver as planned. On our call last quarter, I went through some of the initiatives at each of our sites. This slide updates those examples, along with some new initiatives that were implemented in the third quarter. Most of these are ongoing in nature with long term sustainable benefits. Rather than speak to all of them, and I don't want to repeat what I've talked about last quarter, I'll comment on a few new initiatives this past quarter that highlight our focus on improving productivity and reducing costs at the sites. For instance, at Rosebel, the drilling of blast holes during the rainy season can be costly. The holes can quickly fill up and/or collapse before the blasting crew can perform their work. As a result, holes have to be redrilled. To counter this, we've done 2 things: firstly, we've implemented an aggressive de-watering process in the pits and we've improved the coordination of shifts for the drilling and blasting crews. As a result, the blasting crew now loads explosives in the blast holes immediately after they've been drilled. Not only has this significantly reduced the need and cost of redrilling, it has improved overall drill productivity, allowing us to drill off more tonnes per hour worked. Another example with less than a 6-month payback, was the installation of a drinking water treatment system at Essakane. This initiative eliminated the need to…

Thanks, Gord, and good morning, everyone. As you now, our planned exploration spending in 2013 was scaled back by 40% as part of the corporate-wide cost-reduction program. This, together with our ongoing efforts to identify further savings and efficiencies in our programs has reduced our forecast spend on exploration to $96 million for this year. With $35 million in cost savings to date, we've now achieved 88% of our target. As discussed on the last quarter call, the most significant cuts are related to scaled back drilling programs in Mali, Burkina Faso and Suriname to furrow certain elements of the Côté Gold exploration and pre-feasibility study, and the downsizing of some of our greenfield exploration teams. In this context, our focus in exploration this year has been on resource development work and target generation around our existing mines and on select greenfield projects for programs we're targeting for delineation of resources. So let me give you a brief update on the status of 2 key greenfield projects. First, the Boto Gold project in Senegal. We announced the maiden resource estimates for this project at the end of July. The vast majority of the estimates is in the indicated category, which contains 1.1 million ounces at a grade of 1.62 grams per tonne gold. In the third quarter, drilling was suspended during the annual rainy season but it is expected to resume in mid-November. The program will continue to year end and is targeting a resource expansion of a newly discovered Malikoundi zone, which remains open along straight to the North, as well as that depth down dip. The second project is the Pitangui project in the state of Minas Gerais in Brazil. Infill drilling of the Sâo Sabastiâo prospect continues throughout the third quarter and we are seeing progress in targeting structurally secondaries, which is key to unlocking the resource potential. We are working to be in position to complete a mineral resource estimate this quarter, if results remain encouraging. I'll now turn you back to Steve to wrap up.

Well, thanks Craig, and Carol, Gord, for that overview. So it's obvious that we are all operating in a very tough environment. The industry is going through a very tough time. So when our performance to date is as what it is, I get a lot of confidence that we're doing the right things to meet guidance and that we're doing things right along the track of preserving cash, cutting our costs and allocating capital in the most attractive way for our shareholders. So we're going to keep on that path. We're going to continue to preserve capital, we're going to continue to reduce these costs and we're going to continue to improve productivity. And again, although we are optimistic in our outlook for Gold in the long run, we will prudently plan for a lower gold price environment and we will reassess our mine plans and complete the 2014 budget process with that view. We will to retain a long-term perspective. We will continue to be opportunistic. We will make decisions that enable us to act in that opportunistic way, but we'll always keep in mind that we're in an unpredictable gold environment in terms of pricing and we will never put our balance sheet in jeopardy. With that, let's open it up to questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question we have on the audience side, it's from Andrew Quail from Goldman Sachs.

Just a few questions for me. One, on Westwood, just having a look at next year's guidance. Just looking back at the slide, there's a note, it sort of said that you guys are going to produce something like about 162,000 ounces and now you're saying 100,000 to 120,000. Is that right?

That was the earlier 2012 plan, which actually had slightly lower ounces in 2013 versus what we're putting out right now. The plans that we've had for the past year are actually pretty close to the guidance that we've -- we're talking about today. There is a slight decrease but it's not economically material. And in fact, the early budgets I'm seeing have those ounces coming out of the lower cash costs than our earlier plan. So economically, it's not a big difference.

So that's actually driven by sort of maybe better-than-expected grade and lower tonnage? Is that what we can expect?

No, actually it's more driven by the underground productivity we're seeing and better performance in terms of dilution underground.

Okay. And second question was on CapEx for 2014. Obviously, we'll get an update early next year. Just want to say, is it more going to be sustaining CapEx is going to be in line with this year across the operations, maybe some $270 to $300? Is that sort of fair or...

Yes, I think if you do the math -- it's Steve, Andrew. If you do the math, that's probably about right because we're running at around $1,150 to $1,250 all in. So if you look at our cash cost, which average around $800 and do the math, we're running at around $300 to $400 an ounce in terms of sustaining capital. You multiply that by 900,000 ounces and you get to the numbers that you're talking about.

Cool. Great. And last one, it just...

Hey, Andrew, I had a question for you. When are you going to improve that gold price forecast that you publish?

It's not up to me, not up to me.

Not up to you? You don't come up with that?

No, I don't know. [Indiscernible] Now, last question, guys. Last question was on -- just you guys mentioned just the inflationary pressures across the operation, but is that -- do you see that subsiding into sort of '14? Or is that -- is something -- just given where you guys operate, is that something that's going to be persistent into...

What was that question again, Andrew?

There are some moderate inflationary pressures but not too much. Fuel's relatively flat. Most of our labor rates are already negotiated. So I mean, there's some minor inflation there. On the positive side, some of our reagents are coming down in price, so there's not a huge amount of inflation year-over-year for 2014.

Our next question comes from Paolo Lostritto from NBF.

My question is a follow-on with regards to the changes at Westwood. I recognize that you guys are about to put out updated guidance for 2014 but maybe, Gord, you can give us a sense of how the mine's running right now in terms of production and grade.

Sure. In terms of production and grade as we're running right now, and most of the mining right now is on the Warrenmac zone, we're reconciling positively with respect to the model in terms of the grades we're encountering. Our mining recovery is close to 100%, which is great. And in terms of production from Warrenmac, which is not the main Westwood zone, we're certainly on our plan. Also, positively, as when you were at site, as you saw, our dilution is certainly well below where we had originally forecast. In the Warrenmac zone, we had forecast around 20% dilution, and in practice we're seeing somewhere between 7% and 10% dilution. Likewise, with the first stopes that we're taking in the Westwood area, we're seeing a reduction in dilution. Our underground development productivity there is above what our last life of mine planning was done at. We measure -- or Westwood measures productivity in terms of meters of development per month per jumbo crew. And they've moved from around 135 18 months ago. Currently, they're running between around 190 to 200 meters per month per jumbo crew, and I know the target there is to move it up. Our prior long-term plan was done at 180 meters per month. So I'm fully expecting that the new life of mine plan that they're working on right now is going to come back superior in a number of ways to the prior life of mine plan.

When are we expecting that? Is it kind of early next year?

Yes, we've made a commitment that we'll produce an updated sort of PEA version for the market. It's been almost 2 years. It's February of 2012 we released our prior study. So yes, with the new study and some real experience in mining under our belts, we've made a commitment to the Investor Relations group here that we'll be able to produce something. I'm expecting along around February when we come up with our normal guidance numbers.

Our next question is from Dan Rollins from RBC Capital Markets.

I was wondering if you might be able to comment on the infill drilling program at Falagountou at Essakane. Obviously, in the report, you mentioned it had a less thick zone of soft rock. I was wondering if you could quantify that in potential tonnage and when you expect to be depleted at soft rock at Essakane right now.

Okay, I'll -- it's Craig MacDougall here. I'll talk specifically to Falagountou and then maybe let Gord talk about the soft rock at Essakane. But as you know, at Falagountou, it's a historic prospect that had our artisanal mining in it and there was a fairly extensive artisanal pit over the center of the ore body, which precluded access. Access was gained this year, and we were able to infill drill the center portion of the deposit. Unfortunately, what came out of that drilling was we did not have as much soft rock there as we had hoped from the earlier interpretations, which were largely around the edges of the deposit. So from that point of view, we don't have as much soft rock as we would like. We have more transitional rock than we had thought, so that is an upside there. But overall, I guess to characterize it, the soft rock would be disappointing but we had a bit of a win on the transition. So a fairly neutral, I guess, outcome on that for us. Equally, one of the things that had come to light at Falagountou was the regional exploration team had discovered an additional zone to the southeast, it's about 600 meters off to the southeast, and we have been infill drilling that this year. The results of that will be incorporated in the new resource and reserve guidance that will come out in February. So we're not able to bring that forth right today, but it is work that's ongoing.

Yes, Dan, it's Steve Letwin. I just -- just to remind everybody, when we talk about hard rock, its relative. Index at Essakane is 13.6, and at Rosebel, it's 14, and when you compare that to what we typically hear is hard rock, which is far closer to 16, 17 in terms of bond index, it's hard rock for us relative to the soft rock we had at Essakane. But it's not hard, hard rock, and so when we talk about a 35% improvement in our production at Essakane, that's a very real, robust number. And although Falagountou doesn't have as much 6 bond indexed rock as we were hoping, it's got a good size of transitional rock, and it's got around 200,000 ounces or more, which is going to help us as we move the mill forward next year. So Essakane is looking a lot more attractive than what we thought. And with the expansion going very, very well, we're very optimistic about the performance of that mine in 2014.

Okay. Yes, I understand the qualifications around hard rock, but it's a relative game here with you guys and the fact that you need to add additional crushing to offset that higher rock given the energy cost.

True.

Or going into this year, you had discussed that you expected cash cost to be higher in the second half, and then going into 2014, to be higher. Is that still a fair statement or has your view changed?

Yes, we're right in the middle of budgets right now, Dan. I would expect a slow increase in the proportion of hard rock that we're treating, or an increase in the proportion of rock that we're treating, both at Essakane and Rosebel. I mean, there are some offsetting factors. Certainly, Essakane is going to be mining much higher grade next year, so that's a strong offset in terms of dollars per ounce of gold produced. And at Rosebel, the increase is being managed, and there are a number of offsetting productivity improvements that we've seen on the mine side there that are sort of helping us to mitigate the impact of the hard rock. We're not in a position right now to give guidance on costs for next year across the operations as we still have to get budgets in front of our executive group and in front of the board. I can tell you what I've seen to date. I'm not uncomfortable there.

Okay. So really, the cost savings that you've delivered to date and the ones hope to, it's basically more to contain the impact of harder rock or increased hard rock going forward? So it should be able to keep your cash costs within the same -- within this current range, near-term?

Yes, yes, I mean, that's really the goal, is to try and -- is do everything we can to keep our costs as flat as possible despite the fact that we have to put a lot more energy into the stone.

Okay. And just on -- moving on to Westwood. With the new mine plan and the focus on safety there, are you going to be having to put more underground support in? Or is it just really a changing of the mining method in certain areas?

Actually, the support profile has been upgraded a little bit, but the biggest change you're going to see going forward is actually a reduction in the amount of development we're doing. The total development life of mine under the new design will be less than it was under the old design, which is positive. So we're not opening up as much ground as we had originally planned to open up to access the ore body, which has some nice economic impacts to it as well.

Okay. And then just one last question, just at Sadiola, free cash flow on a sustainable basis, not there right now, including growth capital, the remnants of the sulphide project not generating any free cash flow. Who -- where's the free -- what's funding the free cash flow? Is it current cash on the -- in the JV? Is it Anglo funding it? Are you guys all funding your share of the negative free cash flow? How's that working?

Yes, Dan, it's Carol. We are funding as you have seen in our second quarter results. So we did advance some funds, and so they're anticipating it to continue to be negative this year, but that should turn around next year.

We're one big happy family there, Dan.

Yes, but that's always been -- it's always been the case.

It's not sustainable, though, and you know that better than anybody. So we got to fix this, and we're working with Anglo to fix this.

Our next question is from Patrick Chidley from HSBC.

Just a question on -- back to Westwood and just wanted to get an idea about where -- how deep the rock burst was and what area of the mine, what portion of the mine has been affected by that. And also, is that the main reason why you're pushing this commercial reduction forward?

So the rock burst that we had was at around 950 meters depth in the central part of the ore body to the west of the Bousquet fault. It has impacted access to some ounces but it has, by no means, sterilized any ounces, so we'll still get those ounces out. The rock burst itself was localized in one of the lateral footwall drifts -- or a couple of the lateral footwall drifts close to the ramp access point. So it's well-displaced from where -- from the actual ore lenses. It hasn't impacted the ore lenses. It is, as I stated -- when I spoke, that the impacts of the shaft incident earlier in the year, both of those together have contributed. And it's also reexamining where we are in terms of what we've been able to achieve with our mining so far and the results I spoke to earlier with Paolo's question and looking at what's the best way and most efficient way and most cost-effective way to develop Westwood going forward and make sure that it's a robust operation for the long term.

Right. But would changing any -- would changing the mining method, obviously, that wouldn't make any difference to the propensity to get rock burst, would it?

No. I mean, as I talked with Dan, really, it's a redesign and the geometry of the access development drifts. And as I said, we're going to be opening up less ground in order to access the ore body. The mining method we -- 3 or 4 years ago, it was primarily open stoping. We were -- a couple of years ago, we reverted and said we're going to do primarily cut and fill for a number of reasons. As we're looking at it now, we understand it will be more of a blend of the 2 with a fair degree of open stoping going forward. And the access geometry is the same. It's been set up the same for both those methods so that we can make the decision as we get to the rock and as we get to the ore. Included in that, obviously, will be the rock mechanic's considerations.

Right, right, I see. Okay. And would this have any impact on your reserves? And have you been sort of infill drilling to add reserves from what we saw from last year?

So no and yes. So no, there will be no impact on reserves. There was no ore "loss" as a result of the incident, it's all still there. And we have been doing infill drilling and will report on that as part of our normal annual reserves and resources statement. And I will sort of throw in there, certainly, no negative surprises, and I think the market can expect to see similar sorts of announcements for Westwood as you've seen in the past.

And our next question is from Joseph Reagor from Roth Capital Partners.

A couple of quick questions for you. The first being on Sadiola's cash costs. So you mentioned it was mostly due to recovery, but looking at the total spend there it was roughly $24 million compared to like $21 million last quarter on lower tonnage. Is there something that specifically drove up spend a little bit?

Yes, they had a fair amount of stripping, so that was -- there's about $8 million of stripping in there with their numbers as well.

Okay. So we should anticipate somewhat of a reduction on a cash cost basis next quarter, assuming a normalized recovery and grade rate?

We're not holding our breath on too big a reduction. Obviously, we want them to be making cash. They have switched -- or they've opened up a new mining area, the Tambali pit, which is close to the original Sadiola main zone pit. And early mining there, as Carol had mentioned, sort of added stripping. They're working on some cost reduction methods there. I know they've had -- they're working on some cuts to their manpower, as well as working with their mining contractor to bring down costs. We aren't banking on huge improvements for next quarter from Sadiola.

Okay. Moving onto Rosebel and Essakane, you guys in the release said that higher amounts of hard rock, therefore higher cost, probably in Q4. Wouldn't that inherently mean probably slightly lower throughputs as well?

Well, that's a lot of the productivity improvements that we put in place help us there. Yes, in general, it should mean lower, but you have to remember as well that we've added -- we are in the process of adding capacity at Essakane. So that expansion, we will see that sort of brought online here and completely online by the end of the year. At Rosebel, we installed a third ball mill, which has been ramping up and has been helping us to treat the higher proportion of hard rock without significant or material impacts in our throughput. But as we move forward and we get into higher and higher rates, you are correct. Offsetting that is, because of the lower throughput, we use higher cut-off grades when we get into harder rock, which translates into higher average grades.

Okay. And then the final thing, not to beat a dead horse, but on Westwood, looking at the next year of continued pre-commercial production, how should we be thinking about what the capital spend rate should be net of those pre-commercial ounces, specifically looking at how the guidance is for $100 million this year, and year-to-date, I guess, you're at about $103 million? So there's some actual credits coming going forward for a period of time?

There are credits going forward for ounces produced from Westwood. The $103 million is actually the total from both Westwood and Mouska. I think about $47 million of it so far is from Mouska and that's commercial production. So it's balanced, that most of it is Westwood. And yes, that is included in the capital estimate and has been included in the capital estimate all year. So there is some offsetting balance. I don't have -- I know for guidance for this year in terms of capital out of Westwood, we're comfortable with what we've put out there. There may be some adjustments, slight adjustments up or down from that. I don't have the final, final numbers. And as we complete our budgeting process, we'll put out some guidance for where we are going forward with Westwood.

And we have David Haughton from BMO Capital.

And returning to flogging that horse, just at Westwood, it looked as though the quarter would have been good prior to the rock burst event. The tonnage that you milled looked good at 200,000 tonnes. The grade looked a touch light, but it seemed to have been shaping up as a good quarter prior to that rock burst. Is that a reasonable way to look at it?

Yes. And really, the rock burst didn't affect the quarter's production at Westwood because we were producing from the Warrenmac zone. So the production areas were isolated. What the rock burst has impacted is sort of the fourth quarter and the first part of next year and having -- us having to reestablish access into those areas. But no, I mean, Westwood itself is -- I'm very happy with the performance of the operating team up there. In terms of costs and productivity, they're really making some great gains.

So what you're moving into now is just more of a stress management, keeping those openings relatively small, only open as you need? So that sounds like the way that you're moving forward on it.

That's a pretty good description, David.

So what are you looking for as a trigger to become commercial?

Westwood is a bit of an odd duck for us. There's a number of different tests that are in place, but fundamentally, what we're looking for is a strong indication -- more than an indication, demonstration that the mine is able to produce ore at a sustainable rate to supply the mill at a nominal throughput rate or a proportion of sort of the nameplate throughput rate over a period of time. So there's enough per test, David, but effectively for Westwood, which is different from greenfield operations where it is typically around the performance of the mill. At Westwood, it really doesn't have anything to do with the mill because it's just a refurbishment of an old mill. It's already been commissioned. It runs very, very well. What we're looking at is that the underground is producing, consistently producing and will be able to sustain production of ore and waste at a appropriate level.

Yes, we're targeting 60%. So that's the threshold.

60% of the mill capacity, of the underground capacity.

On a sustainable basis?

On a sustainable basis, yes.

Correct, correct.

Okay. So a year sounds like you've got plenty of room to move in here. Judging, Gord, from what you're saying, you've already got some remedial plans underway for keeping those stressors down, navigating your way to -- past the ore body that had been affected, being more cautious as you're going at depth. So it sounds like you've got the plan kind of working...

David, I've said this to a few people in the intervening period. I mean, obviously, nobody likes a seismic event in your underground mine. In a way, this was probably a nice early wake-up call for us. It occurred concurrently with a blast. There was nobody in the area. And when it happened, it really forced us to review what we were doing and how we're going about it. But also at a time when we didn't have 2/3 of the ore body already opened up. We only had a smaller proportion of the ore body opened up. So as we've gone back through the assessment and brought our best brains in the company and from outside the company in to look at what was going on, it's allowed us to reassess what we're doing going forward. And as I mentioned when I was talking to Dan, I believe, one of the interesting outcomes from it will be a more economically robust life of mine plan.

Okay. Just now flipping, if I can, over to Essakane. I think I heard you right, at least a 25% lift in throughput for 2014. That would get you up around about the 13 million tonnes per annum mark. Is that correct? Did I hear you properly?

It was the throughput lift. We're talking of production -- an ounce production lift. There is a small throughput lift anticipated. It's not quite in that range, but it's gold production that's up by that percentage. It's grade, primarily.

Right. So the throughput you had in that quarter, the September quarter was pretty good at 2.8 million tonnes. Should we think that, that is sustainable going forward?

Yes, it's pretty close to -- maybe not -- just slightly below that once we get up to like 100% of hard rock with the new mill. Typically, the nameplate on the expansion at 100% hard rock is 10.8 million tonnes per year. We can use fairly conservative design criteria, and most of our builds, including Essakane, Rosebel expansions, et cetera, we tend to blow through the nameplate relatively comfortably. For right now, we'll stick with the 10.8 million until someone swaps a life of mine plan in front of me that I'm comfortable with. I can tell you we have seen some really positive stuff this year. Because we commissioned the pebble crusher on line A in April and we've been running with that now for almost 6 months, the performance of the hard rock in the plant is better than it had been modeled, i.e. that pebble crusher has really enhanced the operability of the grinding of the comminution circuit with hard rock to a point that we're looking -- we're anticipating some upside as we get into more hard rock, and we have the new piece of the plant, which includes SAG mill, ball mill and pebble crusher, as well as a secondary crusher. We're not anticipating that throughput is going to be a bottleneck there.

Okay. If I can just flip over to Niobec. I don't think any questions have come on this, but throughput there was fairly good for the quarter as well, surprisingly good. I can't think of a quarter where it's been as high.

It was a record quarter.

Yes, so what's happening there?

We had a program. We spent a little bit of capital last year and the first part of this year where we converted a manway compartment in the shaft into a service hoist, which has allowed us to use the other 2 compartments almost exclusively as skipping compartments. So that's allowed us to take our production pretty close to what our permit limit is. And there's been a lot of improvements at Niobec, not only in throughput but just in the general way that the underground and the concentrator are working together. On the cost savings side, one of their best cost savings this year has been around reagent consumption. So the coordination has allowed them to inch up the tonnes, but we've also seen better recovery and lower reagent consumptions just because the mill operators are not in firefighting mode, they're in operating mode, which has allowed them to really control their process that much better.

Okay. And Carol had mentioned that you're undergoing some negotiations now. I noted that it looked like the quarter had a better price received, I don't know, maybe 5% better than what we would've had previously. So what's the outlook the contract environment like at the moment for ferroniobium?

Why don't you ask me next quarter, David, after we get through our discussions with our customers. I mean, it's -- the steel market is still fairly soft. There's a lot of capacity, but we're seeing, again, as you see as you look around the world, there's mixed signs of economic recovery. And so we're cautious about it, but we've been able to sell all of our production, and the discussions are going well but all the better sense once we get through the discussions.

Okay, thank you. We've run to the end of our hour. I want to thank everyone for calling in and for your questions. Obviously, if you have anything to follow up, please call us in Investor Relations and we'll get to your questions. Just as a final note, there had been some mention of an analyst day. And again, just to reiterate, in August, we had mentioned the idea of holding one in November this year. Earlier this fall, we reevaluated the plan in light of the status of several fee studies, our budget process and the refinement of our life of mine plans at each of our mines, and we decided to defer this event until the new year when we have more information to communicate about all of that. So we'll let you know as soon as the date is selected. Thank you.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. And speakers, standby for your post-conference.