Thank you for standing by. This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome to the IAMGOLD 2013 Q4 and year end operating and financial results conference call and webcast. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I'll turn the conference over to Bob Tait, Vice President, Investor Relations for IAMGOLD. Please, go ahead, Mr. Tait.

Thank you, and welcome to the IAMGOLD conference call. Last night, we issued a news release disclosing our 2013 full year and fourth quarter financial results, which along with the accompanying financial statements notes and MD&A can be found on our website. We also released our 2013 resources and reserves or reserves and resources statement as well. 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 Jeff Snow, Senior Vice President and General Counsel. 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. During our opening remarks, we will refer to slides which can be found on our website. And I'll now turn the call over to our President and CEO, Steve Letwin.

Thanks, Bob, and good morning, everybody. Many facets of our business are impacted by the price of gold, obviously, our financial results, operating performance, mine plans, reserves and resources, and the current value of our assets. Early in 2013, we launched a game plan for managing our business in a deteriorating gold price environment. Our objective was to lower our cost structure and conserve cash. By the end of the year, gold prices were down 27%, yet our cash costs and all-in sustaining costs were within guidance. We had spent less capital than planned, and we had more than $1 billion in liquidity. So let's take a look at the highlights for 2013. We reported adjusted net earnings per share of $0.05 for the fourth quarter, $0.36 for the year. Our attributable gold production was 195,000 ounces in the fourth quarter and 835,000 ounces for 2013. We exceeded our cost-reduction profit target by 25% with $125 million in savings. Cash costs of $801 an ounce. So within guidance for the year, and for the mines we own and operate, better than expected at $743 an ounce. All-in sustaining costs were within guidance at $1,232 per ounce, and $1,174 per ounce for IAMGOLD owned and operated mines. Niobec had an outstanding year with production of 13% from 2012 and operating margins up 20%. On Slide 6, we take you through the highlights. Our new high-grade Westwood mines started pre-commercial production on time. Our combined production from Westwood and Mouska were on target for the year at 136,000 ounces. The Essakane expansion was completed as planned at the end of December. We expect a ramp-up in the second half of the year for a year-over-year increase in production of about 25%. At Rosebel, we paved the way forward with a lower power…

Thanks, Steve, and good morning, everyone. While our financial performance reflects the lower gold price environment, it also reflects the proactive steps we took to counter its effects. The achievement of the $125 million in cost reductions, the tight rein on capital spending and the conservative management of our balance sheet enabled us to end the year meeting cost guidance and with more than $1 billion in liquidity, including undrawn credit facilities. Revenues for 2013 were $1.1 billion compared to $1.5 billion in the previous year. A 16% decline in our average realized gold price from 2012 accounted for approximately 60% of the variance. Total revenue excludes gold sales from the Westwood mine. This will be the case until the mine commences commercial production, which is planned in the third quarter of this year. Last year, Westwood produced 73,000 ounces. The benefit from the sales are not included in revenue, but rather, netted against capital expenditures. Gold sales from the commercial mines were 80,000 ounces lower in 2013, mainly due to lower production at Rosebel and Essakane, partially offset by higher production at Mouska due to stockpiling of ore in the previous year. Adjusted net earnings were $19.7 million, or $0.05 per share, in the fourth quarter 2013 and $137 million, or $0.36 per share, for the full year. The most significant adjustment -- adjusting item in the calculation of adjusted net earnings was the impairment of mining assets and goodwill recorded in the fourth quarter. The significant drop in the gold price -- with a significant drop in the gold price, we reduced the gold price assumptions used in the most recent life-of-mine plan. The company used an estimated gold price of $1,250 per ounce for 2014 and $1,300 per ounce for 2015 and beyond. And for accounting purposes,…

Thanks, Carol. Yesterday evening, we released our 2013 year end reserves and resources estimate for our mine assets. So I'm going to talk about that first, starting with our gold price assumption. We used a $1,400 per ounce gold price to calculate our year end reserves, which is the same as we used a year ago for most of our assets when prices were much higher and which we feel reflects a fair, long-term price projection for gold, notwithstanding the current volatility in prices. For Rosebel, last year, we had used a different gold price of $1,200 for the reserves, but this was done us we were in the midst of a feasibility study reviewing a number of distinct development scenarios for the operation, and we chose to carryforward the reserve model from 2011 at that point while we completed that work. For this year, we have brought the evaluation back in line with our practices at the rest of our managed assets. The price sensitivity of the 2013 reserve calculation at our primary asset Essakane and Rosebel was low, with a $100 decline in the gold price assumption only resulting in a 2% drop in contained ounces within the current pit design because of the relatively flat nature of the grade tonnage relationship in the vicinity of cutoff rates. We regularly review all the economic assumptions that we use to plan our business, and if we feel in future it's appropriate to change the gold price assumptions, we will do so. Looking at Slide 19, this slide shows the year-over-year comparison of our reserves and resources. Please note that we quote our mineral resource estimate inclusive of mineral reserves. In total, after depletion, proven plus probable attributable mineral reserves are down 11%, or 1.2 million ounces of contained gold,…

Thanks, Gord. The hard work and dedication of our exploration teams in 2013 resulted in some solid achievements. And it is most rewarding that this was accomplished during a period when we had to scale back our exploration program to reduce cost. Total exploration expenditures, including project studies amounted to $94 million in 2013; 3/4 of our spending was on greenfield and brownfield exploration with the main focus on resource development near existing mines and advanced greenfield projects in Senegal and Brazil. The balance was spent on project studies dominated by the scoping of prefeasibility studies at Côté Gold. Our outlook for exploration spending and project studies in 2014 is approximately $88 million, down slightly from 2013. This reflects our belief that strong and sustained support of exploration is necessary to create value, while at the same time, balancing our efforts to control and reduce costs across the company. Building on the momentum established during the 2013 program, we will increase our focus on the discovery of new ounces. In 2014, we plan to spend $38 million on greenfield exploration, ranging from projects where we have earn-in options to those more advanced and wholly owned by us. With resource development and near mine exploration at Essakane, Rosebel, Westwood and Niobec, we are targeting about $30 million this year. I'll touch briefly on some of the work we're doing at Essakane and Rosebel. South of the main pit at Essakane, we are evaluating results of follow-up drilling campaigns at the Sokadie and Tassiri prospects. And we have commenced an exploration drilling campaign of 2 priority oxide targets identified from our 2013 aircore drill program. At Rosebel, resource development work and regional exploration continues with a focus on outlining additional resources of transitional and soft rock to support the ongoing operations. Now…

Thank you, Craig, Carol and Gord. We hope you found our remarks to be helpful. The priorities we introduced last year were necessary to get us through a tough environment and our people executed on them exceptionally well. Our priorities for 2014 will be the same. We believe that gold prices will eventually turn. But obviously, we -- and we recently broke through $1,300, which I think was a pleasant surprise for everybody. We can't count on the gold price solving our cost issues. The reality is that the fundamentals driving demand and supply in our industry have become much more complex, and the markets are very volatile. So the best way for us to create future value for our shareholders is to remain focused on what we need to do to optimize economic returns. That requires rigid control over costs, capital discipline and the preservation of liquidity regardless of where the gold price is headed. And now, let's open it up for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Patrick Chidley of HSBC.

Just a question on the Sadiola, on the future of Sadiola. There is a significant reserve store here, but I just wanted to find out how much of that reserve is in the sulphide project, if at all? And what is the mine life if gold stays less than $1,300 an ounce. Is it -- it's got a fairly short mine life, isn't it?

None of the reserve is with respect to the sulphide pit. It is in the resources. I need to confirm that. Reserve lies at 2013 are under $1,300 gold is shorter than obviously with the expansion. If we don't do the expansion, which is justified even at $1,300 gold, but if we don't do it, we will be looking to wind down the mining operations later this year. We would continue to run stockpiles and a little bit of ore mining over the next 3 to 4 years.

Okay, because you got 3.5 million ounces of reserves there, so...

Excuse me, that does include the expansion.

So, the decision there on, I mean, you said in the release, you wouldn't do the expansion without a partner. Does that mean without AngloGold's coming in on it?

I would say that we obviously from a capital standpoint, we're not going to take on the entire capital commitment for Sadiola. Our preference would be that Anglo steps up and in some form contributes to the expansion at Sadiola. We're believers in that project. We think it is very attractive. Anglo's got it's own views on Mali and their own priorities. We're going to have to, obviously, come to some kind of decision this year. The government of Mali is going to be, I presume, putting pressure on Anglo to move ahead. That's been a key contributor to the Malian budget over the years, well over $100 million in taxes and royalties on an average yearly basis over the last 5 years. So it's a big contributor. Whether or not Anglo is successful and either selling their share or potentially changing their mind somewhat and looking at doing some form of expansion, we'll have to wait and see. But clearly from our standpoint, it isn't something that we can carry on our own. It's -- given our cash position and our desire to conserve cash, it's got too much risk for us relative to the capital we have to deploy. That doesn't mean we're not believers in the project; we are. But we simply can't allocate that level of cash to this project at this time,, not at current gold prices, anyhow.

And so really in conclusion [ph], mining operations will wind down later this year if gold doesn't improve. And then, even if you decide to go ahead with the expansion or the sulphide plan, that would take presumably 1 year, 18 months to actually get it done. [indiscernible]

That's right. That's exactly right.

And just a quick question on strip ratios. I wonder if you could give us what your strip ratio would be at Essakane and Rosebel this year.

I don't have the numbers handy. I do know that the strip ratio for Rosebel on the new reserve is somewhat less than it was, including capital stripping, I think, last year the last reserve we were in the 6 to 7 range. We're now in the 4 to 5 to 1 range. The Essakane, one, I don't have fresh in my head. I apologize.

And just one final one. What was the grade supposed to be in the fourth quarter at Rosebel versus -- you mentioned you had too negative reconciliation.

We had expected the grade to be in around 1.05, and I think in the end, we were around 0.85.

The next question is from Josh Wolfson of Dundee Capital Markets.

Just with regards to the Essakane reserve. Looking like some of the additions were significantly higher grade. Have you look into the ability to sequence that earlier in the mine life now or improve the grade profile in near-term years.

Well, we are improving the grade in near-term years. And yes, we would have a big wish to try to include it. Unfortunately, a lot of the additional reserves are somewhat deeper in the north end of the pit. So they certainly do pop up from a reserve standpoint quite comfortably and actually relatively insensitive to the gold price assumption, however, they're a lot steeper and somewhat in the future.

Should we assume that the strip ratio goes up then relative to the prior expectations, life-of-mine.

As I said before, I don't have the number fresh in my head. It does go up slightly, Josh, but it doesn't go up a lot. It's one of these -- there's a fairly good zone of ore that once you get it stripped off, once the pit chooses the mine, it contributes a fairly good tonnage of ore.

Okay. And I guess, if you were sort of comparing the deeper, higher-grade Essakane main pit ore with potential satellite [ph] oxide grades of, let's say, a gram or so, would the deeper ore be more profitable from an economic perspective?

Given the time to strip it, I would expect that the shallower oxide stuff will be more profitable.

Okay and then just one other question, with regards to Westwood, are we still expecting a technical update or an updated 43-101 sometime in the first quarter, or first or second quarter.

There won't be an updated 43-101. We have committed to, at some point this quarter, produce an updated technical assessment.

Would that be issued as a separate release?

It will probably come out as a separate release. It will be probably early Q2. We're working on these life-of-mines right now.

The next question is from Dan Rollins of RBC Capital Markets.

Just going back to Sadiola for a minute. Gord, could you confirm, of the current reserves, how much is the tonnage and how many of the contained ounces are actually in the mine plans before going ahead with the deeper sulphides.

I don't have the numbers fresh in hand, Dan. I will dig them up and get them to you.

And then moving on to Rosebel. You've got a new life-of-mine plan there. Just looking for a couple of things. One, will you be submitting a new 43-01 [ph] or releasing a 43-101 document on that, or will you?

I don't think we will be in Rosebel, we will be on Essakane because of the difference. We're sort of reviewing where we are with respect to the assessment of whether a 43-101 is required at Rosebel. As Steve mentioned, we do have a feasibility study and part of the conundrum for us right now is -- are the economics going to be there for an expansion or not. We continually evaluate it. We push the expansion off for a year while we look at that. So I don't think you're going to see a new 43-101 for Rosebel, but we are just in the process of reviewing what 43-101s will come out.

If we assume no expansion at Rosebel -- let's just go with that assumption -- the new mine plan, how long can you run at that 12 million to 13 million tonne level before the increase proportion of harder rocks starts to impact your throughput and sort of where would this thing -- where would your throughput end up getting down to?

It's Steve, Dan. That's a theoretical response, and let me tell you why. I spent a week down in Suriname about 10 days ago and met with the government. And one of the things that we're pushing pretty hard there is the extension of our current mineral agreement well beyond where we currently exist. So we're looking at acquiring concessions through the UJV that we formed that we believe will be much more attractive economically than we currently have in the mineral agreement. So we're looking at it -- we're looking at concessions that would have softer rock and potentially higher grade. And there are a number -- without extrapolating too much here and naming the concessions, which we hope to do within the next 1 or 2 weeks, it makes it very, very difficult to respond to where Rosebel was going to eventually go. What we're hoping, with the power agreement that we have employed, is that we're going to be able to assimilate and move in these concessions fairly rapidly. Craig has a team on the ground that should be able to drill it up over the next 1 or 2 years, which would have, in our view, potentially a very positive impact on the economics of Rosebel. If you just left the current mineral agreement, and we move to 80% hard rock over the next 3 or 4 years, that, obviously, isn't attractive for us, and moving ahead with the expansion is not in the cards. What could potentially happen is that if we're able to, again, acquire these concessions, we actually might be able to incorporate a lot more softer rock than we have originally planned and reduce the amount of capital we have to -- we thought we had to spend to process what we thought would be harder rocks. So there are a number of variables here, there are a number of scenarios that we're working on. Rosebel continues to perform. We had that hiccup in the fourth quarter, which surprised us. We have experts down there right now looking at how we can basically reduce the variation on that grade going forward. We are seeing positive results from that, but right now, Rosebel's a work in progress, and I can tell you the government is very, very keen on working with us, simply because it affects them just as much as it affects us. So news at 11, that's a long response, but I remain very, very confident and very encouraged that we're going to be able to bring some concessions into the current mineral agreement that are going to be very attractive for our shareholders.

I understand the optionality you have there, but going forward to sort of demonstrate what the implied IRR is of an expansion, what type of dropoff could we actually see in production?

Gord can talk to that.

Yes, I mean, assuming no additional soft rock sources, if we go to 85% -- 85%, 90% of hard rock with the current plant, production drops down to around 7 million, 7.5 million tonnes a year.

The next question is from David Haughton of BMO.

Just going back to Gord on Essakane. I heard what you're saying about moving into the harder rock during the course of the year and potentially going up to at least the reserve grade of 1.1 grams. What kind of profile would we expect for that. Would you be getting into that better grade material in the first or second quarter, or is it more a second half story.

It's much more of a second half story. What happens David, right now, we're still continuing to process some soft rock while we commission. Those soft piles will get exhausted as we move through the year. And in the current phase, we start, as I mentioned in my discussion, we start to access what I would call the heart of the deposit, the higher grade zones of the deposit in the third to fourth quarter. I mean, we are certainly getting some higher grade zones now, but to really have a material effect on the average grade going to the mill, it's going to -- it's slated to pop quite nicely in the second half of the year.

So if we were to think about the split first half/second half on production, is it sort of like a 45/55 ounces output, or is it more pronounced than that?

You probably -- not bad there. it's probably slightly more pronounced than that but not a lot more.

Something like a 40/60.

Yes.

The next questions, if you don't mind, would be for Carol. I noticed in the commentary that you're expecting a 50% effective tax rate. Can you just explain the basis for that. I understand different jurisdictions, but can you just -- that's quite a lift from where we were this year.

Sure, I can do that David. So what happens in the various different jurisdictions is that we're provided limited tax deductions on some of the expenditures, and so what happens, just mathematically, when you have lower margins due to lower gold price, the impact that those amounts have on your effective tax rate is greater. So we're assuming $1,300 for this year, so the rate is around 50%. If we were looking at $1,400, because again your profitability would be that much higher, so these items that don't -- you have limited tax reductions for have less of an impact and so at $1,400, our tax rate would be closer to that 35%. So it's really that element that drives the effective tax rate.

So, okay, highly sensitive then.

Right.

Next question is your bullion on hand. You still got a sizeable amount there, $160 million, thereabouts. You've had it for quite some time. Can you envisage your circumstance where you would dispose of all or part of that?

Sure. I mean, what Steve has said previously was that we want to maintain the flexibility around our unutilized credit facilities, and so we do have the optionality if we believe it appropriate to sell the bullion before we dip into our credit facility. So again we treat it as cash. Our average cost is just over $700 an ounce, and so it's there as an investment, and we can liquidate it any time.

All right. And if you were to make that sale, you'd sell it at spot but, you'd record the cost at the average historic carrying value, I believe?

That's right, we'd have a large gain.

And last question, in one of your slides, a kind of waterfall chart, you showed the timing difference on sales of 18,000 ounces, thereabouts. Do you expect that to be caught up during the course of this year, or should we just think about it is a kind of an inventory level that remains about that...

I think for the most part it -- we should catch up, and as you know, we have got the expansion -- at Essakane, we've got a new line there, and so some of it will get caught up in inventory, but for the most part, we expect that to be realized in future sales.

This concludes the time allocated for questions on today's call. I will now hand the call back over to IAMGOLD for closing remarks.

Okay. Thank you. Quite simply, thank you, all, for calling in. If you have any follow-up questions, please, call me, Penelope [ph] or Laura, and we'll be available to answer your call. Thank you so much.

This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.