Welcome to the IAMGOLD Third Quarter Operating and Financial Results Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ken Chernin, Vice President, Investor Relations for IAMGOLD. Please go ahead, Ken Chernin.

Great. Thank you very much, [Selvis]. Welcome to the IAMGOLD conference call. Joining me on the call are Steve Letwin, President and CEO of IAMGOLD; Gord Stothart, EVP and COO; Carol Banducci, EVP and CFO; Craig MacDougall, SVP, Exploration; and Jeff Snow, Counsel and SVP, Business Development. Our remarks on this call will include forward-looking statements. Please refer to the cautionary language regarding forward-looking information in our disclosure documents, and be advised that the same cautionary language applies to our remarks during the call. The slides that are referred to during the presentation can be viewed on our website. I’ll now turn the call over to our President and CEO, Steve Letwin.

Well, thanks, Ken and good morning, everyone. A quick note, Laura Young who is sitting across with me today is attending her last conference call with us and for those of you on the call Laura has been very, very instrumental in putting together all of our press releases, our MD&A, our conference call scripts. She started around the same time I did which is 8 years ago, and I just want to say thank you Laura, we’re going to miss you terribly. And we wish you all the best in your retirement. So just to reinforce what we said in the press release, we expect to have a solid finish to the year. Gord is going to take you through this and we made it clear that we confirm our 2018 production cost guidance. We had a tougher quarter than we expected than you expected, it was mixed, it results in reflecting gold margins under pressures for a number of reasons that Gord and Carol are going to talk but my job is to reinforce the positive developments that are occurring at this company that you have seen press release after press release that's enabling us to build a better future for this company. We are adding the Saramacca Sunday morning. We've got three plan loads of investors and shareholders and analysts. We’re going to see the start of construction of the road. We’ve already started work on the road. Saramacca has a beautiful look to it. We've seen the Côté feasibility study in the way it looks extremely attractive, it’s a beautiful project for the company, it's transformational. You seen Boto for the future, you see Westwood ramping up, this is company that is completely changed. Production is moving up significantly over the next three to four years,…

Thanks Steve, and good morning everyone. As Steve said as anticipated we had a somewhat mix quarter with margins under pressure, yet positive developments around our growth projects and capital resources. I will begin with the summary of our financial results for the third quarter. Although up on a year-to-date basis, revenues of $244.8 million for the third quarter were 9% lower than the same quarter in 2017. The main factors were our lower realized gold price, and lower sales volume at Rosebel partially offset by higher sales volume at Essakane. Lower revenue with an increase in cost of sales was the reason for the decline in gross profit to $7.5 million for the quarter. However year-to-date gross profit rose slightly from the prior-year. Adjusted net loss in the third quarter was $6.9 million or $0.01 per share. Net cash from operating activities before changes in working capital was $39.7 million down from the same period in 2017 primarily due to lower earnings year-to-date we were up from the previous year. The next slide presents our hedges as of September 30, 2018. The Canadian dollar and the euro are hedged for 2018 and 2019. The oil hedges extend out to 2022. To hedge our currency exposure we use zero cost callers and in addition we opportunistically purchase the Canadian dollar and euro to add to our foreign account balances. For oil we use callers and have hedge between 47% and 75% of our annual consumption. Our balance sheet remains strong with $715 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investment primarily in many market funds. Net cash at the end of the third quarter was $315 million. In the fourth quarter of this year we expect to receive a $95 million final payment from Sumitomo for its purchase of a 30% interest in the Côté Gold project. The payment is triggered by the filing of the Côté feasibility study which will be within 45 days from the date the feasibility study results were announced on November 1. During the quarter, Moody’s upgraded our long-term credit rating with a stable outlook. Total liquidity including $250 million credit facility was $965 million at the end of the quarter. I'll also add that we are in advanced discussions with the syndicate of lenders to double the existing credit facility from $250 million to $500 million, and to-date we have received commitments. The facility is expected to close before the end of 2018. The additional funds will provide further financial flexibility as we continue to execute our growth strategy. Our financial strength continues to set us apart from the industry. As we move ahead with our growth projects, we will continue to make investment decisions and allocate capital in a way that maintains financial disciplines of our balance sheet. And with that I'll turn it over to Gord.

Thanks Carol. So operationally we had a decent quarter, not as strong as the first two quarters but solid enough to confirm total production and cost guidance for the year. Despite the lighter production at Rosebel, besides making excellent progress with initiatives to increase productivity and reduce costs. Essakane's mill output continues to be stellar and Westwood's production ramped up is on track. We finalized the new two year collective labor agreement at Rosebel and union members at Westwood would favorably on a new 5-year selective labor agreement. We continue to execute on our growth projects with success in enhancing expected returns. Attributable production for the third quarter of 208,000 ounces brings year-to-date production to 651,000 ounces. Although Rosebel's lower grades and mining tonnage impacted their performance during the quarter, after nine months we're 75% of the way to achieving the mid-point of our consolidated annual guidance. So we're right on-track. Year-to-date all-in sustaining costs were $1,035 an ounce. All-in sustaining costs for the quarter were impacted by lower sales of Rosebel and lump-sum payments to employees at Rosebel and Westwood in accordance with the new collective labor agreements. Although there's no change to our total production and cost guidance for the year, we have revised relative allocation to production guidance between the operations. As again guidance has been raised to reflect higher throughput and grades and Rosebel's was lowered with the decline in mining tonnes and head grades in the third quarter due to timing issues. Sadiola's guidance has been revised slightly upwards and Westwood's remains unchanged. At the consolidated level, 2018 production guidance remains unchanged at 850,000 to 900,000 ounces. We reassessed our CapEx outlook and have lowered guidance for 2018 to $305 million plus or minus 5%. This reflects a $20 million reduction in non-sustaining capital expenditures…

Thank you, Gord, and good morning everyone. Before I begin as usual please note that the result I talk about today have been previously disclosed in accordance security regulations and signed off by the qualified persons within the company reporting them. Also note that any references to exploration targets potential including potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature and insufficient exploration work has been completed to define a mineral resource and there can be no certainty then an exploration target will result in a mineral resource being delineated. Recently I came across some comments in a third-party research report that really resonated for me. They said exploration discoveries that make it to the resource stage are rare and the companies with large portfolios of exploration projects will have a competitive advantage in the future. Given the scarcity of new discoveries in our industry we believe that exploration value of resource project is not currently being recognized by investors. As an explorationist these points will mean near and dear to my heart. In 2017 IAMGOLD increased its reserves by 86% since then our reserves have continued to grow further 39% at Essakane, 51% at Rosabel, 36% at Boto and 23% at Cote. We have a robust portfolio of Brownfield and Greenfield exploration project which provide opportunities for furthering increases. At Rosabel we believe there is excellent potential to increase resources and reserves on the Rosabel concession and along the plus 20 kilometer long Saramacca-Brokolonko trend. With success there is strong potential for extending Rosabel’s mine life beyond 2033. During the quarter, we continued drilling on the Saramacca property and on the adjacent Brokolonko and Sarafina properties. At Saramacca the drilling program included ongoing hydrogeology study to support pit optimization and continued to target both potential resource extension an additional zones…

Thanks Craig. And to wrap up, we confirm our 2018 production and cost guidance. As Carol talked about, the balance sheet remains very sound. As Craig and Gord both talked about reserves continue to grow and expected returns from our organic growth projects are looking increasingly attractive. So we continue to tick the boxes, execute and communicate is our theme song. We look forward to more updates as our projects move forward. With that, I'll open it up to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Fahad Tariq with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

I know it's early but - and the feasibility study is expected next year but for the Essakane, Heap Leach project, can you talk high level about what that means, what the change means for the production profile or the mine life or the throughput now that the Heap Leach will be run after the CIL operation rather than in parallel? Just trying to get some more color on the change.

Yes. So what we're looking to do next year is there's some obvious debottlenecking items we can complete for the mill. So currently, coming this year we're going to process about 13.5 million tonnes but that's at 85% hard rock. At 100% hard rock, we state sort of the throughput capacity for Essakane right now to be 12 million tonnes a year. That's based on a - that's over and above the 10.8 nameplate when we built the thing. We're comfortable with 12 million tonnes. We're going to be doing some work on debottlenecking work in the secondary crusher, secondary crusher circuit, the gravity circuit, and a couple of other areas. Not big expenditures but our estimate right now is that we'll guarantee us 13 million to 13.5 million tonne capacity on 100% hard rock. And in parallel, we're going to continue some feasibility work looking at a 15 million tonne per year option. If we were to do that that feasibility would be completed somewhere around the middle of next year and if it proves to be something we want to do, we would then move into a capital spend later next year to put that in place. So, you can you can think of it sort of as a 10% increase in throughput over where we are right now. Grades next year aren't as high as they are this year but working off the reserve grade that's not bad. Beyond that is a potential to add another - it's about a 15% increase I guess 15% 18% increase down the road, probably ready for operation in 2021. I don't have the ounce numbers exactly but it does represent throughput increase from where we're at right now.

Just switching gears to Rosebel, I know in Q3 it was higher hard rock content which led to lower throughput and the sequencing lead to lower grade. Any indication of how Q4 is trending?

Well, I obviously don't want to say too much but the last three weeks - three-and-half weeks we've gotten into the high grade that we were expecting to actually hit in September in both [indiscernible]. So Q4 is trending to be a much better quarter than Q3 at Rosebel and talking with the guys - everybody is in town this week actually for budget meetings. There's a strong confidence that we'll finish out the year within the guidance profile that we laid out and starting to accelerate certainly from where Q3 was.

The next question comes from David Haughton with CIBC. Please go ahead.

Just touching on Essakane again, for the debottlenecking, Gord, what's your expectation for the CapEx to be able to get that high throughput on 100% hard ore?

The exercise for next year obviously none of this is approved we still are in the middle of doing budgets with the Board and everything. But that work for next year is sub $20 million.

So sub $20 million to get what is ordinarily 12 million tonnes per annum of 100% hard ore, up towards the 13 million plus tonnes per annum of hard ore.

Exactly.

And then further consideration down the road…

I mean I really only have preliminary numbers on the step to go to 15 million but it's probably - it's probably another 30 give or take, maybe even 40. We need to do a lot of feasibility work there. So I really don't want to be quoting too many numbers for you.

So one of the tricks there is that it puts the pressure back on Craig to be able to get the ore-to-feed a 15 million tonne per annum plant for a life that as Craig was saying to extend beyond 2030?

Exactly. That's one of the considerations in the feasibility study. As I said, as we've been drilling off this push back, we're actually finding additional higher grade materials. So it's less of a bogeyman for us but yes it is certainly a consideration.

Just coming back to Rosebel, and specifically having a look at the 43101 that was provided, I've got to say that for Saramacca I was very surprised at how erratic the strip ratio and grade is. So strip ratio life of mine is just under 11 to 1 grades, 1.8 foot. Looking at the table that's provided here, it just whips all over the place as far as the grade and the strip ratio and I'm trying to visualize what the pit must look like. Is there an opportunity to smooth out the strip and the grade compared to what was disclosed?

There's certainly an opportunity to smooth out the grade. And there are a lot of opportunities in this Saramacca plant. That's why we're a little reluctant to come up with too many cost numbers because none of us internally believes that the plan that we put together so far is the one we'll execute on. There's a lot of opportunity to ones without the grade. When I was talking during the presentation, I mentioned the opportunity to go to underground and that looks preliminary work makes that look very, very attractive, which then gets rid of your 11 to 1 stripping ratio overall and really brings it back into something more in line. We're doing work as we speak on hydrogeology and dewatering opportunities in the pits. What went into the technical study in terms of geotech was a very conservative pit wall angle in saprolite material and there's a thick saprolite blanket on this deposit. So it really does lack the stripping rate. We'll get into that a little bit more when we go on the analyst tour next week. But we're - I don’t want to say confident but we're certainly hopeful that the work we're doing on hydrogeology and geotech right now would allow us to steepen up the wall angle slightly for Saramacca in the saprolite. I mean the wall angles that have been used and the design that went into that – into the 43-101 are 8 to 10 degree shallower than we see at Rosebel itself just down the road.

The other part of that 43-101 that maybe you can talk to you is that right now we've got Rosebel throughput around about the 12 million tonne per annum kind of level. But even with the addition of the softer material coming out of Saramacca at least in the early phases you're only really looking at 10 million tonnes to 11 million tonnes per annum and I'm wondering whether there is a degree of conservatism in that expectation as well?

There is a degree of conservatism in that expectation.

So should we be thinking more like the supplemental softer phase should at least maintain the 12 million tonnes per annum for quite a number of years from where we are?

Again, as I said there's a lot of engineering ongoing right now. But yes, I am not uncomfortable saying that we should be able to run 12 million through that plant with the appropriate level of soft feed. Obviously the lot of work that Craig is doing and [indiscernible] team is doing right now is to extend Saramacca on strike. And we fingers crossed - there's an expectation that the amount of saprolite ore will grow as we do that.

Last question for Steve probably. Sadiola now interested in putting up for sale, have you received any inbound inquiries on Sadiola?

Yes, a lot.

So given that very brief comment would you see the possibility of it being sold this year?

I think that's tight, David. But the interest level is very high and Jeff Snow is quarterbacking that from our end with AGA, and I feel first quarter next year is probably a better time to look at. But we've been quite pleased with the responses and there's a lot of heavy lifting yet. We've got to talk to the government and so on. But, no, we've been very pleased with the response.

Our next question comes from Carey MacRury with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Just had a question on the chart that's on Page 27, you showed pretty steady ramp up of production by 2022 and step down in the all-in sustaining cost. I'm just wondering for 2019 specifically is that where we should expect and kind of what are the key drivers into 2019 versus 2018?

So as I said before, Carey, we're in the midst of working on that right now. Next year been a couple of things to think about; one, Sadiola goes away from us. The other operations, we do consider - continue to see a bit ramp up with Westwood. Essakane is having an exceptional year this year in terms of grade and I'm not expecting that to carry forward. And Rosebel next year is more or less flat. If we can accelerate Saramacca little bit on the backend obviously that will help, and we're looking to see what we can do in that regard. So 2019 versus this year is relatively flat.

Just more with 2020 then things start to pick up?

Yes.

And then secondly maybe for Carol, just on working capital. I know it's negative $30 million working capital this quarter and I think it was $65 million for the year. Can you just talk a little bit about what's driving that and should we expect to reverse on that at some point?

No, that's a great observation. What happened this quarter as Gord drilling out his maintenance program with his team at site, we saw a buildup of supplies both at Essakane and at Rosebel with a focus of increasing our uptime. So we have had to add some additional supplies and equipment to support the operations but we are taking a look at that to see what this initiative if we can bring that down a bit for the next quarter so that’s something that's a work in progress. And the other contributor to the working capital was we did pay some tax installments this quarter as well so it’s not always even every quarter. And there is a bad receivable from the Burkina means our finance and so that was expected this quarter, looks like it might come in next quarter. So again it was significantly this quarter and we are working to bring it down.

And maybe one final question. I know it’s on the language on Côté it talks about potential decision in H1 2019 last week it was Q1. Is that - should we read something into that or is that just more or less the same timing?

I would say early H1.

Our next question comes from Steven Butler with GMP Securities. Please go ahead.

A question was previously asked and answered on Essakane. Just to reiterate again Gord remind us again the prefeas study that envision Heap Leach starting it sooner rather than later. Was the mill scenario only running that 10.5 million tonnes per year in that previous PFS?

It was running at 12, 12 hard rock that was the assumption but there was no debottlenecking assumed at that point in time.

So it was 12 on hard rock life of mine.

Yes.

And you’re running higher than that right now 13.5 you said?

13.5 but we’re at about 85% hard rock right now.

Okay. And you may look at 15?

Yes, and look if we look at things like Gossey and some of these outside targets, we recognize that for 13, 13.5 hard rock, there is opportunity to shove some additional soft rock through there once we identify it.

And are you running towards rushing towards a resource update Craig at this year for Gossey or other areas of Essakane?

Yes, we are. Gossey will be out in the fourth quarter.

Okay. Thanks guys.

Yes just maybe just a comment I’m not sure how many more questions we have, but I just want to reiterate that when we look at where the company is going over the next few years, it's obviously very attractive we believe from a shareholder standpoint. Two things we're bringing on satellite reserves like at Saramacca and I’m constantly challenging Gord about how conservative we are in Saramacca but we’ve learned in the industry to under promise and over deliver so we got to find out that because of the penalties we pay, and the punishment that’s administered if we don't follow that line. But I can tell you that my confidence level in this company has never been higher. When I look at what the potential of Saramacca is and changing Rosebel, I believe that we are going to meet our targets, but we've indicated and Essakane continues to perform we’re deferring $100 million of capital which really improves our ability to finance Côté going down the road and Essakane just looks better under the scenario that Gord described or we take a CIL approach versus Heap Leach. Production numbers will be a little lower than what we had thought under Heap Leach, but the rate of return on the economics is much stronger. So this points to and what we said a very attractive future for the company where we will be bringing down our cost significantly, bringing up our production significantly, and our reserve life will continue to improve. So it’s always a long haul in the mining business as you know. It takes a lot of heavy lifting. We’re in a market right now where it’s extremely tough as we all have observed but this company has a very good look going forward and we continue to have the confidence that we’re going to be able to deliver on what we've indicated.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek with Deutsche Bank.

I just wanted to make sure that I understood this both from an operating side and then from a financial side. It's got to do with Essakane again. So just from an operating side, just to start with the fact that you're looking at this option for increasing your throughput. Looks like you said about under 20 million to go to 13 million to 13.5 million tonnes per annum on a 100% hard rock, then moving up to 15 million tonne option probably in the 30 million, 40 million range or thereabout and when are we getting that feasibility study on that option Gord, that 15 million?

On the second option, as we complete the feasibility study for the Heap Leach, we're going to be completing the feasibility sort of level of study on that on the second phase of debottlenecking. So it'd be mid next year.

So mid next year we get the Heap Leach and that 15 million tone…

Yes, on the Heap Leach, the neat thing about putting a Heap Leach after the CIL is if we do that we don't have to construct the frontend of the plant. We can use the existing primary secondary pressures. We can use the pebble crushers. So we don't have to do that. We actually are able to do it within the existing footprint of the mine industrial area. So we don't have to extend the fence. We don't have to relocate anybody. The processing, the carbon columns, we can use existing equipment. So there is some actual really hard savings to putting the Heap Leach after CIL.

And just before getting to the savings and those numbers, the mining aspect of the Heap Leach you're going to continue parallel, so it would be coming-in in 2020 like you originally had planned Gord and then you're just stockpiling it?

Yes. The mining rates are pretty much the same because we need to - it was the CILC that was always driving those mine rate. So we needed to mine at that rate to keep the plant full. Obviously if we increase the throughput, we have to work even a little bit harder. But yes, that was what was driving it, it wasn't so much the Heap Leach production that was driving the mining rate. It's always been the CIL rate that's been driving the mining.

So we would just assume that you just keep mining for the Heap Leach, stockpiling it and then putting it after 2026 or thereabout?

Yes.

So that's on the operating standpoint. And from the financial standpoint what I understood from you is that the Heap Leach option I think was $150 million, correct me if I'm wrong, to build. Looks like $100 million of it was next year which you've removed and from that instead would be the $20 million you mentioned for going up to 13 million tonnes to 13.5 million tonnes. And so ultimately the financial gain is it that we have saved $100 million, is that it?

Yes, the number was about $155 million. As I said we deferred at least $100 million from next year and maybe even a little bit more. The net savings, I mean, we still have to build pads, we still have to buy some stacking equipment things of that nature. Probably the next savings from the Heap Leach you've deferred I got to say 30 million or 40 million from next year. Again, it'll come out with the feasibility study. But I would think in 2026 you're going to be spending pick a number $20 million to $30 million in order to build the Heap Leach. And now it starts to get a little more complicated, when we look at the 15 million tonne per year option. Again, the piece that is involved there is an HBGR, that's put into the crushing circuit. If we do that as part of a 15 million tonne expansion that will even more reduce what gets back later on for Heap Leach. There's some commonalities in the front end of the circuit here. So all we're looking at is what we pull forward or what we delay.

So just to wrap up so I understand, the $20 million to $30 million to be spent on the Heap Leach at the backend is deferred this $100 million but then you've got to spend another let's say $60 million or so to go down to that 15 million tonnes?

Yes, and my number's I'm really sort of rack in my head here. It's in that neighborhood. As I said, when we come up with a feasibility study they'll be certainly better numbers behind that.

So looking at it, is it reasonable to assume maybe Carol jump in here that at least $50 million of savings net net?

Or at least. At least.

Yes. I mean I think you said it right at the beginning. it's about $100 million in savings and as Gord tried to articulate or as he has articulated, we're looking at where it sits in our budget cycle in terms of the spending and what that difference is right now we're in meetings kind of reviewing that from a preliminary perspective. But bottom line, you're right. It's about $100 million for us.

That's good. Yes, it's going to give you bit more flexibility on your other projects, Carol.

That's right.

Okay, perfect. Well, thank you very much for that. We'll hopefully understand all of this when we get more details mid next year.

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

Great. Thank you very much, Selvis. And thank you everyone for joining us this morning and for your continued interest in IAMGOLD. We look forward to you joining us for our Q4, 2018, conference call on February 21. Thank you very much.

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