Good morning, my name is Tina, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the MTX Fourth Quarter 2007 Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background nose. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions). Thank you. Mr. Honey, you may begin your conference.

Good morning. I'm Rick Honey, Vice President of Investor Relations. Welcome to our fourth quarter 2007 Earnings Call. We will begin today's call with Joe Muscari, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, who will provide an overview of the quarter and some of the effects the realignment we announced in October, has had on our results. He will be followed by John Sorel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, who will review our fourth quarter financial results and provide some additional details and clarity on our financial impact of the realignment. After the review of our financial performance, Joe will provide some further thoughts on MTIs path forward. This call is being webcast from the company website, www.mineralstech.com. To view the webcast, just go to investor information, presentation and conference calls. If you are viewing the presentation on the webcast, please note that we have provided a pdf file for clearer viewing of the charts. Before we begin, I need to remind you that on page 7 of the 2006 10-K, we list the various factors and conditions that may affect future results. Statements related to future performance by members of our management are subject to these cautionary remarks and conditions. Now I will turn the call over to Joe Muscari. Joe?

Thanks, Rick. Good morning, everyone. Last night we released our fourth quarter and full year 2007 financial results. We recorded earnings of $0.86 a share for the quarter and a net loss of $3.31 per share for the full year as a result of the realignment restructuring program we announced last October. The $0.86 includes some favorable non-recurring items which John will discuss. What I'd like to do in the first part of this call is, share with you the progress we've made over the course of 2007 with the initiatives started earlier in the year, as well as the realignment of our operations and provide some insight into what effect these changes have already had in the fourth quarter. John Sorel will provide you with more detail on the fourth quarter financial performance itself. As we discussed during the last call, after an intense strategic review of all our businesses and operations, we initiated a realignment restructuring program. This program in which we took a pretax charge of $157 million continues to proceed smoothly and on the track that we envisioned and planned for, including a reduction in workforce of more than 200 employees. We have shutdown the Synsil products business. Our operations in Mt. Vernon, Indiana and Wellsville, Ohio are being held for sale. The customers and products from the Brookhaven, Mississippi facility are being transferred to Adams, Massachusetts. We are concentrating on an integrated mine-to-market strategy in our performance minerals business. We have reorganized our refractory operation in China and we are moving from a merchant business model to a satellite model in our European PCC Coating operations. These steps were necessary for Minerals Technologies to get back on the track of sustainable growth by refocusing on our core competencies, in those areas and business segments where…

Thank you, Joe, and good morning everyone. I will now provide you with an overview of our consolidated and segment financial results for the quarter and discuss the key market and operational elements of our performance. You will note that we reclassified the Synsil and Midwest Process Minerals businesses to discounted operations and have accordingly restated our history as required. Also in order to provide you with a better sense of the ongoing business performance during my discussion, I will exclude the effect of restructuring charges from the product line reviews as we did in the last call. This was a complex quarter for financial reporting and for providing as [sync] summary of results. An important aspect to provide the context of our performance is that the business environment was not favorable for us during the quarter. The North American and European Paper industries continue to consolidate to improve operating rates and profitability as demand weakens. For example, in the North American uncoated freesheet market, one of our most important markets, demand though in the quarter continued to drop by 3% to 4% while operating rates remained high at 96% to 97%. As a result paper PCC volume for the quarter was essentially the same as last year, just over 1 million tons as growth generated from previous expansion in our new facility in Brazil was offset by machine shutdown and reduced demand through all other parts of the system. December housing starts were at their lowest level in 17 years and down 56% from the peak level of about $2.2 million in January of 2006. This has caused a significant drag on our Process Minerals business which supports all aspects of the construction industry. In addition the U.S. automobile industry volumes are down about 2% from prior year levels.…

Before we open it up for questions, I'd like to share some additional thoughts and perspectives on the approach we've been taking to improve the company's future performance. The chart you see on the screen attempts to capture the essence of how we go about the challenge or how we're going about the challenge of performance improvement and return on capital earnings, technology and other critical areas. We've been focusing on organic growth of existing businesses, significant culture changes, as well as some portfolio changes. During the last ten months of 2007, we concentrated very heavily on boxes one and three through the in-depth strategic analysis that we completed, as well as through the initiation and aggressive deployment of a number of key initiatives which included expense control, capital allocation in control, operations excellence, performance management, safety, as well as major organization changes and accountability realignments. Our business units now have a clear direction and strategies in place to reach their destinations and achieve higher levels of return. Some portfolio changes in the form of existing some of our sub-business units also came out of the strategic review. As we start 2008, we are clearly a more focused company capable of achieving higher returns on capital and profitable growth. In 2008 our primary objective is to deliver improved financial performance by basically effectively executing the restructuring, continuing with the key initiatives begun in 2007, and by focusing on execution of the newly defined strategies in each of our core businesses. We will also begin to closely examine the potential to enhance the strategies of our businesses through additions to our portfolio in the form of acquisition. As I mentioned a number of times last year, our appetite for acquisitions would be limited until we had a better foundation in terms…

(Operator Instructions). Your first question comes from the line of Bob Koort with Goldman Sachs.

Thank you, good morning. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your expectations are for cash flow and CapEx. I know you gave some historic trends on slide 15 and it is pretty telling how CapEx has declined and cash flow has increased, can you give us some sense of what that might look like on a go forward basis?

Yeah, I expect cash flow to remain strong but 2007 was -- relative to where the company has been on capital quite low at the $50 million level. As we look at 2008, we don't expect it to be that low. We've put a max target of about around $75 million and would expect us to be somewhere between that $50 and $75, somewhere that is obviously high to new potential satellite facilities coming in. That I would hope that gives you sort of a sense where I think we will be and that's something that from a cash management standpoint as you've seen through. This year we've put a strong focus on in the company and we intend to continue that with regard to managing both capital investments quite carefully, but also the working capital side of the equation. So we're going to continue to put emphasis on maintaining good controls there as well as improvement.

Can you talk a little bit about the share repurchase, how you came to the size, you were seeking for the authorization, and then whether we'll actually see some progress on a share count reduction as we go through '08?

Yeah, again the -- as you saw now, as we shared with you in the fourth quarter we were relatively aggressive in the buying back $20 million worth. We have an approval for $75 million. The rationale for that nothing very scientific about it, but based on what our projected cash flows were and what we expected them to be and what we thought was a reasonable amount at that point in time and that's something that we set a two-year window for it. And certainly it can be done in a much shorter timeframe as we exhibited in the fourth quarter, but at this point in time I don't have the specific timeframe less than that that I can share.

And lastly, can you talk about the cost savings that you've targeted $15 million to $20 million, how those phase in? What the net '08 versus '07 reduced cost number might be? And then when you start thinking about all the moving parts of the restructuring program and moving some production in other facilities, asset sales et cetera, can you just give us an update on how that's progressing?

Let me start and then I am going to ask Dietrich to give you a brief update as he is, as I mentioned in the earlier part of the call, Doug has been leading that, that effort. The savings are intended to be total year-on-year that we expect to get sort of pre-restructuring to the post-restructuring. So in essence it is $15 million to $20 million pre-tax we've targeted that restructuring should yield. And obviously there are some additional costs that we're going to be incurring in the early part of -- we are incurring already during 2008 that will continue, as John mentioned through good part of the year. But we will begin to phase down probably in terms of being associated with some of the workforce reductions begin to phase down in the third quarter. I think as we go into the third, fourth quarter we'll begin to see on a running rate basis that start to come through a little stronger. Although, we did have a reasonable impact already in the fourth quarter, most of that was associated with depreciations savings.

Thanks Joe.

Doug, you want to share some, where we are in the sale?

Sure. We are progressing on track. We've been aggressively marketing those facilities that are being held for sale. We do have a number of interested parties and we expect to continue to progress with them per the schedule we've laid out. So we do have some interest and that's moving forward.

Okay. Thanks Doug.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Judd with Greenwich Consulting

Yes, good morning. A question about the, I guess the Refractories there had been an inventory or a write up of inventory or something along those lines and there was a comment that there could be negative variance in the first quarter. I was just wondering if you could provide some sort of absolute impact.

Yeah. Basically what we tried to do understand part of the audio was cut out, when John was going through that, so we'll be happy to kind of go through any aspect of that further if that didn’t come through clearly. But what we're -- because there were -- have been -- were so many moving parts going on the quarter, and the number of non-recurring or things that occurred that are gong to come back in an opposite way in the following quarter or in the first half, we felt it was important to try to give you a reasonable picture of where we actually were. So with that I'm going to turn it over to John to further explain the revaluation.

Thanks Joe and I think that is just about where the audio did cut out. What I have planned to say in my prepared remarks there was that due to the higher cost raw materials in 2007. We recorded particularly in the Refractory business we recorded a favorable inventory evaluation adjustment during the quarter from the raw material cost of about $1.5 million or $0.05 a share. So that didn't come through, we intended that to come through. And essentially it's because of the cause of our MgO, it rose to record levels throughout the year and the complete [closure] of those higher cost don't occur in our cost assumption till the inventory is sold in 2008.

So in the flipside, is there a negative variance of the same magnitude in the first quarter?

Yeah, it will go over the inventory turns it may take a little longer than adjusted first quarter but the point of it is, it was an unusual impact on a fourth quarter that will be spread out in 2008.

All right, thanks. And on filler-fiber, could you give us an update please?

Yeah, Ken will you?

All right, sure. As you may remember we had, our plan was to run your next trial on the fourth quarter but unfortunately the timing had slipped. But what I'm pleased to report is that we've just recently completed our next filler-fiber trial and we were able to exhibit again the filler levels up to that 30% range. We had good machine runability, obviously we need to go through extensive paper testing, but we do definitely expect more trials in the late first quarter, early second quarter of this year.

Thank you, Ken.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Daniel Rizzo with Sidoti & Company Daniel Rizzo - Sidoti & Company: Hi guys. You mentioned that you expect revenue growth of 7%, I'm sorry is that like [prior items] starting this year. I mean, I don't know [what to call it].

So it would be over as we look over the next three years again. If you look at our history we've been able to grow as a company and at 7% range and as we look forward we believe we can as minimum continue to grow at that kind of a level. But that again excludes our filler-fiber program or any acquisitions in the next three years. Daniel Rizzo - Sidoti & Company: Okay. And in terms of filler-fiber I know you guys are going forward with the trials, but is there any goal when you expect the commercialization?

Yeah that again is a very as we have discussed you know on a number of previous calls. It's very difficult to predict in terms of timing because it is very much a development project and it takes -- in some ways it's similar to the very early commercial development of a basic filler product. In that it takes success at one major paper producer demonstrating that it's viable and can achieve the commercial savings and value added that is being targeted and that simply takes the time. Now what we've done in 2007 is we have refocused our resources in a way that we have a higher chance of commercializing sooner, I guess that's the best way to put it. We are putting a tremendous amount of emphasis and focus to bringing this home as quickly as possible, but have having said that, it's not something that we're in a position to predict a date certain when this will happen. Daniel Rizzo - Sidoti & Company: Okay, thanks guys.

Your next question comes from the line of Rosemarie Morbelli with Ingalls & Snyder. Rosemarie Morbelli - Ingalls & Snyder: Good morning all. Just following up on the filler-fiber, Joe you just mentioned that, are there?

Yes, we are Rosemarie. Rosemarie Morbelli - Ingalls & Snyder: Okay, thank you. You just mentioned that the speed of the commercialization maybe similar to that of the PCC and I know we have discussed that earlier. But it really took about 10 years to get the PCC really move from a plateau when I am assuming all of the different clients were trying it out and so on, before suddenly it took off. When you say that you expect this development to happen faster I am guessing it is because you’re already in the paper mills. But what are you looking versus that 10 year window? Can you do it in five years? Can you do it in actually only two years? What is your feel?

That’s a good question. First, I’m going to have to ask Ken because I think we've been after this now for five or six years is that about right.

Five years.

About five years. The difference from the filler when we were initially focused on PCC as a filler replacement for wood, this obviously was not a product and the technology that will known. It was known but hadn't actually been fully commercialized at all. So the advantage we have today is the paper makers know their product, they know what it can do. They just don’t know what it can do at much higher levels which, is what we're targeting at. So, if you use 10 years as a reference point for the original product than we're at five now, it certainly should be less than the 10 and that's the basis upon which I'm trying to focus the organization. I had say from a commercial contact believability standpoint on the part of the customers who want a trial, there is a positive pool, obviously this paper makers that in Europe that we've been working with basically gave one of their major machines to us together with them running a joint trial for what, kind of 11 hours, 10 hours. So for a paper maker to do that gives you an indication of the value potential that they do see. But now having said that there is still a whole lot of work to be done and a lot of trials to be run until we're able to get it at the rates where our paper makers have [asked us]. This really makes sense, it can add a lot of value and I'm willing to pay the price for it that is warranted, and that we believe is warranted and make the capital investment as well.

Okay, thank you. On the new satellites, how many new satellites did you build in '07, a combination of new satellites in extension? And what are your expectations for '08?

Rosemarie, this is Ken Massimine, I'll take that question. In 2007 we added one new unit of capacity. But in terms of opportunities for the future, yes, there are a number of them and we are in discussions with various locations where new capacity has already been announced. And also it knows whether we are also considering converting two PCC promoted minerals. So there is a lot of activity right now, a lot of interest and it's really just getting to move over the finish line.

Thanks. And if I may ask one last question, the R&D was substantially lower than in previous quarter, in the fourth quarter. Is that because Synsil is out or are you cutting additional projects? And what is reasonable level to look at on a quarterly basis going forward?

Yeah. I'd say it was low in part because of Synsil, that's certainly was part of the equation. And other part of the equation, the trials we expected to run in the fourth quarter for filler-fiber composites got shifted to the first quarter. Ken mentioned originally we were targeting for the fourth quarter and so that had a lowering effect as well. Rosemarie Morbelli - Ingalls & Snyder: Okay. And so the $7 million that you previously had is kind of $7.3 million somewhere around there that is a good number going forward?

No, I wouldn't say it is. This is where we're resetting without Synsil basically. And frankly, I don't have a number for you, but it will be something less than it was before. We've also done some realigning in our R&D group to one -- capture some efficiencies. So that will have an effect on us. We impacted in trials of course its going to have an impact on that as well. Rosemarie Morbelli - Ingalls & Snyder: Okay, thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Steve Schwartz with First Analysis.

Good morning. In your cost savings of $15 million to $20 million, does that -- I would have assumed that net of the restructuring and reengineering cost?

Yes Steve. That's true. When I mentioned that in my prepared comments that's what we meant. We will give some ramp up of the savings from the restructuring at same time we will have some ongoing costs. So, we're looking at that as a net number.

Okay. In this quarter and the last one, it doesn’t sound like you were certain of what the reengineering costs were or do you know at this point, what that component could be -- could amount to?

We didn't have an exact calculation of it. We're in that transition phase where we have operations moving products from one to another. So, they are all just really in cost of sales. They are hard to be separable at this point, as we phased out in production at some of these operations ought to be more clearly but they are just ongoing carrying costs. We are preparing for sale cost.

Okay. And in Specialty Minerals, I think you mentioned that the growth you saw on PCC, part of that came from a raw material cost pass throughs, is that right?

That’s correct.

Do you have an idea of what that amount was, what percent was pricing?

Yes, it was, we said that about half of the growth, little more than half of the growth was currency. The next major piece of that was the pass through of the raw material cost.

Okay. Currency was at 5 and so this was probably do we call that and it -- like 4%, 3%?

Yes, that is the range.

Okay. Sounds good. In metallurgical products, you had seven quarters now declining sales. How do you see the turnaround in that business and what do you guys think as far as turning it around and what the timeline is for that?

We’ve had metallurgical product, the products historically has been up and down. However this year was down lower than it had been in terms of some of the down period from previous years from the data that I looked at. But some of that was price compression in terms of effect on us, on some of the materials that we buy others, come from make versus buy, decisions that can change over the course of the year. But we're beginning to see in the fourth quarter some indications of improvements and have a little bit of momentum, still working through that. I'm going to ask Bill Wilkins to maybe give us a quick update around it, if you would Bill?

Yes, clearly what we saw in 2007, it was a year following 2006 which was unprecedented in terms of what we saw in the ferro-titanium alloy products market. And to Joe's point, some of the volume reductions we saw in '07 was on account of just that in terms of the lower selling price, which we would be ordinarily passing onto our customer. And clearly as we look at the future, as I've been in this growth for a period of about a couple of months, one of the plans that we have is to widen our global position with our wire product, our business has been very well focused and very well entrenched in both the Americas and also in Europe. So [our chances] to look selectively at opportunities with key global customers that are asking for our product, so as they are looking to develop global positions we will be following with them as part of our overall strategy.

Okay. Looking at the release and then slide 10, in the release you had a table that outlines some special items and and it basically amounts to about $0.5 million or $0.02 per share. But it doesn't look like it includes a favorable inventory adjustment in refractories and so on slide 10 you have $0.11 per share net. Can you help me reconcile that just so I know what the true operating number is?

Yes, I'll try and help you there. In the table we were able to do some direct comparison of individual items year-over-year. Not included in that table was the inventory revaluation and not included in that table were the benefit adjustment except for the adjustment there that's mentioned there which is about half of the amount that we have in total in the net basket of benefits that we talked about on page 1 of the press release.

Okay. Good that's helpful. And then just one last quick one here. I presume that 2007 revised quarter release will be in the K?

Yes, yes certainly.

Okay, great thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan.

Hi good morning.

Hi, Jeff.

I had a few questions. What you expect your depreciation to be in '08?

Hi Jeff, it's John. From continuing operations we would expect it to be in the mid 80s.

How is that possible if you are at 19 currently?

The, well the 19 currently would give you around 18, and there should be some additional capital spending right.

It gave you 76, right. And if you have additional capital expenditures for the PCC plants they don't come on. So they don't get depreciated yet. Do they?

There is also some ramp up of spending even from this year. So I would look at mid-80 range as a appropriate number for next year.

Okay. To go back to that previous answer you gave, the $15 million to $20 million in cost cuts you said were net of the transition cost, so that is, the absolute benefit to the income statement is $15 million to $20 million pretax. So, that's what you are aiming for?

That’s what we are targeting, Jeff.

You’re targeting. Have you made any progress on optimizing your tax credit?

Well, it's a -- I’m going to let John further elaborate it. It's clearly a point of focus for improvement and at this stage I don't have specifics that we can share. But, it's a challenge that I have given the finance group and our tax group to look for opportunities for us to target a lower rate. But as you know that's a very complicated area with a lot of -- given that we are global requires a lot of planning. And right now there is a team set up, a small task force that's focused on improving our plans in the tax area. But John, you want to elaborate a little further please.

I can add a little bit to that. The last couple of years have been a little hard to follow the rate as Joe mentioned. I think it is an area of opportunity for us. In 2007 the rate is considerably distorted by the realignment and the fact that we took charges in places and the regions in the world where we had NOLs or we had tax holidays. So we had a very unusual rate here in 2007, driven by that third quarter adjustment, although in the fourth quarter the rate, probably averaged around 32.5. And in the prior year, in 2006, we also took advantage of the repay creating a lot of dividends from the special bill that was approved here in the US. Going forward, it's driven by the desire and ability to move dividends from around the world back to the US and we're looking at, as in a way to address that. We're looking at some alternative structures that may allow us to maximize our use of the cash, at the same time, minimize the amount of tax liability we have in the short-term.

If I can continue, there are few more. Joe, one of the themes of the conference call has been, the renewed desire to acquire. And Minerals Tech's history has not been strong. There was the Polar Minerals acquisition, which didn't work out and it looks like there are some issues now with the Turkish acquisition. So what's the organizing principle that you're going to use to acquire? That is, what are the types of things that you're looking for, that the previous management didn't look for? Is it in different areas or you simply are going to try to pay lower prices or execute better, what is it that you're seeing that makes acquisition so alluring?

Good question, Jeff. First of all, good acquisitions come from having clarity of value in terms of what is it, why are you doing it. And that comes from a very-very clear understanding of what your current value bases are, what your value propositions are, what it is you bring value to the marketplace and to customers. As we're going forward we are looking very carefully at what are our strength positions, what are our value propositions and what kinds of things could we be doing to actually leverage those positions further and using that as a screening basis to identify areas that we can find companies or technologies or joint ventures that can enhance our value. And so part of it is on the screening and having clarity of what it is that you are trying to achieve from what you are doing, but also working with the higher value areas as the first priority as opposed to I would suggest lower value added areas which we have done in the past. And the second aspect deals with achieving targeted results from an acquisition, where the company has -- as you are suggesting and I agree totally has not done well at all. And it's how we integrate and as you say, we are having some issues right now at [Aupus], not only has it not been a strength, it has been a weakness. And that's an area that can be addressed through leadership, through processes, through capabilities, both inside and outside the company. And it's having people who know how to integrate an acquisition, but knowing first of all what it is that you want to do with them and then just as we are executing this restructuring program, which is causing the exiting of some businesses, you apply some of the same principle on integrating businesses and company. So it's doing it quite differently than the company has done in the past and also going at with a high degree of caution in terms of, this is in something that you do lightly, and when you're ready to it, you really have to have your act together. And that's the basis upon which we're beginning to look at something.

This isn't a new leg for the stool. This is to compliment the ongoing refractory and PCC operations?

Right now, that's where we are initially focusing. It's focusing around where we have good positions, where have good technology basis that together with perhaps other companies or other technologies can improve those, expand them. Looking at adjacencies as one area for us, as a point of inquiry, that we are beginning to look at. So, yes, it is starting with where we are, what we know.

And just a couple of more questions if I may. Were you satisfied with the operating results in the quarter and that your operating income was up about $4.6 million ex-items and $4 million of that is depreciation. And there is another, I don't know, 1.4 benefit from the inventory change. So, on an operating income basis excluding that, you were down a little bit?

I think that the reason why, we wanted John to go through [what it is]. So that with all these moving parts of what we are doing, it's hard to get a read and we wanted to give you as good a read as we possibly could. And that's why John walked through that. And having said that, though, I would share with you I believe we do have some upward momentum going and not from a market place standpoint, the market is kind of we see it working against us. But in terms of the initiatives we have started and carrying the restructuring through, it's really executing those things which we had yet, we still have to do more. So far I think the quarter would suggest yes, we've been on-track and there is further room for us to improve within a context of a number of challenges. But I'd say on balance, it was good from the standpoint that we were able to advance the restructuring to pretty much where we wanted to before we actually announced it.

Of the 200 people that are slated to part the company, how many have left so far?

By the end of the year we had around a 100.

Around a 100.

Yeah.

And they'll phase out through the course of the year?

Exactly. Balance the course of the year.

And then just a last question for John. Where is that $0.10 in compensation and benefit adjustments, that is having you allocate that to SG&A in cost of goods sold and on a segment basis to refractories and specialty minerals?

It's a little higher to see in the aggregate because it goes with the people. It's in every place that has employees, so a lot of it's in cost of sales. Some of it below the line in expenses, SG&A, but basically follows the people.

Right, I know that. So how do you allocate?

Predominantly US.

Predominantly US. So is it leaning more towards refractories then on a segment level?

That's on under table four in the press release, we disclosed one major item that was in refractories. So because of that, it did lean more towards the refractory segment.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience.

Your next question comes from the line of Richard O'Reilly with Standard & Poors. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poors: Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Hi. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poor's: I guess, I just want to keep following up on this table 10 and I guess I just want to understand. You want us to be focusing on what EPS for the fourth quarter? The $0.78 that table implies or the $0.84 that's on the footnote; because if we just take whatever that number for the fourth quarter, even number and if we take the higher number when you annualize it, it's well above the consensus for '08 and the lower number is something below the consensus for '08. And I am not trying to get you to say a comment about '08, but it could get us the outsiders to what direction that you may not want us to go? You want to take a shot at that?

Yeah. This is John Sorel. I'll give that as a shot. The purpose of that slide 10 was to try and take it from that 86 which was, as you said, in very-very relative terms a very strong quarter for us and get it in line with things that would be more ongoing, more realistic to expect in continuing. And then that brings you down, that would take the $0.11 off, brings you down into the $0.75 range. Considering the other factors on that page, you would think that something below that. So if you were looking at a 70 to 75 range, you would probably have a much better perspective than you do at 86. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poors: Okay, good. Okay. Thank you. And second question is there was a statement at least in the press release about the restructuring charges largely offset by initial savings. That implies the savings already at a run rate of about $0.10 or maybe even a run rate of $0.40, which could be half of that $15 million to $20 million. Should I be reading that right or is my logic correct?

I think your logic is correct. I am not sure your numbers are. But let's just touch base here. The restructuring charges are about $0.14 a share for the quarter and restructuring savings were a similar amount and that comes primarily from the depreciation related to the write-off of the assets in the third quarter. So, the perspective would be, you are saying in the range of the 10 to 15 would be the range. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poors: Okay. Is that savings of $15 million to $20 million is excluding depreciation?

No. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poors: Okay. Because I am just taking $20 million and trying to convert it to an EPS and it's a sizeable number, $0.70 or plus and that's why I say particularly run rate?

Remember its pre-tax, right. Richard O'Reilly - Standard & Poors: Yes, okay. Fine, good. Thank you, gentlemen.

We have time for one more question operator.

Have follow-up question from the line of Bob Koort with Goldman Sachs.

Good afternoon, this is [Amy John] sitting with Bob. I have question regarding your end market exposure. Given that the current market concern about a mild recession in the US over the next, may be one to two quarters. And then, people, I mean, have they asked, are they concerned about the end market exposure in paper and steel. But if I look back at your history, in the last recession 2000-2001. During the industrial consolidation periods in early 2000's and obviously, sales performance of the PCC and there was the refractory business that's being pretty stable. Can you just give us some color, what are the drivers for this stability?

I will maybe take a shot at it, and then invite the focus who are in the industries to comment if they like. But as you look at, clearly, uncertainties that we're seeing in the North American markets on steel. Steel has actually done pretty well. It has held up well. So it has more to do with the question of will it continue to hold up? And at this point in time, it's just a question mark. And if anybody has a better perspective on what the US economy is going to do, we would love to hear it. But that's where the uncertainty comes into play. We're going into the year on a very good footing, in terms of our positions in the refractories business in North American steel.

I think you said it right John.

Does that give you a perspective of how we see things?

Yeah. But can you just also give us a little bit color on, just give us some historical proceeding for, I mean back to a last recession, 2001, which we didn't see significant volume erosion for both of your core businesses, and then what was the reason at that time?

Again it depends on back in 2001 if I remember sort of correctly, since I wasn't here. So my history is not the best. But our refractories business was doing more in blast furnace rebuild and rebuild work, than it does today. Today it's much more concentrated on refractories and total systems dilution. And so back then, we could have been moving over recessionary period and have some of those things going on, which steelmakers would allow them to take some of their mills down and blast furnaces down to actually rebuild them. That can actually happen from year-to-year. It looked like it's counter-cyclical. That may have been in play there. And I am going to let Ken, who's got the experience in paper, tell us about your experience in 2001. Ken?

I think again, if you look at history and since you made that comment that in some cases the volumes were fairly stable. In a recessionary environment, one thing that you need to bear in mind is that we had satellites that were coming on stream, also some expansions of existing satellites and so that was helping to mitigate some of those recessionary headwinds.

Okay, got you. Thank you.

End of follow-on, operator?

Thank you, bye-bye now.

This concludes the MTX fourth quarter 2007 conference call. You may now disconnect.