Greetings. And welcome to the Stillwater Mining Company's Third Quarter 2014 Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It’s now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mick McMullen, President and CEO of Stillwater Mining Company. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much. And thank you everyone for listening in wherever you are. Today we will be presenting our third quarter 2014 results. There is an earnings deck which is available for people online and I’ll be using that deck to refer to as I go through the presentation and I will take Q&A at the end of the presentation. So turning to that deck on slide two, we have our usual forward-looking statement. I would like people to read that at their leisure and take note of the specific requirements within that statement. Turning to slide three on our third quarter highlights. Overall, it was a quite good quarter for us. We had $18.1 million of net income, which on a fully diluted basis comes at $0.14 a share. Importantly, for us, we generated $37.2 million of cash over the course of the quarter. This was the second best quarter in the company’s 28-year history for cash generation. We ended the quarter with $509 million in cash and investments, which was up $7.2 million quarter-on-quarter. But we did repay $30 million of debt early in the quarter. That was debt that we could redeem at face value. It was costing us approximately $2.5 million of interest per annum and we had the ability to redeem it early and we feel given a very strong liquidity position that might change for us to do. Corporate overheads were reduced 9% year-on-year to $10.7 million for the quarter. Our all-in sustaining costs, which I will refer to during the presentation as AISC was $873 an ounce. That puts us solidly in the middle for the year-to-date of our guidance range at $805. We will discuss some of the aspects of the AISC on the future slides. Mine production was at 123,000…

(Operator Instructions) Our first question today is coming from David Gagliano from Bank of Montreal. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, everybody. Thanks for taking my question. I just have a quick one. The sales out of inventory, I believe last couple of quarters we’ve seen some volumes coming out of inventory. In the sales line I think it was 9,000 ounces this quarter. I’m just wondering, first of all, if you could comment on the trend in the future for those inventory sales. And then number two, just what the underlying drivers behind the inventory sales? Thanks.

Sure. We do have a slide 14 in the deck, which shows total inventory and so. That’s a combination of inventory sitting at the refinery, inventory within smelter, inventory within base metal refinery, and inventory within slag. You can see if you look at that graph that over the course of really from Q1 of this year, we started to get rid of the slag, that’s the black bar at the very top. That was material. That was left out from the smelter. We’re sitting up at the mine, waiting to get through the regulatory process. And so we move that through. And you can see it takes a few months for material to move through our system. And so that’s sort of more as dissipate in Q1. It was really in the Q2, we started seeing the revenue from that. We then had quite a bit of inventory sitting within the smelter. Again, we reduced that in Q2, but really going to pay for that in Q3. So when we realize the inventory has been the slag, was I guess, Greg, you can help me here slag total inventory, we reduce 13,000 ounces seems to probably the number.

That seems -- 13,000 was right.

That’s right. Then we had quite a bit of inventory sitting between our smelter and sitting at the outside refinery. And where the Johnson Matthey agreement came in was by working with them we manage to reduce that inventory between our smelter, BMR and the refinery. And overall, I guess it’s being 20,000, 25,000 ounces over the course of this year that we’ve been able to squeeze out of inventory between the mine and back in the refinery I guess. In terms of what’s going to happen going forward, obviously the bunch of realized inventory, it’s a one-off. I think there is still some inventory that we do have the ability to realize and we’re working on that. I prefer not to give full guidance on that until we’ve actually done it, because I think it’s much better for me to actually delivered them in total (indiscernible) give guidance on something that we’re still working on.

Okay. And just the quick follow-up. How was that accounting for obviously close to the revenue line? How do they flow through the cost line?

Well, again, we incur the cost in a period, but it then gets allocated to the material at the time it sold. So in the meantime, those costs that have accumulated sit in the inventory line. I’m not sure if that’s your question, but that our orders.

I suspect the question. Actually if we reprice it is, has that inventory realization driven out all-in sustaining cost down artificially low. And I think the answer is no, because as it comes out of inventory, it gets an average cost allocated to it anyway. Is that what you’re after David?

That’s exactly right. Okay. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

(Operator Instructions) Our next question today is coming from Sam Dubinsky from Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.

Great, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I have a couple. Just in terms of the pricing mechanism or PGMs, it seems like they’re changing with the LME taking a lead. Could you just talk about how the LMEs methodology differs from the prior system? And what impact do you think they will have on the market?

Well, I’m not answering the second one. First, if it’s okay with you Sam. I don’t think it will have any impact on the market apart from potentially removing uncertainty. Markets don’t like uncertainty and I think anytime when you got perception that perhaps one of your processing methods is not working correctly or has issues. I think going to a more open talk method, which probably the LME method, will be more open and transparent, provides more certainty with label. And so I think that’s actually -- that’s a good thing. Personally, I don’t think it will make any difference as to the actual price of the metal. So on the 30 November, the lighting prices $800 an ounce on the 1st of December. When the LME starts processing, it will probably still be the same price. I think that the mechanisms that will be used, again the LME is probably a slightly more transparent method. And again, it just comes back to a confidence level that, perhaps if -- and we’ve not seen any evidence of this, but if people had the perception that the current methodology is more open to not leading to a true price, going to something that’s probably perceive to be more open is probably a good thing.

Do you think the LME will have to take inventory to start handling the benchmarking or is it an inventory free processes, like will they have to have warehouses in this raw material, I am just thinking maybe there to be some unexpected benefit to this fund, I'm just not sure?

I don’t think that given that data, well, I haven’t seen it. But, perhaps, I will start taking inventory. But if you look at where inventory sits in the PGM well at the moment and there are couples of very large players in it, one of which we have an alliance with. So that 3,000 out in the marketplace, yet. But, again, I wouldn’t be surprise if I go down that route and but, again, that isn’t really going to have an impact on approaching.

Okay. Great. And then, I know you guys classify costs a lot differently than some of your peers as always lead to some confusion? But is the term sustaining cost a fairway to classify this expenses, because a component of that’s growth or am I wrong, at some point will these investments lead to future growth or its production really kind of it's more, it really is true sustaining?

We’d like to think its true sustaining, because we do strip out for instance at Blitz project is not in our all-in sustaining costs, because that true is a growth project. There is no sort of standard definition of AISC and so you get down to a point where, for example, I will give you an example from Q3. The -- approximately $30 an ounce extra that we spend on our capital development will lead to additional production, but that’s not the way the accounts work. And unfortunately it’s very difficult for us to strip that out on a quarter-by-quarter basis. We think what we’ve done is a fair and reasonable approach to it. Probably the area where we don’t do our accounts who are reporting the same as some other peer groups is that and it’s important for people to understand when we talk about ounces it an ounce of combined platinum and palladium. Some of our peers would report palladium and then have the platinum as a by-product credit we do not do that.

Okay. And then in terms of Marathon, PGM and copper pricing, does the asset look attractive and sort of the correlate to that, you said that its just doesn't give you an attractive return based on your numbers, what type of return do you define is attractive?

Again, going from your second question first, we had a mix -- series of metrics that we use, which is not just one metric. So it’s a combination of a NPV to CapEx ratio, it’s an IRR component, it’s a strategic fit component. And we score -- we rank them and score them and it needs to come out with a certain score. But then, secondly, the project has to then stack up against other things we could do with that cash…

Okay.

… which could be investing in additional mine development here in Montana and it’s really got to pass both of those metrics. So it’s not just a single metric that we need -- we don’t need to see an IRR of X percent and that’s going to be sufficient. It’s still a fair y-o-y, I would say from leading those hurdles for us. We don’t give guidance on what they are and we certainly don’t say the people what metal prices would need to be. But the metal prices would need to be appreciably higher than we are today for that to work. I think for Marathon to work it will be a combination of a few things, one, is obviously metal price, the other one is currency being in Canada and we have had some consistency. Capital cost, I think, if we see the capital cost come down a little bit, would certainly help a lot and again, I think, industry pressures are probably coming off a bit in CapEx. And really the other one is the off tax side of it is that some of the work that we have done on that project is looking at how do we get that material into our smelter, because if your sending it to a third-party smelter, you really are giving a lot of value of that material. And so, we are working on all of those fronts. I don’t think its going to be just a certain metal price trigger that we will get us across the line.

The other point perhaps is that the capital cost of it, if you look at the life of the project, there is a challenge in recovering the capital over the life of the resource, which is why we are continuing to do some limited exploration in that area as well. If we were to encounter some additional resource that paid well and added enough life to it, that would significantly help to recoup the initial investment, which is higher than we’d originally anticipated.

Good. Great. And just my last question, Graham Creek, I know its still early but its only kind of benchmarking give us in terms of relative cost structures just so we -- kind of get an idea of how that output in theory could benefit the cost structure longer term?

It is early days and I don’t think we can break it out. But I can refer you to that slide where the number which alludes me at the movement, which shows the cost per ton of mining between the two operations. I am just finding it now -- sorry, slide six. I don’t think its coincidental that we’ve seen a fairly substantial cost reduction at East Boulder in the mining costs…..

Okay.

…as Graham Greek has come on and ramped up. And I will sigh at the movement, we only have one ramp system, one mining front, I guess, you could call it operation with Graham Creek and that’s out of the strike length of three miles that we’ve opened up. The purpose of the drilling we are doing now is to delineate the next ramp system. So that we can get in there and add that and broadly again this is not formal guidance. But each ramp system adds about 20,000 to 25,000 ounces off production a year broadly.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Yes.

Thank you. Our next question today is coming from Garrett Nelson from BB&T Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Hi, Mick and Greg.

Hi Garret, how are you? Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Good. Thanks. We are a little surprised to see that the palladium and platinum price realizations from the mining segment were below the average spot prices for the quarter. With this being the first quarter of the Johnson Matthey supply agreement, we had assumed Stillwater would see some sort of benefit from the sponge premium but it didn’t look like that happened, why was that?

Timing result. If you look at the average price of the quarter and you look at the costs towards the end of the quarter, you will see that the price towards the end of the quarter fell off significantly. And we ended up having quite a bit of that production sell towards the back end because again if you refer to the graph that shows that production by month, you’ll see that July was a lot of production month. So -- I don’t know if you’ve a done a weighted average. But if you do a weighted average by production by month, you might get a slightly different answer. Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. That’s helpful.

Yes. Sorry, I can’t comment to say that again sponge premiums, that is out in the market place, sponge premiums declined during the course of the quarter. And we have seen them actually pick up a little bit post the end of the quarter. So again it can come back to when we sold. I can’t tell you that when we did sell material, we did show you even better price than just the strikes, what price if you went to [Kitco] (ph) or Bloomberg. Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. That’s helpful. And then I have a follow-up question, follow up on earlier question on the IRRs of different uses of cash. Could you remind us of Stillwater for the share repurchased authorization in place, and if so, how much capacity is left on it? And what point do the returns of a buyback weigh the returns of other uses of cash such as additional debt pay down, development CapEx or potential acquisitions?

We did all have a repurchase plan in place at the movement and the company considers such uses of cash on a regular basis. In terms of -- what we need to see in terms of IRR from a project versus borrowing back capital. If you recall, I’ve said to Sam that we have a metrics of things that we look at. So one of that seems obviously just have broad return. The other one is the risk and clearly something that’s got the zero risk tools such as buying back debt for instance at price value. It doesn’t need to have a very high return to come out in front on a risk-adjusted basis. So that’s why we bought the debt back in Q1 -- Q3 sorry. I think, we would need to see -- again there is not a single metric we look at. The metric that we gave the most weight into is entry related to CapEx ratio on an aftertax basis of 9%. We really need to see that metric at least better than 0.25 to 1 and ideally better than the 0.5 to 1. So you can back calculate for me what that needs to be. But projects have got to give us, given that there is always risk in projects developing them. A project has to give us a pretty decent return for us to justify spending the money on. Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. And then final question, could you remind us of the long-term price assumption for palladium and platinum use in Stillwater’s current proven and probable reserve number?

We actually use a trailing 12 quarter price. I’m not sure I have seen that in the last month or so. But it’s probably a little bit lower than the price, right now. In our budgeting internally, we tend to use the current price that eliminates a lot of discussion about where prices are going and then look at sensitivities around that and have a discussion on using that approach.

And I suspect, Garrett, your question is designed trying to discover as to whether we may have to impair some of that reserves based on car metal process. And I think where we are today, we’re pretty comfortable. We do an annual review that will come out in February. But we are feeling pretty comfortable at the moment, particularly given our cost reductions. Garrett Nelson - BB&T Capital Markets: Sure. Okay. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our next question is coming from Daniel McConvey from Rossport Investments. Please proceed with your question.

Good day. Thanks. Couple of questions. Just on -- Mick, what can you tell us about 2015, you’ve got the trend in employees. You mentioned some of the zones in 2015, to be back into too much of the development done. So can we look forward to this pattern continuing into 2015?

Broadly yes. We will be putting our 2015 guidance later this year. And I think at that time, that’s the appropriate for me to really comment on what ’15 specifically looks like. But I think, where we can say, we will be is that we’ve obviously invested a lot in sustaining CapEx in ’14, which will allow us to own that back a bit in ’15. We have said that those steps that we took offline at the Stillwater operation, we will be back in doing Q3 of next year. So, again, we would expect those to have a bit of an increase from that time in terms of production from that time onwards. And, again, through natural attrition of our employee base, we think we can manage the headcount going forward. But probably some other areas where we feel that we’ve got some other potential, obviously the entire mining industry is going through cost reduction exercises. We are starting to see benefits from the lower oil price. Some of that input costs, I think have some potential to move as well in the right direction for us. So there is still a lot of work for us to do here in the business.

What are the kinds of things that are allowing you to reduce your headcount? You mentioned a couple of them. But I’m guessing you have less turnover now and what are the things that are helping you out?

Well. It’s really reallocating people into more productive stopping areas where we get much high productivity in terms of tons for manpower. We find that by moving people in there and no ones asked me about grade yet, but you may notice that actually our grade is falling slightly. But we are actually moving people into much more productive stopping areas with slightly lower grade but our cost per ounce is lower. So, really it’s productivity improvements and technology uptake is really the area that we’ve been able to do things more efficiently and therefore, to reduce our headcount as people leave.

Second question, with the -- the 7%, maybe this is coming from Johnson Matthey’s report. The 7% increase in recycled cat palladium, is that coming from Johnson Matthey or where is that number coming from?

That’s coming from me today. Johnson Matthey, don’t publish their research anymore.

Right. What is the base of that? What’s were its rough numbers for say, 2013?

The basis of that is the information that we’ve gathered through our industry sources and the confidential sources, so we are unable to tell you where that comes from. But we feel fairly confident in that sort of circa, saying with the 10% increase in the palladium end of the market. The platinum end of the market is seeing quite a bit more subdued growth of 2% to 3% compound average growth rate is probably what we are doing.

Okay. But what is the 7% of what number? It’s 7% growth in 2014 and 7% of what million ounces or…?

That one -- just off the top of my head and don’t hold me to this but it’s off the top of my head, circa 1.5 million or 1.8 million ounces something like that.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We’ve reached end of our question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Mick McMullen for any further or closing comments.

I’d just like to thank you everyone for taking the time to calling today. We look forward to our next conference call and we will continue to draw as many operational improvements as we can at the business. Thank you.