Greetings and welcome to the Stillwater Mining Company’s Third Quarter Results. At this time, all participants are on a listen only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Mr. Mick McMullen. You may begin.

Thank you very much and thank you everyone for joining on a Friday, for our third quarter 2015 results. I’m here with Chris Bateman, our CFO and Mike Beckstead, our Head of IR and Brent Wadman, VP of Legal. We have an earnings deck that people can refer to which I’ll talk through as I go through this presentation. If you look at slide two of that on the forward-looking statements, I’d like people to read that and in particular just take time to go through each of those areas of that slide. Turning to slide three on the third quarter highlights, third quarter was characterized by some excellent cost control and all-in sustaining costs that came in at $667 per PGM ounce and for clarity of PGM ounce is when we refer to a mix of palladium and platinum in a ratio for this quarter of 3.4 of palladium to 1 platinum. That was well below our goal that I had set 1.5 years ago of being in the low 700s. Mine ounces were up 4% year-on-year to just over 128,000 PGM ounces. Our sales were lower by just under 11,000 ounces in production, given the way we saw prices go in the quarter, we didn’t feel the need to rush to sell all that metal. And as it turned out that’s been a great decision. I think it’s been very good in terms of the cost results and the production result that we’ve achieved during the quarter when we had made quite significant changes to our business and I think it’s a testament to the hard work of our people on-site. Our recycling business saw quite a significant jump in processed ounces, so approximately 161,000 ounces, which was a 37% year-on-year increase. We did however record a net…

Yeah. Thank you, Mick. As Mick has mentioned, the loss for the quarter was 11.9 million and there were two non-routine expenditures in there which included the reorganization costs after-tax of 1.3 million and the early debt extinguishment. The biggest effect on earnings in the quarter was the drop in sales prices. We were at 693 for the quarter compared to 842 last quarter and 983 the corresponding quarter in 2014. So that had an impact. The excellent cost performance on the quarter will start to flow through the next quarter and wouldn’t have been reflected in this quarter’s cost of goods sold. Turning to slide seven, the main driver of the change in cash balance, we had 11.7 margin contributed from margin, that’s down from around 30 million in the prior quarter and as I said, driven by the sharp reduction in prices. Recycling, working capital was stable for the quarter. We are seeing a higher level of tolled ounces than purchased ounces than we’ve seen in prior years and the recycling business remains strong in Q3 as we said at the last conference call. Cash capital for the quarter was 25.2 million and the biggest expenditure related to the repurchase of the debt where we spend at 61 million.

Thanks, Chris. Moving to slide eight, we put this in here people want to model how our performance is going on the side level. And you can see, particularly at the Stillwater Mine we’ve had some very good success at driving the mining costs per ton down and overall, we’ve seen a very strong performance actually at both sides. And if you were to extend this back to the prior year, you could see that we had a very good performance at East Boulder in terms of driving costs down, East Boulder across some sort of stabilized at around this level now, but the Stillwater Mine continues to come down quite significantly and this is where we really focus most of our attention in terms of opportunity for cost reduction. So overall, I think a very tight performance in Q3, in terms of our cost per ton and again, against the backdrop of quite significant changes made in the business. Turning to slide nine, so all-in sustaining costs, this is the measure that we use to sort of track the long-term health of the business. Again, I think the result of 677 for Q3 was an excellent result. We are tracking year-to-date at about 742 so I think that really highlights just how strong that Q3 performance was. We have kept our guidance range unchanged at this stage for all-in sustaining costs. I think that the reorganization plan that we implemented during Q3 has demonstrated that we can deliver significant sustainable reductions in all-in sustaining costs, and you can see from the graph on the top right of the page just how successful we’ve been at that. In January of last year, we put out a goal of – it wasn’t a guidance but a goal of reducing our all-in…

Thank you. At this time, we’ll be conducting a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question is from David Gagliano with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. I had a couple of quick ones. First of all, on the – just wanted to do a quick reconciliation, the production versus the sales volume. I missed it if it was mentioned in the prepared remarks, but should we expect that to reverse -- that inventory built to reverse in the next couple of quarters?

Yes, Dave, we should. So, strong mining performance and we saw an inventory build in the Columbus complex and we weren’t in a hurry in Q3 when the prices dipped viciously to get it out the door. So we should see that reversing in Q4.

Okay. All of it in Q4, just so for modeling purposes?

I think a good portion, let’s see how the rest of the quarter goes and obviously we have stronger mining performance at the backend were flowing through but we are flushing that through the system.

Okay. On the 10 million to 12 million of savings tied to the restructuring on the labor side, you mentioned that not much of it flowed through. Can you tell us how much actually did flow through in the quarter?

As Mick mentioned, that was five weeks of the lower labor rates, so five over 52.

Just pro rata?

Yeah, that’s right.

Perfect. And then just the last thing, I was wondering if you comment a little bit more, I noticed on the recycling volumes, jumped up quite nicely quarter-over-quarter even though I know prices were weak, which -- recycling volumes may be come down a little bit. I was wondering if you could give us a little more color on the driver there and is that sustainable moving forward?

Yeah, Dave. As I said in one of the previous quarters, we won a couple of significant contracts, fairly large contracts and it just took a while for that volume to start flowing through. And what we also saw a few – through the detail of the – we did see some high grade material come through. So whilst tons per day was up, I think it was 20% ounces were up, 37% so we saw a bit of change of mix of material as well and that also gave us a pretty good bump in terms of ounces processed during the quarter. And we think it’s sustainable at this stage, obviously as contracts run off and you have to renew them, you need to continue doing that. But our goal is to try and maintain the business and actually as we start to look at these other type of products from say the petroleum refinery catalyst business, we think there’s a big opportunity to sort of move into that market. It’s early days yet, so we’re not just sitting back on our – resting, we like to park some more volumes for that.

Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

Okay, well if there is no more questions, we might wrap this up and I’d like to thank everyone for the time on a Friday.

We do have one more question in the queue if you’d like to take it.

Sure. That’s fine.

That’s Andrew Quail with Goldman Sachs.

Hi, Mick. Thanks very much for taking my question. Good quarter, specially on the costs. Just a couple of questions, when you talk about the medium term, is that sort of something you’re targeting for next 12 months, may be probably into this time next year we might be getting to that mid-600s?

Well, I think when I started and I gave the goal of getting to the mid-700s in the medium term also, that was January of last year and we have achieved that now. So, I’m thinking medium term in the sort of within the one to two year timeline sort of thing.

And last one on cash, I think it’s good you guys bought back those convertibles, [inaudible], is there a strategy going forward on this? Is there a cash balance that you guys are comfortable with in the business, obviously you’re producing free cash flow, is there a cash balance where you will not go below?

There is, we don’t give that out, but I think we look at it at any given day, we look at where we’re going to deploy our cash to get a reasonable return. And if you can’t get a reasonable return, we don’t feel the need to spend it. So, I think in this market having more cash rather than less is a good strategy, if you look at –

Would it be around the other…

Sorry?

Would it be around the other 100 million?

I think probably a bit north of that where we would be comfortable, just giving the scale of that business. We don’t really sort of disclose what the number is but I think it would be north of 100 is where we’d want to be.

Thanks, guys.

Thanks, Andrew.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from Lucas Pipes with FBR Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hey good morning, everybody and thanks for taking my question.

Sure.

So, I wanted to follow up a little bit on the sustaining capital. If I look at Q3, it annualizes pretty nicely below 2015 guidance, and I wondered is that sustainable as we look into 2016? Is that something may be where we could expect further savings in terms of the cash flow?

Well, we haven’t given out 2016 guidance yet, so you probably need to wait until we give that. But, clearly one of the big changes we made in the – with this new mine plan at the Stillwater Mine has been that we are adding to our developed state which is the all-in sustaining CapEx broadly. We are continuing to add that, so you’re right that we were spending sustaining capital was not just sustaining the business but was actually adding to our developed state. We are now spending in a right way we are, where we’re not eating into our developed state, but we’re also not adding to our developed state, if that sort of made sense.

Got it, got it. No, that makes a lot of sense. In a way, one way to think about it would be that your prior sustaining CapEx had some component of a growth CapEx to it and now it’s really just sustaining.

Correct. That would be a fair assessment.

Great. Well, good job and appreciate you taking my question.

Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from John Bridges with JP Morgan. Please proceed with your question.

Hi morning Mick, everybody. Just following on from that one, on the developed state, was that increase in developed state a result of improved productivity or was it that you had excess people because you are cutting back on your production and you put them into development?

That’s a good question, John, I would say a bit of both. I would say that – if you look historically, we have typically always done sort of more development than budget. And so, if you do more development than budget, then you end up increasing your developed state and you spend more sustaining CapEx than you want to. But also as productivity has improved, we have seen development pull ahead and also as we did some reorganization last year and some people came out of production areas because we didn’t have the infrastructure in place and then they went on to development infrastructure projects and now we sort of said, okay, the developed state at Stillwater Mine is broadly about five years and at the East Boulder Mine is broadly about six years. So that’s a pretty weak developed state for an underground mine, so we just didn’t feel the need to, in this price environment especially to continue to add to that.

That’s a big insurance policy, but then palladium is very volatile. On Blitz, you said you are getting nice grades on that. Have you thought more about what sort of production you can pull out of Blitz next year or is that something that we can look forward to at the end of Q4?

Yeah, I think just given that we run our reserves and everything at the end of the year, we sort of need to wait till we get that out of the way. And we’re still targeting first production there in about 2018.

Okay, okay. But what about…

Sorry, I think the key thing for this quarter just finished has been getting the permit for the Benbow portal, actually ahead of time which allowed us to accelerate some of the work before it got cold. That was really the one thing that was hanging up there that we needed to get that permit in place.

Okay, brilliant. Well done on the results.

Thanks, John.

There are no further questions at this time. I’d like to turn the call back over to Mick McMullen for closing remarks.

Well, thank you everyone for taking the time on a Friday and I look forward to speaking to you again when we present our fourth quarter results. Thank you.