Good morning everyone. Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Centerra Gold Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the conference call 1over to Lisa Wilkinson, Vice President, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications with Centerra Gold. Please go ahead. And one moment everyone, we appear to be having some technical difficulties. Please remain on the line, one moment. And apologies everyone. This is the conference operator once again. We would like to welcome you the Centerra Gold Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call. And at this time I will turn that floor over to Lisa Wilkinson. And once again the Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications with Centerra Gold. Ma’am you may begin.

Thank you, operator and good morning everyone. Welcome to Centerra Gold's fourth quarter 2024 results conference call. Joining me on the call today are Paul Tomory, President and Chief Executive Officer; Paul Chawrun, Chief Operating Officer; and Ryan Snyder, Chief Financial Officer. Our release yesterday details our fourth quarter 2024 results. It should be read in conjunction with our MD&A and financial statements, both of which can be found on SEDAR, EDGAR, and our website. All figures are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Presentation slides accompanying this webcast are available on Centerra's website. Following the prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions. Before we begin, I would like to caution everyone that certain statements made today may be forward-looking and are subject to risks which may cause our actual results to differ from those expressed or implied. Please refer to the cautionary statements included in the presentation as well as the risk factors set out in our annual information form. Certain measures we will discuss are non-GAAP measures. Please refer to the description of non-GAAP measures in our news release and MD&A issued yesterday. I will now turn the call over to Paul Tomory.

Thank you, Lisa and good morning, everyone. In the fourth quarter, we had steady operational performance producing over 73,000 ounces of gold and 12.8 million pounds of copper, and we ended 2024 near the low end of our consolidated production guidance range. We generated strong free cash flow of both operations in the fourth quarter, driven by robust contributions from Mount Milligan, which increased our cash balance to $625 million. In 2024, we made meaningful progress in executing on our strategic plan to maximize the value of our assets. Since the restart of operations at Öksüt in June 2023, the mine has generated over 480 million of free cash flow. While Mount Milligan, our additional agreement with Royal Gold, created the opportunity to assess the mine's long-term potential. In September, we announced the restart of operations at Thompson Creek and a progressive ramp up at Langeloth, marking a major step in unlocking value in our U.S. Molybdenum operations. At current metal prices the 397 million of capital investment to restart Thomson Creek is expected to be funded largely from our cash flow from operations at Mount Milligan Öksüt [ph]. Yesterday, we published an initial resource at Goldfield of 706,000 ounces of gold. After a thorough evaluation we decided the resource size does not meet our requirements to support near-term development. We remain committed to maximizing the project's potential, while exploring strategic and commercial options for Goldfield. Looking ahead to 2025, we're focused on Mount Milligan and Kemess, which are the foundations for our future growth. At Mount Milligan, the technical studies are progressing better than planned and we decide to move straight to completing a pre-feasibility study for the mine. This upgrade, together with an extensive drill program planned for this year, has the objective of significantly increasing proven and…

Thanks, Paul. On Slide 10, we show operating highlights at Mount Milligan for the quarter and the full year. Mount Milligan produced almost 38,000 ounces of payable gold and 12.8 million pounds of payable copper in the fourth quarter. Full year 2024 gold and copper production was over 167,000 ounces, 54 million pounds, respectively, which was below our guidance range due to lower grades encountered in an area of Phases 6 and 9 that are at the periphery of the ore body. Gold and copper sales were up 4% and 15%, respectively, quarter-over-quarter, which was anticipated due to the timing of shipments. In 2025, Mount Milligan gold production is expected to be 165,000 to 185,000 ounces and copper production is expected to be 50 million to 60 million pounds. In the fourth quarter, all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,114 per ounce, 15% lower quarter-over-quarter, driven by a decrease in sustaining capital expenditures. Full year all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,078 per ounce at the low end of the guidance range. The site-wide optimization program at Mount Milligan continues to progress. The site has reduced operating costs, and we continue to see productivity improvements in the load haul cycle at the mine as well as improvements in the unit processing costs. In the full year of 2024, milling costs at Mount Milligan were $5.33 per ton processed, 11% lower than 2023 despite a slight decrease in throughput. In 2025, all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis are expected to be $1,100 to $1,200 per ounce. In 2024, Centerra identified an opportunity to accelerate the use of in-pit mine potential asset-generating waste storage, which has increased the available capacity in the existing tailings facility. As a result, mine operating costs are expected to improve over the…

Thanks, Paul. Slide 13 details our fourth quarter financial results. Adjusted net earnings in the fourth quarter were $37 million or $0.17 per share. In the fourth quarter, sales were almost 84,000 ounces of gold and 16.4 million pounds of copper. The average realized price was $2,207 per ounce of gold and $2.88 per pound of copper which incorporates the existing streaming arrangements at Mount Milligan. At the Molybdenum business unit, approximately 2.9 million pounds of molybdenum was sold in the fourth quarter at the Langeloth facility, at an average realized price of $22.67 per pound. Consolidated all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis in the fourth quarter were $1,296 per ounce. Full year 2024 all-in sustaining costs were $1,148 per ounce, in line with the guidance range. Slide 14 shows our financial highlights for the quarter. In the fourth quarter, we generated strong free cash flow at both operations, driven by robust contributions from Mount Milligan. Cash flow from operations on a consolidated basis for the quarter was $93 million, and free cash flow was $47 million, which includes spending of $23 million on development costs for the Thompson Creek mine. In the fourth quarter, Mount Milligan generated $77 million in cash from operations and $65 million in free cash flow. In the fourth quarter, Öksüt generated $52 million of cash from operations and had free cash flow of $41 million. The Molybdenum business unit as a whole used $12 million of cash in operations and had a free cash flow deficit of $35 million this quarter, mainly related to spending on the Thompson Creek restart. Returning capital to shareholders remains a key pillar in our disciplined approach to capital allocation. In the fourth quarter, we remained active on our share buybacks, repurchasing 1.8 million shares for total consideration…

Thanks very much, Ryan. Looking out to 2025, we're advancing key growth catalysts at both Mount Milligan and Kemess while continuing to expand our exploration efforts. With great progress on the PFS study at Mount Milligan and ongoing technical evaluation of Kemess, we remain focused on unlocking long-term value and strengthening our asset base for the future. Now operator, we can open the call to questions, please.

[Operator Instructions]. And our first question today comes from Lawson Winder from Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead with your question.

Operator, thank you very much. And Paul, hello, good morning, and hello to your team. I just wanted to get an idea for your thinking around growing in gold going forward. So in particular, Öksüt, we saw reserves decline there. Is there an interest to expand the presence in Turkey in any way and then when you think about Goldfield as an option that is not really there any longer, is M&A on the table when you think about growing that core business?

Thanks for the question, Lawson. Our principal focus -- so the straight up answer is yes. We are Centerra Gold Corporation, we intend to keep gold as our primary metal. In terms of where we look for valuations for production assets, as you've seen in the market are very high right now. Our first order of priority is to unlock value within the portfolio. So we think that the best path to continued gold exposure is through the extension of Milligan that we described, but also this work we're advancing at Kemess. You quite rightly pointed out, we're putting Goldfield on the shelf right now, but Kemess is a major area of focus. And that is a very significant mineralized asset, and we're looking at different ways to mine that, that doesn't involve a block cave. So first and foremost, our continued exposure to gold will come through the assets that we already own. We are, though, always on the lookout for assets that may fit our portfolio and may fit our strategy. You asked about Turkey. We are committed to Turkey. We think it's a great place to operate, and should assets become available there, principally in gold, we certainly would be interested in looking at them. And I should add that we are active on three or four Greenfield exploration programs in Turkey.

Okay, that's interesting. Also wanted to just kind of stay in the capital allocation theme. You guys continued to be remarkably consistent with your buyback and both the dividend. Since those levels of capital return were set, the gold price is $1,000 higher. Is the thinking of evolving any further along the lines of potential higher capital return, I know I've asked you this before, but the gold price just keeps going higher and higher, and so at some point, is there a need to maybe rethink the dividend or maybe get more aggressive on the buyback?

Well, we are committed to the buyback. We think that our shares are cheap, and we think they are a great investment, first and foremost. What we're doing right now, and this is a discussion we've been having over the last little while on that capital allocation point. We think that we have some credible projects potentially on the horizon here at Milligan and Kemess. So our preference is to allocate capital to the gold growth going to your earlier question, while maintaining our current levels of dividend and buyback. So to answer your question, our preference on incremental investments or capital allocation, our preference is to put those to work in gold assets, principally the organic opportunities, but also potentially in M&A.

And then just a final question, which we often talk about is the potential to materially increase gold recoveries at Mount Milligan. What is kind of the target now, has that evolved in any way, is it potentially higher than you had thought last quarter or even a year ago this time? And what is now the time line on getting to a point where those gold recoveries are materially improved versus the 2024 levels?

Yes. That's a great question, Lawson, and it's a very key area of focus for us internally. So the first thing I want to say is Q4 was lower recoveries, both in copper and gold. And the primary reason was you have to go back to the LOM that we negotiated with Royal Gold. What's happened is we're resequencing overall and in periods of time, like in Q4, just open up the pit, get more input storage down the track. We opened up an area that was a little bit periphery to the ore body. And then what happened was near the surface, the oxidation partially we were able to still put it through the plant was a little higher than expected, and there was some fault in that we didn't have mapped as well. So that's why Q4 was somewhat lower. But on the positive side, it is because we're expanding and we're looking at this as a 20-year, 30-year mine life not short term. And to really answer your question, when we expect it to get better, well we are better than we were in Q4. And we -- I think in terms of numbers in between, I would say, mid-60s should be a good target. We're looking at ways that we can recover better, both with the LOM work that we're doing and in the short term, with better understanding of the GeoMet model and doing some better blending because there are some mineralogical changes throughout the ore body that we're getting better at understanding.

Okay. I look forward to watching that evolve. Thank you Paul and thank you both gentlemen.

Our next question comes from Jeremy Hoy from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead with your questions.

Congrats, thanks for taking my question. Realizing it's difficult to anticipate what's going to happen over the next four years, could you comment on the potential impact of tariffs on Milligan costs? And any plans that may be put in place to alleviate those?

Yes. Thanks for that. We're not terribly worried about the tariff situation. We've done an internal assessment and we don't think we're really exposed, but there may be some details that Ryan, you may want to talk about, we've looked at this.

Sure. We've looked at our operating sites. And in the global scale, we think we're generally not going to be too adversely impacted. So 95% of Milligan's costs are from Canadian suppliers. You never know what's going to happen with supplier to supplier arrangements and how those costs pass through. But our supplier base is largely Canadian. And so we don't see, even in a tariff world or a retaliatory tariff world, a big change in the Milligan cost base. I think we're still hammering away at the MPlus [ph] program to try to drive costs down, which offsets any cost creep that may come. So we feel pretty good about the Milligan costs. And then all the Milligan concentrate sold into Asia, nothing goes into the U.S. So there shouldn't be any noise there. Hopefully, that answers your question, Jeremy.

It does. Thank you very much and I will step back in the queue.

Our next question comes from Anita Soni from CIBC. Please go ahead with your question.

Hi, good morning Paul and team. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to ask about the reserve and resource update. The grade increase at Mount Milligan, I was just wondering what drove that [indiscernible] but can you just give me a little bit more granularity on that?

Yes. So Paul, the question was what -- Anita, you were a little bit faint there, but I think your question was what drove the grade increase in the reserve at Milligan. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Yes. That's primarily domaining of where the mineralization is occurring, and we're actually still working on that. You do get what's called soft boundaries on the domains and then where do you actually draw that boundary. And we remodeled based on the drilling from 2023. And fundamentally, we tightened up the domain. So that lowers the amount of ore and increases the amount of waste and increases the grade. And we're still working with where that balance is as we work through the ore body.

Okay. Just wondering if you guys -- did that have any impact on the near-term production profile that we should be aware of?

Yes. So that's actually one of the reasons why we didn't quite get the production that we had expected at Mount Milligan is because we did get more tons and lower grade overall. So we're looking at readjusting that factor. It won't affect the overall metal and it won't affect the strip ratio. It's really a fairly minor difference, but that's the work on the grade. And it does vary throughout the ore body as well. So we're continuing to understand that better.

Okay. I guess I -- could you -- maybe I'm a little bit confused now. The -- so originally, we were talking about higher grades and sort of losing some of the waste in the ore, sorry, moving some of the waste in the lower -- the more marginal ore. But now, like was it the fact that you were in Q4 was presenting sort of problems that -- I'm not quite what I should do with my model at this stage?

Okay. So the new model update as higher grade because you lowered the amount of tons and you tightened up where the mineralization occurs in the domains. And then when you go ahead and mine it, you expect to get those grades. What's happening in some areas, including Phase 6 and 9, you mine it, and then you actually have more ore than you thought, but at a lower grade. So in essence, the mineralization is spread out over a wider area. And so that balance is what we're working through. On the reserves estimate, the grade is higher because the amount of ore is slightly less. So it's a balance between how much ore you have and how much waste you have.

Okay. Got it. Did you -- can you tell me what kind of statistical model that was for -- was it ID 2, ID 3 or creaking?

No, we use ordinary creaking, and we used soft boundaries. So the key focus, though, is the mineralization domain.

Okay, alright, thank you.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from Brian MacArthur from Raymond James. Please go ahead with your questions.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. I apologize I was cut off if this has been answered. But I have two questions. Just first of all, on Goldfield, so what is the strategy now, obviously, resources narrowing it's not near-term development, does that mean you're willing to sell it or does it just mean there's going to be some more work or it's just going to be kind of like Kemess was for you, just put in the queue and hold on for a while?

I think it's more of the latter there. So we have three objectives in the year. One was to see if we can get run of mine recoveries, that was a check, to see second was to see from getting lower CAPEX. That was a check. And the third was to see if we can grow the resource. And we didn't do -- at least it didn't meet our threshold to continue to advance the project. So it is going on the shelf right now. You'll have seen that reflected in the impairment we took on the asset. And you also asked in there, is it open to a sale or a JV or something? Absolutely, yes. So what we're -- the phase we're in right now with Goldfield is more strategic or commercial rather than technical. But I will say there's gold in the ground there. It just -- it doesn't yet meet our thresholds for amount, but we aren't going to be doing a lot of drilling there. So the focus is more strategic.

Great, thanks. That's very clear. And just on another strategic issue, any update or comments on potentially partner on the molybdenum operation, I mean, with what's going on U.S. assets may become more strategic going forward, is there any comment you can make on that?

Well, I'll say that we -- notwithstanding the fact that most people don't seem to like it, we love our Molybdenum business. We view it as a high return, high NPV, relatively low-risk project in a metal that is, in fact, strategic particularly when you look at more macro political situations in the United States. So we really like the business. We are open to some sort of strategic outcome there, but it would have to meet our minimum requirements on valuation. And there's always interest in the assets, particularly now that we are moving forward with the project. But I'll just reiterate, we do like it. Notwithstanding the fact that it's kind of out of favor with some more general market sentiment as it relates to Centerra. We do like the business.

Okay. And just my final question. Just on Öksüt. It was mentioned earlier, obviously, the reserve life there is not that long. Is there a lot of potential to extend that, again, I sort of with all the stockpiling of inventory of sort of -- the mine plan has sort of lost a little bit of where we are on everything, so it's sort of four or five years, sort of 100,000 ounces now, I think, but is there anything possible to go beyond that?

I wouldn't -- I wouldn't guide you towards any significant exploration potential to Öksüt. However, we need to understand just how much gold is in those heaps. And there may be some potential for a period of residual leaching. Our exploration efforts in Turkey are focused, as I said earlier, at Greenfield type targets. And we do see some -- certainly, Turkey has extremely attractive geology, and we're trying to take advantage of that more through a Greenfield program rather than a Brownfield expansion at Öksüt.

Great, thanks very much for answering my questions Paul.

And our next question comes from Mike Parkin from National Bank. Please go ahead with your question.

Thanks guys for taking my question. I'll start with Öksüt. Just given the fact we're sitting at almost $3,000 gold, is there an opportunity -- like there's always kind of a bit of a perfect balance on the economics with the amount of like chemicals you're putting on it. But at an elevated gold price environment like we're at, is there a potential to kind of shock the pad and potentially pull additional ounces out by putting in, for instance, like a higher cyanidation concentration where you might get very short-term kind of boosted recoveries that would normally not be economic, but in this gold price environment, they would probably be to drive some of that potential, not expected to be recovered gold at your standard base case operating metrics, but at an elevated one, you'd get some additional ounces?

Yes. That's actually a great question, and we look at that all the time as well as cutoff grades, both at Öksüt and elsewhere, just due to the run-up on the gold price. The sensitivity to the concentration of the cyanide and then the recovery is not all that high. So you might get a small amount of gain, but we don't really look at that because when you do the column test, there's not a whole lot of sensitivity to the concentration of the cyanide with respect to recovery.

What about waste classified at a lower gold price, is there an ability to potentially reclassify some waste material as ore now?

Not at Öksüt, no. I mean, in future, you may look at cut-off grades but really, at the end of the day, the way Öksüt, mineralogy is put together, you're not really looking at lower grade, a whole lot of lower grade going into the waste dumps.

So Mike, it's not like Nevada, where you have mineralized waste dumps that you could releach. Here, it's really -- it's not quite this simple, but it's either ore or waste. It's much more delineated than say would be in Nevada.

Okay. And then I apologize in joining the call a little late. I see you've got an interesting slide on Kemess. Just from the cross section, it looks like the cross-section on Slide 8 isn't really going through the planned kind of 2023 year-end pit limit. So am I correct that if you move that to the -- soon as Northwest the line AA, you'd actually see deeper pits pulling in more of that mineralization that you're seeing in the cross-section?

Let's just take a step backwards here on Kemess. So the concept that Centerra had was for a block cave, and that's the right of that cross-section on that page. What we've done over the last six to eight months is we've relooked at all the drill data, and we recreated a site-wide resource model to see where else there might be mineralization on the property. And what we've concluded and I think the slide illustrates that is that we are no longer focused on the block cave, which is over on the right there, but rather on a whole string of near surface mineralization away from what was formerly the underground concept, and by the way, away from the old Northgate pit. And -- so to your question, that's exactly what we're doing, is we're doing a bunch of infill drilling there to see if we can connect those various open pitable deposits, the area we call the saddle there, the central area. And can we get to a fairly low strip reasonably accessible set of open pitable resources. So our focus right now is drilling and technical studies looking at potential concepts there. And as I said in my prepared remarks, we're going to put out a resource here in the early part of the year with some description around what we might look at. There's a lot of mineralization ore at Kemess. It's a very significant mineralizing system and the property that we control is quite large.

I might be dating myself, but I remember covering Northgate with Kemess and that being a bit of a cash caliber asset for them. Where is that pit, would that be on that slide or further off to the left?

No. It's -- these deposits are north and the west of the old Northgate pit. They're something like 8 or 9 or 10 kilometers away. And so I'm getting ahead of myself here, but what we would look at is how would we transport material from these new deposits should they prove up over towards the old pit and the old facilities. And what we really like about Kemess is if you were to build a 50,000 ton a day concentrator in that part of BC today, you'd be looking at a 2 to 3, maybe higher $1 billion project. What we have, and I said this in my prepared remarks, we have a power line, probably the longest power drill line in BC. We have an airstrip. We have a camp. We have the old process plant. And that is really valuable. That infrastructure is really valuable. And the combination of our relook at the site-wide resource model and, of course, higher commodity prices has given us a degree of optimism in looking at these deposits, which are not near the old Northgate pit. I mean, they're on the property, but they're not particularly close to the old pit.

Okay. No, that's interesting. I look forward to the update.

Thanks Mike.

And ladies and gentlemen, with that, we'll be concluding today's question-and-answer session as well as today's conference call. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.