Thank you, operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for joining us for our conference call and webcast today. As usual, joining me is Rohit Bhardwaj, our Chief Financial Officer.

Before I commence the review, I would like to remind you that our presentation contains certain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations and are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks and actual results may differ materially. Further information identifying risks, uncertainties and assumptions and additional information on certain non-IFRS measures referred to in this call can be found in the disclosure documents filed by Chemtrade with the Securities Regulatory Authorities available at www.sedar.com.

Chemtrade posted steady results for the third quarter of 2013. We generated distributable cash after maintenance capital expenditures of $23.7 million or $0.57 per unit, which is well in excess of our distribution rate of $0.30 per unit.

EBITDA of $37.5 million is up by about 5% from last year. Consistent with our desire to implement our capital improvement plans, our maintenance CapEx during the third quarter of this year, was higher than the third quarter of last year.

Despite this increased spending, we are still slightly below our expected run rate. On a year-to-date basis, we are also under-spent, having incurred about $20 million of maintenance CapEx against an anticipated annual capital spend of $35 million to $40 million.

Similar to previous years, we expect that our fourth quarter maintenance CapEx will be significantly higher than the quarterly run rate, which has only averaged about $7 million per quarter for our indicated annual spend of $35 million to $40 million. From our perspective, this continues to be capital we want to spend because of improved quality of our assets and the sustainability of our earnings, thus, our intention to catch up on the spending in the fourth quarter.

During the third quarter of this year, our businesses in North America generated EBITDA similar to levels generated in the third quarter of last year, despite revenue being lower this year than last. Once again, this demonstrates the value of our risk sharing business model.

Under this model, changes in revenue do not always result in changes in margin. In our largest group, SPPC, the lower revenue was due to a combination of lower volumes of sulfur and of sulfuric acid and lower prices particularly lower sulfur prices.

The effect of these were offset to some extent by stronger year-over-year performances from some of our other product lines in SPPC. Our international segment face more challenging conditions for acid and sulfur than those states in North America.

These challenges were reflected in the results of our international segment which posted weaker revenue and EBITDA levels relative to the third quarter last year. Despite revenues in our SPPC segment being slightly lower than the third quarter of 2013, North American business conditions appear to be quite stable and we continue to feel confident about the improving general outlook for economic activity in North America.

The weakness that we experienced in region volumes during the second quarter of this year did not continue during the third quarter and we were back to normal levels. In general, products within the SPPC segment, showed improved results over the second quarter of this year.

I’ll give few comments on our outlook for the balance of the year after Rohit reviews the quarter financials.

Thanks, Mark. As Mark mentioned, business conditions were relatively stable in North America, but continue to be unsettled in international markets.

Revenue for the third quarter was $206.9 million, a decrease of $34 million from 2002’s levels. After the first half of this year, the primary reason for the decrease was lower revenues in the international segment.

For the three months ended September 30, 2013, distributable cash after maintenance, capital expenditures was $23.7 million or $0.57 per unit, compared with $24.3 million or $0.58 per unit in 2012. Aggregate EBITDA for the third quarter of 2013, was $37.5 million compared with $35.8 million in the third quarter of 2012.

Turning to segmented results for the quarter, SPPC generated revenue of $151.5 million and EBITDA of $41.2 million, compared with $158.1 million and $41.5 million respectively in 2012. The main reason for the decrease in revenue was lower volumes of sulfur and sulfuric acid and lower prices of sulfur.

This was partially offset by higher prices of certain other products within the segment relative to 2012. Despite the decrease in revenue, EBITDA was similar to last year.

Pulp chemicals, reported third quarter revenue of $12 million compared with $13.4 million in 2012 and EBITDA of $2.7 million compared with $3 million last year. Results were negatively affected by lower sale volumes of sodium chlorate, arising mainly from operating issues experienced by our major customer.

International, reported revenue of $43.4 million for the third quarter, compared with $69.3 million in 2012. This reduction in revenue reflected lower prices and volumes of sulfur and sulfuric acid, caused by the generally weak conditions in international market.

EBITDA for the quarter was $1.9 million compared with $3 million last year. Maintenance CapEx in the third quarter, were $8.3 million compared with $5.7 million in 2012.

This is slightly below our expected run rate for the year and we continue to expect that 2013 maintenance CapEx will range between $35 million and $40 million. During the first nine months of 2013, we also invested $10.1 million in non-maintenance CapEx.

These investments were principally in our previously announced ultra-pure sulfuric expansion and our Prince George chlorate facility. These projects are progressing as planned and we expect to spend approximately $10 million more, over the next two quarters to finish these projects.

Excluding unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses, corporate costs during the third quarter of 2013 were $8.3 million, which was $3.4 million lower than the third quarter of 2012. The reduction in corporate expense was due to lower output and incentive compensation expenses, recorded during the third quarter of 2013 relative to the third quarter of 2012.

Our balance sheet at September 2013 was in sound shape. As at this date, $208.6 million was drawn on our approximately $400 million credit facility, leaving a significant amount of liquidity.

Our senior leverage ratio remains below two times EBITDA. During the second quarter of this year, we modified our long-term debt agreement to further extend the maturity date of the facilities by one year to March 2018.

All other terms and conditions including pricing remain substantively unchanged. I’ll now hand the call back to Mark.

Thanks, Rohit. One of the key pillars of our strategy has been to grow and diversify our sources of earnings.

Since our IPO, we have added a number of additional products, supply sources, services, geographies and end markets. This diversity, in combination with our risk sharing business model, has generally allowed us to generate stable cash flows through different business cycles.

Weaknesses in one part of the business is offset by strength in other parts. The third quarter of 2013 is yet another demonstration of the advantages of this business portfolio.

We continue to generate stable cash flows well in excess of our distributions, despite varying economic conditions. As a reminder, we established our term monthly distribution rate at $0.10 per unit in 2007, we remain confident of continuing to generate distributable cash in excess of this rate.

It’s interesting to compare 2013 to 2012 from this perspective. Revenue this year is approximately $63 million less than last year.

However, in aggregate during the first three quarters of this year, we generated EBITDA of roughly $109 million and distributable cash per unit of $1.73. In 2012, we generated roughly $107 million of EBITDA and $1.74 of distributable cash through the first three quarters.

While the economic condition may not have been drastically different this year from last, the stability of our results year-over-year shows the strength of our combined businesses. Our plants operated well during the quarter and we continue to make the investments necessary for the continued long-term reliability of our operations, as we often remark reliable distributions require reliable operations.

At the end of the third quarter, we remain financially well positioned to take advantage of growth opportunities both internal and external as they arise. We remain confident in our ability to mute our objectives to provide our unit holders with both yield and growth over the years.

Finally, a brief word on the potential acquisition we referred to in our news release. We are in discussions with General Chemical, but as we said, there can be no assurances that the transaction will take place if completed as to the terms and conditions.

As you know, we have successfully completed several acquisitions since our IPO that have added to this scope and scale of our business. Our track record shows that we are disciplined about how we approach potential acquisitions.

In evaluating transactions, we consider accretion to our unit holders, sustainability of earnings and the maintenance of our balance sheet strength as key elements. As we also noted, we won’t be making any further comments unless or until there is a transaction to announced.

We’d like to thank you for your attention and Rohit and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Operator?

Good morning.

Hi Jacob.

Hey Jacob.

Just a question here on the – what you think the impact will be on the asset market as a result of the typhoon damage in [indiscernible] smelter?

Most Asian asset stays in Asia so we actually don’t knock into that asset very much. I mean obviously any smelter a significant output comes off the market it helps tighten the market, but I don’t think that one smelter going down will actually have a significant impact.

Can you also talk about your – what your current exposure to the water treatment is right now?

It is part of the Marsulex acquisition 2011 we acquired several alum plants in Western Canada. So by and large, our exposure to the water market is three or four water treatment plans in Western Canada serving our local geographies.

And I guess that’s the direct one we do obviously sulfuric acid that gets used as an input into that process by various other manufacturers as well as water treatment chemicals.

But at this point you’re not producing any was that the flocculence or whatever they call that?

It is alum is a coagulant and that’s what we’re producing in Western Canada.

And then you were also talking about in the SPPC side, you talked about lower volumes in pricing. How long do you expect this trend to continue for?

Well the major price change and it’s always hard when we actually do this on the call, it actually comes out of sulfur and not sulfuric acid. And so, we actually do two things with sulfur right is, we are a reseller.

So to the extent the pricing drops it actually doesn’t affect us that much, because we are obtaining it cheaper and we sell it cheaper so the margins are relatively stable. The other factor is we consume a lot of sulfur in our asset plans, so a lower sulfur price is actually advantageous there, but some of our contracts have sulfur surcharges so at high sulfur prices revenue is higher.

So dropping sulfur price which is what we’re referring to, actually affects us in both of those places on our revenue line, but not significantly on our margin line. And the volume changes actually not as significant as what I just outlined.

Yeah I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning everyone.

Hey Jeremy.

Just may be if you can touch on, where you would feel comfortable with your debt levels in the future? Obviously you’re at the pretty low debt level today, but can you see that going up materially?

And just how far we could see that going up before you get uncomfortable?

That’s a very interesting question. What we’ve said historically is two or three things right is we said one, is comfort with debt levels are linked with actually what your covenant is under your credit agreements, so room for one.

And secondly is comfort with debt levels, we’re always cognizant of who our unit holders are and their degree of certainty receiving our distribution so we don’t like to be too highly levered. The Marsulex transaction is probably a good example of things that we’re comfortable with.

We’re actually – we increased our leverage after that acquisition to about 2.9 times EBITDA and then paid down the debt as quickly as we could.

Right I think your metric was three in the quarter if I remember correctly on

I think actually we were starting at 3.5 and then it was brought down to 3 in the quarter at a period of time.

Again as a general statement, we would want at least to half a term room of any which makes us comfortable, because our earnings are relatively stable due to our business model. So that’s the kind of head[ph] stage we’re at.

Okay. Next just wondering if you had any discussions with the Vale potential merger with Xstrata, do you see any potential opportunities there to add to your services or do you see it may be as a competitive threat given they do some of the things?

They have these talk on and off for years. It is quite frankly it always made sense to us but actually that the Vale smelter, from our perspective, we really services to the Vale smelter right.

And the Xstrata smelter in Sudbury is not at the same size and scale as the Vale smelter. So we’ve always viewed it as actually have as a net positive happened because of anything it should actually make sure that the Vale smelter is optimized and it would actually conceivably remove some volume to the extent that actually is A plus B have to something less than A and B independently.

Okay. And maybe you might have mentioned this in previous calls, but I thought I’d ask you the Suncor contract wondering, if you could give any color on that?

Does the contract have to or part of the negotiation related to the potential growth at the facilities in coming years or maybe you can tell us what the [indiscernible] there?

As you know, the facility we have in Montreal usually serve a number of facilities and now it just serves the Suncor. There is a series of 10 year contracts, the most recent 10 year contract was supposed to end at the end of 2015.

Both Suncor and we think that there is actually a financial deal that actually satisfies both of us on a go forward basis what that form actually looks like, we’re actually honestly not sure right now. But as we’re both having productive top is the agreement is of that contract just keeps rolling along.

It used to have a three year notice period but by the time we got it around the papering it couple months have rolled off. So now it’s 34 month rolling period which is instead of 36, but that’s substantially the only difference in the contract today.

And sorry, just to finish it off here, so the next contract would be a 10 year extension you think?

You know what, we don’t know to be honest. Yeah but Suncor has a number of different things we’re looking at including bringing as you know crude in and there is a bunch of different options.

So I think our disclosure says and it should say we’re not exactly sure of what form and nature of that new relationship with Suncor will be, but we’re in negotiations with them and in the meantime the contract rolls for 34 months at the time.

Okay great. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Hi, Alex.

Just wondering if you could touch, moving to the pulp volume, there were comments about the lower volume this quarter due to some operational issues at I’m guessing for pulp.

Right.

As we look into the fourth quarter, how do you see those volumes shaping up? I mean were those issues resolved or is this something that’s a little bit ongoing?

My recollection is actually they dragged on into October. But I think this would be better in November and December, but they’ve had a number of operational issues which in fairness they actually think – they think they fix every time and something else I think catches them from the side.

So it was a drag into October and it’s still early in November but…

I think for Q4 is probably going to be weak as well just because of the October effect but I think they’re running better now.

Okay, that’s great. Thanks.

And then on the – previously, when you talked about acquisitions you mentioned one of the criteria you look for is some kind of structure, target structure that fits within your risk mitigated or risk sharing business models. Some of the targets you’re looking at currently do you see that kind of structure or is there within that business that attract you from that standpoint?

We’ll talk actually generically like as we always do what we always said actually that, our business model is actually seeking to continue to expand and things we understand that aren’t wisely cyclical or actually in other words, have some reason for us to believe that the typical commodity risks you would find in industrial chemical are mitigated to one its center and other. And we actually talk a lot about risk sharing contracts because we weren’t risk sharing contracts okay?

But we also talk about actually is typical commodity fluctuations can be taken out from the structural of the market by diversity of products, by diversity in sites, by diversity in end markets. There is a whole bunch of other aspects in addition to just contracts that could actually be consistent with our business model and drive stable earnings.

So when we look at any target, we actually love contracts, but we also actually look at what else might give us the belief and the stability and the fit with the business model. Alexander Syrnyk – BMO Capital Markets Okay, great.

That’s good color. Thank you.

I’ll turn it over for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you.

Hey Benoit.

You said CapEx for this year should be in the 35 million to 40 million range, any I know it’s a little bit early probably but for next year?

I think it is a bit early for next year, but that’s kind of the run rate that we have been targeting for couple of years. We haven’t always got there, but there is no reason to believe that next year should be different from that kind of range for our maintenance CapEx.

Okay. And lastly again it’s early probably, Vale has been talking about shutting down one furnace probably by 2016.

Some could be speculating that the state of the nickel market could force them to think of that earlier than expected. Any color you could provide on the way the contract works in terms of do you have any potential under volume side, on the margin side and how we can think of it?

Yeah, let me try a couple of different things and see if they work. It is – the reason – we speculate them and the reason they’re going down to one furnace is actually to run two furnace that is actually meet their environmental regulation requirements would require an investment like $1 billion actually do what they need to do, whereby running one furnace we could meet the environmental requirements without actually investing that additional capital.

So that’s the gauging point. So we see no reason why they wouldn’t run as they are, as hard as they can and for as they long as they can, because that’s the way they maximize their profits because again that’s a big fixed cost asset as we’ve talked about before.

Contractually is we get protection every year for the following year. And it works so that the economic – there is an economic incentive for both parties to actually come as close to estimating next year’s volume as possible, because we’re wrong one way or the other economically driven they actually do an estimate of volume.

So we’ll be protected for one year at a time and we’re the exclusive marketer but there is no guarantee that 2015 volumes wouldn’t drop substantially, but for the comments sounds commercial explanation I just gave you about why they’re going down to one furnace as opposed the economic reason right?

And then we looked the last time, we looked at what could be the potential impact of them going down to one furnace, I think we said along the calls that 25% reduction in volume, we don’t expect it to have any kind of material impact on the bottom-line. And if it goes beyond 25%, then I guess you got to also factor in what might happen to regional pricing if we remove a large amount of volumes from the market.

So that gets a little bit more complex, but up to a 25% volume we think should have really no impact to us just the way the contract and everything works.

Great. That’s really appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Benoit.

Thank you all for your attention this quarter and we hope to speak to you soon again. Thanks very much.

Bye, bye.