Welcome to the Noranda Income Fund first quarter 2022 financial results conference call and webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following management's presentation, there will be a question and answer session open to financial analysts and investors only. Instructions will be provided at that time for you to queue up for questions. If anyone has any difficulties hearing the conference, please press star followed by zero for operator assistance at any time. I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded today, April 29th, at 8:30 A.M. Eastern Time. I will now turn the conference over to Mr. Paul Anderson, CEO of Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited, Noranda Income Fund's manager. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Also joining me this morning is our CFO, Sylvain Lorette. Before we start, I would like to draw your attention to slide three of the presentation regarding forward-looking information. During the course of today's presentation, we will be making a number of forward-looking statements that are based on certain assumptions and subject to a number of risk factors outlined on this slide. As a result, Noranda Income Fund cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will materialize, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please note that all dollar amounts in this presentation are in US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Turning to slide four. First quarter of 2022 was a challenging one for the fund from an operational perspective, and this is reflected in our financial results. For the quarter, we registered a loss before income taxes of CAD 35.6 million. This is compared to earnings of CAD 11 million in the same period in 2021. This reflects lower production volumes and sales and includes a CAD 17.4 million unrealized derivative financial instrument loss. The high unrealized derivative financial instrument loss results from a large volume of zinc in the hedge book, combined with the rapid increase in zinc prices in the quarter. This is a similar trend to what we saw in the first quarter of 2021. It is important to keep in mind that the derivative instruments are designed to provide zinc price protection, and the loss is mainly explained by timing. The underlying zinc will drive gains in subsequent quarters as the concentrate inventory is processed and the refined zinc metal is sold, depending on future zinc prices. After removing the unrealized derivative financial instrument loss and other adjustments, Adjusted EBITDA came in at a negative $1.1 million. This is compared to Adjusted EBITDA of $17.1 million in the same period last year. On the operational front, the team is working hard to address our ongoing production challenges and on completing our strategic projects, with commissioning slated for the second quarter of this year. As you will recall, our Q4 production had been challenged by some unplanned maintenance, thereby impacting operational efficiency. This situation was further exacerbated in the new year, resulting in a deterioration in production quality and volumes for the first quarter. This resulted in a revision to our full-year production and sales guidance as announced earlier this month. Our annual zinc production target has been revised to between 255,000 and 265,000 tons. The processing facility team continues to work diligently to improve conditions in the cell house, which is a complex process. Two factors intensified our operational challenges. The first was cold weather, which made it difficult to complete required maintenance and which led to a record number of power interruptions. The cold weather is now behind us, and our focus is on completing required maintenance and stabilizing operations. The second factor was labor shortages, coupled with increased COVID-19 related absenteeism. The absenteeism has improved to date, but labor availability remains a challenge. While the facility benefits from a strong team, there are still positions that need to be filled, and this is more challenging than it has been historically. Our team is working actively to recruit and fill these vacancies in a competitive job market. I'll now turn it over to Sylvain to review our financial and operating results in more detail. Thank you, Paul, and good morning, everyone. Let's start with our key performance drivers in Q1 on slide six. Zinc concentrate and secondary feed process was lower than in the same period in 2021. Average LME zinc price was $1.70 a pound, reflecting continued strength in zinc prices. Byproduct revenues increased as a result of higher commodity prices, offset by lower volumes. Finally, the average exchange rate remained steady YoY at $0.79. This volume is primarily related to lower volumes of concentrate processed. Turning now to slide eight. As a reminder, the Adjusted EBITDA method of calculation changed last quarter to meet new non-GAAP measure rules. The main change is replacing the inventory margin impact with the inventory margin program unrealized gain or loss. This has introduced some volatility on this metric. After removing the unrealized derivative financial instrument impact and other adjustments, Adjusted EBITDA in Q1 was a negative $1.1 million compared to positive $17.1 million in Q1 of 2021. Negative Adjusted EBITDA primarily reflects lower volumes and financial instrument losses realized in the quarter. In Q1, CapEx was $7.8 million. This includes $3.3 million on our strategic projects. The balance is sustaining CapEx necessary for the maintenance of our operations. Turning now to cash flow on slide 10. Excluding changes in working capital, interest, and tax payments, cash flow from operation was negative $1 million in Q1. This is compared to a positive $17.2 million for the same period last year. Cash flow in Q1 of 2022 was primarily impacted by derivative financial instrument losses and lower volumes, partly offset by higher commodity prices. Looking now to our ABL, as at March 31st, 2022, it was at $172.1 million, including letters of credit, leaving an excess availability of $7.9 million. Our senior secured metal liability stood at $46.1 million. Working capital decreased as at March 31st, 2022 to $123.2 million, down from $155.5 million as at December 31st, 2021. Paul, back to you. Thank you, Sylvain. The economic and zinc market outlook remains complex and difficult to predict with the ongoing pandemic, labor shortages, global supply chain issues, high energy costs in Europe, and the conflict in Ukraine, among other factors, all of which we continue to monitor closely. Looking at our key revenue driver, we have seen a steady increase in indicative spot treatment charges in 2022 after remaining suppressed throughout 2021. Indicative spot treatment charges have increased significantly from $85 per ton at the end of 2021 to $175 per ton in March. Commodity prices, which increased through 2021, have continued to rise in early 2022 as well due to various pressures, with zinc peaking at $2.10 per pound in April 2022. In the quarter, the average LME zinc price was $1.70 per pound, where it was $1.25 per pound in the same quarter last year. Zinc premiums, which drive a smaller proportion of our revenues, are also being impacted. Zinc premiums in North America doubled in 2021, and spot premiums are being reported as high as $0.25 per pound in the first quarter of 2022. Many analysts also believe that the zinc metal market is transitioning from a surplus in 2021 to a deficit in 2022. On the supply chain front, we continue to see input cost increases and concentrate inventory impacts. As we mentioned last quarter, we've seen a decrease in local mine deliveries, requiring us to dip into safety stock to mix feed qualities. We continue to monitor the situation closely, and we are working on ensuring that we have the right contingency plans in place where possible. Looking at the 2022-2023 contractual period, the fund is continuing to negotiate with Glencore on terms for metal sales and zinc concentrate purchases. The purchase of concentrates continues to be made as per the agreement's fallback position, while negotiations with Glencore Canada on these terms are ongoing. In conclusion, our number one priority is addressing our operational issues and returning to normal operating conditions in the cell house. This work is ongoing and essential to our ability to benefit from improving zinc market conditions around some of our key revenue drivers. Commissioning work for our strategic projects is underway, and we look forward to benefiting from these necessary investments once our operational challenges are behind us. We are confident that once we accomplish our near-term priorities, we will be in a solid position for the long term. That concludes our formal remarks. Operator, back to you for the Q&A. Thank you, sir. At this time, we would like to take any questions you might have for us today. If you would like to ask a question at this time, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Again, that would be star one on your telephone keypad. We have our first question from the line of Steven Green with TD Securities. Your line is open. Yes. Morning, everyone. I wonder if you could tell me, you talked about the rise in zinc spot TCs, as well as the premiums, as well as the various commodity prices, including zinc, copper, sulfuric acid. When can we expect, particularly the rising TCs, to start flowing through the results? Is there any kind of delay given concentrates in the system, or can we expect to see that flow through in Q2? We'll start seeing it come through, and we saw a bit of it in the first quarter here as well. With those lower, I guess the upside to having lower inventory levels as a result of the local mines underproducing. We didn't have a lot of inventory coming through Q1 here, which means that the elasticity to increasing treatment charges will be quicker and be more pronounced as we saw a little bit in Q1, but also through Q2, we'll see more impact there as we get through, depending on what the agreement is with Glencore and the Fund on the next contractual period. Right. Speaking of which, that's being negotiated now, but the fallback position is basically a function of market rates. We don't know exactly what that is, but can we assume that that's going to be something in line with what spot TCs are doing? We'll see it move more or less in the function of spot TCs, yeah. It's very much market related, very much market linked. Okay, great. In the past, I realize you don't disclose exact terms, but you have in the past kind of given an indicative range of EBITDA outcomes depending on certain commodity prices. Can we expect to see that kind of guidance coming in the next couple of months? Yeah, we debated it, but just based on a high number of uncertainties that we have here, we wanted to shy away from that a bit this time. There's no plan at the current time to come up with indicative EBITDA numbers. Okay. Is there a plan to come up with any kind of guidance? We've given production guidance, and that's kind of where we're at with all of the different uncertainties regarding commodity prices and where we're going to land. With all of the different uncertainties in the marketplace today, the range we would put into an indicative number would be quite wide, I would think. Right. We're going to have to leave it to the individual investors to come up with their views on what they think the market's going to do and go from there. Okay. That's all for me. Thanks. Thank you, Steven. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Gordon Bob. Morning, Paul. Good morning. My question has got to do with your hedging program. In note four of the financial statements, you show a realized hedging loss of $48.9 million and an unrealized loss of $17.4 million. If your hedging program is supposed to be revenue neutral, how can you have such a large realized hedging loss? We will account for the derivative instruments in a separate stream versus the underlying concentrate that's being purchased, the zinc that's included in the concentrate purchase, and the offsetting sales. You'll see those derivative financial instrument gains and losses flow through on an individual line basis. What you're going to look at on the underlying concentrate, they will come through at their historical cost. In an example where you're buying your concentrate at $3,000 a ton, for example, and you're hedging it at that rate, you'll realize your gains or losses. Well, in the case of zinc prices increasing to $4,000, you'll realize a loss for the derivative instruments on that parcel, and you're going to realize that from an accounting perspective at every period end. When the concentrate flows through the process here and gets sold out, you'll then realize the sales on that particular zinc, let's say again at $4,000, but it may not be in exactly the same period. It'll likely be a little bit of a delay because the derivative instruments do turn quicker than the inventory. You'll then realize a sale on that underlying zinc at $4,000 and realize a gain, if you will, versus the underlying zinc in the concentrate that you purchased at $3,000 per ton. We're selling it at $4,000 per ton. That will be offsetting the derivative instrument loss that you would have on the hedge. So then I take- There's always going to be a bit of a delay. I can take it then that all of those realized and unrealized hedging losses will eventually be recovered as the metal is sold? Yeah. In an ideal world, if the zinc price stays steady and doesn't move, you'll see those gains on the inventory come through in future quarters. Again, it's all dependent on zinc prices. If you see the zinc prices starting to move downwards, that gain will be more muted on the actual zinc sales, but it would be recovered by derivative instrument gains. There'd be a timing impact there. Yes, in a perfect world, all those losses on the derivative instrument should be offset by gains on the underlying zinc. Great. Thank you. I have one other question. Yeah. If I can. In your commentary on the first quarter results, you really didn't mention what treatment charges were in the first quarter of this year relative to first quarter of last year. Can you enlighten us as to how they were relative to each other? Yeah. Sure. Just off the top of my head, in looking at remembering what was published in CRU and Wood Mackenzie, throughout pretty much all of 2021, both research houses were reporting TCs in and around $80-$90 for the entire year, including the first quarter. There were some, perhaps in our sales, a little bit higher values that got pushed through from 2020. From a market point of view, we were running around that $80-$90 range for much of 2021. In 2022, through the first quarter, we reported there in our documents from Wood Mackenzie and CRU ranges of starting January at $115, going up to $175 in March. What we learned from this is this is off of very thin trading, so perhaps not overly indicative of the market because it is off of a very low number of transactions. Regardless, Q1 this year versus Q1 last year, we're looking at significantly higher TC, let's say between $80-$90, and Q1 this year between $115 and $175. A really dramatic increase. Thank you. Thank you, Gordon. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Ben Franklin with River6 Capital. Please go ahead. Hey, Paul. On the spot on the premiums, you reported that you've seen as high as $0.25. Doesn't look like you got near that during the quarter. Can you just review how that ramps up in the quarter and if we should expect $0.25 going forward? Is that where we're at? That's it. Yeah. We work off of the more or less a fixed basis on the premiums themselves. As the market moves, we don't necessarily see that immediately. We do get a number of adjustments or a couple of adjustments during the year on that. In going forward through 2022, as I've mentioned, there's currently both the metal and the concentrate contracts are under negotiation, so it's difficult to say right now exactly what would fall in there. Certainly there would be a positive impact that would be felt by us on, for us on the premiums. To what extent, it's at this time still difficult to note. Again, some of those premiums, as with the treatment charges and even, we noted that there was a very high peak of zinc prices in the quarter. Those are sort of anomalies within the system and on the premiums as well. There was some thin trading that created that $0.25 peak, if you will. It's still demonstrating that the market is very healthy in the favor of smelters with respect to not only commodity prices, sulfuric acid, but also premiums and treatment charges. Very positive developments on the market side of things. Okay. If nothing changes going forward with Glencore, should we expect the premiums to be higher than they were in the first quarter? I would expect that our premiums would move in, at least in the right direction with the market, yes. Thank you. Perhaps not 100% elastic, but at least moving in the right direction for our bottom line. Is there any Cap? No, there's no Cap. It's all market-driven and negotiation-driven, I guess. I guess a part of that piece maybe to be concerned about or just to take into account, Ben, on when you're modeling stuff on the premiums is that, a part of those premiums are there to compensate for not only the supply and demand in the local markets, but also on transportation costs. As with every other sector, that supply chain is challenged and transportation costs are increasing. Part of that increase is there to compensate for higher transportation costs. It's not free money. There is a certain cost to that. You'd need to take some assumptions into your model with respect to higher transportation costs as well. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating.