1. ORGANIZATION

P. H. Glatfelter Company and subsidiaries (“Glatfelter”) is a manufacturer of specialty papers and engineered products. Headquartered in York, Pennsylvania, our manufacturing facilities are located in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania; Neenah, Wisconsin; Gernsbach, Germany; Scaër, France and the Philippines. Our products are marketed throughout the United States and in many foreign countries, either through wholesale paper merchants, brokers and agents or directly to customers.

2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

These unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements (“Financial Statements”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and include the accounts of Glatfelter and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. These Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Glatfelter’s 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These Financial Statements do not include all of the information and notes required for complete financial statements. In management’s opinion, these Financial Statements reflect all adjustments, which are of a normal, recurring nature, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. Results for these interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

Stock-based Compensation We account for Stock-based compensation in accordance with APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations, as permitted by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” Compensation expense for both restricted stock and performance stock awards is recognized ratably over the performance period based on changes in quoted market prices of Glatfelter stock and the likelihood of achieving the performance goals. This variable plan accounting recognition is due to the uncertainty of achieving performance goals and estimating the number of shares ultimately to be issued. Compensation expense for awards of nonvested Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) is recognized over their graded vesting period

based on the grant-date value. The grant-date value is determined based on the grant-date closing price of Glatfelter common stock. The exercise price of all employee stock options is at least equal to their grant-date market value. Accordingly, no compensation expense is recorded for stock options granted to employees.

Pro Forma Information No compensation expense has been recognized for the issuance of non-qualified stock options. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during 2004 and 2003 was $3.32 and $2.72, respectively. The following table sets forth pro forma information as if compensation expense for all stock-based compensation had been determined consistent with the fair value method of SFAS No. 123.

3. RECENT PRONOUNCEMENTS

Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (“FIN 46”), issued in January 2003, clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, “Consolidated Financial Statements,” to certain entities in which equity investors do not have the characteristics of a controlling financial interest or do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties. FIN 46 applies immediately to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003, and must be applied in the first period beginning after December 15, 2003 for entities in which an enterprise holds a variable interest entity that it acquired before February 1, 2003. We do not have entities with these characteristics. Accordingly, the provisions of FIN 46 and related revisions, FIN 46R, had no impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In May 2004, FASB Staff Position FAS No. 106-2 (“FSP FAS 106-2”), “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” (“the 2003 Act”) was issued. FSP FAS 106-2 is applicable to employers that sponsor benefit plans providing post-age 65 prescription drug benefits and that are expected to receive a subsidy provided by the 2003 Act. FSP FAS 106-2 was effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2004. The 2003 Act was not considered to be a “significant event” for our plan and the adoption of FSP FAS 106-2 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

4. RESTRUCTURING RESERVES

North American Restructuring Program The North American Restructuring Program, which was initiated in the second quarter of 2004, is designed to improve operating results by enhancing product and service offerings in Printing & Converting Papers’ book publishing markets, growing revenue from uncoated specialty papers, reducing our workforce at our Spring Grove facility by approximately 20%, and implementing improved supply chain management processes. In conjunction with this initiative, we negotiated a new labor agreement that enables us to achieve, during 2005, targeted workforce reduction levels at our Spring Grove, PA facility. As part of the new labor agreement, we offered a voluntary early retirement benefits package to eligible employees. These special termination benefits resulted in a charge of $16.5 million in the third quarter of 2004, substantially all of

which is for enhanced pension benefits, post-retirement medical benefits and other related employee severance costs. In addition, during the second quarter of 2004, we recorded restructuring charges totaling $0.7 million, for severance and related pension and other post employment benefits (“OPEB”) associated with the elimination of certain non-represented positions. The following table sets forth activity in the North American Restructuring Program restructuring reserve.

The ending balance set forth above represents the portion of the North American Restructuring Program charges that is expected to require near term cash payments from us and primarily consist of severance and benefits continuation. Amounts representing enhanced pension benefits will be paid from our pension plan assets and are recorded as a reduction to the carrying value of our prepaid pension assets. The amounts for OPEB benefits were recorded as “Other long-term liabilities” in the accompanying condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We will pay the OPEB benefits as they are incurred over the course of the affected employees’ benefit period, which could range up to 8 years.

2003 Neenah Restructuring In September 2003, we announced the decision to permanently shut down a paper making machine and the deinking process at our Neenah, WI facility and eliminate approximately 50% of the workforce. The machine and processes abandoned had been primarily supporting our Printing & Converting Papers business unit. The following table summarizes activity in our Neenah Restructuring reserve during 2004:

During 2004, we accrued additional severance related costs attributable to the workforce reduction at the Neenah facility. As of September 30, 2004, the amounts accrued related to the Neenah restructuring represent only those charges that are expected to result in cash payments and primarily consist of severance payments and benefits continuation.

In October 2004, in connection with this initiative, we entered into an agreement to modify a steam supply contract at the Neenah facility which required us to pay $3.0 million. This will be recorded as a restructuring charge in the fourth quarter of 2004.

5. GAIN ON DISPOSITIONS OF PLANT, EQUIPMENT AND TIMBERLANDS

During the first nine months of 2004 and 2003, we completed sales of timberlands and, in 2004, the corporate aircraft. The following table summarizes these transactions.

All property sales completed in 2004 were sold for cash. As consideration for the timberlands sold in 2003, we received a 10-year note from a subsidiary of The Conservation Fund in the principal amount of $37.9 million (the “Note”), which is included in “Other assets” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

6. EARNINGS PER SHARE

The following table sets forth the details of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”):

The following table sets forth the potential common shares outstanding for options to purchase shares of common stock and restricted stock awards that were outstanding but were not included in the computation of diluted EPS for the period indicated, because their effect would be anti-dilutive.

7. GAIN ON INSURANCE RECOVERIES

During the first nine months of 2004, we reached successful resolution of certain claims under insurance policies related to the Fox River environmental matter. Insurance recoveries included in the results of operations for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2004 totaled $7.3 million and $32.8 million, respectively, and were received in cash prior to September 30, 2004.

8. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

During 2004, 165,680 nonvested RSUs were awarded, under the 1992 Key Employee Long-Term Incentive Plan, to executive officers and other key employees. Under terms of the awards, the RSUs vest based solely on the passage of time on a graded scale over a three-year to five-year period. On the grant date, the RSUs were valued at $1.8 million and were recorded as “Deferred compensation,” a contra-equity account in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Stock-based compensation expense with respect to the RSUs totaled $0.4 million during the first nine months of 2004.

9. RETIREMENT PLANS AND OTHER POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

We have both funded and, with respect to our international operations, unfunded noncontributory defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all of our employees. The benefits are based, in the case of certain plans, on average salary and years of service and, in the case of other plans, on a fixed amount for each year of service. Plan provisions and funding meet the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. A December 31 measurement date is used for all defined benefit plans.

We also provide certain healthcare benefits to eligible U.S. retired employees. These benefits include a comprehensive medical plan for retirees prior to age 65, and fixed supplemental premium payments to retirees over age 65 to help defray the costs of Medicare. The plan is not funded and claims are paid as reported.

The following tables set forth information with respect to our defined benefit plans.

10. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

In July 2003, we sold our Wisches, France subsidiary for approximately $2.0 million and the assumption of approximately $1.1 million of debt owed to us by our subsidiary. At closing we received $1.7 million and the remaining amounts are to be paid in annual installments, the first of which was received in July 2004. This subsidiary is reported as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Prior to the sale, the underlying assets were recorded at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell. Revenue included in determining results from discontinued operations totaled $1.3 million and $2.6 million in the first three months and first nine months of 2003, respectively. This operation was previously reported in the Engineered Products business unit.

11. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

The following tables set forth comprehensive income and its components:

12. INVENTORIES

Inventories, net of reserves, were as follows:

13. LONG-TERM DEBT

Long-term debt is summarized as follows:

In 2002, we entered into an unsecured $125 million multi-currency revolving credit facility due June 2006, (the “Facility”) with a syndicate of four major banks. The Facility enables Glatfelter or its subsidiaries to borrow up to the equivalent of $125.0 million in certain currencies. Borrowings can be made for any time period from one day to nine months and incur interest based on the domestic prime rate or a Eurocurrency rate, at our option, plus a margin ranging from .525 to 1.05. The margin and a facility fee on the commitment balance are based on the higher of our debt ratings as published by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. The Facility requires us to meet certain leverage and interest coverage ratios, with both of which we were in compliance at September 30, 2004.

On July 22, 1997, we issued $150.0 million principal amount of 6 7/8% Notes due July 15, 2007. Interest on the Notes is payable semiannually on January 15 and July 15. The Notes are redeemable, in whole or in part, at our option at any time at a calculated redemption price plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption, and constitute unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness.

On March 21, 2003, we sold approximately 25,500 acres of timberlands and received as consideration a $37.9 million 10-year interest bearing note receivable from the timberland buyer. We pledged the Note as collateral under a $34.0 million promissory note payable to SunTrust Financial (the “Note Payable”). The Note Payable bears interest at a fixed rate of 3.82% for five years at which time we can elect to renew the obligation.

P. H. Glatfelter Company guarantees debt obligations of all its subsidiaries. All such obligations are recorded in these condensed consolidated financial statements.

At September 30, 2004, we had $4.0 million of letters of credit issued to us by a financial institution. The letters of credit are for the benefit of certain state workers compensation insurance agencies in conjunction with our self-insurance program. No amounts were outstanding under the letters of credit. We bear the credit risk on this amount to the extent that we do not comply with the provisions of certain agreements. The letters of credit do not reduce the amount available under our lines of credit.

14. FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES

In conjunction with our 2002 refinancing, we entered into a cross-currency swap transaction effective June 24, 2002. Under this transaction, we swapped $70.0 million for approximately €73.0 million, pay interest on the Euro portion of the swap at a floating Eurocurrency Rate, plus applicable margins, and receive interest on the dollar portion of the swap at a floating U.S. Dollar LIBOR, plus applicable margins. The contract matures on June 24, 2006. The cross-currency swap is designed to provide protection from the impact that changes in currency rates have on certain U.S. dollar-denominated inter-company obligations recorded at our subsidiary in Gernsbach, Germany.

The cross-currency swap is recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value of $(20.0) million and $(22.0) million at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively, under the caption “Other long-term liabilities.” Changes in fair value are recognized in current earnings as “Other income (expenses)” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. The mark-to-market adjustment was offset by the related remeasurement of the U.S. dollar denominated inter-company obligations.

The credit risks associated with any financial derivatives we may enter into are controlled through the evaluation and monitoring of creditworthiness of the counterparties. Although counterparties may expose us to losses in the event of nonperformance, we do not expect such losses, if any, to be significant.

15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Ecusta Division Matters In August 2001, pursuant to an acquisition agreement (the “Acquisition Agreement”), we sold the assets of our Ecusta Division to four related entities, consisting of Purico (IOM) Limited, an Isle of Man limited liability company (“Purico”), and RF&Son Inc. (“RF”), RFS US Inc. (“RFS US”) and RFS Ecusta Inc. (“RFS Ecusta”), each of which is a Delaware corporation, (collectively, the “Buyers”).

In August 2002, the Buyers shut down the manufacturing operation of the pulp and paper mill in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina, which was the most significant operation of the Ecusta Division. On October 23, 2002, RFS Ecusta and RFS US filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. During the fourth quarter of 2002, in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition Agreement, we notified the Buyers of third party claims (“Third Party Claims”) made against us for which we are seeking indemnification from the Buyers. The Third Party Claims primarily relate to certain post-retirement benefits, workers compensation claims and vendor payables.

Effective August 8, 2003, the assets of RFS Ecusta and RFS US, which substantially consist of the pulp and paper mill and related real property, were sold to several third parties unrelated to the Buyers (the “New Buyers”). We understand the New Buyers’ business plan was to continue certain mill-related operations and to convert portions of the mill site into a business park.

Beginning in April 2003, governmental authorities, including the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (“NCDENR”), initiated discussions with us and the New Buyers regarding, among other environmental issues, certain potential landfill closure liabilities (“Landfill Closure Costs”) associated with the Ecusta mill and its properties. The discussions focused on NCDENR’s desire to establish a plan and secure financial resources to close three landfills located at the Ecusta facility and to address other environmental matters at the facility. During the third quarter of 2003, the discussions ended with NCDENR’s conclusion to hold us responsible for the closure of the landfills. We intend to pursue reimbursement for any such Landfill Closure Costs from the Buyers under the indemnification provisions of the Acquisition Agreement.

Based on our analysis of currently available information and our landfill closure experience, we estimate the Landfill Closure Costs will total approximately $7.6

million. During 2003, we established a reserve in this amount through charges to our results of operations. As of September 30, 2004, our reserve for Landfill Closure Costs declined to $6.9 million, reflecting costs paid to date.

In addition to Landfill Closure Costs, prior to 2003 we had recorded liabilities for Third Party Claims, primarily related to workers compensation claims and certain post-retirement benefits totaling approximately $2.7 million. We intend to pursue reimbursement for any Third Party Claims from the Buyers under the indemnification provisions of the Acquisition Agreement.

We continue to believe the Buyers are responsible for the Landfill Closure Costs and the Third Party Claims, and believe we have a strong legal basis to seek indemnification. We intend to pursue appropriate avenues to enforce the provisions of the Acquisition Agreement.

On November 1, 2004, we became aware that the bankruptcy trustee for the estates of RFS Ecusta and RFS US had filed a complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain of the Buyers and other related parties (“Defendant Buyers”) and us. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendant Buyers engaged in fraud and fraudulent transfers and breached their fiduciary duties. With respect to Glatfelter, the complaint alleges that we aided and abetted the Defendant Buyers in their purported actions in the Defendant Buyers’ structuring of the acquisition of the Ecusta Division and asserts a claim against us under the Bankruptcy Code. The trustee seeks damages from us in an amount not less than $25.8 million, plus interest, and other relief. Since we just became aware of this action and we are currently evaluating the merits of the complaint, we are unable to predict what our ultimate exposure to potential losses, if any, may be. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action.

In another recently-filed complaint against us, certain banks and other parties, also filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the bankruptcy trustee seeks, among other things damages totaling $6.5 million for alleged breaches of the Acquisition Agreement (the “Breach Claims”), release of certain amounts held in escrow totaling $3.5 million (the “Escrow Claims”) and recoveries of unspecified amounts allegedly payable under the Acquisition Agreement and a related agreement. As we previously disclosed, we were first notified of the potential Breach Claims in July 2002, which are primarily related to the physical condition of the Ecusta mill at the time of sale. We believe these claims are without merit. With respect to the Escrow

Claims, the trustee seeks the release of certain amounts held in escrow related to the sale of the Ecusta Division, of which $2.0 million was escrowed at the time of closing in the event of claims arising such as those asserted in the Breach Claim. The Escrow Claims also include amounts alleged to total $1.5 million arising from sales by us of certain properties at or around the Ecusta mill. We have previously reserved such escrowed amounts and they are recorded in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as “Other long-term liabilities.” We are currently evaluating the complaint and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this action.

Further, governmental authorities are continuing to monitor the environmental conditions at the Ecusta mill. We are uncertain as to what additional Ecusta-related claims, including environmental matters, if any, may be asserted against us. In September 2004, one of the New Buyers entered into a Brownfield Agreement with the NCDENR relating to the Ecusta mill. We believe that the New Buyers continue to have discussions with the governmental authorities concerning certain other environmental related matters at the former Ecusta facility. The likelihood and extent of potential claims against us could be mitigated by the successful execution of the New Buyers’ business plan. Should any claims be made against us, we would seek indemnification to the extent possible in accordance with the terms of the Acquisition Agreement. We cannot ascertain at this time what additional impact, if any, these matters will have on our consolidated financial position and/or results of operations, and no amounts with respect thereto have been recorded.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to loss contingencies resulting from regulation by various federal, state, local and foreign governmental authorities with respect to the environmental impact of our mills. To comply with environmental laws and regulations, we have incurred substantial capital and operating expenditures in past years. We anticipate that environmental regulation of our operations will continue to become more burdensome and that capital and operating expenditures necessary to comply with environmental regulations will continue, and perhaps increase, in the future. In addition, we may incur obligations to remove or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment resulting from our operations, including the restoration of natural resources and liability for personal injury and for damages to property and natural resources. Because environmental regulations are not consistent worldwide, our ability to compete in the world marketplace may be adversely affected by capital and operating expenditures required for environmental compliance.

Spring Grove, Pennsylvania We are subject to the “Cluster Rule,” a 1998 federal regulation in which the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) aims to regulate air and water emissions from certain pulp and paper mills, including kraft pulp mills, such as our Spring Grove facility. Issued under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the Cluster Rule establishes baseline emissions limits for toxic and conventional pollutant releases to both water and air.

We undertook an initiative at our Spring Grove facility under the Voluntary Advanced Technical Incentive Program set forth by the EPA in the Cluster Rule. This initiative, the “New Century Project,” required capital expenditures of approximately $36 million, substantially all of which was made prior to 2004. The New Century Project included improvements in brownstock washing, installation of an oxygen delignification bleaching process, 100% chlorine dioxide substitution, and a hardwood ozone bleaching system.

In 1999, the Pennsylvania DEP issued to us a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) alleging violations of air pollution control laws primarily for purportedly failing to obtain appropriate pre-construction air quality permits in conjunction with the installation of a turbine generator at our Spring Grove facility.

The Pennsylvania DEP’s NOV pertained to a modification for which we did not receive a pre-construction permit. In October 2004, we entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with the Pennsylvania DEP that requires us to pay a $0.1 million penalty, complete certain other corrective actions and install an air pollution control device at the Spring Grove facility. This agreement did not have a material impact our consolidated financial position and our results of operations.

Neenah, Wisconsin We have previously reported with respect to potential environmental claims arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay, downstream of our Neenah, Wisconsin facility. We acquired the Neenah facility in 1979 as part of the acquisition of the Bergstrom Paper Company. In part, this facility used wastepaper as a source of fiber. At no time did the Neenah facility utilize PCBs in the pulp and paper making process, but discharges from the facility containing PCBs from wastepaper may have occurred from 1954 to the late 1970s. Any PCBs that the Neenah facility discharged into the Fox River resulted from the presence of NCR®-brand carbonless copy paper in the wastepaper that was received from others and recycled.

As described below, various state and federal governmental agencies have formally notified nine potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”), including us, that they are potentially responsible for response costs and “natural resource damages” (“NRDs”) arising from PCB contamination in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and other statutes. The other identified PRPs are NCR Corporation, Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia Pacific Corp. (formerly Fort Howard Corp. and Fort James), WTM I Co. (a subsidiary of Chesapeake Corp.), Riverside Paper Corporation, U.S. Paper Mills Corp. (a subsidiary of Sonoco Products Company), Sonoco Products Company, and Menasha Corporation.

CERCLA establishes a two-part liability structure that makes responsible parties liable for (1) “response costs” associated with the remediation of a release of hazardous substances and (2) NRDs related to that release. Courts have interpreted CERCLA to impose joint and several liabilities on responsible parties for response costs, subject to equitable allocation in certain instances. Prior to a final settlement by all responsible parties and the final cleanup of the contamination, uncertainty regarding the application of such liability will persist.

The areas of the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay in which the contamination exists are commonly referred to as Operable Unit 1 (“OU1”), which consists of Little Lake Butte des Morts, the portion of the river that is closest to our Neenah facility, Operable Unit 2 (“OU2”) which is the portion of the river between dams at Appleton and Little Rapids and Operable Units 3 through 5 (“OU3-5”), an area approximately 20 miles downstream of our Neenah facility.

The following summarizes the status of our potential exposure:

Response Actions

OU1 and OU2 On January 7, 2003, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (the “Wisconsin DNR”) and EPA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the cleanup of OU1 and OU2. Subject to extenuating circumstances and alternative solutions arising during the cleanup, the ROD requires the removal of approximately 784,000 cubic yards of sediment from OU1 and no active remediation of OU2. The ROD also requires the monitoring of the two operable units. Wisconsin DNR and EPA estimate that the remedy for these two reaches will cost approximately $75 million but could cost within a range from approximately $52 million to $112 million.

On July 1, 2003, WTM I entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (“AOC”) with EPA and the Wisconsin DNR regarding the implementation of the Remedial Design for OU1.

On October 1, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice lodged a consent decree regarding OU1 (“the OU1 Consent Decree”) with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In the first quarter of 2004, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered the OU1 Consent Decree. Under terms of the OU1 Consent Decree, Glatfelter and WTM I each agreed to pay approximately $27 million. This includes $25.5 million from each to be escrowed to fund response work associated with remedial actions specified in the ROD. In addition, EPA agreed to take steps to place $10 million from another source into escrow for the OU1 cleanup. The response work will be managed and/or performed by Glatfelter and WTM I, with governmental oversight, and funded by the amounts placed into escrow. Based on information currently available to us, we believe the required remedial actions can be completed with the amount of monies committed under the Consent Decree. If the Consent Decree is terminated due to an insufficiency of escrow funds, Glatfelter and WTM I each remain potentially responsible for the costs necessary to complete the remedial actions.

The terms of the OU1 Consent Decree include provisions to be followed should the escrow account be depleted prior to completion of the response work. In this event, each company would be notified and be provided an opportunity to contribute additional funds to the escrow account and thereby to preserve the OU1 Consent Decree. Should the OU1 Consent Decree be terminated for this reason, each company would lose the protections contained in the settlement and the governments may turn to one or both parties for the completion of OU1 clean up. In such a situation, the governments may also seek response work from a third party, or perform the work themselves and seek response costs from any of the identified PRPs, including Glatfelter.

The following table sets forth payments made by us pursuant to the terms of the OU1 Consent Decree:

During the first nine months of 2004, pursuant to the terms of the OU1 Consent Decree, we transferred approximately $26.3 million to an escrow account at a financial institution. The terms of the OU1 Consent Decree and the underlying escrow agreement restrict the use of the funds to qualifying remediation activities or restoration activities at the lower Fox River. In mid 2004, together with WTM I, we began activities to remediate the area known as OU1. These activities included, among others, construction of de-watering and water-treatment facilities, and commencement of dredging of portions of the OU1.

At September 30, 2004, $7.2 million of our portion of the escrow account is recorded in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet under the caption “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and $15.8 million is included under the caption “Other assets.”

The OU1 Consent Decree required that each company pay the governments $375,000 for past response costs. These payments were made in return for credit to be applied toward each settling company’s potential liability for governmental response costs associated with the entire river. The OU1 Consent Decree also required the companies to pay certain NRD-related amounts, which are discussed below.

OU3 — 5 On July 28, 2003, the EPA and the Wisconsin DNR issued a ROD (the “Second ROD”) for the cleanup of OU3 — 5. The Second ROD calls for the removal of 6.5 million cubic yards of sediment and certain monitoring at an estimated cost of $324.4 million but could, according to the Second ROD, cost within a range from approximately $227.0 million to $486.6 million. The most significant component of the estimated costs is attributable to large-scale sediment removal by dredging.

During the first quarter of 2004, NCR Corp. and Georgia Pacific Corp. entered into an AOC with the United States EPA under which they agreed to perform the Remedial Design for OU3-5, thereby accomplishing a first step towards remediation.

We do not believe that we have more than a de minimis share of any equitable distribution of responsibility for

OU3-5 after taking into account the location of our Neenah facility relative to the site and considering other work or funds committed or expended by us. However, uncertainty regarding responsibilities for the cleanup of these sites continues due to disagreement over a fair allocation or apportionment of responsibility.

Natural Resource Damages

The ROD and Second ROD do not place any value on claims for NRDs associated with this matter. As noted above, NRD claims are distinct from costs related to the primary remediation of a Superfund site. Calculating the value of NRD claims is difficult, especially in the absence of a completed remedy for the underlying contamination. The State of Wisconsin, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), four Indian tribes and the Michigan Attorney General have asserted that they possess NRD claims related to the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay.

In June 1994, FWS notified the then identified PRPs that it considered them potentially responsible for NRDs. The federal, tribal and Michigan agencies claiming to be NRD trustees have proceeded with the preparation of an NRD assessment. While the final assessment has yet to be completed, the federal trustees released a plan on October 25, 2000 that values their NRDs for injured natural resources between $176 million and $333 million. We believe that the federal NRD assessment is technically and procedurally flawed. We also believe that the NRD claims alleged by the various alleged trustees are legally and factually without merit.

On March 19, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered a consent decree among the United States, the State of Wisconsin and the Fort James Operating Company (“Fort James”). The consent decree resolves certain outstanding claims, primarily NRD claims, against Fort James and a related entity. Under the terms of the consent decree, Fort James would pay $6.2 million in cash to the United States and the State of Wisconsin in settlement of various claims related to NRDs and cost recovery related to dredging of sediments at Deposits 56/57 (downstream from OU1 and OU2). Fort James also agrees to convey 1,063 acres of land to the State and to perform delineated NRD “restoration” projects at a cost of up to $3.9 million.

Because the factual and legal justification the plaintiffs provided for the settlement is both vague and specific to the Fort James situation, and because the court’s decision entering the decree is similarly situation specific, we are not able to extrapolate an estimated

settlement amount for Glatfelter from the Fort James consent decree.

The OU1 Consent Decree required that Glatfelter and WTM I each pay the governments $1.5 million for NRDs for the Fox River site, and $150,000 for NRD assessment costs. Each of these payments was made in return for credit to be applied toward each settling company’s potential liability for NRDs associated with the entire river.

Other Information

The Wisconsin DNR and FWS have published studies, the latter in draft form, estimating the amount of PCBs discharged by each identified PRP to the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay. These reports estimate our Neenah facility’s share of the volumetric discharge to be as high as 27%. We do not believe the volumetric estimates used in these studies are accurate because the studies themselves disclose that they are not accurate and are based on assumptions for which there exists no evidence. We believe that our volumetric contribution is significantly lower than the estimates. Further, we do not believe that a volumetric allocation would constitute an equitable distribution of the potential liability for the contamination. Other factors, such as the location of contamination, location of discharge and a party’s role in causing discharge must be considered in order for the allocation to be equitable.

We have entered into interim cost-sharing agreements with four of the other PRPs, pursuant to which such PRPs have agreed to share both defense costs and costs for scientific studies relating to PCBs discharged into the lower Fox River. These interim cost-sharing agreements have no bearing on the final allocation of costs related to this matter. Based upon our evaluation of the magnitude, nature and location of the various discharges of PCBs to the river and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination, we believe our share of any liability among the identified PRPs is much less than our per capita share of the cost sharing agreement.

We also believe that there exist additional potentially responsible parties other than the identified PRPs. For instance, certain of the identified PRPs discharged their wastewater through public wastewater treatment facilities, which we believe makes the owners of such facilities potentially responsible in this matter. We also believe that entities providing wastepaper containing PCBs to each of the recycling mills are also potentially responsible for this matter.

We believe the OU1 Consent Decree is a significant milestone in our continuing negotiations to resolve any exposure we may have with regard to the Fox River site

and that the agreement provides further clarity on the financial commitment that may be required of us. Notwithstanding these developments, the OU1 Consent Decree does not completely resolve our potential liability related to the Fox River site. We continue to believe that this matter may result in litigation, but cannot predict the timing, nature, extent or magnitude of such litigation. We currently are unable to predict our ultimate cost related to this matter.

Reserves for Environmental Liabilities We have reserves for environmental liabilities with contractual obligations and for those environmental matters for which it is probable that a claim will be made, that an obligation may exist and for which the amount of the obligation is reasonably estimable. The following table summarizes information with respect to such reserves as of September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003.

The classification of our environmental liabilities is based on the development of the underlying remediation plan and execution of the related escrow agreement for the funding thereof. The reserve balance declined as a result of payments associated with the OU1 Consent Decree and items related to the Fox River matter. We did not record charges to our results of operations during 2004 or 2003 related to these matters.

Other than with respect to the OU1 Consent Decree, the amount and timing of future expenditures for environmental compliance, cleanup, remediation and personal injury, NRDs and property damage liabilities cannot be ascertained with any certainty due to, among other things, the unknown extent and nature of any contamination, the extent and timing of any technological advances for pollution abatement, the response actions that may be required, the availability of qualified remediation contractors, equipment and landfill space and the number and financial resources of any other parties.

Range of Reasonably Possible Outcomes — Neenah, Wisconsin Based on currently available information, we believe that the remediation of OU1 will be satisfactorily completed for the amounts expected to be committed under the OU1 Consent Decree. The OU1 Consent Decree does not address response costs necessary to remediate the remainder of the Fox River site and only addresses NRDs and claims for reimbursement of government expenses to a limited

extent. Due to judicial interpretations that find CERCLA imposes joint and several liability, uncertainty persists regarding our exposure with respect to the remainder of the Fox River site.

Based on analysis of currently available information and experience regarding the cleanup of hazardous substances, we believe that it is reasonably possible that our costs associated with the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay may exceed current reserves by amounts that may prove to be insignificant or that could range, in the aggregate, up to approximately $125 million, over a period that is undeterminable but could range beyond 20 years. We believe that the likelihood of an outcome in the upper end of the monetary range is significantly less than other possible outcomes within the range and that the possibility of an outcome in excess of the upper end of the monetary range is remote.

In our estimate of the upper end of the range, we have considered: (i) the remedial actions agreed to in the OU1 Consent Decree and our belief that the required actions can be accomplished with the funds to be escrowed under the OU1 Consent Decree; and (ii) no active remediation of OU2. We have also assumed dredging for the remainder of the River and the Bay of Green Bay, as set forth in the Second ROD, although at a significantly higher cost than estimated in the Second ROD. We have also assumed our share of the ultimate liability to be 18%, which is significantly higher than we believe is appropriate or than we will incur and a level of NRD claims and claims for reimbursement of expenses from other parties that, although reasonably possible, is unlikely.

In estimating both our current reserves for environmental remediation and other environmental liabilities and the possible range of additional costs, we have not assumed that we will bear the entire cost of remediation and damages to the exclusion of other known PRPs who may be jointly and severally liable. The ability of other PRPs to participate has been taken into account, generally based on their financial condition and probable contribution. Our evaluation of the other PRPs’ financial condition included the review of publicly disclosed financial information. Furthermore, we believe certain of these PRPs have corporate or contractual relationships with additional entities that may shift monetary obligations arising from the lower Fox River and Bay of Green Bay. The relative probable contribution is based upon our knowledge that at least two PRPs manufactured the paper and arranged for the disposal of the wastepaper that included the PCBs and as such, in our opinion, bear a higher level of responsibility.

In addition, our assessment is based upon the magnitude, nature and location of the various

discharges of PCBs to the river and the relationship of those discharges to identified contamination. We have also considered that over a number of years, certain facilities were under the ownership of large multinational companies that appear to retain some liability for this matter. We continue to evaluate our exposure and the level of our reserves, including, but not limited to, our potential share of the costs and NRDs, if any, associated with the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay.

We believe that we are insured against certain losses related to the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay, depending on the nature and amount of the losses. On July 30, 2003, we filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, against our insurers, seeking damages for breach of contract and declaratory relief related to such losses. One of the insurers that is a defendant in our Wisconsin litigation has filed a counter-suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The filing of our lawsuit followed the issuance of a Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion regarding environmental coverage issues that is favorable to policyholders. During the first nine months of 2004, we reached successful resolution of certain claims under insurance policies related to the Fox River environmental matter. Insurance recoveries included in the results of operations for the first nine months of 2004 totaled $32.8 million and were fully received in cash prior to September 30, 2004.

Summary Our current assessment is that we should be able to manage these environmental matters without a long-term, material adverse impact on the Company. These matters could, however, at any particular time or for any particular year or years, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and/or results of operations or could result in a default under our loan covenants. Moreover, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate to provide for future obligations related to these matters, that our share of costs and/or damages for these matters will not exceed our available resources, or that such obligations will not have a long-term, material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. With regard to the lower Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay, if we are not successful in managing the implementation of the OU1 Consent Decree and/or if we are ordered to implement the remedy proposed in the Second ROD, such developments would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity and results of operations and may result in a default under our loan covenants.

We are also involved in other lawsuits that are ordinary and incidental to our business. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty; however, we do not expect that such lawsuits in the aggregate or individually will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

16. SEGMENT INFORMATION

We manage our organization along separate business units: Engineered Products, Long-Fiber & Overlay Papers, and Printing & Converting Papers, as well as Tobacco Papers, which were sold pursuant to a supply agreement that expired in mid-2004. Effective January 1, 2004, we implemented organizational changes and as a result we realigned and reclassified the presentation of certain product offerings of the business units. The following segment data for prior periods has been restated to give effect to the further refinement of our organizational structure discussed above.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the information in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included herein and Glatfelter’s Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in its 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact, including statements regarding industry prospects and future consolidated financial position or results of operations, made in this Report on Form 10-Q are forward looking. We use words such as “expects”, “will continue”, “estimates”, “we believe”, and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements reflect our current expectations and are inherently uncertain. Our actual results may differ significantly from our expectations. The following discussion includes forward-looking statements regarding expectations of, among others, net sales, costs of products sold, restructuring charges, non-cash pension income, environmental costs and liquidity, all of which are inherently difficult to predict. Although we make such statements based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable, there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from our expectations. Accordingly, we identify the following important factors, among others, which could cause our results to differ from any results that might be projected, forecasted or estimated in any such forward-looking statements:

i.		variations in demand for, or pricing of, our products;
ii.		changes in the cost or availability of raw materials we use, in particular market pulp, pulp substitutes, abaca fiber, and changes in energy-related costs;
iii.		our ability to develop new, high value-added Engineered Products and Long Fiber & Overlay Papers;
iv.		the impact of competition, changes in industry paper production capacity, including the construction of new mills, the closing of mills and incremental changes due to capital expenditures or productivity increases;
v.		our ability to execute our North American Restructuring Program, growth strategies and cost reduction initiatives;

vi.		cost and other effects of environmental compliance, cleanup, damages, remediation or restoration, or personal injury or property damages related thereto, such as the costs of natural resource restoration or damages related to the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in the lower Fox River on which our Neenah mill is located; and the costs of environmental matters at our former Ecusta Division mill;
vii.		the gain or loss of significant customers and/or on-going viability of such customers;
viii.		risks associated with our international operations, including local economic and political environments and fluctuations in currency exchange rates;
ix.		geopolitical events, including war and terrorism;
x.		enactment of adverse state, federal or foreign tax or other legislation or changes in government policy or regulation;
xi.		adverse results in litigation;
xii.		disruptions in production and/or increased costs due to labor disputes;
xiii.		our ability to realize the value of our timberlands;
xiv.		the recovery of environmental-related losses under our insurance policies; and
xv.		our ability to identify, finance and consummate future alliances or acquisitions.

Introduction

We manufacture, both domestically and internationally, a wide array of specialty papers and engineered products. Substantially all of our revenue is earned from the sale of our products to customers in numerous markets, including book publishing, food and beverage, decorative laminates for furniture and flooring, and other highly technical niche markets.

A number of events occurred that impacted our results of operations and financial condition in the first nine months of 2004, including:

•		Unit volumes in our Engineered Products and Long Fiber & Overlay Papers business units increased by 11% and 14%, respectively, when compared with the same period a year ago.
•		Pricing in our Printing & Converting Papers business declined throughout 2003 and, as a result, was lower in the first nine of 2004 compared to the same period of 2003. However, throughout most of 2004, pricing has strengthened.
•		Approximately 58% of total sales were from products developed, enhanced or improved in the last five years.

•		We completed $32.7 million in sales of timberlands and successfully negotiated the receipt of $32.8 million in insurance recoveries related to the Fox River environmental matter, thereby strengthening our balance sheet.
•		We reduced our long-term debt outstanding by approximately $40 million since the end of 2003.

NORTH AMERICAN RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM

The North American Restructuring Program, which was initiated in the second quarter of 2004, is designed to improve operating results by enhancing product and service offerings in Printing & Converting Papers’ book publishing markets, growing revenue from uncoated specialty papers, reducing our workforce at our Spring Grove facility by approximately 20%, and implementing improved supply chain management processes. The financial benefits from these efforts began to phase-in during the third quarter of 2004, and are expected to approximate $15 million to $20 million annually, beginning in 2006.

In addition to the elimination of certain non-represented positions, we negotiated a new labor agreement that enables us to reduce workforce levels at our Spring Grove, PA facility by approximately 20%. The union membership at this location ratified the agreement on July 20, 2004. As part of the new labor agreement, we offered a voluntary early retirement benefits package to eligible employees. The acceptance of these special termination benefits resulted in a charge of $16.5 million in the third quarter of 2004, substantially all of which is for enhanced pension benefits, post-retirement medical benefits and other related employee severance costs.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

First Nine Months of 2004 Compared to First Nine Months of 2003

The following table sets forth summarized results of operations:

The consolidated results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 include the following significant items:

The above items increased earnings from continuing operations by $31.1 million, or $0.71 per diluted share, in the first nine months of 2004 and by $9.0 million, or $0.20 per share, in the comparable period of 2003.

Business Units

We manage our organization along separate business units: Engineered Products, Long Fiber & Overlay Papers and Printing & Converting Papers, as well as Tobacco Papers, which were sold pursuant to a supply agreement that expired at the end of July 2004. Effective January 1, 2004, we implemented organizational changes and as a result we realigned and reclassified the presentation of certain product offerings of the business units. All segment data herein for prior periods has been restated to give effect to the further refinement of our organizational structure discussed above.

The following table sets forth operating profit (loss) by business unit and the composition of consolidated income from continuing operations before income taxes:

Results of individual business units are presented based on our management accounting practices and management structure. There is no comprehensive, authoritative body of guidance for management accounting equivalent to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; therefore, the financial results of individual business units are not necessarily comparable with similar information for any other company. The management accounting process uses assumptions and allocations to measure performance of the business units. Methodologies are refined from time to time as management accounting practices are enhanced and businesses change. Costs to produce products sold are allocated to the respective business unit based on standard costs and a proportion of manufacturing variances. The costs incurred by support areas not directly aligned with a business unit are allocated primarily based on an estimated utilization of support area services.

Management evaluates results of operations before energy sales, non-cash pension income, restructuring related charges, unusual items and effects of asset dispositions because it believes this is a more meaningful representation of the operating performance of its core papermaking businesses, the profitability of business units and the extent of cash flow generated from core operations. This presentation is closely aligned with the management and operating structure of our Company. It is also on this basis that the Company’s performance is evaluated internally and by our Board of Directors.

Sales and Costs of Products Sold

The following table sets forth information with respect to net sales, costs of products sold and gross profit:

Net sales were substantially unchanged for the first nine months of 2004 compared to the same period of 2003. Net tons sold increased 11% and 14% in our Engineered Products and Long Fiber & Overlay business units, respectively. However, this growth was partially offset by the impact of lower tons sold by the Printing & Converting Papers business unit related to the fourth quarter of 2003 shutdown of a papermaking machine at our Neenah, WI facility. Selling prices declined, on a constant currency basis, an aggregate of $11.9 million, primarily in the Printing & Converting Papers business unit and, to a lesser extent, in Long Fiber & Overlay Papers and Engineered Products business units. Although pricing for Printing & Converting Papers’ products were lower in the first nine months of 2004 compared to the same period a year ago, they steadily improved throughout most of this year.

The favorable effect of a weaker U.S. dollar on translated results of international operations increased reported net sales by approximately $12.0 million. However, the weaker U.S. dollar relative to the Euro adversely affected the price competitiveness of Long Fiber & Overlay Papers’ products in certain geographic markets.

The following tables set forth net sales information by business unit:

Costs of products sold increased $5.6 million in the comparison primarily due to a $9.3 million unfavorable effect of foreign currency translation adjustments, a $5.3 million increase in costs due to higher purchased fiber and energy costs at the Neenah facility and transition-related operating inefficiencies related to the 2003 Neenah restructuring, partially offset by $6.4 million of lower production costs related to the decline in sales volumes.

Non-Cash Pension Income

Non-cash pension income results from the considerably over-funded status of our plans. The amount of pension income recognized each year is determined using various actuarial assumptions and certain other factors, including the fair value of our pension assets as of the beginning of the year. The following summarizes non-cash pension income for the period indicated: