e20vf
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 20-F
|
|
|
o
|
|
REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
OR
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
OR
|
o
|
|
SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
Commission file number
001-32328
MECHEL OAO
(Exact name of Registrant as
specified in its charter)
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
(Jurisdiction of incorporation
or organization)
Krasnoarmeyskaya Street 1,
Moscow 125993, Russian Federation
(Address of principal
executive offices)
Vladislav Zlenko, tel.:
+7-495-221-8888,
e-mail:
vladislav.zlenko@mechel.com
(Name, Telephone,
E-mail
and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact
Person)
Securities registered or to be
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
COMMON AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES, EACH COMMON ADS
REPRESENTING ONE COMMON SHARE
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
|
COMMON SHARES, PAR VALUE
10 RUSSIAN RUBLES PER SHARE
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE(1)
|
PREFERRED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES, EACH PREFERRED ADS
REPRESENTING ONE-HALF OF A PREFERRED SHARE
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
|
PREFERRED SHARES, PAR VALUE
10 RUSSIAN RUBLES PER SHARE
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE(2)
|
Securities registered or to be
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
(Title of
Class)
Securities for which there is a
reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Act:
None
(Title of
Class)
Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the
issuers classes of capital or common stock as of the close
of the period covered by the annual report.
416,270,745 common shares, of which 115,425,447 shares
are in the form of common ADSs as of March 31, 2011
138,756,915 preferred shares (including
55,502,766 shares held by Skyblock Limited, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mechel), of which 25,209,577 shares are in
the form of preferred ADSs as of March 31, 2011
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by
check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports
pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of
1934. Yes o No þ
Note Checking the box above will not relieve any
registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their
obligations under those Sections.
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check One):
|
|
|
Large
accelerated filer
þ
|
Accelerated filer
o
|
Non-accelerated filer
o
|
Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant
has used to prepare the financial statements included in this
filing:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. GAAP
þ
|
|
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued
by the International Accounting Standards Board
o
|
|
Other
o
|
If Other has been checked in response to the
previous question, indicate by check mark which financial
statement item the registrant has elected to follow:
Item 17
o Item 18
o
If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the
registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
(1) Listed,
not for trading or quotation purposes, but only in connection
with the registration of common ADSs pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(2) Listed,
not for trading or quotation purposes, but only in connection
with the registration of preferred ADSs pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Unless the context otherwise requires, references to
Mechel refer to Mechel OAO, and references to
our group, we, us or
our refer to Mechel OAO together with its
subsidiaries.
Our business consists of four segments: mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power. References in this document to segment
revenues are to revenues of the segment excluding intersegment
sales, unless otherwise noted.
For the purposes of calculating certain market share data, we
have included businesses that are currently part of our group
that may not have been part of our group during the period for
which such market share data is presented.
References to U.S. dollars, $ or
cents are to the currency of the United States,
references to rubles or RUR are to the
currency of the Russian Federation and references to
euro or are to the currency of
the member states of the European Union (the
E.U.) that participate in the European
Monetary Union.
The term tonne as used herein means a metric tonne.
A metric tonne is equal to 1,000 kilograms or 2,204.62 pounds.
Certain amounts that appear in this document have been subject
to rounding adjustments; accordingly, figures shown as totals in
certain tables or in the text may not be an arithmetic
aggregation of the figures that precede them.
2
CIS means the Commonwealth of Independent States,
its member states being Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
The following table sets forth by segment the official names and
location of some of our subsidiaries and their names as used in
this document:
|
|
|
|
|
Name as Used in This Document
|
|
Official Name
|
|
Location
|
|
Mining Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Russia, Kemerovo region
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine OAO
|
|
Russia, Kemerovo region
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Irkutsk region
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Port Posiet OAO
|
|
Russia, Primorsk territory
|
Yakutugol
|
|
Yakutugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
Russia, Sakha Republic
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Port Mechel Temryuk OOO
|
|
Russia, Krasnodar territory
|
Port Vanino
|
|
Port Mechel Vanino OOO
|
|
Russia, Khabarovsk territory
|
Bluestone or Bluestone companies
|
|
Bluestone Industries, Inc., Dynamic Energy, Inc., JCJ Coal
Group, LLC, and other subsidiaries carrying out the Bluestone
business
|
|
United States, West Virginia
|
Mechel Mining
|
|
Mechel Mining OAO
|
|
Russia, Novosibirsk region
|
Mechel Mining Management
|
|
Mechel Mining Management Company OOO
|
|
Russia, Kemerovo region
|
Mechel Engineering
|
|
Mechel Engineering OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Moscow Coke and Gas
Plant(1)
|
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Moscow region
|
Mechel-Coke(1)
|
|
Mechel-Coke OOO
|
|
Russia, Chelyabinsk region
|
Steel Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Chelyabinsk region
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant ZAO
|
|
Russia, Karelian Republic
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Bashkortostan Republic
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Mechel Targoviste S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
Urals Stampings Plant
|
|
Urals Stampings Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Chelyabinsk region
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Mechel Campia Turzii S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Mechel Nemunas Co. Ltd.
|
|
Lithuania
|
Izhstal
|
|
Izhstal OAO
|
|
Russia, Udmurt Republic
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Port Kambarka OAO
|
|
Russia, Udmurt Republic
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Ductil Steel S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
Mechel-Steel Management
|
|
Mechel-Steel Management OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Laminorul Plant
|
|
Laminorul S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
Ferroalloys Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Orenburg region
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant OOO
|
|
Russia, Irkutsk region
|
Oriel Resources
|
|
Oriel Resources Limited
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant ZAO
|
|
Russia, Leningrad region
|
Mechel Ferroalloys Management
|
|
Mechel Ferroalloys Management OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Power Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Kemerovo region
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company OAO
|
|
Russia, Kemerovo region
|
Mechel-Energo
|
|
Mechel-Energo OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse
|
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse EAD
|
|
Bulgaria
|
Marketing and Distribution
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Carbon
|
|
Mechel Carbon AG
|
|
Switzerland, Baar
|
Mechel Trading
|
|
Mechel Trading AG
|
|
Switzerland, Baar
|
Mechel Trading House
|
|
Mechel Trading House OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Mechel Service Global
|
|
Mechel Service Global B.V.
|
|
Netherlands
|
Mechel-Service
|
|
Mechel-Service OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
HBL Holding
|
|
HBL Holding GmbH
|
|
Germany
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Mecheltrans OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Mecheltrans Management
|
|
Mecheltrans Management OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and Mechel-Coke were transferred to
the mining segment in the second quarter of 2010. In prior
periods, they were included in our steel segment. The data for
prior periods included herein was restated accordingly to
account for these facilities in the mining segment. |
3
CAUTIONARY
NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Matters discussed in this document may constitute
forward-looking statements, as defined in the safe harbor
provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. We wish to caution you that these statements are
only predictions and that actual events or results may differ
materially. Forward-looking statements include statements
concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events
or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements,
which are other than statements of historical facts. The words
believe, expect, anticipate,
intend, estimate, forecast,
project, will, may,
should and similar expressions identify
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements appear in
a number of places including, without limitation,
Item 3. Key Information Risk
Factors, Item 4. Information on the
Company and Item 5. Operating and Financial
Review and Prospects, and include statements regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
strategies, outlook and growth prospects;
|
|
|
|
future plans and potential for future growth;
|
|
|
|
liquidity, capital resources and capital expenditures;
|
|
|
|
growth in demand for our products;
|
|
|
|
economic outlook and industry trends;
|
|
|
|
developments in our markets;
|
|
|
|
the impact of regulatory initiatives; and
|
|
|
|
the strength of our competitors.
|
The forward-looking statements in this document are based upon
various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon
further assumptions, including without limitation,
managements examination of historical operating trends,
data contained in our records and other data available from
third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were
reasonable when made, these assumptions are inherently subject
to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are
difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond our control
and we may not achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs
or projections. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors for a discussion of
important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results
to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking
statements.
Except to the extent required by law, neither we, nor any of our
agents, employees or advisers intend or have any duty or
obligation to supplement, amend, update or revise any of the
forward-looking statements contained or incorporated by
reference in this document.
4
PART I
|
|
Item 1.
|
Identity
of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Item 2.
|
Offer
Statistics and Expected Timetable
|
Not applicable.
Selected
Financial Data
The financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2010,
2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and for the years then ended, have
been derived from our consolidated financial statements. Our
reporting currency is the U.S. dollar and we prepare our
consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States
(U.S. GAAP).(1)
Our results of operations for the periods presented are
significantly affected by acquisitions. Results of operations of
these acquired businesses are included in our consolidated
financial statements for the periods after their respective
dates of acquisition. See note 1(a) to our consolidated
financial statements. The financial data below should be read in
conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to, our consolidated financial statements and Item 5.
Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income
data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
4,397,811
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(6,149,310
|
)
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
(4,166,864
|
)
|
|
|
(2,860,224
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
3,596,726
|
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
2,516,978
|
|
|
|
1,537,587
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(2,064,519
|
)
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
(1,119,385
|
)
|
|
|
(811,889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,532,207
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
|
|
725,698
|
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
(563,577
|
)
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12,146
|
)
|
|
|
139,135
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
|
968,630
|
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
1,385,447
|
|
|
|
864,833
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(276,656
|
)
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(356,320
|
)
|
|
|
(230,599
|
)
|
Income from continuing operations, net of tax
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,127
|
|
|
|
634,234
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
543
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
|
|
634,777
|
|
Less net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(34,761
|
)
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
(116,234
|
)
|
|
|
(31,528
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
(8,780
|
)
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders of Mechel
OAO
|
|
|
648,433
|
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
|
|
634,777
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(26,218
|
)
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
|
|
157,288
|
|
|
|
155,451
|
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
(9,466
|
)
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
(14,365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
4,838
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
(5,059
|
)
|
|
|
11,203
|
|
Additional minimum pension liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,669
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
661,128
|
|
|
|
(264,355
|
)
|
|
|
1,020,836
|
|
|
|
1,167,149
|
|
|
|
796,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to non-controlling
interests
|
|
|
(32,498
|
)
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
(26,822
|
)
|
|
|
(136,849
|
)
|
|
|
(38,059
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
628,630
|
|
|
|
(257,596
|
)
|
|
|
994,014
|
|
|
|
1,030,300
|
|
|
|
758,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
|
1.56
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
1.48
|
|
Income per share effect of discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
Net (loss) income per share
|
|
|
1.56
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per common share
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
|
|
1.12
|
|
|
|
0.76
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per preferred share
|
|
|
0.11
|
|
|
|
1.62
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number shares outstanding
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
408,979,356
|
|
Mining segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
3,856,165
|
|
|
|
2,111,990
|
|
|
|
4,566,354
|
|
|
|
2,294,746
|
|
|
|
1,429,404
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(1,739,350
|
)
|
|
|
(1,271,055
|
)
|
|
|
(1,698,828
|
)
|
|
|
(1,256,208
|
)
|
|
|
(894,341
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
2,116,815
|
|
|
|
840,935
|
|
|
|
2,867,526
|
|
|
|
1,038,538
|
|
|
|
535,063
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(930,923
|
)
|
|
|
(635,766
|
)
|
|
|
(1,040,352
|
)
|
|
|
(410,751
|
)
|
|
|
(337,267
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,185,892
|
|
|
|
205,169
|
|
|
|
1,827,174
|
|
|
|
627,787
|
|
|
|
197,796
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
5,833,677
|
|
|
|
3,302,302
|
|
|
|
5,360,252
|
|
|
|
4,101,762
|
|
|
|
3,079,211
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(4,727,243
|
)
|
|
|
(2,664,292
|
)
|
|
|
(3,868,358
|
)
|
|
|
(3,137,744
|
)
|
|
|
(2,246,968
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,106,434
|
|
|
|
638,010
|
|
|
|
1,491,894
|
|
|
|
964,018
|
|
|
|
832,243
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(808,877
|
)
|
|
|
(656,507
|
)
|
|
|
(745,380
|
)
|
|
|
(483,075
|
)
|
|
|
(452,445
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
297,557
|
|
|
|
(18,497
|
)
|
|
|
746,514
|
|
|
|
480,943
|
|
|
|
379,798
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment statements of income and comprehensive
income
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
629,052
|
|
|
|
430,809
|
|
|
|
584,631
|
|
|
|
636,656
|
|
|
|
339,748
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(533,928
|
)
|
|
|
(392,428
|
)
|
|
|
(571,221
|
)
|
|
|
(253,725
|
)
|
|
|
(174,675
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
|
95,124
|
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
13,410
|
|
|
|
382,931
|
|
|
|
165,073
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(72,166
|
)
|
|
|
(65,967
|
)
|
|
|
(63,986
|
)
|
|
|
(32,824
|
)
|
|
|
(17,777
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
22,958
|
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(50,576
|
)
|
|
|
350,107
|
|
|
|
147,296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(2):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
1,062,678
|
|
|
|
872,783
|
|
|
|
1,028,110
|
|
|
|
598,515
|
|
|
|
123,322
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(763,401
|
)
|
|
|
(642,512
|
)
|
|
|
(714,094
|
)
|
|
|
(393,153
|
)
|
|
|
(110,273
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
299,277
|
|
|
|
230,271
|
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
205,362
|
|
|
|
13,049
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(252,553
|
)
|
|
|
(189,569
|
)
|
|
|
(284,610
|
)
|
|
|
(192,735
|
)
|
|
|
(4,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
46,724
|
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
12,627
|
|
|
|
8,649
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated balance sheet data (at period end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
15,776,028
|
|
|
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
9,227,643
|
|
|
|
4,457,404
|
|
Equity attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
4,642,825
|
|
|
|
4,049,721
|
|
|
|
4,030,812
|
|
|
|
3,504,933
|
|
|
|
2,864,963
|
|
Equity attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
308,186
|
|
|
|
280,968
|
|
|
|
290,849
|
|
|
|
300,523
|
|
|
|
163,036
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
5,240,620
|
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
219,816
|
|
|
|
2,321,922
|
|
|
|
322,604
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated cash flows data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
(147,371
|
)
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
|
|
904,969
|
|
|
|
554,923
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(1,119,203
|
)
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
|
|
(3,408,088
|
)
|
|
|
(548,522
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
1,210,125
|
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
|
|
2,547,503
|
|
|
|
(166,798
|
)
|
Non-U.S.
GAAP
measures(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
2,015,446
|
|
|
|
686,641
|
|
|
|
3,017,103
|
|
|
|
1,718,499
|
|
|
|
1,044,777
|
|
Mining Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
1,467,936
|
|
|
|
451,952
|
|
|
|
2,129,313
|
|
|
|
768,220
|
|
|
|
309,829
|
|
Steel Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
413,577
|
|
|
|
100,170
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
|
|
630,497
|
|
|
|
572,249
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
94,431
|
|
|
|
34,940
|
|
|
|
(33,287
|
)
|
|
|
365,008
|
|
|
|
160,242
|
|
Power Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
60,426
|
|
|
|
53,721
|
|
|
|
55,854
|
|
|
|
28,709
|
|
|
|
10,299
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The value of property, plant and equipment pertaining to
noncontrolling shareholders in the accounting for
non-controlling interests resulting from acquisitions of various
subsidiaries before January 1, 2009 was recorded at
appraised values rather than at historical cost as required by
the then effective U.S. GAAP. |
|
(2) |
|
Segment revenues and cost of goods sold include intersegment
sales. |
|
(3) |
|
Adjusted EBITDA represents net income before depreciation,
depletion and amortization, foreign exchange gain/(loss),
gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value, interest expense, interest income, net result on the
disposal of
non-current
assets, amount attributable to
non-controlling
interests and income taxes. |
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to net income is as follows
for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
474,580
|
|
|
|
406,675
|
|
|
|
463,297
|
|
|
|
290,315
|
|
|
|
196,227
|
|
Foreign exchange gain/(loss)
|
|
|
14,544
|
|
|
|
174,336
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
|
|
(54,700
|
)
|
|
|
(58,774
|
)
|
Gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value
|
|
|
1,630
|
|
|
|
(494,238
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
558,397
|
|
|
|
498,986
|
|
|
|
324,083
|
|
|
|
98,976
|
|
|
|
38,183
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(17,167
|
)
|
|
|
(21,445
|
)
|
|
|
(11,614
|
)
|
|
|
(12,278
|
)
|
|
|
(8,314
|
)
|
Net result on the disposal of non-current assets
|
|
|
14,832
|
|
|
|
27,103
|
|
|
|
15,641
|
|
|
|
10,581
|
|
|
|
12,079
|
|
Amount attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
34,761
|
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
|
|
116,234
|
|
|
|
31,528
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
276,656
|
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
356,320
|
|
|
|
230,599
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
2,015,446
|
|
|
|
686,641
|
|
|
|
3,017,103
|
|
|
|
1,718,499
|
|
|
|
1,044,777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining Segment Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
756,687
|
|
|
|
598,156
|
|
|
|
1,186,087
|
|
|
|
423,969
|
|
|
|
150,956
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
281,392
|
|
|
|
231,585
|
|
|
|
286,626
|
|
|
|
140,934
|
|
|
|
84,596
|
|
Foreign exchange gain/(loss)
|
|
|
(9,354
|
)
|
|
|
(65,954
|
)
|
|
|
148,652
|
|
|
|
(7,326
|
)
|
|
|
(15,756
|
)
|
Gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value
|
|
|
1,630
|
|
|
|
(494,238
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
333,684
|
|
|
|
265,865
|
|
|
|
127,433
|
|
|
|
40,343
|
|
|
|
11,224
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(133,276
|
)
|
|
|
(106,813
|
)
|
|
|
(26,138
|
)
|
|
|
(13,363
|
)
|
|
|
(3,073
|
)
|
Net result on the disposal of non-current assets
|
|
|
8,236
|
|
|
|
7,126
|
|
|
|
10,448
|
|
|
|
1,978
|
|
|
|
(1,006
|
)
|
Amount attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
43,130
|
|
|
|
13,538
|
|
|
|
65,833
|
|
|
|
41,454
|
|
|
|
12,340
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
185,807
|
|
|
|
2,687
|
|
|
|
330,372
|
|
|
|
140,231
|
|
|
|
70,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
1,467,936
|
|
|
|
451,952
|
|
|
|
2,129,313
|
|
|
|
768,220
|
|
|
|
309,829
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Steel Segment Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
90,847
|
|
|
|
(262,145
|
)
|
|
|
246,588
|
|
|
|
354,672
|
|
|
|
354,610
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
110,910
|
|
|
|
110,292
|
|
|
|
131,142
|
|
|
|
119,702
|
|
|
|
101,829
|
|
Foreign exchange gain/(loss)
|
|
|
7,141
|
|
|
|
77,629
|
|
|
|
330,173
|
|
|
|
(45,772
|
)
|
|
|
(44,942
|
)
|
Gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
228,142
|
|
|
|
221,033
|
|
|
|
174,175
|
|
|
|
77,337
|
|
|
|
26,449
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(34,736
|
)
|
|
|
(43,863
|
)
|
|
|
(72,792
|
)
|
|
|
(29,291
|
)
|
|
|
(5,618
|
)
|
Net result on the disposal of non-current assets
|
|
|
2,803
|
|
|
|
3,018
|
|
|
|
3,814
|
|
|
|
8,614
|
|
|
|
12,836
|
|
Amount attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(12,483
|
)
|
|
|
(14,206
|
)
|
|
|
17,980
|
|
|
|
19,335
|
|
|
|
6,150
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
20,953
|
|
|
|
8,412
|
|
|
|
46,348
|
|
|
|
125,900
|
|
|
|
120,935
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
413,577
|
|
|
|
100,170
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
|
|
630,497
|
|
|
|
572,249
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
(186,256
|
)
|
|
|
(309,922
|
)
|
|
|
(283,294
|
)
|
|
|
222,024
|
|
|
|
99,458
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
67,303
|
|
|
|
48,727
|
|
|
|
22,738
|
|
|
|
13,366
|
|
|
|
9,224
|
|
Foreign exchange gain/(loss)
|
|
|
16,784
|
|
|
|
162,735
|
|
|
|
398,768
|
|
|
|
(1,830
|
)
|
|
|
1,657
|
|
Gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
133,241
|
|
|
|
123,589
|
|
|
|
92,610
|
|
|
|
1,344
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(5,350
|
)
|
|
|
(10,042
|
)
|
|
|
(14,404
|
)
|
|
|
(9,848
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Net result on the disposal of non-current assets
|
|
|
4,723
|
|
|
|
17,165
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
568
|
|
|
|
242
|
|
Amount attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(630
|
)
|
|
|
452
|
|
|
|
2,341
|
|
|
|
52,358
|
|
|
|
12,203
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
64,616
|
|
|
|
2,236
|
|
|
|
(252,188
|
)
|
|
|
87,026
|
|
|
|
37,019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
94,431
|
|
|
|
34,940
|
|
|
|
(33,287
|
)
|
|
|
365,008
|
|
|
|
160,242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Segment Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
16,859
|
|
|
|
1,793
|
|
|
|
3,037
|
|
|
|
(13,597
|
)
|
|
|
6,066
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
14,975
|
|
|
|
16,071
|
|
|
|
22,791
|
|
|
|
16,314
|
|
|
|
579
|
|
Foreign exchange gain/(loss)
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
Gain/(loss) from remeasurement of contingent liabilities at fair
value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
19,663
|
|
|
|
27,828
|
|
|
|
31,585
|
|
|
|
20,332
|
|
|
|
448
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(138
|
)
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(156
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net result on the disposal of non-current assets
|
|
|
(930
|
)
|
|
|
(206
|
)
|
|
|
1,237
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Amount attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
4,745
|
|
|
|
2,807
|
|
|
|
2,683
|
|
|
|
2,346
|
|
|
|
835
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
5,280
|
|
|
|
5,558
|
|
|
|
(5,644
|
)
|
|
|
3,163
|
|
|
|
2,097
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
60,426
|
|
|
|
53,721
|
|
|
|
55,854
|
|
|
|
28,709
|
|
|
|
10,299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA is a measure of our operating performance that
is not required by, or presented in accordance with,
U.S. GAAP. Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure of our
operating performance under U.S. GAAP and should not be
considered as an alternative to net income, operating income or
any other performance measures derived in accordance with
U.S. GAAP or as an alternative to cash flow from operating
activities or as a measure of our liquidity. In particular,
Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered as a measure of
discretionary cash available to us to invest in the growth of
our business.
Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and
should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for
analysis of our operating results as reported under
U.S. GAAP. Some of these limitations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of financing income
and costs, which are significant and could further increase if
we incur more debt, on our operating performance.
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of income taxes on
our operating performance.
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of depreciation,
depletion and amortization on our operating performance. The
assets of our businesses which are being depreciated, depleted
and/or
amortized (including, for example, our mineral reserves) will
have to be replaced in the future and such depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense may approximate the cost to
replace these assets in the future. By excluding such expense
from Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect our
future cash requirements for such replacements.
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of foreign exchange
gains and losses and gains and losses from remeasurement of
contingent liabilities at fair value, which may recur.
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of
gain / (loss) from remeasurement of contingent
liabilities at fair value on our operating performance.
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of net result on the
disposal of non-current assets on our operating performance.
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of amounts
attributable to non-controlling interests on our operating
performance.
|
|
|
|
Other companies in our industry may calculate Adjusted EBITDA
differently or may use it for different purposes than we do,
limiting its usefulness as a comparative measure.
|
We compensate for these limitations by relying primarily on our
U.S. GAAP operating results and using Adjusted EBITDA only
supplementally. See our consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income and consolidated statements of cash flows
included elsewhere in this document.
Exchange
Rates
The following tables show, for the periods indicated, certain
information regarding the official exchange rate between the
ruble and the U.S. dollar, based on data published by the
Central Bank of the Russian Federation (the
CBR).
These rates may differ from the actual rates used in preparation
of our financial statements and other financial information
provided herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubles per U.S. Dollar
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
Average(1)
|
|
Period End
|
|
2010
|
|
|
31.78
|
|
|
|
28.93
|
|
|
|
30.38
|
|
|
|
30.48
|
|
2009
|
|
|
36.43
|
|
|
|
28.67
|
|
|
|
31.72
|
|
|
|
30.24
|
|
2008
|
|
|
29.38
|
|
|
|
23.13
|
|
|
|
24.86
|
|
|
|
29.38
|
|
2007
|
|
|
26.58
|
|
|
|
24.26
|
|
|
|
25.58
|
|
|
|
24.55
|
|
2006
|
|
|
28.78
|
|
|
|
26.18
|
|
|
|
27.19
|
|
|
|
26.33
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The average of the exchange rates on the last business day of
each full month during the relevant period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubles per U.S. Dollar
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
28.90
|
|
|
|
28.16
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
29.80
|
|
|
|
28.94
|
|
January 2011
|
|
|
30.63
|
|
|
|
29.67
|
|
December 2010
|
|
|
31.46
|
|
|
|
30.27
|
|
November 2010
|
|
|
31.35
|
|
|
|
30.51
|
|
October 2010
|
|
|
30.80
|
|
|
|
29.63
|
|
9
The exchange rate between the ruble and the U.S. dollar on
April 12, 2011 was 27.98 rubles per one U.S. dollar.
No representation is made that the ruble or U.S. dollar
amounts in this document could have been or can be converted
into U.S. dollars or rubles, as the case may be, at any
particular rate or at all.
Recent
Developments
On December 26, 2010 three out of thirty thickeners at the
coking coal washing shop of Nerungrinsk Washing Plant, a branch
of Yakutugol, collapsed. There were no injuries but the collapse
led to suspension of works at the washing shop. Yakutugol took
measures to clean up and restore the thickeners. Thickeners are
used to clean and recycle the water in the coal washing process.
Yakutugol also revised the overburden and extraction plans at
the Nerungrinsk open pit to align production with the reduced
capacity of the washing plant. Extraction, processing and
shipment of steam coal were done in accordance with the existing
contracts obligations. On February 10, 2011, coking coal
concentrate production in the second and third sections of the
washing plant was re-launched. Reconstruction works in the first
section are still in progress.
Risk
Factors
An investment in our shares and ADSs involves a high degree
of risk. You should carefully consider the following information
about these risks, together with the information contained in
this document, before you decide to buy our shares or ADSs. If
any of the following risks actually occurs, our business,
financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be
materially adversely affected. In that case, the value of our
shares or ADSs could also decline and you could lose all or part
of your investment.
Risks
Relating to Our Financial Condition and Financial
Reporting
We have a
substantial amount of outstanding indebtedness.
We have a substantial amount of outstanding indebtedness,
primarily consisting of debt we incurred in connection with the
financing of our acquisitions of Yakutugol and Oriel Resources
in 2007 and 2008, as well as debt we incurred to finance our
working capital needs and investment program in recent years. A
substantial portion of our bank loans are from Russian banks,
including state-controlled banks such as Gazprombank, Sberbank
and VTB Bank. As of December 31, 2010, our consolidated
total debt, including capital lease obligations, was
$7,498.5 million, with a short-term portion of
$2,127.5 million. Our interest expense for the year ended
December 31, 2010 was $558.4 million, net of the
amount capitalized.
In order to secure bank financings, we have pledged shares in
certain key subsidiaries, including 55% of Yakutugol, 55% of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, 35% of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, 25% of Southern Urals Nickel Plant and 25%+1 share
of Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant. Also, property, plant and
equipment and certain other assets of our subsidiaries are
pledged to lenders.
Our ability to make payments on our indebtedness depends upon
our ability to maintain our operating performance at a certain
level, which is subject to general economic and market
conditions and to financial, business and other factors, many of
which we cannot control. If we do not generate sufficient cash
flow from operations in order to meet our debt service
obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing
plans to alleviate liquidity constraints, such as refinancing or
restructuring our debt, reducing or delaying our capital
expenditures or seeking additional capital. We cannot provide
any assurance that any refinancing or additional financing would
be available on acceptable terms. Our inability to generate
sufficient cash flow to satisfy our debt service obligations or
to refinance debt on commercially reasonable terms could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
We will
require a significant amount of cash to fund our capital
investment program.
Our capital investment program is an important part of our
business strategy. Our business requires maintenance capital
expenditures in order to maintain existing production levels. We
spent $1.0 billion during 2010
10
(including $227.5 million in maintenance capital
expenditures) and our capital investment program includes
capital spending of up to $2.4 billion in 2011 (including
up to $244.5 million in maintenance capital expenditures).
These planned capital expenditures include investments in
Yakutugol, including those required to be made pursuant to the
terms of the subsoil license for the undeveloped Elga coal
deposit. Our capital investment program includes capital
spending of up to $4.7 billion for the three-year period of
2011-2013
(including up to $695 million in maintenance capital
expenditures). See Item 4. Information on the
Company Capital Investment Program. Our
ability to undertake and fund planned capital expenditures will
depend on our ability to generate cash in the future and access
debt and equity financing. This, to a certain extent, is subject
to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative,
regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control.
Attracting debt financing for our capital expenditures on
commercially reasonable terms may be particularly challenging
given our current high levels of indebtedness relative to our
free cash flows and pledges of shares and assets of our
subsidiaries to our current lenders.
Most of our existing borrowings are from Russian and
international banks and financial institutions, as well as
through Russian ruble bonds. In the future we may also seek to
access international capital markets. It is possible that these
sources of financing may not be available in the future in the
amounts we require or may be expensive. International credit
markets have experienced, and may continue to experience, high
volatility and severe liquidity disruptions stemming from the
effects of the international financial and economic crisis
starting in 2008 and the related global economic slowdown. These
and other related events have had a significant impact on the
global capital markets, and the reduced liquidity in the global
capital markets could limit our ability to diversify our funding
sources. Increased funding costs or greater difficulty in
diversifying our funding sources might have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects. See Risks Relating
to the Russian Federation Emerging markets such as
Russia are subject to greater risks than more developed markets,
and financial turmoil in developed or other emerging markets
could cause the value of our shares and ADSs to fluctuate
widely and Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation Economic risks The Russian
banking system is still developing, and another banking crisis
could place severe liquidity constraints on our business.
We faced
a liquidity shortage during the global financial crisis and the
resulting global economic slowdown.
As a result of the economic downturn and a sharp decline in
demand and prices for our products starting from August 2008 and
continuing into the first half of 2009, as well as due to a
substantial increase in our total indebtedness in 2007 and early
2008 which was incurred mostly for the acquisition of Yakutugol
in 2007 and Oriel Resources in 2008, we experienced a liquidity
shortage in late 2008 and early 2009. We also breached various
financial and non-financial covenants in our loan agreements at
that time. As of 31 December 2008, our total indebtedness
was $5,369.2 million, with a short-term portion of
$5,149.4 million, which included $4,233.8 million in
loans with covenant violations out of which
$1,563.6 million was long-term debt which was reclassified
as short-term debt due to loan covenant violations. We had a
working capital deficit of $3,596.3 million. Since we had
significant debt that we did not have the ability to repay
without refinancing or restructuring, and our ability to do so
was dependent upon continued negotiations with our banks, there
was substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going
concern as of June 1, 2009, the date of the issuance of our
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
In late 2008 and early 2009, to address our liquidity shortage
we obtained major loans from Russian state-owned banks. In July
2009, we completed the restructuring and refinancing of our
Oriel Resources and Yakutugol facilities with a syndicate of 27
international and Russian banks. We were able to prolong
scheduled loan repayments and reset the covenants in order to
give us more time and flexibility to meet our debt obligations.
Through the course of 2009, we also placed three series of ruble
bonds in the total principal amount of 15.0 billion rubles
($503.9 million).
The weakness in the demand and prices for our products through
the first half of 2009, however, continued to negatively impact
all our segments. As of December 31, 2009, our total
indebtedness was $5,997.5 million, an increase of
$628.3 million from December 31, 2008. Short-term
portion of our total indebtedness was $1,923.0 million as
of December 31, 2009, as compared to $5,149.4 million
as of December 31, 2008. Working capital deficit improved
to $537.1 million as of December 31, 2009, as compared
to $3,596.3 million as of December 31, 2008. As of
December 31, 2009, we had breached a number
11
of financial and non-financial covenants in various loan
agreements but we received appropriate consents and covenant
amendments from the banks and as of the date of the issuance of
the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
During the second half of 2009 and 2010 with a market recovery
we have improved our liquidity position and working capital
sufficiency as well as remedied our covenants breach. During
2010 and 2011, we further restructured and refinanced our Oriel
and Yakutugol acquisition facilities and obtained loans from
Russian state-controlled banks and issued Russian bonds. As of
December 31, 2010, our total indebtedness was
$7,318.4 million, an increase of $1,320.9 million from
December 31, 2009. Short-term portion of our total
indebtedness was $2,077.8 million as of December 31,
2010 as compared to $1,923.0 as of December 31, 2009.
Working capital improved to $491.4 million as of
December 31, 2010 as compared to $537.1 million
deficit as of December 31, 2009. We expect operating cash
flows to provide an increased source of funds in 2011 to be
available for capital expenditures and debt servicing. We
believe that cash generated from operations, current cash and
short-term investments on hand, and borrowings under our credit
facilities will be sufficient to meet our working capital
requirements, anticipated capital expenditures and scheduled
debt payments in 2011. Our ability to incur additional debt,
however, is limited by our restrictive covenants. See
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospectus Restrictive Covenants. Any
deterioration in our operating performance, including due to any
worsening of prevailing economic conditions, fall in commodities
and steel prices (whether due to the cyclical nature of the
industry or otherwise)
and/or
financial, business or other factors, many of which are beyond
our control, may adversely and materially affect our cash flow,
liquidity and working capital position and may result in an
increase in our working capital deficit and in us being unable
to meet our obligations as they fall due. If such a situation
were to occur, we may be required to further restructure our
existing debt
and/or to
seek additional capital. There is no guarantee that we would be
successful in restructuring our debt or in raising additional
capital, or that we would be able to do so on a timely basis or
on terms which are acceptable to us. Even if we were successful,
the terms of such restructuring or new capital may be
detrimental to holders of ADSs and shares. Any such
deterioration, affect or failure could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition and the trading price of the ADSs and shares.
Inflation
could increase our costs and decrease operating
margins.
In 2010, the inflation rate in Russia was 8.8% and averaged
10.7% over the
2006-2010
period, according to the Russian Federal State Statistics
Service (Rosstat). As we tend to experience
inflation-driven increases in certain of our ruble-denominated
costs, including salaries, rents and fuel and energy costs,
which are sensitive to rises in the general price level in
Russia, our costs in U.S. dollar terms will rise, assuming
the
ruble-to-dollar
exchange rate remains constant. See Changes in
the exchange rate of the ruble against the U.S. dollar may
materially adversely affect our results of operations. In
this situation, due to competitive pressures, we may not be able
to raise the prices we charge for our products sufficiently to
preserve operating margins. Accordingly, inflation in Russia
could increase our costs and have the effect of decreasing
operating margins.
Any
material change in our commercial dealings with or loss of
accounts receivable from or prepayments to certain related
parties could have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations and financial condition.
From late 2009 to present, we have been working closely with a
number of Russian and foreign metallurgical plants and trading
companies, which are considered related parties under our
U.S. GAAP financial statements. See Item 7.
Major Shareholders and Related Party Transaction
Related Party Transactions Transactions with related
metallurgical plants and Transactions with
Metallurg-Trust. We work on a commercial basis with these
companies, supplying raw materials to them and purchasing their
products pursuant to short-term supply and purchase contracts.
Revenues from sales to these companies amounted to
$640.0 million and $57.2 million in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Purchases from
these companies amounted to $1,228.5 million and
$117.8 million in the years ended December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively. Revenues from re-sales of products
purchased from these companies to third parties amounted to
$1,051.1 million and $123.7 million in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Substantially all
of the revenues from sales to and revenues from re-sales of
12
products purchased from these companies were in the steel
segment. In the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009,
these revenues represented 30.3% and 5.8%, respectively, of the
groups total steel segment revenues. As of
December 31, 2010, accounts receivable from these companies
totalled $310.9 million, with credit terms varying from 30
to 180 days. In addition, as of December 31, 2010,
prepayments to these companies totalled $328.9 million.
As we have a large exposure to these related parties, amounting
to $639.8 million as of December 31, 2010, we closely
monitor our balances with these companies, including our trade
accounts payable to them. No allowance for doubtful accounts has
been credited against the accounts receivable from these
companies because the group consider the full amount of accounts
receivable to be collectible. Nevertheless, given the recent
past liquidity issues faced by these companies and the
dependency of their businesses on the general condition of the
steel sector, we are exposed to the risk of uncollectibility of
accounts receivable from and loss of prepayments to these
companies, and any material change in our commercial dealings
with or loss of accounts receivable from or prepayments to these
companies could have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations and financial condition.
Increased
levels of indebtedness and restrictions on equity financings may
limit our access to capital, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
Among other things, increased levels of indebtedness, and
particularly increases in the level of secured indebtedness,
could potentially: (1) limit our ability to obtain
additional financing; (2) limit our flexibility in planning
for, or reacting to, changes in the markets in which we compete;
(3) disadvantage our group relative to our competitors with
superior financial resources; (4) lead to a loss of
collateral pledged as security; (5) render us more
vulnerable to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
(6) require us to dedicate all or a substantial part of our
cash flow to service our debt; and (7) limit or eliminate
our ability to pay dividends.
In addition, Russian companies are limited in their ability to
place shares in circulation outside of Russia, including in the
form of depositary receipts such as our common American
Depositary Shares (common ADSs) and our
global depositary shares representing our common shares
(GDSs), as well as our preferred American
Depositary Shares representing our preferred shares
(preferred ADSs, the common ADSs and the
preferred ADSs together referred to as ADSs )
due to Russian securities regulations. We have received
permission from the Russian Federal Financial Markets Service
(FFMS) for up to 40% of our common shares to
be circulated abroad through depositary receipt programs, which
was the maximum amount allowed at that time. Later we also
received FFMS permission for a total of 41,627,074 preferred
shares to be circulated through depositary receipt programs,
representing 30% of the total number of issued preferred shares,
which was the maximum amount allowed at that time. Over the last
few years, this limit has been gradually reduced by the FFMS.
Current regulations provide that no more than 25%, 15% or 5% of
the total number of outstanding shares of a certain class may be
placed or circulated outside the Russian Federation depending on
the companys listing status on a Russian stock exchange
(A, B or V and
I). Our common shares have a listing status
A on RTS and MICEX. It is unclear whether the
FFMSs approvals of higher amounts prior to the
establishment of these lower limits will be allowed to remain in
place, or whether the enacted limits will override prior FFMS
permissions for higher amounts. Our common ADSs and GDSs
together currently account for approximately 35% of our common
shares, and accordingly we believe we cannot raise additional
equity financing through placement of common shares in the form
of depositary receipts. If the current limits are enforced
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the
depositary) may be forced to cancel some of
our common ADSs and GDSs and deliver a corresponding number of
the underlying common shares to holders of common ADSs or GDSs.
The Russian government or its agencies may also impose other
restrictions on international financings by Russian issuers.
Any of the foregoing factors may limit our access to capital and
harm our competitive position. If we cannot obtain adequate
capital, we may not be able to fund our capital investment
program and implement our business strategy.
13
Changes
in the exchange rate of the ruble against the U.S. dollar may
materially adversely affect our results of operations.
A majority of our sales are denominated in U.S. dollars,
whereas the majority of our direct costs are incurred in rubles.
Depreciation in real terms of the ruble against the
U.S. dollar results in a decrease in our costs relative to
our revenues. Conversely, appreciation in real terms of the
ruble against the U.S. dollar, which was the prevailing
trend in the
2002-2007
period, may materially adversely affect our results of
operations if the prices we are able to charge for our products
do not increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in
real terms in our ruble-denominated expenditures. In 2010, the
ruble appreciated in real terms against the U.S. dollar by
9.7% as compared with 2009, according to the Central Bank of the
Russian Federation.
Limitations
on the conversion of rubles into foreign currencies in Russia
could cause us to default on our obligations.
Much of our indebtedness and our major capital expenditures are
denominated and payable in various foreign currencies, including
the U.S. dollar and euro. Russian legislation currently
permits the conversion of ruble revenues into foreign currency
without limitation. However, if the Russian authorities impose
limitations on the convertibility of the ruble or other
restrictions on operations with rubles and foreign currencies in
the event of an economic crisis, there may be delays or other
difficulties in converting rubles into foreign currency to make
a payment or delays in or restrictions on the transfer of
foreign currency. This, in turn, could limit our ability to meet
our payment and debt obligations, which could result in the loss
of suppliers, acceleration of debt obligations and
cross-defaults and, consequently, have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Our
business could be materially adversely affected if our lenders
accelerate our debt.
The terms of most of our loan agreements under which we or our
subsidiaries are borrowers contain various representations,
undertakings, covenants and events of default. Additionally, our
loan agreements contain cross-default provisions whereby an
event of default under one agreement may in and of itself result
in a cross-default under other agreements. See
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects Liquidity and Capital Resources and
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects Description of Certain Indebtedness.
Furthermore, according to the terms of such agreements, certain
of our actions aimed at developing our business and pursuing our
strategic objectives, such as acquisitions, dispositions of
assets, restructuring, investments into certain of our
subsidiaries and others, require prior consent from the
respective lenders.
In recent years since the onset of the financial crisis we were
in breach of covenants in various loan agreements, but we
received appropriate consents and covenant amendments from the
banks. As of December 31, 2010, and currently, we do not
have any violations of any covenants under our loan agreements
which could lead to a demand for accelerated repayment of
principal and interest.
Our ability to continue to service, repay and refinance our
indebtedness and to comply with our financial and other loan
covenants will depend on our ability to generate cash in the
future and attract new financing and refinance the existing
indebtedness, as well as on lenders credit decisions.
This, in turn, is subject to general economic, financial,
competitive, legislative and other factors that are beyond our
control. We cannot assure you that any potential breach of
financial and other covenants in our loan agreements, including
defects in security, will not result in new and renewed demands
from our lenders for acceleration of our loan repayment
obligations or related litigation, including as a result of
cross-defaults. If we fail to comply with our financial and
other loan covenants contained in any of our loan agreements,
including compliance with financial ratios or fail to obtain
prior consent of lenders for certain actions, or fail to obtain
extensions or waivers in respect of our breaches of our loan
agreements or amend our loan agreements, such failure could be
deemed by the lenders to be an event of default which could
result in, among other things, acceleration of repayment of
principal and interest under the relevant loan agreement and any
other loan agreement under which a default on such instrument
would trigger a cross-default, reduced opportunities for future
borrowing, debt service obligations in excess of our ability to
pay, liability for damages or inability to further develop our
business and pursue our strategic objectives, any of which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
14
We have merged and intend to continue to merge certain
subsidiaries for operational reasons from time to time. Under
Russian law, such mergers are considered to be a reorganization
and the merged subsidiaries are required to publish the
information regarding this reorganization twice with a monthly
interval. Russian law also provides that, for a period of
30 days after date of latest publication, the creditors of
merging subsidiaries have a right to file a claim seeking
acceleration of the reorganized subsidiaries indebtedness
and demand reimbursement for applicable losses, however, the
court may not accept such a claim against subsidiaries existing
in the form of an open joint stock company if it concludes that
the creditor had adequate security. In the event that we
undertake any such merger and all or part of our
subsidiaries indebtedness is accelerated, we and such
subsidiaries may not have the ability to raise the funds
necessary for repayment, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
We had in
the past and still have material weaknesses in our internal
control over financial reporting, and we make no assurances that
additional material weaknesses will not be identified in the
future.
Management identified four material weaknesses in our internal
control over financial reporting as defined in the Exchange Act
Rule 12b-2
and
Rule 1-02
of
Regulation S-X
that affected our financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2010. The material weaknesses in our internal
control over financial reporting identified for the year ended
December 31, 2010 are described in Item 15.
Controls and Procedures. Due to the effect of these
material weaknesses, our auditors have opined that we have not
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2010 under Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Our auditors have also opined that
we did not maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting as of each of December 31, 2006, 2007, 2008 and
2009, due to the effect of the material weaknesses identified as
of those dates.
Notwithstanding the steps we have taken and continue to take
that are designed to remedy each material weakness identified in
Item 15. Controls and Procedures, we may not be
successful in remedying these material weaknesses in the near or
long term and we make no assurances that additional significant
deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting will not be identified in the future. Our
failure to implement and maintain effective internal control
over financial reporting could result in errors in our financial
statements that could result in a restatement of financial
statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations
and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial
information, leading to a decline in the market price of our
shares and ADSs.
Given the
competition for qualified accounting personnel in Russia, we may
be unable to retain our key accounting staff, which could
disrupt our ability to timely and accurately report U.S. GAAP
financial information.
Our subsidiaries maintain their books and records in local
currencies and prepare accounting reports in accordance with
local accounting principles and practices. In particular, each
of our Russian subsidiaries maintains its books in rubles and
prepares separate unconsolidated financial statements in
accordance with Russian accounting standards. For every
reporting period, we translate, adjust and combine these Russian
statutory financial statements to prepare consolidated financial
statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. This is a
time-consuming task requiring us to have accounting personnel
experienced in internationally accepted accounting standards. We
believe there is a shortage in Russia of experienced accounting
personnel with knowledge of internationally accepted accounting
standards. Moreover, there is an increasing demand for such
personnel as more Russian companies are beginning to prepare
financial statements on the basis of internationally accepted
accounting standards. Such competition makes it difficult for us
to hire and retain such personnel, and our key accounting staff
may leave us. Under these circumstances, we may have difficulty
in remedying the material weaknesses in our internal financial
controls identified by our management and in the timely and
accurate reporting of our financial information in accordance
with U.S. GAAP. See We had in the past
and still have material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting, and we make no assurances that additional
material weaknesses will not be identified in the future.
15
Risks
Relating to Our Business and Industry
We operate in cyclical industries, and any local or global
downturn, whether or not primarily affecting the mining
and/or steel
industries, may have an adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our mining segment sells coal (metallurgical and steam), iron
ore and coke. These commodities are traded in markets throughout
the world and are influenced by various factors beyond our
control, such as global economic cycles and economic growth
rates. Prices of these products have varied significantly in the
past and could vary significantly in the future.
Our steel segment sells steel products, including semi-finished
products, carbon and specialty long products, stainless flat
products, wire products, forgings and stampings and others. The
steel industry is highly cyclical in nature because the
industries in which steel customers operate are subject to
changes in general economic conditions. The demand for steel
products thus generally correlates to macroeconomic fluctuations
in the economies in which steel producers sell products, as well
as in the global economy. The prices of steel products are
influenced by many factors, including demand, worldwide
production capacity, capacity-utilization rates, raw material
costs, exchange rates, trade barriers and improvements in
steel-making processes. Steel prices have experienced, and in
the future may experience, significant fluctuations as a result
of these and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Our ferroalloys segment sells ferronickel, ferrosilicon and
ferrochrome. These ferroalloy products are primarily used in the
manufacture of steel. Thus, market demand for our ferroalloy
products is very closely linked with the market for steel and
generally follows the cycles of the steel industry.
Our power segment generates and supplies electricity. Power
demand in Russia depends on its consumption by the industrial
sector. In Russia, the steel and mining industries are major
consumers of power and the recent declines in production by
steel and mining companies has impacted demand for power.
Therefore, the market demand for the power produced by our power
segment is affected by many of the same factors and cycles that
affect our mining and metals businesses. Due to government price
regulation and the current shortage of power generation capacity
in Russia, reduced demand for power has not impacted power
prices. However, as Russian regulated power prices are set in
rubles, if power prices are not increased steadily they may
decline on a real dollar basis when ruble devaluation and
inflation are taken into account.
Prices for our products, including coal, iron ore, metals and
power, as well as the prices of coal, iron ore, ferroalloys,
power and natural gas and other commodities and materials we
purchase from third parties for the production of our products,
fluctuate substantially over relatively short periods of time
and expose us to commodity price risk. We do not use options,
derivatives or swaps to manage commodity price risk. We use our
vertically integrated business model and intersegment sales, as
well as short-term and long-term purchase and sales contracts
with third-party suppliers and customers, to manage such risk.
In addition, the length and pricing terms of our sales contracts
on certain types of products are affected and regulated by
orders issued by Russian antimonopoly authorities. In
particular, pursuant to a directive issued to us by the Russian
Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) in August
2008, we entered into long-term contracts for supply of certain
grades of our coking coal with a formula of price calculation
and with fixed volumes for the entire period of the contract.
See Antimonopoly regulation could lead to
sanctions with respect to the subsidiaries we have acquired or
established or our prices, sales volumes or business
practices. Terms of sales of other types of our products
may also be affected by regulations of the authorities. We
cannot assure you that our strategies and contracting practices
will be successful in managing our pricing risk or that they
will not result in liabilities. If our strategies to manage
commodity price risk and the impact of business cycles and
fluctuations in demand are not successful, it could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
The
steel, mining and ferroalloy industries are highly competitive,
and we may not be able to compete successfully.
We face competition from Russian and international steel and
ferroalloys manufacturers and mining companies. Recent
consolidation in the steel and mining sectors globally has also
led to the creation of several
16
large producers, some of which have greater financial resources
and more modern facilities than ourselves. We also face
price-based competition from producers in emerging market
countries, including, in particular, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Increased competition could result in more competitive pricing
and reduce our operating margins.
Our competitiveness is based in part on our operations in Russia
and other former Eastern Bloc countries having a lower cost of
production than competitors in higher-cost locations. We have
been facing a consistent upward trend in the past several years
in production costs, particularly with respect to wages and
transportation. For example, our rail transportation costs
increased consistently during the last three years with rail
tariff increases of 21.1% in 2008, 11.0% in 2009 and 9.4% in
2010. See Recent and potential developments in
the Russian rail transportation sector expose us to
uncertainties regarding transportation costs of raw materials
and steel products, Increasing costs of
electricity, natural gas and labor could materially adversely
affect our operating margins and
Inflation could increase our costs and
decrease operating margins. If these production costs
continue to increase in the jurisdictions in which we operate,
our competitive advantage will be diminished, which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
Terrorist
attacks and threats, escalation of military activity, as well as
massive cyber attacks, and government regulation in response to
such attacks or acts of war may negatively affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Terrorist attacks and threats, escalation of military activity,
as well as massive cyber attacks, and an increase in government
regulation in response to such attacks or acts of war may
negatively affect our business. There could be delays or losses
in transportation and deliveries of our products to our
customers, increased government regulation and decreased sales
due to disruptions in the businesses of our customers. It is
possible that any such occurrences could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
The
financial performance of our mining segment depends on the
availability of an adequate supply of coal reserves that can be
mined at competitive costs.
The financial performance of our mining segment depends
substantially on our ability to mine coal reserves that have the
geological characteristics that enable them to be mined at
competitive costs and to meet the quality needed by our
customers. Replacement reserves may not be available when
required or, if available, may not be capable of being mined at
costs comparable to those characteristic of the depleting mines.
Our ability to obtain other reserves through acquisitions in the
future could be limited by restrictions under our existing or
future debt agreements, competition from other mining companies
for attractive properties, the lack of suitable acquisition
candidates or the inability to acquire mining properties on
commercially reasonable terms.
Furthermore, we may not be able to mine all of our reserves as
profitably as we do at our current operations due to increases
in wages, power and fuel prices and other factors. Our planned
development projects and acquisition activities may not result
in significant additional reserves and we may not have
continuing success developing new mines or expanding existing
mines beyond our existing reserves. In addition, we have not yet
applied for all of the permits required, or constructed the
mines necessary, to use all of our U.S. reserves. We may be
unable to obtain such permits. Some of these permits are
becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain and the
authorization process continues to lengthen.
We face
numerous uncertainties in estimating our economically
recoverable reserves, and inaccuracies in our estimates could
result in lower than expected revenues, higher than expected
costs or decreased operating margins.
We base our reserve information on engineering, economic and
geological data assembled and analyzed by our staff, which
includes various engineers and geologists, and which is reviewed
by independent mining engineers only periodically, once in three
years. The reserve estimates as to both quantity and quality are
17
periodically updated to reflect production from the reserves and
new drilling, engineering or other data received. There are
numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and
qualities of and costs to mine recoverable reserves, including
many factors beyond our control. Estimates of economically
recoverable reserves and net cash flows necessarily depend upon
a number of variable factors and assumptions, such as geological
and mining conditions which may not be fully identified by
available exploration data or which may differ from experience
in current operations, projected rates of production in the
future, historical production from the area compared with
production from other similar producing areas, the assumed
effects of regulation and taxes by governmental agencies and
assumptions concerning coal prices, operating costs, mining
technology improvements, severance and excise tax, development
costs and reclamation costs, all of which may vary considerably
from actual results. In addition, it may take many years from
the initial phase of drilling before production is possible.
During that time, the economic feasibility of exploiting a
discovery may change as a result of changes in the market price
of the relevant commodity.
For these reasons, estimates of the economically recoverable
quantities and qualities attributable to any particular group of
properties, classifications of reserves based on risk of
recovery and estimates of net cash flows expected from
particular reserves prepared by different engineers or by the
same engineers at different times may vary substantially. Actual
tonnage recovered from identified reserve areas or properties
and revenues and expenditures with respect to our reserves may
vary materially from estimates. These estimates thus may not
accurately reflect our actual reserves. Any inaccuracy in our
estimates related to our reserves could result in lower than
expected revenues, higher than expected costs or decreased
operating margins.
In addition, the calculation of reserves of the Elga coal
deposit, which we acquired in October 2007 along with our
acquisition of Yakutugol, is subject to certain risks due to the
license obligations and capital costs involved in developing the
required infrastructure and commencing production and the nature
of the undeveloped Elga coal deposit.
Successful
implementation of our strategy to expand our specialty long
product sales and coal sales depends on our ability to increase
our export sales of these products.
While we expect continued growth of demand in the Russian market
for specialty long products, our strategy to expand these sales
substantially is dependent on our ability to increase our
exports of these products to other countries, particularly the
E.U. countries. We face a number of obstacles to this strategy,
including trade barriers and sales and distribution challenges,
insufficient capacity of Russian sea ports, as well as
restrictions imposed by antimonopoly legislation and regulatory
orders. See Item 8. Financial Information
Litigation Antimonopoly.
Likewise, our strategy to increase our sales of coal,
particularly high-grade coking coal, is substantially dependent
on our ability to increase our exports of these products from
our coal assets in the Russian Far East to other countries,
particularly Japan, China, South Korea and other Pacific Rim
countries. Insufficient capacity of Russian ports generally
limits exports by Russian producers. Our ability to increase
coking coal export volumes is also limited by requirements to
first satisfy domestic Russian coal demand, pursuant to a FAS
directive issued to us in August 2008. See
Antimonopoly regulation could lead to
sanctions with respect to the subsidiaries we have acquired or
established or our prices, sales volumes and business
practices. A failure to successfully manage the obstacles
and tasks involved in the implementation of our export sales
expansion strategy could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
If shares
of our subsidiary holding companies are listed on a stock
exchange, it could entail changes in such companies
management and corporate governance that might affect our
integrated business model.
While we intend to continue to operate as an integrated
business, if and when a listing of shares takes place in respect
of the subsidiary holding companies we are forming or intend to
form to consolidate our mining, steel and ferroalloy assets,
changes to the management structure of such subsidiary holding
companies
and/or the
assets consolidated within them may be made in preparation for
such a listing. After a listing of a subsidiary holding company,
the subsidiarys directors and management would operate the
business of such
18
subsidiary, in accordance with applicable law, for the benefit
of all shareholders, including minority shareholders. In
addition, companies listed on stock exchanges comply with
certain corporate governance requirements and are encouraged to
implement certain corporate governance recommendations,
including the appointment of independent directors. These and
other changes, if implemented in connection with the
consolidation and potential listing of subsidiaries holding our
mining, steel and ferroalloy assets, may result in
decision-making by the directors and management of such
subsidiaries, including with respect to payment of dividends,
that may not be consistent with our current integrated business
model. As our integrated business model is the key to our
strategy, changes in decision-making by our subsidiaries
directors and management in connection with a listing may
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
Our
business strategy envisions additional acquisitions and
continued integration, and we may fail to identify suitable
targets, acquire them on acceptable terms, identify all
potential liabilities associated with them or successfully
integrate them into our group.
Our strategy relies on our status as an integrated mining,
steel, ferroalloys and power group, which allows us to benefit
from economies of scale, realize synergies, better satisfy the
needs of our Russian and international customers, reduce our
reliance on third party brokers by distributing and selling our
products directly to end users, and compete effectively against
other mining, steel, ferroalloys and power producers. We also
intend to enhance the profitability of our business by applying
our integration strategy to a larger asset base and, towards
that end, on an ongoing basis we need to identify suitable
targets that would fit into our operations, acquire them on
terms acceptable to us and successfully integrate them into our
group. We often compete with Russian and international companies
for acquisitions, including for subsoil licenses.
The acquisition and integration of new companies pose
significant risks to our existing operations, including:
|
|
|
|
|
additional demands placed on our senior management, who are also
responsible for managing our existing operations;
|
|
|
|
increased overall operating complexity of our business,
requiring greater personnel and other resources; and
|
|
|
|
incurrence of debt to finance acquisitions and higher debt
service costs related thereto.
|
In addition, new acquisitions may require significant initial
cash investments for integration or upgrades. Furthermore, even
if we are successful in integrating our existing and new
businesses, expected synergies and cost savings may not
materialize, resulting in lower than expected operating margins.
We have acquired and established businesses in countries that
represent new operating environments for us and which are
located at a great distance from our headquarters in Russia.
These businesses conduct operations in accordance with local
customs and laws. For example, through our acquisition of the
Bluestone companies in May 2009, and our establishment of Mechel
Bluestone Inc., a Delaware corporation that holds the Bluestone
companies, we now have significant operations, assets and
employees in the United States which are subject to
U.S. federal and state laws and regulations.
In some instances we conduct limited due diligence
investigations in connection with our acquisitions and the
contractual documentation does not contain representations and
warranties and indemnities to protect against unidentified
liabilities and other losses. Moreover, these acquired
businesses may not have financial reports prepared under
internationally accepted accounting standards. Accordingly,
these businesses may face risks that we have not yet identified
and that are not described in this document and we may not
realize the full benefit of our investment, which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
19
In the
event the title to any company we acquired is successfully
challenged, we risk losing our ownership interest in that
company or its assets.
Almost all of our Russian assets consist of privatized
companies, and our business strategy will likely involve the
acquisition of additional privatized companies. The Russian
statute of limitations for challenging privatization
transactions is three years. However, because Russian
privatization legislation is vague, internally inconsistent and
in conflict with other legislation, including conflicts between
federal and local privatization legislation, and the statute of
limitations for challenging certain actions related to
privatization may be argued to begin to run only upon the
discovery of a violation, many privatizations are vulnerable to
challenge. In the event that any title to, or our ownership
stakes in, any of the privatized companies acquired by us is
subject to challenge as having been improperly privatized and we
are unable to defeat this claim, we risk losing our ownership
interest in the company or its assets, which could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
In addition, under Russian and Kazakh law, transactions in
shares may be invalidated on many grounds, including a sale of
shares by a person without the right to dispose of such shares,
breach of interested party
and/or major
transaction rules
and/or the
terms of transaction approvals issued by government authorities,
or failure to register the share transfer in the securities
register. As a result, defects in earlier transactions with
shares of our subsidiaries (where such shares were acquired from
third parties) may cause our title to such shares to be subject
to challenge.
Certain
of our Russian subsidiaries are required to either purchase or
lease the land on which they operate.
Much of the land occupied by privatized Russian companies,
including most of our subsidiaries, was not included in the
privatizations of these companies and is still owned by federal,
regional or municipal governments. The companies use the land
pursuant to a special title of perpetual use whereby they have
the right to use the land but do not have the right to alienate
such land.
The Land Code of the Russian Federation, as amended, which was
enacted on October 25, 2001 (the Land
Code), requires privatized Russian companies to either
purchase or lease the land on which they operate by
January 1, 2012. In accordance with the current legislation
the repurchase price of land plots held under special title of
perpetual use is set in the amount of 2.5% of the cadastral
value of such land plots. We estimate that the repurchase cost
of such land plots is $50.6 million.
Increasing
costs of electricity, natural gas and labor could materially
adversely affect our operating margins.
In 2010, our Russian operations purchased approximately
6.0 billion
kilowatt-hours
(kWh) of electricity, representing 88% of their
needs, at a total cost of $312.8 million, implying an
average cost of 5.2 cents per kWh. The restructuring of the
Russian power sector that began in 2001 is substantially
complete and all government regulation of electricity prices in
the wholesale power market is due to expire in 2011. This could
lead to higher electricity prices. According to information
published by the Ministry for Economic Development of the
Russian Federation the average increase in market prices and
tariffs on the retail electricity market was 12.5-14.0% in 2010,
and is expected to be in the range of 13.5-16.0% in 2011 and in
the range of 12.5-14.0% in 2012. Further price increases for
electricity may also occur in the future as the power generating
companies created in the restructuring are financed by and
controlled to a greater extent by the private sector.
Our Russian operations also purchase significant amounts of
natural gas, primarily for the production of electricity at our
own co-generation facilities, from Gazprom OAO
(Gazprom). Gazprom is a government-controlled
company and the dominant producer and monopoly transporter of
natural gas within Russia. Domestic natural gas prices are
regulated by the Russian government. These prices have been
consistently rising over the last few years until 2009. In 2010,
we purchased 1,770.6 million cubic meters of gas at a total
cost of $164.7 million. Russian domestic natural gas prices
are significantly below Western European levels, which presently
helps to provide us with a cost advantage over our competitors,
an advantage which is expected to diminish as Russian domestic
gas prices approach Western European levels. In 2011, the
Russian
20
Federal Tariff Service set wholesale prices of gas produced by
Gazprom for domestic consumers on the territory of the Russian
Federation, except for households, in the range of $56.3 to
$142.4 per thousand cubic meters, depending on the region of the
Russian Federation where the gas is purchased.
After the raw materials used in the production process and
energy related costs, our labor costs are the next most
significant operational cost. Labor costs in Russia have
historically been significantly lower than those in the more
developed market economies of North America and Western Europe
for similarly skilled employees. However, the average wage in
Russia has been rising in recent years. According to the Russian
Federal State Statistics Service, after adjusting for inflation,
the average wage in the Russian Federation has risen at the
average annual rate of 8.1% in ruble terms in the
2006-2009
period. Moreover, labor costs in Russia are indexed to and
adjusted for inflation. We believe our advantage with respect to
our competitors with foreign operations that have historically
had to pay higher average wages than those paid in Russia may be
reduced.
Higher costs of electricity, natural gas and labor could
negatively impact our operating margins, which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
Recent
and potential developments in the Russian rail transportation
sector expose us to uncertainties regarding transportation costs
of raw materials and steel products.
Railway transportation is our principal means of transporting
raw materials and steel products to our facilities and to
customers in Russia and abroad. The Russian rail system is
controlled by Russian Railways, an open joint-stock company
wholly owned by the Russian government. Russian Railways is a
state-sanctioned monopoly responsible for the management of all
Russian railroads. The Russian government sets domestic rail
freight prices and the terms of transportation, such as,
including, terms related to the type of rolling stock to be used
for transportation of certain types of cargo; estimated minimum
tonnage for the purposes of determining the applicable tariff
and others. These rail freight prices are subject to annual
adjustment based on, among other factors, inflation and the
funding requirements of Russian Railways capital
investment program, which is in turn affected by the acute need
to upgrade track infrastructure and passenger- and
cargo-handling facilities. In addition, the establishment of the
Russian Railways subsidiaries Pervaya Gruzovaya Kompaniya
OAO (First Freight Company) and Vtoraya
Gruzovaya Kompaniya OAO (Second Freight
Company) and the transfer of 90% of the rolling stock
to them, as part of the reform of the Russian rail
transportation sector, have led to a significant increase of the
costs of use of freight cars.
Our cargoes are currently transported in the railcars of either
Russian Railways or third party owners engaged for
transportation, as well as in our own railcars. The most
significant railcar owners are First Freight Company and Second
Freight Company, subsidiaries of Russian Railways, which provide
us with their railcars, mainly to transport coal products and
iron ore concentrate. At present, only three companies, Russian
Railways, First Freight Company and Second Freight Company,
possess a sufficiently extensive railcar fleet to service our
present and future requirements.
Our subsidiary Mecheltrans works with First Freight Company to
arrange for transportation and forwarding of cargoes with the
railcar fleet owned by First Freight Company. Our freight volume
transported by First Freight Companys railcars amounted to
10.3 million tonnes in 2010, for which we paid
$122.4 million. Mecheltrans has commenced working with
Second Freight Company since February 2011.
In 2010, tariffs were indexed once, which resulted in an 9.4%
tariff increase. With effect from January 1, 2011, all
tariffs have been increased by an additional 8%. If rail freight
prices continue to increase, or if there is a disruption in the
transportation of our materials and products due to a shortage
of available working rolling stock, it could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
21
We face
numerous protective trade restrictions in the export of our
steel products and ferroalloys, and we may face export duties in
the future.
We face numerous protective tariffs, duties and quotas which
reduce our competitiveness in, and limit our access to,
particular markets. Several key steel importing countries
currently have import restrictions in place on steel products or
intend to introduce them in the future. The European Union has a
quota system in place with respect to Russian steel imports,
which affected our exports to ten countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and the Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania and
Latvia) that joined the European Union in 2004 as well as to
Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the European Union in 2007.
Our sales to third parties in the European Union from our
Russian steel facilities constituted approximately 1.6% of our
steel segment revenues and approximately 4.9% of our steel
segment export revenues in 2010. The export of our steel into
the European Union is an important part of our growth strategy.
If E.U. quotas are not increased in line with our sales growth
objectives, our ability to expand our sales in the European
Union and pursue our growth strategy could be limited. In
addition, the European Union has imposed antidumping duties on
certain of our steel exports.
Our ferroalloys business is also subject to export restrictions.
In February 2008, an antidumping duty in the amount of 17.8% was
imposed on exports to the European Union of ferrosilicon
produced by our subsidiary Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant for a period
of five years. Our sales into the European Union constituted
approximately 1.6% of our revenues from the ferrosilicon sales
and approximately 0.3% of our total ferroalloys segment revenues
in 2010.
See Item 4. Information on the Company
Steel Segment Trade restrictions and
Item 4. Information on the Company
Ferroalloys Segment Trade restrictions.
We
benefit from Russias tariffs and duties on imported steel,
which may be eliminated in the future.
Russia has in place import tariffs with respect to certain
imported steel products. These tariffs generally amount to 5-15%
of value. Almost all of our sales of steel products in Russia
were protected by these import tariffs in 2010. The Republic of
Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation
entered into a Customs Union and implemented a Common Customs
Tariff, which came into force on January 1, 2010, reducing
import duties on stainless rolled products from 15% to 10%.
Creation of this Customs Union, as well as other actions and
decisions of Russian authorities in respect of tariffs and
duties, can lead to further reduction of import duties.
In August 2007, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement imposing
quotas on the export of Ukrainian steel bars to the Russian
market. The total quota of steel bars from Ukraine to Russia was
equal to 1,205,000 tonnes during the effective term of the trade
agreement and was divided into annual volumes. We believe that
we benefited from this agreement because it prevented subsidized
Ukrainian exports from reducing the prices we otherwise could
obtain for these products in the Russian market. However, the
agreement expired on January 1, 2011.
From March 20, 2007 to March 20, 2010, Russia imposed
an antidumping duty on corrosion-resistant steel originating in
the European Union at the rate of 840 per tonne. This duty
benefited us while it was in force. The elimination of this duty
had a negative effect on our sales on the Russian market.
On December 26, 2010, Russia imposed an antidumping duty on
corrosion-resistant steel originating in China (including
Taiwan), South Korea, Brazil and South Africa at the rate
ranging from 4.8% to 62.8% per tonne. This duty is imposed until
December 26, 2013 and will benefit our sales on the Russian
market while it was in force.
According to available public information, Russia has taken part
in negotiations to join the World Trade Organization (the
WTO). Russias potential future
accession to the WTO could negatively affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In
particular, Russias entry into the WTO may require gradual
reduction or elimination of import tariffs and duties on steel
products, causing increased competition in the Russian steel
market from foreign producers and exporters.
22
Our
exports to the European Union are subject to REACH
regulations.
Chemical substances contained in some of our products, as well
as by-products and waste, which we export to or produce in the
European Union are subject to regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on
registration, evaluation, authorization and restrictions of use
of chemicals (REACH) that entered into force
on June 1, 2007. Under REACH, we must provide a
registration dossier for such substances to the European
Chemical Agency (ECHA). In accordance with
REACH, we pre-registered substantially all the substances that
we export to or produce in the E.U. prior to December 1,
2008. In accordance with REACH implementation schedule, prior to
December 1, 2010 we registered with ECHA all substances
that we export to or produce in the European Union in amount
over 1000 metric tonnes per year, and which are subject to REACH
registration. We are in compliance with current REACH
requirements and we will have to maintain certain resources to
ensure compliance with further developing REACH requirements.
REACH provides for a special authorization regime for substances
of high concern, including those that are identified from
scientific evidence as causing probable serious effects to
humans or the environment on a
case-by-case
basis. To obtain authorization, a manufacturer of substances of
high concern is generally required to demonstrate that the risk
from the use of the substance is adequately controlled. All
substances under the authorization regime are subject to
restrictions with respect to manufacture, placing on the market
or use. The European Commission may amend or withdraw the
authorization, even one given for adequate control, if suitable
substitutes have become available. Currently, none of our
products contain substances which are considered to be
substances of high concern. There is no assurance that our
products will not be subject to further restrictions or bans if
any substance of high concern is detected in our products, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
The European Commission has planned several revisions of the
REACH Regulation taking place until 2019. Compliance with
changes to the existing regulations may lead to increased costs,
modifications in operating practices
and/or
further restrictions affecting our products. Any such changes
and/or
modifications could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
We are
subject to mining risks.
Our business operations, like those of other mining companies,
are subject to all of the hazards and risks normally associated
with the exploration, development and production of natural
resources, any of which could result in production shortfalls or
damage to persons or property.
In particular, hazards associated with our open pit mining
operations include, but are not limited to: (1) flooding of
the open pit; (2) collapses of the open pit wall;
(3) accidents associated with the operation of large open
pit mining and rock transportation equipment; (4) accidents
associated with the preparation and ignition of large-scale open
pit blasting operations; (5) deterioration of production
quality due to weather; and (6) hazards associated with the
disposal of mineralized waste water, such as groundwater and
waterway contamination.
Hazards associated with our underground mining operations
include but are not limited to: (1) underground fires and
explosions, including those caused by flammable gas;
(2) cave-ins or ground falls; (3) discharges of gases
and toxic chemicals; (4) flooding; (5) sinkhole
formation and ground subsidence; and (6) other accidents
and conditions resulting from drilling, blasting and removing
and processing material from an underground mine, including due
to human error.
We are at risk of experiencing any and all of these hazards. The
occurrence of such hazards could delay production, increase
production costs, result in injury to persons or death, and
damage to property, as well as liability for us. For example, on
May 30, 2008, there was a cave-in at the Lenin Underground
Mine (which led to suspension of operation for 17 calendar days)
and on July 29, 2008 there was a methane flash (which led
to suspension of operation for 67 calendar days). Both accidents
involved multiple casualties. Also, in September 2010 we
suspended operations at New-Olzherassk Underground Mine due to a
spontaneous ignition of coal. We plan to resume coal mining
operations at New-Olzherassk Underground Mine at the end of the
second quarter of 2011.
23
Furthermore, the risk of occurrence of these hazards is
exacerbated by the significant level of wear of the equipment of
our mining enterprises. We are conducting a program of phased
replacement and refurbishment of obsolete equipment in order to
meet safety requirements at our most dangerous facilities. See
Item 8. Financial Information
Litigation Environmental and safety.
More
stringent environmental laws and regulations or more stringent
enforcement or findings that we have violated environmental laws
and regulations could result in higher compliance costs and
significant fines and penalties,
clean-up
costs and compensatory damages, or require significant capital
investment, or even result in the suspension of our operations,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operation and
prospects.
Our operations and properties are subject to environmental,
worker protection and industrial safety and other laws and
regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. For
instance, our operations generate large amounts of pollutants
and waste, some of which are hazardous, such as benzapiren,
sulfur oxide, sulfuric acid, nitrogen ammonium, sulfates,
nitrites and phenicols. Some of our operations result in the
creation of hazardous sludges, including sludges containing base
elements such as chromium, copper, nickel, mercury and zinc. The
creation, storage and disposal of such hazardous waste is
subject to environmental regulations, including some requiring
the clean-up
of contamination and reclamation, such as requirements for
cleaning up highly hazardous waste oil and iron slag. In
addition, pollution risks and related
clean-up
costs are often impossible to assess unless environmental audits
have been performed and the extent of liability under
environmental and civil laws is clearly determinable.
Furthermore, new and more stringent regulations have been
introduced in a number of countries in response to the impacts
of climate change. See Increased regulations
associated with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions may
give rise to increased costs and may adversely impact our
business and markets.
Generally, there is a greater awareness in Russia of damage
caused to the environment by industry than existed during the
Soviet era. At the same time, environmental legislation in
Russia is generally weaker and less stringently enforced than in
the E.U. or the United States. However, recent Russian
government initiatives indicate that Russia will introduce new
water, air and soil quality standards and increase its
monitoring and fines for non-compliance with environmental
rules. In addition, we are currently assessing whether our
Romanian and Bulgarian operations will face higher environmental
compliance costs due to the integration of these countries into
the E.U. See note 24(b) to our consolidated financial
statements.
Based on the current regulatory environment in Russia and
elsewhere where we conduct our operations, as of
December 31, 2010, we have not created any reserves for
environmental liabilities and compliance costs, other than an
accrual in the amount of $56.2 million for asset retirement
obligations. Any change in this regulatory environment could
result in actual costs and liabilities for which we have not
provided.
Also, in the course, or as a result, of an environmental
investigation by Russian governmental authorities, courts can
issue decisions requiring part or all of the production at a
facility that has violated environmental standards to be halted
for a 90-day
period. We have been cited in Russia for various violations of
environmental regulations in the past and we have paid certain
fines levied by regulatory authorities in connection with these
infractions. More recently, in March 2011, Rosprirodnadzor, the
Russian environmental supervisory authority, claimed
287 million rubles from Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant as
compensation for damage caused discharging waste water into the
river Miass. We are in process of reviewing the claim. Though
our production facilities have not been ordered to suspend
operations due to environmental violations during the respective
periods since we acquired or established them, there are no
assurances that environmental protection authorities will not
seek such suspensions in the future. In the event that
production at any of our facilities is partially or wholly
suspended due to this type of sanction, our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects could be
materially adversely affected.
The assets and operations of Bluestone based in West Virginia
are subject to U.S. environmental and other regulatory
risks. See Risks Relating to Other Countries
Where We Operate. In particular, in early 2011, our
Bluestone operations suspended work on the construction of a
coal washing facility because certain
24
limitations contained in the environmental permissions issued
with respect to mining activities restricted increases of mining
volumes which led to the underutilization of existing washing
facilities.
In addition, we are generally not indemnified against
environmental liabilities or any required land reclamation
expenses of our acquired businesses that arise from activities
that occurred prior to our acquisition of such businesses. See
Our business strategy envisions additional
acquisitions and continued integration, and we may fail to
identify suitable targets, acquire them on acceptable terms,
identify all potential liabilities associated with them or
successfully integrate them into our group.
Increased
regulations associated with climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions may give rise to increased costs and may adversely
impact our business and markets.
Through our mining and power segments, we are a major producer
of carbon-related products such as coal, coal concentrate and
energy. Coal and coal-based energy are also significant inputs
in many of the operations of our steel and ferroalloys segments.
A major by-product of burning coal is carbon dioxide
(CO2),
which is considered to be a greenhouse gas and generally a
source of concern in connection with global warming and climate
change.
The December 1997 Kyoto Protocol established a set of greenhouse
gas emission targets for developed countries that have ratified
the Protocol, including the Russian Federation. In order to give
the countries a certain degree of flexibility in meeting their
emission reduction targets, the Kyoto Protocol developed
mechanisms allowing participating countries to earn and trade
emissions credits by way of implementing projects aimed at
meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets. Since October 2009, Russia
has established a legal procedure for implementing clean
development and trading mechanisms provided under the Kyoto
Protocol. The European Union has already established greenhouse
gas regulations and many other countries, including the United
States, are in the process of doing so. The European Union
Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which came
into effect on 1 January 2005, has had an impact on
greenhouse gas and energy-intensive businesses based in the
European Union. Our operations in Bulgaria, Lithuania and
Romania are currently subject to the EU ETS, as are our EU based
customers.
In the United States, various federal, regional and state
initiatives to regulate greenhouse gas emissions have been
implemented or are under consideration, and, it appears likely
that additional national, regional and state regulation of
actual greenhouse gas emissions will be enacted in the future.
For example, legislation is under consideration in the
U.S. Congress that would create a
cap-and-trade
system for greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has taken the first steps towards
implementing a comprehensive greenhouse gas policy that may
adversely affect the business of our Bluestone companies.
The Kyoto Protocol, the EU ETS and current and future regulation
of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States could restrict
our operations
and/or
impose significant costs or obligations on us, including
requiring additional capital expenditures, modifications in
operating practices, and additional reporting obligations. These
regulatory programs may also have a negative effect on our
production levels, income and cash flows and on our suppliers
and customers, which could result in higher costs and lower
sales. Inconsistency of regulations particularly between
developed and developing countries may also change the
competitive position of some of our assets. Finally, we note
that even without further legislation or regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions, increased awareness and any adverse
publicity in the global marketplace about the greenhouse gasses
emitted by companies in the steel manufacturing industry could
harm our reputation and reduce customer demand for our products.
Our
business could be adversely affected if we fail to obtain or
extend necessary subsoil licenses and mining and other permits
or fail to comply with the terms of our subsoil licenses and
mining and other permits.
Our business depends on the continuing validity of our subsoil
licenses and the issuance of new and extended subsoil licenses
and our compliance with the terms thereof, particularly subsoil
licenses for our Russian and Kazakh mining operations. In
particular, our reserves categorized as Outside Subsoil
License Term Reserves assume that the relevant license
will be extended for the term of the expected operational life
25
of the subsoil plot. See Item 4. Information on the
Company Regulatory Matters Subsoil
licensing in Russia Extension of licenses and
Mining Segment Mineral reserves
(coal, iron ore and limestone). However, license extension
is subject to the license holder being in compliance with the
terms of the license. Publicly available information about
current market practice and available court practice suggest
that regulatory authorities tend to focus on such terms of the
license as production levels, operational milestones and license
payments, which are considered to be material terms of license.
Nevertheless, there is no assurance that this approach will be
consistently applied by the regulatory authorities and the
courts and that there will be no changes to this approach in the
future. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion
in the timing of license issuance, extension of licenses and
monitoring licensees compliance with license terms.
Subsoil licenses and related agreements typically contain
certain environmental, safety and production commitments. See
Item 4. Information on the Company
Regulatory Matters Subsoil licensing in
Russia Maintenance and termination of
licenses. If regulatory authorities determine that we have
violated the material terms of our licenses, it could lead to
rejection in license extension or suspension or termination of
our subsoil licenses, and to administrative and civil liability.
In addition, requirements imposed by relevant authorities may be
costly to implement and result in delays in production. Our
subsoil licenses expire on dates falling in 2012 through 2033.
Our most significant subsoil licenses expire between 2012 and
2024. See the tables setting forth expiry dates of our Russian
subsoil licenses in Item 4. Information on the
Company Mining Segment and reserves
information. Accordingly, these factors may seriously impair our
ability to operate our business and realize our reserves which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our Bluestone operations in the United States are subject to
risks relating to mining and other permits required under
U.S. federal and state laws. See Risks
Relating to Other Countries Where We Operate We must
obtain, maintain and comply with numerous U.S. governmental
permits and approvals for our operations in the United States,
which can be costly and time consuming, and our failure to
obtain, renew or comply with necessary permits and approvals
could negatively impact our business. The federal agencies
responsible for issuing the necessary permits required to
conduct mining operations in the United States have increased
their scrutiny of permit applications. This is discussed in
greater detail below. This has resulted in the permitting
process taking longer and becoming more costly in recent years.
In addition, citations for violations of those permits have
become more frequent and remediation costs associated with
correcting such violations have increased substantially.
Failure
to comply with existing laws and regulations could result in
substantial additional compliance costs or various sanctions
which could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our operations and properties are subject to regulation by
various government entities and agencies in connection with
obtaining and renewing various licenses, permits, approvals and
authorizations, as well as with ongoing compliance with existing
laws, regulations and standards. Government authorities in
countries where we operate exercise considerable discretion in
matters of enforcement and interpretation of applicable laws,
regulations and standards, the issuance and renewal of licenses,
permits, approvals and authorizations, and in monitoring
licensees compliance with the terms thereof which may
result in unexpected audits, criminal prosecutions, civil
actions and expropriation of property. Authorities have the
right to, and frequently do, conduct periodic inspections of our
operations and properties throughout the year.
Our failure to comply with existing laws and regulations or to
obtain and comply with all approvals, authorizations and permits
required for our operations or findings of governmental
inspections may result in the imposition of fines or penalties
or more severe sanctions including the suspension, amendment or
termination of our licenses, permits, approvals and
authorizations or in requirements that we cease certain of our
business activities, or in criminal and administrative penalties
applicable to our officers. Arbitrary government actions
directed against other Russian companies (or the consequences of
such actions) may generally impact on the Russian economy,
including the securities market. Any such actions, decisions,
requirements or sanctions could increase our costs and
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
26
If we
fail to meet certain deadlines under our subsoil license for
Elga it may be suspended or terminated.
We hold the license to the undeveloped Elga coal deposit in the
Sakha Republic, which contains large quantities of
export-quality coking and steam coal. As part of the license
conditions, as amended in May 2010, we are required to meet
certain operational milestones, including the construction of a
rail branch line of approximately 315 kilometers in length by
December 31, 2011 and completion of construction of the
first phase of Elga complex by December 31, 2013. The
current construction schedule is very aggressive and, due to
limited financing during the period from September 2008 to
August 2009 because of the global financial crisis, it may not
be achievable. If current construction schedule is not met, our
subsoil license for Elga deposit may be suspended or terminated.
The
concentration of our shares with our controlling shareholder
will limit your ability to influence corporate
matters.
Our Chairman, Igor Zyuzin, directly and indirectly owns
approximately 66.76% of our common shares. Except in certain
cases as provided by the Federal Law On Joint-Stock
Companies, dated December 26, 1995, as amended (the
Joint-Stock Companies Law), resolutions at a
shareholders meeting are adopted by a simple majority at a
meeting at which shareholders holding more than half of the
voting shares are present or represented. Accordingly,
Mr. Zyuzin has the power to control the outcome of most
matters to be decided by a majority vote at a shareholders
meeting and can control the appointment of the majority of
directors and the removal of all of the elected directors. In
addition, our controlling shareholder is likely to be able to
take actions which require a three-quarters supermajority vote
of shares represented at such a shareholders meeting, such
as amendments to our charter, reorganization, significant sales
of assets and other major transactions, if other shareholders do
not participate in the meeting. We have also engaged and will
likely continue to engage in transactions with related parties,
including our controlling shareholder, that may present
conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in the conclusion
of transactions on less favorable terms than could be obtained
in arms length transactions or transactions that may
expose us to risks outside the ordinary course of business. See
Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party
Transactions Related Party Transactions. Thus,
our controlling shareholder can take actions that you may not
view as beneficial, and as a result, the value of the shares and
ADSs could be materially adversely affected.
Our
competitive position and future prospects depend on our senior
management team.
Our ability to maintain our competitive position and to
implement our business strategy is dependent on the services of
our senior management team and, in particular, Mr. Zyuzin,
our Chairman and controlling shareholder. Mr. Zyuzin has
provided, and continues to provide, strategic direction to us.
Moreover, competition in Russia, and in the other countries
where we operate, for senior management personnel with relevant
expertise is intense due to the small number of qualified
individuals. The loss or decline in the services of members of
our senior management team or an inability to attract, retain
and motivate qualified senior management personnel could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
Antimonopoly
regulation could lead to sanctions with respect to the
subsidiaries we have acquired or established or our prices,
sales volumes and business practices.
Our business has grown substantially through the acquisition and
founding of companies, many of which required the prior approval
or subsequent notification of the FAS or its predecessor
agencies. Relevant legislation restricts the acquisition or
founding of companies by groups of companies or individuals
acting in concert without such approval or notification. This
legislation is vague in certain parts and subject to varying
interpretations. If the FAS were to conclude that a company was
acquired or created in contravention of applicable legislation
and that competition has been or could be limited as a result,
it could seek redress, including invalidating the transactions
that led to or could lead to the limitation of competition,
obliging the acquirer or founder to perform activities to
restore competition, and seeking the dissolution of the new
company created as a result of reorganization. Any of these
actions could materially adversely affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
27
As of March 31, 2011, nine of our companies were included
by the FAS in its register of entities with a market share
exceeding 35% in the relevant market or with a dominant position
on a certain market, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant as controlling
100% of the market for local telephony services in Beloretsk;
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant as
controlling more than 65% of the market for forgings made of
stainless steel ingots in the Russian market;
|
|
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant as controlling
more than 65% of the market for nickel in sulfate and hydroxide
in the Russian Federation;
|
|
|
|
Izhstal as controlling more than 35% but less
than 65% of the market for graded high-speed steel and its
substitute and more than 65% of the market for small shaped
graded high-speed steel;
|
|
|
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant as
controlling more than 65% of the market of railroad
transportation of cargo for third parties and companies on the
track section from Vyartsilya village to Vyartsilya station;
|
|
|
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company as controlling
more than 50% of the electricity trading market in the Kemerovo
region;
|
|
|
|
Mechel-Energo as controlling more than 50% of
the market for the trading of electricity in the cities of
Mezhdurechensk, Myski and Novokuznetsk;
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol, including its subsidiaries Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine
OAO and Kangalassk Open Pit Mine OAO as
controlling more than 65% of the coal market of the Sakha
Republic (an administrative region of Russia in eastern Siberia,
also known as Yakutia) and as holding a dominant market position
as the sole supplier of Far East Generating Company OAO
(Far East Generating Company), a power plant
designed to consume only the type of coal produced by Yakutugol
and its subsidiaries. In 2010, Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine OAO and
Kangalassk Open Pit Mine OAO were merged into Yakutugol and
ceased to exist as separate legal entities. However, respective
changes to replace Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine OAO and Kangalassk Open
Pit Mine OAO with Yakutugol have not been yet made in the FAS
register; and
|
|
|
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant as controlling 100%
of the market for cargo transportation services on the
companys rail siding in the Lenin District of Moscow
region from the Obmennaya station to the Zavodskaya station.
|
When our companies are included in the register of entities with
a market share exceeding 35% in the relevant market or with a
dominant position on a certain market, this does not by itself
result in restrictions on the activities of such entities.
However, these entities may be subject to additional FAS
oversight by reason of their having been deemed to have a
dominant market position.
In 2008, the FAS issued a number of directives to our companies
placing certain restrictions on our business practices. On
May 13, 2008, the FAS issued a directive ordering Mechel
and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, as a group of companies
holding a dominant position on the Russian coking coal market,
to fulfill the following requirements:
|
|
|
|
|
to support certain production volumes and product lines;
|
|
|
|
to provide, to the extent possible, equal supply terms to all
customers without discrimination against companies not forming
part of this group of companies;
|
|
|
|
not to restrict other companies from supplying coking coal to
the same geographical area of operations; and
|
|
|
|
to notify the FAS prior to any increase in domestic prices of
coking coal, steam coal and coking coal concentrate, if such
increase amounts to more than 10% of the relevant price used
180 days before the
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
date such increase is planned to take place, with submission to
the FAS of the financial and economic reasoning for the planned
increase of prices.
|
In connection with the establishment of Mechel Mining, the
subsidiary into which we consolidated certain of our mining
assets, we received a directive from the FAS dated June 23,
2008, which contains requirements as to the activities of Mechel
Mining and its subsidiaries Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company, as a group of companies holding a dominant position on
the Russian coking coal market. The requirements are the same as
those described above.
On October 10, 2008, the FAS issued two new directives
addressed to Mechel Mining Management with respect to Yakutugol
and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, as a group of companies
holding a dominant position on the Russian coking coal market,
ordering Mechel Mining Management to fulfill the following
requirements:
|
|
|
|
|
not to reduce or terminate production of coking coal concentrate
without prior approval of the FAS, unless there is no demand for
such products;
|
|
|
|
to perform all contracts related to coking coal concentrate
production or other products (works or services) in relation to
which these companies are or may be included in the register of
entities with a market share exceeding 35% in the relevant
market; and
|
|
|
|
to provide equal supply terms to all customers without
discriminating against companies outside of Mechel Mining
Management group and to avoid terms of supply which would
compensate Mechel Mining Management group for unjustified
expenses or yield the Mechel Mining Management group any profit
that is significantly higher than it could be in a competitive
market.
|
In 2009, we received five directives from the FAS, addressed to
Mechel-Steel Management, Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant, Izhstal,
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
and Urals Stampings Plant. Furthermore, in connection with our
transfer of management of Southern Urals Nickel Plant to Mechel
Ferroalloys Management and the consolidation of our ferroalloy
assets under our subsidiary Oriel Resources, in October 2008 the
FAS issued one directive addressed to Mechel Ferroalloys
Management and one directive addressed to Oriel Resources, and
in November 2008 the FAS issued one additional directive
addressed to Mechel and Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant. The
requirements under all eight of these directives are
substantially similar to those described above in connection
with the directives dated October 10, 2008, except:
(1) that they relate to our production and sales of
ferrosilicon, nickel products, stampings, wire products and
certain other steel products; and that (2) the directive
addressed to Mechel and Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant also requires
them to satisfy ferrosilicon demand on the Russian market, where
they hold a dominant position, subject to available production
capacity, and to maintain production and equipment required for
the ferrosilicon production and supply.
In August 2008, as a result of an antimonopoly investigation
into the business of our subsidiaries Mechel Trading House,
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Yakutugol and Mechel Trading, the
FAS found them to have abused their dominant position on the
Russian market of coking coal concentrate. The FAS issued a
directive requiring these subsidiaries to: (1) refrain from
establishing monopolistically high or low prices;
(2) provide, to the extent possible, equal supply terms to
all customers without discrimination; (3) submit economic
justifications for each coking coal concentrate price increase
of more than 5% as compared to the prices of the previous
quarter to the FAS, during the next 5 years;
(4) reduce sale prices by 15% for the period from September
2008 until December 2008; and (5) offer to conclude
long-term supply contracts of at least three years
duration with a formula of price calculation and with fixed
volumes for the entire period of the contract with consumers of
coking coal concentrate. Furthermore, the FAS initiated
administrative proceedings against Mechel Trading House,
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and Yakutugol which resulted in
fines being imposed on these companies in the total amount of
797.7 million rubles, which equals nearly 5% of these
subsidiaries total sales of coking coal concentrate for
2007.
29
In the event of breach of the terms of business conduct set
forth by the FAS, the FAS may seek to impose fines for
violations of antimonopoly and administrative legislation. Such
fines may include an administrative fine of up to 15% of the
proceeds of sale of all goods, works and services on the market
where such violation was committed, but not more than 2% of
gross proceeds of sale of all goods, works and services. Russian
legislation also provides for criminal liability for violations
of antimonopoly legislation in certain cases. Furthermore, for
systematic violations, a court may order, pursuant to a suit
filed by the FAS, a compulsory
split-up or
spin-off of the violating company, and no affiliation can be
preserved between the new entities established as result of such
a mandatory reorganization. The imposition of any such liability
on us or our subsidiaries could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Negative publicity associated with any antimonopoly,
administrative, criminal or other investigation or prosecution
carried out with respect to our business practices, regardless
of the outcome, could damage our reputation and result in a
significant drop in the price of our shares and ADSs and could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
In the
event that the minority shareholders of our subsidiaries were to
successfully challenge past interested party transactions or do
not approve interested party transactions in the future, we
could be limited in our operational flexibility.
We own less than 100% of the equity interests in some of our
subsidiaries. In addition, certain of our wholly owned
subsidiaries have previously had other shareholders. We and our
subsidiaries have carried out, and continue to carry out,
transactions among our companies and affiliates, as well as
transactions with other parties which may be considered to be
interested party transactions under Russian law,
requiring intra-group approval by disinterested directors,
disinterested independent directors or disinterested
shareholders depending on the nature of the transaction and the
parties involved. The provisions of Russian law defining which
transactions must be approved as interested party transactions
are subject to different interpretations, and these transactions
may not always have been properly approved, including by former
shareholders. We cannot make any assurances that our and our
subsidiaries applications of these rules will not be
subject to challenge by shareholders. Any such challenges, if
successful, could result in the invalidation of transactions,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
In addition, Russian law requires a three-quarters majority vote
of the holders of voting stock present at a shareholders
meeting to approve certain transactions and other matters,
including, for example, charter amendments, reorganizations,
major transactions involving assets in excess of 50% of the
assets of the company, acquisition by the company of outstanding
shares and certain share issuances. In some cases, minority
shareholders may not approve interested party transactions
requiring their approval or other matters requiring approval of
minority shareholders or supermajority approval. In the event
that these minority shareholders were to successfully challenge
past interested party transactions, or do not approve interested
party transactions or other matters in the future, we could be
limited in our operational flexibility and our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects could
be materially adversely affected.
In the
event certain minority shareholder lawsuits are resolved against
us, our financial condition and results of operations could be
materially adversely affected.
Russian corporate law allows minority shareholders holding as
little as a single share in a company to have standing to bring
claims against the company challenging decisions of its
governing bodies. These features of Russian corporate law are
often abused by minority shareholders, who can bring claims in
local courts seeking injunctions and other relief for which, as
a practical matter, we may not receive notice. Any such actions
by minority shareholders, if resolved against us, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
30
A
substantial majority of our employees are represented by trade
unions, and our operations depend of good labor
relations.
As of December 31, 2010, approximately 65% of all our
employees were represented by trade unions. Although we have not
experienced any business interruption at any of our companies as
a result of labor disputes from the dates of their respective
acquisition by us and we consider our relations with our
employees to be good, under Russian law unions have the legal
right to strike and other Russian companies with large union
representation have been recently affected by interruptions due
to strikes, lockouts or delays in renegotiations of collective
bargaining agreements. Our businesses could also be affected by
similar events if our relationships with our labor force and
trade unions worsen in the future. Although industry agreements
with trade unions on coal and mining and metallurgical industry
have been signed, we have not yet renewed all our corresponding
collective bargaining agreements. If we are unable to update
collective bargaining agreements on similar conditions at the
expiry of their terms or our employees are dissatisfied with the
terms of renewed collective bargaining agreements, any
industrial action by our employees could have material adverse
effects on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
Approximately half of the Bluestone companies workforce is
represented by the United Mine Workers of America
(UMWA) labor union and are covered by the
Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 2007 which expires at the end
of 2011. We are currently in negotiations with the UMWA with
respect to two more of our operations in West Virginia, the
employees of which elected in April 2010 to be also represented
by the UMWA. Though we believe the Bluestone companies have a
good relationship with the UMWA, there are no assurances that
these relations will not deteriorate in the future. Our
U.S. employees have the right at any time under the
U.S. National Labor Relations Act to form or affiliate with
a union and the current presidential administration in the
United States has indicated that it will support legislation
that may make it easier for employees to unionize. Any further
unionization of employees could adversely affect the stability
of our U.S. production and negatively impact the financial
performance of our U.S. operations. Additionally, due to
the increased risk of strikes and other work-related stoppages
that may be associated with union operations in the coal
industry, our competitors who operate without union labor may
have a competitive advantage in areas where they compete with
our unionized operations.
Bluestone
companies have liabilities with respect to post-retirement
benefits for our U.S. employees, which could be more burdensome
if certain factors beyond our control are changed or
corrected.
The Bluestone companies we acquired have long-term liabilities
with respect to pension obligations and post-retirement welfare
benefit plans. The Bluestone companies contribute to
multi-employer defined benefit pension plans sponsored by the
UMWA. In the event of our partial or complete withdrawal from
any multi-employer plan which is underfunded, we would be liable
for a proportionate share of such plans unfunded vested
benefits. In the event that any other contributing employer
withdraws from any plan which is underfunded, and such employer
(or any member in its controlled group) cannot satisfy its
obligations under the plan at the time of withdrawal, then we,
along with the other remaining contributing employers, would be
liable for our proportionate share of such plans unfunded
vested benefits. As of June 30, 2010, the UMWA pension
plans unfunded liability was $4.1 billion.
Furthermore, in September 2010, the UMWA Funds reported to the
United States Department of the Treasury, as required under the
Pension Protection Act of 2006, that the UMWA pension plan is in
Seriously Endangered Status for the plan year
beginning July 1, 2010 due to funded percentage below 80%.
When a pension plan is certified to be in seriously endangered
status, federal law requires the plan to adopt a funding
improvement plan aimed at restoring the financial health of the
plan. The funding improvement plan may include increased
contributions to the plan
and/or
modifications to certain future benefit accruals. Now, it is up
to the Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) and the UMWA
to negotiate such an improvement plan. As the signatory
companies will be bound to whatever the BCOA and the UMWA
negotiate as to an improvement plan, Bluestones signatory
companies may see a required higher level of contributions in
the future.
The Bluestone companies post-retirement medical
obligations have been estimated based on actuarial assumptions,
including actuarial estimates, assumed discount rates, estimates
of life expectancy, and changes in healthcare costs. If our
assumptions relating to these benefits change in the future or
are incorrect, we may
31
be required to record additional expenses. In addition, future
regulatory and accounting changes relating to these benefits
could result in increased obligations or additional costs, which
could also have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We do not
carry the types of insurance coverage customary in more
economically developed countries for a business of our size and
nature, and a significant event could result in substantial
property loss and inability to rebuild in a timely manner or at
all.
The insurance industry is still developing in Russia, and many
forms of insurance protection common in more economically
developed countries are not available in Russia on comparable
terms, including coverage for business interruption. At present,
most of our Russian production facilities are not insured, and
we have no coverage for business interruption or for third-party
liability, other than insurance required under Russian law,
collective agreements, loan agreements or other undertakings.
Some of our international production facilities are not covered
by comprehensive insurance typical for such operations in
Western countries. We cannot assure you that the insurance we
have in place is adequate for the potential losses and the
liability we may suffer.
Since most of our production facilities lack insurance covering
their property, if a significant event were to affect one of our
facilities, we could experience substantial financial and
property losses, as well as significant disruptions in our
production activity, for which we would not be compensated by
business interruption insurance.
Since we do not maintain separate funds or otherwise set aside
reserves for these types of events, in case of any such loss or
third-party claim for damages we may be unable to seek any
recovery for lost or damaged property or compensate losses due
to disruption of production activity. Any such uninsured loss or
event may have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If
transactions, corporate decisions or other actions of members of
our group and their
predecessors-in-interest
were to be challenged on the basis of non-compliance with
applicable legal requirements, the remedies in the event of any
successful challenge could include the invalidation of such
transactions, corporate decisions or other actions or the
imposition of other liabilities on such group members.
Businesses of our group, or their
predecessors-in-interest
at different times, have taken a variety of actions relating to
the incorporation of entities, share issuances, share disposals
and acquisitions, mandatory buy-out offers, acquisition and
valuation of property, including land plots, interested party
transactions, major transactions, decisions to transfer
licenses, meetings of governing bodies, other corporate matters
and antimonopoly issues that, if successfully challenged on the
basis of non-compliance with applicable legal requirements by
competent state authorities, counterparties in such transactions
or shareholders of the relevant members of our group or their
predecessors-in-interest,
could result in the invalidation of such actions, transactions
and corporate decisions, restrictions on voting rights or the
imposition of other liabilities. As applicable laws of Russia,
Kazakhstan and other emerging countries are subject to varying
interpretations, we may not be able to defend successfully any
challenge brought against such actions, decisions or
transactions, and the invalidation of any such actions,
transactions and corporate decisions or imposition of any
restriction or liability could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
We have
used certain information in this document that has been sourced
from third parties.
We have sourced certain information contained in this document
from independent third parties, including private companies,
government agencies and other publicly available sources. We
believe these sources of information are reliable and that the
information fairly and reasonably characterizes the industry in
countries where we operate. However, although we take
responsibility for compiling and extracting the data, we have
not independently verified this information. In addition, the
official data published by Russian federal, regional and local
governments may be substantially less complete or researched
than those of Western countries. Official statistics may also be
produced on different bases than those used in Western countries.
32
Risks
Relating to Our Shares and the Trading Market
Our ability to pay dividends depends primarily upon receipt
of sufficient funds from our subsidiaries.
Because we are a holding company, our ability to pay dividends
depends primarily upon receipt of sufficient funds from our
subsidiaries. Under Russian law, dividends may be declared and
paid only out of net profits calculated under Russian accounting
standards and as long as certain conditions have been met,
including if the value of the net assets, calculated under
Russian accounting standards, is not less (and would not become
less as a result of the proposed dividend payment) than the sum
of the charter capital, the reserve fund and the difference
between the liquidation value and the par value of the issued
and outstanding preferred shares. See Item 10.
Charter and Certain Requirements of Russian
Legislation Description of Capital Stock
Dividends. Currently some of our subsidiaries do not meet
this criteria and can not approve payment of, or pay dividends.
See Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation One or more of our subsidiaries could be
forced into liquidation on the basis of formal non-compliance
with certain requirements of Russian law, which could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects.
Furthermore, the payment of dividends by our subsidiaries
and/or our
ability to repatriate such dividends may, in certain instances,
be subject to taxes, statutory restrictions, retained earnings
criteria, and covenants in our subsidiaries financing
arrangements and are contingent upon the earnings and cash flow
of those subsidiaries. See note 18 to our consolidated
financial statements.
The
depositary may be required to take certain actions due to
Russian law requirements which could adversely impact the
liquidity and value of the shares and ADSs.
If at any time the depositary believes that the shares deposited
with it against issuance of ADSs represent (or, upon accepting
any additional shares for deposit, would represent) a percentage
of shares which exceeds any threshold or limit established by
any applicable law, directive, regulation or permit, or
satisfies any condition for making any filing, application,
notification or registration or obtaining any approval, license
or permit under any applicable law, directive or regulation, or
taking any other action, the depositary may (1) close its
books to deposits of additional shares in order to prevent such
thresholds or limits being exceeded or conditions being
satisfied or (2) take such steps as are, in its opinion,
necessary or desirable to remedy the consequences of such
thresholds or limits being exceeded or conditions being
satisfied and to comply with any such law, directive or
regulation, including, causing pro rata cancellation of
ADSs and withdrawal of underlying shares from the depositary
receipt program to the extent necessary or desirable to so
comply.
In addition, given that the depositary is already the record
owner of approximately 35% of our common shares under our common
ADS and GDS programs and of approximately 18.17% of our
preferred shares under our preferred ADS program, and if the
preferred shares become entitled to the same voting rights as
the common shares, then the following requirements may become
applicable to the depositary:
|
|
|
|
|
Under Russian corporate law, a person that has acquired more
than 30%, 50% or 75% of the common shares and voting preferred
shares of an open stock company such as Mechel (including, for
such purposes, the shares already owned by such person and its
affiliates) will, except in certain limited circumstances, be
required to make, within 35 days of acquiring such shares,
a public tender offer for all other shares of the same class and
for securities convertible into such shares (mandatory offer).
From the moment of the relevant acquisition until the date the
offer is sent to the company, the person making the offer and
its affiliates will be able to register for quorum purposes and
vote only 30% (or 50% or 75%, as the case may be) of the
companys common shares and voting preferred shares
(regardless of the size of their actual holdings). See
Item 10. Charter and Certain Requirements of Russian
Legislation Change in Control
Anti-takeover protection. Under Russian law, the
depositary may be considered the owner of the shares underlying
the ADSs, and as such may be subject to the mandatory public
tender offer rules. See As the depositary may
be considered the owner of the shares underlying the ADSs, these
shares may be arrested or seized in legal proceedings in Russia
against the depositary.
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
Under Russian antimonopoly legislation, certain transactions
resulting in a shareholder (or a group of persons, as defined by
Russian law) holding directly more than 25%, 50% or 75% of the
voting capital stock of a company (such as Mechel) or the right
to control the company indirectly must be approved in advance by
FAS. See Item 10. Charter and Certain Requirements of
Russian Legislation Change in Control
Approval of the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service. The
depositary thus may need such prior approval in the future. The
depositary has received general interpretive guidance from the
FAS that it need not obtain the approval referred to above in
connection with depositary receipt programs such as our ADS
programs. If, however, the FAS were to rescind or disregard its
above mentioned interpretation, the ADS programs would be
subject to a de facto limit of 24.99% of Mechels
outstanding voting shares, unless the depositary could obtain
FAS approval for a higher percentage.
|
|
|
|
Under the Federal Law of the Russian Federation On the
Procedure for Foreign Investment in Companies With Strategic
Impact on the National Defense and Security of the Russian
Federation (the Strategic Industries
Law) dated April 29, 2008, the acquisition by a
foreign investor, or a group of entities which includes a
foreign investor, of (1) 50% or more of the voting capital
stock of a company which is considered to be a strategic
enterprise as defined by the Strategic Industries Law (a
Strategic Company) or (2) 10% or more of
the voting capital stock of a Strategic Company which is engaged
in the geological study, exploration or production of natural
resources on plots that are deemed by the Russian government to
be subsoil plots of federal importance (a Strategic
Subsoil Company), must be previously approved by the
governmental commission. Some of our subsidiaries are considered
Strategic Companies or Strategic Subsoil Companies. See
Item 3. Key Information Risk
Factors Legal Risks and Uncertainties
Expansion of limitations on foreign investment in strategic
sectors could affect our ability to attract
and/or
retain foreign investments. If the total number of our
voting shares held by the depositary (together with any entities
within its group) reaches the thresholds described above, the
depositary may be required to obtain approval of the
governmental commission. The depositary has received general
interpretive guidance from FAS, which is competent to issue such
guidance, that it does not need to obtain the approval referred
to above in connection with depositary receipt programs such as
our ADS programs. If, however, FAS were to rescind or disregard
its above mentioned interpretation, the ADS programs would be
subject to a de facto limit on the number of shares, unless the
depositary could obtain FAS approval for a higher percentage.
See Item 4. Information on the Company
Regulatory Matters The Strategic Industries
Law.
|
An inability to deposit shares into the ADS programs in exchange
for ADSs due to the aforementioned limits or other similar
regulations or circumstances may affect the liquidity and the
value of your investment in the shares and ADSs.
As the
depositary may be considered the owner of the shares underlying
the ADSs, these shares may be arrested or seized in legal
proceedings in Russia against the depositary.
Because a court interpreting Russian law may not recognize ADS
holders as beneficial owners of the underlying shares, it is
possible that holders of ADSs could lose all their rights to
those shares if the assets of the depositary in Russia are
seized or arrested. In that case, holders of ADSs would lose
their entire investment.
A court interpreting Russian law may treat the depositary as the
beneficial owner of the shares underlying the ADSs. This is
different from the way other jurisdictions treat ADSs. In the
United States, although shares may be held in the
depositarys name or to its order, making it a
legal owner of the shares, the ADS holders are the
beneficial, or real, owners. In U.S. courts, an
action against the depositary unrelated to its capacity as
depositary under the ADS program would not result in the
beneficial owners losing their rights with regard to the
underlying shares. Russian law does not make the same
distinction between legal and beneficial ownership, and it may
only recognize the rights of the depositary in whose name the
underlying shares are held, but not the rights of ADS holders to
the underlying shares. Thus, in proceedings brought against a
depositary, whether or not related to shares underlying ADSs,
Russian courts may treat those underlying shares as the assets
of the depositary, open to seizure or arrest.
34
Voting
rights with respect to the shares represented by our ADSs are
limited by the terms of the relevant deposit agreement for the
ADSs and relevant requirements of Russian law.
ADS holders have no direct voting rights with respect to the
shares represented by the ADSs. They can only exercise voting
rights with respect to the shares represented by ADSs in
accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreements
relating to the ADSs and relevant requirements of Russian law.
Therefore, there are practical limitations upon the ability of
ADS holders to exercise their voting rights due to the
additional procedural steps which are involved. For example, the
Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter require us to notify
shareholders not less than 30 days prior to the date of any
meeting of shareholders and at least 70 days prior to the
date of an extraordinary meeting to elect our Board of Directors
via publication of a notice in the Russian official newspaper
Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Our common shareholders, as well as
our preferred shareholders in cases when they have voting
rights, will be able to exercise their voting rights by either
attending the meeting in person or voting by power of attorney.
For ADS holders, in accordance with the deposit agreements, we
will provide the notice to the depositary. The depositary has in
turn undertaken, as soon as practicable thereafter, to mail to
ADS holders notice of such any meeting of shareholders, copies
of voting materials (if and as received by the depositary from
us) and a statement as to the manner in which instructions may
be given by ADS holders. To exercise their voting rights, ADS
holders must then timely instruct the depositary how to vote
their shares. As a result of this extra procedural step
involving the depositary, the process for exercising voting
rights may take longer for ADS holders than for holders of
shares. ADSs for which the depositary does not receive timely
voting instructions will not be voted at any meeting.
In addition, although securities regulations expressly permit
the depositary to split the votes with respect to the shares
underlying the ADSs in accordance with instructions from ADS
holders, there is little court or regulatory guidance on the
application of such regulations, and the depositary may choose
to refrain from voting at all unless it receives instructions
from all ADS holders to vote the shares in the same manner.
Holders of ADSs may thus have significant difficulty in
exercising voting rights with respect to the shares underlying
the ADSs. There can be no assurance that holders and beneficial
owners of ADSs will: (1) receive notice of shareholder
meetings to enable the timely return of voting instructions to
the depositary; (2) receive notice to enable the timely
cancellation of ADSs in respect of shareholder actions; or
(3) be given the benefit of dissenting or minority
shareholders rights in respect of an event or action in
which the holder or beneficial owner has voted against,
abstained from voting or not given voting instructions.
ADS
holders may be unable to repatriate their earnings.
Dividends that we may pay in the future on the shares
represented by the ADSs will be declared and paid to the
depositary in rubles. Such dividends will be converted into
U.S. dollars by the depositary and distributed to holders
of ADSs, net of the fees and charges of, and expenses incurred
by, the depositary, together with taxes withheld and any other
governmental charges. The ability to convert rubles into
U.S. dollars is subject to the currency markets. Although
there is an active market for the conversion of rubles into
U.S. dollars, including the interbank currency exchange and
over-the-counter
and currency futures markets, the functioning of this market in
the future is not guaranteed.
ADS
holders may not be able to benefit from the United States-Russia
income tax treaty.
Under Russian law, dividends paid to a non-resident holder of
the shares generally will be subject to Russian withholding tax
at a rate of 15%. This tax may potentially be reduced to 5% or
10% for U.S. holders of the shares that are legal entities
and organizations and to 10% for U.S. holders of the shares
that are individuals under the Convention between the United
States of America and the Russian Federation for the Avoidance
of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with
respect to Taxes on Income and Capital (the United
States-Russia income tax treaty), provided a number of
conditions are satisfied. However, Russian tax rules on the
application of double tax treaty benefits to individuals are
unclear and there is no certainty that advance clearance would
be possible. The Russian tax rules applicable to ADS holders are
characterized by significant uncertainties. In a number of
clarifications, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian
35
Federation expressed a view that ADS holders (rather than the
depositary) should be treated as the beneficial owners of the
underlying shares for the purposes of double tax treaty
provisions applicable to taxation of dividend income from the
underlying shares, provided that the tax residencies of the ADS
holders are duly confirmed. However, in the absence of any
specific provisions in the Russian tax legislation with respect
to the concept of beneficial ownership and taxation of income of
beneficial owners, it is unclear how the Russian tax authorities
and courts will ultimately treat the ADS holders in this regard.
Thus, we may be obliged to withhold tax at standard non-treaty
rates when paying out dividends, and U.S. ADS holders may
be unable to benefit from the United States-Russia income tax
treaty. See Item 10. Additional
Information Taxation Russian Income and
Withholding Tax Considerations for additional information.
Capital
gains from the sale of ADSs may be subject to Russian income
tax.
Under Russian tax legislation, gains realized by non-resident
legal entities or organizations from the disposition of Russian
shares and securities, as well as financial instruments derived
from such shares, such as the ADSs, may be subject to Russian
profits tax or withholding income tax if immovable property
located in Russia constitutes more than 50% of our assets.
However, no procedural mechanism currently exists to withhold
and remit this tax with respect to sales made to persons other
than Russian companies and foreign companies with a registered
permanent establishment in Russia. Gains arising from the
disposition on foreign stock exchanges of the foregoing types of
securities listed on these exchanges are not subject to taxation
in Russia.
Gains arising from the disposition of the foregoing types of
securities and derivatives outside of Russia by
U.S. holders who are individuals not resident in Russia for
tax purposes will not be considered Russian source income and
will not be taxable in Russia. Gains arising from disposition of
the foregoing types of securities and derivatives in Russia by
U.S. holders who are individuals not resident in Russia for
tax purposes may be subject to tax either at the source in
Russia or based on an annual tax return, which they may be
required to submit with the Russian tax authorities.
Holders
of ADSs may have limited recourse against us and our directors
and executive officers because most of our operations are
conducted outside the United States and most of our directors
and all of our executive officers reside outside the United
States.
Our presence outside the United States may limit ADS
holders legal recourse against us. Mechel is incorporated
under the laws of the Russian Federation. Most of our directors
and all of our executive officers reside outside the United
States, principally in Russia. A substantial portion of our
assets and the assets of most of our directors and executive
officers are located outside the United States. As a result,
holders of our ADSs may be limited in their ability to effect
service of process within the United States upon us or our
directors and executive officers or to enforce in a
U.S. court a judgment obtained against us or our directors
and executive officers in jurisdictions outside the United
States, including actions under the civil liability provisions
of U.S. securities laws. In addition, it may be difficult
for holders of ADSs to enforce, in original actions brought in
courts in jurisdictions outside the United States, liabilities
predicated upon U.S. securities laws.
There is no treaty between the United States and the Russian
Federation providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement
of foreign court judgments in civil and commercial matters.
These limitations may deprive investors of effective legal
recourse for claims related to investments in the ADSs. The
deposit agreements provide for actions brought by any party
thereto against us to be settled by arbitration in accordance
with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American
Arbitration Association, provided that any action under the
U.S. federal securities laws or the rules or regulations
promulgated thereunder may, but need not, be submitted to
arbitration. The Russian Federation is a party to the United
Nations (New York) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards, but it may be difficult to enforce
arbitral awards in the Russian Federation due to a number of
factors, including the inexperience of Russian courts in
international commercial transactions, official and unofficial
political resistance to enforcement of awards against Russian
companies in favor of foreign investors and Russian courts
inability to enforce such orders.
36
We and
the Justice persons may offer additional preferred shares and
preferred ADSs in the future, and these and other sales may
adversely affect the market price of the preferred shares and
preferred ADSs.
As of the date of this document, of the 138,756,915 issued
preferred shares, 58,044,572 preferred shares are held by James
C. Justice II, James C. Justice III, James C. Justice Companies
Inc. and Jillean L. Justice (collectively, the Justice
persons) and the remaining 55,502,766 preferred shares
are held by our wholly-owned subsidiary Skyblock Limited. The
Justice Persons acquired their preferred shares in connection
with the sale of their Bluestone coking coal business located in
Beckley, West Virginia to us in May 2009. During 2010 the
Justice Persons disposed some of the preferred shares they held.
The Justice persons may dispose of all or part of the remaining
preferred shares they hold through one or more offerings or
broker trades in the future. It is also possible that we may
decide to offer additional preferred shares and preferred ADSs
in the future, including the 55,502,766 preferred shares held by
our wholly-owned subsidiary Skyblock Limited. Additional
offerings or sales of preferred shares and preferred ADSs by us
or the Justice Persons, or the public perception that such
offerings or sales may occur, could have an adverse effect on
the market price of our preferred shares and preferred ADSs.
The price
of our shares and ADSs could be volatile and could drop
unexpectedly, making it difficult for investors to resell our
shares or ADSs at or above the price paid.
The price at which our shares and ADSs trade is influenced by a
large number of factors, some of which are specific to us and
our operations and some of which are related to the mining,
steel and ferroalloy industries and equity markets in general.
As a result of these factors, investors may not be able to
resell their shares or ADSs at or above the price paid for them.
In particular, the following factors, in addition to other risk
factors described in this section, may have a material impact on
the market price of our shares and ADSs:
|
|
|
|
|
Investor perception of us as a company;
|
|
|
|
Actual or anticipated fluctuations in our revenues or operating
results;
|
|
|
|
Announcement of intended acquisitions, disposals or financings,
or speculation about such acquisitions, disposals or financings;
|
|
|
|
Changes in our dividend policy, which could result from changes
in our cash flow and capital position;
|
|
|
|
Sales of blocks of our common shares, common ADSs, preferred
shares or preferred ADSs by significant shareholders, including
the Justice persons;
|
|
|
|
Price and timing of any refinancing of our indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
Potential litigation involving us;
|
|
|
|
Changes in financial estimates and recommendations by securities
research analysts;
|
|
|
|
Fluctuations in Russian and international capital markets,
including those due to events in other emerging markets;
|
|
|
|
The performance of other companies operating in similar
industries;
|
|
|
|
Regulatory developments in the markets where we operate,
especially Russia, Kazakhstan and the United States;
|
|
|
|
International political and economic conditions, including the
effects of fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, interest
rates and oil prices and other events such as terrorist attacks,
military operations and natural disasters and the uncertainty
related to these developments;
|
|
|
|
News or analyst reports related to markets or industries in
which we operate; and
|
|
|
|
General investor perception of investing in Russia.
|
37
Risks
Relating to the Russian Federation
Emerging
markets such as Russia are subject to greater risks than more
developed markets, and financial turmoil in developed or other
emerging markets could cause the value of our shares and ADSs to
fluctuate widely.
Investors in emerging markets such as the Russian Federation
should be aware that these markets are subject to greater risk
than more developed markets, including in some cases significant
legal, economic and political risks. Investors should also note
that the value of securities of Russian companies is subject to
rapid and wide fluctuations due to various factors. Accordingly,
investors should exercise particular care in evaluating the
risks involved and must decide for themselves whether, in light
of those risks, their investment is appropriate. Generally,
investment in emerging markets is only suitable for
sophisticated investors who fully appreciate the significance of
the risks involved.
Economic
risks
Economic
instability in Russia could adversely affect our business and
the value of our shares and ADSs.
The Russian economy has been subject to abrupt downturns in the
past. In particular, on August 17, 1998, in the face of a
rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the Russian government
defaulted on its ruble-denominated securities, the CBR stopped
its support of the ruble and a temporary moratorium was imposed
on certain foreign currency payments. These actions resulted in
an immediate and severe devaluation of the ruble and a sharp
increase in the rate of inflation; a substantial decline in the
prices of Russian debt and equity securities; and an inability
of Russian issuers to raise funds in the international capital
markets. These problems were aggravated by a major banking
crisis in the Russian banking sector after the events of
August 17, 1998, as evidenced by the termination of the
banking licenses of a number of major Russian banks. This
further impaired the ability of the banking sector to act as a
consistent source of liquidity to Russian companies and resulted
in the losses of bank deposits in some cases.
From 2000 to 2008, the Russian economy experienced positive
trends, such as annual increases in the gross domestic product,
a relatively stable Russian ruble, strong domestic demand,
rising real wages and a reduced rates of inflation. However,
these trends were interrupted by the global financial crisis in
late 2008, which led to a substantial decrease in the gross
domestic products growth rate, ruble depreciation and a
decline in domestic demand. The Russian government has taken
certain anti-crisis measures using the stabilization
fund and hard currency reserves in order to soften the
impact of the economic crisis on the Russian economy and support
the value of the ruble. As a result, following a decline by 7.9%
in 2009, the Russian gross domestic product grew by 14.7% in
2010, according to Rosstat. However, the full impact of global
economic crisis on Russia is not yet clear, and it is possible
that the Russian economy could continue to be impacted in the
near future. Further economic instability in
Russia could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the
value of our shares and ADSs.
The
Russian banking system is still developing, and another banking
crisis could place severe liquidity constraints on our
business.
We and our Russian subsidiaries hold a substantial majority of
ruble and foreign currency cash in Russian banks, including
Russian banking subsidiaries of foreign banks, and a substantial
portion of our loans are from Russian banks, including
state-owned banks such as Sberbank, VTB Bank and Gazprombank.
Moreover, we rely on the Russian banking system to complete
various
day-to-day
fund transfers and other actions required to conduct our
business with customers, suppliers, lenders and other
counterparties.
While the impact of the global financial crisis on the Russian
banking system has been contained by the actions by the CBR, the
risk of further instability remains high. With few exceptions
(notably the state owned banks), the Russian banking system
suffers from weak depositor confidence, high concentration of
exposure to certain borrowers and their affiliates, poor credit
quality of borrowers and related party transactions. Risk
management, corporate governance and transparency and disclosure
remain below international best practices.
38
In the recent global financial crisis, Russian banks were faced
with a number of problems simultaneously, such as withdrawal of
deposits by customers, payment defaults by borrowers and
deteriorating asset values and ruble depreciation. Russian banks
faced and continue to face serious mismatches in their
liabilities (consisting in large part of foreign debt) and
assets (loans to Russian borrowers and investments in Russian
assets and securities).
These weaknesses in the Russian banking sector make the sector
more susceptible to market downturns or economic slowdowns
including due to defaults by Russian borrowers that may occur
during such market downturn or economic slowdown. The
continuation or worsening of the banking crisis or the
bankruptcy or insolvency of the banks in which we hold our funds
could prevent us from accessing our funds or affect our ability
to complete banking transactions in Russia, or may result in the
loss of our deposits altogether, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial
condition and prospects.
The
infrastructure in Russia needs significant improvement and
investment, which could disrupt normal business
activity.
The infrastructure in Russia largely dates back to the Soviet
era and has not been adequately funded and maintained since the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. Particularly affected are the
rail and road networks, power generation and transmission
systems, communication systems and building stock. The
deterioration of the infrastructure in Russia harms the national
economy, disrupts the transportation of goods and supplies, adds
costs to doing business and can interrupt business operations.
These factors could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
The
Russian economy and the value of our shares and ADSs could be
materially adversely affected by fluctuations in the global
economy.
The recent turmoil in the international credit markets and the
global economic slowdown have resulted in increased volatility
in the capital markets in many countries, including Russia. As
has happened in the past, financial problems or an increase in
the perceived risks associated with investing in emerging
economies could dampen foreign investment in Russia and Russian
businesses could face severe liquidity constraints, further
materially adversely affecting the Russian economy.
Additionally, because Russia produces and exports large amounts
of oil, the Russian economy is especially vulnerable to the
price of oil on the world market and a decline in the price of
oil could slow or disrupt the Russian economy or undermine the
value of the ruble against foreign currencies. Russia is also
one of the worlds largest producers and exporters of metal
products and its economy is vulnerable to fluctuations in world
commodity prices and the imposition of tariffs
and/or
antidumping measures by any of its principal export markets.
As many of the factors that affect the Russian and global
economies affect our business and the business of many of our
domestic and international customers, our business could be
materially adversely affected by a prolonged downturn affecting
the Russian or global economy. In addition to reduced demand for
our products, we may experience increases in overdue accounts
receivable from our customers, some of whom may face liquidity
problems and potential bankruptcy. Our suppliers may raise their
prices, eliminate or reduce trade financing or reduce their
output. A decline in product demand, a decrease in
collectability of accounts receivable or substantial changes in
the terms of our suppliers pricing policies or financing
terms, or the potential bankruptcy of our customers or contract
counterparties may have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
In addition, a deterioration in macroeconomic conditions could
require us to reassess the value of goodwill on certain of our
assets, recorded as the difference between the fair value of the
assets of business acquired and its purchase price. This
goodwill is subject to impairment tests on an ongoing basis. The
weakening macroeconomic conditions in the countries in which we
operate
and/or a
significant difference between the performance of an acquired
company and the business case assumed at the time of acquisition
could require us to write down the value of the goodwill or
portion of such value. See note 2(n) to our consolidated
financial statements.
39
Political
and social risks
Political
and governmental instability could materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects and the value of our shares and ADSs.
Since 1991, Russia has sought to transform itself from a
one-party state with a centrally-planned economy to a democracy
with a market economy. As a result of the sweeping nature of the
reforms, and the failure of some of them, the Russian political
system remains vulnerable to popular dissatisfaction, including
dissatisfaction with the results of privatizations in the 1990s,
as well as to demands for autonomy from particular regional and
ethnic groups.
Current and future changes in the government, conflicts between
federal government and regional or local authorities, major
policy shifts or lack of consensus between various branches of
the government and powerful economic groups could disrupt or
reverse economic and regulatory reforms. Any disruption or
reversal of reform policies could lead to political or
governmental instability or the occurrence of conflicts among
powerful economic groups, resulting in an adverse impact on
Russias economy and investment climate, which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects and the value of our shares
and ADSs.
Corruption
and negative publicity could negatively impact our business and
the value of our shares and ADSs.
The local press and international press have reported high
levels of corruption in Russia, including unlawful demands by
government officials and the bribery of government officials for
the purpose of initiating investigations by government agencies.
Press reports have also described instances in which government
officials engaged in selective investigations and prosecutions
to further the commercial interests of certain government
officials or certain companies or individuals. Additionally,
there are reports of the Russian media publishing disparaging
articles in return for payment. If we are accused of involvement
in government corruption, the resulting negative publicity could
disrupt our ability to conduct our business and impair our
relationships with customers, suppliers and other parties, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations and the value of our shares
and ADSs.
Shortage
of skilled Russian labor could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Currently the Russian labor market suffers from a general
shortage of skilled and trained workers, and we compete with
other Russian companies to hire and retain such workers. In
Russia, the working age population has declined due to a
relatively low birth rate at the end of the 1980s and through
the early 1990s. In 2010, Rosstat estimated Russias
population at 142 million, a decline of almost seven
million from 1992. Although the birth rate recently reached its
highest rate in 15 years, the population continues to
decline due to a relatively low birth rate, an aging population
and low life expectancy. Russias working age population is
estimated to decline by
10-20 million
by 2025. If the present trend continues without a migration
inflow to Russia, the decreasing working population will become
a barrier to economic growth around 2015, according to the
National Human Development Report for the Russian Federation
produced by the United Nations Development Program in 2008. A
shortage of skilled Russian labor combined with restrictive
immigration policies could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Legal
risks and uncertainties
Deficiencies
in the legal framework relating to subsoil licensing subject our
licenses to the risk of governmental challenges and, if our
licenses are suspended or terminated, we may be unable to
realize our reserves, which could materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Most of the existing subsoil licenses in Russia date from the
Soviet era. During the period between the dissolution of the
Soviet Union in August 1991 and the enactment of the first
post-Soviet subsoil licensing law
40
in the summer of 1992, the status of subsoil licenses and
Soviet-era mining operations was unclear, as was the status of
the regulatory authority governing such operations. The Russian
government enacted the Procedure for Subsoil Use Licensing on
July 15, 1992, which came into effect on August 20,
1992 (the Licensing Regulation). As was
common with legislation of this time, the Licensing Regulation
was passed without adequate consideration of transition
provisions and contained numerous gaps. In an effort to address
the problems in the Licensing Regulation, the Ministry of
Natural Resources (the MNR) issued
ministerial acts and instructions that attempted to clarify and,
in some cases, modify the Licensing Regulation. Many of these
acts contradicted the law and were beyond the scope of the
MNRs authority, but subsoil licensees had no option but to
deal with the MNR in relation to subsoil issues and comply with
its ministerial acts and instructions. Thus, it is possible that
licenses applied for
and/or
issued in reliance on the MNRs acts and instructions could
be challenged by the prosecutor generals office as being
invalid. In particular, deficiencies of this nature subject
subsoil licensees to selective and arbitrary governmental claims.
Legislation on subsoil rights still remains internally
inconsistent and vague, and the regulators acts and
instructions are often arguably inconsistent with legislation.
Subsoil licensees thus continue to face the situation where both
failing to comply with the regulators acts and
instructions and choosing to comply with them places them at the
risk of being subject to arbitrary governmental claims, whether
by the regulator or the prosecutor generals office. Our
competitors may also seek to deny our rights to develop certain
natural resource deposits by challenging our compliance with
tender rules and procedures or compliance with license terms.
An existing provision of the law that a license may be suspended
or terminated if the licensee does not comply with the
significant or material terms of a
license is an example of such a deficiency in the legislation.
The MNR (including its successor agency since May 13, 2008,
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology) has not issued
any interpretive guidance on the meaning of these terms.
Similarly, under Russias civil law system, court decisions
interpreting these terms do not have any precedential value for
future cases and, in any event, court decisions in this regard
have been inconsistent. These deficiencies result in the
regulatory authorities, prosecutors and courts having
significant discretion over enforcement and interpretation of
the law, which may be used to challenge our subsoil rights
selectively and arbitrarily.
Moreover, during the tumultuous period of the transformation of
the Russian planned economy into a free market economy in the
1990s, documentation relating to subsoil licenses was not
properly maintained in accordance with administrative
requirements and, in many cases, was lost or destroyed. Thus, in
many cases, although it may be clearly evident that a particular
enterprise has mined a licensed subsoil area for decades, the
historical documentation relating to its subsoil licenses may be
incomplete. If, through governmental or other challenges, our
licenses are suspended or terminated we would be unable to
realize our reserves, which could materially adversely affect
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Weaknesses
relating to the Russian legal system and legislation create an
uncertain investment climate.
Russia is still developing the legal framework required to
support a market economy. The following weaknesses relating to
the Russian legal system create an uncertain investment climate
and result in risks with respect to our legal and business
decisions:
|
|
|
|
|
inconsistencies between and among the Constitution, federal law,
presidential decrees and governmental, ministerial and local
orders, decisions, resolutions and other acts;
|
|
|
|
conflicting local, regional and federal rules and regulations;
|
|
|
|
the lack of fully developed corporate and securities laws;
|
|
|
|
substantial gaps in the regulatory structure due to the delay or
absence of implementing legislation;
|
|
|
|
the relative inexperience of judges in interpreting legislation;
|
|
|
|
the lack of full independence of the judicial system from
commercial, political and nationalistic influences;
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
difficulty in enforcing court orders;
|
|
|
|
a high degree of discretion or arbitrariness on the part of
governmental authorities; and
|
|
|
|
still-developing bankruptcy procedures that are subject to abuse.
|
All of these weaknesses could affect our ability to protect our
rights under our licenses and under our contracts, or to defend
ourselves against claims by others. We make no assurances that
regulators, judicial authorities or third parties will not
challenge our compliance with applicable laws, decrees and
regulations.
One or
more of our subsidiaries could be forced into liquidation on the
basis of formal non-compliance with certain requirements of
Russian law, which could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Certain provisions of Russian law may allow a court to order
liquidation of a Russian legal entity on the basis of its formal
non-compliance with certain requirements during formation,
reorganization or during its operation. There have been cases in
the past in which formal deficiencies in the establishment
process of a Russian legal entity or non-compliance with
provisions of Russian law have been used by Russian courts as a
basis for liquidation of a legal entity. For example, under
Russian corporate law, if a Russian companys net assets
calculated on the basis of Russian accounting standards at the
end of its third or any subsequent financial year, fall below
its share capital, the company must decrease its share capital
to the level of its net assets value or initiate a voluntary
liquidation. In addition, if a Russian companys net assets
calculated on the basis of Russian accounting standards at the
end of its second or any subsequent financial year, fall below
the minimum share capital required by law, the company must
initiate voluntarily liquidation not later than six months after
the end of such financial year. If the company fails to comply
with either of the requirements stated above within the
prescribed time limits, the companys creditors may
accelerate their claims and demand reimbursement of applicable
damages, and governmental authorities may seek involuntary
liquidation of the company. Many Russian companies have negative
net assets due to very low historical asset values reflected on
their balance sheets prepared in accordance with Russian
accounting standards; however, their solvency, i.e., their
ability to pay debts as they become due, is not otherwise
adversely affected by such negative net assets. Currently, we
have following subsidiaries with negative net assets:
Coke-Invest, Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant OOO, Port
Kambarka, Metals Recycling, Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant, Mechel
Mining Management, Sky-Extra, Mechel-Remservice,
Mechel-Zakazchik, SocResource, Mechel-Region, Mecheltrans
Management. Also, the net assets of Mechel Mining are below its
current share capital. To cure this, the shareholders have
approved the decrease of the share capital and relevant changes
to the charter are now being registered.
If involuntary liquidation were to occur, then we may be forced
to reorganize the operations we currently conduct through the
affected subsidiaries. Any such liquidation could lead to
additional costs, which could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Selective
government action could have a material adverse effect on the
investment climate in Russia and on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects and the value of
our shares and ADSs.
Governmental authorities in Russia have a high degree of
discretion. Press reports have cited instances of Russian
companies and their major shareholders being subjected to
government pressure through prosecutions of violations of
regulations and legislation which are either politically
motivated or triggered by competing business groups.
In mid-2008, Mechel came under public criticism by the Russian
government. Repeated statements were made accusing Mechel of
using tax avoidance schemes and other improprieties. Ultimately
the allegations regarding tax avoidance were not confirmed by
the tax authorities, but the antimonopoly investigation resulted
in imposition of a fine and a number of FAS directives regarding
our business practices. See Risks Relating to
Our Business and Industry Antimonopoly regulation
could lead to sanctions with respect to the subsidiaries we have
acquired or established or our prices, sales volumes and
business practices and Item 8. Financial
Information Litigation
Antimonopoly.
42
Selective government action, if directed at us or our
controlling shareholder, could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects and the value of our shares and ADSs.
Due to
still-developing law and practice related to minority
shareholder protection in Russia, the ability of holders of our
shares and ADSs to bring, or recover in, an action against us
may be limited.
In general, minority shareholder protection under Russian law
derives from supermajority shareholder approval requirements for
certain corporate actions, as well as from the ability of a
shareholder to demand that the company purchase the shares held
by that shareholder if that shareholder voted against or did not
participate in voting on certain types of actions. Companies are
also required by Russian law to obtain the approval of
disinterested shareholders for certain transactions with
interested parties. See Item 10. Additional
Information Description of Capital Stock
Rights attaching to common shares. Disclosure and
reporting requirements have also been enacted in Russia.
Concepts similar to the fiduciary duties of directors and
officers to their companies and shareholders are also expected
to be further developed in Russian legislation; for example,
amendments to the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses
imposing administrative liability on members of a companys
board of directors or management board for violations committed
in the maintenance of shareholder registers and the convening of
general shareholders meetings. While these protections are
similar to the types of protections available to minority
shareholders in U.S. corporations, in practice, the
enforcement of these and other protections has not been
effective.
The supermajority shareholder approval requirement is met by a
vote of 75% of all voting shares that are present at a
shareholders meeting. Thus, controlling shareholders
owning less than 75% of the outstanding shares of a company may
hold 75% or more of the voting power if enough minority
shareholders are not present at the meeting. In situations where
controlling shareholders effectively have 75% or more of the
voting power at a shareholders meeting, they are in a
position to approve amendments to a companys charter,
reorganizations, significant sales of assets and other major
transactions, which could be prejudicial to the interests of
minority shareholders. See Risks Relating to
Our Business and Industry The concentration of our
shares with our controlling shareholder will limit your ability
to influence corporate matters
Shareholder
liability under Russian legislation could cause us to become
liable for the obligations of our subsidiaries.
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as amended (the
Civil Code), and the Joint-Stock Companies
Law generally provide that shareholders in a Russian joint-stock
company are not liable for the obligations of the joint-stock
company and bear only the risk of loss of their investment. This
may not be the case, however, when one entity is capable of
determining decisions made by another entity. The entity capable
of determining such decisions is deemed an effective
parent. The entity whose decisions are capable of being so
determined is deemed an effective subsidiary. Under
the Joint-Stock Companies Law, an effective parent bears joint
and several responsibility for transactions concluded by the
effective subsidiary in carrying out these decisions if:
|
|
|
|
|
this decision-making capability is provided for in the charter
of the effective subsidiary or in a contract between such
entities; and
|
|
|
|
the effective parent gives obligatory directions to the
effective subsidiary based on the above-mentioned
decision-making capability.
|
In addition, an effective parent is secondarily liable for an
effective subsidiarys debts if an effective subsidiary
becomes insolvent or bankrupt due to the fault of an effective
parent resulting from its action or inaction. This is the case
no matter how the effective parents ability to determine
decisions of the effective subsidiary arises. For example, this
liability could arise through ownership of voting securities or
by contract. Other shareholders of the effective subsidiary may
claim compensation for the effective subsidiarys losses
from the effective parent which caused the effective subsidiary
to take action or fail to take action knowing that such action
or failure to take action would result in losses. Accordingly,
we could be liable in some cases
43
for the debts of our subsidiaries. This liability could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
Shareholder
rights provisions under Russian law could result in significant
additional obligations on us.
Russian law provides that shareholders that vote against or do
not participate in voting on certain matters have the right to
request that the company redeem their shares at value determined
in accordance with Russian law. The decisions of a general
shareholders meeting that trigger this right include:
|
|
|
|
|
decisions with respect to a reorganization;
|
|
|
|
the approval by shareholders of a major transaction,
which, in general terms, is a transaction involving property
worth more than 50% of the gross book value of the
companys assets calculated according to Russian accounting
standards, regardless of whether the transaction is actually
consummated, except for transactions undertaken in the ordinary
course of business; and
|
|
|
|
the amendment of the companys charter in a manner that
limits shareholder rights.
|
Our and our Russian subsidiaries obligation to purchase
shares in these circumstances, which is limited to 10% of our or
the subsidiarys net assets, respectively, calculated in
accordance with Russian accounting standards at the time the
matter at issue is voted upon, could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects due to the need to expend cash on such
obligatory share purchases.
The lack
of a central and rigorously regulated share registration system
in Russia may result in improper record ownership of our shares
and ADSs.
Ownership of Russian joint-stock company shares (or, if the
shares are held through a nominee or custodian, then the holding
of such nominee or custodian) is determined by entries in a
share register and is evidenced by extracts from that register.
Currently, there is no central registration system in Russia.
Share registers are maintained by the companies themselves or,
if a company has more than 50 shareholders, by licensed
registrars located throughout Russia. Regulations have been
adopted regarding the licensing conditions for such registrars,
as well as the procedures to be followed by both companies
maintaining their own registers and licensed registrars when
performing the functions of registrar. In practice, however,
these regulations have not been strictly enforced, and
registrars generally have relatively low levels of
capitalization and inadequate insurance coverage. Moreover,
registrars are not necessarily subject to effective governmental
supervision. Due to the lack of a central and rigorously
regulated share registration system in Russia, transactions in
respect of a companys shares could be improperly or
inaccurately recorded, and share registration could be lost
through fraud, negligence or oversight by registrars incapable
of compensating shareholders for their misconduct. This creates
risks of loss not normally associated with investments in other
securities markets. Furthermore, the depositary, under the terms
of the deposit agreements governing record keeping and custody
of our ADSs, is not liable for the unavailability of shares or
for the failure to make any distribution of cash or property
with respect thereto due to the unavailability of the shares.
See Item 10. Additional Information
Description of Capital Stock Registration and
transfer of shares.
Characteristics
of and changes in the Russian tax system could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects and the value of our shares and
ADSs.
Generally, Russian companies are subject to numerous taxes.
These taxes include, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
profits tax;
|
|
|
|
value-added tax (VAT);
|
|
|
|
unified social tax;
|
|
|
|
mineral extraction tax; and
|
|
|
|
property and land taxes.
|
44
Laws related to these taxes have been in force for a short
period relative to tax laws in more developed market economies
and few precedents with regard to the interpretation of these
laws have been established. Global tax reforms commenced in 1999
with the introduction of Part One of the Tax Code of the
Russian Federation, as amended (the Russian Tax
Code), which sets general taxation guidelines. Since
then, Russia has been in the process of replacing legislation
regulating the application of major taxes such as corporate
profits tax, VAT and property tax with new chapters of the
Russian Tax Code.
In practice, the Russian tax authorities generally interpret the
tax laws in ways that rarely favor taxpayers, who often have to
resort to court proceedings to defend their position against the
tax authorities. Events within the Russian Federation suggest
that the tax authorities may be taking a more assertive position
in their interpretations of the legislation and assessments.
Differing interpretations of tax regulations exist both among
and within government ministries and organizations at the
federal, regional and local levels, creating uncertainties and
inconsistent enforcement. Tax declarations, together with
related documentation such as customs declarations, are subject
to review and investigation by a number of authorities, each of
which may impose severe fines, penalties and interest charges.
Generally, in an audit, taxpayers are subject to inspection with
respect to the three calendar years which immediately preceded
the year in which the audit is carried out. Previous audits do
not completely exclude subsequent claims relating to the audited
period because Russian tax law authorizes upper-level tax
inspectorates to re-audit taxpayers which were audited by
subordinate tax inspectorates. In addition, on July 14,
2005, the Russian Constitutional Court issued a decision that
allows the statute of limitations for tax liabilities to be
extended beyond the three-year term set forth in the tax laws if
a court determines that a taxpayer has obstructed or hindered a
tax audit. As a result of the fact that none of the relevant
terms are defined, tax authorities may have broad discretion to
argue that a taxpayer has obstructed or
hindered an audit and ultimately seek back taxes and
penalties beyond the three year term. In some instances, new tax
regulations have been given retroactive effect.
Moreover, financial results of Russian companies cannot be
consolidated for tax purposes. Therefore, each of our Russian
subsidiaries pays its own Russian taxes and may not offset its
profit or loss against the loss or profit of any of our other
subsidiaries. In addition, intercompany dividends paid by
Russian companies are subject to a withholding tax of:
(1) 0%, if distributed to company which has continuously
held not less than a 50% share in the charter capital of the
company paying dividends and the cost of acquisition of this
share exceeded 500 million rubles (the latter condition
expired on January 1, 2011, and does not apply to dividends
accrued for 2010 and subsequent periods); (2) 9%, if
distributed to other Russian companies
and/or
individuals who are Russian tax residents; and (3) 15%, if
distributed to foreign companies and individuals who are not
Russian tax residents. Dividends from foreign companies to
Russian companies are subject to a tax of 9%. Taxes paid in
foreign countries by Russian companies may be offset against
payment of these taxes in the Russian Federation up to the
maximum amount of the Russian tax liability. In order to apply
the offset, the company is required to confirm the payment of
taxes in the foreign country. The confirmations must be
authorized by the tax authority of the foreign country if taxes
were paid by the company itself, and the confirmation must be
authorized by the tax agent if taxes were withheld by the tax
agent under foreign tax law or an international tax agreement.
In addition, application of current Russian thin capitalization
rules could affect our ability to deduct interest on certain
borrowings that we would otherwise be able to deduct. In
particular, we may not be able to deduct interest on loans we
extend to our subsidiaries or on borrowings which our
subsidiaries receive from independent banks and which are
guaranteed by us.
The foregoing conditions create tax risks in Russia that are
more significant than typically found in countries with more
developed tax systems, imposing additional burdens and costs on
our operations, including management resources. In addition to
our tax burden, these risks and uncertainties complicate our tax
planning and related business decisions, potentially exposing us
to significant fines and penalties and enforcement measures
despite our best efforts at compliance. See also
Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation Legal risks and uncertainties
Selective government action could have a material adverse effect
on the investment climate in Russia and on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the
value of our shares and ADSs.
45
Vaguely
drafted Russian transfer pricing rules expose our business to
the risk of significant additional liabilities.
Russian transfer pricing rules, effective since 1999, give
Russian tax authorities the right to control prices for
transactions between related entities and certain other types of
transactions between unrelated parties, such as foreign trade
transactions or transactions with significant price fluctuations
if the transaction price deviates by more than 20% from the
market price. Special transfer pricing rules apply to operations
with securities and derivative instruments. The Russian transfer
pricing rules are vaguely drafted, and are subject to
interpretation by Russian tax authorities and courts. Due to the
uncertainties in interpretation of transfer pricing legislation,
the tax authorities may challenge our prices and make
adjustments which could affect our tax position. As of the end
of 2007, as a result of various tax audits of our companies we
received assessments from the tax authorities for
transfer-pricing related taxes, interest and penalties totaling
496 million rubles relating to the years
2004-2005.
As a result of tax audits held in 2009, Korshunov Mining Plant
was subject to an additional tax assessment of transfer pricing
related taxes and incurred penalties in the amount of
73.3 million rubles for the year 2005. Korshunov Mining
Plant filed a court claim against the tax authorities seeking
the invalidation of this tax assessment. Courts of three
instances rejected the claim. Korshunov Mining Plant filed an
appeal to the Supreme Arbitrazh Court but the court rejected the
claim. See Item 8. Financial Information
Litigation Tax. If similar assessments are
upheld in the future, our business, financial condition, results
of operations and prospects could be materially adversely
affected. In addition, we could face significant losses
associated with the assessed amount of underpaid prior tax and
related interest and penalties. Under Russian law, tax
authorities may review past tax periods relating to the years
2008-2010
and make claims in connection with such reviews. See also
Characteristics of and changes in the Russian
tax system could materially adversely affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects and the
value of our shares and ADSs and Item 8.
Financial Information Litigation
Tax.
In addition, a number of draft amendments to the transfer
pricing law have been introduced which, if implemented, would
considerably tighten the existing law. The proposed changes,
among other things, may shift the burden of proving market
prices from the tax authorities to the taxpayer, cancel the
existing permitted deviation threshold and introduce specific
documentation requirements for proving market prices.
Expansion
of limitations on foreign investment in strategic sectors could
affect our ability to attract and/or retain foreign
investments.
On April 29, 2008, the Federal Law On the Procedure
for Foreign Investment in Companies With Strategic Impact on the
National Defense and Security of the Russian Federation
was adopted. See Item 4. Information on the
Company Regulatory Matters The Strategic
Industries Law.
As our subsidiary Southern Urals Nickel Plant carries out
exploration and production on land plots with nickel and cobalt
ore deposits which are included in the official list of subsoil
plots of federal importance first published on March 5,
2009 in the Russian official gazette Rossiyskaya Gazeta
and as amended on August 13, 2010 (the
Strategic Subsoil List), it qualifies
as a Strategic Company and is subject to special regulation. Our
subsidiaries Port Posiet, Port Kambarka and Port Temryuk are
included in the register of natural monopolies, and therefore
are also Strategic Companies.
According to the Strategic Industries Law, the activity of a
business entity which is deemed to occupy a dominant position in
the production and sale of metals and alloys with special
features which are used in production of weapons and military
equipment is also deemed to be strategic activity. Our
subsidiary Urals Stampings Plant has been found by the FAS to
hold a dominant position on the market of carbonic, alloyed and
heat-resistant alloyed stampings. Such products are of a type
generally used in the production of weapons and military
equipment. Therefore, Urals Stampings Plant may also qualify as
a Strategic Company. Furthermore, entities producing and
distributing industrial explosives and entities that operate
equipment containing radioactive materials are also deemed to be
Strategic Companies. Thus, our subsidiaries Yakutugol and
Vzryvprom also qualify as Strategic Companies, as they both hold
licenses to produce industrial explosives and Yakutugol, in
addition, holds a license to operate equipment containing
radioactive materials.
46
Therefore, any transfer, directly or indirectly, to a foreign
investor or its group of entities of a stake, or certain rights,
in Port Posiet, Port Kambarka, Port Temryuk, Southern Urals
Nickel Plant, Yakutugol, Vzryvprom and, possibly, Urals
Stampings Plant, which, according to the Strategic Industries
Law, is deemed to transfer control, as described in
Item 4. Information on the Company
Regulatory Matters The Strategic Industries
Law, will be subject to prior approval from the state
authorities. Likewise, a sale to a foreign investor or its group
of entities of a stake in Mechel which provides control (as
defined in the Strategic Industries Law) over Port Posiet, Port
Kambarka, Port Temryuk, Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Yakutugol,
Vzryvprom and, potentially, Urals Stampings Plant, will also be
subject to prior approval in accordance with the Strategic
Industries Law.
Additionally, in case a foreign investor or its group of
entities which is a holder of securities of Port Posiet, Port
Kambarka, Port Temryuk, Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Yakutugol,
Vzryvprom and, potentially, Urals Stampings Plant, becomes a
holder of voting shares in amount which is considered to give
them direct or indirect control over these companies in
accordance with the Strategic Industries Law due to the
allocation of voting shares as a result of certain corporate
procedures provided by Russian law (e.g., as a result of a
buy-back by the relevant company of its shares, conversion of
preferred shares into common shares, or holders of preferred
shares becoming entitled to vote at a general shareholders
meeting in cases provided under Russian law), such shareholders
will have to apply for approval within three months after they
acquired such control.
In this connection, there is a risk that the requirement to
receive prior or subsequent approvals and the risk of not being
granted such approvals might affect our ability to attract
foreign investments, create joint ventures with foreign partners
with respect to our companies that qualify as Strategic
Companies or effect restructuring of our group which might, in
turn, materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Risks
Relating to Other Countries Where We Operate
We face
risks similar to those in Russia in other countries of the
former Soviet Union and former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern
and Central Europe.
We currently have five steel mills in Romania, a wire products
plant in Lithuania, a power plant in Bulgaria and two mining
projects in Kazakhstan. We may acquire additional operations in
countries of the former Soviet Union, former Soviet-bloc
countries in Eastern and Central Europe or elsewhere. As with
Russia, those countries are emerging markets subject to greater
political, economic, social, tax and legal risks than more
developed markets. In many respects, the risks inherent in
transacting business in these countries are similar to those in
Russia, especially those risks set out above in
Economic risks,
Political and social risks and
Legal risks and uncertainties.
New
regulatory requirements for obtaining certain permits under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may result in delays,
additional costs or the inability to proceed with certain U.S.
mining operations.
For some of our proposed U.S. mining operations, we will
need to obtain certain permits issued by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean
Water Act § 404 (404 Permits). Such
permits are required in order to undertake construction of
valley fills, coal refuse disposal areas, and other activities
associated with those operations that would have the effect of
filling (covering) ephemeral, intermittent or perennial streams.
Since approximately 2003, the Corps issuance of 404
Permits for coal-related fill projects (especially large-scale
surface mines) has been the subject of continual litigation and
other challenges by environmental groups, resulting in several
court opinions that had the effect of substantially restricting
issuance of such permits and curtailing coal production.
On June 11, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Corps, and other
U.S. agencies with control over this permitting program
issued a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
that identified several steps that will be taken as to pending
and future 404 permit applications, in order to implement an
Enhanced Coordinated Review Process for the purpose
of significantly reducing the harmful environmental consequences
of Appalachian surface coal mining operations. Since release of
the MOU, very few 404 permits have been issued, and each of
those permits that were issued included modifications to the
proposed mining
47
plan and additional environmental monitoring provisions that
require adaptive management and revisions to mine plans should
certain indicia of harm to the aquatic system be observed.
Companies with 404 permit applications that have been pending
for a year or longer are currently required to engage in
meetings with Corps and EPA staff before those applications are
submitted for further processing, and the timeline for issuance
of such permits is uncertain. It is also widely expected that
some of those permit applications will be denied, or that EPA
will exercise its Clean Water Act veto authority over some 404
permits that are issued by the Corps.
Although we have no immediate need for new 404 permits to
continue our current U.S. mining operations in the short
term, some of our future mine plans (including the continuation
of existing mines) will require the issuance of such permits to
proceed. Whether the regulatory environment will be such that
404 permits for those projects may be expected to be issued in a
timely manner, in the form required for such plans to be
implemented, is difficult to predict. Our inability to obtain
such permits or any unexpected delay or additional costs
incurred in connection with securing such permits could have a
material adverse effect on the financial performance of our
U.S. coal mining operations.
The cost
and availability of reliable transportation could negatively
impact our U.S. coal mining operations.
The availability and cost of reliable transportation for our
U.S. coal is a critical factor in a customers
purchasing decision. Increases in transportation costs could
make coal a less competitive source of energy or could make our
coal production less competitive than coal produced from other
sources.
Our U.S. mines depend on a single rail road carrier,
Norfolk Southern. Disruption of any transportation services due
to weather-related problems, flooding, drought, accidents,
mechanical difficulties, strikes, lockouts, bottlenecks, and
other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal
to our customers. For example, the snowfall in the winter of
2009-2010,
which was the heaviest in the last decade, caused delays in our
supplies of coal to customers. Furthermore, improvement works
carried on at the Norfolk and Southern Hartland Corridor Tunnel
caused delays in railcar deliveries to our mines for up to four
days. In addition, after Norfolk Southern made certain cuts in
equipment and personnel during the economic slowdown in 2009, it
is currently facing difficulties in building up its
transportation capacity to meet the increasing demand for
railcars. Transportation providers may face increased regulation
or other difficulties in the future that may impair our ability
to supply coal to our customers at a competitive cost. If there
are disruptions of the transportation services and we are unable
to make alternative arrangements to ship our coal, the financial
performance of our U.S. coal mining operations could be
materially adversely affected.
Defects
in title or loss of any leasehold interests in our U.S.
properties could limit our ability to conduct mining operations
or result in significant cost increases.
We conduct a significant part of our mining operations in the
United States on properties that we lease. A title defect or the
loss of any lease could adversely affect our ability to mine the
associated reserves. In addition, from time to time the rights
of third parties for competing uses of adjacent, overlying, or
underlying lands such as for oil and gas activity, coalbed
methane, production, pipelines, roads, easements and public
facilities may affect our ability to operate as planned if our
title is not superior or alternative arrangements cannot be
negotiated. Title to much of our leased properties and fee
mineral rights is not usually verified until we make a
commitment to develop a property, which may not occur until
after we have obtained necessary permits and completed
exploration of the property. Our right to mine some of our
reserves may be adversely affected if defects in title or
boundaries exist or competing interests cannot be resolved. In
order to obtain leases or other rights to conduct our mining
operations on property where these defects exist, we may incur
unexpected costs or be compelled to leave un-mined the affected
reserves, resulting in a material adverse effect on the
financial performance of our U.S. coal mining operations.
48
A
shortage of skilled labor in the mining industry could
negatively impact the profitability of our U.S. coal mining
operations.
Efficient coal mining using modern techniques and equipment
requires skilled workers. Ideally, we seek to hire individuals
with sufficient level of experience to ensure a minimum level of
operational efficiency. In recent years, the U.S. coal
mining industry has faced a shortage of skilled workers, thus
increasing costs and decreasing productivity. In particular, we
are facing difficulties in recruiting skilled workers at our
underground operations. Furthermore, the competition from
neighboring mining companies for attracting skilled workers is
significant. In the event the shortage of experienced labor
continues or worsens, it could have an adverse impact on our
labor productivity and costs and our ability to expand
production in the event there is an increase in the demand for
our coal.
The
Bluestone companies are subject to extensive U.S. laws,
government regulations and other requirements relating to the
protection of the environment, health and safety and other
matters and face a highly litigious environment.
Like other mining businesses in the United States, our Bluestone
companies are subject to a wide range of rules and regulations,
including those governing water discharges, air emissions, the
management, treatment, storage, disposal and transportation of
hazardous materials and waste, protection of plants, wildlife
and other natural resources, worker health and safety,
reclamation and restoration of properties after mining
activities cease, surface subsidence from underground mining,
blasting operations, noise, the effects of mining on surface
water and groundwater quality and availability, and reporting
and recordkeeping. Violations of these requirements can result
in fines, penalties, required facility upgrades or operational
changes, suspension or revocation of permits and, in severe
cases, temporary or permanent shut-down of our mines. We incur
substantial costs in order to comply with U.S. governmental
regulations that apply to our operations in the United States.
We could also become subject to investigation or cleanup
obligations, or related third-party personal injury or property
damage claims, in connection with
on-site or
off-site contamination issues or other non-compliance with
U.S. regulatory requirements. In particular, under the
U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA or commonly known as
the Superfund law) and analogous state laws,
current and former property owners and operators, as well as
hazardous waste generators, arrangers and transporters, can be
held liable for investigation and cleanup costs at properties
where there has been a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances. Such laws can also
require so-called potentially responsible parties to
fund the restoration of damaged natural resources or agree to
restrictions on future uses of impacted properties.
Liability under such laws can be strict, joint, several and
retroactive. Accordingly, we could theoretically incur material
liability (whether as a result of government enforcement,
private contribution claims or private personal injury or
property damage claims) for known or unknown liabilities at (or
caused by migrations from or hazardous waste shipped from) any
of our current or former facilities or properties, including
those owned or operated by our predecessors or third parties or
at third party disposal sites. In addition, lawsuits by
employees, customers, suppliers and other private parties may be
costly to defend and could lead to judgments for damages.
Currently, eleven of the 50 U.S. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for our Bluestone
operations are pending renewal with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. These permits have been administratively
extended for a period of six months and currently Bluestone is
not prevented from mining coal. However, should these permits
remain unrenewed after the six-month period expires in 2011,
there is a significant risk that such permits will be withdrawn
and production at some of the Bluestone operations may be
suspended for an indefinite period of time.
49
Changes
in U.S. regulations and the passage of new legislation in the
United States could materially adversely affect the Bluestone
companies operations, increase our costs or limit our
ability to produce and sell coal in the United States.
New legislation, regulations and rules adopted or implemented in
the future (or changes in interpretations of existing laws and
regulations) may materially adversely affect our
U.S. operations. Some U.S. commentators expect that
the current U.S. administration could implement policies or
sponsor legislation that will make the production
and/or
consumption of coal in the United States more expensive and
create additional regulatory burdens, and it remains unclear
whether this will affect the business and prospects of the
Bluestone companies. In particular, future regulation of
greenhouse gases in the United States could occur pursuant to
future treaty obligations, statutory or regulatory changes under
the U.S. Clean Air Act, federal or state adoption of a
greenhouse gas regulatory scheme, or otherwise. The
U.S. Congress has recently considered, and there are
pending, various proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and EPA recently issued several proposed determinations and
rulemakings relating to greenhouse gas emissions from various
sources. In the absence of federal legislation, many states and
regions have undertaken greenhouse gas initiatives.
In addition, partly in response to regulatory turmoil created by
EPAs involvement in the U.S. Clean Water Act 404 and
NPDES permitting programs, in August 2010, the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) issued its Permitting Guidance
for Surface Coal Mining Operations to Protect West
Virginias Narrative Water Quality Standards
(WVDEP Narrative WQS Implementation
Guidance). The basic narrative water quality standard
that this Guidance seeks to implement requires that no
significant adverse impact to the chemical, physical,
hydrologic, or biological components of aquatic ecosystems shall
be allowed. The WVDEP Narrative WQS Implementation Guidance sets
forth detailed, lengthy procedures for determining whether a
proposed NPDES discharge has a reasonable potential
to cause a violation of this narrative standard, and if so, the
permit conditions that should be imposed to assure that no such
violations occur.
These and other potential U.S. federal, state and regional
climate change rules will likely require additional controls on
coal-fueled power plants, industrial boilers and manufacturing
operations, and may even cause some users of coal to switch from
coal to a lower carbon fuel. There can be no assurance at this
time that a carbon dioxide
cap-and-trade
program, a carbon tax or other regulatory regime, if
implemented, will not affect the future market for coal in the
regions where we operate and reduce the demand for coal.
Furthermore, surface and underground mining are subject to
increasing regulation, including pursuant to the federal MINER
Act, blast survey and monitoring restrictions, and requirements
by the Corps and the U.S. Department of Interiors
Office of Surface Mining, which may require us to incur
additional costs. Recent underground mining accidents in the
United States, culminating in a mine explosion in West Virginia
that killed 29 miners in April 2010, have resulted in calls by
government officials for the U.S. Mine Safety and Health
Administration to intensify its oversight and enforcement of
mine safety, and to impose increasingly punitive measures
against mining companies that violate mine safety laws,
including, where necessary, closure of dangerous mines.
Increased oversight, enforcement and regulation of mine safety
could cause us to incur increased compliance costs, some of
which could be material.
We must
obtain, maintain and comply with numerous U.S. governmental
permits and approvals for our operations in the United States,
which can be costly and time consuming, and our failure to
obtain, renew or comply with necessary permits and approvals
could negatively impact our business.
Numerous governmental permits and approvals are required for our
U.S. coal mining operations. Many of our permits are
subject to renewal from time to time, and renewed permits may
contain more restrictive conditions than existing permits. In
addition, violations of our permits may occur from time to time,
permits we need may not be issued or, if issued, may not be
issued in a timely fashion.
50
We may be
subject to significant mine reclamation and closure obligations
with respect to our U.S. coal mining operations.
The U.S. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) and counterpart state rules establish
operational, reclamation and closure standards for all aspects
of surface mining in the United States, as well as many aspects
of underground mining. Our estimated reclamation and mine
closure obligations could change significantly if actual amounts
(which are dependent on a number of variables, including
estimated future retirement costs, estimated proven reserves and
assumptions involving profit margins, inflation rates and
interest rates) differ significantly from our assumptions, which
could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Extensive
environmental regulation in the United States, including the
Clean Air Act and similar state and local laws, affect our U.S.
customers and could reduce the demand for coal as a fuel source
and cause our sales to decline.
The U.S. Clean Air Act and similar state and local laws
extensively regulate the amount of sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other compounds that are
emitted into the air from power plants and other sources.
Stricter regulation of such emissions could increase the cost of
using coal in the United States, reducing demand and make it a
less attractive fuel alternative for future planning.
For example, in order to meet the Clean Air Act limits on sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants, coal users may need to
install scrubbers, use sulfur dioxide emission allowances (some
of which they may purchase), blend high sulfur coal with low
sulfur coal or switch to other fuels. Some of EPAs
initiatives to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and mercury
emissions have been the subject of litigation in recent years,
and EPA continues to address issues raised in court opinions. In
addition, several electric utilities have been sued by the
government for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and have
faced suits by environmental groups during the initial
permitting process for new coal-fired power plants, which has
had a chilling effect on the construction of such plants. Both
of these activities could adversely impact the demand for coal.
To the extent compliance with these laws and regulations and any
new or proposed requirements affect our customers in the United
States, an important market for the Bluestone companies, this
could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
Mining in
the Northern and Central Appalachian region of the United States
is more complex and involves more regulatory constraints than in
other U.S. geographic areas.
The geological characteristics of Northern and Central
Appalachian coal reserves, such as depth of overburden and coal
seam thickness, make them complex and costly to mine. As such
mines become depleted, replacement reserves may not be available
when required or, if available, may not be capable of being
mined at costs comparable to those characteristic of the
depleting mines. In addition, as compared to mines in other
areas such as in the western United States, permitting,
licensing and other environmental and regulatory requirements
are more costly and time consuming to satisfy. These factors
could materially adversely affect the mining operations and cost
structures of, and customers ability to use coal produced
by, operators in Northern and Central Appalachia, including our
Bluestone companies.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Information
on the Company
|
Overview
We are a vertically integrated group with revenues of
$9.7 billion in 2010, $5.8 billion in 2009 and
$10.0 billion in 2008, with operations organized into four
industrial segments: mining, steel, ferroalloys and power, each
of which has a managing company set up to perfrom the functions
of respective executive management bodies of the companies
within the segment, as described below.
Our mining segment produces metallurgical and steam coal, as
well as iron ore and iron ore concentrate, limestone and coke.
The segment consists of coal and iron ore mines in Russia and
the U.S. Our subsidiary Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and
its subsidiaries operate coal mines located in the Kuznetsky
basin, near Mezhdurechensk in southwestern Siberia. These mines
include four open pit mines and three underground
51
mines. Our subsidiary Yakutugol operates coal mines located in
the Sakha Republic in eastern Siberia, consisting of two open
pit mines and one underground mine. Yakutugol also holds the
license to mine the undeveloped Elga coal deposit, which we plan
to mine using the open pit method after the completion of the
construction of a private rail branch line of approximately 315
kilometers in length, which will connect the Elga coal deposit
to the
Baikal-Amur
Mainline. Our Bluestone subsidiaries operate four mining
complexes in West Virginia, United States, consisting of open
pit and underground mines.
We also provide coal washing services, both to our coal-mining
subsidiaries and to third parties; according to Rosinformugol, a
Russian coal industry information agency, at the end of 2010 we
controlled 19.2% of Russias coking coal washing capacity.
Our subsidiary Korshunov Mining Plant operates three open pit
iron ore mines: Korshunovsk, Rudnogorsk and Tatianinsk. These
mines are located near Zheleznogorsk-Ilimsky, a town in the
Irkutsk region in central Siberia.
We also produce significant amounts of coke, both for internal
use and for sales to third parties. We have the flexibility to
supply our own steel mills with our mining products or to sell
such mining products to third parties, depending on price
differentials between local suppliers and foreign and domestic
customers. In the second quarter of 2010, with the aim of
further optimizing the structure of our group, we transferred
our coke producing subsidiaries Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and
Mechel-Coke from our steel segment to the mining segment.
In April 2008, we established Mechel Mining, a wholly-owned
subsidiary in which we consolidated the coal and iron ore assets
of our mining segment (Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Korshunov
Mining Plant, Yakutugol, Bluestone and other companies).
Mechel Mining Management as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel
Mining acts as the executive body of the majority of our
subsidiaries in the mining segment.
Our steel segment produces and sells semi-finished steel
products, carbon and specialty long products, carbon and
stainless flat products and value-added downstream metal
products including wire products, stampings and forgings.
Our steel production facilities in Russia include two integrated
steel mills, a wire products plant, and forging and stamping
mills in the southern Ural Mountains, a wire products plant in
northwestern Russia near the border with Finland. Outside of
Russia, our steel facilities are in the European Union,
including a wire products plant in Lithuania and five steel
mills in Romania.
Mechel-Steel Management as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel
OAO acts as the executive body of our main subsidiaries in the
steel segment.
Our steel segment also includes our distribution network in
Russia and abroad, which consists of Mechel Service Global, and
its subsidiaries in Russia, Europe, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
Our ferroalloys segment produces and sells low-ferrous
ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon. We have owned the
Southern Urals Nickel Plant (a nickel mining and production
operation) since 2001. We acquired Bratsk Ferroalloys Plant (a
ferrosilicon producer) in 2007. In April 2008, we completed the
acquisition of 99.3% of Oriel Resources from its shareholders in
a public offer conducted under the U.K. Takeover Code. The
assets acquired with Oriel Resources included Tikhvin Ferroalloy
Plant, a ferrochrome producer located near St. Petersburg, as
well as the Voskhod chrome and Shevchenko nickel projects in
Kazakhstan. The acquisition of Oriel Resources was a key
milestone in the development of our ferroalloys segment. The
activities of this segment are aimed at increasing the
efficiency of our steel segment by supplying raw materials
(ferroalloys) to the steel segment for specialty and stainless
steel production.
In October 2008, we completed the consolidation of our
ferroalloy assets in Oriel Resources. Oriel Resources now owns a
100% interest in Bratsk Ferroalloys Plant, an 84.06% interest in
Southern Urals Nickel Plant, and holds through its subsidiaries
a 100% interest in Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant and licenses for the
Voskhod chrome and the Shevchenko nickel deposits in Kazakhstan.
Southern Urals Nickel Plant produces nickel in Orsk in the
Orenburg region, in the southern part of Russias Ural
Mountains, and operates two open
52
pit nickel ore mines, Sakhara and Buruktal. Mechel Ferroalloys
Management acts as the executive body of the companies in our
ferroalloys segment.
The power segment was formed in April 2007, when we acquired a
controlling interest in Southern Kuzbass Power Plant, located in
Kaltan, in the Kemerovo region, and it sells electricity and
capacity to the wholesale market, as well as supplies
electricity within our group. In June 2007, we acquired a
controlling interest in Kuzbass Power Sales Company, the largest
power distribution company in the Kemerovo region. In December
2007, we purchased a 49% stake in Toplofikatsia Rousse, a power
plant located in Rousse, Bulgaria, which uses steam coal mined
by our Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and we increased our stake
in Toplofikatsia Rousse to 100% in December 2010. Our power
segment enables us to market higher value-added products made
from our steam coal, such as electricity and heat energy, and
increase the electric power self-sufficiency of our mining and
steel segments. Mechel-Energo acts as the executive body of
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and Kuzbass Power Sales Company in
our power segment.
Our group includes a number of logistical and marketing
companies that help us to deliver and market our mining
products, raw steel, manufactured steel goods and ferroalloy
products. We have freight seaports in Russia on the Sea of Japan
(Port Posiet) and on the Sea of Azov (Port Temryuk) and a
freight river port on the Kama River, a tributary of the Volga
River in central Russia (Port Kambarka). We have a freight
railcar pool, and we have begun building a private rail branch
line to access our Elga coal deposit in Yakutia. In 2009 we
started to build up our own truck fleet.
We have a network of overseas subsidiaries, branches,
warehouses, service centers and agents to market our products
internationally, and we have a Russian domestic steel retail and
service subsidiary with 47 regional offices.
Mechel OAO is an open joint-stock company incorporated under the
laws of the Russian Federation. From the date of our
incorporation on March 19, 2003 until August 19, 2005,
our corporate name was Mechel Steel Group OAO. We conduct our
business through a number of subsidiaries. We are registered
with the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation under
main state registration number (OGRN) 1037703012896. Our
principal executive offices are located at Krasnoarmeyskaya
Street, 1, Moscow 125993, Russian Federation. Our telephone
number is +7 495 221 8888. Our Internet addresses are
www.mechel.com and www.mechel.ru. Information posted on our
website is not a part of this document. We have appointed CT
Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011
as our authorized agent upon which process may be served for any
suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to our shares and
ADSs or the ADS deposit agreements.
53
Competitive
Strengths
Our main competitive strengths are the following:
Leading
mining and metals group by production volume with strong
positions in key businesses
We are a
leading coking coal producer and international coking coal
exporter by volume in Russia.
According to AME Mineral Economics (Hong Kong) Limited
(AME) we were the sixth largest metallurgical
coal producer and the eighth largest metallurgical coal exporter
in the world in 2010.
In 2010, we were the largest coking coal producer in Russia with
a 22.2% market share in the coking coal market in Russia by
production volume, according to the Central Dispatching
Department, a Russian information agency reporting on the fuel
and energy industry. We were also Russias largest
hard-coking coal producer with a 69.0% market share in 2010,
according to the Central Dispatching Department. In 2010, our
export sales of coking coal were the largest by volume among
Russian companies, according to RasMin OOO
(RasMin), a private information and research
company focusing on the coal-mining industry. According to
Rosinformugol, we also control 19.2% of Russias coking
coal washing capacity by volume.
We have
large coking coal reserves base in Russia and a full-range
offering of high-quality coal for blast furnace steel
producers.
Our total coking coal reserves, accounted as per the SEC
Industry Guide 7, in Russia amounted to 688.3 million
tonnes as of December 31, 2010.
Our coal reserves allow us to supply steel producers and coke
makers globally with a full range of coal grades to make quality
metallurgical coke or to use in PCI-assisted and
sintering-assisted steel manufacturing. In particular, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company produces semi-hard and semi-soft coking
coal concentrates and PCI and anthracite (fine and sized) grades
of coal. Most of the coking coal grades of Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company are sold in Russia, while PCI and anthracite grades of
coal are exported. Yakutugol produces low volatile hard coking
coal concentrate grade used by customers both in Ukraine and in
the Asia-Pacific region, while our Bluestone coal assets produce
low, medium and high volatile hard coking coal concentrate
grades used predominantly by customers in the United States,
Europe, Asia-Pacific region and South America. The ability to
serve our customers throughout the world with a broad range of
metallurgical coal grades gives us a competitive advantage in
winning new sales markets and establishing long-term
relationship with the customers.
By volume
we are Russias second largest producer of specialty steel
and long steel products and Russias largest producer of
wire products.
According to Metal Expert, a source for global and steel and raw
materials market news, in 2010, we were Russias second
largest producer of long steel products (excluding square
billets) by production volume, second largest producer of
reinforcement bars (rebar), largest producer of wire rod and the
largest producer of wire products. Our long steel products
business has particularly benefited from the increased
infrastructure and construction activity in Russia over the last
10 years. Our share of Russias total production
volume of rebar in 2010 was approximately 27.8%, according to
Metal Expert. According to Metal Expert and Chermet, a Russian
ferrous metals industry association
(Chermet), we are Russias second
largest producer of specialty steel by production volume,
accounting for 26.9% of Russias total specialty steel
output in 2010. Our product range in specialty steel is broader
and more comprehensive than other Russian producers, giving us
an added advantage in our markets. According to Prommetiz, we
are Russias largest producer of wire products by
production volume, accounting for 36.5% of Russias total
wire products output in 2010. Our product range in wire products
is broader than other Russian producers and allows to cover all
needs of customers, giving us an added advantage in our markets.
55
High
degree of vertical integration
Our steel
segment is able to source almost all its raw materials from our
group companies, which provides a hedge against supply
interruptions and market volatility.
We believe that our internal supplies of coking coal, iron ore
and ferroalloys give us significant advantages over other steel
producers, such as higher stability of operations, better
quality control of end products, reduced production costs,
improved flexibility and planning latitude in the production of
our steel and value-added steel products and the ability to
respond quickly to market demands and cycles. We are capable of
being fully self-sufficient with respect to coke, 81%
self-sufficient with respect to ferroalloys (FeSi, FeNi, FeCr),
and 8.6% self-sufficient with respect to iron ore concentrate.
Steam coal is not used in steel production. We believe that the
level of our self-sufficiency in raw materials gives our steel
business a significant competitive advantage.
In 2010, we internally sourced 62% of the nickel, 99% of the
ferrosilicon and 67% of the ferrochrome requirements of our
steel segment. In 2010, we satisfied approximately 27% of our
electricity needs internally.
We view our ability to source our inputs internally not only as
a hedge against potential supply interruptions, but as a hedge
against market volatility. From an operational perspective,
since our mining, ferroalloys and power assets produce the same
type of inputs that our manufacturing facilities use, we are
less dependent on third-party vendors and less susceptible to
supply bottlenecks. From a financial perspective, this also
means that if the market prices of our steel segments
inputs rise, putting pressure on steel segment margins, the
margins of our mining, ferroalloys and power segments will tend
to increase. Similarly, while decreases in commodities prices
tend to reduce revenues in the mining and ferroalloys industry,
they also create an opportunity for increased margins in our
steel business.
Having the ability to internally source our materials also gives
us better market insight when we negotiate with our outside
suppliers and improves our ability to manage our raw material
costs.
Our
logistics capability allows us to better manage infrastructure
bottlenecks, to market our products to a broader range of
customers and to reduce our reliance on trade
intermediaries.
We are committed to maximum efficiency in delivering goods to
consumers and have been actively developing our own logistics
network. Using our own transportation capacity enables us to
save costs as we are less exposed to market fluctuations in
transportation prices and are able to establish flexible
delivery schedules that are convenient for our customers. Our
logistics capacities are currently comprised of two sea ports
and a river port, as well as a transport operations company,
Mecheltrans, which manages the rail transportation of our
products and carries out the overall coordination of our sea and
rail transportation logistics for our products. Mecheltrans not
only transports our products but also provides transportation
services to third parties.
We own two seaports and a river port and we have our own rail
rolling stock. Port Posiet in Russias Far East, on the Sea
of Japan, allows us easy access to the Asia-Pacific seaborne
markets and provides a delivery terminal for the coal mined by
our subsidiary Yakutugol in Yakutia. We are in the process of
upgrading Port Posiet, which upon completion in the second half
of 2012 will enable us to expand the cargo-handling capacity of
the port up to 7.0-9.0 million tonnes per year and to
accommodate Panamax ships, which will increase its
attractiveness and utility as an export port for large volumes
of coal. Port Kambarka, on the Kama River in the Udmurt Republic
(a Russian administrative region also known as Udmurtia) is
connected to the Volga River basin and the Caspian Sea, and is
connected by canal to the Don River and the Baltic Sea. Port
Temryuk on the Sea of Azov, an inlet of the Black Sea basin, is
primarily used for coal and metal transshipment and provides us
access to the fast-growing economies of the Black Sea basin and
beyond. We are also preparing a feasibility study for
construction of a specialized coal transshipment seaport at
Vanino in Russias Far East with a capacity of up to
25.0 million tonnes per year.
As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiary Mecheltrans owned
and leased more than 4,642 rail freight cars that we use to ship
our products. On June 23, 2008, pursuant to the terms of
our license to mine the Elga coal deposit we began construction
on a private rail branch line, which we will own and control
subject to applicable regulation. This rail branch line will
connect the Elga coal deposit to Ulak Station on the
56
Baikal-Amur
Mainline, which in turn connects to the Transsiberian Railway,
serving European Russia west of the Ural Mountains and eastward
to the Pacific Ocean. We anticipate that the Elga rail branch
line will not only provide an avenue for delivery of coal
produced at the Elga coal deposit, but will eventually serve as
the primary transportation corridor for coal, iron ore and other
raw materials mined in nearby deposits. The rail branch line
will be approximately 315 kilometers long. We need to complete
construction of 60 kilometers of railway embedded in
2000-2003 by
the Russian Railways, to construct 250 kilometers of new railway
and construct 77 railway bridges. As of January 1, 2011, we
have built the railway until the 124th kilometer point,
constructed 33 railway bridges and commenced construction of
another 18 railway bridges, as well as completed construction of
an access road to the Elga deposit. In August 2010, we
reallocated our mining machinery and commenced overburden mining
and construction of capital mining facilities and buildings at
the Elga coal deposit.
In 2009, Mechel-Service, a Russian subsidiary of Mechel Service
Global, started to form its own truck fleet for metal products
delivery to our clients. In 2010, we acquired new trucks for our
offices in Ufa, Krasnodar, Tyumen, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod and
Samara. We also continue to renew our truck fleet in Germany. In
2010, we have launched a project on acquisition of truck
vehicles in Romania.
One of
the lowest-cost metallurgical coal producers
worldwide
According to AME, our Russian metallurgical coal operations are
in the first and second quartiles of the global cash cost curve.
Approximately 78.7% of our coking coal production is mined from
open pit mines, which we believe is a greater percentage than
any of our major Russian competitors. Open pit mining is
generally considered safer, cheaper and faster than the
underground method of coal mining. Most of our mines and
processing facilities have long and established operating
histories. We view strict cost management and increases in
productivity as fundamental aspects of our
day-to-day
operations, and continually reassess and improve the efficiency
of our mining operations.
Strategically
positioned to supply key growth markets
Our
mining and logistical assets are well-positioned to expand sales
to both Atlantic and Asia-Pacific seaborne markets.
Our eastern Siberian coal mines of Yakutugol and its undeveloped
Elga coal deposit are strategically located and will enable us
to expand exports of our products to key Asian markets.
Yakutugol is located within the shortest distance among Russian
coking coal producers to Port Posiet in the Russian Far East. We
view the proximity of our mining and logistical assets to key
fast-growing economies as a key competitive advantage which
allows us to diversify our sales, provides us with additional
growth opportunities and acts as a hedge in the event of a
decrease in demand from customers in Russia. Moreover, due to
our integration, experience and location in Russia, which has
some of the largest deposits of coal and iron ore in the world,
we are better positioned than many of our international
competitors to secure future production growth.
Our West Virginia coal-mining operations, carried out through
the Bluestone companies, are situated in West Virginia, just
400 miles from the deep-water port in Norfolk, Virginia and
in relative proximity to Baltimore and New Orleans.
Historically the Bluestone companies key markets have been
in North America, and in the last two years, they have expanded
their sales to Asia and Europe. In 2010, we further expanded the
geography of the Bluestone companies sales by using our
existing international distribution channels to Asia. Due to
certain restrictions under the Clean Water Act regulation, we
plan to maintain current production volumes and to focus on cost
control. For more information on the Clean Water Act see
U.S. Environmental, Health, Safety and
Related Regulation.
Our steel
mills are well-positioned to supply Russian infrastructure
projects.
Russia is our core steel market and we have significant domestic
market shares in all our key specialty steel and rolled long
product lines. We believe we have established a strong
reputation and brand image for Mechel within Russia, just as we
have with our international customers. The location of a number
of our core steel segment assets in the southern Urals positions
us advantageously, from a geographical and logistical
57
perspective, to serve the areas in Russia west of the Urals
where Russias construction industry is most active. The
construction industry was a major source of our revenue and we
have captured a large portion of the market. According to Metal
Expert, our share of Russias total production volume of
construction rebar in 2010 was approximately 27.8%.
Established
distribution and sales platform
Our Mechel Service Global distribution platform in Russia has 71
storage sites in 46 cities throughout Russia to serve a
broad range of end customers. Fourteen of these facilities
provide a number of value added services to our customers
including bending and cutting of rebars, cutting and uncoiling
of steel ropes, production of wire mesh, and cutting of sheet
steel. Retail sites with a set of service equipment for simple
processing of rolled metal products have been organized in 10
offices, which allows us to improve service quality for small
companies and individuals, as well as to obtain additional
margins. At our production facilities in the Samara region a
project for production of welded corrugated beams and
constructions for easy set buildings was launched. In 2011, we
are planning to continue developing these areas. In Europe, we
actively develop sales of metal products through Mechel Service
Globals subsidiaries in eleven European countries. Two of
these subsidiaries provide services for deep processing of
rolled metal products including mechanic, gas, plasma, laser and
water cutting, and welding, bending, and the production of
welded mesh and frames. In 2010, we have launched new service
centers for processing of high-quality rolled steel products.
Currently, we have in total 126 storage sites and service
centers in CIS and Europe, servicing more than 20,000 customers.
Our direct access to end customers through the provision of
value-added services allow us to obtain real-time market
intelligence, improve production planning at our steel
facilities, sell more high-margin, value-added products by
addressing specific customer needs and further diversify our
customer base. Until recently we were Russias only
integrated steel producer with its own developed distribution
network.
Mechel Service Global sales accounted for 36.1% of our steel
segment sales and 20.7% of our total sales in 2010. More than
95% of Mechel Service Global sales was sold domestically. Sales
to companies within the group accounted for 3.1% of the total
sales of Mechel Service Global in 2010.
We also have a non-retail sales and distribution network
represented by our Swiss subsidiaries Mechel Trading AG and
Mechel Carbon AG with offices in four countries and agents in
five additional countries. This network facilitated sales
constituting 33.9% of our total sales in 2010, reducing our
reliance on the Russian market in the event that it experiences
another downturn.
Track
record of acquisitions
Building upon our success in turning around the coal operations
of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company in the late 1990s and following
our acquisition and revitalization of the Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, in the last few years we have acquired
other metal finishing and wire products manufacturing
operations, as well as mining, power and ferroalloys operations.
As we have acquired and integrated companies that are closer to
the end-customers and produce higher-value-added products, the
nature of our group has transformed steadily from primarily a
raw materials processor to a vertically integrated, logistically
coherent mining, steel, ferroalloys and power group. Since the
acquisition of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant we have executed
over 25 acquisitions in the mining, steel, power, ferroalloys,
distribution and logistic segments.
Our successful track record of identifying, acquiring and
integrating target companies that complement our group is due in
part to our clearly defined investment criteria, prudent
approval procedures and our time-tested ability to identify
synergies in target assets that can be quickly implemented while
at the same time moving forward with our longer-term strategic
goals. Our acquisition program evaluates potential targets to
determine whether they conform to our long-term strategy to
shift our product mix up the value chain, expand our mining
asset base, expand into new markets and strengthen our position
in existing markets and reduce costs through improved management
and intra-group synergies. With each of our acquisitions, we aim
to implement improved operational and management practices. We
also analyze each acquisition to determine the minimum capital
expenditures necessary to achieve our target increases in
productivity and efficiency, both on
58
a per-asset and group-wide basis. We also devote the management,
technological and logistical resources necessary to integrate
new acquisitions into all aspects of our business, including the
supply of raw materials and steel, industrial production and
sales and distribution. We have a track record of using existing
workforces and maintaining strong relations with the local
communities where we operate following our acquisitions.
The acquisition of Bluestone companies in the United States in
May 2009 was Mechels first experience of acquiring and
integrating companies outside Eurasia. The strategic reasons for
this acquisition include establishing our coal business on a
worldwide level, diversifying our customer base and sales
geography and improving the quality and breadth of our offering
of coking coal products. With the acquisition of Bluestone, we
are now able to supply our customers worldwide with a wider
range of coking coal grades.
Strong
and focused management team
Our current management team has significant experience in all
aspects of our businesses. Mr. Zyuzin, one of the founders
of our group and our controlling shareholder, is our Chairman.
Mr. Zuyzin has led our successful transformation from a
small coal trading operation to a large integrated metals and
mining group. Mr. Zyuzin has over 24 years of
experience in the coal mining industry and has a doctorate in
coal mining technical sciences. Our divisional management also
has long-tenured experience in the mining and metals industry.
See Directors and Executive Officers.
Business
Strategy
Our goal is to become one of the largest mining and metals
companies globally. The key elements of our strategy include the
following:
Enhancing
our position as a leading mining, metals and ferroalloys
group
We plan
to develop our existing reserves base.
We intend to build on our substantial mining experience by
developing our existing coal and iron ore reserves, particularly
in order to sell more high-quality coking coal and iron ore
concentrate to third parties. We currently plan to increase our
annual coal production from 28.0 million tonnes in 2010 to
39.8 million tonnes in 2013, and maintain our iron ore
concentrate production at the level of at least five million
tonnes, with a potential increase in iron ore production of up
to 10-12% by
2013 resulting from upgrades at the Korshunov Mining Plant. See
Capital Investment Program. We intend to
expand the production of the Voskhod chrome ore deposit to
1.3 million tonnes per year and to start the exploration of
nickel ores at the Shevchenko deposit in Kazakhstan. We plan to
further develop our ferroalloy production at Bratsk Ferroalloy
Plant through mining quartzite, a raw material for ferrosilicon
production, at the Uvatskoye deposit in the Irkutsk region.
We intend to develop the coking and steam coal reserves of
Yakutugol. Yakutugol, which has three producing mines as well as
two licenses for the undeveloped Elga coal deposit and the
Piatimetrovy and Promezhutochny II coal seams, holds mining
rights to reserves that we believe will solidify our position as
a leading global producer of coking coal for the future. We
intend to seek additional mining licenses through acquisitions
and/or
participation in auctions and tenders in view of our strategic
plans and market dynamics. In particular, we believe that
obtaining additional mining rights near the Elga coal deposit
would allow us to realize more fully the benefits of the private
rail branch line we are constructing to deliver Elgas
future coal production to the market.
We intend
to increase our groups output of high-value-added steel
products and continue to optimize our product mix with a view to
increase steel margins.
We plan to continue our strategy of selectively investing in
technology and equipment modernization, including expanding the
use of continuous casters (concasters) in our steel
manufacturing facilities, optimizing our product catalog and
cutting production costs with a view to increase steel margins.
Our ongoing plant modernization program is aimed at maintaining
capacity at the present level, increasing efficiency and
reducing the environmental impact of our operations. In line
with this strategy, in 2008 through 2010 we completed
modernization of production facilities at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant,
59
Izhstal and Urals Stampings Plant. In continuation of this
strategy in 2011 and beyond, we aim to complete projects to
construct the universal rail and structural rolling mill and
reconstruct the oxygen-converter shop at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, modernize rolling mill No. 250 at
Izhstal and commission additional facilities at Urals Stampings
Plant. See Capital Investment Program.
We intend
to continue to seek out acquisition and expansion opportunities
and realize the maximum potential from our completed
acquisitions.
Our strategy involves finding acquisition and expansion
opportunities that we believe will reinforce or complement our
existing business lines. We actively monitor global mining,
steel and ferroalloys markets for new opportunities.
After the financial and commodities markets stabilize we will
continue to seek out opportunities to expand our group through
acquisitions, including by obtaining new subsoil licenses in
Russia and abroad. In doing so, we will seek to maintain and
expand our presence in regions with low costs and high economic
growth potential. We intend to continue to selectively acquire
value-added downstream businesses such as wire products,
stampings and forgings producers to help us reach our customer
base, including in new markets. This downstream integration:
|
|
|
|
|
is a logical extension of our specialty and low-carbon long
product lines, representing a higher-margin, next value-added
step for products that we already manufacture;
|
|
|
|
provides access to a market less cyclical than the upstream
market, reducing our exposure to market downturns and commodity
price fluctuations; and
|
|
|
|
moves us closer to our final customers, enabling us to better
understand customer needs, influence buyer behavior and respond
quickly to change.
|
Maintaining
a high degree of vertical integration
We intend
to maintain the flexibility to source our inputs internally as
circumstances require.
The expansion of our ferroalloy mining, processing and
manufacturing capacity, with the acquisition of Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant (which produces ferrosilicon used in all steel
manufacturing) and the Oriel Resources assets (which mines and
processes ferroalloys used to make steel), is consistent with
our strategy of maintaining the potential to source our raw
material requirements for manufacturing higher value-added steel
products. We have expanded our power generation and distribution
business, and we see expansion of our power capabilities not
only as a diversification measure and a way to market another
value-added product made from our coal, but also as a way to
have more control over our energy efficiency and hedge against
increases in the price of the electricity which is used by our
facilities. However, even as we expand and develop our internal
sourcing capability, we intend to adhere to our longstanding
approach of purchasing inputs from third-party suppliers and
selling products, including raw materials, to domestic and
international customers in a way that we believe creates the
most advantageous profit opportunities for our group. The
Bluestone acquisition enlarges our coking coal portfolio, adding
high quality hard coking coal with low ash content. This allows
us more flexibility to not only serve our coking coal customers,
but also to use these grades internally in our coke production,
if needed because of market conditions.
We plan
to expand our logistical capabilities.
We intend to selectively expand our logistics capabilities. We
have engaged project engineers to carry out works on the design
and construction of the Elga rail branch line and of the Port
Vanino complex. We plan to expand our own fleet of railcars,
balancing transportation security and cost efficiencies. We plan
to improve logistics in Europe through the establishment of the
company Mecheltrans West, which will carry out transportation of
Mechels cargos via motor and rail transport, as well as
work out optimal logistic schemes of cargo delivery.
60
We will
leverage synergies among our core businesses.
In addition to synergies derived from our status as an
integrated group, we believe that additional cost savings and
opportunities will arise as we benefit from economies of scale
and continue to integrate recent acquisitions, in particular by
implementing improvements in working practices and operational
methods. We regularly evaluate the manner in which our
subsidiaries source their raw material needs and transfer
products within the group in order to operate in the most
efficient way, and we expect to identify and take advantage of
further synergies among our core businesses.
Continuing
expansion in high-growth markets
We plan
to increase metallurgical coal sales to high-growth
international markets.
We intend to continue to capitalize on our ability to serve
fast-growing Asian and other international markets by leveraging
our growth in production and favorable geographic location of
our coal producing and logistics assets. In particular we view
Japan, China, South Korea and India as countries to which our
international growth strategy will be applied. We further plan
to expand production at our Bluestone operations to export
coking coal to fast-growing South American markets including
Brazil.
Further
develop our domestic and European distribution
capabilities
Our continued focus on the domestic Russian market is a key
element of our strategy. We are particularly well-positioned to
supply construction and infrastructure projects in Russia from
our Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant located in the southern
Urals and our Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant in Bashkortostan.
The geographical reach of our Mechel Service Global production
and logistics facilities and sales network provides us with a
strong platform to grow our sales. Before the financial crisis,
Mechel Service Globals operations in Europe were limited
to Germany, Romania and Belgium. In 2009 Mechel Service Global
expanded its distribution network to the Netherlands, Serbia,
Bulgaria and Italy. In 2010 we established subsidiaries in the
UK, France and Hungary and acquired companies in the
Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Turkey. We plan to further
expand our Mechel Service Global network.
Our
History and Development
We trace our beginnings to a small coal trading operation in
Mezhdurechensk in the southwestern part of Siberia in the early
1990s. See Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects History of Incorporation. Since that
time, through strategic acquisitions in Russia and abroad,
Mechel has developed into a large, integrated mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power group, comprising coal, iron ore, coke,
steel, nickel, ferrochrome, ferrosilicon and limestone
production, with operations and assets in Russia, Romania,
Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kazakhstan and the United States. With each
of our acquisitions, we implement operational and management
practices. We also devote the management, technological and
logistical resources necessary to integrate new acquisitions
into all aspects of our business, including the supply of raw
materials and steel, production methodologies and sales and
distribution.
After the recent restructuring of our assets into separate
mining, steel, ferroalloys and power segments, we have been
implementing management, reporting and control systems for each
respective subsidiary holding company, allowing for the
preparation of consolidated financial statements for each of
them.
We intend to retain a controlling voting interest in each of our
subsidiary holding companies as we continue to build upon our
business model of vertical integration among our assets. See
Risk Factors Risks Relating to Our
Business and Industry If shares of our subsidiary
holding companies are listed on a stock exchange, it could
entail changes in such companies management and corporate
governance that might affect our integrated business model.
Mining
Segment
Our mining segment produces coking coal and other types of
metallurgical coal (anthracite and coal for pulverized, or
finely crushed, coal injection (PCI)), steam coal, coking coal
and steam coal concentrates, as well as iron ore, iron ore
concentrate, limestone and coke. Our coal operations consist of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Yakutugol and Bluestone, which
together produced 18.5 million tonnes of coking coal and
9.5 million tonnes of steam coal in 2010. Our coke
operations consist of Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and
61
Mechel-Coke, which together produced 3.9 million tonnes of
coke in 2010. Our iron ore operations consist of Korshunov
Mining Plant which produced 11.1 million tonnes of iron ore
and 4.2 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate in 2010. Our
limestone operations consist of Pugachev limestone quarry which
produced 1.9 million tonnes of limestone in 2010.
Description
of key products
Coking coal and metallurgical coal. Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company produces high rank bituminous coal, which
is washed to reduce the ash content. The premier product is a
good quality, low phosphorous, low sulphur semi-soft to
semi-hard coking coal used to produce coke for the iron and
steel industry. Other products produced by Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company include PCI coal and anthracite. Yakutugol produces hard
coking coal of low volatile content. Our West Virginia-based
Bluestone operations produce a range of metallurgical coals
including low, medium and high volatile hard coking coal. The
Bluestone mines blend low, medium and high volatility hard
coking coal in different proportions to meet the requirements of
their customers. The final products are blended at the port, as
they are loaded on to the customers vessels.
Steam coal. We produce both raw and washed
steam coal products for use in the power generation industry.
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Yakutugol and our Bluestone
operations produce higher energy steam coal as part of their
product mix.
Coke. Coke is used in the blast furnace as a
main source of heat, a reducing agent for iron and a raising
agent for charging material in the smelting process. It is a
product prepared by pyrolysis (heating in the absence of oxygen)
of low-ash, low-phosphorus and low-sulfur coal charging
material. We offer customers coke from our Moscow Coke and Gas
Plant and Mechel-Coke.
Coking products. Coking products are
hydrocarbon products obtained as a byproduct of the production
of coke. We produce coke in our subsidiaries Moscow Coke and Gas
Plant and Mechel-Coke. We offer our customers coal tar,
naphthalene and other compounds. Worldwide, coal tar is used in
diverse applications, including boiler fuel, food additives and
pavement sealants. Naphthalene, a product of the distillation of
coal tar, is best known as the active ingredient in mothballs.
It is used by the chemical industry to produce chemical
compounds used in synthetic dyes, solvents, plasticizers and
other products.
Iron ore concentrate. From our Korshunov
Mining Plant we offer iron ore concentrate with a standard iron
fraction of 62%.
Mining
process
Coal. At our Russian and U.S. mines, coal
is mined using open pit or underground mining methods. Following
a drilling and blasting stage, a combination of shovels and
draglines is used for moving coal and waste at our open pit
mines. Production at the underground mines is predominantly from
longwall mining, a form of underground coal mining where a long
wall of coal in a seam is mined in a single slice. After mining,
depending upon the amount of impurities in the coal, the coal is
processed in a washing plant, where it is crushed and impurities
are removed by gravity methods. Coking coal concentrate is then
transported to coking plants for conversion to coke for use in
pig iron smelting at steel plants. Steam coal is shipped to
power utilities which use it in furnaces for steam generation to
produce electricity. Among the key advantages of our mining
business is the high quality of our coking coal, the low level
of volatile matter in our steam coal and our modern coal washing
facilities in Russia, primarily built during the 1970s and
1980s, including facilities built as recently as
2000-2002.
Coal extracted at each of the Bluestone mining complexes is
processed at the
on-site coal
preparation plants. Coal mined in Central Appalachia typically
contains impurities such as rock, shale and clay and occurs in a
wide range of particle sizes. The coal preparation plants treat
the coal to ensure a consistent quality and to enhance its
suitability for particular end-users. Steam coal is not
processed and is sold as is, as well as some high quality coking
coal which does not need washing.
Iron ore. All three of our iron ore mines are
conventional open pit operations. Following a drilling and
blasting stage, ore is hauled by rail hopper cars to the
concentrator plant. At the concentrator plant, the ore is
crushed and ground to a fine particle size, then separated into
an iron ore concentrate slurry and a waste stream using wet
magnetic separators. The iron ore is upgraded to a concentrate
that contains about 62.9% elemental iron. Tailings are pumped to
a tailings dam facility located adjacent to the concentrating
plant. The
62
concentrate is sent to disk vacuum filters which remove the
water from the concentrate to reduce the moisture level,
enabling shipment to customers by rail during warmer months, but
in colder periods the concentrate must be dried further to
prevent freezing in the rail cars. Korshunov Mining Plant
operates its own drying facility with a dry concentrate
production capacity of up to 16,000 tonnes per day.
Limestone. Our limestone mining operation uses
conventional open pit mining technology. Ore is drilled and
blasted, then loaded with electric shovels into haul trucks.
Relatively minor amounts of waste are hauled to external dumps.
The ore is hauled to stockpiles located adjacent to the crushing
and screening plant. Ore is crushed, screened and segregated by
size fraction. The crushed limestone is separated into three
product categories for sale: 0-20 millimeters,
20-40
millimeters and
40-80
millimeters.
Coal
production
Our active Russian coal mines are primarily located in the
Kuznetsky basin, a major Russian coal-producing region, and in
the Sakha Republic in eastern Siberia. The earliest production
at our Kuznetsky basin mines was in 1953, and 1979 in our Sakha
Republic mines. The table below summarizes our coal production
by mine and type of coal for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Mine(1)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(2)
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
2,100
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,446
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,522
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
1,961
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
1,337
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,952
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
596
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
614
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Lenin
Underground(3)
|
|
|
1,328
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,253
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
1,130
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
|
1,086
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
|
408
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
876
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
Nerungrinsk Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
7,409
|
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
|
|
3,020
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
%
|
|
|
8,053
|
|
|
|
53.1
|
%
|
Keystone Mining
Complexes(4)
|
|
|
1,985
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,066
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
1,042
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
637
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
1,035
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Coking Coal
|
|
|
18,542
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
10,243
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
15,147
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
|
5,236
|
|
|
|
55.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,867
|
|
|
|
38.0
|
%
|
|
|
5,525
|
|
|
|
49.1
|
%
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
759
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
714
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
%
|
|
|
797
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
492
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
525
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
917
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
836
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
Nerungrinsky Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
1,227
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
|
|
2,205
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
|
|
2,874
|
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
Kangalassk Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya
Underground(4)
|
|
|
541
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
423
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
Keystone Mining
Complexes(4)
|
|
|
220
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
331
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Steam Coal
|
|
|
9,486
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
7,539
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
11,245
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Coal
|
|
|
28,028
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.4
|
%
|
% Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.6
|
%
|
63
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Underground denotes an underground mine; Open
Pit denotes a surface mine. |
|
(2) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet basis. |
|
(3) |
|
Production at the Lenin Underground Mine was negatively impacted
in 2008 because of accidents: on May 30, 2008 there was a
cave-in (suspension of operation for 17 calendar days) and on
July 29, 2008 there was a methane flash (suspension of
operation for 67 calendar days). Both accidents involved
multiple casualties. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes only post-acquisition production volumes. |
The coking coal produced by our Russian mines is predominately
low-sulfur (0.3%) bituminous coal. Heating values for the coking
coal range from 6,861 to 8,488 kcal/kg on a moisture- and
ash-free basis. Heating values for the steam coal range from
6,627 to 8,286 kcal/kg on a moisture- and ash-free basis.
Our coking coal concentrate production amounted to
11.5 million tonnes in 2010 and 7.4 million tonnes in
2009.
We also produce other types of metallurgical coal such as
anthracite concentrate and PCI coal. The table below summarizes
our production of anthracite concentrate and PCI coal for the
periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Anthracite concentrate
|
|
|
1,087.3
|
|
|
|
687.0
|
|
|
|
702.1
|
|
PCI coal
|
|
|
905.0
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian
Coal Mines
All of the Southern Kuzbass Coal Company mines are located in
the southeast portion of the Kuznetsky Basin in the Kemerovo
region, Russia. Southern Kuzbass Coal Company operations are
located around Mezdurechensk with the exception of Erunakovsk,
which is located northeast of Novokuznetsk. Each of the Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company mines, with the exception of Erunakovsk,
have railway spurs connected to the Russian rail system, which
is controlled by Russian Railways.
Nerungrinsk Open Pit is located in the southern part of the
Sakha Republic in eastern Siberia, south of the capital of
Yakutsk near the town of Nerungri. Nerungrinsk Open Pit has a
railway spur connected to the Russian rail system, which is
controlled by Russian Railways.
The Elga project is located in the Sakha Republic and lies in
the South Yakutsk Basin of the Toko Coal-Bearing region. This
region was first discovered and explored in 1952 with the first
geological surveys being conducted in 1954 through 1956 followed
by prospecting surveys in 1961 through 1962. Trenching along the
outcrops was conducted in 1980 through 1982 followed by
exploration drilling that was completed in 1998.
The table below sets forth certain information regarding the
subsoil licenses used by our Russian coal mines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
License-Holding
|
|
Expiry
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
Production
|
Mine(1)
|
|
License Area
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
Date
|
|
Status(2)
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
Tomsk, Sibirginsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2013
|
|
In production
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|
|
1954
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
Sorokinsk, Tomsk, Sibirginsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Nov 2025
|
|
In production
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Lenin Underground
|
|
Olzherassk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Nov 2013
|
|
In production
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
1953
|
|
Lenin Underground (Usinsk Underground)
|
|
Olzherassk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2014
|
|
In
development(3)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
1965
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
Raspadsk, Berezovsk, Sosnovsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jan 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
1980
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
Raspadsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2024
|
|
In production
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
License-Holding
|
|
Expiry
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
Production
|
Mine(1)
|
|
License Area
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
Date
|
|
Status(2)
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
Berezovsk-2, Berezovsk, Olzherassk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2024
|
|
In production
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground (formerly Invest-Coal)
|
|
Raspadsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2021
|
|
In production
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
Olzherassk-2, Raspadsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jan 2030
|
|
In production
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
Razvedochny, Raspadsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Nov 2025
|
|
In development
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
Sibirginsk, Tomsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Dec 2024
|
|
In production
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
Sibirginsk, Kureinsk, Uregolsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jan 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
1970
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
Tomsk
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine OAO
|
|
Dec 2012
|
|
In production
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
1959
|
|
Erunakovsk-1 Underground
|
|
Erunakovsk-1, Erunakovsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jun 2025
|
|
In
development(3)
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Erunakovsk-3 Underground
|
|
Erunakovsk-3, Erunakovsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jun 2025
|
|
In
development(3)
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Olzherassk Underground
|
|
Olzherassk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Nov 2025
|
|
In
development(3)
|
|
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit
|
|
Nerungrinsk
|
|
Yakutugol OAO
|
|
Dec 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
1979
|
|
Kangalassk Open Pit
|
|
Kangalassk
|
|
Yakutugol OAO
|
|
Dec 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
1962
|
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya Underground
|
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya
|
|
Yakutugol OAO
|
|
Dec 2013
|
|
In
production(3)
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
1972
|
|
Nerungrinsky Open Pit
|
|
Piatimetrovy and Promezhutochny II coal seams
|
|
Yakutugol OAO
|
|
Dec 2025
|
|
In
development(3)
|
|
|
30.0
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Elga Open Pit
|
|
Elga
|
|
Yakutugol OAO
|
|
May 2020
|
|
In development
|
|
|
144.1
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Underground denotes an underground mine. Open
Pit denotes a surface mine. |
|
(2) |
|
In production refers to sites that are currently
producing coal. In development refers to sites where
preliminary work is being carried out in accordance with the
terms of the relevant subsoil license, such as preparation and
approval of the geological survey project (for the Olzherassk
license area), geological surveys (for the Olzherassk,
Razvedochny, Erunakovsk-3, Piatimetrovy and
Promezhutochny II coal seams license areas), preparation
and approval of construction project documentation (for the Elga
license area) and construction (for the Erunakovsk-1 and Elga
license areas). |
|
(3) |
|
Not included in our mineral reserves. |
In October 2007, we acquired 75% less one share of Yakutugol, a
coal producer located in eastern Siberia, in the Sakha Republic,
increasing our stake to 100%. Yakutugol consists of the
Kangalassk Open Pit, the Nerungrinsk Open Pit and the
Dzhebariki-Khaya Underground Mine and also owns a coal license
for the Piatimetrovy and Promezhutochny II coal seams.
Yakutugol extracts predominantly coking coal, as well as steam
coal. The Nerungrinsk mine produces high-quality coking and
steam coal. The Kangalassk mine produces steam coal that is sold
as fuel for power plants in the Sakha Republic. The
Dzhebariki-Khaya mine produces steam coal, most of which is sold
to the state housing and municipal services administration.
Yakutugol sells most of its output to the Asian Pacific region,
primarily to Japan, South Korea and China, mostly pursuant to
annual contracts.
Together with our acquisition of Yakutugol, we also acquired
68.86% of the shares of Elgaugol, which at the time of the
acquisition held the license to the undeveloped Elga coal
deposit in the Sakha Republic. After
65
our acquisition of Elgaugol, the Elga mining license was
transferred to Yakutugol effective as of the end of the first
quarter of 2008. According to the license conditions, as amended
in May 2010, we are required to meet certain operational
milestones: (1) completing the legal permits for
development of the Elga coal deposit by June 30, 2010 (a
plan of initial mine block development was approved by the state
authorities on June 30, 2010); (2) commencing
construction of the mining plant in November 2009 (we commenced
construction of the initial mine block of Elga open pit mine in
November 2009); (3) completing construction of the first
phase of Elga complex by December 31, 2013 and commencing
coal production by November 30, 2010 (we commenced
overburden mining at the initial mine block of Elga open pit
mine in November 2010); (4) reaching an estimated annual
coal production capacity of 9.0 million tonnes in July
2013; and (5) reaching targeted annual coal production of
18 million tonnes by July 2018. In addition, we undertook
the obligation to build a rail branch line of approximately 315
kilometers in length, from the Ulak station on the
Baikal-Amur
Mainline up to the Elga coal deposit by December 31, 2011.
See Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects Contractual Obligations and Commercial
Commitments. We will operate this rail branch line as a
private railway. However, according to Russian law, once we
complete the railroad, we will have to share excess capacity
with third parties.
On March 25, 2008, our subsidiary Yakutugol entered into a
turn-key contract with Transstroy ZAO Engineering Corporation
(Transstroy). Under this contract Transstroy
undertakes to perform engineering survey works, handle the
permitting process and design and build a rail branch line to
the Elga coal deposit from the
Baikal-Amur
Mainline. Yakutugols obligation is to ensure timely
payment, including advances, and build a temporary access road.
In September 2009, due to failure to meet certain construction
deadlines, we appointed our subsidiary Metallurgshakhtspetsstroy
as the general contractor for the rail road construction instead
of Transstroy and formed Mechel-Customer United Directorate OOO.
Since October 2010, Yakutugol has performed the functions of
technical customer in order to ensure closer supervision over
the construction process and to obtain required permits. These
measures allowed us to advance the construction process and
reduce costs of construction works. Pursuant to the agreements
currently in effect, in November 2010 we completed construction
of an access road to the Elga deposit and in August 2011 we plan
to commence temporary transportation of coal products on the
rail road from the 209th kilometer point. We plan to
complete the construction of the rail road to the Elga coal
deposit and to open cargo transportation by December 31,
2011.
In August 2010, Mechel OAO entered into a cooperation agreement
with OJSC FGC UES and JSC RusHydro where we agreed on the
general principles and forms of cooperation in relation to Elga
coal deposit and Nizhne-Bureyskaya water power plant projects.
According to the cooperation agreement, Mechel is to complete
the electricity-receiving infrastructure at the Elga coal
deposit, RusHydro is to construct the Nizhne-Bureyskaya water
power plant which is to provide electricity for Elga, and FGC
UES is to develop and implement the network to distribute
electricity from Nizhne-Bureyskaya water power plant to Elga.
In 1994 Sibirginsk Open Pit Mine (currently a branch of Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company) received a coal license to develop the
mineral deposits of the Uregolsky 1-2 area. Approximately
1.1 million tonnes of coal have been mined by us since that
date at the mine site in the license area. Due to what we
believe was a technical error made when the license was
originally issued, there is an uncertainty as to whether the
Uregolsk license area includes a part of the mine site with
37 million tonnes of coal deposits (the New
Uregolsk license area). Applicable Russian regulations
lack a procedure for correcting license boundaries in the event
of an error, and as recently as 2006, 2007 and 2008, we carried
out mining activities on the New Uregolsk license area in
coordination with, and with the knowledge of, Rostekhnadzor.
Furthermore, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company participated in an
auction aimed at resolving the title to the New Uregolsk license
area. The auction was concluded on June 26, 2008. Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company submitted its bids against competing
bidders until it believed that the higher bidders price
was not economically justified in light of the estimated
reserves in the license area. The final price was significantly
higher than Southern Kuzbass Coal Companys last bid.
However, the winner of the auction failed to pay and the results
of the auction were cancelled by the state authorities. In March
2011, a new tender was held for the right to use the New
Uregolsk license area and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
participated in the tender and was granted the right to use the
New Uregolsk license area. We expect to receive the license for
New Uregolsk in July 2011. Meanwhile,
66
we were involved in certain proceedings related to the usage of
the mineral deposits on the New Uregolsk license area. For more
information see Item 8. Financial
Information Litigation New Uregolsk
license area. Currently, no mining activity is conducted
in the New Uregolsk license area. We believe that the coal
mining at the New Uregolsk license area was in compliance with
all applicable laws. Our subsidiary Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company could face civil claims; however, we consider it
unlikely that such claims will be made. Our mineral reserves as
set forth in this document as of December 31, 2010 do not
include minerals within the New Uregolsk license area.
U.S. coal
mines
Our U.S. coal mines are primarily located within the
central portion of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic
province, which is a broad upland that extends from Alabama
through Pennsylvania. The properties are located in McDowell and
Wyoming counties, West Virginia, and are underlain by
carboniferous sediments of the Appalachian Basin. This region is
operated by the Norfolk Southern railroad and is in close
proximity to a large river route by which the coal is
transported to the ports in Virginia and the Mexican Gulf ports.
The Bluestone properties have four mining complexes, Keystone
No. 1 and No. 2 (Keystone Mining
Complexes), Justice Energy and Dynamic Energy,
together comprising five open pit and twelve underground mines.
The Keystone Mining Complexes consists of 28,328 hectares, of
which 4,975 hectares are owned, 7,910 hectares are leased on the
basis of long term leases expiring from 2031 to 2032 and 15,443
hectares are leased in perpetuity. The mines produce premium
quality low volatile coking coal. During the past several years,
the Keystone No. 1 Complex has consisted of three open pit,
two underground and one highwall mine, a preparation plant and a
rail loadout facility served by the Norfolk Southern Railroad.
We constructed a new preparation plant at the Keystone Mining
Complex No. 2 in 2010 and we plan to construct a loadout
facility at the Keystone Mining Complex No. 2 and to start
production from the two new underground mines and an open pit
mine in 2011.
The Justice Energy complex consists of 7,485 hectares, of which
602 hectares are owned, 1,334 hectares are leased on the basis
of long term leases expiring from 2018 to 2019 and 5,549
hectares are leased in perpetuity. Production from the Justice
Energy Complex was sold predominantly as medium-volatile coking
coal. The complex includes a surface mine and an underground
mine, a preparation plant and a rail loadout facility served by
the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Additional development plans
provide for three underground mines within the Justice Energy
surface mine permit. These mines are also expected to produce
premium medium volatile coking coal.
The Dynamic Energy Mining Complex utilizes approximately 2,980
hectares, which are leased in perpetuity. The complex includes a
surface mine and an underground mine, a coal preparation plant
and a rail loadout facility which is served by the Norfolk
Southern Railroad. More underground mining operations are
planned at the Coal Mountain property which is part of the
Dynamic Energy Mining Complex. It is anticipated that these
future mining operations will consist of no fewer than three
continuous miner sections or two miner units with a single
longwall unit. Production from these mines is expected to be
premium high volatile coking coal.
In 2010 Bluestone produced 3.1 million tonnes of clean
equivalent coal.
67
The table below sets forth certain information regarding the
mining permits used by our U.S. coal mines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
Mines and
|
|
Mining Permit
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
Mining Complex
|
|
Mining
Method(1)
|
|
Expiry Date
|
|
|
Status(2)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
|
Keystone Mining Complexes
|
|
3 Open Pit
|
|
|
2011 to 2014
|
|
|
In production
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
6 Underground
|
|
|
2013 to 2015
|
|
|
2 In production
|
|
|
1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Idle
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining Complex
|
|
1 Open Pit
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
In production
|
|
|
1982
|
|
|
|
5 Underground
|
|
|
2011 to 2014
|
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
2004
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining Complex
|
|
1 Open Pit
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
In production
|
|
|
1997
|
|
|
|
1 Underground
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
Idle
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Underground denotes an underground mine; Open
Pit denotes a surface mine. |
|
(2) |
|
In production refers to sites that are currently
producing coal. Idle denotes a mine which is planned
to be productive in the future but temporarily neither active
nor being developed. |
Mine
Safety Disclosure
The following information on certain mine safety results is
presented for each underground coal mine, surface coal mine, and
coal preparation and loading facility owned and operated by
Mechel or its subsidiaries in the United States, for the annual
period ended December 31, 2010 as reflected in the mine
data retrieval system maintained by MSHA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSHA Mine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed
|
|
|
|
|
Identification
|
|
|
|
|
|
104(d)(1)/
|
|
104(d)(2)/
|
|
|
|
Penalties In
|
|
|
|
Pending Legal
|
Number
|
|
104(a) S&S
|
|
104(b)
|
|
(No. of S&S)
|
|
(No. of
S&S)(2)
|
|
107(a)
|
|
U.S.
dollars(1)
|
|
Fatalities
|
|
Actions(3)
|
|
4608884
|
|
53
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
6 / (8)
|
|
0
|
|
62,314
|
|
0
|
|
8
|
4609020
|
|
59
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
14 / (8)
|
|
0
|
|
161,533
|
|
0
|
|
9
|
4609227
|
|
1
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
1,171
|
|
0
|
|
4
|
4608769
|
|
0
|
|
1
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
276
|
|
0
|
|
2
|
4608779
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
n/a
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
4609024
|
|
1
|
|
0
|
|
8 / (8)
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
46,414
|
|
0
|
|
1
|
4609031
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
100
|
|
0
|
|
1
|
4609123
|
|
1
|
|
0
|
|
2 / (2)
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
5,000
|
|
0
|
|
1
|
4608990
|
|
3
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
3,880
|
|
0
|
|
4
|
4608684
|
|
2
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
4,207
|
|
0
|
|
4
|
4609062
|
|
14
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
2 / (2)
|
|
0
|
|
20,908
|
|
0
|
|
3
|
4606578
|
|
42
|
|
1
|
|
1 / (1)
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
38,652
|
|
0
|
|
7
|
4603404
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
200
|
|
0
|
|
2
|
4609315
|
|
2
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
2,666
|
|
0
|
|
3
|
4609131
|
|
10
|
|
0
|
|
3 / (3)
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
1,715
|
|
0
|
|
3
|
4609316
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
n/a
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
4603444
|
|
71
|
|
0
|
|
52 / (50)
|
|
3 / (3)
|
|
0
|
|
134,552
|
|
0
|
|
9
|
4602446
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
300
|
|
0
|
|
2
|
Source: United States Mine Safety and Health
Administrations Data Retrieval System.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts included are the total U.S. dollar value of proposed or
outstanding assessments received from MSHA regardless of whether
the assessment has been challenged or appealed, for citations
and orders occurring during the
12-month
period ended December 31, 2010. |
68
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Pattern or Potential Pattern of Violations. For the
12-month
period ended December 31, 2010, none of our operations
received written notice from MSHA of (i) a pattern of
violations of mandatory health or safety standards that are of
such nature as could have significantly and substantially
contributed to the cause and effect of coal or other mine health
or safety hazards under section 104(e) of the Mine Act; or
(ii) the potential to have such a pattern. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes all legal actions pending before the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Review Commission, together with the
Administrative Law Judges thereof, for each of our operations.
These actions may have been initiated in prior quarters. All of
the legal actions were initiated by us to contest citations,
orders, or proposed assessments issued by MSHA, and if we are
successful, may result in the reduction or dismissal of those
citations, orders, or assessments. |
|
|
|
|
|
Section 104(a) S&S Violations. The
total number of violations of mandatory health or safety
standards that could significantly and substantially contribute
to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health
hazard under section 104 of the Mine Act for which the
operator received a citation from MSHA;
|
|
|
|
Section 104(b) Orders. The total number
of orders issued under section 104(b) of the Mine Act,
which represents a failure to abate a violation under
section 104 within the period of time prescribed by MSHA;
|
|
|
|
Section 104(d) Citations and Orders. The
total number of citations and orders for unwarrantable failure
of the mine operator to comply with mandatory health or safety
standards under section 104(d) of the Mine Act;
|
|
|
|
Section 110(b)(2) Flagrant
Violations. The total number of flagrant
violations under section 110(b)(2) of the Mine Act.
|
|
|
|
Section 107(a) Imminent Danger
Orders. The total number of imminent danger
orders issued under section 107(a) of the Mine Act;
|
|
|
|
Proposed MSHA Assessments. The total
U.S. dollar value of proposed assessments from MSHA under
the Mine Act; and
|
|
|
|
Fatalities. The total number of mining-related
fatalities.
|
Coal
washing plants
We operate five coal washing plants located near our coal mines
in Southern Kuzbass and one coal washing plant located near
Yakutugol. All of the coal feedstock enriched by our washing
plants in 2010 (23.3 million tonnes) was supplied by our
own mining operations. In 2010, the capacity of our washing
plants in Russia accounted for 19.2% of the total domestic
coking coal washing capacity in Russia by volume, according to
Rosinformugol. Bluestone currently uses four washing plants: two
washing plants at the Keystone Mining Complex (Keystone
No. 1 and Keystone No. 2) which are owned by
Bluestone; the washing plant at the Justice Energy Mining
Complex (Red Fox Property) which is contracted by Bluestone
pursuant to a long-term agreement, and the washing plant at the
Dynamic Energy Mining Complex (Coal Mountain Property) which is
also contracted by Bluestone pursuant to a long-term agreement.
Keystone No. 2 was commissioned in December 2010 and
Keystone No. 1 has been temporarily idle due to temporary
excess of washing capacity as compared to mining capacity at the
Keystone mines.
Investments
in coal companies
We own 16.13% of Mezhdurechye OAO, a Russian coal producer whose
production volume accounted for 4.8% of Russian coking coal
output and 2.0% of Russian total coal output in 2010, according
to the Central Dispatching Department.
69
Coke
and coking products production
We produce coke and coking products from coking coal concentrate
at our subsidiaries Moscow Coke and Gas Plant, situated in the
Moscow region, and Mechel-Coke, a subsidiary of Mechel Mining,
located in the Urals.
The table below summarizes our production of coke and coking
coal for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Coke (6% moisture)
|
|
|
3,884
|
|
|
|
3,233
|
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
Coking products
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Iron
ore and concentrate production
Korshunov Mining Plant operates three iron ore mines,
Korshunovsk, Rudnogorsk and Tatianinsk, as well as a
concentrating plant located outside of the town of
Zheleznogorsk-Ilimsky, 120 kilometers east of Bratsk in eastern
Siberia. The Korshunovsk mine is located near the concentrating
plant. The Rudnogorsk mine is located about 85 kilometers to the
northwest of the concentrating plant. The Tatianinsk mine is
located about 10 kilometers to the north of the concentrating
plant. All three mines produce a magnetite ore
(Fe3O4).
All product is shipped by rail to domestic customers or to
seaports for export sales. We acquired Korshunov Mining Plant in
2003.
The table below sets forth the subsoil licenses used by our iron
ore mines and the expiration dates thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
|
Production
|
|
License Area
|
|
License Holder
|
|
Expiry Date
|
|
Status
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
|
Commenced
|
|
|
Korshunovsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
June 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
1965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tatianinsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
June 2012
|
|
In production
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
1986
|
|
Rudnogorsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
June 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
1984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krasnoyarovsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
July 2015
|
|
Feasibility
study(1)
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Not included in our mineral reserves. |
The table below summarizes our iron ore and iron ore concentrate
production for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(1)
|
|
|
Korshunovsk ore production
|
|
|
5,024
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
5,683
|
|
|
|
25.4
|
%
|
|
|
5,702
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
%
|
Rudnogorsk ore production
|
|
|
6,013
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
%
|
|
|
5,605
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
%
|
|
|
5,911
|
|
|
|
34.6
|
%
|
Tatianinsk ore production
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
28.7
|
%
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ore production
|
|
|
11,104
|
|
|
|
29
|
%
|
|
|
11,289
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
%
|
|
|
11,724
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iron ore concentrate production
|
|
|
4,210
|
|
|
|
62.2
|
%
|
|
|
4,208
|
|
|
|
62.4
|
%
|
|
|
4,700
|
|
|
|
62.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet basis. |
Limestone
production
The Pugachev limestone quarry is an open pit mine located
approximately nine kilometers southwest of Beloretsk in the Ural
Mountains. The mine has a railway spur connected to the Russian
rail system, which is
70
controlled by Russian Railways. The quarry was developed in 1952
to support Beloretsk Metallurgical Plants steel-making
facilities, which are currently closed. The Pugachev limestone
quarry is owned by our Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant, which we
acquired in 2002. The current subsoil license is valid until
January 2014.
The quarry produces both high-grade flux limestone for use in
steel-making and ferronickel production and aggregate limestone
for use in road construction. The flux limestone and aggregate
limestone are the same grade of limestone, but they are produced
in different fraction sizes, which determine their suitability
for a particular use. In 2010, approximately 88.5% of the
limestone produced at Pugachev was used internally as auxiliary,
with 66.9% shipped to Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, 19.2%
shipped to Southern Urals Nickel Plant, 1.8% to Izhstal, 0.6% to
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant, approximately 1.5% sold to third
parties, and approximately 10.0% remained in the warehouse and
was used for internal needs of the quarry. We are capable of
internally sourcing 100% of the limestone requirements of our
steel operations.
The table below summarizes our limestone production for the
periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Limestone production
|
|
|
1,895
|
|
|
|
1,865
|
|
|
|
1,692
|
|
Sales
of mining products
The following table sets forth third-party sales of mining
products (by volume) and as a percentage of total sales
(including intra-group sales) for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes(1))
|
|
(% of total sales,
|
|
|
|
|
including intra-group)
|
|
Coking coal
concentrate(2)
|
|
|
8,292.1
|
|
|
|
4,848.4
|
|
|
|
8,360.3
|
|
|
|
73.9
|
%
|
|
|
67.1
|
%
|
|
|
77.1
|
%
|
Steam
coal(2)
|
|
|
4,249.8
|
|
|
|
8,224.0
|
|
|
|
7,629.4
|
|
|
|
78.6
|
%
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
|
|
91.8
|
%
|
Anthracite and PCI coal
|
|
|
1,853.3
|
|
|
|
391.0
|
|
|
|
913.9
|
|
|
|
86.5
|
%
|
|
|
56.1
|
%
|
|
|
77.1
|
%
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
3,283.1
|
|
|
|
3,786.7
|
|
|
|
2,713.1
|
|
|
|
83.9
|
%
|
|
|
93.2
|
%
|
|
|
58.1
|
%
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,150.5
|
|
|
|
845.2
|
|
|
|
1,051.9
|
|
|
|
31.0
|
%
|
|
|
27.1
|
%
|
|
|
32.5
|
%
|
Coking Products
|
|
|
171.6
|
|
|
|
116.6
|
|
|
|
123.5
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes resale of mining products purchased from third parties. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes only post-acquisition volumes of Bluestone. |
The significant increase in coking coal concentrate sales in
2010 against 2009 was due to improved demand in both export and
domestic markets. Our steam coal sales declined since a certain
part of steam coal was processed and sold as PCI coal.
The following table sets forth revenues by product, as further
divided between domestic sales and exports (including as a
percentage of total mining segment revenues) for the periods
indicated. We define exports as sales by our Russian and foreign
subsidiaries to customers located outside their respective
countries. We
71
define domestic sales as sales by our Russian and foreign
subsidiaries to customers located within their respective
countries. See note 23 to our annual consolidated financial
statements included herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
1,457.5
|
|
|
|
47.8
|
%
|
|
|
538.3
|
|
|
|
31.4
|
%
|
|
|
1,860.9
|
|
|
|
50.8
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
21.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
78.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
360.6
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
%
|
|
|
614.8
|
|
|
|
35.9
|
%
|
|
|
746.5
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
73.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Anthracite and PCI coal
|
|
|
294.0
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
178.5
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
17.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
83.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
359.8
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
%
|
|
|
138.7
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
377.5
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
72.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
27.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Products
|
|
|
48.7
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
22.6
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
68.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
31.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
338.8
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
|
233.0
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
|
|
339.4
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
60.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
191.6
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
|
|
137.3
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
126.4
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,050.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
1,713.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
3,664.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
34.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
65.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes revenues from transportation, distribution,
construction and other miscellaneous services provided to local
customers. |
Marketing
and distribution
In 2010, our mining products were marketed domestically in
Russia primarily through Mechel Trading House and
internationally through Mechel Trading and Mechel Carbon in
Switzerland. The following table sets forth by percentage of
sales the regions in which our mining segment products were sold
for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region(1)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
32.3
|
%
|
|
|
34.3
|
%
|
|
|
42.0
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
|
|
17.1
|
%
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
34.8
|
%
|
|
|
37.1
|
%
|
|
|
29.2
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Other regions
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The regional breakdown of sales is based on the geographic
location of our customers, and not on the location of the end
users of our products, as our customers are often distributors
that resell and, in some cases, further export our products. |
The following table sets forth information about the five
largest customers of our mining segment, which together
accounted for 33.1% of our mining segment sales in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
Customer
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Product
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
ArcelorMittal
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
47.8
|
%
|
Severstal
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
35.7
|
%
|
EvrazHolding
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
38.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
Ducalion Trading Ltd.
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Sinosteel
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
Sales by
Russian subsidiaries
Domestic sales
We generally do not involve intermediaries in the domestic
distribution of our mining products. Our domestic coking and
steam coal and iron ore customers are generally located in large
industrial areas and have had long-standing relationships with
us.
We ship our coking coal concentrate from our coal washing
facilities, located near our coal mines and pits, by railway
directly to our customers, including steel producers. Our
largest domestic customer for our coking coal concentrate was
Severstal, accounting for 8.8% of our total coking coal
concentrate sales and 4.2% of our total mining segment sales in
2010.
Pursuant to a directive from the FAS dated August 14, 2008,
we entered into long-term coking coal supply contracts with some
of our major domestic customers. These contracts provide for the
supply of coking coal concentrate under a fixed price based on
the price of premium hard coking coal under one-year contracts
under FOB terms from Australian ports, excluding the costs of
transshipment and rail transportation, with the application of a
coefficient representing the quality of the coal concentrate.
Previously, the delivery terms for most of our major domestic
customers provided for sale at spot market prices. The long-term
contracts were entered into with MMK, EvrazResurs, Severstal,
KOKS and Metalltrade for terms of four and five years for a
total annual delivery volumes of four to five million tonnes of
coking coal. However, MMK, one of our major domestic customers
with which we have entered into a five-year contract for
delivery of a total of 12 million tonnes of coking coal,
has filed a lawsuit in a Russian court seeking rescission of its
contract. Metalltrade also has filed a lawsuit seeking
termination of its five-year contract. Both of the petitions
were dismissed by the court. See Item 8. Financial
Information Litigation Commercial
litigation. In general, the long-term contracts executed
in accordance with the FAS directive do not guarantee sale of
the volumes fixed under the contracts. In practice, customers
may refuse to purchase products under these contracts and we
have no means to influence them to take the contracted volumes
in full.
We have long-term coking coal supply contracts with our major
domestic customers Severstal, TC EvrazHolding and Ural Steel
with quarterly adjustment of prices.
We ship our steam coal from our warehouses by railway directly
to our customers, which are predominantly electric power
stations. Our supply contracts for steam coal are generally
concluded with
73
customers on a long-term basis. Some of our steam coal is
consumed within the group; for example, sales of steam coal and
middlings (lower-quality coal) from our Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company to our Southern Kuzbass Power Plant were
$21.8 million in 2010. In total, 1.2 million tonnes of
steam coal was consumed within the group. SUE Housing Sakha
Republic (Yakutia) is our largest domestic customer of steam
coal, accounting for 20.9% of our total steam coal sales and
0.7% of our total mining segment sales in 2010.
Iron ore concentrate is shipped via railway directly from our
Korshunov Mining Plant to customers. Our largest domestic
customer, EvrazHolding, accounted for 38.5% of our total iron
ore concentrate sales and 4.3% of our total mining segment sales
in 2010. We set our prices on a monthly or quarterly basis as
agreed with the customers.
Our subsidiary Mecheltrans is a railway freight and forwarding
company, which owns its own rail rolling stock, consisting of
409 open cars and 213 pellet cars, leases 640 open cars and has
3,380 open cars under equipment finance leases. Mecheltrans
transported domestically approximately 43.0 million tonnes
of our cargo in 2010, approximately 64% of which was comprised
of coal and iron ore.
Export sales
We export coking coal, low ash washed bituminous coal of various
grades, various types of steam coal, anthracite, coke and iron
ore concentrate.
In 2010, the largest foreign customer of our mining segment was
ArcelorMittal, accounting for 10.0% of our total mining segment
sales. ArcelorMittal purchases consisted of coking coal
concentrate and steam coal.
We were Russias largest exporter of coking coal
concentrate in 2010, according to RasMin. Our exports of coking
coal concentrate primarily go to China, Japan, Ukraine and South
Korea. In 2010, ArcelorMittal, Ducalion Trading Ltd., Sinosteel
Raw Materials Company Ltd., JFE Steel Company and Shanxi Coking
Coal Group were our largest foreign customers of coking coal
concentrate, accounting for 29.8% of our total coking coal
concentrate sales and 14.2% of our total mining segment sales.
Shipments are made by rail to sea ports and further by sea,
except for shipments to Ducalion Trading Ltd. that are made only
by rail.
Our exports of steam coal, anthracite and PCI coal are primarily
to Luxembourg, France and Japan, which together accounted for
31.2% of our total steam coal sales and 6.7% of our total mining
segment sales in 2010. In 2010, our largest foreign customers of
steam coal (including anthracite and PCI coal) were
ArcelorMittal in Europe, Sumitomo Corporation in Japan and
Toplofikatsia Rousse in Bulgaria. Steam coal is shipped to
customers from our warehouses by railway and further by ship
from Russian ports.
Our Port Posiet processed 3.6 million tonnes of coal in
2010. From Port Posiet we ship primarily our steam coal and
coking coal concentrate to Japan, Korea and China. The
ports current capacity is approximately 3.5 million
tonnes of annual cargo-handling throughput and 230,000 tonnes of
warehousing capacity depending on coal type. The ports
proximity to roads and rail links to key product destinations
and transshipment points in China and Russia make it a
cost-effective link in the logistical chain for bringing our
Yakutugol coal production to market.
In 2010, we used annual contracts for export sales of coking and
steam coal. Coal not shipped under annual contracts was sold on
the spot market.
We also sold iron ore concentrate to customers in China during
2010, which accounted for 60.2% of our total iron ore
concentrate sales and 6.7% of our total mining segment sales in
2010. We ship iron ore concentrate to China by rail and by sea.
Sales by
U.S. subsidiaries
Bluestone mining business sold 2.6 million tonnes of coking
and steam coal in 2010, 74% of which was sold to the export
market. Substantially all of the coal was sold on the spot
market. Coal is transported from the mining complexes to
customers by means of railroads, trucks, barge lines and
ocean-going ships from terminal facilities. All production is
shipped via the Norfolk Southern Railroad, so our Bluestone
operations are dependent on the capacity of and our relationship
with Norfolk Southern Railroad. These shipments either
74
go directly to coking plants in North America or to port
facilities for transloading into ocean going ships. In 2010, all
Bluestone exports went through the port of Norfolk, Virginia.
Market
share and competition
Coal
According to AME, we were among the 10 largest metallurgical
coal producers in the world in 2010. The following table lists
the major world metallurgical coal (i.e. coking coal and PCI
coal) producers in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metallurgical Coal
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(Millions of
|
Company
|
|
Tonnes)
|
|
BHP Mitsubishi Alliance
|
|
|
59
|
|
Teck Resources Limited
|
|
|
23
|
|
Alpha Natural
Resources(1)
|
|
|
17
|
|
Anglo American PLC
|
|
|
15
|
|
Xstrata PLC
|
|
|
14
|
|
Mechel
|
|
|
13
|
|
Rio Tinto Group
|
|
|
12
|
|
Peabody Energy Corp.
|
|
|
10
|
|
Walter
Energy(2)
|
|
|
9
|
|
Patriot Coal Corporation
|
|
|
7
|
|
Source: AME; company reports; trade statistics
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pro-forma acquisition of Massey Energy by Alpha Natural
Resources. This assumes the consolidation of Massey Energy and
Alpha Natural Resources estimated export figures. |
|
(2) |
|
Pro-forma acquisition of Western Coal by Walter Energy. This
assumes the consolidation of Western Coal and Walter Energy
estimated export figures. |
75
According to AME, we were among the 10 largest metallurgical
coal exporters in the world in 2010. The following table lists
the major world metallurgical coal exporters and their shares of
the total metallurgical coal international trade in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metallurgical Coal
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
Internationally
|
|
|
|
(Millions of
|
|
|
Traded
|
|
Company
|
|
Tonnes)
|
|
|
Metallurgical Coal
|
|
|
BHP Mitsubishi Alliance
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
Teck Resources Limited
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
Anglo American PLC
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Xstrata PLC
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
Alpha Natural
Resources(1)
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
Rio Tinto Group
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Peabody Energy Corp.
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
Walter
Energy(2)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
Patriot Coal
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Metallurgical coal exports
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: AME; company reports; trade statistics
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pro-forma acquisition of Massey Energy by Alpha Natural
Resources. This assumes the consolidation of Massey Energy and
Alpha Natural Resources estimated export figures. |
|
(2) |
|
Pro-forma acquisition of Western Coal by Walter Energy. This
assumes the consolidation of Western Coal and Walter Energy
estimated export figures. |
According to Rosinformugol, in 2010 the Russian coal mining
industry was represented by 201 companies, which operated
85 underground mines and 116 open pit mines. As a result of the
privatization of 1990s and subsequent mergers and acquisitions,
the Russian coal mining industry has become more concentrated.
Based on the Central Dispatching Departments data, the ten
largest coal mining companies in Russia produced 78.9% of the
overall coal production volume in 2010.
According to data from the Central Dispatching Department, in
2010, we were the largest coking coal producer in Russia, with a
22.2% share of total production by volume, and we had a 7.2%
market share with respect to overall Russian coal production by
volume. We also controlled 19.2% of the coking coal washing
facilities in Russia by capacity at the end of 2010, according
to Rosinformugol. The following table lists the
76
main Russian coking coal producers in 2010, the industrial
groups to which they belong, their coking coal production
volumes and their share of total Russian production volume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
|
Coking
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
|
|
(Thousands
|
|
Production
|
Group
|
|
Company
|
|
of Tonnes)
|
|
by Volume
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
7,072
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
Yakutugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
|
7,409
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
|
|
Mechel Total
|
|
|
14,481
|
|
|
|
22.2
|
%
|
Sibuglemet Holding
|
|
Polosukhinskaya Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,903
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
Mezhdurechye
OAO(1)
|
|
|
3,113
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
Antonovskaya Mine ZAO
|
|
|
776
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
Bolshevik Mine OAO
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
Sibuglemet Total
|
|
|
8,095
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
Yuzhkuzbassugol Coal Company ZAO
|
|
|
7,509
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
Vorkutaugol OAO
|
|
|
7,197
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
Raspadskaya OAO
|
|
Raspadskaya ZAO
|
|
|
7,160
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
4,686
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
Belon Group
|
|
PO Sibir-Ugol OAO
|
|
|
4,133
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
SUEK OAO
|
|
SUEK OAO (Kemerovo region)
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
9,108
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
65,111
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Central Dispatching Department.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We own 16.13% of Mezhdurechye OAO. |
77
According to data from the Central Dispatching Department, in
2010, we were the fourth largest steam coal producer in Russia
in terms of volume, with a 3.4% share of total production. The
following table lists the main Russian steam coal producers in
2010, the groups to which they belong, their steam coal
production volumes and their share of total Russian steam coal
production volume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
(Thousands
|
|
Production
|
Group
|
|
Company
|
|
of Tonnes)
|
|
by Volume
|
|
SUEK OAO
|
|
SUEK OAO (Kemerovo region)
|
|
|
24,312.8
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Krasnoyarsk territory)
|
|
|
29,546.3
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
Vostsibugol OOO (Irkutskregion)
|
|
|
12,625.7
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Republic of Khakasia)
|
|
|
9,907.7
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Tugnuiskii open pit)
|
|
|
6,856.2
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Zabaikalsk territory)
|
|
|
5,646.0
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
|
5,171.2
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
Urgalugol OAO
|
|
|
2,613.9
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK Total
|
|
|
96,679.8
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
%
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
45,021.6
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
%
|
SDS-Ugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
Chernigovets ZAO
|
|
|
5,306.2
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
Salek ZAO
|
|
|
2,783.9
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
Yuzhnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,368.0
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
Kiselevsky Open Pit Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,048.2
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
Kiselevskaya Shaft Mine OOO
|
|
|
373.9
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
UK Prokopyevskugol OOO
|
|
|
118.3
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
Itatugol OOO
|
|
|
82.4
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
SDS-Ugol Total
|
|
|
13,080.9
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
6,912.7
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
Yakutugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
|
1,776.5
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
Mechel Total
|
|
|
8,689.2
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
EvrazGroup
|
|
Yuzhkuzbassugol Coal Company ZAO
|
|
|
3,830.3
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Kuzbasskaya TK OAO
|
|
Kuzbasskaya TK OAO
|
|
|
6,718.5
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
|
5,171.2
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
Zarechnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
Zarechnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
|
5,002.0
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
LUTEK OAO
|
|
LUTEK OAO
|
|
|
4,300.9
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
69,395.1
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
257,889.5
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Central Dispatching Department.
In the domestic coal market, we compete primarily on the basis
of price, as well as on the basis of the quality of coal, which
in turn depends upon the quality of our production assets and
the quality of our mineral reserves. Competition in the steam
coal market is also affected by the fact that most steam power
stations were built near specific steam coal sources and had
their equipment customized to utilize the particular type of
coal produced at the relevant local source. Outside of Russia,
competition in the steam coal market is largely driven by coal
quality, including volatile matter and calorie content.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy/Energy
Information Administration, the total production of coal in the
United States in 2010 was 1,086 million tonnes.
Bluestones share of total production was 0.29%.
Iron
ore
The Russian iron ore market is generally characterized by high
demand and limited sources of supply, with product quality as
the main factor driving prices. According to
Metal-Courier,
the market is dominated by relatively few producers, with the
top three mining groups being Metalloinvest, the Evraz Group and
78
Severstal-Resurs, representing over 69.0% of total production of
iron ore concentrate. We were sixth in production volume in 2010
with 4.2 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate,
representing 4.3% of total production of iron ore concentrate in
Russia.
Mineral
reserves (coal, iron ore and limestone)
Our mineral reserves are based on exploration drilling and
geological data, and are that part of a mineral deposit which
could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the
time of the reserve determination. Each year we update our
reserve calculations based on actual production and other
factors, including economic viability and any new exploration
data. Our reserves, consisting of proven and probable reserves,
meet the requirements set by the SEC in its Industry Guide 7.
Information on our mineral reserves (coal, iron ore, limestone,
nickel and chrome) has been prepared by our internal mining
engineers as of December 31, 2010. To prepare this
information our internal mining engineers used resource and
reserve estimates, actual and forecast production, operating
costs, capital costs, geological plan maps, geological cross
sections, mine advance maps in plan and cross section and price
projections. We retained Marston & Marston, Inc., to
conduct an independent review of our Russian mineral resources
and reserves (coal, iron ore and limestone), and Weir
International, Inc., to conduct an independent review of our
U.S. mineral resources and reserves (coal). Each of
Marston & Marston and Weir International is a
U.S. based mining engineering firm qualified to conduct
reviews and prepare technical reports on mineral resources and
reserves.
Proven reserves presented in accordance with Industry Guide
7 may be combined with probable reserves only if the
difference in the degree of assurance between the two classes of
reserves cannot be readily defined and a statement is made to
that effect. For our Russian properties our proven and probable
reserves are presented as combined in this document because,
though our deposits have been drilled to a high degree of
assurance, due to the methodology used in Russia to estimate
reserves the degree of assurance between the two categories
cannot be readily defined. We report information on our
mineralized material on an annual basis to the Russian State
Committee on Reserves (GKZ) according to the
approved Russian classifications of A, B and C1. In general,
provided that Industry Guide 7s economic criteria are met,
A+B is equivalent to proven and C1 is equivalent to
probable. However, when preparing
year-by-year
production schedules, due to our practice of preparing our
Russian mineralization reports manually and the lack of
computerized data and modeling, we do not break out future
production by these categories when scheduling and we are not
required to do so by the GKZ. These categories are defined for
the mine plan as a whole. As these annual production schedules
are the basis for estimating our reserves under Industry Guide
7, we are not able to segregate our Industry Guide 7 reserves
into proven and probable categories. Although we are in the
process of digitizing our data and implementing the use of
computerized models and hope to be able to prepare production
schedules by category in the future (and hence segregate our
Industry Guide 7 reserves by proven and probable categories),
currently it would not be commercially feasible for us to do so.
Russian subsoil licenses are issued for defined boundaries and
specific periods, generally about 20 years. Our declared
reserves are contained within the current license boundary. Our
Russian subsoil licenses expire on dates falling in 2012 through
2033. Our most significant licenses expire between 2012 and
2024. Based on the Russian Subsoil Law, as amended, and as
currently applied in practice, as evidenced by publicly
available information and by a number of court cases, it is
reasonably likely that an incumbent subsoil user will be granted
license extension through the end of the expected operational
life of the deposit. License extensions are being granted
subject to the licensee not being in violation of the terms of
the license. The cost for the license extension is not
substantial. See Regulatory Matters
Subsoil licensing in Russia License
extensions. We have already received extension of two of
our licenses and we intend to extend the licenses for all
deposits expected to remain productive subsequent to their
license expiry dates. However, license extension is not
guaranteed and is to a large extent subject to the discretion of
regulatory authorities. Therefore, we present our reserves in
two categories. Material contained in the production schedule
and cash flow that is expected to be mined prior to the license
expiration date is referred to as Within Subsoil License
Term Reserves and material contained in the production
schedule and cash flow that is expected to be mined after the
license expiration date is referred to as Outside Subsoil
License Term Reserves. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Business and Industry Our business could be
79
adversely affected if we fail to obtain or extend necessary
subsoil licenses and mining and other permits or fail to comply
with the terms of our subsoil licenses and mining and other
permits, Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation Legal risks and uncertainties
Deficiencies in the legal framework relating to subsoil
licensing subject our licenses to the risk of governmental
challenges and, if our licenses are suspended or terminated, we
may be unable to realize our reserves, which could materially
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects and Regulatory
Matters Subsoil licensing in Russia.
The Bluestone companies mining permits expire in 2011
through 2015. Currently, eleven of our 50 permits issued by the
U.S. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) are pending renewal with the state of West Virginia
following orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). See Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors Risks Relating to Other Countries Where
We Operate The Bluestone companies are subject to
extensive U.S. laws, government regulations and other
requirements relating to the protection of the environment,
health and safety and other matters and face a highly litigious
environment.
Coal
As of December 31, 2010, we had coal reserves (proven and
probable) totaling 1,316.0 million tonnes, of which
approximately 63.0% was coking coal. The table below summarizes
coal reserves by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within Subsoil
|
|
Outside Subsoil
|
|
Total
|
|
Heating
|
|
|
Coal
Reserves(1)(2)
|
|
License Term
|
|
License Term
|
|
Coal Reserves
|
|
Value(3)(4)
|
|
%
Sulfur(4)
|
|
|
(In millions of
tonnes)(5)(6)(7)
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
|
100.7
|
|
|
|
106.0
|
|
|
|
206.7
|
|
|
|
5,800
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
100.7
|
|
|
|
106.0
|
|
|
|
206.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
8,350
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
25.7
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
|
|
|
8,170
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
25.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
|
21.6
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
|
|
41.4
|
|
|
|
7,900
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
21.6
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
|
|
41.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
89.9
|
|
|
|
100.8
|
|
|
|
8,483
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
42.2
|
|
|
|
49.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
47.7
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
8,441
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lenin Underground
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
29.9
|
|
|
|
8,468
|
|
|
|
0.33
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
|
29.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
38.9
|
|
|
|
108.8
|
|
|
|
147.7
|
|
|
|
8,600
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
104.3
|
|
|
|
139.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kangalassk Open Pit
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
6,700
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elga Open Pit
|
|
|
101.3
|
|
|
|
414.2
|
|
|
|
515.5
|
|
|
|
7,500-8,600
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
333.6
|
|
|
|
397.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
37.2
|
|
|
|
80.6
|
|
|
|
117.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within Subsoil
|
|
Outside Subsoil
|
|
Total
|
|
Heating
|
|
|
Coal
Reserves(1)(2)
|
|
License Term
|
|
License Term
|
|
Coal Reserves
|
|
Value(3)(4)
|
|
%
Sulfur(4)
|
|
|
(In millions of
tonnes)(5)(6)(7)
|
Keystone Mining
Complex(8)
|
|
|
130.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
114.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114.4
|
|
|
|
8,704
|
|
|
|
0.86
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
8,042
|
|
|
|
0.82
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(9)
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
8,320
|
|
|
|
0.92
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
8,575
|
|
|
|
1.02
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(10)
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
8,661
|
|
|
|
1.10
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
8,541
|
|
|
|
1.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
500.4
|
|
|
|
815.6
|
|
|
|
1,316.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
297.3
|
|
|
|
532.3
|
|
|
|
829.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
203.1
|
|
|
|
283.3
|
|
|
|
486.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
59.4
|
%
|
|
|
65.3
|
%
|
|
|
63.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
40.6
|
%
|
|
|
34.7
|
%
|
|
|
37.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reserve estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be
mined, taking into account dilution and losses. |
|
(2) |
|
We own 96.6% of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company mines, 74.5% of
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine, 100% of Yakutugol mine, 100% of Elga
mine and 100% of Bluestone mines. Reserves are presented for the
mines on an assumed 100% ownership basis. |
|
(3) |
|
Heating values (in kcal/kg) are reported on a moisture- and
ash-free basis. |
|
(4) |
|
The figures represent the average for the relevant licensed
period. |
|
(5) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet in-place basis. |
|
(6) |
|
The average coal recovery factors for raw coal sent to Siberian
Central Processing Plant, Kuzbass Central Processing Plant,
Tomusinsk Processing Mills, Krasnogorsk Processing Plant and
Nerungrinsk Processing Plant are projected to be 78%, 73%, 82%,
55% and 64%, respectively. The average coal recovery factor for
raw coal mined at Elga mine is projected to be 70%. |
|
(7) |
|
In estimating our reserves located in Russia we use coal prices
which are in line with
3-year
average prices and currency conversions are carried out at
average official exchange rates of the Central Bank of Russia.
Average prices used were: |
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company:
run-of-mine
coking coal $65.02 per tonne;
run-of-mine
steam coal $30.44 per tonne.
|
|
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit:
run-of-mine
coking coal $85.74 per tonne.
|
|
|
|
Elga:
run-of-mine
coking coal $81.91 per tonne;
run-of-mine
steam coal $39.32 per tonne.
|
In estimating our Bluestone reserves we use prices in the range
of $135-140 for coking coal and $30-35 for steam coal which are
in line with
3-year
average prices.
|
|
|
(8) |
|
Coal reserves of 130.0 million tonnes in total consist of
69.0 million tonnes of proven and 61.0 million tonnes
of probable reserves. |
|
(9) |
|
Coal reserves of 19.7 million tonnes in total consist of
10.4 million tonnes of proven and 9.3 million tonnes
of probable reserves. |
|
|
|
(10) |
|
Coal reserves of 9.1 million tonnes in total consist of
5.9 million tonnes of proven and 3.2 million tonnes of
probable reserves. |
Our Dzhebariki-Khaya Underground Mine does not contain mineral
reserves. Although it is an operating mine and the geological
sampling and density requirements have been met, it fails to
meet the economic
81
criteria. Our Southern Kuzbass Coal Company subsidiary also has
a number of coal mining licenses with which no mineral reserves
are associated.
Elga, a coalfield for which our subsidiary Yakutugol holds a
subsoil license, is now an undeveloped property in a remote area
of Siberia. Elga contains large quantities of export-quality
coking and steam coal. Since 1998 there have been several
studies on Elga, including geology and resources, mine planning,
railway construction and feasibility studies. We plan to mine
Elga using open pit mining methods. In 2009, Mechel Engineering
worked out the general scheme of the Elga coal complex
development, which includes a basic technical layout of the main
facilities (housing complex, railway station, concentrating
plant) and sets the order of priority of construction and
operation of the Elga open pit coal mine. In 2009, the design
institute NTC Geotechnology OOO developed a plan of initial mine
block development for the three-year period from 2010 until 2012
that allowed us to commence overburden mining at the initial
mine block of Elga open pit mine in November 2010. The plan was
approved by the Central Commission for Development of the
Federal Agency for Subsoil Use.
There are a number of significant risk factors associated with
the Elga project. These risks have the potential to impact the
calculation of the Elga reserves by affecting the projects
legal or economic viability. Key risks that have been identified
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
According to the terms of the subsoil license for the Elga coal
deposit, we must construct a rail branch line from the
Baikal-Amur
Mainline to the coal deposit, which would be approximately 315
kilometers in length. The construction of the rail line branch
had already started some time before we acquired the Elga coal
deposit. Following the acquisition in October 2007, we continued
the construction but it was delayed during the period from
September 2008 to August 2009 because of limited availability of
financing during the global financial crisis. In view of our
commitments under the subsoil license, we have proactively
applied for and obtained amendments to certain terms of the
subsoil license, and in particular, on May 14, 2010, the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology extended certain
construction deadlines as follows: (1) completion of the
construction of the rail branch line was postponed from
September 30, 2010 to December 31, 2011, and
(2) completion of the construction of the first phase of
Elga complex was postponed from October 30, 2010 to
December 31, 2013. If the current deadlines are not met,
our subsoil license for Elga may be suspended or terminated or
we may be required to extend the license under less favorable
terms. We believe that given the substantial progress we have
made with development of this project and the considerable
amount of money we have invested in the project, combined with
the importance of this project to the region, we will be able to
obtain further extensions of the construction deadlines should
they be necessary, but we cannot guarantee that such extensions
will be granted.
|
|
|
|
The viability of the Elga project is dependent upon the
construction of the rail branch line referred to above.
Construction is currently in process.
|
|
|
|
A detailed feasibility study was completed on the Elga project
in 2005. Currently, a new engineering study is being prepared
for the first construction phase of Elga complex which will,
among other, specify project capital and operating costs which
may change due to further evaluation of the project. In April
2011, we expect to produce the plan for the first construction
phase of Elga complex with annual production capacity of
9.0 million tonnes of coal. Increases in capital and
operating costs have the potential to make the Elga project
uneconomical because of the projects sensitivity to these
costs.
|
|
|
|
The Elga project is very sensitive to market prices for coal
because of the high initial capital costs.
|
|
|
|
Insufficient capacity of ports in the Eastern part of Russia
where Elga deposit is located may limit the distribution of coal
mined at Elga deposit.
|
Iron
ore
As of December 31, 2010, we had iron ore reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 126.2 million tonnes at an average
iron grade of 27.9%. The table below summarizes iron ore
reserves by mine.
82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within Subsoil
|
|
Outside Subsoil
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Iron Ore
Reserves(1)(2)(3)(4)
|
|
License Term
|
|
License Term
|
|
Total
|
|
(%
Fe)(5)
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Korshunovsk
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
|
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
|
|
|
24.4
|
|
Rudnogorsk
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
|
|
62.0
|
|
|
|
82.5
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
|
Tatianinsk
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
42.3
|
|
|
|
84.0
|
|
|
|
126.2
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reserve estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be
mined, taking into account dilution and losses. |
|
(2) |
|
In estimating our reserves we use an average price of $82 per
tonne of iron ore concentrate and currency conversions are
carried out at average official exchange rates of the Central
Bank of Russia. |
|
(3) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet basis. |
|
(4) |
|
We own 85.6% of Korshunov Mining Plant mines. Reserves are
presented for the mines on an assumed 100% ownership basis. |
|
(5) |
|
Metallurgical recovery is projected to be 79%. |
Limestone
As of December 31, 2010, we had limestone reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 20.5 million tonnes at 55.2% calcium
oxide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within Subsoil
|
|
Outside Subsoil
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Limestone
Reserves(1)(2)(3)
|
|
License Term
|
|
License Term
|
|
Total
|
|
(% CaO)
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Pugachev
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
|
|
55.2
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reserve estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be
mined, taking into account dilution and losses. |
|
(2) |
|
We own 91.4% of Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant which owns 100% of
Pugachev Open Pit, the holder of the subsoil license for the
Pugachev limestone quarry. Reserves are presented for the mine
on an assumed 100% ownership basis. |
|
(3) |
|
In estimating our reserves we use an average price of $5.71 per
tonne of commodity limestone which is in line with
3-year
average price and currency conversions are carried out at
average official exchange rates of the Central Bank of Russia. |
Steel
Segment
Our steel segment comprises production and sale of semi-finished
steel products, carbon steel long products and specialty steel
long products, carbon and stainless flat products, and
value-added downstream metal products including wire products,
stampings and forgings. Within these product groups, we are
further able to tailor various steel grades to meet specific
end-user requirements. Our steel segment is supported by our
mining segment, which includes iron ore concentrate and coke,
and our ferroalloys segment, which includes ferronickel,
ferrochrome and ferrosilicon.
Our steel segment has production facilities in Russia, Lithuania
and Romania. Our total steel output was 5.9 million tonnes
in 2008, 5.5 million tonnes in 2009 and 6.1 million
tonnes in 2010.
Description
of key products
Pig iron. Pig iron is an iron alloy with usual
carbon content of above 2% which is produced from smelting iron
ore feed (sinter, pellets and other ore materials) in the blast
furnace. Cold pig iron is brittle. Liquid pig iron is used as an
intermediate product in the manufacturing of steel. Cold pig
iron can be used as charging material for steel manufacturing in
electric arc furnaces and in manufacturing of cast iron in
cupolas. We sell small volumes of pig iron from our Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant to third parties.
83
Semi-finished products. Semi-finished products
typically require further milling before they are useful to end
consumers. We offer semi-finished billets, blooms and slabs.
Billets and blooms are precursors to long products and have a
square cross section. The difference between billets and blooms
is that blooms have a larger cross-section which is more than
eight inches and is broken down in the mill to produce rails,
I-beams, H-beams and sheet piling. Slabs are precursors to flat
products and have a rectangular cross section. Such types of
products can be produced both by continuous casting of liquid
steel and by casting of liquid steel in casting forms with
subsequent drafting on blooming mills and on a continuous
semifinishing mill. We offer our customers billets and blooms
produced by Mechel Targoviste, Izhstal, Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Ductil Steel, as well as slabs produced
by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
Long steel products. Long steel products are
rolled products used in many industrial sectors, particularly in
the construction and engineering industries. They include
various types of products, for example, rebar, calibrated long
steel products and wire rod, which could be supplied both in
bars and coils in a wide range of sizes. Our long products are
manufactured at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Izhstal and
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant in Russia, and Mechel Campia
Turzii, Mechel Targoviste and Ductil Steel in Romania.
We offer our customers a wide selection of long steel products
produced from various kinds of steel, including rebar,
calibrated long steel products, steel angles, round products,
surface-conditioned steel products, wire rod and others.
Flat steel products. Flat steel products are
manufactured by multiple drafting slabs in forming rolls with
subsequent coiling or cutting into sheets. Plates are shipped
after hot rolling or heat treatment. Coiled stock can be subject
to cutting lengthwise into slit coils or crosswise into sheets.
Stainless steel is used to manufacture plates and cold rolled
sheets in coils and flat sheets. Hot rolled plates and carbon
and alloyed coiled rolled products are manufactured at
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
Stampings and forgings. Stampings are custom
parts stamped from flat products. Forgings are specialty
products made through the application of localized compressive
forces to metal. Forged metal is stronger than cast or machined
metal. Our forgings and stampings are offered on a
made-to-order
basis according to minimum batches depending on the
products sizes. Our product offerings include rollers and
axles used in vehicle manufacturing; bearings, gears and wheels;
bars; and others. Our stampings and forgings are produced at
Urals Stampings Plant, including its branches. Izhstal and
Mechel Targoviste also produce stampings and forgings.
Wire products and seized rolling. Wire
products are the result of processing of wire rod and rolled
band which are ready for use in manufacturing and consumer
applications. Our wire products are manufactured at Izhstal,
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant and Vyartsilya Metal Products
Plant in Russia, Mechel Campia Turzii and Ductil Steel in
Romania and Mechel Nemunas in Lithuania. Our wide-ranging wire
products line includes spring wire; welding electrodes; wire for
bearing manufacturing; precision alloy wire; high and low carbon
concrete reinforcing wire; galvanized wire; copper-coated and
bright welding wire; various types of nails; steel wire ropes
specially engineered for the shipping, aerospace, oil and gas
and construction industries; aerials for electric trams and
buses; steel wire ropes for passenger and freight elevators;
general-purpose wire; steel straps and clips; chain link fences;
welded (reinforcing) meshes; wire fiber for concrete
reinforcing; and others.
84
The following table sets out our production volumes by primary
steel product categories and main products within these
categories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
4,149
|
|
|
|
3,805
|
|
|
|
3,500
|
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
2,212
|
|
|
|
1,913
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Semi-Finished Products
|
|
|
1,783
|
|
|
|
1,806
|
|
|
|
1,710
|
|
Long Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
3,515
|
|
|
|
3,099
|
|
|
|
3,348
|
|
Stainless Long Products
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Alloyed Long Products
|
|
|
383
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
Rebar
|
|
|
1,901
|
|
|
|
1,536
|
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
Wire Rod
|
|
|
713
|
|
|
|
631
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
Low-Alloyed Engineering Steel
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
430
|
|
|
|
606
|
|
Flat Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
443
|
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
357
|
|
Stainless Flat Products
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Flat Products
|
|
|
397
|
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
320
|
|
Forgings, including:
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
Stainless Forgings
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Stampings
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
Wire Products, including:
|
|
|
869
|
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
719
|
|
Wire
|
|
|
672
|
|
|
|
487
|
|
|
|
556
|
|
Ropes
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
Steel
manufacturing process and types of steel
The most common steel manufacturing processes are production in
a basic oxygen furnace, or BOF, and production in an electric
arc furnace, or EAF.
In BOF steel manufacturing, steel is produced with less than 2%
carbon content. The principal raw materials used to produce
steel are liquid pig iron and scrap. The molten steel, depending
on the products in which it will be used, undergoes additional
refining and is mixed with manganese, nickel, chrome, titanium
and other components to give it special properties.
Approximately 71% of the worlds steel output is made in a
BOF, most typically in large-scale plants that must produce
3-4 million tonnes per year to be economically efficient.
In EAF steel manufacturing, steel is generally produced from
remelted scrap. Heat to melt the scrap is supplied from
high-voltage electricity that arcs within the furnace between
graphite electrodes and the scrap. This process is suitable for
producing almost all steel grades, including stainless steel;
however, it is limited in its use for production of high-purity
carbon steel. Approximately 28% of world steel output is made in
EAFs.
Steel products are broadly subdivided into two
categories flat and long products. Flat products are
hot-rolled or cold-rolled coils and sheets that are used
primarily in manufacturing industries, such as the white goods
and automotive industries. Long products are used for
construction-type applications (beams, rebar) and the
engineering industry. To create flat and long products, molten
raw steel is cast in continuous-casting machines or casting
forms (molds). The molten steel crystallizes and turns into
semi-finished products in the form of blooms, slabs or ingots.
Ingots and blooms have a square cross-section and are used for
further processing into long products. Slabs have a rectangular
cross-section and are used to make flat products. All products
are rolled at high temperatures, a process known as hot rolling.
They are drawn and flattened through rollers to give the metal
the desired dimensions and strength properties. Some flat steel
products go through an additional step of rolling without
heating, a process known as cold rolling and is used to create a
permanent
85
increase in the hardness and strength of the steel. After cold
rolling, annealing in furnaces with gradual cooling that softens
and stress-relieves the metal is periodically required. Oil may
be applied to the surfaces for protection from rust.
The properties of steel (strength, solidity, plasticity,
magnetization, corrosion-resistance) may be modified to render
it suitable for its intended future use by the addition by
smelting of small amounts of other metals into the structure of
the steel, varying the steels chemical composition. For
example, the carbon content of steel can be varied in order to
change its plasticity, or chrome and nickel can be added to
produce stainless steel. Resistance to corrosion can be achieved
through application of special coatings (including polymeric
coatings), galvanization, copper coating or tinning, painting
and other treatments.
Steel
production facilities
Most of our metallurgical plants have obtained a certificate of
quality under ISO international standards. For example, the main
manufacturing processes at Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant, Mechel
Campia Turzii, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Mechel
Targoviste, Laminorul Plant, Ductil Steel, Urals Stampings Plant
and Izhstal are ISO 9001:2008 certified. Ductil Steel and
wire-drawing workshops No. 1 (TS1) and No. 3 (TOT3) of
Mechel Campia Turzii are ISO 14001 certified.
Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant produces rolled products and
semi-finished products for further milling in Russia or our
internal needs. Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant is sintering
production for blast furnaces, BOF/EAF steel mill with rolling
production. It produces semi-finished steel products, and flat
and long carbon and stainless steel products. Its customer base
is largely comprised of customers from the construction,
engineering, hardware and ball-bearing industries. We acquired
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant in 2001.
The plant sources all of its coking coal needs from Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company and from Yakutugol and most of its iron ore
needs from our Korshunov Mining Plant and a majority of its
nickel needs from our Southern Urals Nickel Plant. In 2006, coke
production and specialty steel production were separated from
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant into separate entities,
including Mechel-Coke, which were wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. In August 2007, ownership of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants specialty steel
operations was transferred to the Chelyabinsk branch of Urals
Stampings Plant. In July 2010, 100% interest in Mechel-Coke was
transferred to Mechel Mining.
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants principal production
lines include a BOF workshop equipped with three converters;
three EAF workshops equipped with electric arc ovens, including
two large ovens of 100 and 125 tonnes, respectively;
small-capacity direct- and alternating-current furnaces: four
continuous billet-casters; a blooming mill with continuous
rolling mill for
200-320
millimeter and
80-180
millimeter billets; six long product mills for 6.5-190
millimeter diameter round bar and
75-156
millimeter square bar, 6.5-10 millimeter wire rod, rebar steel,
bands and long products; a hot-rolled flat product workshop with
a thick sheet continuous rolling mill for hot-rolled sheets of
up to 1,800 millimeters wide and up to 20 millimeters thick; a
semi-continuous rolling mill for up to 1,500 millimeters wide
and up to 6 millimeters thick hot-rolled coils; a cold-rolled
product workshop for 0.3-4 millimeter cold-rolled stainless
sheet. In addition, we have at our Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant four sintering machines and three blast furnaces. The
following table sets forth the capacity, the capacity
utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity for each
of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants principal production
areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Sintering
|
|
|
4,760
|
|
|
|
99.9
|
%
|
|
|
360
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
4,300
|
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
5,177
|
|
|
|
99.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
4,751
|
|
|
|
94.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
86
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant produced 5.2 million tonnes
of raw steel and 4.5 million tonnes of rolled products in
2010.
In the second half of 2007, we began an upgrade of Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plants arc-furnace melting shop No. 6
to increase continuous slab production capacity to
1.2 million tonnes per year. Danieli & C.
Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. (Danieli), an
Italian supplier of equipment and plants to the metals industry,
is the basic equipment provider for the concasting machine and
the
out-of-furnace
processing complex. In July 2010 we comissioned new production
complex in arc-furnace melting shop No. 6 which consists of
ladle furnace, vacuum degasser and a slab concaster. Currently,
contractual equipment tests are being completed.
In 2008, we initiated construction of a universal rail and
structural rolling mill at the Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
The project is aimed at producing new types of large section
structural shapes (including beams, angles, rails, channels and
special sections) with total output 1.1 million tonnes per
annum.
The project will require $664.9 million in capital
investments. The launch of the new rolling mill is scheduled for
the end of 2011. On June 30, 2008, Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant entered into an agreement with Danieli to
supply the universal rolling mill. The total amount of the
contract is 220.0 million. In order to perform
design,
construction-and-assembling
and pre-commissioning works on the rolling mill, on
October 29, 2008, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant signed a
contract with the Chinese construction company Minmetals
Engineering Co. Ltd. (Minmetals). The
contract is concluded on a turnkey basis with a total value of
$261.0 million.
We expect that the main target customers for the universal mill
products will be Russian Railways and construction companies. On
November 13, 2008, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and
Russian Railways signed an agreement for supply of rails for the
period until 2030. The annual minimum supply volume is fixed at
400,000 tonnes of rail. Performance under the agreement is
subject to the commissioning of the universal rail and
structural steel mill at the Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
In December 2010 Mechel Materials started the assembling of the
main manufacturing equipment of the grinding-mixing complex for
Portland blast-furnace slag cement production with
1.6 million tonnes capacity per annum on the premises of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. The main raw material will be
blast furnace slag produced by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant,
which will result in non-waste production of pig iron at the
facility. This complex will be the first Russian facility
producing high quality Portland blast-furnace slag cement of
certain grade (CEMIII/A). Portland blast-furnace slag cement is
widely used for production of reinforced concrete goods which
are widely used in construction industry. The general contractor
is Austrian FMW GmbH. The amount to be invested is estimated at
110.0 million. The commissioning of the
grinding-mixing complex is planned for the second quarter of
2012.
Izhstal
Izhstal is a specialty steel producer located in the western
Urals city of Izhevsk, in the Udmurt Republic, a Russian
administrative region also known as Udmurtia. Its customer base
is largely comprised of companies from the aircraft, defense,
automotive, agricultural, power, oil and gas and construction
industries. We acquired Izhstal in 2004.
Izhstals principal production lines include one EAF of 30
tonnes; aggregate ladle furnace and ladle vacuum
oxygen decarburizer; blooming mill for
100-220
millimeter square billets; three medium-sized long products
rolling mills for
30-120
millimeter round bars,
30-90
millimeter square bars, bands and hexagonal bars; and one
continuous small sort wire mill for 5.5-29 millimeter round,
12-28
millimeter square and
12-27
millimeter hexagonal light sections, reinforced steel and bands.
It also has a drawing and seizing workshops, equipped with,
among other things, various drawing machines, a pickling line,
bell furnaces and patenting lines. In May 2009, the electrical
open hearth workshop, equipped with three open hearth furnaces
of 130-135
tonnes each and three electric furnaces of 30 tonnes each, was
stopped because its operations were not
87
profitable. The following table sets forth the capacity and the
capacity utilization rate for each of Izhstals principal
production areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
92.1
|
%
|
|
|
266
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
390
|
|
|
|
86.5
|
%
|
|
|
30
|
|
Wire products and seized rolling
|
|
|
57.1
|
|
|
|
81.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Forging and stamping
|
|
|
21.6
|
|
|
|
79.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Izhstal produced approximately 78.3 thousand tonnes of raw
steel, 337.3 thousand tonnes of rolled products, 46.7 thousand
tonnes of wire products and seized rolling and 17.1 thousand
tonnes of stampings and forgings in 2010.
In order to improve Izhstals efficiency, in the second
half of 2007 we began the first stage of an upgrade at the
Izhstal mill, including the installation of a new modern
electric arc furnace with a total capacity of 40 tonnes, an
out-of-furnace
processing complex and a new concasting machine, in addition to
reconstruction of rolling mill No. 250 and the disposal of
outdated open-hearth furnaces. The new electric steelmaking
complex was comissioned in September 2010 and currently
equipment tests are being carried out. Reconstruction of rolling
mill No. 250 which had been suspended due to the global
financial and economic crisis of
2008-2009
was resumed in October 2010. The upgrade process will result in:
(1) significant reductions in consumption of metal, natural
gas and electric power in rolled product manufacturing,
(2) improvements in product quality to meet current
international standards and expansion of product range, and
(3) environmental improvements.
Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant is a wire products plant in
Beloretsk, in the southern Ural mountain range, that produces
wire rod and a broad range of wire products from semi-finished
steel products supplied by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. Its
customers are largely from the construction and engineering
industries. We acquired Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant in 2002.
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plants principal production lines
include a steel-rolling workshop equipped with a wire mill for
production of wire rod of 5.5-13.5 millimeters in diameter; a
number of wire products workshops equipped with drawing,
rewinding, wire stranding, cabling and closing machines and heat
treatment furnaces, wire annealing and galvanizing, patenting
and galvanizing lines; and a cold rolling line. In 2010, we
invested $3.5 million to improve product quality, increase
output, reduce production costs and increase profitability. Due
to this investment, in December 2010 we
started-up a
MIG/MAG welding wire line with a total cost of
$2.9 million. The wire is actively used in machinery and
construction industries for welding of building structures and
machine parts. The following table sets forth the capacity, the
capacity utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity
for each of Beloretsk Metallurgical Plants principal
production areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
630
|
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
490
|
|
|
|
98.6
|
%
|
|
|
47
|
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant produced a total of 714.8 thousand
tonnes of steel products made from semi-finished products in
2010, including Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants
semi-finished products (wire rod) which were used in wire
products production in the amount of 98.3 thousand tonnes. Wire
products production amounted to 483.0 thousand tonnes. Rolled
products production amounted to a total of 626.8 thousand
tonnes, out of which 395.0 thousand tonnes were further
processed into wire products and 231.8 thousand tonnes
constituted the output volume of wire rod for third party
customers.
88
Vyartsilya
Metal Products Plant
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant is a wire products plant in the
Karelian Republic, an administrative region in northwestern
Russia near the Finnish border that produces low carbon welding,
general-purpose and structural wire, nails and steel bright and
polymeric-coated chain link fences. The plant uses wire rod
supplied by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant. The plants customers are largely from
the construction, automotive and furniture industries. We
acquired Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant in 2002.
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plants principal production
facilities include drawing and chain linking machines and nail
presses. The following table sets forth the capacity, the
capacity utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity
for Vyartsilya Metal Products Plants principal production
area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
98.7
|
%
|
|
|
10
|
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant produced 118.4 thousand tonnes
of wire products in 2010.
Urals
Stampings Plant
Urals Stampings Plant produces stampings from specialty steels
and heat-resistant and titanium alloys for the aerospace, oil
and gas, heavy engineering, railway transportation, power and
other industries. Urals Stampings Plant sources its specialty
steel needs from Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. We acquired
Urals Stampings Plant in 2003.
Urals Stampings Plants principal production facilities
include 1.5-25 tonne swages and hydraulic presses. The following
table sets forth the capacity, the capacity utilization rate and
the planned increase in capacity for Urals Stampings
Plants principal production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Stampings and forgings
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
79.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Urals Stampings Plant produced 79.7 thousand tonnes of specialty
steel stampings in 2010.
Mechel
Targoviste
Mechel Targoviste is a major Romanian EAF steel mill that
produces specialty and carbon long products, forgings and seized
rolling. Mechel Targoviste is the largest producer of rebar in
Romania and the second largest producer of raw steel in Romania,
according to Metal Invest Consulting, a member of UniRomSider, a
Romanian association of steel manufacturers. The plants
customers are largely from the engineering, automotive, tool,
ball-bearing, tube, seized rolling and construction industries.
We acquired Mechel Targoviste in 2002.
Mechel Targovistes principal production lines include an
EAF workshop equipped with one modernized electric arc furnace
with a 75-tonne capacity; steel vacuum processing and two
stove-basket aggregates; a continuous billets caster; a blooming
mill for
80-400
millimeter square and
90-145
millimeter round billets; and two continuous long products
rolling mills for
20-80
millimeter round bars,
24-57
millimeter hexagonal bars,
60-70
millimeter square bars, bands of 6-12 millimeter thickness and
60-120
millimeter width,
12-26
millimeter bundle rod and reinforcing steel; and a press-forging
workshop. The following table sets forth the
89
capacity utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity
for each of Mechel Targovistes principal production areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
81.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Forging and stamping
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
780
|
|
|
|
56.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Seized rolling
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Targoviste produced 445.9 thousand tonnes of raw steel,
436.5 thousand tonnes of rolled products, 1.9 thousand tonnes of
seized rolling and 1.7 thousand tonnes of forgings in 2010.
In 2010, Mechel Targoviste experienced low rolling capacity
utilization rates due to efforts to reduce production costs and
increase quality, as well as due to the inefficiency of running
its blooming process, involving high-capacity machinery with
high power requirements, at low capacity utilization levels.
With the aim to increase efficiency, in 2010 we introduced a new
technology of steel casting at Mechel Targoviste. The low
forging and stamping capacity utilization rates were due to a
decrease in demand both in domestic and export markets.
Mechel
Campia Turzii
Mechel Campia Turzii is a Romanian wire products plant that
produces different kinds of wire products (including various
types of wire, ropes, meshes, welding electrodes and nails) as
well as long steel products. The plants customers are
largely from the construction and engineering industries. We
acquired Mechel Campia Turzii in 2003.
Mechel Campia Turziis principal production lines include
several wire drawing workshops equipped with drawing machines,
nail-making presses and wire annealing and galvanizing lines,
wire patenting lines, as well as combined patenting and
galvanizing lines. The following table sets forth the capacity,
the capacity utilization rate and the planned increase in
capacity for each of Mechel Campia Turziis principal
production areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Rolling(1)
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
68.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
61.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes steel rolled for further processing in the wire
products manufacturing process as well as rolling of products
ready for sale. |
Mechel Campia Turzii produced 140.5 thousand tonnes of rolled
products and 61.7 thousand tonnes of wire products in 2010.
Mechel
Nemunas
Mechel Nemunas is a Lithuanian wire products plant that produces
drawn, annealed and seized wire, nails, steel wire fiber and
chain link fences. Its customers are primarily from the
construction, engineering and furniture industries. We acquired
Mechel Nemunas in 2003.
90
Mechel Nemunass principal production facilities include
drawing machines and nail presses with shank threading, chain
linking machines and bell furnaces. The following table sets
forth the capacity, the capacity utilization rate and the
planned increase in capacity for Mechel Nemunass principal
production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
86.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Nemunas produced 60.7 thousand tonnes of wire products in
2010.
Ductil
Steel
Ductil Steel is a Romanian company that owns the Buzau plant,
which produces reinforcing rolled products, wire rod and wire
products, and the Otelu Rosu plant, which produces steel and
billets. The Otelu Rosu plants products are supplied to
the Buzau plant, Mechel Campia Turzii and Laminorul Plant. We
acquired Ductil Steel in 2008.
Prior to this acquisition, we already owned two steel plants in
Romania: Mechel Targoviste and Mechel Campia Turzii. Following
our acquisition of Ductil Steel, in order to enhance the
performance and efficiencies of our Romanian subsidiaries, we
established Mechel East Europe Metallurgical Division, effective
from October 22, 2008.
The main objective of the Mechel East Europe Metallurgical
Division is to coordinate the operations of Mechels steel
subsidiaries in Eastern Europe, including investment,
modernization, streamlining and production cost reduction
efforts through the implementation of efficient logistics
planning for raw material purchases and product marketing, as
well as to provide our Romanian plants with billets produced by
some of these subsidiaries. Additionally, the Mechel East Europe
Metallurgical Division handles human resources policy and
coordinates contacts with banks and other financial
institutions. The divisions top priority is the
modernization of the Ductil Steel Buzau, Otelu Rosu, Mechel
Targoviste, Mechel Campia Turzii and Laminorul steel plants.
Ductil Steels principal production facilities include one
EAF with capacity of 110 tonnes, ladle furnace with capacity of
105 tonnes, a continuous billets caster, a continuous rolling
mill and several wire processing workshops equipped with drawing
machines, nail-making presses and wire annealing, annealing and
galvanizing lines, cold rolling lines for reinforcing wire and
mesh-welders for its processing into reinforcing meshes. In
2010, second EAF with capacity of 110 tonnes equipped with COSS
system for scrap heating by waste gases was erected. The
following table sets forth the capacity, the capacity
utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity for Ductil
Steels principal production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
93.1
|
%
|
|
|
162
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
%
|
|
|
140
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
82.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Ductil Steel produced 361.0 thousand tonnes of raw steel, 178.0
thousand tonnes of rolled products and 86.5 thousand tonnes of
wire products in 2010.
Laminorul
Plant
Laminorul Plant is a steel plant located in southeast Romania in
close proximity to the Braila ports on the Danube River. The
plant has two rolling mills for production of structural shapes
(including beams, channels, equal and unequal angles for
machinery and construction), which have a production capacity of
over 380,000 tonnes of rolled products per year. Laminorul Plant
is the only producer in Romania of flat bulb steel used in
91
shipbuilding. We acquired Laminorul Plant in 2010. The following
table sets forth the capacity, the capacity utilization rate and
the planned increase in capacity for Laminorul Plants
principal production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
380
|
|
|
|
41.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Laminorul Plant produced 158.0 thousand tonnes of rolled
products in 2010.
Sales
of steel products
The following table sets forth our revenues by primary steel
segment product categories and our main products within these
categories (including as a percentage of total steel segment
revenues) for the periods indicated. Steel segment sales data
presented in Steel Segment do not
include intercompany sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
63.5
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
45.4
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Semi-Finished Products, including:
|
|
|
1,235.4
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
%
|
|
|
496.8
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
%
|
|
|
475.7
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Semi-Finished
Products(1)
|
|
|
1,091.9
|
|
|
|
19.5
|
%
|
|
|
481.3
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
425.1
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
Long Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
2,194.3
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,463.6
|
|
|
|
46.6
|
%
|
|
|
2,682.4
|
|
|
|
51.9
|
%
|
Stainless Long Products
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
53.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Alloyed Long Products
|
|
|
226.5
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
68.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
158.0
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Rebar
|
|
|
1,150.3
|
|
|
|
20.6
|
%
|
|
|
877.5
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
%
|
|
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
|
31.6
|
%
|
Wire Rod
|
|
|
287.5
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
203.5
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
240.3
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Engineering Steel
|
|
|
477.5
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
%
|
|
|
270.5
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
598.3
|
|
|
|
11.6
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
463.1
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
|
|
262
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
|
|
475.6
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
%
|
Stainless Flat Products
|
|
|
203.9
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
|
184.6
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Flat Products
|
|
|
253.6
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
158.8
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
291.0
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
Forgings, including:
|
|
|
121.0
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
180.9
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Stainless Forgings
|
|
|
22.8
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
67.4
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
58.8
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
107.2
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
Forged Alloys
|
|
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
188.9
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
136.8
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
236.1
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
Wire Products, including:
|
|
|
722.4
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
|
|
473.2
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
891.5
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
%
|
Wire
|
|
|
491.6
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
319.5
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
640.2
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
Ropes
|
|
|
75.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
45.8
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
84.4
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
597.6
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
%
|
|
|
189.1
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
202.8
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,586.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
3,143.3
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
5,164.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes revenues from slab sales. |
92
The following table sets forth by percentage of sales the
regions in which our steel segment products were sold for the
periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region(1)
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
55.2
|
%
|
|
|
49.7
|
%
|
|
|
58.5
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
17.7
|
%
|
|
|
18.9
|
%
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
16.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The regional breakdown of sales is based on the geographic
location of our customers, and not on the location of the end
users of our products, as our customers are often distributors
that resell and, in some cases, further export our products. |
In 2010, the five largest customers of our steel segment
products were SteelLoyd General Trading LLC (semi-finished steel
and long products), Amesco FZE (semi-finished products and long
products), Stemcor UK Limited (carbon and low-alloyed
semi-finished products, rebar, long products and other steel
products), Al-Tuwarqi Holding Company (carbon and low-alloyed
semi-finished products) and Nova P.M. Steel Company Limited
(carbon and low-alloyed semi-finished products), which together
accounted for 8.0% of our steel segment sales. In 2010, we
increased our business with a number of Russian and foreign
metallurgical plants and trading companies, which are considered
related parties in our consolidated financial statement (the
related metallurgical plants). In 2010, we
also started selling pig iron and semi-finished products to
Metallurg-Trust OOO (Metallurg-Trust), a
trading company mostly involved in supplying raw materials and
semi-finished products to the Russian related metallurgical
plants and reselling products produced by these plants. See
Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party
Transactions Related Party Transactions. This
led to increase of sales of our semi-finished products, flat
products, long products, forgings, pig iron and other products,
as well as of semi-finished products we purchased on the market.
Revenues from sales to related metallurgical plants and
Metallurg-Trust amounted to 9.2% of our steel segment sales in
2010.
The majority of our steel segment export sales are made to
independent distributors. Contracts with distributors generally
specify certain ports to which we must deliver our products. The
distributors take delivery of our products at these locations,
and further on-sell the products to other distributors or end
users. When these distributors take delivery of our products, we
are provided in certain instances with documentation showing the
further destination of our products. We do not have control over
the final destination of our products, contractually or
otherwise.
Based on such documentation, we are aware that certain of our
products are sold to countries that are subject to international
trade restrictions or economic embargoes that prohibit
and/or
materially restrict certain persons (for instance,
U.S. incorporated entities and U.S. citizens or
residents) from engaging in commercial, financial or trade
transactions with such countries, including Iran and Syria (the
Sanctioned Countries). We estimate that
approximately 7.3% of our total sales in 2010 were sold in the
Sanctioned Countries, mostly by independent distributors to
other distributors or end-users. Such sales accounted for 7.1%
of our total sales in 2009.
In addition, we have a very limited number of direct sales to
customers in the Sanctioned Countries, amounting to
approximately 0.9% of our total sales in 2010.
We are aware of governmental initiatives in the United States
and elsewhere to adopt laws, regulations or policies prohibiting
or materially restricting transactions with or investment in, or
requiring divestment from, entities doing business with the
Sanctioned Countries. We recognize that acts prohibiting or
restricting the foregoing can sometimes be applied to our
company and we admit that dealings with the Sanctioned Countries
can have an adverse effect on our business reputation.
93
The following table sets forth information on our domestic and
export sales of our primary steel product categories for the
periods indicated. We define exports as sales by our Russian and
foreign subsidiaries to customers located outside their
respective countries. We define domestic sales as sales by our
Russian and foreign subsidiaries to customers located within
their respective countries. See note 23 to our consolidated
financial statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
63.5
|
|
|
|
45.4
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
62.7
|
%
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
37.3
|
%
|
|
|
60.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products
|
|
|
1,235.4
|
|
|
|
496.8
|
|
|
|
475.7
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
18.7
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
81.8
|
%
|
|
|
92.2
|
%
|
|
|
81.3
|
%
|
Long Steel Products
|
|
|
2,194.3
|
|
|
|
1,463.6
|
|
|
|
2,682.4
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
74.7
|
%
|
|
|
69.2
|
%
|
|
|
81.8
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
25.3
|
%
|
|
|
30.8
|
%
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products
|
|
|
463.1
|
|
|
|
262
|
|
|
|
475.6
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
96.8
|
%
|
|
|
86.7
|
%
|
|
|
79.7
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
20.3
|
%
|
Forgings
|
|
|
121.0
|
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
180.9
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
|
|
60.1
|
%
|
|
|
53.8
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
|
|
39.9
|
%
|
|
|
46.2
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
188.9
|
|
|
|
136.8
|
|
|
|
236.1
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
|
85.5
|
%
|
|
|
84.9
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
14.5
|
%
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
Wire Products
|
|
|
722.4
|
|
|
|
473.2
|
|
|
|
891.5
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
79.1
|
%
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
|
|
79.4
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
20.9
|
%
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
20.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
597.6
|
|
|
|
189.1
|
|
|
|
202.8
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
94.7
|
%
|
|
|
88.1
|
%
|
|
|
89.6
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,586.2
|
|
|
|
3,143.3
|
|
|
|
5,164.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
67.2
|
%
|
|
|
63.2
|
%
|
|
|
74.9
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
32.8
|
%
|
|
|
36.8
|
%
|
|
|
25.1
|
%
|
The end users of our steel products vary. Our rebars are
principally used in the construction industry. The main end
users of our wire rods are small wire-drawing operations. Our
carbon sheet is used in construction (covers, floor plates), the
automotive industry (spare parts) and pipe manufacturing and
shipbuilding (non-critical applications). Our high-quality round
bars are used in various moving parts manufactured by the
automotive industry (spare parts, gear boxes), the machinery
industry (hydraulic devices, drill bits), the shipbuilding
industry (forged parts), the basic materials industry (molds,
balls for crushing) and other industries. Our forgings and
stampings are primarily used in the automotive, aerospace,
petrochemical, textile and food and consumer goods sectors.
94
The following table sets forth by percentage a breakdown of our
shipment volumes of all products produced in Russia by industry
sector within the Russian market in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Works,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Railway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wire Products
|
|
Pipe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction,
|
|
Power
|
|
Other
|
Use by Industry
|
|
Plants
|
|
Factories
|
|
Construction
|
|
Engineering
|
|
Repair
|
|
Generation
|
|
Industries(1)
|
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products
|
|
|
92.2
|
%
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Long Steel Products
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
40.5
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
44.7
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
26.1
|
%
|
|
|
18.8
|
%
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
37.6
|
%
|
Forgings
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
67.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
16.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
94.5
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Wire Products
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
54.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Including the defense, aerospace, petrochemical, textile, food
and consumer goods sectors. |
Marketing
and distribution
We use flexible sales strategies that are tailored to our
customers and the markets we serve. Our overall sales strategy
is to develop long-term, close partnerships with the end users
of our products. As part of our end-user strategy, we research
sales to distributors to identify the end user and directly
market our steel capabilities and products to these customers.
With respect to our largest end-user customers, we have
established working committees, composed of our manufacturing
engineers and customer personnel. These committees meet
quarterly to monitor the performance of our products and ensure
that our customers specifications and quality requirements
are consistently met. These committees also provide customers
with the opportunity to discuss their future needs with us. Our
sales force also regularly follows up with these and many of our
other customers. We attend industry conferences and advertise in
industry periodicals to market our products and capabilities.
Through these efforts, we have established a strong brand
identity for Mechel throughout Russia and other countries of the
CIS, Central and Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle
East.
Mechel Service Global, through its subsidiaries, provides local
end-user customers in Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey with
our steel products. Mechel Service Globals subsidiaries
help us to develop and service our long-standing customer
relationships by providing highly specialized and technical
sales and service to our customers.
In 2010, most of our production facilities handled their
domestic wholesales independently, and our export wholesales
were marketed by Mechel Trading.
We also market and sell steel products sourced from, and supply
our products as well as products we purchase on the market to,
related metallurgical plants. See Item 7. Major
Shareholders and Related Party Transactions Related
Party Transactions.
Domestic
sales
Our Russian steel production facilities Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, Izhstal and Urals Stampings Plant are
located in large industrial areas and have long-standing
relationships with local wholesale customers. Mechel-Service, a
Russian subsidiary of Mechel Service Global, has 71 storage
sites in 46 cities throughout Russia to serve our end-user
customers, which helps us to establish long-standing customer
relationships by virtue of proximity to both production and
customers. Mechel-Service had 1,397 employees as of
December 31, 2010.
Our Romanian domestic sales are carried out by our Romanian
subsidiaries Mechel Campia Turzii, Mechel Targoviste, Ductil
Steel, Laminorul Plant and Mechel Service Romania.
95
Export
sales
Most of the exports in our steel segment are made to independent
distributors, which then sell our products to end users. Our
subsidiary Mechel Trading has active wholesales offices in
Liechtenstein, Belgium, Switzerland and Singapore.
We actively develop sales of high-quality rolled steel products
to local end-user customers in Europe through Mechel Service
Globals subsidiaries. In 2010, Mechel Service Global
established new subsidiaries in the UK, France and Hungary, as
well as WNL Staal B.V. (Netherlands), Femax a.s. (Czech
Republic) and Ramateks Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret a.s. (Turkey)
entered into Mechel Service Global that year. In Germany, HBL
Holding, a subsidiary of Mechel Service Global, opened three new
offices. Our production facilities supply high-quality rolled
steel products to the subsidiaries of Mechel Service Global in
Western Europe either directly, or through the logistics center
in the Port of Antwerp. Our logistics center in the Port of
Antwerp also allows us to sell high-quality rolled steel
products to manufacturing and service companies on a walk-in
basis.
Our Romanian export sales are carried out directly by our
Romanian production facilities Mechel Campia Turzii, Mechel
Targoviste, Laminorul Plant and Ductil Steel as well as by
Mechel Service Global and Mechel Trading.
Distribution
Rail transportation is used for most of shipments from our
production facilities and warehouses to our end customers,
wholesale warehouses or sea ports.
Market
share and competition
In our core export markets, we primarily compete with Russian
and Ukrainian producers. The leading global steel manufacturers
have been increasingly focused on value-added and higher-priced
products. The principal competitive factors include price,
distribution, product quality and customer service.
In the Russian market, we compete on the basis of price and
quality of steel products, their added value, product range and
service, technological innovation and proximity to customers.
The Russian steel industry is characterized by a relatively high
concentration of production, with the six largest integrated
steel producers, including ourselves, accounting for 84.8% of
overall domestic crude steel output in 2010, according to Metal
Expert.
The following is a brief description of Russias five
largest steel producers excluding ourselves:
|
|
|
|
|
Evraz Group S.A., whose Russian operations include the
steel producers Nizhny Tagil Metallurgical Works OAO, ZapSib and
Kuznetsky Metallurgical Works OAO, is Russias largest
steel manufacturer by volume on a consolidated basis, accounting
for 17.3% of Russias total commodity steel products output
(including long products, flat products, and semi-finished
products) in 2010. Evraz Group focuses on the production of long
products, including rebars, wire rods and profiled rolled
products (such as rails, beams and channels). Evraz Group also
controls iron ore producers Kachkanar GOK OAO and Vysokogorsky
GOK OAO and coking coal producer Yuzhkuzbassugol Coal Company
OAO, and has an equity investment in Raspadskaya OAO, which
produces coking coal.
|
|
|
|
Novolipetsk Metallurgical Works OAO
(NLMK) had 14.7% of the volume of Russian
commodity steel production in 2010. The company produces
primarily flat products (hot-rolled and cold-rolled), including
galvanized products. NLMK exported 70.1% of its products in
2010. Domestically, NLMKs largest customers are in the
construction and oil and gas industries, followed by companies
in the automotive sector. NLMK also controls iron ore producer
Stoylensky GOK. The companys steel facilities are located
in Lipetsk, to the southeast of Moscow. NLMK also controls
Maxi-Group OAO in Russia, which operates two steel production
sites in the Sverdlovsk region: square billet and long steel
producer Nizhneserginsky Hardware & Metallurgical
Works and long steel and wire products producer Berezovsky
Electro-Steel Works. These facilities are managed by the
NLMK-Long steel OOO which had a 2.8% share in domestic commodity
steel products output in 2010.
|
96
|
|
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works OAO
(MMK) is Russias third-leading
steel manufacturer by volume, accounting for 17.2% of the volume
of Russian commodity steel products output in 2010. MMKs
product mix is comprised mostly of flat products, representing
87.6% of its commercial steel products output (including semis)
in 2010. Domestically, MMK controls a significant portion of the
supplies to the oil and gas and automotive sectors. MMK exported
37.8% of its output in 2010. Its production facilities are
located in Magnitogorsk in the southern Urals.
|
|
|
|
Severstal OAO had a 17.0% share by volume of Russian
commodity steel products output in 2010. The company specializes
in flat products which constitute a significant part of its
production. Severstal is the second-leading producer of flat
products and controls 30.3% of Russias total flat products
output. Domestic sales accounted for 55.1% of Severstals
output in 2010, with the oil and gas industry and automotive
sector as its leading customers. Severstal also controls coal
producer VorkutaUgol and iron ore producers Karelsky Okatysh and
Olenegorsky GOK, which satisfy a portion of Severstals
coking coal and iron ore requirements.
|
|
|
|
Metalloinvest Management Company OOO
(Metalloinvest), whose Russian assets
consist of Oskolsky Electric Metallurgical Works OAO
(OEMK) and Ural Steel OAO, had a 8.4% share
of Russian commodity steel products output. OEMK produces only
long products, and Ural Steel produces both long and flat
products. Metalloinvest exported 64.7% of its commodity steel
production in 2010. The companys production facilities are
located in the Central and Urals federal districts of Russia.
Metalloinvest also controls Russias largest iron ore and
pellets production facilities: Lebedinsky GOK OAO and
Mikhailovsky GOK OAO.
|
Source: Company websites; Metal Expert.
These six companies, including ourselves, can be divided into
two groups by product type. MMK, Severstal and NLMK focus mainly
on flat products, while we, Evraz Group and Metalloinvest
produce primarily long products. Mechel is the second largest
and most comprehensive producer of specialty steel and alloys in
Russia, and accounted for 26.9% of total Russian specialty steel
output by volume in 2010, according to Chermet and Metal Expert.
We are also the second largest producer of long steel products
(excluding square billets) in Russia by volume, with significant
market shares in both regular long steel products and specialty
long steel products, according to Metal Expert and Chermet.
In the Russian non-specialty long steel product category, our
primary products and our market positions by production volume
in 2010 were as follows, according to Metal Expert:
|
|
|
|
|
Reinforcement bar (rebar) In
rebar, we compete in the 6-40 millimeters range. In 2010, the
largest domestic rebar producers were Evraz Group (29.3%),
Mechel (27.8%), NLMK-Long steel (20.3%) and Severstal (6.2%).
From August 14, 2007 to December 31, 2010, the Russian
domestic market for rebar was protected from Ukrainian imports
by an import quota. The quota had been imposed by agreement
between Russia and Ukraine as the result of a review of the
countervailing import tariff which was in force until
July 14, 2007. The agreement expired on January 1,
2011.
|
|
|
|
Wire rod There were five major producers of
wire rod in Russia in 2010: Mechel (39.8%), Evraz Group (19.2%),
NLMK-Long steel (14.7%), Severstal (13.8%) and MMK (12.4%).
|
OEMK, an electric arc furnace steel mill specializing in long
carbon and specialty steel products and our nearest specialty
steel competitor, is located in the southwest of Russia and
serves customers in the pipe, engineering and ball-bearing
industries.
According to Metal Expert and Chermet, we were one of the
leading producers in Russia of specialty long steel products
(bearing, tool, high-speed and stainless steel) in 2010,
producing 14.8% of the total Russian output by volume, and we
had significant shares of Russian 2010 production volumes of
stainless long products (41.7%), tool steel (32.0%) and
high-speed steel (58.7%).
97
The following tables set forth additional information regarding
our 2010 market shares in Russia for various categories of steel
products.
All long
products (excluding square billets)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
5,040.3
|
|
|
|
33.1
|
%
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
3,228.3
|
|
|
|
21.2
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
1,423.5
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
1,065.1
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
982.2
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
Metalloinvest Management Company OOO
|
|
|
912.1
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
2,584.4
|
|
|
|
17.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,235.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Long
products Wire
rod(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
1,028.6
|
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
496.2
|
|
|
|
19.2
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
379.2
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
356.4
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
321.4
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,581.8
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Including wire rod further processed into wire and other
products within the same holding company. |
Long
products Rebar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
1,510.2
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
1,431.8
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
1,044.3
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
321.8
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
160.5
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Metalloinvest Management Company OOO
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
683.0
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,155.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
98
Flat
stainless steel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
45.6
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
%
|
VMZ Red October
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
MMZ Hammer & Sickle
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
60.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Wire
products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
587.3
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
391.5
|
|
|
|
24.3
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
234.4
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
218.5
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
138.3
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,608.0
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Prommetiz, manufacturers data.
Wire
products Spring wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
43.0
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
75.4
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Manufacturers data.
99
Wire
products High-tensile wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
59.1
|
|
|
|
49.5
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
52.1
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
119.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Manufacturers data.
The following tables set forth additional information on our
market shares in Romania for various categories of steel
products in 2010.
Long
products Rebar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Targoviste, Mechel Campia Turzii,
Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
467.8
|
|
|
|
94.4
|
%
|
Otelinox Targoviste
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
495.6
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wire
rod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Campia Turzii, Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
139.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
139.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sections,
bars (profiles)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Targoviste, Laminorul Plant)
|
|
|
218.0
|
|
|
|
66.4
|
%
|
ArcelorMittal Hunedoara
|
|
|
46.0
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
%
|
TMK-SCRresita
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
19.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
328.3
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
Cold-drawn
wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Campia Turzii, Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
44.2
|
|
|
|
69.9
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
23.3
|
%
|
Sarme si Cabluri Harsova
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Cord Buzau
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
63.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galvanized
wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Campia Turzii, Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
58.6
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
%
|
Sarme si Cabluri Harsova
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welded
mesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Ductil Steel, Mechel Campia Turzii)
|
|
|
49.3
|
|
|
|
24.3
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
21.3
|
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
37.3
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
94.7
|
|
|
|
46.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
202.6
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw
materials
The principal raw materials we use in the making of steel are
coke (produced from coking coal), iron ore, nickel, ferrous
scrap and limestone. We process coking coal concentrate into
coke at Mechel-Coke, located in the Urals, and at Moscow Coke
and Gas Plant, which we acquired in 2006. In 2010, our
production facilities used 4.8 million tonnes of coking
coal concentrate (including 3.3 million tonnes used by
Mechel-Coke and 1.5 million tonnes used by Moscow Coke and
Gas Plant), and 65% of total usage was sourced internally. Coke
is used both in pig iron production at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant and in our ferroalloys production. In 2010, we produced
and internally used approximately 2.6 million tonnes of
coke in our production facilities and produced and sold another
approximately 1.3 million tonnes of coke to third parties.
The principal raw materials we use in pig iron production are
iron ore products (sinter of our own production and purchased
oxidized pellets), coke and limestone. Pig iron is made in blast
furnaces. For sinter production we use iron ore concentrate. In
2010, our steel-making operations used 6.3 million tonnes
of iron ore feed, approximately 34% in the form of pellets and
66% in the form of sinter, and we internally sourced 8.6% of our
total iron ore concentrate requirements during this period.
Korshunov Mining Plant supplied our
101
steel segment with 539 thousand tonnes of iron ore concentrate
in 2010. Iron ore concentrate is converted into sinter at
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. We purchase most of the
remaining part of our iron ore feed from Russian domestic
suppliers such as Karelsky Okatysh and Vysokogorsky GOK under
annual contracts with monthly adjustments of prices and volumes,
and Mikhailovsky GOK under monthly and quarterly contracts on
market terms.
We produce 62% of steel in basic oxygen furnaces. In steel
making, ferrous scrap is used in the composition of feedstock,
and we are approximately 20% self-sufficient in this raw
material, which amounts to 431,010 tonnes of scrap, sourcing the
balance from various scrap traders. We generate our own scrap
supply through Metals Recycling, a Chelyabinsk-based metal scrap
processing company, which we acquired in March 2006. In
addition, Mechel Trading House has a separate business unit in
Chelyabinsk through which it purchases scrap metal from
third-party suppliers and sells it to the companies within our
group.
In 2010, we used nickel sourced from Norilsk Nickel and
Ufaleynickel in the production of stainless and other specialty
steels. In 2010 our production facilities used 6,702 tonnes of
nickel (including 3,885 tonnes at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, 1,609 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch of Urals Stampings
Plant and 1,208 tonnes at Izhstal) of which 62% was supplied by
ferronickel produced at Southern Urals Nickel Plant and 38% was
purchased from third parties.
In 2010, our production facilities used 27,319 tonnes of
ferrosilicon (including 25,949 tonnes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, 385 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch of
Urals Stampings Plant and 985 tonnes at Izhstal), almost all of
which was supplied by Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant.
In 2010, our production facilities used 28,530 tonnes of
ferrochrome (including 21,290 tonnes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, 1,562 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch of
Urals Stampings Plant and 5,677 tonnes at Izhstal) of which 67%
was supplied by Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant and 33% was purchased
from third parties.
We internally source all of our limestone requirements from our
Pugachev quarry. In 2010, we used approximately 1.3 million
tonnes of limestone in the production of steel.
Steel-making requires significant amounts of electricity to
power electric arc furnaces and rolling mills and to convert
coal to coke. In 2010, our steel and ferroalloy operations
consumed approximately 4.4 billion kWh of electricity, of
which 2.1 billion kWh was used at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, 2.3 billion kWh was used at other Russian facilities
and 0.8 billion kWh was used at our Eastern European
plants. Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas
Plant and Mechel-Energo have power co-generation facilities,
which produced 1.9 billion kWh of electricity for internal
consumption in 2010, yielding 27% self-sufficiency overall for
our group (including mining operations), which consumed
6.8 billion kWh of electricity in 2010. The balance was
purchased from local utilities. Aside from Southern Kuzbass
Power Plant and Toplofikatsia Rousse, which run on steam coal,
our power-generating facilities work on blast furnace and coke
gas, which are by-products of our steel-making operations, and
natural gas, which we purchase from Gazprom. In 2010, we
consumed 2,480.6 million cubic meters of blast furnace gas,
550.7 million cubic meters of coke gas and
1,050.4 million cubic meters of natural gas. In 2010
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and Toplofikatsia Rousse consumed
1.8 million tonnes of steam coal sourced both from our own
coal mining assets and from third parties.
Large amounts of water are also required in the production of
steel. Water serves as a resolvent, accelerator and washing
agent. Water is used to cool the steel, to carry away waste, to
help produce and distribute heat and power and to dilute
liquids. One of the principal sources of water is rivers, and
many of our facilities recirculate a portion of water used for
their production needs. For example, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant sources 8.2% of its water needs from a local river and the
rest from recycled water. Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
sources 100% of its water needs from a local river. Southern
Urals Nickel Plant sources 34.8% of its water needs through
recycling, 65.2% from a local river. Mechel Targoviste sources
2% of its production water needs from a local river and the rest
is recycled/recirculated water. To date, water consumption from
local rivers has not resulted in any significant environmental
issues, although we make no
102
assurances that such issues will not arise in the future. The
companies effect payments for the use of water resources and we
believe their emissions and discharges are within the
permissible limits.
Transportation costs are a significant component of our
production costs and a factor in our price-competitiveness in
export markets. Rail transportation is our principal means of
transporting raw materials from our mines to processing
facilities and products to domestic customers and to ports for
shipment overseas. For a description of our railway freight and
forwarding subsidiary, see Mining
Segment Marketing and distribution above.
For a description of how seasonal factors impact our use and
reserve levels of raw materials see Item 5. Operating
and Financial Review and Prospects Trend
Information.
Trade
restrictions
Trade restrictions in the form of tariffs, duties and quotas are
widespread in the steel industry. However, we are less exposed
than most other Russian steel producers to these trade
restrictions as restrictions on Russian exports have mainly been
directed against flat products, whereas most of our exports
consist of long products, such as wire rods and rebar. In
addition, the abolition by the Russian government of steel
export duties in 2002 has also effectively improved exports of
Russian steel. In the future the Russian government may restore
export duties on steel products and may also impose export
duties on some raw materials, such as coal and iron ore
concentrate. See Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors Risks Relating to Our Business and
Industry We face numerous protective trade
restrictions in the export of our steel products and
ferroalloys, and we may face export duties in the future.
In 2010, approximately 2.1% of our steel segment export sale
revenues were derived from sales of steel products that were
subject to import restrictions. We describe below the main
applicable trade restrictions in our key markets.
European
Union
Our steel sales to the European Union in 2010 were approximately
$940.5 million, or 16.8% of our total steel segment
revenues. The Russian government and the European Union have an
export quota system in place whereby Russian exports to the
European Union are limited to certain stipulated quantities for
each product category. The quota by product category is
distributed among Russian producers based on a procedure jointly
developed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of
the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Industry and Energy
of the Russian Federation. Effective as of May 13, 2008,
these ministries have been reorganized into the Ministry of
Economic Development and the Ministry of Industry and Trade,
respectively, with the old Ministry of Industry and
Energys energy functions being transferred to a new
Ministry of Energy and the trade functions of the old Ministry
of Economic Development and Trade being transferred to a new
Ministry of Industry and Trade. The procedure provides that for
each product category, a companys export quota allocation
is calculated on the basis of shipments by the company of the
particular product over the previous years to the E.U. market
(which is given a 70% weight), and on the companys market
share in domestic production of the particular product (which is
given a 30% weight). After the quotas are calculated, the
Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade confirms quota
allocations and issues export licenses for these quotas. In
2010, the quota covered approximately 8.9% of our steel segment
products exported to the European Union.
In 2010, the total E.U. quota for Russian steel was 3,370
thousand tonnes. Initially, we received 335.4 thousand
tonnes of the total quota and after the quota was redistributed,
in accordance with the export quota system, our part in the
quota was increased to 372.6 thousand tonnes. We have used 36%
of our individual quotas both in long and flat steel products.
The European Union-Russia Steel Agreement for 2011 provides for
the total Russian quota to be 3,264 thousand tonnes. Our quota
is set at approximately 347.2 thousand tonnes, which includes
21.5 thousand tonnes for flat products and 325.7 thousand tonnes
for long products. Our supply of wire rod to Mechel Nemunas, our
wire products plant in Lithuania, and to our Romanian subsidiary
Mechel Campia Turzii is also subject to the E.U. export quota
system, and our quota for those supplies is 113.6 thousand
tonnes for 2011.
103
In addition, an antidumping E.U. import duty in the amount of
50.7% was applicable to steel ropes and cables manufactured by
our Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant until October 2007. After a
review procedure conducted by the European Union in October
2007, this duty was reduced to 36.2% and imposed for a period of
five years.
United
States
The United States has a quota system in place with respect to
imports of hot rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel and thick
steel plate. Intergovernmental quota agreements provide for
quotas and reference prices on Russian exports of these products
to the United States. A distribution of quotas between specific
Russian producers and the execution of export licenses is
carried out in accordance with the same procedure that applies
to exports to the E.U. market. There are no trade restrictions
applicable to the export of our Romanian or Lithuanian products
to the United States.
Ferroalloys
Segment
Our ferroalloys segment produces and sells low-ferrous
ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon produced at Southern
Urals Nickel Plant, Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant and Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant, respectively. The following table sets our
production volumes for each of our ferroalloy segment products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
89.9
|
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
91.3
|
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
81.4
|
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
58.5
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
Description
of key products
Ferrosilicon. Ferrosilicon is used in ferrous
metallurgy as a deoxidizer or as an alloying element for
production of electrotechnic, spring wire, corrosion-resistant
and heat resistant steel grades, or as a pig iron modifier. In
nonferrous metallurgy, ferrosilicon is used as a reducing agent
for production of nonferrous metals and alloys. We produce two
types of ferrosilicon: with 65% and 75% silicon content in the
alloy. The ferrosilicon we produce is a high-C ferrosilicon,
which contains 0.1% carbon. We offer our customers ferrosilicon
from our Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant.
Low-ferrous ferronickel. Low-ferrous
ferronickel is an alloy of iron and nickel used in production of
corrosion-resistant and heat resistant steel grades. Southern
Urals Nickel Plant offers low-ferrous ferronickel to export
customers, as well as to a number of companies within Russia and
within our group.
Ferrochrome. High-carbon ferrochrome is used
in the iron industry to alloy construction steel and
heat-resistant and stainless steels. We produce high-carbon
ferrochrome at our Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant and we use it
internally within our group and export and sell within Russia.
Mining
and manufacturing processes
Nickel ore. Both the Sakhara and Buruktal
mining operations run by our Southern Urals Nickel Plant are
typical of Russian open pit mines of their size. The weathered
lateritic ore and overburden (the layers of soil covering the
ore-bearing stratum) are loaded by electric and diesel shovels
and dragline into haul trucks without any drilling or blasting.
The ore is stockpiled, reclaimed and then loaded into railcars
for shipment to Southern Urals Nickel Plant. Overburden waste is
hauled to dumping locations inside the mined-out pits whenever
possible or placed in dumps adjacent to the pit.
Low-ferrous ferronickel. Nickel ores from both
mines are transported by rail to our nickel production plant in
Orsk, which lies east of the southern extremity of the Ural
Mountains, close to the border with Kazakhstan. At this plant,
ores are mixed in a ratio of 70% of Buruktal ore and 30% of
Sakhara ore and sintered in sintering machines. Sinter with the
addition of coke, sulfur pyrite and limestone is smelted in
shaft furnaces that produce matte. This matte is then divided
into converter matte and waste slag in horizontal
104
converters. Converter matte is processed into nickel monoxide
and nickel monoxide is further processed into ferronickel.
Ferronickel is shipped by rail transportation from Orsk station,
as well as by motor transport, to our Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, to other Russian customers and for international delivery.
Ferrosilicon. Ferrosilicon is produced in
electric arc furnaces in a continuous ore smelting process.
Silicon is reduced from quartzite with coke and coal carbon and
alloyed with steel cutting iron. Ferrosilicon is discharged from
the furnace periodically. After cooling, metal ingots are split
and sorted into various commercial fractions.
Ferrochrome. High-carbon ferrochrome is
produced in electric arc furnaces in a continuous ore smelting
process. Chrome and iron are reduced from chrome ore concentrate
with coke carbon, with over 7% of the carbon being dissolved in
this alloy. High-carbon ferrochrome is discharged from the
furnace periodically. After cooling, metal ingots are split and
sorted into various commercial fractions.
Nickel
ore and nickel production
Southern Urals Nickel Plant produces nickel in Orsk in the
Orenburg region, in the southern part of Russias Ural
Mountains, and operates two open pit nickel ore mines, Sakhara
and Buruktal. The Sakhara mine is located east of the Ural
Mountains in the Chelyabinsk region, about 370 kilometers north
of Orsk. The Buruktal mine is located east of the southern tip
of the Ural Mountains, in the Orenburg region, close to the
border with Kazakhstan. It is located 230 kilometers east of
Orsk. Both the Buruktal and Sakhara mines have railway spurs
connected to the Russian rail system, which is controlled by
Russian Railways. We acquired Southern Urals Nickel Plant in
2001.
The table below sets forth the subsoil licenses used by our
nickel mines and the expiration dates thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
Production
|
License Area
|
|
License Holder
|
|
Expiry Date
|
|
Status
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
Buruktal
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
December 2012
|
|
In production
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
1969
|
|
Sakhara
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
April 2013
|
|
In production
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
1994
|
|
The following table summarizes our nickel ore and nickel
products production for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(1)
|
|
|
Sakhara ore production
|
|
|
845.3
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
964.5
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1,025.7
|
|
|
|
1.07
|
%
|
Buruktal ore production
|
|
|
2,014.3
|
|
|
|
1.06
|
%
|
|
|
1,679.3
|
|
|
|
1.07
|
%
|
|
|
1,436.4
|
|
|
|
1.05
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ore production
|
|
|
2,859.6
|
|
|
|
1.04
|
%
|
|
|
2,643.8
|
|
|
|
1.04
|
%
|
|
|
2,462.1
|
|
|
|
1.06
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickel production
|
|
|
16,798.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,565.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,158.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet basis. |
Chrome
ore and silicate nickel ore production
Through our acquisition of Oriel Resources in April 2008, we
acquired a 100% interest in the Voskhod chrome project
(Voskhod) and a 90% interest in the
Shevchenko nickel project (Shevchenko), both
located in northwestern Kazakhstan. In January 2009, we acquired
the remaining 10% interest in Shevchenko, giving us a current
100% interest in both Voskhod and Shevchenko.
Oriel Resources holds two licenses to mine chrome ore at the
Voskhod deposit in the Aktyubinsk region and silicate nickel ore
at the Shevchenko deposit in the Kustanay region, and owns a
processing plant located near the Voskhod underground mine.
Voskhod is located in the Chrometau district of the Aktyubinsk
region 110 kilometers east of Aktobe and seven kilometers
northeast of Chrometau. The site is accessed by road from
Chrometau, which lies on the
105
highway from the regional center of Aktobe. Associated chrome
ore mining commenced at the Voskhod underground mine in December
2008 and ore production in commercial volumes commenced in July
2009. The mining plant is designed to reach output of
1.3 million tonnes of chrome ore and 0.6
0.7 million tonnes of chromite ore concentrate per annum.
Chrome ore concentrate from Voskhod is used in the Tikhvin
Ferroalloy Plant in Russia, which is another asset acquired in
2008 as part of Oriel Resources. The subsoil license relating to
the chrome deposit at Voskhod was issued by the Government of
Kazakhstan in 2004 for a period of 25 years.
The Shevchenko deposit of silicate nickel ore is located in
Kazakhstans Kustanay region and we plan to produce nickel
ore there using the in-situ leaching method for further
processing into nickel-containing marketable products. The
subsoil license relating to the silicate nickel ore deposit at
Shevchenko was issued by the Government of Kazakhstan in 1997
for a period of 20 years. Shevchenko is a development stage
mineral asset without reportable reserves. Currently, relevant
engineering studies are being undertaken.
The table below sets forth the subsoil licenses used by our
chrome ore and silicate nickel ore properties and the expiration
dates thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
Production
|
License Area
|
|
License Holder
|
|
Expiry Date
|
|
Status
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
Voskhod
|
|
Voskhod-Oriel
|
|
October 2029
|
|
In production
|
|
|
1.54
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Shevchenko
|
|
Kazakhstansky Nickel Mining Company
|
|
March 2017
|
|
Feasibility study
|
|
|
103.8
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Quartzite
production
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant holds the license for the exploration
and mining of the Uvatskoye deposit of quartzite and quartzite
sandstones, a raw material for ferrosilicon production. The
deposit is accessible by unpaved road and located 20 km
southwest of Nizhneudinsk in the Irkutsk region. After
completion of additional exploration at the deposit in 2011, we
plan to start mining quartzite to be supplied to our Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant.
The table below sets forth the subsoil license held in respect
of our quartzite project and the expiration date thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
Production
|
License Area
|
|
License Holder
|
|
Expiry Date
|
|
Status
|
|
(sq. km)
|
|
Commenced
|
|
Uvatskoye
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
July 2033
|
|
Exploration
|
|
|
18.21
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Ferroalloy
production facilities
Southern
Urals Nickel Plant
Southern Urals Nickel Plant includes a sinter plant equipped
with five sintering machines; a melting workshop equipped with
eight shaft furnaces and 14 thirty-tonne converters; and a
roasting workshop equipped with two electric arc furnaces with a
capacity of 12 megawatts each. The plant can produce up to
17,500 tonnes per year of low-ferrous ferronickel in pure nickel
equivalent.
The following table sets forth the capacity, the capacity
utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity for
Southern Urals Nickel Plants principal production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Low-ferrous ferronickel production
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
|
|
96.3
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant produced 16,799 tonnes of nickel in
2010.
106
Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant is the largest enterprise in Eastern
Siberia producing high grade ferrosilicon. Ferrosilicon is used
in the steel-making industry for manufacturing carbon and
stainless steel deoxidizers of most kinds of steel grades or
alloying elements for production of insulating, acid-proof and
heatproof steel grades, or pig iron modifier, as well as
reducing agents for production of nonferrous metals and alloys.
Approximately 5-6 kg of ferrosilicon is used in every tonne of
steel produced. Ferrosilicon is a primary raw material for
alloyed steels produced by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. We
acquired Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant in 2007.
The main production facilities of the plant include four
ore-thermal ovens with a capacity of 25
megavolt-amperes.
In October 2010 we signed contracts with Siberian Plant of
Electrothermal Equipment (Sibelectrotherm JSC, Novosibirsk) for
the supply of four ore-thermal ovens with the capacity of 33 MVA
each to replace the existing ovens. After the projects
completion Bratsk Ferroalloy Plants production capacity
will increase by 30% and its power consumption will be reduced
by 10-13%.
The contracts total value exceeds 1.9 billion rubles.
The reconstruction will take place during
2011-2012.
The following table sets forth the capacity, the capacity
utilization rate and the planned increase in capacity for Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plants principal production area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Planned
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
in 2010
|
|
Rate in 2010
|
|
(2011-2013)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes,
|
|
|
except for percentages)
|
|
Ferrosilicon production
|
|
|
87.2
|
|
|
|
102.7
|
%
|
|
|
34.8
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant produced 89,920 tonnes of ferrosilicon
in 2010.
Tikhvin
Ferroalloy Plant
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant is a modern metallurgical enterprise,
which specializes in the production of high-carbon ferrochrome
from chrome ore for use predominantly in the production of
stainless steel. Recovery of chrome from chrome ore occurs by
the agency of metallurgical coke in the presence of a quartzite
flux. The plant is situated in the small town of Tikhvin, 200
kilometers southeast of St. Petersburg, Russia. It comprises
four ore-smelting open electric AC furnaces with gasproof
enclosure and a total capacity of 22.5
megavolt-amperes
each. For effective cleaning of a
steam-and-gas
mixture, four dry gas cleaning plants with pulsed regeneration
are used at the plant. The Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plants
annual capacity is 140,000 basic tonnes of high-carbon
ferrochrome. The plant commenced production in April 2007 using
imported chrome ore. Since April 1, 2009, the plant has
moved to high-carbon ferrochrome production using only
concentrate from the Voskhod chrome processing plant. The plant
consumes 330,000 tonnes of chromite ore concentrate per annum.
Sales
of ferroalloy products
The following table sets forth our revenues by primary
ferroalloys segment product categories (including as a
percentage of total ferroalloys segment revenues) for the
periods indicated. Ferroalloys segment sales data presented in
Ferroalloys Segment do not include
intersegment sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Nickel(1)
|
|
|
251.6
|
|
|
|
55.3
|
%
|
|
|
190.6
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
%
|
|
|
281.3
|
|
|
|
64.8
|
%
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
91.8
|
|
|
|
20.2
|
%
|
|
|
66.6
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
|
|
79.3
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
93.6
|
|
|
|
20.6
|
%
|
|
|
92.8
|
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
|
|
68.2
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
455.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
434
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Sales of nickel contained in ferronickel and converter matte. |
107
The following table sets forth by percentage of sales the
regions in which our ferroalloys segment products were sold for
the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region(1)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
23.0
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
61.5
|
%
|
|
|
69.6
|
%
|
|
|
74.4
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The regional breakdown of sales is based on the geographic
location of our customers, and not on the location of the end
users of our products, as our customers are often distributors
that resell and, in some cases, further export our products. |
In 2010, our ferroalloys segment sales outside of Russia were
principally to Europe. Sales in Europe accounted for 61.5% of
our total ferroalloys segment sales. The following table sets
forth information about the five largest customers of our
ferroalloys segment products, which together accounted for 60.5%
of our ferroalloys segment sales in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
|
Products
|
Customer
|
|
Sales
|
|
Product
|
|
Sales
|
|
Outokumpu Rossija Oy
|
|
|
32.6
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
58.9
|
%
|
Glencore
|
|
|
14.2
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
25.7
|
%
|
Scanalloys, Ltd.
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
Chrome
|
|
|
34.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Stratton Metals, Ltd.
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
Severstal
|
|
|
3.2
|
%
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
16.0
|
%
|
108
The following table sets forth information on our domestic and
export sales of our primary ferroalloys categories for the
periods indicated. We define exports as sales by our Russian and
foreign subsidiaries to customers located outside their
respective countries. We define domestic sales as sales by our
Russian and foreign subsidiaries to customers located within
their respective countries. See note 23 to our consolidated
financial statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Nickel(1)
|
|
|
251.6
|
|
|
|
190.6
|
|
|
|
281.3
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
92.6
|
%
|
|
|
97.4
|
%
|
|
|
93.4
|
%
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
91.8
|
|
|
|
66.6
|
|
|
|
79.3
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
73.8
|
%
|
|
|
47.3
|
%
|
|
|
92.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
26.2
|
%
|
|
|
52.7
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
93.6
|
|
|
|
92.8
|
|
|
|
68.2
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
92.2
|
%
|
|
|
95.1
|
%
|
|
|
94.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
38.8
|
%
|
|
|
50.6
|
%
|
|
|
94.3
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
61.2
|
%
|
|
|
49.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
455.2
|
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
434
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
22.1
|
%
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
23.2
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
77.9
|
%
|
|
|
86.8
|
%
|
|
|
76.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Sales of nickel contained in ferronickel and converter matte. |
Marketing
and distribution
Domestic
sales
Nickel is supplied to the Russian domestic market, primarily
within our group. Only 7.4% of total nickel revenues were
received from domestic sales in 2010.
In 2010, ferrosilicon was sold to Russian domestic consumers
such as Severstal OAO, OEMK OAO and TMZ TD, which together
accounted for 43.2% of the total ferrosilicon sales by revenue
and 8.7% of the total ferroalloys segment revenues.
Volgograd Metallurgical Works Red October was our major domestic
ferrochrome customer in 2010, which accounted for 2.5% of the
total ferrochrome sales and 0.5% of the total ferroalloys
segment revenues.
Mechel Trading House sells ferroalloy products produced by
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant, Southern Urals Nickel Plant and Tikhvin
Ferroalloy Plant to third-party customers.
We supply ferroalloys products to the Russian market under
annual contracts with monthly adjustment of prices and volumes.
Price adjustments are based on the domestic spot market prices.
Export
sales
Export sales together accounted for 92.7% of our total
ferronickel sales and 51.2% of our total ferroalloys segment
revenues. All of our ferronickel export sales in 2010 were
delivered to six customers: Outokumpu Rossija Oy, Glencore
International AG, Stratton Metals Ltd., A&M Trading,
Outokumpu Stainless Ltd. and DEMZ AO. Prices are settled on the
basis of nickel prices quoted by the London Metal Exchange
(LME), less a certain discount. The ferronickel is delivered by
railway from Southern Urals Nickel Plant to either the port of
St. Petersburg or to the Russian-Finnish border.
109
In 2010, ferrosilicon export sales were delivered to such
customers as ACTS Trading Corporation, Mitsui, Hyundai Steel and
Scanalloys Ltd., which together accounted for 22.6% of our total
ferrosilicon sales by revenue and 4.6% of our total ferroalloys
segment revenues. Deliveries to Japanese and South Korean
customers were effected on CIF delivery terms (including
transportation by railway, handling in ports of Vanino and
Vostochny and chartering vessels to major Japanese and Korean
ports and insurance). We mostly sell ferrosilicon on spot basis.
In 2010, ferrochrome was supplied to Europe, Asia and the United
States mainly through such trading and production companies as
Scanalloys Ltd., Marubeni, DCM DECOmetal GmbH and Hascor. Those
sales together accounted for 60.9% of our total ferrochrome
sales and 12.5% of the total ferroalloys segment revenues.
Ferrochrome was delivered mainly by railway to the port of St.
Petersburg, and small tonnages were delivered to Eastern Europe
by trucks. We mostly sell ferrochrome on spot basis.
Market
share and competition
According to Metal Expert, Mechel is the second largest Russian
producer of ferrosilicon and the third largest producer of
ferrochrome by volume. In 2010, we had a 15.8% market share by
volume of both Russian ferrosilicon and ferrochrome production.
Following is a brief description of Russias other largest
ferroalloys producers, according to Metal Expert and the
companies data:
|
|
|
|
|
Kuznetsk Ferroalloys OAO is the largest Russian
ferrosilicon producer, with a 53.5% market share by production
volume in 2010. It controls Yurginsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO.
Kuznetsk Ferroalloys produces microsilica and quartzite. It is
primarily export-oriented, having exported 96.7% of its
ferrosilicon production volume in 2010.
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
(ChEMK) is the largest Russian
ferrochrome producer, with a 46.4% market share by production
volume in 2010. It is also the third largest ferrosilicon
producer with a 14.8% production share in 2010. In addition it
produces silicomanganese and silicocalcium. ChEMK exports most
of its production. In 2010, it exported 92.6% and 42.3% by
volume of its ferrochrome and ferrosilicon production,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO (Serov) is
the second largest Russian ferrochrome producer, with a 36.7%
market share by production volume in 2010. It also produces
ferrosilicon, having a 7.0% production share in 2010. The plant
is controlled by the industrial group ENRC, which is one of the
largest ferrochrome producers in the world, according to CRU.
Serov also produces ferrosilicochrome. Serov exported 83.2% of
its ferrochrome production volume in 2010, and almost all of the
ferrosilicon it produced in 2010 was supplied domestically.
|
The following tables set forth additional information regarding
our 2010 market shares in Russia for certain ferroalloy products.
Ferroalloys
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Region
|
|
Production
|
|
Volume, %
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Kuznetsk Ferroalloys OAO
|
|
Kemerovo
|
|
|
303.5
|
|
|
|
53.5
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant OAO
|
|
Irkutsk
|
|
|
89.9
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
%
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Chelyabinsk
|
|
|
84.3
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
39.6
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Yurginsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Kemerovo
|
|
|
33.0
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
Novolipetsk Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Lipetsk
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
567.8
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
110
Ferroalloys
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Region
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume, %
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Chelyabinsk
|
|
|
211.6
|
|
|
|
46.4
|
%
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
167.5
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant ZAO
|
|
Leningrad
|
|
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
%
|
Klyuchevsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
455.8
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Our share of the total world nickel production was approximately
1.2% in 2010. The following table sets forth the major nickel
producing companies and their and our shares of the total world
nickel production in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickel Production
|
|
|
% of Total World
|
|
Company
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Norilsk Nickel
|
|
|
285.1
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
Vale
|
|
|
149.4
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
Jinchuan
|
|
|
129.5
|
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
BHP Billiton
|
|
|
97.9
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
Xstrata Nickel
|
|
|
91.7
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
Sumitomo
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Eramet/SLN
|
|
|
52.2
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
557.1
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
1,438
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Company data.
Our share of the total world high-carbon ferrochrome production
was approximately 1.0% in 2010. The following table sets forth
the major high-carbon ferrochrome producing companies and their
and our shares of the total world high-carbon ferrochrome
production in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-Carbon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrochrome Production
|
|
|
% of Total World
|
|
Company
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Xstrata
|
|
|
1,481.5
|
|
|
|
17.9
|
%
|
ENRC
|
|
|
1,136.5
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
Samancor
|
|
|
815.6
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
%
|
Hernic Ferrochrome
|
|
|
354.9
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
ASA Metals
|
|
|
280.0
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
Outokumpu
|
|
|
257.0
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Assmang Chrome
|
|
|
234.0
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
|
81.4
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
3,656.0
|
|
|
|
44.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
8,296.9
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Company data.
111
Our share of the total world ferrosilicon production was
approximately 1.2% in 2010. The following table sets forth our
and other shares of the total world ferrosilicon production in
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrosilicon Production
|
|
% of Total World
|
Company
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
Production
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
|
89.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
7,716.2
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
7,806.1
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Company data.
Mineral
reserves (ferroalloys)
Please see Mining Segment Mineral
reserves (coal, iron ore and limestone) for a general
description of our reporting of proven and probable reserves. We
retained Marston & Marston, Inc. to conduct an independent
review of our mineral resources and reserves (nickel). Marston
& Marston is a U.S. based mining engineering firm qualified
to conduct reviews and prepare technical reports on mineral
resources and reserves.
Nickel
ore
As of December 31, 2010, we had nickel ore reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 76.3 million tonnes at an average
nickel grade of 1.03%. The table below summarizes our nickel ore
reserves by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within Subsoil
|
|
Outside Subsoil
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Nickel Ore
Reserves(1)(2)(3)
|
|
License Term
|
|
License Term
|
|
Total
|
|
(%
Ni)(5)
|
|
|
(In millions of
tonnes)(4)
|
|
Sakhara
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
|
Buruktal
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
71.4
|
|
|
|
74.4
|
|
|
|
1.04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
71.4
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
1.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reserve estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be
mined, taking into account dilution and losses. |
|
(2) |
|
We own 84.1% of Southern Urals Nickel Plant mines. Reserves are
presented for the mines on an assumed 100% ownership basis. |
|
(3) |
|
In estimating our reserves we use an average price of $20,858
per tonne of nickel and currency conversions are carried out at
average official exchange rates of the Central Bank of Russia. |
|
(4) |
|
Volumes are reported on a dry basis. |
|
(5) |
|
Metallurgical recovery is projected to be 89.5%. |
Chrome
ore
At December 31, 2010 Voskhod has total proven and probable
reserves of 17.4 million tonnes including 0.4 million
tonnes of proven and 17.0 million tonnes of probable
reserves at an average grade of 42.1%
Cr2O3
with projected recovery of rate of 73%. In estimating our
reserves we use an average contract price of $338 per tonne
of chrome ore concentrate and currency conversions are carried
out at average official exchange rates of the Central Bank of
Kazakhstan.
Trade
restrictions
In February 2008, an antidumping duty in the amount of 17.8% was
imposed on exports to the European Union of ferrosilicon
produced by our Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant for a period of five
years.
112
Power
Segment
Our power segment generates and sells electricity to our group
companies and to external customers. It enables us to market
higher value-added products made from our steam coal, such as
electricity and heat energy, and to increase the electric power
self-sufficiency of the mining and steel segments of our
business. Our power segment consists of a power generating
plant, Southern Kuzbass Power Plant with installed capacity of
554 MW, power generation facilities at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and Urals
Stampings Plant with installed capacity of 229 MW,
30 MW and 3.5 MW, respectively, and a power sales
company, Kuzbass Power Sales Company. Our subsidiary
Mechel-Energo manages our power business. We also hold a 100%
stake interest in Toplofikatsia Rousse, a power plant in
Bulgaria. Below is a brief description of each of these
facilities.
The following table sets out total volumes of electricity
production by our power segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In million kWh)
|
|
Electricity
|
|
|
4,019.6
|
|
|
|
3,487.7
|
|
|
|
4,088.8
|
|
Southern
Kuzbass Power Plant
The Southern Kuzbass Power Plant is located in Kaltan in the
Kemerovo region, which is south of Russias coal-rich
Kuzbass district. It has a total installed capacity of
554 MW and installed heat capacity of 506 Gcal/h as of
December 31, 2010. The electricity output of the plant for
the year ended December 31, 2010 was 2,157.6 million
kWh. The heat power generated by the plant for the year ended
December 31, 2010 was 814.2 thousand Gcal. We acquired
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant in 2007.
The Southern Kuzbass Power Plant uses steam coal as fuel, which
is supplied to it from local sources, including our Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company. In 2010, it consumed 1.5 million
tonnes of steam coal sourced from Southern Kuzbass Coal Company.
The generation facilities of the Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
are listed below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Month and Year of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioning at
|
|
Installed
|
|
|
Electricity
|
|
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass
|
|
Capacity
|
|
|
Production in
|
|
Generation Unit No.
|
|
Manufacture
|
|
|
Power Plant
|
|
(MW)
|
|
|
2010 (million kWh)
|
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
April 1951
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
93.7
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
November 1951
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
153.9
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
August 1952
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
208.4
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1952
|
|
|
February 1953
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
260.1
|
|
T-115-8,8 LMZ
|
|
|
1996
|
|
|
December 2003
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
372.3
|
|
T-88/106-90 LMZ
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
July 1954
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
429.5
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1954
|
|
|
December 1954
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
181.6
|
|
T-88/106-90 LMZ
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
September 1956
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
458.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
554
|
|
|
|
2,157.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The plant sells electricity and capacity on the wholesale market
only, as well as heat energy directly to consumers. In Russia it
is common for thermal power plants to produce and sell heat
energy, sometimes in the form of industrial steam and sometimes
in the form of hot water, for business and residential heating
and household use, which is distributed in towns and cities by a
network of hot water distribution pipes. Southern Kuzbass Power
Plants heat energy is distributed at regulated prices in
the form of hot water in Kaltan and Osinniki.
Kuzbass
Power Sales Company
Kuzbass Power Sales Company is located in the Kemerovo region
and is the largest power distributing company in the Kemerovo
region. Its marketed power volume in 2010 amounted to
10.6 billion kWh. We acquired Kuzbass Power Sales Company
in 2007. The addition of Kuzbass Power Sales Company, along with
113
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant, allows us to improve the
utilization of our existing power co-generation capabilities and
provides a base for growth in the power industry.
Kuzbass Power Sales Company sells electricity on the retail
market. The company sells electricity to households, to social
infrastructure companies, housing and public utilities and large
industrial companies. Due to its area of operation, its primary
industrial customers are in the mining and processing
industries. It supplies electricity to end-consumers directly
and also through three regional agents.
The company is included in the Register of Guaranteeing
Suppliers of the Kemerovo region. For a discussion of
guaranteeing suppliers, see Regulatory
Matters Regulation of Russian Electricity
Market Sales of electricity Retail
electricity market.
Toplofikatsia
Rousse
Toplofikatsia Rousse is a power plant located on the bank of the
Danube River in close proximity to the harbor of Rousse,
Bulgaria. We acquired a 49% stake in Toplofikatsia Rousse in
December 2007. We increased our stake in Toplofikatsia Rousse to
100% in December 2010. Toplofikatsia Rousse comprises thermal
power plant Toplofikatsia Rousse Izstok and thermal networks in
Rousse. Currently, one of the plants power generating
units with capacity of 110 MW is under reconstruction and
the plants utilized capacity amounts to 290 MW, which
is below its installed capacity of 400 MW. Pursuant to our
capital investment program, we are upgrading the equipment at
Toplofikatsia Rousse to fully utilize its installed capacity and
to meet European environmental standards. The plant has a total
heat capacity of 554 Gcal/h and uses steam coal as fuel, most of
which is supplied from our coal mines in Russia. The plant had
353 employees as of December 31, 2010.
Mechel-Energo
Mechel-Energos core activity is the generation and sale of
electricity, capacity, and heat energy in the form of hot water
and steam. In addition, it coordinates the supply of energy to
our production facilities. The company has separate business
units in the cities of Izhevsk and Chebarkul, as well as
branches in the cities of Mezhdurechensk, Chelyabinsk, Beloretsk
and Vidnoye. Mechel-Energo also performs the functions of the
respective executive management bodies of its subsidiaries:
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and Kuzbass Power Sales Company.
Mechel-Energo supplies heat energy (in the form of hot water and
steam) at regulated prices to its consumers, including
residential consumers and commercial customers, of the cities of
Vidnoye, Chelyabinsk, Chebarkul, Beloretsk, Guryevsk,
Mezhdurechensk, Myski and Izhevsk.
Mechel-Energo has cogeneration facilities and operates using
mainly blast furnace gas and coke oven gas, which is a byproduct
of steelmaking, and natural gas, which we purchase from Gazprom.
Mechel-Energos sales amounted to 5.3 billion kWh of
electricity and 4.5 million Gcal of heat energy in 2010.
Capital
Investment Program
Our capital investment program includes capital spending of up
to $4.7 billion for the three-year period of
2011-2013.
Our capital investment program is primarily targeted at
expanding the mining segment and increasing the efficiency of
the steel segment. The split is approximately $3.3 billion
in mining, approximately $1.1 billion in steel,
approximately $141 million in ferroalloys and approximately
$145.7 million in the power segment. However, our ability
to fully realize our capital investment program is constrained
by our ability to generate cash flow, obtain additional
financing and refinance or restructure existing indebtedness.
Attracting debt financing for our capital expenditures on
commercially reasonably terms may be particularly challenging
given our current levels of indebtedness. We may be limited to
obtaining financing on a project finance basis which may impose
more restrictions on the operations of the project or require
the economic returns of the project to be shared with investors
or lenders.
114
We continually review our capital investment program in light of
our cash flow, liquidity position, results of operations and
market conditions. In light of the above factors, we may adjust
our capital investment program. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Financial Condition and Financial Reporting
We have a substantial amount of outstanding indebtedness
and Item 3. Key Information Risk
Factors Risks Relating to Our Financial Condition
and Financial Reporting We will require a
significant amount of cash to fund our capital investment
program.
In the mining segment we expect to direct approximately
$2.1 billion to the development of the Elga coal deposit
and construction of a rail branch line in
2011-2013.
Investments in Southern Kuzbass Coal Company will amount to
$680.9 million. We will invest approximately
$184 million in
2011-2013
for increasing coal production at Sibirginsk Underground Mine of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and approximately
$255 million for construction of Erunakovsk-1 Underground
Mine. In the iron ore business, we will invest approximately
$42.3 million in Korshunov Mining Plant.
The steel segment projects are targeted at expanding the share
of value added products which we produce, while maintaining
existing output, and will be mainly focused on Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Izhstal. The main project, initiated in
2008, is the construction of a universal rail and structural
rolling mill aimed at increasing rolling capacity to
1.1 million tonnes and decreasing the proportion of
lower-value semi-finished product sales by increasing the
production of high quality rolled steel products and rails.
Preliminary engineering works have been completed, and an
equipment delivery contract and a construction contract have
been signed and the project is planned to be completed in 2011.
The following table sets out by segment and facility the major
items of our capital expenditures for the three-year period of
2011-2013.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Planned Increase in Capacity
|
|
Total Planned
|
|
|
Project
|
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
|
and/or Other Improvement
|
|
Expenditures(1)
|
|
|
Launch
|
|
|
Completion
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Mining Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current coal and iron ore mining and coal and iron
ore concentrate production
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Yakutugol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction of a rail branch to the Elga coal deposit and the
development of the Elga coal deposit
|
|
Providing access to and the development of the coal deposit
|
|
|
2,847
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase of coal production at Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
Increase production output to 2.4 million tonnes per annum
|
|
|
240.9
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
Construction of Erunakovsk-1 Underground
|
|
Increase of coal production by 4 million tonnes
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction of coking battery No. 5
|
|
Design capacity of 470,000 tonnes of coke per annum
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
Steel Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
168.6
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction of rolling facilities in blooming building
|
|
Introducing new types of rolled products for construction
industry with a design capacity of 1.1 million tonnes per annum
|
|
|
664.9
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
Construction of blooming concaster No. 5 near
oxygen-converter shop with vacuum degasser and ladle furnace
|
|
Design capacity 1.0 million tonnes of billets per annum
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
Reconstruction of oxygen-converter production
|
|
Increase of cast weight to 152 tonnes
|
|
|
173.8
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Izhstal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction of mill No. 250
|
|
Increase of capacity to 300,000 tonnes per annum and increase in
quality of rolled products
|
|
|
62.9
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
|
Planned Increase in Capacity
|
|
Total Planned
|
|
|
Project
|
|
|
Year of
|
|
|
|
and/or Other Improvement
|
|
Expenditures(1)
|
|
|
Launch
|
|
|
Completion
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Mechel Materials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction of grinding-mixing complex for Portland cement and
Portland blast-furnace slag cement production
|
|
Design capacity of 1.6 million tonnes of Portland cement per
annum
|
|
|
126.7
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction of ore-thermal ovens
|
|
Increase of capacity to 33 MVA
|
|
|
92.4
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
47.9
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Transport division
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Technical modernization of Port Posiet
|
|
Increase of production capacity to 9.0 million tonnes per annum
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We estimate that approximately $604 million of the
aforementioned planned expenditures for these projects were made
within 2010. In 2010, we spent $1.0 billion in total for
capital expenditures. |
Research
and Development
We maintain research programs at the corporate level and at
certain of our business units to carry out research and applied
technology development activities. At the corporate level, we
have a Department of Metallurgical Production Technology
Development at Mechel-Steel Management (six employees), a
Production and Technical Department at Mechel Mining Management
(fourteen employees), a Department of Wire Products Technology
Development at Mechel-Steel Management (two employees), and a
Department of Technical Development at Mechel Ferroalloys
Management (four employees). In December 2008, we established
Mechel Engineering with a headcount of 122 employees to
carry out design and engineering works to increase the
efficiency of our mining business. In January 2009, our design
unit DVNPU with a headcount of 104 employees was
transferred under the management of Mechel Engineering. Since
January 1, 2011, DVNPU became a branch of Mechel
Engineering.
In the course of our research and development we also contract
with third-party consultants and Russian research institutions.
In addition to these activities performed at our corporate
level, each of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant, Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Izhstal, Urals
Stampings Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant, Bratsk Ferroalloy
Plant and Yakutugol have specialized research divisions with a
total of 371 researchers involved in the improvement of
existing technologies and products.
Our research and development expenses in the years ending
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 were not significant.
Insurance
Most of our Russian production facilities have no comprehensive
insurance coverage against the risks associated with the
business in which we operate, other than insurance required
under the Russian law, existing collective agreements, loan
agreements or other undertakings. Our Russian facilities have
various compulsory insurance policies: legal liability for
pollution, third-party liability motor vehicle insurance, and
other forms of insurance. Some of our facilities provide their
workers with medical insurance and accident and health insurance
in accordance with existing collective employment agreements. In
addition, some of our Russian facilities have motor vehicle
insurance, property insurance (real property and machinery
insurance, goods), third party liability insurance and cargo.
116
Some of our international production facilities are not covered
by comprehensive insurance typical for such operations in
Western countries. However, they all have the compulsory
insurance coverage required under the law of their respective
jurisdictions: motor vehicle insurance, pollution legal
liability insurance, employer liability etc. Furthermore, some
of our international production facilities also carry insurance
coverage for their property (real property and machinery
insurance, goods), liability (third party liability,
professional and product liability), cargo (including freight
insurance), as well as medical insurance and accident and health
insurance for their workers.
Regulatory
Matters
Licensing
of Operations in Russia
We are required to obtain numerous licenses, authorizations and
permits from Russian governmental authorities for our
operations. The Federal Law On Licensing of Certain Types
of Activities, dated August 8, 2001, as amended, as
well as other laws and regulations, set forth the activities
subject to licensing and establish procedures for issuing
licenses. In particular, some of our companies need to obtain
licenses, authorizations and permits to carry out their
activities, including, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
the use of subsoil, which is described in more detail in
Subsoil licensing in Russia below;
|
|
|
|
the use of water resources;
|
|
|
|
the discharge of pollutants into the environment;
|
|
|
|
the handling of hazardous waste;
|
|
|
|
storage and use of explosive, flammable
and/or
dangerous materials;
|
|
|
|
operation of industrial facilities featuring fire and explosion
hazard (including mining and surveying activities);
|
|
|
|
construction;
|
|
|
|
fire control and security;
|
|
|
|
medical operations;
|
|
|
|
transportation activities; and
|
|
|
|
collection, processing and sale of ferrous scrap.
|
These licenses and permits are usually issued for a period of
five years and may be extended upon application by the licensee.
Licenses for the use of natural resources may be issued for
shorter or longer periods. Upon the expiration of a license, it
may be extended upon application by the licensee, but usually
subject to prior compliance with regulations.
Regulatory authorities maintain considerable discretion in the
timing of issuing licenses and permits. The requirements imposed
by these authorities may be costly, time-consuming and may
result in delays in the commencement or continuation of
exploration or production operations. Further, private
individuals and the public at large possess rights to comment on
and otherwise participate in the licensing process, including
through challenges in the courts. For example, individuals and
public organizations may make claims or applications to the
Federal Agency for Subsoil Use regarding subsoil abuse, damage
to the subsoil and general environmental issues. The Federal
Agency for Subsoil Use is required by law to review such claims
and applications and to respond to those who file them. The
agency can initiate further investigation in the course of
reviewing claims and applications, and such investigations can
lead to suspension of the subsoil license if the legal grounds
for such suspension are identified in the course of the
investigation. Additionally, citizens may make claims in court
against state authorities for failing to enforce environmental
requirements (for example, if a breach by the licensee of its
license terms caused damage to an individuals health,
legal interests or rights), and pursuant to such a claim the
court may order state authorities to suspend the subsoil
117
license. Accordingly, the licenses we need may not be issued, or
if issued, may not be issued in a timely fashion, or may impose
requirements which restrict our ability to conduct our
operations or to do so profitably.
As part of their obligations under licensing regulations and the
terms of our licenses and permits, some of our companies must
comply with numerous industrial standards, employ qualified
personnel, maintain certain equipment and a system of quality
controls, monitor operations, maintain and make appropriate
filings and, upon request, submit specified information to the
licensing authorities that control and inspect their activities.
Subsoil
Licensing in Russia
In Russia, mining minerals requires a subsoil license from the
Federal Agency for Subsoil Use with respect to an identified
mineral deposit, as well as the right (through ownership, lease
or other right) to use the land where such licensed mineral
deposit is located. In addition, as discussed above, operating
permits are required with respect to specific mining activities.
The primary law regulating subsoil licensing is the Federal Law
On Subsoil, dated February 21, 1992, as amended
(the Subsoil Law), which sets out the regime
for granting licenses for the exploration and production of
mineral resources. The Procedure for Subsoil Use Licensing,
adopted by Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian
Federation on July 15, 1992, as amended (the
Licensing Regulation), also regulates the
licensing of exploration and production of mineral resources.
According to both the Subsoil Law and the Licensing Regulation,
subsurface mineral resources are subject to the jurisdiction of
the federal authorities.
Among different licenses required for mining minerals in Russia,
the two major types of licenses are: (1) an exploration
license, which is a non-exclusive license granting the right of
geological exploration and assessment within the license area,
and (2) a production license, which grants the licensee an
exclusive right to produce minerals from the license area. In
practice, many of the licenses are issued as combined licenses,
which grant the right to explore, assess and produce minerals
from the license area. A subsoil license defines the license
area in terms of latitude, longitude and depth.
There are two major types of payments with respect to the
extraction of minerals: (1) periodic payments for the use
of subsoil under the Subsoil Law; and (2) the minerals
extraction tax under the Tax Code. Failure to make these
payments could result in the suspension or termination of the
subsoil license. The Subsoil Law-mandated payments are not
material to our mining segments results of operations. The
minerals extraction tax is calculated as a percentage of the
value of minerals extracted. Currently the tax rates are 4% for
coal, 4.8% for iron ore and 8% for nickel. In 2010, we incurred
minerals extraction taxes in the amount of $41.7 million,
which is included in the statement of income and comprehensive
income as production related overheads. See note 21 to our
consolidated financial statements.
The term of the license is set forth in the license. Prior to
January 2000, exploration licenses could have a maximum term of
five years, production licenses a maximum term of 20 years,
and combined exploration, assessment and production licenses a
maximum term of 25 years. After amendments to the Subsoil
Law in January 2000 and in August 2004, exploration licenses
still have a maximum term of five years; in the event that a
prior license with respect to a particular field is terminated
early (for example, when a license is withdrawn due to non-usage
of the licensed subsoil), a production license may have a one
year term until a new licensee is determined, but is generally
granted to another user for the term of the expected operational
life of the field based on a feasibility study; and combined
exploration, assessment and production licenses can be issued
for the term of the expected operational life of the field based
on a feasibility study. These amendments did not affect the
terms of licenses issued prior to January 2000, but permit
licensees to apply for extensions of such licenses for the term
of the expected operational life of the field in accordance with
the amended Subsoil Law. The term of a subsoil license runs from
the date the license is registered with the Russian Federal
Agency for Subsoil Use.
118
Issuance
of licenses
Subsoil licenses are issued by the Federal Agency for Subsoil
Use. Most of the currently existing production licenses owned by
companies derive from: (1) pre-existing rights granted
during the Soviet era and up to the enactment of the Subsoil Law
to state-owned enterprises that were subsequently reorganized in
the course of post-Soviet privatizations; or (2) tender or
auction procedures held in the post-Soviet period. The Russian
Civil Code, the Subsoil Law and the Licensing Regulation contain
the major requirements relating to tenders and auctions. The
Subsoil Law allows production licenses to be issued without a
tender or auction procedure only in limited circumstances, such
as instances when a mineral deposit is discovered by the holder
of an exploration license at its own expense during the
exploration phase.
Extension
of licenses
The Subsoil Law, as amended in August 2004, permits a subsoil
licensee to request an extension of a production license for the
term of the expected operational life of the subsoil plot in
order to complete the production from the subsoil plot covered
by the license or the procedures necessary to vacate the land
once the use of the subsoil is complete, provided the user is
not in violation of the terms and conditions of the license and
the relevant regulations.
In order to extend the period of a subsoil license, a company
must file an application with a territorial authority of the
Federal Agency for Subsoil Use to amend the license. In
addition, as we have seen in our practice, a subsoil licensee
may be required to prepare and provide to the authority amended
technical documentation and development plan of the deposit
under the license justifying the requested extension. The costs
associated with license extension are generally not substantial
and mainly relate to preparing amendments to the technical
documentation and development plan of the subsoil plot.
The Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources
No. 439-R,
dated October 31, 2002, recommends that the following
issues be considered by the relevant governmental authorities
when determining whether to approve an amendment (including an
extension) of a license: (1) the grounds for the
amendments, with specific information as to how the amendments
may impact payments by the licensee to the federal and local
budgets; (2) compliance of the licensee with the conditions
of the license; and (3) the technical expertise and
financial capabilities that would be required to implement the
conditions of the amended license.
To the best of our knowledge, derived from publicly available
information, the current practice of the regulatory authorities
is generally consistent with the process as set out above. In
particular, we are aware of a number of mining companies which
have been granted extension of their Russian mining licenses for
the past few years. In addition, two of our
subsidiaries Korshunov Mining Plant and Olzherassk
Open Pit Mine successfully extended their licenses
for the entire term of the expected operational life of the
subsoil plot. The terms of the two licenses were extended in
accordance with the amendments we made to the development plans
of the subsoil plots. Furthermore, as evidenced by a number of
court cases during the past several years, license extensions
are being rejected predominantly on the grounds of subsoil users
being in violation of the material terms of the licenses. Though
current regulation does not specify what license terms are
material, current practice suggest that regulatory authorities
tend to treat as material terms of license the terms related to
license payments, production levels and operational milestones.
The factors that may, in practice, affect a companys
ability to obtain the approval of license amendments (including
extensions) include: (1) its compliance with the license
terms and conditions; (2) its managements experience
and expertise relating to subsoil issues; and (3) the
relationship of its management with federal
and/or local
governmental authorities, as well as local governments. For a
description of additional factors that may affect Russian
companies ability to extend their licenses, see
Item 3. Key Information Risk
Factors Risks Relating to Our Business and
Industry Our business could be adversely affected if
we fail to obtain or renew necessary subsoil licenses and mining
and other permits or fail to comply with the terms of our
subsoil licenses and mining and other permits. See also
Item 3. Key Information Risk
Factors Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation Legal risks and uncertainties
Deficiencies in the legal framework relating to subsoil
licensing subject our licenses to the risk of governmental
challenges and, if our licenses are suspended or terminated, we
may be unable to realize our reserves, which could materially
119
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects and Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to the Russian Federation Legal risks and
uncertainties Weaknesses relating to the Russian
legal system and legislation create an uncertain investment
climate.
Maintenance
and termination of licenses
A license granted under the Subsoil Law is accompanied by a
licensing agreement. The law provides that there will be two
parties to any subsoil licensing agreement: the relevant state
authorities and the licensee. The licensing agreement sets out
the terms and conditions for the use of the subsoil.
Under a licensing agreement, the licensee makes certain
environmental, safety and production commitments. For example,
the licensee makes a production commitment to bring the field
into production by a certain date and to extract an
agreed-upon
volume of natural resources each year. The licensing agreement
may also contain commitments with respect to the social and
economic development of the region. When the license expires,
the licensee must return the land to a condition which is
adequate for future use. Although most of the conditions set out
in a license are based on mandatory rules contained in Russian
law, certain provisions in a licensing agreement are left to the
discretion of the licensing authorities and are often negotiated
between the parties. However, commitments relating to safety and
the environment are generally not negotiated.
The fulfillment of a licenses conditions is a major factor
in the good standing of the license. If the subsoil licensee
fails to fulfill the licenses conditions, upon notice, the
license may be terminated or the subsoil users rights may
be restricted by the licensing authorities. However, if a
subsoil licensee cannot meet certain deadlines or achieve
certain volumes of exploration work or production output as set
forth in a license, it may apply to amend the relevant license
conditions, though such amendments may be denied.
The Subsoil Law and other Russian legislation contain extensive
provisions for license termination. A licensee can be fined or
the license can be suspended or terminated for repeated breaches
of the law, upon the occurrence of a direct threat to the lives
or health of people working or residing in the local area, or
upon the occurrence of certain emergency situations. A license
may also be terminated for violations of material
license terms. Although the Subsoil Law does not specify which
terms are material, failure to pay subsoil taxes and failure to
commence operations in a timely manner have been common grounds
for limitation or termination of licenses. Consistent
underproduction and failure to meet obligations to finance a
project would also be likely to constitute violations of
material license terms. In addition, certain licenses provide
that the violation by a subsoil licensee of any of its
obligations may constitute grounds for terminating the license.
If the licensee does not agree with a decision of the licensing
authorities, including a decision relating to the termination of
a license or the refusal to change an existing license, the
licensee may appeal the decision through administrative or
judicial proceedings. In certain cases prior to termination, the
licensee has the right to attempt to cure the violation within
three months of its receipt of notice of the violation. If the
issue has been resolved within such a three month period, no
termination or other action may be taken.
Land Use
Rights in Russia
Russian legislation prohibits the carrying out of any commercial
activity, including mineral extraction, on a land plot without
appropriate land use rights. Land use rights are needed and
obtained for only the portions of the license area actually
being used, including the plot being mined, access areas and
areas where other mining-related activity is occurring.
Under the Land Code, companies generally have one of the
following rights with regard to land in the Russian Federation:
(1) ownership; (2) right of perpetual use; or
(3) lease.
A majority of land plots in the Russian Federation are owned by
federal, regional or municipal authorities which, through public
auctions or tenders or through private negotiations, can sell,
lease or grant other use rights to the land to third parties.
120
Companies may also have a right of perpetual use of land that
was obtained prior to the enactment of the Land Code; however,
the Federal Law On Introduction of the Land Code,
dated October 25, 2001, with certain exceptions, requires
companies using land pursuant to rights of perpetual use by
January 1, 2012 either to purchase the land from, or to
enter into a lease agreement relating to the land with, the
relevant federal, regional or municipal authority acting as
owner of the land. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Business and Industry Certain of our Russian
subsidiaries are required to either purchase or lease the land
on which they operate.
Our mining subsidiaries generally have a right of perpetual use
of their plots or have entered into long-term lease agreements.
Under Russian law, a lessee generally has a priority right to
enter into a new land lease agreement with a lessor upon the
expiration of a land lease. In order to renew a land lease
agreement, the lessee must apply to the lessor (usually state or
municipal authorities) for a renewal prior to the expiration of
the agreement. Any land lease agreement for a term of one year
or more must be registered with the relevant state authorities.
Environmental
Legislation in Russia
We are subject to laws, regulations and other legal requirements
relating to the protection of the environment, including those
governing the discharge of substances into the air and water,
the formation, distribution and disposal of hazardous substances
and waste, the cleanup of contaminated sites, flora and fauna
protection and wildlife protection. Issues of environmental
protection in Russia are regulated primarily by the Federal Law
On Environmental Protection, dated January 10,
2002, as amended (the Environmental Protection
Law), as well as by a number of other federal,
regional and local legal acts.
In
2008-2010,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology prepared significant
amendments to the Environmental Protection Law and other
regulations. These draft amendments are actively being discussed
by industry representatives and other interested parties such as
the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and the
amendments have not been submitted to the State Duma. According
to the amendments, the functions among state environmental
agencies at both the federal and regional levels, as well as to
strengthen liability for companies non-compliance with
environmental laws and regulations. Among other things, the
draft amendments contemplate that charges for environmental
impact exceeding regulatory thresholds (norms) may be increased
by twenty five times the current amounts commencing on
January 1, 2012, and may be increased by one hundred times
the current amounts commencing on January 1, 2016.
Furthermore, fines for environmental violations may be increased
by up to 20 times the current amounts. See Item 3.
Key Information Risk Factors Risks
Relating to Our Business and Industry More stringent
environmental laws and regulations or more stringent enforcement
or findings that we have violated environmental laws and
regulations could result in higher compliance costs and
significant fines and penalties,
clean-up
costs and compensatory damages, or require significant capital
investment, or even result in the suspension of our operations,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operation and prospects.
Pay-to-pollute
The Environmental Protection Law and other Russian environmental
protection legislation establish a
pay-to-pollute
regime administered by federal and local authorities.
Pay-to-pollute
(or payments for environmental pollution) is a form of mandatory
reimbursement to the Russian government for damage caused to the
environment.
The Russian government has established standards relating to the
permissible impact on the environment and, in particular, limits
for emissions and disposal of substances, waste disposal and
resource extraction. A company may obtain temporary approval for
exceeding these statutory limits from Rosprirodnadzor, the
Russian environmental supervisory authority, depending on the
type and scale of any environmental impact. Such approval is
conditional upon the development by the company of a plan for
the reduction of the emissions or disposals to the standard
limits which must be cleared with Rosprirodnadzor. The emission
reduction plan is generally required to be implemented within a
specific period. If, by the end of that period, a
121
companys discharges of pollutants are still in excess of
the statutory limits, a new emission reduction plan must be
submitted to Rosprirodnadzor for approval.
Fees for the discharge per tonne of each contaminant into air
and water and fees for waste disposal are established by
governmental authorities. These fees are assessed based on a
sliding scale for both the statutory or individually approved
limits on emissions and effluents and for pollution in excess of
these limits: the lowest fees are imposed for pollution within
the statutory limits, intermediate fees are imposed for
pollution within the individually approved temporary limits, and
the highest fees are imposed for pollution exceeding such limits
(above-limit fees). Payments of above-limit fees for violation
of environmental legislation do not relieve a company from its
responsibility to take environmental protection measures and
undertake restoration and
clean-up
activities. In 2010, in Russia, we incurred
above-norms/above-limit fees and penalties in the amount of
approximately $4.1 million.
Ecological
expert examination
According to the Federal Law On Ecological Expert
Examination, dated November 23, 1995, as amended (the
Ecology Law), ecological expert examination
is a process of verifying compliance of business or operational
documentation with ecological standards and technical
regulations established pursuant to the Ecology Law for the
purpose of preventing a negative environmental impact of such
business or operations. The Ecology Law provides for the main
principles for conducting ecological expert examination and for
the type of documentation which is subject to such inspection.
In relation to our operating companies, all documentation
underlying the issuance of some of our licenses, in particular
licenses issued by federal authorities to conduct activities
related to collection, usage, decontamination, transportation
and disposal of dangerous wastes, are subject to ecological
expert examination.
Examination of documentation related to capital construction is
regulated under the Urban Development Code. The Urban
Development Code provides for governmental inspection to verify
the compliance of project documentation with relevant technical
regulations, including sanitary-epidemiological and
environmental regulations, requirements for the protection of
objects of cultural heritage, as well as fire, industrial,
nuclear, radiation and other kinds of safety requirements, and
compliance with the results of engineering surveys with relevant
technical regulations.
Environmental
enforcement authorities
Currently state environmental regulation is administered by
several federal services and agencies and their regional
subdivisions, in particular, the Federal Service for the
Supervision of the Use of Natural Resources, Rosprirodnadzor,
the Federal Service for Hydrometrology and Environmental
Monitoring, the Federal Agency for Subsoil Use, the Federal
Agency for Forestry, the Federal Agency for Water Resources and
some others. Included in these agencies sphere of
responsibility are environmental preservation and control,
enforcement and observance of environmental legislation,
drafting and approving regulations and filing court claims to
recover environmental damages. The statute of limitations for
such claims is 20 years.
The Russian federal government and the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Ecology are responsible for coordinating the work
of the federal services and agencies engaged in state
environmental regulation.
The structure of environmental enforcement authorities described
above was established in 2004. This structure was subjected to
certain changes in 2008. In particular, the Ministry of Natural
Resources was transformed into the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Ecology and Rostekhnadzor was put under its supervision. In
late 2010, this structure was further changed and all powers
previously held by Rostekhnadzor in terms of environmental
control, permits and fees administration were transferred to
Rosprirodnadzor.
Environmental
liability
If the operations of a company violate environmental
requirements or cause harm to the environment or any individual
or legal entity, a court action may be brought to limit or ban
these operations and require the
122
company to remedy the effects of the violation. Any company or
employees that fail to comply with environmental regulations may
be subject to administrative
and/or civil
liability, and individuals may be held criminally liable. Courts
may also impose
clean-up
obligations on violators in lieu of or in addition to imposing
fines or other penalties to compensate for damages.
Subsoil licenses generally require certain environmental
commitments. Although these commitments can be substantial, the
penalties for failing to comply and the reclamation requirements
are generally low; however, failure to comply with reclamation
requirements can result in a suspension of mining operations.
Reclamation
We conduct our reclamation activities for land damaged by
production in accordance with the Basic Regulation on Land
Reclamation, Removal, Preservation, and Rational Use of the
Fertile Soil Layer, approved by Order No. 525/67 of
December 22, 1995, of the Ministry of Natural Resources. In
general, our reclamation activities involve both a technical
stage and a biological stage. In the first stage, we backfill
the pits, grade and terrace mound slopes, level the surface of
the mounds, and add clay rock on top for greater adaptability of
young plants. In the biological stage, we plant conifers (pine,
larch, cedar) on horizontal and gently sloping surfaces and
shrubs and bushes to reinforce inclines. Russian environmental
regulations do not require mines to achieve the approximate
original contour of the property as is required, for example, in
the United States.
Environmental
programs
We have been developing and implementing environmental programs
at all of our mining, steel, ferroalloys and power subsidiaries.
Such programs include measures to enforce our adherence to the
requirements and limits imposed on air and water pollution, as
well as allocation of industrial waste, introduction of
environmentally friendly industrial technologies, the
construction of purification and filtering facilities, the
repair and reconstruction of industrial water supply systems,
the installation of metering systems, reforestation and the
recycling of water and industrial waste.
Kyoto
Protocol
In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the signatories to the United
Nations Convention on Climate Change established individual,
legally binding targets to limit or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by developed nations. This international agreement,
known as the Kyoto Protocol, came into force on
February 16, 2005. As of November 2007, 175 states
(including Russia) and regional economic integration
organizations (such as the European Union) had ratified the
Kyoto Protocol. We do not currently anticipate that the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will have a material impact
on our business beyond our plants in Bulgaria and Romania. All
E.U. countries, including Bulgaria and Romania, are accepting
national plans for allocation of greenhouse gas emission quotas
starting from 2008. Toplofikatsia Rousse, located in Bulgaria,
and our three Romanian companies are also obtaining greenhouse
gas emission quotas for the
2008-2012
period. According to our production program, both surpluses
within quota and quota overruns may occur. Quota overruns will
result in a requirement to acquire emission reduction units
under the E.U. Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme.
Health
and Safety Regulations in Russia
Due to the nature of our business, much of our activity is
conducted at industrial sites by large numbers of workers, and
workplace safety issues are of significant importance to the
operation of these sites.
The principal law regulating industrial safety is the Federal
Law On Industrial Safety of Dangerous Industrial
Facilities, dated July 21, 1997, as amended (the
Safety Law). The Safety Law applies, in
particular, to industrial facilities and sites where certain
activities are conducted, including sites where lifting machines
are used, where alloys of ferrous and non-ferrous metals are
produced, where hazardous substances are stored and used
(including allowed concentrations) and where certain types of
mining is done.
123
There are also regulations that address safety rules for coal
mines, the production and processing of ore, the blast-furnace
industry, steel smelting, alloy production and nickel
production. Additional safety rules also apply to certain
industries, including metallurgical and coke chemical
enterprises and the foundry industry.
Any construction, reconstruction, liquidation or other
activities in relation to regulated industrial sites is subject
to a state industrial safety review. Any deviation from project
documentation in the process of construction, reconstruction or
liquidation of industrial sites is prohibited unless reviewed by
a licensed expert organization and approved by Rostekhnadzor.
Companies that operate such industrial facilities and sites have
a wide range of obligations under the Safety Law and the Labor
Code of Russia of December 30, 2001, effective
February 1, 2002, as amended (the Labor
Code). In particular, they must limit access to such
sites to qualified specialists, maintain industrial safety
controls and carry insurance for third-party liability for
injuries caused in the course of operating industrial sites. The
Safety Law also requires these companies to enter into contracts
with professional wrecking companies or create their own
wrecking services in certain cases, conduct personnel training
programs, create systems to cope with and inform Rostekhnadzor
of accidents and maintain these systems in good working order.
In certain cases, companies operating industrial sites must also
prepare declarations of industrial safety which summarize the
risks associated with operating a particular industrial site and
measures the company has taken and will take to mitigate such
risks and use the site in accordance with applicable industrial
safety requirements. Such declarations must be adopted by the
chief executive officer of the company, who is personally
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the data
contained therein. The industrial safety declaration, as well as
a state industrial safety review, are required for the issuance
of a license permitting the operation of a dangerous industrial
facility.
Rostekhnadzor has broad authority in the field of control and
management of industrial safety. In case of an accident, a
special commission led by a representative of Rostekhnadzor
conducts a technical investigation of the cause. The company
operating the hazardous industrial facility where the accident
took place bears all costs of an investigation. Rostekhnadzor
officials have the right to access industrial sites and may
inspect documents to ensure a companys compliance with
safety rules. Rostekhnadzor may suspend for up to 90 days
or initiate a court decision to terminate operations of
companies
and/or
impose administrative liability on officers of such companies.
Any company or individual violating industrial safety rules may
incur administrative
and/or civil
liability, and individuals may also incur criminal liability. A
company that violates safety rules in a way that negatively
impacts the health of an individual may also be obligated to
compensate the individual for lost earnings, as well as
health-related damages.
Russian
Antimonopoly Regulation
The Federal Law On Protection of Competition, dated
July 26, 2006, as amended (the Competition
Law), provides for a mandatory pre-approval by the FAS
of the following actions:
|
|
|
|
|
other than in respect to financial organizations, such as banks,
an acquisition by a person (or its group) of more than 25% of
the voting shares of a joint-stock company (or one-third of the
interests in a limited liability company), except upon
incorporation, and the subsequent increase of these stakes to
more than 50% of the total number of the voting shares and more
than 75% of the voting shares (one-half and two-thirds of the
interests in a limited liability company), or acquisition by a
person (or its group) of ownership or rights of use with respect
to the core production assets
and/or
intangible assets of an entity if the balance sheet value of
such assets exceeds 20% of the total balance sheet value of the
core production and intangible assets of such entity, or
obtaining rights to determine the conditions of business
activity of an entity or to exercise the powers of its executive
body by a person (or its group), if, in any of the above cases,
the aggregate asset value of an acquirer and its group together
with a target and its group exceeds 7 billion rubles and at
the same time the total asset value of the target and its group
exceeds 250 million rubles, or the total annual revenues of
such acquirer and its
|
124
|
|
|
|
|
group, and the target and its group for the preceding calendar
year exceed 10 billion rubles and at the same time the
total asset value of the target and its group exceeds
250 million rubles, or an acquirer,
and/or a
target, or any entity within the acquirers group or a
targets group are included in the Register of Entities
Having a Market Share in Excess of 35% on a Particular Commodity
Market (the Monopoly Register);
|
|
|
|
|
|
mergers and consolidations of entities, other than financial
organizations, if their aggregate asset value (the aggregate
asset value of the groups of persons to which they belong)
exceeds 3 billion rubles, or total annual revenues of such
entities (or groups of persons to which they belong) for the
preceding calendar year exceed 6 billion rubles, or if one
of these entities is included in the Monopoly Register; and
|
|
|
|
founding of an business entity, if its charter capital is paid
by the shares (or limited liability company interests)
and/or the
assets (other than cash) of another business entity (other than
financial organization) or the newly founded business entity
acquires shares (or limited liability company interests)
and/or the
assets (other than cash) of another business entity based on a
transfer act or a separation balance sheet and rights in respect
of such shares (or limited liability company interests)
and/or
assets (excluding monetary funds) as specified above, at the
same time provided that the aggregate asset value of the
founders (or group of persons to which they belong) and the
business entities (or groups of persons to which they belong)
which shares (or limited liability company interests)
and/or
assets (other than cash) are contributed to the charter capital
of the newly founded business entity exceeds 7 billion
rubles, or total annual revenues of the founders (or group of
persons to which they belong) and the business entities (or
groups of persons to which they belong) which shares (or limited
liability company interests)
and/or
assets are contributed to the charter capital of the newly
founded business entity for the preceding calendar year exceed
10 billion rubles, or if a business entity whose shares (or
limited liability company interests)
and/or
assets (other than cash) are contributed to the charter capital
of the newly founded business entity is included in the Monopoly
Register.
|
The above requirements for a mandatory pre-approval by the FAS
will not apply if the transactions are performed by members of
the same group, if the information about such a group of persons
was disclosed to the antimonopoly authority and there were no
changes within one month prior to the date of the transaction
within that group of persons. In such cases, the FAS must be
notified of the transactions subsequently in accordance with
Russian anti-monopoly legislation. Furthermore, the requirement
for a mandatory approval of transactions described in the first
bulletpoint above will not apply if the transactions are
performed by members of the same group where a company and
individual or an entity, if such an individual or an entity
holds (either due to its participation in this company or based
on the authorities received from other persons) more than 50% of
the total amount of votes in the equity (share) capital of this
company.
The Competition Law provides for a mandatory post-transactional
notification (within 45 days of the closing) to the FAS in
connection with actions specified above if the aggregate asset
value or total annual revenues of an acquirer and its group, and
a target and its group for the preceding calendar year exceed
400 million rubles and at the same time the total asset
value of the target and its group exceeds 60 million rubles.
A transaction entered into in violation of the above
requirements may be invalidated by a court decision pursuant to
a claim brought by the FAS if the FAS proves to the court that
the transaction leads or could lead to the limitation of
competition in the relevant Russian market. The FAS may also
issue binding orders to companies that have violated the
applicable antimonopoly requirements and bring court claims
seeking liquidation,
split-up or
spin-off of business entities if a violation of antimonopoly
laws was committed by such business entities.
The
Strategic Industries Law
On April 29, 2008, the Strategic Industries Law was adopted
in Russia. It regulates foreign investments in companies with
strategic importance for the national defense and security of
the Russian Federation (Strategic Companies).
The Strategic Industries Law provides an exhaustive list of
strategic activities,
125
engagement in which makes a company subject to restrictions.
Among others, the list of such activities includes exploration
and/or
production of natural resources on subsoil plots of federal
importance. Subsoil plots of federal importance include plots
with deposits of uranium, diamonds, high-purity quartz ore,
nickel, cobalt, niobium, lithium, beryllium, tantalum,
yttrium-group rare-earth metals and platinoid metals. They also
include deposits of oil, gas, vein gold and copper which are
above certain size limits specified in the Subsoil Law, as well
as subsoil plots of the internal sea, territorial sea and
continental shelf; and subsoil plots, the use of which requires
the use of land plots included in the category of National
Defense and Security land. The List of subsoil plots of federal
importance was first officially published in Rossiyskaya
Gazeta on March 5, 2009 and amended twice since then,
on March 18, 2010 and on August 13, 2010. Services
rendered by business entities included into the register of
natural monopolies pursuant to the Federal Law On Natural
Monopolies, dated August 17, 1995, as amended, with
certain exceptions, are also considered to constitute strategic
activity. Furthermore, the activity of a business entity which
is deemed to occupy a dominant position in the production and
sale of metals and alloys with special features which are used
in production of weapons and military equipment is also deemed
to be a strategic activity. The production and distribution of
industrial explosives as well as the use of sources of
radioactivity are also deemed to be activities of strategic
importance for national defense and homeland security.
Investments resulting in a foreign investor or a group of
entities obtaining control over a Strategic Company require
prior approval from state authorities. The procedure for issuing
such consent will involve a special governmental commission on
the control of foreign investments (the Governmental
Commission), which was established by a government
resolution dated July 6, 2008 as the body responsible for
granting such consents, and the FAS, which is authorized to
process applications for consent from foreign investors and to
issue such consents based on the decisions of the Governmental
Commission. Control for these purposes means
an ability to determine, directly or indirectly, decisions taken
by a Strategic Company, whether through voting at the general
shareholders (or limited liability company
interest-holders) meeting of the Strategic Company,
participating in the board of directors or management bodies of
the Strategic Company, or acting as the external management
organization of the Strategic Company or otherwise. Thus,
generally, control will be deemed to exist if any
foreign investor or a group of entities acquires more than 50%
of the shares (or limited liability interests) of a Strategic
Company, or if by virtue of a contract or ownership of
securities with voting rights it is able to appoint more than
50% of the members of the board of directors or of the
management board of a Strategic Company. However, there are
special provisions for Strategic Companies involved in the
exploration or production of natural resources on plots of
federal importance (Subsoil Strategic
Companies): a foreign investor or group of entities is
considered to have control over a Subsoil Strategic Company when
such foreign investor or group of entities holds directly or
indirectly 10% or more of the voting shares of the Subsoil
Strategic Company or holds the right to appoint its sole
executive officer
and/or 10%
or more of its management board or has the unconditional right
to elect 10% or more of its board of directors.
Furthermore, in case a foreign investor or its group of entities
which is a holder of securities of a Strategic Company, Subsoil
Strategic Company or other entity which exercises control over
these companies becomes a direct or indirect holder of voting
shares in amount which is considered to give them direct or
indirect control over these companies in accordance with the
Strategic Industries Law due to a change in the allocation of
votes resulting from the procedures provided by Russian law
(e.g. as a result of a buy-back by the relevant company of its
shares, conversion of preferred shares into common shares or
holders of preferred shares becoming entitled to vote at a
general shareholders meeting in cases provided by Russian law),
such shareholders will have to apply for state approval of their
control within three months of receiving such control. If the
Governmental Commission refuses to grant the approval the
shareholders shall sell the relevant part of their respective
shares or participatory interest, and if they do not comply with
this requirement, a Russian court can deprive such foreign
investor or its group of entities of the voting rights in such
Strategic Company upon a claim of the competent authority. In
such cases, the shares of the foreign investor are not counted
for the purposes of establishing a quorum and reaching the
required voting threshold at the general shareholders
meeting of the Strategic Company.
126
If a foreign investor or its group of entities obtains control
over a Strategic Company in violation of the Strategic
Industries Law, the relevant transaction is void, and in certain
cases a Russian court can deprive such foreign investor or group
of entities of the voting rights in such Strategic Company upon
a claim by the competent authority. In addition, resolutions of
the general shareholders meetings or other management
bodies of a Strategic Company adopted after a foreign investor
or group of entities obtained control over the Strategic Company
in violation of the Strategic Industries Law, as well as
transactions entered into by the Strategic Company after
obtaining such control, may be held invalid by a court upon a
claim by the competent authority. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to the Russian Federation Legal risks and
uncertainties Expansion of limitations on foreign
investment in strategic sectors could affect our ability to
attract
and/or
retain foreign investments.
Employment
and Labor Regulations in Russia
Labor matters in Russia are governed primarily by the Labor
Code. In addition to this core legislation, relationships
between employers and employees are regulated by federal laws,
such as the Law On Employment in the Russian
Federation, dated April 19, 1991, as amended, and the
Law On Compulsory Social Insurance Against Industrial
Accidents and Occupational Diseases, dated July 24,
1998, as amended; legal acts of executive authorities; and local
government acts related to labor issues.
Employment
contracts
As a general rule, employment contracts for an indefinite term
are entered into with all employees. Russian labor legislation
generally disfavors fixed-term employment contracts. However, an
employment contract may be entered into for a fixed term of up
to five years in certain cases where labor relations may not be
established for an indefinite term due to the nature of the
duties or the conditions of the performance of such duties, as
well as in other cases expressly identified by the Labor Code or
other federal law. In some cases it is also possible to enter
into an employment contract for the employee to perform
specified tasks. All terms and conditions of employment
contracts are regulated by the Labor Code.
Under Russian law, employment may be terminated by mutual
agreement between the employer and the employee at the end of
the term of a fixed-term employment contract or on the grounds
set out in the Labor Code as described below. An employee has
the right to terminate his or her employment contract with a
minimum of two weeks notice (or one months notice
for a companys chief executive officer), unless the
employment contract is terminated before the notice period ends
by mutual agreement between employer and employee.
An employer may terminate an employment contract only on the
basis of the specific grounds enumerated in the Labor Code,
including but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
liquidation of the enterprise or downsizing of staff;
|
|
|
|
failure of the employee to comply with the positions
requirements due to incompetence, as confirmed by the results of
an attestation;
|
|
|
|
repeated failure of the employee to fulfill his or her work
duties without valid reason, provided that the employee has been
disciplined previously;
|
|
|
|
entering the workplace under the influence of alcohol, narcotics
or other intoxicating substances;
|
|
|
|
a single gross breach by an employee of his or her work duties,
including truancy;
|
|
|
|
disclosure of state secrets or other confidential information,
which an employee has come to know during fulfillment of his
professional duties;
|
|
|
|
embezzlement, willful damage or destruction of assets, and
misappropriation as confirmed by a court decision or a decision
by another competent government authority;
|
127
|
|
|
|
|
failure to comply with safety requirements in the workplace if
such failure to comply caused injuries, casualties or
catastrophe; and
|
|
|
|
provision by the employee of false documents upon entry into the
employment contract.
|
An employee dismissed from an enterprise due to downsizing or
liquidation is entitled to receive compensation and salary
payments for a certain period of time, depending on the
circumstances.
The Labor Code also provides protections for specified
categories of employees. For example, except in cases of
liquidation of an enterprise and other events specified in the
Labor Code, an employer cannot dismiss minors, pregnant women,
mothers with a child under the age of three, single mothers with
a child under the age of 14 or other persons caring for a child
under the age of 14 without a mother.
Any termination by an employer that is inconsistent with the
Labor Code requirements may be invalidated by a court, and the
employee may be reinstated. Lawsuits resulting in the
reinstatement of illegally dismissed employees and the payment
of damages for wrongful dismissal are increasingly frequent, and
Russian courts tend to support employees rights in most
cases. Where an employee is reinstated by a court, the employer
must compensate the employee for unpaid salary for the period
between the wrongful termination and reinstatement, as well as
for mental distress.
Work
time
The Labor Code generally sets the regular working week at
40 hours. Any time worked beyond 40 hours per week, as
well as work on public holidays and weekends, must be
compensated at a higher rate.
For employees working in hazardous or harmful conditions, the
regular working week is decreased by four hours in accordance
with government regulations. Some of our production employees
qualify for this reduced working week.
Annual paid vacation leave under the law is 28 calendar days.
Our employees who work in mines and pits or work in harmful
conditions may be entitled to additional paid vacation ranging
from 7 to 42 working days.
The retirement age in the Russian Federation is 60 years
for males and 55 years for females. However, employees who
work in underground and open pit mines or do other work in
potentially harmful conditions have the right to retire at an
earlier age. The rules defining such early retirement ages are
established by the Federal Law On Labor Pensions in the
Russian Federation, dated December 17, 2001, as
amended.
Salary
The minimum monthly salary in Russia, as established by federal
law, is 4,330 rubles. Although the law requires that the minimum
wage be at or above a minimum subsistence level, the current
minimum wage is generally considered to be less than a minimum
subsistence level.
Strikes
The Labor Code defines a strike as the temporary and voluntary
refusal of workers to fulfill their work duties with the
intention of settling a collective labor dispute. Russian
legislation contains several requirements for legal strikes.
Participation in a legal strike may not be considered by an
employer as grounds for terminating an employment contract,
although employers are generally not required to pay wages to
striking employees for the duration of the strike. Participation
in an illegal strike may be adequate grounds for termination of
employment.
Trade
unions
Although Russian labor regulations have decreased the authority
of trade unions compared with the past, they retain influence
over employees and, as such, may affect the operations of large
industrial companies in
128
Russia, such as Mechel. In this regard, our management routinely
interacts with trade unions in order to ensure the appropriate
treatment of our employees and the stability of our business.
The activities of trade unions are generally governed by the
Federal Law On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees
of Their Activity, dated January 12, 1996, as amended
(the Trade Union Law). Other applicable legal
acts include the Labor Code, which provides for more detailed
regulations relating to activities of trade unions.
The Trade Union Law defines a trade union as a voluntary union
of individuals with common professional and other interests that
is incorporated for the purposes of representing and protecting
the rights and interests of its members. National trade union
associations, which coordinate activities of trade unions
throughout Russia, are also permitted.
As part of their activities, trade unions may:
|
|
|
|
|
negotiate collective contracts and agreements such as those
between the trade unions and employers, federal, regional and
local governmental authorities and other entities;
|
|
|
|
monitor compliance with labor laws, collective contracts and
other agreements;
|
|
|
|
access work sites and offices, and request information relating
to labor issues from the management of companies and state and
municipal authorities;
|
|
|
|
represent their members and other employees in individual and
collective labor disputes with management;
|
|
|
|
organize and participate in strikes; and
|
|
|
|
monitor redundancy of employees and seek action by municipal
authorities to delay or suspend mass layoffs.
|
Russian laws require that companies cooperate with trade unions
and do not interfere with their activities. Trade unions and
their officers enjoy certain guarantees as well, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
legal restrictions as to rendering redundant employees elected
or appointed to the management of trade unions;
|
|
|
|
protection from disciplinary punishment or dismissal on the
initiative of the employer without prior consent of the
management of the trade union and, in certain circumstances, the
consent of the relevant trade union association;
|
|
|
|
retention of job positions for those employees who stop working
due to their election to the management of trade unions;
|
|
|
|
protection from dismissal for employees who previously served in
the management of a trade union for two years after the
termination of the office term, except where a company is
liquidated or the employer is otherwise entitled to dismiss the
employee; and
|
|
|
|
provision of necessary equipment, premises and vehicles by the
employer for use by the trade union free of charge, if provided
for by a collective bargaining contract or other agreement.
|
If a trade union discovers any violation of work condition
requirements, notification is sent to the employer with a
request to cure the violation and to suspend work if there is an
immediate threat to the lives or health of employees. The trade
union may also apply to state authorities and labor inspectors
and prosecutors to ensure that an employer does not violate
Russian labor laws. Trade unions may also initiate collective
labor disputes, which may lead to strikes.
To initiate a collective labor dispute, trade unions present
their demands to the employer. The employer is then obliged to
consider the demands and notify the trade union of its decision.
If the dispute remains unresolved, a reconciliation commission
attempts to end the dispute. If this proves unsuccessful,
collective labor disputes are generally referred to mediation or
labor arbitration. Although the Trade Union Law provides
129
that those who violate the rights and guarantees provided to
trade unions and their officers may be subject to disciplinary,
administrative and criminal liability, no specific consequences
for such violations are set out in Russian legislation.
Regulation
of Russian Electricity Market
Industry
background
The Russian utilities sector landscape has undergone dramatic
changes within the past several years, since the introduction of
electricity industry reform under Government Resolution On
Restructuring of Electricity Industry of the Russian
Federation No. 526 dated July 11, 2001
(Resolution No. 526). The monopoly RAO
Unified Energy System of Russia OAO (the UES)
was liquidated and separated in to separate businesses:
electricity and heat generation, transmission (high voltage
trunk grid), distribution (medium- and low-voltage
infrastructure) and supply (sale of electricity to customers).
The electricity generation sector is now principally comprised
of six thermal wholesale generating companies (called
OGKs based on the Russian acronym for Wholesale
Generating Company), one hydro wholesale generating company
(named RusHydro), 14 territorial generating companies
(TGKs), RAO Eastern Energy Systems OAO, Inter
RAO OAO, various nuclear generation complexes (owned
and/or
operated by the Rosenergoatom Concern OJSC), as well as a number
of independent regional diversified electricity producers and
suppliers (Irkutskenergo OAO, Bashkirenergo OAO, Tatenergo OAO,
Novosibirskenergo OAO).
Sales
of electricity
The Russian electricity market consists of wholesale and retail
electricity and capacity markets. The wholesale electricity and
capacity market encompasses European territory of the Russian
Federation, Urals and Siberia. This market provides a framework
for large-scale, often interregional, energy trades. The retail
electricity market operates within all Russian regional
territories and provides a framework for mid-scale and
end-consumer energy trades. This market is regulated by the
respective Regional Energy Committees (the
RECs).
Wholesale
electricity market
The wholesale market is a system of contractual relationships
between all of its participants linked together by the process
of production, transmission, distribution, purchase and sale and
consumption of electricity. This unified energy system
encompasses six regional unified energy systems, which are the
following: North-West, Central, Urals, Mid-Volga, South and
Siberia.
The wholesale market participants mainly include:
|
|
|
|
|
producers of electricity and capacity: generating companies
(OGKs, TGKs and various other generators);
|
|
|
|
electricity supply companies (energy traders) which have
purchased electricity and capacity for further resale on
wholesale and retail markets; and
|
|
|
|
purchasers of electricity and capacity: major power consumers
and generating companies which at certain points in time may
elect to purchase electricity to fulfill their supply
obligations instead of generating their own.
|
The infrastructure of the wholesale market is operated by the
Non-commercial Partnership Market Council and the Trade System
Administrator OAO (the TSA) which organize
the trading; a system operator established in the form of an
open joint-stock company (the System
Operator) by the former UES; the Federal Grid Company
(the FGK), which owns and runs the federal
transmission network of the electric grids; OAO Holding MRSK,
which owns and runs region transmission networks of the electric
grids; and the Financial Settlement Center ZAO, which is a
clearance and settlement organization for the wholesale
electricity and capacity market.
130
Currently electricity is traded on the basis of the following
trading mechanisms:
Regulated bilateral contracts
Regulated contracts are effectively
take-or-pay
obligations at regulated prices defined by the Federal Tariff
Service (the FTS) for electricity and
capacity volumes. The volumes of electricity to be traded by the
generators under regulated contracts are set up by the FTS
annually based on percentages of the volumes of electricity
generated in the previous year. Under Government Resolution
No. 205 dated April 7, 2007, the volumes of
electricity to be traded under regulated contracts are to
gradually decline for the wholesale market to become fully
liberalized by the year 2011. The volumes of electricity to be
traded under regulated contracts in 2010 are set at 35% to 40%
for the first half of 2010 and at 15% to 20% for the remainder
of 2010. Starting from January 1, 2011, electricity is
traded at non-regulated prices, except for electricity intended
for supply to households.
A generator may provide the volumes of electricity it must sell
under regulated contracts either through own generation or
through the purchase of electricity on the spot market at market
prices. Similarly, its customers receive electricity at
regulated prices in the volumes agreed under the regulated
contracts, regardless of their actual needs, and can freely
trade the imbalance on the spot market at market prices (either
by purchasing additional volumes, if needed, or selling the
excess electricity volumes).
Non-regulated bilateral contracts
Electricity supply volumes which are not agreed upon under
regulated contracts, as well as all new generation capacity
commissioned after January 1, 2007, can be traded by
participants of the wholesale market under non-regulated
contracts, on the
one-day-ahead
spot market or on the balancing market. All terms of electricity
supply under non-regulated contracts are subject to free
negotiation between sellers and purchasers.
Retail
electricity market
The retail market currently includes sales companies that do not
generate electricity, but purchase it from generators on the
wholesale market.
The retail electricity market operates on the following main
principles: (1) end consumers are free to choose between
sales companies; (2) end consumers purchase at free prices
set on the market, except for contracts with guaranteeing
suppliers; and (3) guaranteeing suppliers
cannot refuse to enter into a contract with an end consumer.
Guaranteeing suppliers sell electricity under prices
that take account of: (1) the prices on the wholesale
electricity market; (2) the sales premium of the particular
guaranteeing supplier set by respective regional authorities;
and (3) the prices for electricity transmission through
regional networks.
Heat
market
Heat markets are regional retail markets and heat prices are
regulated and set within the general guidelines provided by the
FTS and by regional authorities. Minimum and maximum prices for
heat energy traded on the retail markets are set by the FTS
separately for each administrative region of Russia for a period
of at least one year. Regional authorities establish the prices
for relevant territories within the range set by the FTS and
subject to the types and prices of fuel used to produce the heat
and the volumes of heat purchased on the relevant territory.
Our Southern Kuzbass Power Plant delivers heat energy (in the
form of hot water) at regulated prices to residential and
commercial customers in Kaltan and Osinniki. Mechel-Energo
delivers heat energy (in the form of hot water and steam) at
regulated prices to residential and commercial customers in the
cities of Vidnoe, Chelyabinsk, Chebarkul, Beloretsk, Guryevsk,
Mezhdurechensk, Myski and Izhevsk.
U.S. Environmental, Health, Safety and Related
Regulation
The Bluestone companies, like the rest of the coal mining
industry in the United States, are subject to a variety of
federal, state and local laws and regulations with respect to
matters such as: the pollution,
131
protection, investigation, reclamation and restoration of the
environment, human and animal health and safety, and natural
resources; the use, generation, handling, transport, treatment,
storage, recycling, disposal, presence, release and threatened
release of and exposure to hazardous substances or waste; noise,
odor, mold, dust and nuisance; and cultural and historic
resources, land use and other similar matters. We are required
to incur significant costs to comply with these requirements.
Violators of the laws summarized below may generally be subject
to fines, in most cases applicable on a per day, per violation
basis. In some cases even seemingly minor violations may add up
to significant penalties. In addition, most
U.S. environmental, health and safety laws authorize
citizen suits, permitting third parties to make claims for
violations of law.
We endeavor to conduct our operations in compliance with all
applicable regulatory requirements, but violations may occur
from time to time. If we fail to comply with any present or
future regulations, we could be subject to liabilities, required
changes to or the suspension or curtailment of operations, and
fines and penalties. In addition, such regulations would
restrict our ability to expand our facilities or could require
us to acquire costly equipment or incur other significant
expenses. Often, private suits for personal injury, property
damage or diminution, or similar claims may be initiated in
connection with alleged regulatory infractions.
Certain environmental laws impose liability for the costs of
removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on an
owner, occupier or operator of real estate, even if such person
or company was unaware of or not responsible for the presence of
such substances. Soil and groundwater contamination may have
occurred at, near or arising from some of our facilities,
including instances in which contamination may have existed
prior to our ownership or occupation of a site. As a result, we
may incur cleanup costs in such potential removal, remediation
or reclamation efforts.
From time to time new legislation or regulations are enacted, or
existing requirements are changed, and it is difficult to
anticipate how such regulations will be implemented and
enforced. We continue to evaluate the necessary steps for
compliance with regulations as they are enacted.
The following is a summary of various U.S. environmental,
health and safety and similar regulations that we believe have a
material impact on our U.S. coal business in West Virginia.
Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act and corresponding West
Virginia law
The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which is
administered by the U.S. Department of Interiors
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
establishes mining, environmental protection and reclamation
requirements for all aspects of surface mining, as well as many
aspects of underground mining. States that have adopted
comprehensive mining regulatory programs may obtain federal
approval and become the regulatory authority with primary
control and enforcement of these standards. The West Virginia
Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act
(SCMRA) was enacted as an approved state
program for administration of the federal Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act.
SCMRA and the rules promulgated thereunder set forth detailed
design, construction, reclamation and performance standards for
surface and underground mines that parallel the requirements of
the federal regulations. SCMRA prohibits any person from
engaging in surface mining operations without a permit from the
state Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). Permit requirements generally track,
but are not identical to, the federal regulations. The state
regulations, for example, contain special procedures for
ascertaining the ownership, control and compliance status of the
applicant. In addition, provisions relating to bonding,
prospecting and inactive status differ from the federal
regulations.
Underground coal mining operations must also maintain permits
for their above-ground effects. Permit requirements include
submitting a subsidence control plan that describes the type of
mining to be conducted and its probable surface impacts. The
plan must generally include measures to minimize subsidence and
related damages.
Administrative enforcement provisions include civil penalties,
cessation orders and permit revocation. Appeals from DEP actions
are heard by the Surface Mining Board and limited judicial
review is available
132
upon appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the mine
is located. Suits by private citizens may also be brought to
obtain injunctions or damages.
Prospecting activity must be preceded by a notice of intent to
prospect. Where more than a specified amount of coal is to be
removed, public notice and an opportunity for comments must be
given before obtaining the required approval from DEP.
Under SCMRA, surface mining operations must also comply with
monitoring requirements and effluent limitations set forth in
the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the state Water
Pollution Control Act requires that a permit be obtained to
construct, install, modify, reopen, operate or abandon any mine,
quarry or preparation plant from which any discharges or
pollution are expected. See below for further discussion of the
Clean Water Act and other water related regulatory issues.
Like its federal counterpart, SCMRA also provides for the
designation of certain areas as unsuitable for all or certain
types of surface mining.
The West Virginia Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Act,
created pursuant to Title IV of SCMRA, establishes an
abandoned mine reclamation fund for reclamation and restoration
activities and preventive and remedial measures associated with
past mining.
Surety
bonds and mine closure costs
Federal and state laws require mining operations to obtain
surety bonds or other forms of financial security to secure
payment of certain long-term obligations, including mine closure
and reclamation costs, state workers compensation costs
and other miscellaneous obligations. Many of these bonds are
renewable on an annual basis. In recent years, surety bond
premiums have increased and the market terms of surety bonds
have generally become less favorable. The number of companies
willing to issue surety bonds has also declined. In addition,
the DEP has increasingly required that reclamation bonds be
posted in the form of certificates of deposit or other
cash-backed securities. We cannot predict with certainty our
future ability to obtain, or the cost of, bonds that may be
required for our U.S. coal operations.
Mine
safety and health
The U.S. coal mining industry is subject to extensive and
comprehensive regulation with respect to worker health and
safety. In 1977 the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (the
Act) consolidated all federal health and
safety regulations of the mining industry (coal and non-coal)
under a single statutory scheme. The Act strengthened and
expanded the rights of miners, and enhanced the protection of
miners from retaliation for exercising those rights. The Act
also created the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA), which administers the provisions of
the Act and enforces compliance with mandatory safety and health
standards. MSHA has authority over all mining and mineral
processing operations in the United States, regardless of size,
number of employees, commodity mined or method of extraction.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
independently reviews MSHAs enforcement actions. West
Virginia also maintains a program for mine safety and health
regulation, inspection and enforcement.
In response to certain highly publicized mine incidents in
recent years, legislative and regulatory bodies at the federal
and state levels, including MSHA, have promulgated or proposed
various new statutes, regulations and policies relating to mine
safety and mine emergencies, including the federal MINER Act
passed in 2006 and the recently proposed S-MINER Act. Some of
the new obligations include, for example, improved technologies
and safety practices, tracking and communication, emergency
response plans and equipment. In addition, federal black lung
benefits laws and coal industry health benefits laws, among
others, may impact us. Regulatory efforts in this area are
ongoing. At this time, it is not possible to predict with
accuracy the full effect of new and future U.S. mine health
and safety regulation on our business.
Clean
Air Act (CAA)
The CAA and corresponding state rules regulate emissions of
materials into the air and affect our U.S. coal operations
both directly and indirectly. Certain sources of air
pollution, for example, including
133
coal preparation and processing operations, must obtain and
maintain operating permits, which are generally reviewed every
five years and contain compliance requirements such as
compliance certification, testing, monitoring, reporting and
record-keeping. Such operations are also subject to emission
restrictions, including for particulate matter and fugitive
dust. The CAA also indirectly affects coal mining operations by
extensively regulating the emissions of coal-fueled power plants
and industrial boilers. In general, there has been increased
interest in recent years in legislation focused on power plant
emissions. Construction of new sources of air pollution
(including in some cases reconstruction and modification of
existing sources) also triggers preconstruction review and
approval by authorities, with typically more stringent control
technology and permitting requirements.
Some of the CAA requirements that may materially directly or
indirectly affect our operations are briefly described below.
West Virginia has also promulgated regulations relating to acid
rain, emissions limitations for specific pollutants, and permit
standards for the construction, major modification or relocation
of major stationary sources of air pollution. Standards
governing air pollution from coal refuse disposal, coal
preparation plants, coal handling operations and ambient air
quality for particular pollutants, as well as procedures
relating to air pollution emergencies, are also established
under the state regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Acid rain. One of the regulatory programs
established under the CAA concerns the control of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide (NOx), precursors of acid
deposition. Through an emission allowance and trading program,
Title IV of the CAA imposes a two-phase cap on
total sulfur dioxide emissions from sources including electric
utilities. All of the Phase I and Phase II allowances
offered by EPA have been purchased each year since there is no
minimum bid requirement. In general, affected power plants have
also sought to comply with these requirements by switching to
lower sulfur fuels, installing pollution control equipment, and
reducing electricity generation levels. The program also directs
EPA to impose NOx emissions rate limits on coal-fired
electricity generating sources. At this time, we believe that
these regulations have affected coal prices but we cannot
predict with certainty the future effect of these CAA provisions
on our business.
|
|
|
|
Emissions standards for particulate matter and
ozone. A significant component of the CAA is the
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
program, which addresses pervasive pollution that endangers
public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for a
number of pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone.
For each of these pollutants, NAAQS are set at certain levels
and areas that do not meet one or more of the NAAQS are known as
non-attainment areas and must comply with a number
of special requirements. NAAQS are to be reviewed and revised as
appropriate at least every five years. In recent years EPA has
made a number of decisions regarding the NAAQS program that have
been the subject of controversy and litigation, and may have
important implications for future regulation under the CAA.
Regulation and enforcement of new standards for particulate
matter and ozone will affect many power plants, especially in
non-attainment areas, and significant emissions control
expenditures may be required to meet these current and emerging
standards.
|
|
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule. The Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) is a program for
approximately 28 eastern states, including West Virginia,
that contribute to downwind states nonattainment of NAAQS.
CAIR applies to sulfur dioxide and NOx. It interacts with, and
in some cases supersedes, other existing programs under the CAA
such as the Acid Rain program, the Regional Haze rule and the
NOx SIP Call. The CAIR requires states to revise their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide and NOx. The CAIR has been the
subject of litigation since its promulgation, which resulted
ultimately in it being vacated by a federal appeal court. It is
currently unclear how EPA will modify the CAIR in response. The
existing CAIR, however, is generally expected to require many
coal-fueled power plants to install additional pollution control
equipment or to incur other costs, and further changes to the
CAIR rules may increase these burdens. All of the foregoing
could adversely affect the purchase of our coal by customers.
|
|
|
|
Clean Air Mercury Rule. In 2005, the Clean Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR) became the first
regulation to directly address mercury contamination. The rule
would have applied to new and existing coal-fueled electric
utility steam generating units nationwide and creates a
cap-and-trade
system. Each affected unit
|
134
|
|
|
|
|
would be required to have a continuous emission monitoring
system or an effective long-term system that can trap an
uninterrupted sample of mercury, and maintain records and report
periodically to demonstrate compliance with the mercury limits.
The rule, however, was recently vacated during litigation, and
EPA has announced plans for a new rule. Separate state standards
may also be passed. Regardless of whether these or other
measures are implemented, rules imposing stricter limitations on
mercury emissions from power plants may adversely affect the
demand for coal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional haze. EPA has initiated a regional
haze program to address visibility issues in and around national
parks and wilderness areas. Among other things, the program
requires state permitting authorities to consider the effects of
new major facilities on federally protected lands, and may
require existing facilities to undertake additional pollution
control measures. These limitations could affect the future
market for coal.
|
Climate
change
A major by-product of burning coal is carbon dioxide, which is
considered a greenhouse gas and generally a source of concern in
connection with global warming and climate change. Regulation of
greenhouse gases in the United States is currently subject to
complicated domestic and international political, policy and
economic pressures. As climate change issues become more
prevalent, the U.S. and other governments are seeking to
respond to these concerns.
For example, in 2007 the United States Supreme Court confirmed
that EPA has authority to classify carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases as pollutants and regulate them under the CAA.
On December 15, 2009, EPA issued an
endangerment finding that carbon dioxide and five
other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare.
Together with other proposed rules, this could establish a basis
for direct regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from many
sources, including coal-fueled power plants. In addition, on
October 30, 2009, EPA published a final rule on greenhouse
gas emissions reporting, which would cover a wide range of
sources including electricity generation. Although coal mines
were excluded from this mandatory reporting obligation in the
final rule, EPA had originally proposed to include such
upstream sources in the regulation and has indicated
that it will be revisiting that proposal in 2010. On the
legislative side, the proposed federal Clean Energy and Security
Act of 2009 was recently introduced in the U.S. Congress
that would require national reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and would require utilities to generate a certain
percentage of their electricity supply from renewable sources. A
number of state and regional greenhouse gas initiatives are also
being developed. Thus, on May 13, 2010, EPA issued a final
rule that establishes thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHZ)
emissions. This rule defines when permits under the New Source
Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PAD) and
Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and
existing industrial facilities. This final rule
tailors the requirements of these CAVA permitting
programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain
PAD and Title V permits, generally to those with a
potential to emit 25,000 tons per year or more. This
includes coal-fueled power plants and other coal-fueled
industrial production facilities. This means that although we
may not be directly affected by this new permitting initiative
in the near term, our customers could be.
This increasing governmental focus on global warming could
result in new environmental regulations that may negatively
affect us and our customers. Future regulation of greenhouse
gases in the United States could occur pursuant to future
U.S. treaty obligations, regulatory changes under the CAA
or other existing legislation, federal, state or regional
adoption of greenhouse gas regulatory schemes, or any
combination of the foregoing or otherwise. This could cause us
to incur additional direct costs in complying with any new
regulations, as well as increased indirect costs resulting from
our customers incurring additional compliance costs and
potentially reducing their consumption of coal. These costs may
materially adversely impact our U.S. coal operations.
Clean
Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)
The CWA establishes a number of programs designed to restore and
protect the quality of U.S. waters by eliminating the
discharge of pollutants into surface waters. These programs
include the National Pollutant
135
Discharge Elimination System permit program
(NPDES), the dredge and fill permit program
and municipal wastewater treatment programs. Coal extraction and
related activities subject to the West Virginia SCMRA and Water
Pollution Control Act are exempt from certain of these
requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
The NPDES system implements CWAs prohibition on
unauthorized discharges by requiring a permit for every
discharge of pollutants from a point source to navigable waters
of the United States. NPDES permits give the permittee the right
to discharge specified pollutants from specified outfalls,
usually for a period of five years. The permit normally sets
numerical limits on the discharges and imposes conditions on the
permittee (including filing periodic discharge and monitoring
reports); discharges that require a permit include industrial
process wastewater, non-contact cooling water and collected or
channeled storm water runoff. The CWA also requires many
facilities to develop and maintain plans for preventing and
responding to spills of hazardous substances, called Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plans, and certain high-volume hazardous substance
handling/storage facilities are required to prepare and maintain
a more extensive plan called a Facility Response Plan.
|
|
|
|
EPA has delegated NPDES permitting authority to West Virginia.
West Virginia water pollution law is generally broader than that
of its federal counterparts. For example, among other things,
state law regulates discharges into all waters of the state,
including groundwater, and requires permits for the construction
of disposal systems.
|
|
|
|
Coal companies are required to obtain CWA 404 Permits from the
Corps generally authorizing the disposal of fill material from
coal mining activities into the waters of the United States, for
the purpose of creating slurry ponds, water impoundments, refuse
disposal areas, valley fills for excess spoil disposal, and
other mining activities. 404 Permits have been the subject of
repeated court challenges, and in recent years both
nationwide and individual permits have
been invalidated, including in West Virginia. Although it is
still possible to receive such permits, since implementation of
a new federal oversight initiative in June 2009, very few 404
Permits have been issued. It is widely expected that some
pending 404 Permit applications will be denied, or that EPA will
exercise its Clean Water Act veto authority over some 404
Permits that are issued by the Corps. Although the Company has
no immediate need for new 404 Permits to continue its current
mining operations in the short term, some of its future mine
plans (including the continuation of existing mines) would
require the issuance of such permits to proceed. It is difficult
to predict whether, in light of the regulatory environment, such
404 Permits will be issued to us in the future. If we cannot
obtain them, our coal production operations in the coming years
could be subject to substantial disruption.
|
|
|
|
On April 1, 2010, EPA issued a Memorandum entitled
Detailed Guidance: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian
Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice
Executive Order (Detailed Guidance).
The Detailed Guidance was directed to (among others) the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region 3 (the federal office with
oversight authority over West Virginias NPDES program). It
applies only to coal mining operations. The Detailed Guidance
suggests that the EPA Regional Administrator should exercise his
authority to object to any NPDES permit application for a coal
mining operation that does not ensure that discharges will be
kept below 500 muS/cm conductivity a standard that,
according to several knowledgeable sources, cannot be met for
the great majority of mining operations. In addition, EPA Region
3 is now exercising its authority to review all proposed NPDES
permits and permit re-issuances for mining operations in West
Virginia. Because of this, and due to a new West Virginia DEP
policy on implementation of the States narrative water
quality standards, the issuance of new and renewed NPDES permits
in West Virginia has been substantially curtailed
and/or
delayed. It is, as a consequence, not possible to predict with
any certainty the ability of mining companies to obtain required
NPDES permits for new or expanded mining operations, or renewed
permits, or the timing of same.
|
|
|
|
SDWA primarily targets public water systems, which generally
includes any system for the provision of water to the public for
human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances
if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly
serves at least 25 individuals. This broad
|
136
|
|
|
|
|
definition can include informal and transient water systems
(e.g., businesses such as coal mining operations having their
own wells or water supplies for
on-site
workers). West Virginia state law prohibits the installation or
establishment of any system or method of drainage, water supply
or sewage disposal without first obtaining a permit from the
Bureau of Public Health. The Department of Health and Human
Resources has promulgated rules which adopt the National
Drinking Water Regulations under the SDWA. These rules, among
other things, require chlorination of public water systems and
set fluorination standards.
|
Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
CERCLA is designed to address comprehensively the problems
associated with contaminated land, especially inactive and
abandoned hazardous waste sites, listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Many states
maintain analogous programs.
|
|
|
|
|
CERCLAs central provisions authorize EPA to clean up these
sites using money from the so-called Superfund
(generated by tax revenues) and then to recover the cleanup
costs from so-called potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) who have contributed to the
contamination. In addition, private parties may implement
EPA-approved cleanups.
|
|
|
|
Under CERCLA a PRPs liability is strict, joint, several
and retroactive; in other words, liability may be imposed
regardless of fault, may relate to historical activities or
contamination, may require one party to bear the costs of the
entire cleanup and has no requirement that the partys
activities or hazardous substances have actually caused the
contamination. Categories of liable parties under CERCLA include
current owners, lessees and operators, former owners, lessees
and operators, waste generators or arrangers, and transporters.
Accordingly, it is possible for us to become subject to
investigation or cleanup obligations (or related third-party
claims) in connection with onsite or offsite contamination
issues, including those caused by predecessors.
|
|
|
|
CERCLA contains a cost recovery provision generally
authorizing one PRP to initiate a private claim against another
PRP for cleanup liabilities.
|
Other
U.S. environmental, health and safety laws
We are or may be required to comply with a number of additional
federal, state and local environmental, health, safety and
similar requirements in addition to those discussed above,
including, for example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA), Occupational Safety and Health
Act (OSHA), Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and others.
EU
REACH
On 1 June 2007, the European Union enacted regulations on
the registration, evaluation, authorization and restrictions on
the use of chemicals, known as REACH. The purpose of REACH is to
ensure a high level of protection of human health and the
environment, including the promotion of alternative methods of
assessment of hazards of chemical substances.
REACH requires foreign manufacturers importing their chemical
substances into the European Union, as well as E.U.
manufacturers producing such substances in quantities of one
tonne or more per year, to register these substances with the
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). To comply
with REACH requirements, we have created dedicated internal
working groups, procured external consultants advice and
budgeted for REACH procedures expenses. We pre-registered with
the ECHA substantially all of the substances that we export to
or produce in the European Union prior to December 1, 2008.
As a next step, we successfully registered with the ECHA the
substances that we export to or produce in the European Union in
amount over 1000 metric tonnes per year, and which are subject
to REACH registration, namely: ferroalloys, coke-chemicals and
pig iron exported to the European Union, and mill scale produced
at Romanian steel mills. This registration was completed prior
to December 1, 2010 in compliance with REACH implementation
schedule.
137
Currently we are preparing for the next stage of the
registration process. We intend to complete the registration
process within the relevant deadlines.
|
|
Item 4A.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
|
|
Item 5.
|
Operating
and Financial Review and Prospects
|
The following discussion of our financial condition and
results of operations should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and the related notes and
other information in this document. This Item 5 contains
forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.
Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed in
forward-looking statements as a result of various factors,
including the risks described in Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors and under the caption Cautionary
Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.
In this Item 5, the term domestic describes
sales by a subsidiary within the country where its operations
are located. The term export describes cross-border
sales by a subsidiary regardless of its location. See
note 23 to our consolidated financial statements.
History
of Incorporation
Mechel OAO was incorporated on March 19, 2003, as a
joint-stock company holding shares and interests in the charter
capitals of various mining and steel companies owned by
Igor Zyuzin, Vladimir Iorich and companies controlled
by them. These individuals acted in concert from 1995 until
December 2006 pursuant to an Ownership, Control and Voting
Agreement which required them to vote in the same way. During
the period from March through December 2006, Mr. Iorich
disposed of his entire interest in Mechel OAO to
Mr. Zyuzin, and the Ownership, Control and Voting Agreement
terminated on December 21, 2006.
Business
Structure
Segments
We have organized our businesses into four segments:
|
|
|
|
|
the mining segment, comprising the production and sale of coal
(metallurgical and steam), coke and coking products, iron ore
and limestone, which supplies raw materials to our steel segment
and also sells substantial amounts of raw materials to third
parties, and includes logistical assets, such as our seaports on
the Sea of Japan and on the Sea of Azov and our railway
transportation assets;
|
|
|
|
the steel segment, comprising the production and sale of
semi-finished steel products, carbon and specialty long
products, carbon and stainless flat products, value-added
downstream metal products including wire products, forgings and
stampings, and our river port on the Kama River, a tributary of
the Volga River;
|
|
|
|
the ferroalloys segment, comprising the production and sale of
nickel ore, low-ferrous ferronickel, ferrochrome and
ferrosilicon, which supplies raw materials to our steel segment
and also sells substantial amounts of raw materials to third
parties; and
|
|
|
|
the power segment, comprising power generating facilities, which
supply power to our mining, steel and ferroalloys segments and
also sells a portion of the power generated to third parties,
and a power distribution company.
|
138
The table below sets forth by segment our key mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power subsidiaries, presented in chronological
order by date of acquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date Control
|
|
Voting
|
|
Name
|
|
Location of Assets
|
|
Product/Business
|
|
Acquired
|
|
Interest(1)%
|
|
|
Mining Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coking coal concentrate, steam coal, steam coal concentrate,
anthracite concentrate, PCI coal
|
|
January 1999
|
|
|
96.6
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coking coal, steam coal
|
|
January 1999
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
October 2003
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Seaport: coal warehousing and loading
|
|
February 2004
|
|
|
97.1
|
%
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
June 2006
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke and gas works, organic chemicals
|
|
October 2006
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
Transkol
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
May 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Yakutugol(2)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coking coal, steam coal
|
|
October 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Russia
|
|
Seaport: coal and metal transshipment
|
|
March 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Port Vanino
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal transshipment complex (under construction)
|
|
November 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel Bluestone Inc.
|
|
United States
|
|
Coking coal, steam coal
|
|
May 2009
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Steel Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Semi-finished steel products, carbon and specialty long and flat
steel products
|
|
December 2001
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Wire products
|
|
May 2002
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Long steel products, wire products, limestone
|
|
June 2002
|
|
|
91.4
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Romania
|
|
Carbon and specialty long steel products, forgings, seized
rolled products
|
|
August 2002
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
Urals Stampings Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Stampings
|
|
April 2003
|
|
|
93.8
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Romania
|
|
Long steel products, wire products
|
|
June 2003
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Wire products
|
|
October 2003
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Specialty and carbon steel long products, seized rolling and
wire products, stampings and forgings
|
|
May 2004
|
|
|
88.4
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
River port
|
|
April 2005
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Romania
|
|
Carbon steel, low-alloyed steel rolled and wire products
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
HBL Holding
|
|
Germany
|
|
Steel trading and distribution, servicing, cutting and
processing steel products, warehousing system
|
|
September 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Laminorul Plant
|
|
Romania
|
|
Long steel products
|
|
February 2010
|
|
|
90.9
|
%
|
Ferroalloys Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferronickel
|
|
December 2001
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
August 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Oriel Resources
|
|
Russia, Kazakhstan
|
|
Chrome and nickel mining and processing
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Power Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Electricity generation
|
|
April 2007
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Electricity distribution
|
|
June 2007
|
|
|
72.1
|
%
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
Electricity generation and distribution
|
|
December 2010
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Except where the acquisition date occurred after
December 31, 2010 (in which case the percentage is given as
of the date of completion of the acquisition), the percentages
provided in this table are as of December 31, 2010. Some of
our Russian subsidiaries have preferred shares outstanding that
have voting rights commensurate with common shares if dividends
on those shares have not been paid. We have calculated voting
interests by including these preferred shares for subsidiaries
where dividends have not been paid. |
|
(2) |
|
Effective as of the end of the first quarter of 2008, the
subsoil license to the Elga coal deposit was transferred from
Elgaugol to Yakutugol. Elgaugol was liquidated in September 2009. |
139
Intersegment
sales
We are an integrated mining, steel, ferroalloys and power group.
Our group companies supply materials to other companies in the
same reporting segment or different reporting segments. For
example, for the year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
The mining segment supplied approximately 8.6% of the steel
segments iron ore concentrate requirements, approximately
98% of the steel segments coke requirements, approximately
100% of the power segments coal requirements and
approximately 76% of the ferroalloys segments coal
requirements;
|
|
|
|
The ferroalloys segment supplied approximately 81% of the steel
segments requirements in ferrochrome, ferrosilicon and
ferronickel;
|
|
|
|
The mining segment supplied approximately 76% of coke for use in
the production of ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon by
the ferroalloys segment;
|
|
|
|
The steel segment supplies wires, ropes, wire products and other
metal products to the mining segment for use in its
day-to-day
operations; and
|
|
|
|
The power segment supplied approximately 27% of the groups
overall electricity requirements.
|
The prices at which we record these transfers are based on
market prices, and these transactions are eliminated as
intercompany transactions for the purposes of our consolidated
financial statements. For the purposes of the
period-on-period
discussion of the results of operations by segments, such
transfers are included in segment revenues and cost of goods
sold.
Acquisitions
Our acquisitions enhance the vertical and geographical
integration of our group and contribute to the growth of our
business segments. We have sought to purchase strategic and
under-performing assets which we believe offer significant
upside potential, particularly as we make capital investments
and implement improvements in working practices and operational
methods. Immediately following an acquisition, there is a period
of time during which we implement our strategies and may not
realize their full benefits and, consequently, our margins may
be initially adversely affected after an acquisition.
Set out below are our key acquisitions during the periods under
review in this section. For more detail see note 3 to our
consolidated financial statements. Each of the acquisitions was
accounted for using the purchase method of accounting, and the
results of operations of each acquired business are included in
our consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income
from their respective dates of acquisition of control. In
certain cases where we acquired our interest in a business over
a period of time and control was not acquired until subsequent
acquisitions of shares, such acquisitions were accounted for
using the equity method of accounting or at cost, as
appropriate, until such controlling stake was acquired. The
financial information for the periods presented herein may not
be directly comparable from period to period due to these
acquisitions and their accounting treatment.
Ductil Steel. Ductil Steel is comprised of two
Romanian steel plants: a plant in Buzau which produces
reinforcing rolled products, wire rod and wire products, and the
Otelu Rosu plant, which specializes in steel and billets
production. We purchased 100% of Ductil Steel from third parties
in April 2008 for $224.0 million.
Oriel Resources. Oriel Resources is comprised
of the Voskhod chrome project and the Shevchenko nickel project
in Kazakhstan, and the Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant in Russia, near
St. Petersburg. Mining operations commenced at the Voskhod
chrome deposit in December 2008. We acquired a 99.3% stake in
Oriel Resources in April 2008 pursuant to a public tender offer
and subsequently increased our stake to 100%, for a total cost
of approximately $1.5 billion.
HBL Holding. The assets of HBL Holding include
fifteen service and trading companies in Germany. We acquired
100% of HBL Holding in September 2008 for approximately
$55.9 million.
140
Bluestone. On May 7, 2009, we acquired
100% of the shares and interests in the Bluestone companies,
which were privately-held West Virginia-based coal businesses
engaged in the mining, processing and sale of premium quality
hard coking coal. The aggregate consideration was
$436.4 million paid in cash, approximately
83.3 million of our preferred shares, plus two contingent
payments less the amount exceeding the Bluestone target debt of
$132.0 million. The first contingent payment is a
contingent share value right (CVR) that
guarantees a target total shareholder return from the preferred
shares after five years from the closing date. Any potential CVR
cash payment due to the actual total return from the preferred
shares being less than or equal to the target return will be
paid on the fifth anniversary of the closing date and will equal
the amount by which the target value exceeds the sum of the
aggregate market value of the preferred shares and all dividends
received. The starting target value was set at
$989.6 million, which could be increased up to
$1,588.5 million
and/or
decreased by the amount of any damages (capped at
$200.0 million for CVR purposes) and set-offs effected by
Mechel. The target value of the CVR and the target value
additional amount increased by $3.5 million in June 2010 as
a result of an agreement between the parties to settle a third
party litigation. The increase was to be calculated based on the
additional tonnes of mineral reserves or mineral deposits
discovered during the drilling program on certain territories
leased or owned by Bluestone. The second contingent payment is a
contingent cash payment based on additional coal reserves and
resources identified within two years under a planned drilling
program. The amount of this contingent cash payment is based on
certain mineral reserves and mineral resources discovered during
the drilling program, multiplied by an agreed price of $3.04 per
tonne, which will be paid on the fifth anniversary of the
closing date. Mr. Zyuzin agreed to vote all common shares
beneficially owned by him in favor of dividends on preferred
shares at any meeting of shareholders. Mechel Mining guaranteed
certain obligations of our subsidiaries which were party to the
transaction agreements. These guarantee obligations were
supported by a pledge of the shares of the Bluestone companies
and the newly created Mechel entities that hold these shares.
We determined the target value of the CVR based on an appraisal
performed by independent mining engineers. The present value of
the CVR target value as of the closing date amounted to
$991.4 million. The contingent liability recognized as of
the closing date amounted to $495.2 million, and was
calculated as the difference between the estimated target value
and the preferred shares fair value as of May 7, 2009. Our
preferred shares were not marketable at the time of the closing
date, and they were appraised by an independent third party
using the probability-weighted expected return method. The
weighted average preferred share value was determined as $5.96
(196 rubles) as of the closing date. We determined the value of
the drilling program contingent payment based on an appraisal
performed by independent mining engineers. The estimation was
made in conjunction with the estimation of the CVR contingent
payment. The present value of the drilling program contingent
payment as of the closing date amounted to $19.4 million.
The total fair value of the purchase consideration at the
closing date amounted to $1,447.2 million.
In accordance with ASC 805, we adjust the contingent
liability arising from contingent consideration arrangements at
the end of each reporting period, with a corresponding gain or
loss reflected in the statement of income, based on changes in
the fair value of the obligation. The change in the fair value
of our preferred shares during the post-acquisition period
through December 31, 2009, based on an independent
appraisal, resulted in a $494.2 million decrease in the CVR
contingent payment, which was recorded as a non-taxable gain in
other income and expenses, net in the consolidated financial
statements. This gain was a result of the changes resulting from
the events after the acquisitions date, primarily because of the
increase in the value of preferred shares following a similar
increase in the price of our common shares, and does not
constitute a measurement period adjustment that would require
adjustment of the purchase consideration.
We completed the listing of the preferred shares on the New York
Stock Exchange in May 2010. In March 2011, the market value of
the preferred shares distributed as part of the consideration to
the former owners of Bluestone plus the cumulative dividends due
to them exceeded $1,787.1 million, as calculated per the
terms of the merger agreement, which resulted in the automatic
extinguishment of the CVR. Following the automatic
extinguishment of the CVR, we executed an amendment to the
merger agreement which confirmed that our obligations in
relation to the CVR contingent payment, pledge agreements
relating to all the outstanding stock and capital membership in
the Bluestone companies in favor of the Seller, and the CVR
guarantee issued by Mechel Mining have been released. In
addition, Mr. Zyuzin has been released from obligation to
vote his common shares in favor of the dividends on preferred
shares.
141
For a more detailed description of the Bluestone acquisition
transaction, see note 3(e) to our consolidated financial
statements.
Laminorul Plant. Laminorul Plant is a steel
plant located in Braila (Romania) and listed on the Bucharest
Stock Exchange. On February 25, 2010, we acquired 100% of
the shares of Donau Commodities SRL which holds 90.9% of the
shares of Laminorul Plant for consideration of
$11.9 million. The acquisition is consistent with our
program of expanding production and sales of steel products,
particularly those related to construction and building
industries in Romania.
Ramateks. Ramateks is a Turkish steel trading
group engaged in the distribution of construction and stainless
steel long products as well as other types of steel products. We
acquired 100% of Ramateks in June 2010 for $3.0 million.
Femax. Femax is a trading company operating in
the Czech and Slovak markets, selling steel and steel products
and providing a number of services. We acquired 95.0% of Femax
in July 2010 for $1.9 million.
Toplofikatsia Rousse. Toplofikatsia Rousse is
a power plant located on the bank of the Danube River in close
proximity to the harbor of Rousse, Bulgaria. We acquired a 49%
stake in Toplofikatsia Rousse in December 2007 for
$73.5 million. We increased our stake in Toplofikatsia
Rousse to 100% by purchasing the remaining stake of 51% in
December 2010 for approximately $71.9 million.
Factors
Affecting Our Results of Operations and Financial
Condition
Cyclical
nature of business and impact of macroeconomic
factors
Our mining and ferroalloys business sells significant amounts of
coal, iron ore and ferroalloys to third parties and our revenues
depend significantly on these sales. Cyclical and other changes
in the world market prices of these products affect the results
of our mining and ferroalloy operations. The changes in these
prices result from factors which are beyond our control, such as
market supply and demand. The global coal, iron ore and
ferroalloys supply and demand balance is strongly influenced by
interdependent global economic and industrial demand cycles, as
well as supply chain-related constraints such as shipping
capacity, availability of rolling stock, transportation
bottlenecks, production disruptions and natural disasters.
Prices of the products of our mining and ferroalloys business
have varied significantly in the past and could vary
significantly in the future. See Price trends
for products below. See also Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Business and Industry We operate in cyclical
industries, and any local or global downturn, whether or not
primarily affecting the mining
and/or steel
industries, may have an adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
The steel industry is highly cyclical in nature because the
industries in which steel customers operate are cyclical and
sensitive to changes in general economic conditions. The demand
for steel products thus generally correlates to macroeconomic
fluctuations in the economies in which we sell our products, as
well as in the global economy. The prices of our steel products
are influenced by many factors, including demand, worldwide
production capacity, capacity utilization rates, raw material
costs, exchange rates, trade barriers and improvements in
steel-making processes. Steel prices also typically follow
trends in raw material prices and increases in market prices for
steel may lag behind increases in production costs, including
raw materials.
Demand for steel, particularly long steel products in which we
believe we are the most competitive in the Russian market, is
closely tied to the construction industry in the markets in
which we sell our products. The construction business in Russia,
the principal market for our products, was severely impacted by
the global financial crisis and the sharp economic slowdown in
Russia. As a result of the critical role of steel in
infrastructural and overall economic development, the steel
industry tends to track macroeconomic factors such as gross
domestic product (GDP) and industrial output.
The global financial crisis and sharp economic slowdown which
started in 2008 seriously impacted global GDP growth in 2008 and
2009 and the recovery has been slow in 2010. Global GDP grew at
1.5% in 2008, contracted by 2.2% in 2009 and grew at 3.9% in
2010, according to CRU. According to Rosstat, Russia recorded
GDP growth of 5.2% in 2008, contraction of 7.8% in 2009 and
growth of 4.0% in 2010. This slowdown in economic growth and
severe constraints in capital spending, both globally and in
Russia, led to
142
poor demand for our products and a substantial decrease in the
prices for our products in 2009. We generally observed signs of
improvement in our core markets in the 2010, which are
continuing into 2011. See Price trends for
products.
Trade
and competition
Mining products and many types of steel products are considered
commodities and treated as fungible in the world markets. As
such, we compete with steel producers and mining companies with
operations in different countries. The main competitive
advantages that steel producers can secure are based on quality
and production cost. Generally, steel producers in economically
developed regions compete primarily based on quality of steel,
while we and other steel producers in developing countries
compete in the international market based primarily on price.
With respect to our mining products, such as iron ore, nickel
and coal, quality, production costs and transportation
capabilities are key areas where companies seek a competitive
advantage.
As the production and consumption of steel are closely linked to
economic development and industrial capacity in general, many
countries have enacted measures to protect their domestic steel
industries from international competition, particularly from
countries with a lower average cost of production. Several key
steel importing countries currently have import restrictions in
place on steel products or intend to introduce them in the
future. See Risk Factors Risks Relating to Our
Business and Industry We face numerous protective
trade restrictions in the export of our steel products and
ferroalloys, and we may face export duties in the future.
The European Union has a quota system in place with respect to
Russian steel imports, which affected our exports to ten
countries in Central and Eastern Europe in the periods under
review. Our sales in the European Union constituted
approximately 16.8% of our steel segment revenues and 51.3% of
our steel segment export revenues in 2010, 17.9% of our steel
segment revenues and 50.6% of our steel segment export revenues
in 2009, and 24.0% of our steel segment revenues and 37.0% of
our steel segment export revenues in 2008. The effect of the
quota system is significantly mitigated, however, because a
substantial majority of our sales in the European Union are made
by our European subsidiaries, particularly Ductil Steel in
Romania and HBL Holding in Germany.
In addition, the European Union has imposed antidumping duties
on certain of our exports. In February 2008, an antidumping duty
in the amount of 17.8% was imposed on exports to the European
Union of ferrosilicon produced by our Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
for a period of five years. In addition, an antidumping E.U.
import duty in the amount of 50.7% was applicable to steel ropes
and cables manufactured by our Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
until October 2007. After a review procedure conducted by the
European Union, in October 2007, this duty was reduced to 36.2%
and imposed for a period of five years.
At the same time, we are protected from competition from steel
imports in Russia due to import tariffs that Russia has in place
with respect to certain imported steel products. These tariffs
generally amount to
5-15% of the
value of the imports. The majority of our sales of steel
products in Russia in the periods under review were protected by
these import tariffs. The Republic of Belarus, the Republic of
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation entered into a Customs
Union and implemented a Common Customs Tariff, which came into
force on January 1, 2010, reducing import duties on
stainless rolled products from 15% to 10%. In the future the
Russian government may restore export duties on steel products
and may also impose export duties on some raw materials, such as
coal and iron ore concentrate. See Risk
Factors Risks Relating to Our Business and
Industry We benefit from Russias tariffs and
duties on imported steel, which may be eliminated in the
future.
Consolidation
trends in the steel and mining industries
The global financial crisis sharply slowed the pace of
consolidation in the steel industry. The uncertainty over future
demand, together with continuing constraints on capital, were
two of the greatest challenges that steel companies faced in
2009. China is an exception where internal consolidation
activity in the steel industry is, in part, driven by the
central governments plan to consolidate its capacity. A
main trend of 2010 is the
143
increasing dominance of strategic investors in the coal sector.
Strategic investors show preference for large coal deposits.
Future consolidation in the steel industry should enable steel
producers to maintain more consistent performance through cycles
in the steel industry by achieving greater efficiency and
economies of scale.
We, along with other Russian steel producers, tend to focus on
vertical integration rather than consolidation, which ensures
access to a stable supply of raw materials, particularly coking
coal and iron ore. Our vertical integration helps us to better
manage the effects of raw material supply constraints and also
provides us with an opportunity to capture higher margins in
sales by our mining segment to third parties.
The mining industry has also experienced consolidation in recent
years. Although the activity in this sector substantially
decreased in 2009, there were several large-scale transactions.
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc, a U.S. coal company, signed
a definitive agreement to be acquired by another U.S. coal
company Alpha Natural Resources. Ukrainian iron and steel
producer Metinvest Holding Limited acquired United Coal Company,
a U.S. based mining company. Arch Coal Inc, a listed
U.S. based coal producer, agreed to acquire the Jacobs
Ranch coal mine from Rio Tinto plc. Additionally, we acquired
Bluestone. In 2010, Walter Enegry, a U.S. coal company,
signed a merger agreement with Western Coal, another
U.S. coal company. INR Energy, a privately held coal
company, entered into an agreement to sell its West Virginia
coal mining operations to Cliffs Natural Resources, an
international mining company. Cumberland Resources, a
U.S. privately held coal producer, was acquired by Massey
Enegry, a U.S. company and one of the largest producers of
Central Appalachian coal.
Consolidation among suppliers in the mining industry has led to
a stronger bargaining position among mining companies
vis-à-vis steel producers. As we are vertically integrated
in both the upstream and downstream
sides of the mining and steel segments, we are not as affected
by consolidation among suppliers as some of our competitors.
Price
trends for products
Coking
coal and steam coal
Average contract prices for premium hard coking coal in calendar
year 2010 were at $191 per tonne (FOB Australia), up from $129
per tonne (FOB Australia) in JFY 2009/2010, according to CRU.
The average price for JFY 2008/2009 was $300 per tonne on the
same basis, according to CRU. Decreasing steel demand and
production in the first half of 2009 led to a reduction in hard
coking coal spot prices to a level of around $115 per tonne
(FOB Australia) in May 2009 from $400 per tonne (FOB Australia)
in the middle of 2008, according to CRU. The situation gradually
changed from the middle of 2009. Growing global demand for steel
led to an increase in demand for imported coking coal in Japan,
South Korea and European countries. Unprecedented growth of
coking coal imports to China, coupled with imported coal supply
shortage, contributed to the hard coking coal spot price
reaching $170 per tonne (FOB Australia) by the end of 2009, and
$220 per tonne (FOB Australia) in the first quarter of 2010,
according to CRU. The hard coking coal spot price increased
during the beginning of 2010 and reached $250 per tonne (FOB
Australia) in April. Till the end of the year prices have
declined to $225 per tonne (FOB Australia), according to CRU.
There was no significant volatility in spot prices in 2010 due
to the stable development of global steel industry. Minor price
fluctuation occurred due to seasonal factors and traders
stocking activity.
Prices for steam coal reached a high of $209 per tonne (CIF
Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) in July 2008 from a low of $69 per
tonne in January 2007, according to Platts. As the global
financial crisis began in September 2008, demand for steam coal
was suddenly reduced and the spot prices fell to $62 per tonne
(CIF Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) by March 2009, according to
Platts. Subsequently, prices began to rise as a result of the
global economy recovering. Prices reached $80 per tonne (CIF
Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) by the end of 2009, according to
Platts. At the beginning of 2010, prices reached $86 per tonne
(CIF Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) and then declined to $73 per
tonne (CIF Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) by the end of the first
quarter of 2010, according to Platts. Prices increased further
during 2010 and reached $122 per tonne (CIF
Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) at end of 2010, according to
Platts. The main reason of price growth was stable growth of the
global economy.
144
Iron
ore
For JFY 2010/2009 the contract price for iron ore settled at
$113 per tonne, up from $57 per tonne in JFY 2009/2008 (63%
elemental iron, Carajas fines, FOB Brazil), according to AME.
The price for JFY 2008/2007 for iron ore was $79 per tonne on
the same basis, according to AME. Decreasing steel demand and
production in the first half of 2009 led to a reduction in iron
ore spot prices to a level of around $64 per tonne (CFR China)
in April 2009 from $207 per tonne in March 2008, according to
CRU. The situation gradually changed from the middle of 2009,
when growing global production of steel coupled with strong
demand for imported iron ore from China pushed prices to the
level of $105 per tonne (CFR China) by the end of 2009 and $142
per tonne (CFR China) by the end of the first quarter of 2010,
according to CRU. Prices increased further during 2010 and
reached $186 per tonne (CFR China) in April, then after a
decline in the middle of the year prices begin to rise again and
reached $173 per tonne (CFR China) at end of 2010, according to
CRU. The main reasons of price growth in 2010 were stable demand
for ore imports from China and measures of the Indian government
restricting iron ore exports.
Nickel
On the London Metal Exchange (LME) the cash nickel
price reached a high of $31,225 per tonne in March 2008 and a
low of $9,696 per tonne in December 2008, according to CRU.
Nickel prices started to increase in April 2009 and increased to
17,066 per tonne at the end of 2009, according to CRU. This
increase was primarily driven by strong demand from China and
other Asian countries. Nickel price increased further during
2010 and reached $24,111 per tonne at the end of 2010, according
to CRU, since the demand for nickel in Asia and in the rest of
the world was steadily improving.
Ferrochrome
Ferrochrome prices reached a high of $6,173 per tonne of chrome
content (spot high-carbon ferrochrome price; Delivered
consumers works (delivered) Europe) in May 2008 and a low
of $1,411 per tonne of chrome content in April 2009, according
to CRU. The price started to increase in May 2009 and reached
$1,940 per tonne of chrome content (spot delivered Europe) by
the end of 2009, according to CRU. Prices increased generally
due to strong demand from Asian stainless steel producers and
limited supply. Prices increased further during 2010 and reached
$2,668 per tonne of chrome content (spot delivered Europe) by
the end of 2010, according to CRU, since the demand in all the
regions has substantially improved.
Ferrosilicon
Ferrosilicon prices reached a high of $2,300 per tonne
(ferrosilicon with 75% silicon content; CIF Japan) in June 2008
and a low price of $1,085 per tonne in December 2008, according
to CRU. The price gradually increased during 2009, driven by
increases in production costs and improved demand, and reached
$1,280 per tonne (CIF Japan) at the end of 2009, according to
CRU. Prices increased further during 2010 and reached $1,625 per
tonne (Chinese export FOB) by the end of 2010, according to CRU.
The surge in ferrosilicon prices in the last months of 2010 was
driven by curtailments in power supplies of Chinese ferrosilicon
producers, due to the Chinese governments
five-year
energy-saving plan.
Steel
The price of rebar increased to a high of $1,305 per tonne
(Russian domestic market, ex-warehouse) in July 2008, and fell
to a low of $405 per tonne in April 2009, according to
Metal-Courier. The export price of square billets reached a high
of $1,180 per tonne (Russian export, FOB Black/Baltic sea) in
June 2008, and fell to a low of $311 per tonne in March 2009,
according to Metal-Courier. The prices for steel products
increased gradually during 2009, driven by stable demand and
increases in production costs, reaching $494 per tonne for rebar
in the Russian domestic market and $419 per tonne for square
billets (Russian export) at the end of 2009, according to
Metal-Courier. Prices increased further during 2010 and reached
$639 per tonne for rebar in the Russian domestic market and $600
per tonne for square billets (Russian export) at the end of
145
2010, according to Metal-Courier. The price increase was driven
by increasing raw materials costs and steadily improving demand.
Russian domestic rebar consumption grew by 23.6% in 2010,
according to Metal-Courier.
Freight
costs
Ocean freight charges and rates on the basic world routes grew
steadily from 2007 until autumn 2008. In autumn 2008, these
rates fell sharply, simultaneously with a decrease in prices for
the basic groups of mass cargoes, in particular, coal, metal,
scrap metal and ore raw materials. For example, an average
time-charter rate on Panamax type vessels (deadweight about
77,000 tonnes) fell more than 90% from $90,000 in May 2008 to
$6,000-$8,000 in November 2008. In April 2009, the rate
increased due to an increase in trading demand for certain
groups of cargoes. During 2010, time-charter rates fluctuated
within the range from $20,000 to $30,000 per day and by the end
of the year fell to $12,000-$15,000 per day due to an excess
supply of new vessels entering the market. Due to the risk of
the U.S. dollar falling against world currencies and the
probable increase in commodities prices, we expect an increase
in demand for commodities transportation. An increase in such
demand, in conjunction with a possible increase in oil prices,
may result in an increase in freight rates which will affect our
freight costs.
Freight costs are a significant concern for Russian steel
producers and mining companies, as distances in Russia are vast
and major steel producing and mining areas tend to be located
far from developed year-round port facilities. In addition to
geographical challenges, domestic Russian rail freight shipments
are carried out by Russian Railways, a government-controlled
monopoly, so there is no downward pressure on rail freight rates
due to market competition, unlike in countries where multiple
freight carriers compete based on price.
Exchange
rates
Our products are typically priced in rubles for Russian and CIS
sales and in U.S. dollars or euros for international sales.
Our direct costs, including raw materials, labor and
transportation costs are largely incurred in rubles and other
local currencies, while other costs, such as interest expense,
are incurred in rubles, euros and U.S. dollars. The mix of
our revenues and costs is such that depreciation in real terms
of the ruble against the U.S. dollar tends to result in a
decrease in our costs relative to our revenues, while
appreciation of the ruble against the U.S. dollar in real
terms tends to result in an increase in our costs relative to
our revenues.
146
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth our consolidated statement of
income data for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(6,149,310
|
)
|
|
|
(63.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(68.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
(52.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
3,596,726
|
|
|
|
36.9
|
%
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
%
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
47.1
|
%
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(2,064,520
|
)
|
|
|
(21.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(26.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,532,207
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
%
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
25.7
|
%
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
(563,576
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
|
968,630
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
%
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(276,656
|
)
|
|
|
(2.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(34,761
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(0.0
|
)%
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
(8,780
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
648,433
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
ended December 31, 2010 compared to year ended
December 31, 2009
Net
revenues
Consolidated revenues increased by $3,991.9 million or
69.4% to $9,746.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, from $5,754.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009.
Across our segments, our acquisitions in the year ended
December 31, 2010 did not have significant impact on our
consolidated revenues. Approximately, $37.0 million, or
less than 0.1%, of our consolidated revenues in the year ended
December 31, 2010 was due to the consolidation of companies
acquired during the year ended December 31, 2010. This
includes sale of steel products produced by Laminorul Plant for
$32.7 million and sale of electricity and heat from
Toplofikatsia Rousse for $4.4 million. The rest of the
sales increase was due to the increase of sales prices and
volumes across all our segments, including due to increase of
sales volumes of products which we purchased on the market and
re-sold to related metallurgical plants, as well as volumes of
finished goods produced by these companies and other third party
suppliers and sold by us to third parties, which were added to
our consolidated revenue for the year ended December 31,
2010. The total effect of such transactions on consolidated
revenues in the year ended December 31, 2010 was
$1,493.1 million, or 26.7% of steel segment revenues,
including $201.2 million in revenues for goods we purchased
from third parties and sold to related metallurgical plants and
$1,051.2 million in revenues for goods we purchased from
related metallurgical plants and further sold to third party
customers.
147
The following table sets forth our net revenues by segment,
including a breakdown by sales to third parties and other
segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
Net Revenues by Segment
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
3,050,950
|
|
|
|
1,713,245
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
140,024
|
|
|
|
63,197
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
42,485
|
|
|
|
27,510
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
622,706
|
|
|
|
308,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,856,165
|
|
|
|
2,111,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
5,586,224
|
|
|
|
3,143,282
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
4,961
|
|
|
|
2,729
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
128,304
|
|
|
|
122,231
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
114,188
|
|
|
|
34,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,833,677
|
|
|
|
3,302,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
455,199
|
|
|
|
363,652
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
516
|
|
|
|
450
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
173,337
|
|
|
|
66,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
629,052
|
|
|
|
430,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
653,663
|
|
|
|
533,968
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
269,342
|
|
|
|
233,327
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
65,873
|
|
|
|
41,861
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
73,800
|
|
|
|
63,628
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,062,678
|
|
|
|
872,784
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
1,635,536
|
|
|
|
963,738
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated revenues
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% from mining segment
|
|
|
31.3
|
%
|
|
|
29.8
|
%
|
% from steel segment
|
|
|
57.3
|
%
|
|
|
54.6
|
%
|
% from ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
% from power segment
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
Mining segment
Our total mining segment sales increased by
$1,744.2 million, or 82.6%, to $3,856.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $2,112.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009.
Coking coal concentrate sales to third parties increased by
$919.2 million, or 170.8%, to $1,457.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $538.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales
prices increase of $536.9 million and sales volumes
increase of $382.3 million. The sales prices increase is
explained by the sharp increase in international coking coal
prices from July 2009 to the end of 2010, when the spot coking
coal price (price for premium hard coking coal, FOB Australian
ports) increased by 96% from $115 per tonne in June 2009 to $225
per tonne in December 2010, according to CRU.
148
The volume of coking coal concentrate sold to third parties
increased by 3,444 thousand tonnes, or 71.0%, to 8,292 thousand
tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2010 from 4,848
thousand tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2009. The
increase in sales volumes during the period was due to increased
demand from both domestic and foreign customers. In the market
there is a shortage of coking coal, which worsens annually
during periods of flooding in Australia.
The volumes of coking coal sold to third parties increased both
at Yakutugols and Bluestone, while they decreased at
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company. Yakutugols coking coal
sales volumes increased by 2,367 thousand tonnes or 157.4% from
1,504 thousand tonnes to 3,871 thousand tonnes. Southern Kuzbass
Coal Companys coking coal sales volumes decreased by 18
thousand tonnes, or 0.77%, from 2,358 thousand tonnes to
2,340 thousand tonnes. Bluestone coking coal sales volumes to
third parties increased from 986 thousand tonnes in the year
ended December 31, 2009 to 2,075 thousand tonnes in the
year ended December 31, 2010. Bluestone was acquired in May
2009.
Coke sales to the third parties increased by
$221.1 million, or 159.5%, to 359.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $138.7 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009, as a result of sales
prices increase of $171.0 million, and sales volumes
increase of $50.1 million. The increase in sales prices was
driven by the increase in coking coal prices which is the key
raw material in the production of coke. The sales volume
increase is explained by the increase in production volumes of
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and Mechel-Coke in response to
improved demand in connection with the global economic recovery
after the global economic slowdown.
Coke supplied to the steel segment increased by
$245.8 million, or 86.2%, to $531.0 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $285.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009, where $223.1 million
of the increase was due to an increase of sales prices and the
rest was due to the increase of sales volumes of
$22.8 million. The increase of sales volumes was due to the
increase of raw steel production in our steel segment companies
in 2010 due to the revival of demand for the steel products
after the global economic slowdown.
Coking products sales to third parties increased by
$26.1 million, or 115.1%, to $48.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $22.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices
increase of $15.4 million and sales volume increase of
$10.7 million. The reasons of the increase in sales prices
and volumes are the same as for coke.
Anthracite and PCI coal sales to third parties increased by
$265.6 million, or 932.2%, to $294.0 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $28.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices
increase of $159.0 million and sales volumes increase of
$106.5 million. The sales prices and volumes increased due
to the restoration after the recovery of global economy and
increased steel production that uses anthracite and PCI coal.
Steam coal sales to third parties decreased by
$254.2 million, or 41.3%, to $360.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $614.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales
volumes decrease of $297.1 million that was partially
offset by the sales price increase of $42.9 million. The
sales price increase was due to an increase in international
steam coal prices from July 2009 to the end of 2010, when the
spot steam coal price (price for 6,000 kCal/kg basis coal, CIF
NW Europe) increased by 77% from $66 per tonne in June 2009 to
$122 per tonne in December 2010, according to Platts. The
decrease in sales volumes was mainly due to the decrease of
steam coal export sales to the Chinese market, where demand was
significantly lower in 2010 in comparison to 2009. Steam coal
sales volume to China decreased from 1,333 thousand tonnes in
the year ended December 31, 2009 to 258 thousand tonnes in
the year ended December 31, 2010.
Steam coal supplied to the power and ferroalloy segments
increased by $9.1 million, or 35.7%, to $34.5 million
in the year ended December 31, 2010 from $25.4 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 mainly as a result of
sales volume increases. The consolidation of Toplofikatsia
Rousse in December 2010 resulted in an increase of sales volumes
of $4.4 million. The rest of the increase is explained by
the increase
149
of steam coal consumption at the Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
due to the increase of electricity production in the year ended
December 31, 2010 in comparison to the year ended
December 31, 2009.
Sales of iron ore to third parties increased by
$105.8 million, or 45.4%, to $338.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $233.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales
prices increase of $136.8 million that was partially offset
by the sales volumes decrease of $31.0 million. The sales
prices increase was due to increase in international iron ore
prices from July 2009 to the end of 2010, when the spot iron ore
price (price for Indian iron ore 63% Fe dry, CFR North China
port) increased by 90% from $91 per tonne in July 2009 to $173
per tonne in December 2010, according to AME. The decrease in
sales volumes was due to the decrease of demand from Chinese and
Russian steel producers.
Supplies of iron ore to the steel segment increased by
$34.2 million, or 334.3%, to $44.5 million, in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $10.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales volumes
increase of $13.2 million and increase of sales prices of
$21.1 million. The increase of sales volumes is explained
by the increase of raw steel production in our steel segment
companies in 2010 due to the revival of demand for the steel
products after the global financial crisis.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales were 65.6% of mining
segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2010, compared
to 63.6% in the year ended December 31, 2009. The increase
in the proportion of our export sales was due to the higher
export volumes of coking coal concentrate due to higher sales
prices on export markets. Average coking coal concentrate export
prices on Free Carrier (FCA) basis in the year ended
December 31, 2010 comprised $154.7 per tonne in comparison
with $137.1 per tonne for average domestic sales prices on FCA
basis.
Steel segment
Our steel segment revenues increased by $2,531.4 million,
or 76.7%, to $5,833.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, from $3,302.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. Steel segment sales in 2010 were
generally influenced by the global recovery after depressed
economic and financial conditions in Russia and worldwide in
2009. Consumption of steel products in Russia increased by 37.7%
in the year ended December 31, 2010 to 37.6 million
tonnes from 27.3 million tonnes in the year ended
December 31, 2009, according to Metal Expert. However,
production of steel products (including semi-finished) in Russia
in the same period increased only by 10.6% to 59.7 million
tonnes from 54.0 million tonnes. Export shipments of steel
products (including semi-finished) from Russia decreased by
10.9% in the year ended December 31, 2010 to
27.3 million tonnes from 30.0 million tonnes in the
year ended December 31, 2009, while export sales of
finished steel products from Russia decreased by 16.6%.
Our steel segment revenues increased significantly due to the
increase of sales volumes of goods which we purchased on the
market and re-sold to related metallurgical plants, as well as
volumes of goods produced by these companies and third parties
which were sold by our trading subsidiaries to third parties.
These sales amounted to $1,493.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 in comparison to the $128.3 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009, including the sales of
goods to related metallurgical plants and the sales of goods
purchased from related metallurgical plants of
$1,252.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
and $120.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009.
Semi-finished products sales increased by $738.6 million,
or 148.7%, to $1,235.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $496.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales volumes
increase of $436.7 million as well as sales prices increase
of $301.9 million. The sales prices increased due to growth
in international prices for billets and slabs; since billet
price (square billet, FOB Black Sea) increased by 55% from $388
per tonne in June 2009 to $600 per tonne in December 2010,
according to Metal Expert. The increase of sales volumes was due
to the increase of volumes of semi-finished products which we
purchased on the market and re-sold to related metallurgical
plants of $783.0 million.
Alloyed long products sales increased by $157.9 million, or
230.1%, to $226.5 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $68.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices increase of
$28.0 million and sales volumes increase of
$129.9 million. The increase in sales prices was
150
mainly driven by the increase in the prices of steelmaking raw
materials (iron ore, coking coal etc.). The increase in sales
volumes is explained by the strengthening of demand in the
domestic market in 2010.
Rebar sales increased by $272.8 million, or 31.1%, to
$1,150.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $877.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 as a result of sales prices increase. The increase in sales
prices was driven by a sharp increase in domestic and
international prices during the covered period, when rebar price
(Russia domestic, ex-warehouse, central region, excl. VAT)
increased by 46% from $472 per tonne in August 2009 to $688 per
tonne in August 2010, according to Metal Expert.
Wire-rod sales increased by $84.0 million, or 41.3%, to
$287.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $203.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 as a result of sales prices increase of $65.0 million
and sales volumes increase of $19.0 million. The increase
in sales prices was driven by the increase in domestic and
international prices during the covered period, when wire-rod
price (Russia domestic, ex-warehouse, central region, incl. VAT)
increased by 43% from $458 per tonne in August 2009 to $657 per
tonne in August 2010, according to Metal Expert. The increase in
sales volumes is explained by increased domestic shipments and
competitive pricing in domestic markets.
Low alloyed engineering steel sales increased by
$207.0 million, or 76.5%, to $477.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $270.5 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales
prices increase of $145.2 million and sales volumes
increase of $61.8 million. The increase in sales prices was
driven by the increase in the prices of steelmaking raw
materials (iron ore, coking coal etc.). The increase in sales
volumes is explained by high demand in key consuming industries,
such as automotive and machine building industries in Russia and
abroad.
Stainless flat products sales increased by $100.7 million,
or 97.6%, to $203.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $103.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices increase of
$37.3 million and sales volumes increase of
$63.4 million. The increase in sales prices was driven by
the increase in domestic prices during the covered period, when
price for stainless flat steel (cold-rolled, 08X18H10T steel
grade, 2-3 mm, Russia domestic, ex-warehouse, excl. VAT)
increased by 36% from $3,132 per tonne in May 2009 to
$4,254 per tonne in May 2010, according to Metal Expert. The
increase in sales volumes was mainly derived from domestic
market sales due to high demand.
Carbon and low alloyed flat product sales increased by
$94.8 million, or 59.7%, to $253.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $158.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices
increase of $58.6 million and sales volumes increase of
$36.2 million. The increase in sales prices was driven by
an increase in domestic and international prices during the
covered period, when price for hot-rolled coil (Russia exports,
FOB Black Sea) increased by 67% from $372 per tonne in May 2009
to $623 per tonne in September 2010, according to Metal Expert.
The increase in sales volumes was derived from both domestic and
export sales due to growth in demand.
Forged alloys sales increased by $22.2 million, or 1070.3%,
to $24.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $2.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
as a result of sales volumes increase of $3.3 million and
sales prices increase of $18.8 million. The increase in
sales volumes was derived from both domestic and export sales
due to the recovery of normal demand after the global economic
slowdown. The increase of sales prices is explained by an
increase in domestic and export prices for all forgings.
Stampings sales increased by $52.1 million, or 38.0%, to
$188.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $136.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 as a result of sales volumes increase of $83.3 million
partially offset by sales prices decrease of $31.2 million.
The decrease of sales prices is due to changes in the product
mix, with increased sales volumes of cheaper forms of stampings.
The increase in sales volumes is explained by the growth in
demand in major consuming industries due to the recovery after
the global economic slowdown.
Wire sales increased by $172.1 million, or 53.9%, to
$491.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $319.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 as a result of sales prices increase of $92.9 million
and sales volume increase of $79.2 million. The increase in
sales prices was driven by the increase in the prices of
wire-rod, which is the main input for wire production. The
increase in sales volumes
151
is explained by good demand from key consuming industries:
construction, railways construction, automotive and
machine-building industries and others.
Wire ropes sales increased by $29.4 million, or 64.3%, to
$75.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$45.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 as a
result of sales prices increase of $5.9 million and sales
volume increase of $23.5 million. The increase in sales
prices was driven by the increase in the prices of wire, which
is the main input for wire ropes production. The increase in
sales volumes is explained by steady demand from key consuming
industries: cranes production and lifting machine-building,
mining, construction and others.
Sales of other products increased by $408.7 million, or
216.3%, to $597.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $189.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 due to the recovery in all
industries consuming such products after the global economic
slowdown as well as due to the increase of sales volumes of
finished products which we purchased from related metallurgical
plants, as well as from third parties, and re-sold to third
parties. The effect of these transactions on the sales of other
products was $181.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales were 32.9% of steel
segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2010, compared
to 36.8% in the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease
in the proportion of our export sales was explained by growth of
our production and very good growth demand on domestic market,
due to competitive quality and pricing of our steel products,
comparing to domestic rivals.
Ferroalloys segment
Nickel sales to third parties increased by $61.0 million,
or 32.0%, to $251.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $190.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, as a result of sales prices
increase of $86.2 million partially offset by sales volumes
decrease of $25.2 million. The sales prices increase was
due to the increase in nickel quotes at the London Metal
Exchange (LME), which we use to determine our contract prices.
Nickel price increased from $9,696 per tonne in March 2009 to as
high as $22,461 per tonne in March 2010, according to LME. Our
nickel sales volumes decreased by 1.8 thousand tonnes or 13.2%
to 11.9 thousand tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2010
from 13.7 thousand tonnes in the year ended December 31,
2009 following to the weakening of demand from external
stainless steel producers.
Nickel supplies to the steel segment increased by
$67.0 million, or 212.1%, to $98.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $31.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices
increase of $28.6 million and sales volumes increase of
$38.5 million. The increase of sales volumes is explained
by the increase of stainless steel production in our steel
segment companies in 2010 due to the revival of demand for steel
products after the global economic slowdown.
Ferrosilicon sales to third parties increased by
$25.2 million, or 37.8%, to $91.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $66.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, mainly as a result of sales prices
increase of $30.0 million partially offset by sales volumes
decrease of $4.9 million. The increase in sales prices is
explained by the increase in international ferrosilicon prices
after the global economic slowdown. The price for Chinese
ferrosilicon (75% Si FOB China) increased by 28% from $1,100 per
tonne in June 2009 to $1,404 per tonne in June 2010, according
to Metal Expert. The decrease in sales volumes was due to weak
demand from export markets, while domestic sales volumes
increased.
Ferrosilicon supplies to the steel segment increased by
$18.3 million, or 91.5%, to $38.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $20.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, as a result of sales prices
increase of $14.6 million and sales volumes increase of
$3.7 million. The increase of sales volumes is explained by
the increase of stainless steel production in our steel segment
companies in 2010 due to the revival of demand for steel
products after the global economic slowdown.
Chrome sales to third parties increased by $0.7 million, or
0.8%, to $93.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $92.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2009, as a result of sales prices increase of $35.3 million
offset by the sales volumes decrease of $34.6 million. The
increase in sales prices is explained by the increase in
international chrome prices during the covered period. The price
for high carbon
152
ferrochrome (6-8% C basis
60-65% Cr
max. 1.5% Si major European destinations) increased by 204% from
$1,381 per tonne in May 2009 to $2,815 per tonne in May 2010,
according to Ryans Notes. The decrease in sales volumes is
explained by the decrease in production due to shortages in raw
materials (chrome ore) caused by higher level of breakup of the
ore we mined which led to supplies to the Tikhvin Ferroalloy
Plant of chrome ore of a lesser quality than required. Since
October 2010 we began mining an ore body which contains bigger
share of lump material. The decrease is sales volumes is also
explained by the increase in intersegment supplies.
Chrome supplies to the steel segment increased by
$22.9 million, or 178.1%, to $35.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $12.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales prices
increase of $11.9 million and sales volumes increase of
$11.0 million. The increase of sales volumes is explained
by the increase of stainless steel production in our steel
segment companies in 2010 due to the revival of demand for steel
products after the global economic slowdown.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales were 77.9% of
ferroalloy segment sales in the year ended December 31,
2010, compared to 86.8% in the year ended December 31,
2009. The decrease in the proportion of our export sales was
mostly due to the strong demand on the domestic market for
ferrosilicon and more favorable prices of all ferroalloys
products on the domestic market.
Power segment
Our power segment revenues increased by $189.9 million, or
21.8%, to 1,062.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, from $872.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. The increase is mainly explained
by the increase of electricity sales to third parties by
$151.0 million, or 32.1%, to $621.9 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, from $470.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of sales
prices increase of $20.9 million and sales volumes increase
of $130.1 million. The increase of sales prices is
explained by further liberalization of the Russian electricity
market. The increase in electricity sales volumes is explained
by the increased demand from industrial consumers following the
recovery from the global economic slowdown.
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant contributed $33.4 million to
the power segment revenues through power generation capacity
sales to third parties in the year ended December 31, 2010
compared to $14.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009.
Cost of
goods sold and gross profit
The consolidated cost of goods sold was 63.1% of consolidated
revenues in the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared
to 68.8% of consolidated revenues in the year ended
December 31, 2009, resulting in an increase in consolidated
gross margin to 36.9% in the year ended December 31, 2010
from 31.2% for the year ended December 31, 2009. Cost of
goods sold primarily consists of costs relating to raw materials
(including products purchased for resale), direct payroll,
depreciation and energy. The table below sets forth cost of
153
goods sold and gross margin by segment for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, including as a percentage of
segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
Cost of Goods Sold and Gross Margin by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,739,348
|
|
|
|
45.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,271,053
|
|
|
|
60.2
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
2,116,815
|
|
|
|
54.9
|
%
|
|
|
840,935
|
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
4,727,243
|
|
|
|
81.0
|
%
|
|
|
2,664,291
|
|
|
|
80.7
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
1,106,434
|
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
|
|
638,010
|
|
|
|
19.3
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
533,928
|
|
|
|
84.9
|
%
|
|
|
392,428
|
|
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
95,124
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
763,403
|
|
|
|
71.8
|
%
|
|
|
642,516
|
|
|
|
73.6
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
299,277
|
|
|
|
28.2
|
%
|
|
|
230,271
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
Mining segment
Mining segment cost of goods sold increased by
$468.3 million, or 36.8%, to $1,739.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, from $1,271.1 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009. The mining segments
gross margin percentage increased to 54.9% in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from 39.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2009.
The increase in the mining segments gross margin
percentage is explained by the increase of coking coal, coke and
coking products, steam coal, anthracites and PCI and iron ore
sales prices both on export and domestic markets following to
recovery after the global economic slowdown.
At the same time coal production cash costs per tonne at
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company increased by $3.3 per tonne, or by
12.7%, from $26.3 in the year ended December 31, 2009 to
$29.6 in the year ended December 31, 2010 mainly due to
increase in repair expenses in connection with the planned
repairs on production and transport equipment, as well as ruble
appreciation. Coal production cash costs per tonne at Yakutugol
increased by 3.3% due to the increase in fuel prices,
electricity tariffs and cost of mining works. Coke production
cash costs per tonne at Moscow Coke and Gas Plant increased by
56.1% and at Mechel-Coke by 63.2% due to a significant increase
in coking coal concentrate purchase prices. Coal production cash
costs per tonne at Bluestone decreased by 5.8% due to the
decrease in costs of mining works and auxiliary materials
expenditure rates. Production cash costs per tonne of iron ore
increased by 39.1% due to the increases in costs of fuel, spare
parts for transport equipment, railway tariff and electricity
tariff.
Steel segment
Steel segment cost of goods sold increased by
$2,063.0 million, or 77.4%, to $4,727.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, from $2,664.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009. Steel segment cost of
goods sold was 81.0% of the segments revenues in the year
ended December 31, 2010, as compared to 80.7% in the year
ended December 31, 2009, resulting in decrease of gross
margin from 19.3% to 19.0%. The decrease in gross margin is
explained by the increase in the share of products re-sold by
our trading companies for the related metallurgical plants and
other third party suppliers in the year ended December 31,
2010. Such transactions accounted for about 26.7% of the steel
segment sales to third parties in the year ended
December 31, 2010 and were effected with lower profit
margins. See Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related
Party Transactions Related Party
Transactions Transactions with related metallurgical
plants.
Ferroalloys segment
Ferroalloys segment cost of goods sold increased by
$141.5 million, or 36.1%, to $533.9 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, from $392.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009. Ferroalloy
154
segment cost of goods sold was 84.9% of the segments
revenues in the year ended December 31, 2010, as compared
to 91.1% in the year ended December 31, 2009, resulting in
an increase of gross margin from 8.9% to 15.1%. The increase is
attributable to the increase in sales prices that have risen
more than the purchase prices of inputs such as coke and
electricity tariffs.
Power segment
Power segment cost of goods sold increased by
$120.9 million, or 18.8%, to $763.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, from $642.5 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009. Power segment gross
margin percentage increased to 28.2% in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from 26.4% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The increase is explained by the
increase in electricity prices which exceeded the increase of
steam coal prices (steam coal is the major raw material in
electricity production).
Selling,
distribution and operating expenses
Selling, distribution and operating expenses increased by
$516.7 million, or 33.4%, to $2,064.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $1,547.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 mainly due to an increase
in selling and distribution expenses in mining, steel and power
segments, taxes other than on income in mining segment,
provision for doubtful accounts and general, administrative and
other operating expenses of mining, steel and ferroalloy
segments following an increase of sales revenue across all our
segments and corresponding necessity of expansion of our
activities to support this increase, as explained below. As a
percentage of consolidated revenues, selling, distribution and
operating expenses decreased to 21.2% in the year ended
December 31, 2010, as compared to 26.9% in the year ended
December 31, 2009, mainly due to the increase in the
consolidated revenue in the year ended December 31, 2010 in
comparison with the year ended December 31, 2009, including
due to the effect of the sales of products of
$1,493.1 million produced by third parties and related
parties as described above. Our selling, distribution and
operating expenses consist primarily of selling and distribution
expenses, taxes other than income tax, loss on write-off of
property, plant and equipment, provision for doubtful accounts
and general, administrative and other operating expenses. The
table below sets forth these costs by segment for the year ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, including as a percentage of
segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
Selling, Distribution and Operating Expenses by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
657,716
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
%
|
|
|
419,735
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
55,166
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
49,818
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
Recovery of the allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(7,365
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(560
|
)
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
3,531
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
3,492
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
Loss on write-off property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,993
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
218,884
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
159,775
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
930,924
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
%
|
|
|
635,756
|
|
|
|
30.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
524,857
|
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
452,159
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
42,855
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
44,136
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
3,039
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,669
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
1,871
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
2,816
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Recovery of the allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(7,773
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(35,570
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
244,029
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
191,309
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
808,877
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
|
|
656,519
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
Selling, Distribution and Operating Expenses by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
19,197
|
|
|
|
3,1
|
%
|
|
|
15,653
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
9,581
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
8,212
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
4,744
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
15,775
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
Recovery of the allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(308
|
)
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
(2,080
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
1,018
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
904
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
37,934
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
27,503
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
72,166
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
65,966
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
233,514
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
%
|
|
|
175,263
|
|
|
|
20.1
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
3,157
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
3,036
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
3,514
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
187
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
12,242
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
10,889
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
252,553
|
|
|
|
23.8
|
%
|
|
|
189,566
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities, and
increased by $238.0 million, or 56.7%, to
$657.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $419.7 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 due to the increase in coking coal, anthracites and PCI and
coke sales volumes, as well as increase in railway tariffs as a
result of annual increases of railway tariffs in Russia. As a
percentage of mining segment revenues selling and distribution
expenses decreased from 19.9% to 17.1% due to the increase in
sales prices for all our products.
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes, as
well as other taxes. Taxes other than income tax increased by
$5.3 million, or 10.7%, to $55.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $49.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. The increase is explained by the
increase in property and land tax at Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company by $7.6 million, or 32.3%, to $31.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2010 from $23.6 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 due to the increase in tax
rates following changes in the local legislation, as well as the
increase in Southern Kuzbass Coal Company property, plant and
equipment balances.
Recovery of allowance for doubtful accounts increased by
$6.8 million to $7.4 million income in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $0.6 million income in the year
ended December 31, 2009, due to the collection of accounts
receivable provided for in prior periods. In accordance with our
accounting policy we apply specific rates to overdue accounts
receivable of our companies depending on the history of cash
collections and future expectations of conditions that might
impact the collectability. As at the December 31, 2010 the
overdue balances decreased in comparison with December 31,
2009, and the allowance expenses decreased as well.
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment decreased by
$0.5 million, or 14.4%, from $3.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, to $3.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 due to the decrease in the number
of unused property, plant and equipment at our production
facilities.
General, administrative and other expenses consist of payroll
and payroll taxes, depreciation, rent and maintenance, legal and
consulting expenses, office overheads and other expenses. These
expenses increased by
156
$59.1 million, or 37.0%, to $218.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010, from $159.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of the overall
expansion of the groups activities, annual increases in
salaries and ruble appreciation. Salaries and related social
taxes increased by $41.4 million, or 37.8%, to
$150.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $109.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 mainly due to the increase in average duration of the
working day at our enterprises in 2010 after the recovery from
the global economic slowdown as well as an annual increase in
salaries in our production subsidiaries. Legal and consulting
fees and insurance services decreased by $3.6 million, or
19.4%, to $14.9 million in the year ended December 31,
2010 from $18.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 due to the decrease in use of consulting services in 2010.
Rent and maintenance, business travel expenses, bank charges and
office expenses increased by $7.0 million mainly due to the
overall expansion of the groups activities and ruble
appreciation. Social expenses decreased by $3.2 million, or
53.5%, to $2.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2010 from $6.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 mainly due to cost cutting procedures implemented by our
management. Other administrative and operating expenses
decreased by $10.4 million mainly due to the reduction of
pension liabilities at Yakutugol following the transfer of part
of the employees to our steel segment companies. For more
details, please see the analysis in the steel segment discussion
below.
Steel segment
Selling and distribution expenses for our steel segment
consisted almost entirely of transportation expenses related to
our selling activities. Such expenses increased by
$72.7 million, or 16.1%, to $524.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $452.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 due to increase of export
sales volumes by 25%. As a percentage of steel segment revenues,
selling and distribution expenses decreased to 9.0% in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from 13.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The decrease was due to the increase in
sales prices for all our products.
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes and
other taxes. These taxes amounted to $42.9 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, a decrease of
$1.3 million, or 2.9%, from $44.1 million for the year
ended December 31, 2009. As a percentage of segment
revenues, these taxes decreased from 1.3% to 0.7%. Property and
land taxes amounted to $36.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, an increase of $1.2 million, or
3.3%, from $34.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, mainly due to ruble appreciation. This
increase was offset by the decrease in non-reimbursable VAT
expenses at our Romanian subsidiaries due to the decrease in
their share of export sales in the year ended December 31,
2010 in comparison with the year ended December 31, 2009.
Recovery of allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by
$27.8 million, or 78.1%, to $7.8 million income in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $35.6 million income
in the year ended December 31, 2009, due to the increase in
allowance rates in the year ended December 31, 2010.
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment increased by
$1.4 million, or 82.1%, from $1.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, to $3.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 due to the increase in the number
of unused property, plant and equipment at our steel production
subsidiaries.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$52.7 million, or 27.6%, to $244.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $191.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, and decreased as a percentage
of segment revenues to 4.2% in the year ended December 31,
2010 from 5.8% in the year ended December 31, 2009. Payroll
and related social taxes decreased by $31.8 million, or
34.1%, to $125.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $93.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 due to the increase in average duration
of the working day at our enterprises in 2010 after the recovery
from the global economic slowdown as well as an annual increase
in salaries in our production subsidiaries. Social expenses
(including pension) increased by $3.9 million, or 27.6%, to
$18.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$14.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
mainly due to ruble appreciation and the expansion of our social
programs in 2010 following the recovery from the global economic
slowdown. Rent and maintenance, business travel expenses, bank
charges and office expenses increased by $11.8 million, or
44.3%, to $38.6 million in the year ended December 31,
2010 from $26.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 mainly due to the overall expansion of the groups
activities and ruble appreciation. Professional expenses, which
include auditing, accounting, legal and engineering fees, and
insurance services decreased by
157
$4.1 million, or 20.0%, to $16.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $20.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 primarily due to the decrease in
use of consulting services in 2010. Other administrative and
operating expenses increased by $9.3 million, or 25.4%, to
$45.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$36.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
mainly due to the increase in pension liabilities following the
transfer of a certain number of employees from our mining
segment production subsidiaries to our steel segment production
subsidiaries.
Ferroalloys segment
Selling and distribution expenses, consisting predominately of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities,
increased by $3.5 million, or 22.6%, to $19.2 million
in the year ended December 31, 2010 from $15.7 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009. As a percentage of the
ferroalloys segment revenues, selling and distribution expenses
decreased to 3.1% in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
3.6% in the year ended December 31, 2009, mainly due to an
increase in the sales prices of all our products.
Taxes other than income tax amounted to $9.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, an increase of
$1.4 million, or 16.7%, from $8.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 due to the $1.3 million
accrual for tax risks at Voskhod relating to VAT which may not
be reimbursed by the tax authorities. As a percentage of segment
revenues, these taxes decreased from 1.9% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 to 1.5% in the year ended
December 31, 2010. Property and land taxes remained stable
and amounted to $4.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, an increase of $0.5 million, or
11.7%, from $3.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009.
Recovery of allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by
$1.8 million to $0.3 million income in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $2.1 million income in the year
ended December 31, 2009, due to increase in outstanding
accounts receivable as of December 31, 2010, as well as the
increase in allowance rates in year ended December 31, 2010.
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment decreased by
$11.0 million to $4.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $15.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 due to the decrease in number of unused
property, plant and equipment at our production subsidiaries.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$10.4 million, or 37.9%, to $37.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $27.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. Payroll and related social taxes
increased by $6.0 million or 49.8% to $18.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2010 from $12.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 due to the annual increase
in salaries in our production subsidiaries. Social expenses
(including pension) increased by $0.8 million, or 31.9%, to
$3.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$2.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
mainly due to ruble appreciation. Rent and maintenance, business
travel expenses, bank charges and office expenses decreased
insignificantly by $0.1 million, or 1.2%, to
$5.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$5.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
mainly due to the effect of overall cost-cutting measures
implemented by the our management. Professional expenses, which
include auditing, accounting, legal and engineering fees, and
insurance services decreased by $0.8 million, or 33.2%, to
$1.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$2.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
primarily due to the decrease in use of consulting services in
2010. Other administrative and operating expenses increased by
$2.9 million, or 57.5%, to $9.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $5.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 mainly due to recognition of
expenses related to the development of the Uvatskoye deposit.
Power segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
electricity transmission costs incurred by our Kuzbass Power
Sales Company for the usage of the power grid, through which
electricity is distributed to the end consumers. These costs are
incurred by all power distribution companies under agreements
between such companies and the grid operator. These expenses
increased by $58.3 million, or 33.2%, to
$233.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $175.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 due to increases in electricity transmission costs as well
as the increase in electricity volumes transmitted through the
power grid.
158
Taxes other than income tax amounted to $3.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010, an increase of
$0.1 million, or 4.0%, from $3.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, which was due to the increase in
property and land tax charges related to the increase in
property, plant and equipment balances.
Allowance for doubtful accounts increased by $3.3 million
to $3.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $0.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009,
mainly due to the increase in allowance rates in the year ended
December 31, 2010.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$1.4 million, or 12.4%, to $12.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $10.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 due to ruble appreciation, as well
as the effect of the consolidation of Toplofikatsia Rousse in
December 2010.
Operating
income
Operating income increased by $1,286.6 million, or 523.7%,
to $1,532.2 million in the year ended December 31,
2010 from $245.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009. Operating income as a percentage of
consolidated revenues increased to 15.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from 4.3% in the year ended
December 31, 2009, mainly due to the increase in gross
margin as explained above.
The table below sets out operating income by segment, including
as a percentage of segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
Operating Income by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
1,185,892
|
|
|
|
30.8
|
%
|
|
|
205,169
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
297,557
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
(18,497
|
)
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
22,958
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(6.4
|
)%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
46,724
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
Elimination of intersegment unrealized (profit)
loss(1)
|
|
|
(20,924
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
1,532,207
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our management evaluates performance of our segments before the
effect of elimination of unrealized profit in inventory balances
of segments that was generated by the segments but not
recognized as profit in our consolidated financial statements
until the sale of such inventories to third parties. Therefore,
we present our segments before such elimination, the effect of
which is presented separately. The significant decrease in
intersegment unrealized profit adjustment in the year ended
December 31, 2010 in comparison with the year ended
December 31, 2009 was due to the increase in gross margin
of our mining and ferroalloy segments in 2010, followed by an
increase in the sales prices. |
Mining segment
Mining segment operating income increased by
$980.7 million, or 478.0%, to $1,185.9 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $205.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009. The operating margin
percentage increased to 30.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from 9.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2009, mainly due to the increase in all our
products sales prices following the recovery from the global
economic slowdown.
Steel segment
Steel segment operating income increased by $316.1 million,
or 1,708.7%, to $297.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $18.5 million loss in the year
ended December 31, 2009. The operating margin percentage
increased to 5.1% in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
negative 0.6% in the year ended December 31, 2009 due to
the increase in all our products sales prices following the
recovery from the global economic slowdown.
159
Ferroalloys segment
Ferroalloys segment operating income increased by
$50.5 million, or 183.2%, to $23.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010 from $27.6 million loss in the
year ended December 31, 2009. The operating margin
percentage increased to 3.6% in the year ended December 31,
2010 from negative 6.4% in the year ended December 31,
2009, mainly due to the increase in all our products sales
prices following the recovery from the global economic slowdown.
Power segment
Power segment operating income increased by $6.0 million,
or 14.8%, to $46.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $40.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The operating margin percentage
decreased to 4.4% in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
4.7% in the year ended December 31, 2009, due to the
increase in selling and distribution expenses and allowance for
doubtful accounts.
Other
income and expense, net
Other income and expense, net consists of income (loss) of
equity investees, interest income, interest expense, other
income and foreign exchange gain. The table below sets forth
these costs for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009,
including as a percentage of revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Other Income and Expense, Net
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Income (loss) from equity investees
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
17,167
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(558,397
|
)
|
|
|
(5.7
|
)%
|
|
|
(498,986
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
(8,987
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
%
|
Foreign exchange gain (loss)
|
|
|
(14,544
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(174,336
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(563,577
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from equity investees was stable in 2010 in comparison
with the year 2009. It consists of our share of income of our
equity investments such as Toplofikatsia Rousse (till December
2010) and various investments of Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company.
Interest income decreased by $4.3 million, or 19.9%, to
$17.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$21.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2009. The
decrease was mainly due to the fact that in 2009 interest income
included interest income received from asset management
agreements with Uglemetbank of $9.5 million which was not
repeated in 2010. The decrease was partially offset by the
increase of interest income on bank deposits of our trading
subsidiaries.
Interest expense increased by $59.4 million, or 11.9%, to
$558.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $499.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2009. The increase was associated with the overall increase of
average loans balances in 2010, including interest for
refinancing of loans related to the Yakutugol and Oriel
acquisitions.
Other income decreased by $509.2 million, or 101.8%, to
$9.0 million loss in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $500.3 million income in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The decrease is mainly explained by the
effect from change of the fair value of contingent payment
related to the Bluestone acquisition of $494.2 million
recognized in 2009. No such effect occurred in the year ended
December 31, 2010 due to the fact that as of
December 31, 2010 the fair value of the contingent payment
related to the CVR was equal to $nil and did not change since
December 31, 2009.
160
Foreign exchange loss decreased by $159.8 million, or
91.7%, to $14.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2010 from $174.3 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The foreign exchange loss in 2010 was
primarily attributable to losses from revaluation of the U.S.
dollar denominated syndicated loan arrangement for refinancing
the debt incurred in connection with the acquisitions of
Yakutugol and Oriel.
Income
tax expense
Income tax expense increased by $257.8 million, or
1,364.3%, to $276.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 from $18.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, due to an overall increase of operating
income. Our effective tax rate increased from 19.8% to 28.6%.
The increase in the effective tax rate was mainly due to the
fact that in the year ended December 31, 2009, the gain
resulting from the remeasurement of the contingent liability
payment related to the Bluestone acquisition in the amount of
$494.2 million was recorded as a non-taxable gain and,
therefore, it had no effect on the amount of income tax expenses
in 2009. The increase in our effective tax rate was also due to
the effect of the increase of the statutory tax rate in
Kazakhstan which resulted in the recognition of additional
deferred tax liability of $59.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010 in our Kazakh subsidiaries, thus our
effective tax rate was higher than the Russian statutory income
tax rate of 20%.
Net
income attributable to non-controlling interests
Net income (loss) attributable to non-controlling interests
increased by $32.2 million, or 1,241.9%, to
$34.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2010 from
$2.6 million loss in the year ended December 31, 2009.
The non-controlling interest in the income of our subsidiaries
in 2010 consisted of the share of
non-controlling
shareholders in the net income of Kuzbass Power Sales Company of
$4.2 million, of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and its
subsidiaries of $25.1 million, of Korshunov Mining Plant of
$17.5 million. These expenses were partially offset by the
income from share in losses of Romanian subsidiaries of
$12.1 million.
Net
income attributable to shareholders of Mechel
For the reasons set forth above, net income attributable to our
shareholders increased by $583.5 million, or 791.2%, to
$657.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
from $73.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009.
Net
(loss) income attributable to common shareholders of
Mechel
Net income attributable to our common shareholders increased by
$709.2 million, or 1,167.3%, to $648.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2010 from $60.8 million loss
in the year ended December 31, 2009 due to the decrease in
the payment of dividends on preferred shares by
$125.7 million, as well as due to the increase in net
income attributable to the shareholders of Mechel.
Year
ended December 31, 2009 compared to year ended
December 31, 2008
Net
revenues
Consolidated net revenues decreased by $4,196.6 million, or
42.2%, to $5,754.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, from $9,950.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008.
Approximately $157.4 million, or 2.7%, of our consolidated
net revenues in the year ended December 31, 2009 were
accounted for from sales of Bluestone products by both Bluestone
companies which we acquired in May 2009 and our trading
subsidiaries. However, this positive effect was offset by the
decrease in sales prices and sales volumes across all our
segments.
161
The following table sets forth our net revenues by segment,
including a breakdown by sales to third parties and other
segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
Net Revenues by Segment
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollars, except percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
1,713,245
|
|
|
|
3,664,468
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
63,197
|
|
|
|
102,992
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
27,510
|
|
|
|
41,079
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
308,039
|
|
|
|
757,816
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,111,990
|
|
|
|
4,566,354
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
3,143,282
|
|
|
|
5,164,077
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
2,729
|
|
|
|
5,031
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
122,231
|
|
|
|
161,430
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
34,060
|
|
|
|
29,713
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,302,302
|
|
|
|
5,360,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
363,652
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
66,707
|
|
|
|
150,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
430,809
|
|
|
|
584,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
533,968
|
|
|
|
688,143
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
233,327
|
|
|
|
223,075
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
41,861
|
|
|
|
29,468
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
63,628
|
|
|
|
87,424
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
872,784
|
|
|
|
1,028,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
963,738
|
|
|
|
1,588,641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated revenues
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% from mining segment
|
|
|
29.8
|
%
|
|
|
36.8
|
%
|
% from steel segment
|
|
|
54.6
|
%
|
|
|
51.9
|
%
|
% from ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
% from power segment
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
Mining segment
Our total mining segment sales decreased by
$2,454.4 million, or 53.7%, to $2,112.0 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $4,566.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008.
Coking coal concentrate sales to third parties decreased by
$1,322.6 million, or 71.1%, to $538.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $1,860.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $540.9 million and a decrease in sales
volumes of $781.7 million. The sales prices decrease is
explained by the sharp decrease in international coking coal
prices through the second half of 2008 and 2009, when the coking
coal spot price (premium hard coking coal; FOB Australia)
decreased by 70% from $405 per tonne in August 2008 to $120 per
tonne in May 2009, according to Metal Bulletin. The
162
volumes of coking coal concentrate sold to the third parties
decreased by 3,512 thousand tonnes, or 42.0%, to 4,848 thousand
tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2009 from 8,360
thousand tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2008. The
decrease in sales volumes during the period was due to decreased
demand from both domestic and foreign customers. Demand for
coking coal from steel producers fell sharply due to depressed
end-user steel demand and unfavorable economic conditions
globally. The volumes of coking coal sold to third parties
decreased both at Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company.
Yakutugols coking coal sales volumes decreased by 3,298
thousand tonnes, or 68.7%, from 4,802 thousand tonnes to 1,504
thousand tonnes. Southern Kuzbass Coal Companys coking
coal sales volumes decreased by 1,432 thousand tonnes, or 37.8%,
from 3,790 thousand tonnes to 2,358 thousand tonnes. In May 2009
we acquired the Bluestone companies. Bluestones coking
coal sales to third parties in May-December 2009 contributed 986
thousand tonnes to our coking coal sales volumes in the year
ended December 31, 2009.
Coke sales decreased by $238.8 million, or 63.3%, to
$138.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $377.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a sales prices decrease of
$164.7 million and a sales volume decrease of
$74.1 million. The decrease in sales prices was driven by
the decrease in coking coal prices, which is the key raw
material in the production of coke. The decrease in sales
volumes was in line with weakened demand due to the global
financial crisis.
Coking products sales decreased by $12.7 million, or 36.0%,
to $22.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $35.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
as a result of a sales prices decrease of $10.7 million and
a sales volums decrease of $2.0 million. The reasons for
the decrease in sales prices and volumes of coking products are
the same as those for coke.
Coke supplied to the steel segment decreased by
$311.1 million, or 52.2%, to $285.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $596.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008, where $320.7 million
of the decrease was due to a decrease of sales prices which was
offset by the increase of sales volumes of $9.6 million.
The sales volumes were stable in 2009 in comparison with 2008.
Steam coal and steam coal concentrate sales to third parties
decreased by $262.5 million, or 28.4%, to
$662.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $925.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$297.6 million which was partially offset by an increase in
sales volumes of $35.1 million. The sales prices decrease
was due to a decrease in international steam coal prices through
the second half of 2008 and 2009, when the steam coal spot price
(6,000 kCal/kg basis coal, CIF NW Europe) decreased by 70.3%
from $209 per tonne in July 2008 to $62 per tonne in March 2009,
according to Platts. The increase in sales volumes was mainly
due to an expansion of steam coal export sales to China, where
demand was not as subdued as in other regions. Steam coal sales
volumes to China were 1,333 thousand tonnes, in the year ended
December 31, 2009, as compared to nil in the year ended
December 31, 2008. Bluestones steam coal sales in
May-December 2009 contributed 238 thousand tonnes to the total
mining segment sales volumes.
Steam coal supplied to the power and ferroalloy segments
decreased by $24.5 million, or 49.1%, to $25.4 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from $49.9 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008, as a result of a
decrease in sales prices of $26.1 million, partially offset
by an increase in sales volumes of $1.6 million, or 32
thousand tonnes.
Sales of iron ore to third parties decreased by
$106.4 million, or 31.4%, to $233.0 million from
$339.4 million as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$240.8 million which was partially offset by an increase in
sales volumes of $134.4 million. The decrease in the sales
prices was due to decreases in international iron ore prices
through the second half of 2008 and 2009, when the iron ore spot
price (Indian iron ore 63% Fe dry, CFR North China port)
decreased by 67% from $189 per tonne in July 2008 to $63 per
tonne in April 2009, according to AME. The increase in sales
volumes was due to both export and domestic markets and
corresponded with the increase in demand from Chinese and
Russian steel producers.
Supplies of iron ore by our mining segment to our steel segment
decreased by $138.7 million, or 93.1%, to
$10.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$148.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 as
a result of a decrease in sales volume of $128.5 million
and a decrease in sales prices of
163
$10.2 million. Intersegment sales volumes decreased because
we purchased more iron ore from third parties which are more
favorably located in relation to Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
as compared to Korshunov Mining Plant.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales comprised 63.6% of
the mining segment sales in the year ended December 31,
2009, compared to 57.9% in the year ended December 31,
2008. The increase in the proportion of our export sales was due
to the higher export volumes of steam coal and iron ore due to
higher sales prices on the export markets. The average steam
coal export price on FCA basis in the year ended
December 31, 2009 was $70.0 per tonne in comparison with
$34.7 per tonne for Russian sales on FCA basis. The average iron
ore export price on FCA basis in the year ended
December 31, 2009 was $46.3 per tonne in comparison with
$43.9 per tonne for domestic sales on FCA basis.
Steel segment
Our steel segment revenues decreased by $2,057.9 million,
or 38.4%, to $3,302.3 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $5,360.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. Steel segment sales in 2009 were
generally influenced by depressed economic and financial
conditions both in Russia and globally. Consumption of steel
products in Russia declined by 29.0% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 to 26.5 million tonnes from
37.3 million tonnes in the year ended December 31,
2008 according to Metal Expert. Domestic steel product shipments
from Russian producers declined in line with Russian
consumption. However, production of steel products (including
semi-finished) in Russia in the same period declined by 11.5% to
54.0 million tonnes from 61.0 million tonnes, since
most Russian steel producers intensified their export sales
efforts. Export shipments of steel products (including
semi-finished) increased by 8.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 to 30.0 million tonnes from
27.6 million tonnes in the year ended December 31,
2008, while export sales of finished steel products increased by
27.8%.
Semi-finished products sales increased by $21.1 million, or
4.4%, to $496.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 from $475.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 as a result of an increase in sales
volumes of $420.7 million which was partially offset by a
decrease in sales prices of $399.6 million. The sales price
decreased due to a decline in international prices for billets
and slabs in the second half of the
2008-2009
period, since billet prices (square billet, FOB Black Sea)
decreased by 75% from $1,185 per tonne in June 2008 to $298 per
tonne in March 2009, according to Metal Expert. The increase in
sales volumes was based on relatively stable demand for Russian
semi-finished products in the export markets due to their
competitive pricing.
Stainless long products sales decreased by $9.6 million, or
18.1%, to $43.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 from $53.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$40.1 million, which was partially offset by an increase in
sales volumes of $30.5 million. The decrease in sales
prices was driven by the decrease in the prices of steelmaking
raw materials (iron ore, coking coal etc.) and alloys (nickel,
chrome etc.). The increase in sales volumes was due to an
increase in demand in the Russian market in the second half of
2009.
Alloyed long products sales decreased by $89.4 million, or
56.6%, to $68.6 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 from $158.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices
of $104.8 million partially offset by an increase in sales
volumes of $15.4 million. The decrease in sales prices was
generally due to the same reasons as for low alloyed engineering
steel. The increase in sales volumes was due to the
strengthening of demand in the domestic market in the second
half of 2009.
Rebar sales decreased by $755.3 million, or 46.3%, to
$877.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $1,632.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$802.4 million partially offset by an increase in sales
volumes of $47.1 million. The decrease in sales prices was
driven by a sharp decrease in domestic and international prices,
when rebar prices (Russia domestic, ex-warehouse, excluding VAT)
decreased by 70% from $1,326 per tonne in August 2008 to $401
per tonne in April 2009, according to Metal Expert. The increase
in sales volumes was due to higher export sales. Demand in the
Russian market was weak due to the depressed economic situation
of the construction industry during
164
2009, resulting in lower Russian sales. We redirected rebar
shipments to export markets where demand strengthened in the
second half of 2009.
Wire-rod sales decreased by $36.8 million, or 15.3%, to
$203.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $240.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$153.1 million, which was partially offset by an increase
in sales volumes of $116.2 million. The decrease in sales
prices was driven by a decrease in domestic and international
prices, when wire-rod price (Russia domestic, ex-warehouse,
excluding VAT) decreased by 66% from $1,219 per tonne in August
2008 to $419 per tonne in April 2009, according to Metal Expert.
The increase in sales volumes was due to higher exports.
Low alloyed engineering steel sales decreased by
$327.8 million, or 54.8%, to $270.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $598.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $222.1 million and a decrease in sales
volumes of $105.7 million. The decrease in sales prices was
driven by a decrease in the prices of steelmaking raw materials
(iron ore, coking coal etc.). The decrease in sales volumes was
due to weak demand in key consuming industries, such as the
automotive and machine building industries in Russia and abroad.
Stainless flat products sales decreased by $81.4 million,
or 44.1%, to $103.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $184.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease in sales
prices of $54.7 million and a decrease in sales volumes of
$26.7 million. The decrease in sales prices was driven by a
decrease in Russian prices during the covered period, when
prices for stainless flat steel (cold-rolled, 08X18H10T steel
grade, 2-3 mm, Russia domestic, ex-warehouse, excluding VAT)
decreased by 48% from $6,144 per tonne in May 2008 to $3,169 per
tonne in March 2009, according to Metal Expert. The decrease in
sales volumes was mainly due to weak demand in Russian markets.
Carbon and low alloyed flat product sales increased by
$132.2 million, or 45.4%, to $158.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $291.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $112.1 million and a decrease in sales
volumes of $20.0 million. The decrease in sales prices was
driven by a decrease in domestic and international prices during
the covered period, when the price for hot-rolled coil (Russia
exports, FOB Black Sea) decreased by 71% from $1,215 per tonne
in August 2008 to $355 per tonne in May 2009, according to Metal
Expert. The decrease in sales volumes was due to a lack of
demand in both Russian and export markets.
Carbon and low-alloyed forgings sales decreased by
$48.4 million, or 45.1%, to $58.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $107.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease in
sales volumes of $48.4 million. The decrease in sales
volumes was due to poor demand in Russian and export markets.
Stampings sales decreased by $99.3 million, or 42.1%, to
$136.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $236.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$28.1 million and a decrease in sales volumes of
$71.1 million. The decrease in sales prices and sales
volumes was due to a sharp decrease of demand from the key
consuming industries in both export and Russian markets due to
the global economic slowdown.
Wire sales decreased by $320.7 million, or 50.1%, to
$319.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $640.2 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of a decrease in sales prices of
$234.5 million and a decrease in sales volumes of
$86.2 million. The decrease in sales prices was driven by a
decrease in the prices of wire-rod, which is the main material
used in wire production. The decrease in sales volumes was due
to the lack of demand from the key consuming industries
(construction, railways construction, automotive and
machine-building industries).
Wire ropes sales decreased by $38.6 million, or 45.7%, to
$45.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$84.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 as a
result of a decrease in sales prices of $20.6 million and a
decrease in sales volumes of $18.0 million. The decrease in
sales prices was driven by a decrease in the prices of wire,
which is the main material used in wire ropes production. The
decrease in the sales volumes was due to the lack of demand from
the key consuming industries (crane production and lifting
machine-building, mining and construction industries).
165
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales comprised 36.8% of
steel segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2009,
compared to 22.4% in the year ended December 31, 2008. The
increase in the proportion of our export sales was due to weak
Russian demand and relatively stable demand from export markets,
which we believe we were able to capture due to the competitive
quality and pricing of our steel products as compared to our
international rivals.
Ferroalloys segment
Nickel sales to third parties decreased by $90.7 million,
or 32.2%, to $190.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $281.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008, as a result of a decrease in sales
prices of $106.2 million, which was partially offset by an
increase in sales volumes of $15.5 million. The decrease in
sales prices was due to a decrease in nickel quotes at the
London Metal Exchange (LME), which we use to determine our
contract prices. Nickel price at the LME declined from a high
price of $33,300 per tonne in March 2008 to a low of $9,405
per tonne in March 2009, according to Metal Bulletin. Our nickel
sales volumes increased by 0.7 thousand tonnes to 13.7 thousand
tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2009 from 13.0
thousand tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2008, due to
growth in demand from stainless steel producers.
Nickel supplies to our steel segment decreased by
$57.6 million, or 64.6%, to $31.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $89.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease in sales
prices of $17.9 million and a decrease in sales volumes of
$39.7 million. The decrease in sales volumes was due to a
decrease in steel production volumes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Izhstal as a result of the global
economic slowdown.
Ferrosilicon sales to third parties decreased by
$12.7 million, or 16.0%, to $66.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $79.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008, mainly as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $29.1 million, which was partially
offset by an increase in sales volumes of $16.4 million.
The decrease in sales prices was due to a decrease in
international ferrosilicon prices during the second half of 2008
and 2009. The price for Chinese ferrosilicon (75% Si, FOB Hong
Kong) declined by 56% from $2,235 per tonne in June 2009 to a
low of $990 per tonne in January 2009, according to Metal
Bulletin. The increase in sales volumes was due to an increase
in export sales volumes, while Russian sales volumes declined.
Ferrosilicon supplies to our steel segment decreased by
$19.5 million, or 49.4%, to $20.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $39.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008, as a result of a decrease in sales
prices of $10.0 million and a decrease in sales volumes of
$9.5 million. The decrease in sales volumes was due to a
decrease in steel production volumes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Izhstal as a result of the global
economic slowdown.
Chrome sales to third parties increased by $24.6 million,
or 36.2%, to $92.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $68.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008, as a result of an increase in sales
volumes of $223.8 million, which was partially offset by a
decrease in sales prices of $199.2 million. The increase in
sales volumes was due to the consolidation of Tikhvin
Ferroalloys Plant in our consolidated financial statements for
full year 2009 as compared to nine months in 2008. The decrease
in sales prices was due to a decrease in international chrome
prices during the second half of the 2008 and 2009. The price
for high-carbon ferrochrome (6-8% C, 60% Cr max., 1.5% Si, major
European destinations) declined by 77% from $6,283 per tonne in
May 2008 to a low of $1,433 per tonne in April 2009, according
to Metal Bulletin.
Chrome supplies to our steel segment decreased by
$9.0 million, or 41.1%, to $12.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $21.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease in sales
prices of $11.3 million, attributable to a decrease in
international and Russian sale prices, which was partially
offset by an increase in sales volumes of $2.3 million. The
increase in sales volumes was due to the consolidation of
Tikhvin Ferroalloys Plant in our consolidated financial
statements for full year 2009 as compared to nine months in 2008.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales increased and
comprised 86.8% of ferroalloy segment sales in the year ended
December 31, 2009, compared to 76.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2008. The increase in
166
the proportion of our export sales was due to the higher export
volumes of chrome and ferrosilicon due to higher demand from
foreign steel producers in comparison with Russian steel
producers.
Power segment
Our power segment revenues decreased by $155.3 million, or
15.1%, to $872.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, from $1,028.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was mainly due to the
decrease in electricity sales to third parties by
$165.0 million, or 25.9%, to $470.9 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $635.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $71.7 million and a decrease in sales
volumes of $93.3 million. The decrease in sales prices was
due to depreciation of the ruble against the U.S. dollar.
The decrease in electricity sales volumes was due to a decline
in demand from industrial consumers.
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant contributed $14.7 million to
the power segment revenues through sales of power generation
capacity to third parties in the year ended December 31,
2009.
Cost of
goods sold and gross profit
The consolidated cost of goods sold was 68.8% of consolidated
revenues in the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared
to 52.9% of consolidated revenues in the year ended
December 31, 2008, resulting in a decrease in consolidated
gross margin to 31.2% in the year ended December 31, 2009
from 47.1% for the year ended December 31, 2008. Cost
of goods sold primarily consists of costs relating to raw
materials (including products purchased for resale), direct
payroll, depreciation and energy. The table below sets forth
cost of goods sold and gross margin by segment for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, including as a percentage
of segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
Cost of Goods Sold and Gross Margin by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
1,271,055
|
|
|
|
60.2
|
%
|
|
|
1,698,828
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
840,935
|
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
|
|
2,867,526
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
2,664,292
|
|
|
|
80.7
|
%
|
|
|
3,868,358
|
|
|
|
73.1
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
638,010
|
|
|
|
19.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,491,894
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
392,428
|
|
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
|
|
571,221
|
|
|
|
97.7
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
13,410
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
642,512
|
|
|
|
73.6
|
%
|
|
|
714,094
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
230,271
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
Mining segment
Mining segment cost of goods sold decreased by
$427.8 million, or 25.2%, to $1,271.1 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $1,698.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. The mining segments
gross margin percentage decreased from 62.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2008, to 39.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2009.
The decrease in the mining segments gross margin
percentage was due to a decrease in coking coal, steam coal and
iron ore sales prices both in export and domestic markets as a
result of the global financial crisis. At the same time coal
production cash costs per tonne at Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
decreased by 11.4% due to ruble depreciation. Coal production
cash costs per tonne at Yakutugol increased by 6.1% due to
decrease of production volumes following the decrease of
intersegment and external demand due to the
167
financial crisis which eliminated the benefit of economies of
scale in the year ended December 31, 2008. Coal cash cost
per tonne at Bluestone for the period from May 2009 to
December 31, 2009 was $93.7 per tonne. The production cash
costs per tonne for coke at Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and
Mechel-Coke decreased by 46.6% and 90.8%, respectively,
following the decrease of coking coal concentrate prices.
Production cash costs per tonne for iron ore concentrate
decreased by 14.1%, mostly due to the depreciation of the ruble,
partially offset by higher per unit costs due to lower
production volumes by 10.5%.
Steel segment
Steel segment cost of goods sold decreased by
$1,204.1 million, or 31.1%, to $2,664.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $3,868.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. Steel segment cost of
goods sold was 80.7% of the segments revenues in the year
ended December 31, 2009, as compared to 72.2% in the year
ended December 31, 2008, resulting in a decrease in gross
margin from 27.8% to 19.3%. The decrease in gross margin was due
to a decrease in sales prices which exceeded the decrease in
purchase prices of major raw materials (coking coal, iron ore
and ferroalloys).
Ferroalloys segment
Ferroalloys segment cost of goods sold decreased by
$178.8 million, or 31.3%, to $392.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $571.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. Ferroalloy segment cost
of goods sold was 91.1% of the segments revenues in the
year ended December 31, 2009, as compared to 97.7% in the
year ended December 31, 2008, resulting in an increase of
gross margin from 2.3% to 8.9%. The increase in gross margin was
due to the absence of write down of inventory to market price in
the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the write
down in the amount of $94.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008.
Power segment
Power segment cost of goods sold decreased by
$71.6 million, or 10.0%, to $642.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, from $714.1 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008. Power segment gross margin
percentage decreased from 30.5% in the year ended
December 31, 2008, to 26.4% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The decrease in gross margin was due to
a decrease in electricity prices which exceeded the decrease in
steam coal prices (steam coal is the major raw material in
electricity production).
Selling,
distribution and operating expenses
Selling, distribution and operating expenses decreased by
$586.5 million, or 27.5%, to $1,547.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $2,134.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 mainly due to a decrease
in selling and distribution expenses in the mining and power
segments, taxes other than income tax in the mining segment, and
provision for doubtful accounts and general, administrative and
other operating expenses in the mining, steel and power
segments, as explained below. As a percentage of consolidated
revenues, selling, distribution and operating expenses increased
to 26.9% in the year ended December 31, 2009, as compared
to 21.4% in the year ended December 31, 2008. Our selling,
distribution and operating expenses consist primarily of selling
and distribution expenses, taxes other than income tax, loss on
write-off of property, plant and equipment, provision for
doubtful accounts and general, administrative and other
168
operating expenses. The table below sets forth these costs by
segment for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
including as a percentage of segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
Selling, Distribution and Operating Expenses by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
419,735
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
%
|
|
|
691,551
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
49,818
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
62,978
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(560
|
)
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
15,640
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
3,492
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,715
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Loss on write-off property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
159,775
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
266,672
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
635,756
|
|
|
|
30.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,040,352
|
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
452,159
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
393,207
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
44,136
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
46,892
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
1,669
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
3,527
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
2,816
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,608
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(35,570
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
75,956
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
191,309
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
223,191
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
656,519
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
%
|
|
|
745,381
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
15,653
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
10,185
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
8,212
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
15,775
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(2,080
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
|
|
2,232
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
904
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
591
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
27,503
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
47,541
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
65,967
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
63,986
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
175,263
|
|
|
|
20.1
|
%
|
|
|
254,047
|
|
|
|
24.7
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
3,036
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
3,282
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
9,805
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
187
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
10,889
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
17,311
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
189,566
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
%
|
|
|
284,610
|
|
|
|
27.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169
Mining segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities, and
decreased by $271.8 million, or 39.3%, from
$691.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 to
$419.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009.
The decrease was due to a decrease in coking coal sales volumes,
as well as a decrease in railway tariffs as a result of the
depreciation of the ruble. As a percentage of mining segment
revenues, selling and distribution expenses increased from 15.1%
to 19.9% due to a decrease in sales prices of all our products.
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes, as
well as other taxes. Taxes other than income tax decreased by
$13.2 million, or 20.9%, from $63.0 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008, to $49.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was mainly due
to tax items in 2008 which did not recur in 2009. In the year
ended December 31, 2008 tax penalties and fines imposed by
the FAS under the antimonopoly legislation on Mechel Trading
House, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and Yakutugol were
recognized in the amount of $32.1 million. Also in the year
ended December 31, 2008 income from the release of tax
risks previously accrued with respect to Yakutugol and Mechel
Trade House in the amount of $7.3 million was recognized.
In addition, in the year ended December 31, 2009 additional
tax risks in the total amount of $1.3 million were accrued
at Korshunov Mining Plant, $2.3 million of prior period
taxes were accrued at Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and
$3.5 million taxes were incurred at Bluestone.
Allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by $16.2 million
from $15.6 million loss in the year ended December 31,
2008 to $0.6 million income in the year ended
December 31, 2009, due to lower exposure to losses on
accounts receivable. In accordance with our accounting policy we
apply specific rates to overdue accounts receivable of our
companies depending on the history of cash collections and
future expectations of conditions that might impact the
collectability of accounts of each of our companies. As of
December 31, 2009 the overdue balances decreased in
comparison to December 31, 2008, and therefore the
allowance for doubtful accounts also decreased.
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment increased by
$2.7 million, or 337.5%, from $0.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008, to $3.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. The entirety of this amount in the
year ended December 31, 2009 relates to the write-off of
obsolete property, plant and equipment that is not intended for
further use in production process at Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company.
General, administrative and other expenses consist of payroll
and payroll taxes, depreciation, rent and maintenance, legal and
consulting expenses, office overheads and other expenses. These
expenses decreased by $106.9 million, or 40.1%, to
$159.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009,
from $266.7 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 as a result of the management steps aimed at overall
expenses reduction and the depreciation of the ruble. Salaries
and related social taxes decreased by $33.0 million, or
23.1%, to $109.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $142.4 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 mainly due to a reduction in
working hours at our companies in the first quarter of 2009.
Legal and consulting fees and insurance services increased by
$1.0 million, or 5.5%, to $18.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $17.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 due to the consolidation of
Bluestone since May 2009. Rent and maintenance, business travel
expenses, bank charges and office expenses decreased by
$17.3 million, or 41.4%, to $24.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $41.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 as a result of cost cutting
measures. Social expenses decreased by $17.7 million, or
74.5%, to $6.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 from $23.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 mainly due to a reduction in our social programs in the
first half of 2009 necessitated by the global financial crisis.
Other administrative and operating expenses decreased by
$39.2 million mainly due to the recognition of a
$38.2 million reduction in the pension obligations at
Yakutugol based on an expert consultants review of our
pension program for Yakutugol and planned changes aimed at
reducing the number of employees to whom Yakutugol will provide
financial support for re-settlement upon retirement from Yakutia
to central parts of Russia. This income was partially offset by
the losses from provision for non-recoverable advances paid to
various suppliers at Korshunov Mining Plant and Mechel Trading,
with the total effect of $3.8 million.
170
Steel segment
Selling and distribution expenses for our steel segment
consisted almost entirely of transportation expenses related to
our selling activities. Such expenses increased by
$59.0 million, or 15.0%, to $452.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $393.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 due to an increase in export
sales volumes of 42%. As a percentage of steel segment revenues,
selling and distribution expenses increased from 7.3% in the
year ended December 31, 2008 to 13.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The increase was due to the decreases in
sales prices for all our products.
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes and
other taxes. These taxes amounted to $44.1 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$2.8 million, or 5.9%, from $46.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of segment
revenues, these taxes increased from 0.9% to 1.3%. Property and
land taxes amounted to $34.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, a decrease of $10.4 million, or
22.9%, from $45.2 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008, mainly due to the depreciation of the
ruble.
Allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by
$111.5 million, or 146.8%, to $35.6 million income in
the year ended December 31, 2009 from $76.0 million
loss in the year ended December 31, 2008, due to the
decrease in outstanding accounts receivable provided as of
December 31, 2009, as well as the collection of certain
accounts receivable provided for as of December 31, 2008.
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment decreased by
$1.8 million, or 51.4%, from $3.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008, to $1.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009. The amount in the year ended
December 31, 2009 relates to the write-off of obsolete
property, plant and equipment that are not intended for further
use in the production process at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
and Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant.
General, administrative and other expenses decreased by
$31.9 million, or 14.3%, to $191.3 million from
$223.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2008,
and increased as a percentage of segment revenues from 4.2% in
the year ended December 31, 2008, to 5.8% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. Payroll and related social taxes
decreased by $7.0 million, or 7.0%, to $93.2 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$100.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 due
to reduced working hours at our companies in the first quarter
of 2009. Social expenses (including pension obligations)
decreased by $6.6 million, or 31.9%, to $14.1 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from $20.7 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008, mainly due to the
depreciation of the ruble and a reduction in our social programs
in 2009 necessitated by the global financial crisis. Rent and
maintenance, business travel expenses, bank charges and office
expenses decreased by $2.2 million, or 7.7%, to
$26.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$29.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2008,
mainly due to the depreciation of the ruble, as well as cost
cutting measures. Professional services expenses, which include
auditing, accounting, legal and engineering fees, and insurance
services increased by $6.1 million, or 41.4%, to
$20.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$14.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
primarily due to increases in consulting fees. Other
administrative and operating expenses decreased by
$22.1 million, or 37.7%, to $36.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $58.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 due to a decrease in asset
retirement obligations at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Urals
Stampings Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and Izhstal in the
amount of $9.0 million, as well as a decrease in allowance
for doubtful advances paid and other accounts receivable at
Urals Stampings Plant, Mechel Campia Turzii and Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant due to a decreased exposure to losses in the
amount of $5.4 million, and also due to effect of cost
cutting measures implemented at our companies and the
depreciation of the ruble.
Ferroalloys segment
Selling and distribution expenses, consisting predominately of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities,
increased by $5.5 million, or 53.9%, to $15.7 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from $10.2 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of the
ferroalloy segment revenues, selling and distribution expenses
increased from 1.7% in the year ended December 31, 2008 to
3.6% in the year ended December 31, 2009, mainly due to a
decrease in the sales prices of all our products.
171
Taxes other than income tax amounted to $8.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, an increase of
$4.8 million, or 141.2%, from $3.4 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. The increase was due to gains
recognized in 2008 which did not recur in 2009. In the year
ended December 31, 2008 a reduction in income tax accruals
for 2005, 2006 and 2007 was recognized at Southern Urals Nickel
Plant in the amount of $2.1 million, because gains from the
forgiveness of tax fines and penalties can be excluded from
taxable profit. As a percentage of segment revenues, these taxes
increased from 0.6% in the year ended December 31, 2008 to
1.9% in the year ended December 31, 2009. Property and land
taxes amounted to $3.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, a decrease of $0.9 million, or
18.8%, from $4.8 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008.
Allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by $4.3 million
from $2.2 million loss in the year ended December 31,
2008, to $2.1 million income in the year ended
December 31, 2009, due to the decrease in outstanding
accounts receivable provided for as of December 31, 2009,
as well as collection of certain accounts receivable provided
for as of December 31, 2008.
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment increased by
$15.8 million, or 100.0%, to $15.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from nil in the year ended
December 31, 2008 due to the write-off of obsolete
property, plant and equipment and
construction-in-progress
at Southern Urals Nickel Plant and Kazakhstansky Nickel Mining
Company.
General, administrative and other expenses decreased by
$20.0 million, or 42.1%, to $27.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009, from $47.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008. Payroll and related social
taxes decreased by $2.4 million, or 16.7%, to
$12.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$14.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 due
to reduced working hours at our companies in the first quarter
of 2009. Social expenses (including pension obligations)
decreased by $7.2 million, or 75.0%, to $2.4 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from $9.6 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 mainly due to the
depreciation of the ruble and a reduction in social programs in
2009 necessitated by the global financial crisis. Rent and
maintenance, business travel expenses, bank charges and office
expenses increased by $1.8 million, or 48.6%, to
$5.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$3.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2008,
mainly due to the start of active production at Voskhod-Chrome
followed by an increase in headcount of administrative
employees. Professional services expenses, which include
auditing, accounting, legal and engineering fees, and insurance
services decreased by $1.5 million, or 37.5%, to
$2.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$4.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 due
to a reduction in the number of consulting projects for which
external advisors were engaged. Other administrative and
operating expenses decreased by $10.7 million, or 67.7%, to
$5.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$15.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2008,
mainly due to the effect of cost cutting measures implemented at
our companies and the depreciation of the ruble.
Power segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
electricity transmission costs incurred by our Kuzbass Power
Sales Company for the usage of the power grid, through which
electricity is distributed to the end consumers. These costs are
incurred by all power distribution companies under agreements
between such companies and the grid operator. These expenses
decreased by $78.7 million, or 31.0%, to
$175.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $254.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 due to a decrease in electricity volumes transmitted
through the power grid as well as the depreciation of the ruble.
Taxes other than income tax amounted to $3.0 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$0.3 million, or 9.1%, from $3.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 which was due to fines and
penalties of $1.2 million at Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
caused by the environmental emissions above regulatory limits in
2008 which did not recur in 2009.
Allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by $9.6 million,
to $0.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $9.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2008,
due to a decrease in outstanding accounts receivable provided
for as of December 31, 2009, as well as collection of
certain accounts receivable provided for as of December 31,
2008. In accordance with our accounting policy we apply specific
rates to
172
overdue accounts receivable of our companies depending on the
history of cash collections and future expectations of
conditions that might impact the collectability of accounts of
each of our companies. Since the fourth quarter of 2009 the
overdue balances decreased, and therefore the allowance expenses
also decreased.
General, administrative and other expenses decreased by
$6.4 million, or 37.1%, to $10.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $17.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 due to the depreciation of the
ruble, as well as the effect of cost cutting measures
implemented at our companies in 2009.
Operating
income
Operating income decreased by $2,310.7 million, or 90.4%,
to $245.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $2,556.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2008. Operating income as a percentage of consolidated revenues
decreased to 4.3% in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
25.7% in the year ended December 31, 2008, mainly due to a
decrease in gross margin coupled with the decrease in sales
prices in all segments in 2009.
The table below sets out operating income by segment, including
as a percentage of segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
Operating Income by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
205,180
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,827,174
|
|
|
|
40.0
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
(18,497
|
)
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)%
|
|
|
746,514
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(6.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(50,517
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
Elimination of intersegment unrealized (profit)
loss(1)
|
|
|
45,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,751
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our management evaluates performance of our segments before the
effect of elimination of unrealized profit in inventory balances
of segments that was generated by the segments but not
recognized as profit in our consolidated financial statements
until the sale of such inventories to third parties. Therefore,
we present our segments before such elimination, the effect of
which is presented separately. The significant increase of
intersegment unrealized profit adjustment in the year ended
December 31, 2009 in comparison with the year ended
December 31, 2008 was due to the decrease in gross margin
of our mining and ferroalloy segments in 2009, followed by a
decrease in the sales prices. |
Mining segment
Mining segment operating income decreased by
$1,622.0 million, or 88.8%, to $205.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $1,827.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. The operating margin
percentage decreased to 9.7% in the year ended December 31,
2009 from 40.0% in the year ended December 31, 2008, mainly
due to the decrease in coking and steam coal and iron ore sales
prices as a result of the global financial crisis.
Steel segment
Steel segment operating income decreased by $765.0 million,
or 102.5%, to $18.5 million loss in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $746.5 million income in the
year ended December 31, 2008. The operating margin
percentage decreased to negative 0.6% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from 13.9% in the year ended
December 31, 2008 due to the decrease in sales prices for
all our products as a result of the global financial crisis.
Ferroalloys segment
Ferroalloys segment operating loss decreased by
$22.9 million, or 45.3%, to a $27.6 million loss in
the year ended December 31, 2009 from $50.5 million
loss in the year ended December 31, 2008. The operating
173
margin percentage increased to negative 6.4% from negative 8.6%,
mainly due to the decrease in cost of goods resulting from the
write-down of most raw materials and finished goods in stock as
of December 31, 2008 to their net realizable values at the
end of 2008.
Power segment
Power segment operating income increased by $11.3 million,
or 38.4%, to $40.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $29.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008. The operating margin percentage
increased to 4.7% from 2.9% due to decreases in selling and
distribution expenses and allowance for doubtful accounts.
Other
income and expense, net
Other income and expense, net consists of income (loss) of
equity investees, interest income, interest expense, gain on
revaluation of trading securities, other income and foreign
exchange gain. The table below sets forth these costs for the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, including as a
percentage of revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Other Income and Expense, Net
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Income (loss) from equity investees
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(498,986
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
|
|
(324,083
|
)
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)%
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
%
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
Foreign exchange gain (loss)
|
|
|
(174,336
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)%
|
|
|
(877,428
|
)
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from equity investees was $1.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 compared to $0.7 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 and consisted of our share
of income from our equity investments, such as Toplofikatsia
Rousse and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company.
Interest income increased by $9.8 million, or 84.5%, to
$21.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$11.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008. The
increase was mainly due to the receipt of interest income from
asset management agreements with Uglemetbank in the amount of
$9.5 million.
Interest expense increased by $174.9 million, or 54.0%, to
$499.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $324.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2008. The increase was associated with the overall increase in
average loan balances in the year ended December 31, 2009.
Other income increased by $519.1 million, or 2,762.0%, from
$18.8 million loss in the year ended December 31, 2008
to a $500.3 million gain in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The increase was mainly due to the
effect of the remeasurement of the contingent liability payments
related to the Bluestone acquisition. The change in the fair
value of our preferred shares during the post-acquisition period
through December 31, 2009 resulted in a decrease of
$494.2 million in the CVR contingent payment. For a more
detailed description of the Bluestone acquisition see
note 3(e) to our consolidated financial statements. Also in
the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded other income
from gain on accounts payable with expired legal term and gain
on forgiveness of fines and penalties of $3.8 million at
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant and Mechel Trading, as well as
income from other sales in the amount of $15.0 million.
Foreign exchange loss decreased by $703.1 million, or
80.1%, to $174.3 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $877.4 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. This foreign exchange loss was
primarily attributable to losses from revaluation of the
U.S. dollar denominated syndicated loan arrangement for
refinancing of the Yakutugol acquisition and the Oriel
acquisition. The decrease in foreign exchange losses was due to
the strengthening of the ruble exchange rate as of
December 31, 2009 in comparison with December 31, 2008.
174
Income
tax expense
Income tax expense decreased by $100.0 million, or 84.1%,
to $18.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2009
from $118.9 million in the year ended December 31,
2008, due to a decrease in operating income. Our effective tax
rate increased to 19.8% from 8.8%. The increase in effective tax
rate was mainly due to the fact that in the year ended
December 31, 2008, income from a decrease in statutory tax
rates in Russia and Kazakhstan in the amount of
$341.1 million was recognized. The gain resulting from the
remeasurement of the contingent liability payment related to the
Bluestone acquisition in the amount of $494.2 million was
recorded as a non-taxable gain and, therefore, it had no effect
on the amount of income tax expenses.
Net
income attributable to non-controlling interests
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests decreased
by $86.2 million, or 97.1%, to $2.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $88.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008. The net income attributable
to non-controlling interests in 2009 consisted of the share of
non-controlling shareholders in the net income of Kuzbass Power
Sales Company of $2.6 million, of Southern Urals Nickel
Plant of $0.4 million, of Korshunov Mining Plant of
$2.8 million, of Urals Stampings Plant of $2.2 million
and of Mechel Mining of $8.3 million. These items were
partially offset by income from share in losses of Mechel
Targoviste of $5.2 million, Mechel Campia Turzii of
$5.5 million, of Izhstal of $1.6 million and of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company of $1.7 million.
Net
income attributable to shareholders of Mechel
For the reasons set forth above, net income attributable to our
shareholders decreased by $1,066.8 million, or 93.5%, to
$73.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$1,140.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2008.
Net
(loss) income attributable to common shareholders of
Mechel
Net income attributable to our common shareholders decreased by
$1,079.7 million, or 94.7%, to $60.8 million loss in
the year ended December 31, 2009 from $1,140.5 million
income in the year ended December 31, 2008 due to the
payment of dividends on preferred shares of $134.5 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Capital
requirements
We expect that our principal capital requirements in the near
future will be for financing the working capital needs of our
business and for funding the following: capital expenditures,
repayment of maturing debt, acquisitions and payment of
dividends on preferred shares.
Our business is heavily dependent on machinery for the
production of steel and steel products, as well as investments
in our mining operations. Investments to maintain and expand
production facilities are, accordingly, an important priority
and have a significant effect on our cash flows and future
results of operations. We intend to focus our capital spending
on the implementation of projects, which we view as key to
carrying out our business strategy. We may undertake other
projects assigned a lower priority under our current capital
investment plans if sources of long-term financing can be
secured on favorable terms. See Item 4. Information
on the Company Capital Investment Program for
the objectives of our capital investment program and its
details. Over the next three years, i.e.,
2011-2013,
we expect our capital expenditures on our metals production
facilities to total approximately $1.1 billion,
approximately 91% of which will be in
2011-2012,
and approximately 9% in 2013. We intend to direct approximately
$2.1 billion for the construction of a rail branch line to
the Elga coal deposit and the development of the Elga coal
deposit during the period from 2011 to 2013. We intend to
finance our capital investments with cash flow from operations
and external financing sources.
175
We continue to consider acquisitions as one of our major growth
strategies. Historically, funding of acquisitions has come from
cash flows from existing operations and external financing
sources.
Our total outstanding debt as of December 31, 2010 and 2009
was $7,318.4 million and $5,997.5 million,
respectively. See Item 11. Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk for information
regarding the type of financial instruments, the maturity
profile of debt, currency and interest rate structure.
In 2010 and 2009, we paid dividends of $23.3 million and
$208.1 million, respectively, out of which
$8.8 million and $134.5 million, respectively, was
paid on preferred shares. See Item 8. Financial
Information Dividend Distribution Policy for a
description of our dividend policy.
Capital
resources
Historically, our major sources of cash have been cash generated
from operations, bank loans and ruble bonds, and we expect these
sources will continue to be our principal sources of cash in the
future. We may also raise cash through equity and debt
financings in international capital markets. For financing of
our capital investment program we have also relied on financings
secured by foreign export credit agency guarantees. We do not
use off-balance sheet financing arrangements.
The table below summarizes our cash flows for the periods
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Net cash used in/provided by operations
|
|
|
(147,371
|
)
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(1,119,203
|
)
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
1,210,125
|
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities was $147.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2010, and net cash provided by
operating activities was $561.7 million and
$2,229.9 million in the years ended December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively. The operating cash inflows were derived
from payments received from sales of our mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power products, reduced by cash disbursements
for direct labor, raw materials and parts, selling, distribution
and operating expenses, interest expense and income taxes.
Net cash provided by operating activities before changes in
working capital items was $1,274.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2010. Below we analyze major changes in
working capital items which in the aggregate accounted for
$1,421.9 million in cash provided by operating activities,
resulting in net cash used in operating activities of
$147.4 million.
Working capital items accretive to operating cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in advances received of $86.0 million due to an
increase in the number of customers working on a prepayment
basis both in export and domestic markets;
|
|
|
|
an increase in accrued taxes and other liabilities of
$142.8 million due to an increase in taxes payable, wages
and salaries and interest accrued for the year ended
December 31, 2010;
|
|
|
|
an increase in accounts payable of $43.9 million due to an
overall increase in purchase volumes and purchase prices across
all our segments in the year ended December 31,
2010; and
|
|
|
|
a decrease in advance payments to non-state pension funds of
$4.9 million due to changes in pension programs.
|
Working capital items reducing operating cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in accounts receivable of $148.2 million
primarily explained by increase in sales of mining products by
Mechel Carbon and increase in sales by new foreign subsidiaries
of Mechel-Service;
|
|
|
|
an increase in inventories of $761.7 million due to a
significant increase of finished goods and raw materials held in
stock at the warehouses of Yakutugol, Bluestone, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company,
|
176
|
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Urals Stampings Plant, Izhstal,
and Mechel-Service as of December 31, 2010. The main reason
for the change in the stock level was the increase in production
volume across all our segments, higher pricing for new materials
purchased and also consolidation of inventory balances of
Laminorul Plant and Mechel Remservise which were acquired during
the year ended December, 31, 2010;
|
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in balances with related parties of
$506.7 million primary due to transactions with related
metallurgical plants, Metallurg-Trust and Usipar; and
|
|
|
|
an increase in other current assets of $260.5 million
primary due to an increase of VAT and income tax receivable,
advances paid, and capitalized bank origination fees in the year
ended December 31, 2010.
|
Net cash provided by operating activities before changes in
working capital items was negative $48.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to positive
$2,599.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2008.
Below we analyze major changes in working capital items, which
in the aggregate accounted for $610.3 million in cash
provided by operating activities, resulting in net cash provided
by operating activities of $561.7 million.
Working capital items accretive to operating cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
a decrease in accounts receivable of $97.3 million
primarily explained by an improved cash collection in our steel
segment due to a decrease in the number of customers
experiencing liquidity problems in 2009 as compared to 2008;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in inventories of $481.3 million due to a
significant decrease of finished goods and raw materials held in
stock at the warehouses of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company,
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Mechel Carbon AG, Mechel Campia
Turzii and Mechel Trading as of December 31, 2009. The main
reason for the change in the stock level was the decrease in
customer demand across all our segments;
|
|
|
|
an increase in advances received of $30.5 million due to an
increase in the number of customers working on a prepayment
basis both in export and domestic markets;
|
|
|
|
an increase in accrued taxes and other liabilities of
$38.5 million due to an increase in taxes payable, wages
and salaries and interest accrued for the year ended
December 31, 2009;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in deferred revenue and cost of inventory in transit,
net of $10.5 million due to a decrease in nickel sales
volumes and sales prices in the year ended December 31,
2009;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in other current assets of $131.3 million
primary due to a decrease of VAT and income tax receivable at
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Mechel Trading House, Mechel
Service, Voskhod-Oriel and Voskhod-Chrome caused by the losses
incurred by these companies in the year ended December 31,
2009, which resulted in overpayment of taxes payable in advance
in accordance with applicable tax requirements; and
|
|
|
|
a decrease in advance payments to non-state pension funds of
$7.5 million due to payments made by these funds on the
individual pension accounts of the participants of pension
programs.
|
Working capital items reducing operating cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
a decrease in accounts payable of $100.1 million due to an
overall decrease in purchase volumes and purchase prices across
all our segments in the year ended December 31, 2009
because of the global financial crisis; and
|
|
|
|
an increase in balances with related parties of
$77.4 million primary due to transactions with related
metallurgical plants.
|
Net cash used in investing activities was $1,119.2 million
in the year ended December 31, 2010 and $709.9 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009. Substantially all of
the cash used for investing activities in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009 related to the acquisition of
businesses, mineral licenses and
177
property, plant and equipment. Expenditures related to the
acquisition of businesses and equity method investments in our
subsidiaries amounted to $89.5 million and
$11.5 million in the years ended December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively. Capital expenditures relating to purchases
of property, plant and equipment and purchases of mineral
licenses amounted to $990.1 million and $612.7 million
in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Net cash provided by financing activities was
$1,210.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2010
and $375.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2009. We received short-term debt proceeds of
$4,529.5 million and repaid short-term debt of
$5,682.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2010,
and received short-term debt proceeds of $1,412.0 million
and repaid short-term debt of $3,704.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009.
We received long-term debt proceeds of $3,651.9 million and
repaid long-term debt of $1,191.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2010, and received long-term debt proceeds of
$3,022.0 million and repaid long-term debt of
$99.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009.
In 2010, we issued four ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate
principal amount of 20.0 billion rubles which equals
$669.5 million as of the respective time of issuance. The
bonds were issued at 100% of par value. The interest rate was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 9.75-10.0% per year. The balance outstanding as of
December 31, 2010 was $656.2 million and is classified
as long-term debt. In 2010 and 2009, Sberbank provided long-term
and short-term ruble and euro-denominated loans to our
subsidiaries bearing interest at 6.5-16.5% per year. The
outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009 were $913.0 million and
$281.7 million, respectively.
During 2010, VTB group provided ruble and Euro-denominated
long-term and short-term loans to our group, bearing interest at
6.1-8.6% in the total amount of $399.0 million. The
aggregate outstanding balance as of December 31, 2010 was
$168.0 million.
Liquidity
We had cash and cash equivalents of $340.8 million as of
December 31, 2010 and $414.7 million as of
December 31, 2009. Our cash and cash equivalents were held
in rubles (44.9% and 50.5% as of December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively), U.S. dollars (26.3%
and 41.7% as of December 31, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively), euros (17.8% and 5.0% as of
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively)
and certain other currencies of the CIS and Eastern Europe.
As of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had
unused credit lines of approximately $943.6 million and
$491.4 million, respectively, out of total available credit
lines of $8,262.1 million and $6,488.9 million,
respectively. These credit lines permit drawings at a weighted
average interest rate of approximately 9.9% and 14.7% as of
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
The following table summarizes our liquidity as of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Estimated Liquidity
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
340.8
|
|
|
|
414.7
|
|
|
|
254.8
|
|
Amounts available under credit facilities
|
|
|
943.6
|
|
|
|
491.4
|
|
|
|
684.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated liquidity
|
|
|
1,284.4
|
|
|
|
906.1
|
|
|
|
939.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term debt (short-term borrowings and current portion of
long-term debt) increased by $154.8 million, or 8.1%, to
$2,077.8 million as of December 31, 2010 from
$1,923.0 million as of December 31, 2009.
Long-term debt net of current portion increased by
$1,166.2 million, or 28.6%, to $5,240.6 million as of
December 31, 2010 from $4,074.5 million as of
December 31, 2009. This increase was attributable to bond
issuances and new financing received from Sberbank, VTB Bank,
Bank of Moscow and various other banks.
178
Our working capital increased by $1,028.6 million, or 191%,
to a working capital surplus of $491.4 million as of
December 31, 2010 from a $537.1 million working
capital deficit as of December 31, 2009. The increase in
working capital was due to increase in investments into current
assets such as inventory and accounts receivable based on
favorable situation on our key markets.
At December 31, 2008, our total indebtedness was
$5,369.2 million, with a short-term portion of
$5,149.4 million, which included $4,233.8 million in
loans with covenant violations out of which
$1,563.6 million was long-term debt that was reclassified
as short-term debt due to loan covenant violations. We had a
working capital deficit of $3,596.3 million. Since we had
significant debt that we did not have the ability to repay
without refinancing or restructuring, and our ability to do so
was dependent upon continued negotiations with our banks, there
was substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going
concern as of June 1, 2009, the date of the issuance of our
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
Outlook
for 2011
Our objective is to ensure that the group meets its liquidity
requirements, continues capital expenditures, repays borrowings
as they fall due, and continues as a going concern. To
accomplish that, we have continued to secure additional
borrowing facilities and renew or refinance existing facilities
as described below. In addition, we have experienced increasing
price levels for our products in 2010 compared to 2009. Since
there is no certainty that such experience will continue in the
future, our plans for 2011 are based on conservative price
levels accompanied by a stable demand for our products. On this
basis we expect operating cash flows to provide an increased
source of funds in 2011 to be available for capital expenditures
and debt servicing.
To refinance debt falling due in 2011, we intend to use our
operating cash flow, obtain new long-term borrowing facilities,
renew or refinance existing arrangements and extend the put
options under our ruble bonds. In 2011, we expect to continue to
issue additional ruble bonds and obtain bank borrowings to
provide specific financing for our operations and capital
projects. Our ability to incur additional debt, however, is
limited by our restrictive covenants. See Item 5.
Operating and Financial Review and Prospectus
Restrictive Covenants.
We believe that cash generated from operations, current cash and
short-term investments on hand, and short-term and long-term
commited borrowings under our credit facilities will be
sufficient to meet our working capital requirements, anticipated
capital expenditures and scheduled debt payments in 2011.
Furthermore we believe that we have sufficient flexibility in
deferring our non-critical capital expenditures in case specific
project financing is not obtained and in managing our working
capital to provide further financial flexibility as needed.
Debt
Financings in 2011
On February 22, 2011, we placed series 15 and
series 16 non-convertible interest-bearing bonds in an
aggregate principal amount of 10.0 billion rubles. The
bonds are registered with the FSFM and admitted to trading and
listed at MICEX. The bonds are due on February 9, 2021. The
bonds bear a coupon to be paid every half-year. The interest
rate for the first 6 coupons was set at 8.25% per annum. We will
be entitled to set the interest rates for the following coupon
periods at our discretion, in which case the bondholders will
have the right to request that we buy back the bonds before each
such coupon period starts. The bondholders have an option to
demand repurchase of the bonds at par value which is due on
February 13, 2014. If such option is exercised, we will be
obliged to repurchase such bonds on February 21, 2014.
Bondholders are also entitled to demand early redemption of the
bonds in certain cases specified in the decision of issuance of
the bonds, including when we fail to pay coupon on any of our
bonds for more than 7 days or fail to repay the principal
on any of our bonds for more than 30 days, or when we
default on or are required to redeem any of our bonds. We are
also entitled to redeem the bonds on February 18, 2014. The
proceeds of the bonds will be used to fund the working capital
of the group, refinancing of the existing loan agreements as
well as the construction of the Elga mining complex and other
investment projects of the group.
On February 7, 2011, our subsidiary Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company obtained a line of credit in the amount of
6.2 billion rubles to finance the construction of the
second area at Sibirginsk Underground Mine.
179
The loan facility has been provided by TransCreditBank OAO for a
period of 5 years with an amortised monthly repayment
starting on February 2014 until December 2015 and is to be
repaid in full by February 6, 2016. Interest rate under the
loan agreement is set at 9.65% per year. The borrower may prepay
the loan at any time with a
14-day prior
notice. The borrowers obligations under the loan agreement
are guaranteed by Mechel OAO. The borrowers obligations
under the loan agreement are secured by a pledge of its assets
and equipment to be purchased with the proceeds received under
the loan agreement at a total amount of $30.0 million.
Under the agreement Mechel must ensure that: the ratio of its
consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed 3.5:1.0
until June 30, 2011 and 3.0:1.0 thereafter; and the ratio
of its EBITDA to consolidated interest expenses does not fall
below 2:1 until June 30, 2011 and below 4:1 thereafter; and
its shareholders equity equals to or exceeds
$4.0 billion at all times. The facility agreement is
governed by Russian law.
In February 2011, our subsidiary Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
obtained a working capital credit line totaling 4.3 billion
rubles from Sberbank.
Debt
Financings in 2010
During the course of 2010, we obtained the following major debt
financings. See Description of Certain Indebtedness
and Russian bonds for a summary description of the
terms of these facilities.
In December 2010, we obtained a line of credit
totaling 10 billion rubles from VTB Bank. As of
December 31, 2010, we had drawn 5.0 billion rubles of
this credit facility which was used to refinance our existing
indebtedness and to finance our working capital.
In October 2010, our subsidiary Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
obtained a line of credit totaling 15.0 billion rubles from
Sberbank. As of December 31, 2010, we had fully drawn this
credit facility, which was used to refinance some of our
short-term debt.
In September 2010, we signed a loan agreement in the amount of
$219.4 million and 192 million to finance a
universal rolling mill installation project at our subsidiary
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. The loan facility has been
provided by BNP Paribas, Gazprombank and UniCredit. As of
December 31, 2010, we had drawn $5 million under this
credit facility.
In September 2010, we refinanced our New Oriel Resources and New
Yakutugol facilities, which were executed in 2009, with a
Pre-Export Facility in the amount of $2.0 billion.
In September 2010, we completed two placements of our
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds of the 13th and
14th series in the aggregate amount of 10.0 billion
rubles. The proceeds were used to fund the working capital of
the group and to refinance existing loan agreements, as well as
to finance the construction of the Elga mining complex and other
investment projects of the group.
In April 2010, we completed placement of our non-convertible
interest-bearing bonds of BO-03 series in the aggregate amount
of 5.0 billion rubles. The proceeds were used to fund the
working capital of the group and to refinance existing loan
agreements, as well as to finance the construction of the Elga
mining complex and other investment projects of the group.
In March 2010, we completed placement of our non-convertible
interest-bearing bonds of BO-02 series in the aggregate amount
of 5.0 billion rubles. The proceeds were used to fund the
working capital of the group and to refinance existing loan
agreements, as well as to finance the construction of the Elga
mining complex and other investment projects of the group.
Debt
Financings in 2009
As a result of the economic downturn and a sharp decline in
demand and prices for our products starting from August 2008 and
continuing into the first half of 2009, as well as due to a
substantial increase in our total indebtedness in 2007 and early
2008 that was incurred mostly for the acquisition of Yakutugol
in 2007 and Oriel Resources in 2008, we experienced a liquidity
shortage in late 2008 and early 2009. We also breached various
financial and non-financial covenants in our loan agreements at
that time.
180
Starting in late 2008 and throughout 2009, we worked with
Russian and international lenders to obtain additional debt
financing and to restructure major loans in order to finance our
operations, continue to make the minimum levels of capital
investments in our business and meet scheduled debt payments. In
late 2008 and early 2009, to address our liquidity shortage we
obtained several major loans from Russian state-owned banks,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
Loan from VTB Bank. In November 2008, we
obtained three one-year credit facilities in the total amount of
15 billion rubles ($510.5 million) from VTB Bank. The
credit facilities were initially due to mature in November 2009
but, in December 2009, were extended until 2012. We fully drew
on this facility to fund the operations of Yakutugol, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company and Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
|
|
|
|
Loan from Sberbank. In November 2008, we
obtained a credit facility in the amount of 3.3 billion
rubles ($112.3 million). The facility was initially due to
mature in August 2009, but, in August 2009, was extended to
August 2010. We fully repaid the facility in August 2010.
|
|
|
|
Loans from Gazprombank. In February 2009, we
obtained two credit facilities in the total amount of
$1.0 billion from Gazprombank. The facilities were
initially repayable in quarterly installments starting with the
first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2012 but, in
February 2010, the maturity of the facilities was extended to
2013-2015.
We fully drew on these facilities to partially repay the
Yakutugol and Oriel Facility Agreements.
|
In July 2009, we completed the restructuring and refinancing of
our Oriel Resources and Yakutugol facilities with a syndicate of
27 international and Russian banks. Our principal objective in
negotiating the debt restructuring was to prolong loan
repayments scheduled in year 2009 to year 2010 or later and
reset the covenants in order to give us more time and
flexibility to meet our debt obligations in anticipation of a
recovery in commodity and steel prices. The loan agreements were
modified as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
New Yakutugol Facility Agreement. This
facility was amended for an amount equal to $1.6 billion.
The repayment of the loan provided for equal monthly
installments from September 2009 to December 2012.
|
|
|
|
New Oriel Resources Facility Agreement. The
facility was refinanced for an amount equal to
$1.0 billion. The maturity of the loan was extended from
July 2009 to December 2012 and provided for equal monthly
installments from July 2010 to December 2012.
|
Through the course of 2009, we also placed three series of ruble
bonds in the total principal amount of 15.0 billion rubles
($503.9 million). See Russian bonds for a
summary description of the terms of these bonds.
Restrictive
Covenants
Our loan agreements contain a number of covenants and
restrictions, which include, but are not limited to, financial
ratios, maximum amount of debt, minimum value of
shareholders equity and certain cross-default provisions.
The covenants also include, among other restrictions,
limitations on (1) indebtedness of certain companies in the
group, and (2) amounts that can be spent for new
investments and acquisitions. Covenant breaches generally permit
lenders to demand accelerated repayment of principal and
interest.
The table below sets out the requirements of our most
significant restrictive debt covenants and the actual
ratios/amounts as of December 31, 2010.
181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual as of
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
Restrictive Covenant
|
|
Requirements
|
|
2010
|
|
Mechels Shareholder Equity
|
|
greater than or equal to $4.0 billion
|
|
|
|
$4,642,825
|
|
Ratio of Mechels Net Borrowings to EBITDA
|
|
shall not exceed 3.5:1
|
|
|
3.45
|
|
|
Ratio of Mechels EBITDA to Net Interest Expense
|
|
shall not be less than 2:1
|
|
|
3.72
|
|
|
While we are currently in compliance with these restrictive
covenants, we face the risk of future non-compliance. For a
discussion of the impact of such non-compliance, see Risk
Factor Risks Relating to Our Financial Condition and
Financial Reporting Our business could be materially
adversely affected if our lenders accelerate our debt. The
ratio of net borrowings to EBITDA is reduced to 3:1 in 2011 and
the ratio of EBITDA to net interest expense is increased to 4:1
in 2011, per our most restrictive credit facilities.
Description
of Certain Indebtedness
Credit
Facility Agreement for Mechel OAO from VTB Bank
General
On December 27, 2010, VTB Bank opened a credit line for
Mechel for the total amount of 10.0 billion rubles to
finance our general activity.
Interest
rate and interest period
We can borrow under the facility in tranches at the minimum
amount of 150.0 million rubles and maximum tenor of
180 days each. The interest rate shall be agreed between
the parties at the date of each drawing. As of December 31,
2010, we had drawn 5.0 billion rubles of this credit
facility which was used to refinance our existing indebtedness
and to finance our working capital.
Guarantee
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreement are guaranteed by Mechel Trading House and Mechel
Trading.
Repayment
and prepayments
Each tranche shall be repaid at its maturity. The final
repayment of all tranches is to be made after two years from the
date of the loan agreement. Repaid tranches can be redrawn.
The borrower may prepay the loan with a prior notice to VTB
Bank. Prepayment within the first half of the life of each
tranche is subject to a prepayment fee at 0.05%.
Covenants
and other matters
We must ensure that the ratio of our consolidated net borrowings
to EBITDA does not exceed 3.5:1 in 2010 and 3:1 afterwards, and
that the ratio of our EBITDA to consolidated net interest
expense does not fall below 2:1 in 2010 and 4:1 afterwards. The
facility agreement permits dividend payments in amount of less
than 60% of the net profit without prior written consent from
VTB Bank if the ratio of our consolidated net borrowings to
EBITDA does not exceed 3:1.
The loan facility agreement also contains certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
and cross-defaults to other debt.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
182
New
Credit Facility Agreement for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
from Sberbank
General
On October 13, 2010, Sberbank opened a credit line for
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant for the total amount of
15.0 billion rubles to refinance short-term debt.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest for the period from the drawdown date until
January 12, 2011 is payable at a rate 8.24% per year.
Interest for the period from January 13, 2011 until
maturity is payable at a rate of 3M Mosprime plus a margin of
4.5% per year (if the turnover at our companies accounts
with Sberbank during each calendar quarter exceeds 25% of
outstanding liabilities under the loan) and 3M Mosprime plus a
margin of 5.0% per year (if the turnover at our companies
accounts with Sberbank during each calendar quarter is less then
25% of outstanding liabilities under the loan). Accrued interest
is payable on the 28th day of the last month of each
three-month interest period. An additional fee of 1.35% per year
is payable for the interest rate hedge for the Mosprime rate
which is caped at 6.5% per year during the lifetime of the
facility. Sberbank has the right to revise the interest rate
with a 30 days prior notice.
Guarantee
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreement are guaranteed by Mechel.
Security
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreement are secured by a pledge of 25% plus 1 share of
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant and a pledge of equipment and
machinery and real estate owned by the borrower at the total
agreed value of no less than 4.5 billion rubles.
Repayment
and prepayments
The facility is repayable in 8 equal quarterly installments
starting on March 28, 2014. The final repayment date is
October 12, 2015.
The borrower may prepay the loan with a prior notice to
Sberbank. Prepayment is also subject to prepayment fee at 0.8%
per year in case of earlier prepayment before October 12,
2012, or 0.25% per year in case of prepayment on or after
October 13, 2012, but before October 13, 2013.
Covenants
and other matters
The borrower must ensure that the ratio of our consolidated net
borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed 5:1 in 2010 and 3:1 in
2011, the ratio of our EBITDA to consolidated net interest
expense does not fall below 2:1 in 2010 and 4:1 in 2011, and our
consolidated shareholder equity during the lifetime of the
facility equals to or exceeds $3.0 billion. The facility
agreement permits dividend payments without prior written
consent from Sberbank if the ratio of our consolidated net
borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed 3:1.
The loan facility agreement also contains certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
and cross-defaults to other debt.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
Facility
Agreement for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant from BNP Paribas,
Gazprombank and UniCredit Universal Mill Facility
Agreement
General
On September 15, 2010, we signed a loan agreement to
finance the universal rolling mill installation project at our
subsidiary Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. The new
$471.2 million facility consists of three tranches
underwritten by BNP Paribas S.A., Gazprombank and UniCredit.
Gazprombanks tranche is $219.4 million, BNP
Paribass tranche is 102.8 million and
UniCredits tranche is 89.2 million. The credit
facility benefits from insurance coverage of the Italian, German
and Chinese export credit agencies: SACE, Euler Hermes and
Sinosure, respectively.
183
The purpose of the facility is to finance payments under two
contracts: the equipment and technology supply contract executed
with Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. and the
general construction contract executed with Minmetals
Engineering Co. Ltd.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest on the facility tranche underwritten by Gazprombank
(Facility A) is payable at LIBOR plus a margin of 6.75% per
year during the period until the construction completion date
and at LIBOR plus a margin of 6.25% per year after that date.
Interest on the facility tranche underwritten by UniCredit
(Facility B) is payable at EURIBOR plus a margin of 1.50%
per year. Interest on the facility tranche underwritten by
BNP Paribas (Facility C) is payable at EURIBOR plus a
margin of 1.60% per year.
Accrued interest is payable twice a year on payment dates
January 21 and July 21.
Repayment
and prepayments
The borrower must repay the facilities in 13 equal semi-annual
installments in respect of Facility A; 16 equal semi-annual
installments in respect of Facility B; and 16 equal semi-annual
installments in respect of Facility C.
Repayment starts on the first repayment date, which means in
respect of each of the facilities, the first payment date
(January 21 or July 21) falling after the earlier of
(a) the end of the availability period and (b) the
construction completion date. The availability period under all
three facilities is 30 months from the signing date.
Facility A must be repaid in full after six years following the
first repayment date, Facilities B and C must be repaid in full
after seven and a half years following the first repayment date.
The borrower may make a pro rata prepayment of the loan with the
prior written consent of the lender. A prepayment of part of the
loan must be of a minimum amount of $10.0 million in
respect of Facility A, and 10.0 million in respect of
Facility B and Facility C.
Guarantee
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreement are guaranteed by Mechel OAO.
Security
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreement are secured by a pledge of 20% of the common shares of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. The borrower has also granted
security over certain of its assets, including real estate and
equipment to secure its obligations.
Covenants
and other matters
Under the facility agreement acquisitions by members of our
group are permitted if such acquisitions in aggregate do not
exceed $25.0 million for 2010 and any subsequent year or
the total amount of such acquisition is fully financed by
available excess cashflow.
The borrower may not, without prior consent from the lender,
enter into any amalgamation, demerger, merger or reorganization
except an intra-group reorganization on a solvent basis.
The facility agreement permits dividends if declared after
June 1, 2010, or paid after July 17, 2010, provided
that the ratio of our consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does
not exceed 3:1, or if such dividends are funded from excess cash
flows and provided that no default occurs or would occur as a
result of that payment.
Under the facility agreement Mechel must ensure that the ratio
of the consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed 5:1
in 2010 and 3:1 in 2011 and thereafter, and the ratio of EBITDA
to consolidated interest expense does not fall below 2:1 in 2010
and below 4:1 in 2011 and thereafter and all the time
Mechels shareholder equity exceeds or equals
$3.0 billion. The facility agreement also contains negative
184
pledge provisions prohibiting mortgage, pledge, or security on
indebtedness in aggregate amount exceeding 40% of the total
assets of the group.
The loan facility agreement also contains certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
and cross-defaults to other debt.
The facility agreement is governed by English law.
Pre-Export
Facility Agreements
On September 6, 2010, ING Bank N.V. and The Royal Bank of
Scotland N.V. as Co-ordinators, and BNP Paribas SA, Closed
Joint Stock Company UniCredit Bank, Commerzbank
Aktiengesellschaft, HSBC Bank plc, Natixis, OJSC
Nordea Bank, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Oesterreich AG,
Société Générale, UniCredit Bank AG
(formerly known as Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG), VTB
Bank (Austria) AG, VTB Bank (Deutschland) AG and VTB Bank
(France) SA as Mandated Lead Arrangers, and Morgan Stanley and
Credit Suisse as lenders, agreed to extend to our subsidiaries
Yakutugol, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Southern Urals Nickel Plant pre-export
facilities in the total amount of $2.0 billion. The loan
facility agreements executed by our subsidiaries are identical
in all material aspects except for the respective loan amounts
thereunder and the security provided under each facility. The
loan facility was made available to Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company in the amount of $857.1 million each,
to Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant in the amount of
$95.3 million, and to Southern Urals Nickel Plant in the
amount of $190.5 million.
The purpose of the pre-export facility was to refinance our New
Oriel Resources Facility and New Yakutugol Facility.
The facility was drawn in two tranches, a
3-year and a
5-year.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest under the facilities is payable at LIBOR plus a margin,
or at fixed rate that may be agreed with the lenders. The
initial margin levels are set at 5% per year and 6% per year for
the 3-year
and the
5-year
tranches, respectively. Initial margin levels are subject to
downward adjustments based on the ratio of our net borrowings to
EBITDA, with the first such adjustment to take place based on
2010 results.
Repayment
and prepayments
The facilities are repayable in equal monthly installments after
nine months grace period on the first tranche and
15 months grace period on the second tranche.
Borrowers are entitled to prepayment subject to a 10 business
day prior notice to the respective lender and on certain
conditions specified in the facility agreements.
Guarantee
Yakutugols obligations under the facility agreement are
guaranteed in full by Mechel, Mechel Mining, Mechel Carbon and
Mechel Trading, as well as by Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and
Korshunov Mining Plant (in the amount of up to 2% of the value
of its total assets). Southern Kuzbass Coal Companys
obligations under the pre-export facility agreement are
guaranteed in full by Mechel, Mechel Mining, Mechel Carbon,
Mechel Trading and Yakutugol, as well as by Korshunov Mining
Plant (for the latter in the amount of up to 2% of the value of
its total assets). Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants
obligations under the pre-export facility agreement are
guaranteed in full by Mechel, Mechel Trading and Mechel Service
Global, as well as by Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant (in the
amount of up to 2% of the value of its total assets). Southern
Urals Nickel Plants obligations under the pre-export
facility agreement are guaranteed in full by Mechel, Mechel
Trading and Oriel Resources.
185
Security
Yakutugols obligations under the loan facility agreement
are secured by a pledge of equipment and machinery of the
borrower at a total balance sheet value of $5.1 million and
a pledge of 14.99% of shares of Yakutugol and of 14.99% of
shares of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company. Southern Kuzbass Coal
Companys obligations under the loan facility agreement are
secured by a pledge of equipment and machinery of the borrower
at a total balance sheet value of $5.0 million and a pledge
of 14.99% of shares of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and of
14.99% of shares of Yakutugol. Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plants obligations under the loan facility agreement are
secured by a pledge of equipment and machinery of the borrower
at a total balance sheet value of $5.0 million and a pledge
of 15% of shares of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. Southern
Urals Nickel Plants obligations under the loan facility
agreement are secured by a pledge of equipment and machinery of
Southern Urals Nickel Plant at a total balance sheet value of
$5.1 million and a pledge of 25% plus 1 share in
Southern Urals Nickel Plant. Also, the obligations of each of
the borrowers are secured respectively by assignment of rights
under their export and offtake contracts and charge over their
collection accounts.
The pledge of 29.99% of shares of each of Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company will be released when the ratios of
Mechels and Mechel Minings net borrowings to EBITDA
are less than or equal to 2.5:1 for two consecutive semi-annual
periods, the outstanding debt under the facility does not exceed
50% of the total outstanding debt of the borrower, and there is
no event of default continuing under the facility.
The pledge of 25% plus 1 share of Southern Urals Nickel
Plant will be reduced to a pledge of 20% when the ratio of
Mechels net borrowings to EBITDA is less than or equal to
2.5:1 for two consecutive semi-annual periods, the outstanding
debt under the facility extended to Southern Urals Nickel Plant
has been reduced by 50%, and there is no event of default
continuing under the facility.
Covenants
and other matters
Under the facility agreements, Mechel may pay dividends if
(i) its ratio of net borrowings to EBITDA is less than or
equal to 3:1, (ii) the amount of dividends does not exceed
60% of Mechels net profit for the respective year, and
(iii) the amount of dividends on our preferred shares does
not exceed 20% of our net profit for the respective year. Mechel
Mining may pay dividends if its ratio of net borrowings to
EBITDA is less than or equal to 3:1.
Acquisitions by our group in any given year are permitted if the
aggregate value of such acquisitions do not exceed
(i) $50.0 million when the ratio of our net borrowings
to EBITDA exceeds 3:1, (ii) $250.0 million when the
ratio of our net borrowings to EBITDA is within the range of
2.5:1 - 3:1, (iii) $375.0 million when the ratio
of our net borrowings to EBITDA is within the range of
2:1 - 2.5:1, or (iv) $500.0 million when the
ratio of our net borrowings to EBITDA is equal to or less than
2:1.
Under the facility agreements Mechel must ensure that:
(i) the ratio of consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does
not exceed 3.5:1 for the year 2010 and 3:1 starting from
June 30, 2011 and thereafter; (ii) the ratio of EBITDA
to consolidated net interest expense does not fall below 2:1 for
the year 2010 and 4:1 starting with period ending June 30,
2011 and thereafter; (iii) its shareholder equity does not
fall below $4.0 billion at any time; (iv) the total
debt of Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, excluding
intragroup loans, does not exceed in aggregate $4.3 billion
in the aggregate; (v) the total debt of Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and Southern Urals Nickel Plant, excluding
intragroup loans, does not exceed $1.4 billion and
$350 million respectively; and (vi) the equity of the
borrowers does not fall below 6.5 billion rubles for
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, 4.5 billion rubles for
Yakutugol, 5.5 billion rubles for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant and 2.0 billion rubles for Southern Urals Nickel
Plant.
The loan facility agreements also contain certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
and cross-defaults relating to other debt with certain
limitations.
The facility agreements are governed by English law.
186
Amended
Credit Facility Agreements for Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company from VTB Bank
In September 2010, our subsidiaries Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company each entered into agreements further
amending the one-year credit facility agreements executed with
VTB Bank in November 2008 and further amended in November 2009,
for the total amount of 15.0 billion rubles.
Set out below are the amended terms and covenants of the
facility agreements.
Interest
rate and interest period
In September 2010, the interest rate was decreased to 9.75% per
annum. VTB Bank may unilaterally increase the interest rate in
accordance with the terms of the agreements. Any new interest
rate becomes effective the month following the month when VTB
Bank has informed the borrowers of the new rate.
Repayment
and prepayment
The maturity of the facilities is November 25, 2012 for
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and November 26, 2012 for
Yakutugol. Each of the facilities is to be repaid in six equal
monthly tranches starting on June 27, 2012.
The premium for prepayment equals 0.8% of the prepayment amount
if more than 3/4 of the term of the credit facility has elapsed,
1.0% of the prepayment amount if more than 1/4 but less than 3/4
of the term of the credit facility has elapsed, and 1.45% of the
prepayment amount if less than 1/4 of the term of the credit
facility has elapsed.
Covenants
and other matters
Certain of the financial covenants provided under the facility
agreements were amended. Pursuant to the amendments each
borrower must provide for an aggregate turnover of accounts with
the creditor in an amount proportionate to the share of the
borrowings from the lender in its total credit portfolio.
The borrowers must obtain preliminary written approval from the
lender to: (1) acquire stocks in amounts exceeding 10% of
the value of the borrowers balance sheet assets;,
(2) borrow from or provide guarantees to parties outside
our group (if aggregate net borrowings of our group exceed
$5.5 billion, otherwise notification to the creditor will
suffice); (3) lend money, except to affiliates;
(4) dispose of assets in amounts equal to or exceeding 5%
of the value of the borrowers balance sheet assets,
(5) perform any other transactions if they amount to or
exceed 40% of the value of the borrowers balance sheet
assets (except for export revenue pledges under the new Oriel
Resources and Yakutugol facilities); (6) perform a
reorganization or merger outside our group; (7) pay
dividends; (8) cause dilution of the pledged stocks; or
(9) change its core business.
Under the amended agreements, borrowers must ensure that the
ratio of our consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not
exceed 5:1 in 2010 and 3:1 in 2011 and the ratio of our EBITDA
to consolidated interest expenses does not fall below 2:1 in
2010 and 4:1 in 2011.
On equal offer terms, the lender is entitled to perform as lead
manager or financial consultant for any public offer of common
shares or securities convertible into common shares of the
borrowers or any offer of debt instruments conducted by the
borrowers, as well as at any disposal of assets or stocks of the
borrowers subsidiaries. In addition, the lender is
entitled to service, at market terms, the import/export
transactions of the borrowers.
The loan facility agreements also contain certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
and cross-defaults relating to other debt
187
Security
Since September 2010, Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company are no longer obliged to provide security for their
obligations under the loan agreements.
The facility agreements are governed by Russian law.
Credit
Facility Agreements for Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company from Gazprombank
General
On February 6, 2009, our subsidiaries Yakutugol and
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company each entered into separate credit
facility agreements with Gazprombank for a total amount of
$1.0 billion. In accordance with their terms, the credit
facilities can be used for finance and operating activities,
including financing affiliates and credit repayments. We used
the advances under the facilities mainly for partial repayment
of the original Oriel Resources and Yakutugol facilities prior
to their refinancing in July 2009. The two credit facility
agreements are identical in all material aspects except for the
respective loan amounts thereunder: the credit facility was made
available to Yakutugol in the amount of $550.0 million and
to Southern Kuzbass Coal Company in the amount of
$450.0 million. The loans were fully drawn in the first
quarter of 2009. On February 24, 2010, the terms of the
facility agreements were extended until February 2015.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest is paid on a monthly basis and was reduced during the
term of the facility from a fixed rate of 14% to 7.5% per annum.
Gazprombank may unilaterally, having provided 30 days prior
notice, increase the interest rate if, inter alia, the
CBRs refinance rate increases.
Repayment
and prepayments
Each of the facilities is to be repaid not later than
February 6, 2015. Repayment is to be made in equal amounts
on a quarterly basis by way of direct debit from the
borrowers accounts with the lender starting from the first
quarter of 2013.
The borrowers may prepay the loans issued within the credit
facilities in full or in part after February 24, 2011.
Prepayment is free from any premium or penalty, subject to the
borrowers providing 30 days prior notice to the lender.
Covenants
and other matters
Under the amended agreements, the borrowers must ensure that the
ratio of our consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not
exceed 5:1 in 2010 and 3:1 in 2011 and the ratio of our EBITDA
to consolidated interest expenses does not fall below 2:1 in
2010 and 4:1 in 2011.
Initially the facility was secured by a pledge of 35% of the
common shares of Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company,
but in February 2010, terms of the facility were amended and the
borrowers obligations are currently secured by a pledge of
25%+1 of the common shares of Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company. The number of pledged shares can be increased to
35% if we fail to comply with financial covenants.
The lender is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreements if, inter alia, the financial
situation of the borrowers deteriorates, including a situation
where a borrower faces third party monetary claims exceeding
$30.0 million.
The loan facility agreements also contain certain customary
representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, notice
provisions and events of default, including change of control
provisions and cross-defaults relating to other debt.
The facility agreements are governed by Russian law.
188
Russian
bonds
On June 21, 2006, we placed series 02 non-convertible
interest-bearing bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are registered with the FSFM
and admitted to trading and listed at MICEX. The bonds are
secured by a guarantee from Mechel Trading House. The bonds are
due on June 12, 2013. The bonds bear a coupon to be paid on
a semiannual basis. The interest rate for the first eight
coupons was set at 8.4% per annum. The interest rate for the
ninth and tenth coupons was set at 8.5% per annum. We set the
interest rate for the following four coupons at our discretion,
in which case the bondholders will have the right to request
that we repurchase the bonds before each such coupon period
starts. Hence, the bondholders have an option to demand
repurchase of the bonds at par value which is due on
June 10, 2011. We will be obliged to repurchase such bonds
on June 20, 2011. Bondholders are also entitled to demand
early redemption of the bonds in certain cases specified in the
decision of issuance of the bonds, including when we fail to pay
any coupon on any of our Russian bonds for more than 7 days
or fail to repay the principal on any of our Russian bonds for
more than 30 days, or when we default on or are required to
redeem any of our Russian bonds.
On July 30, 2009, we placed series 04 non-convertible
interest-bearing bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are registered by the FSFM
and admitted to trading and listed at MICEX. The bonds are
secured by a guarantee from Yakutugol. The bonds are due on
July 21, 2016. The bonds bear a coupon to be paid
quarterly. The interest rate for the first 12 coupons was set at
19% per annum. We will be entitled to set the interest rates for
the following coupon periods at our discretion, in which case
the bondholders will have the right to request that we
repurchase the bonds before each such coupon period starts.
Hence, the bondholders have an option to demand repurchase of
the bonds at par value commencing on July 21, 2012. We will
be obliged to repurchase such bonds on July 31, 2012. The
bonds are included on the CBR Lombard list; if the CBR excludes
the bonds from this list, the bondholders may also demand
repurchase of the bonds. Bondholders are also entitled to demand
early redemption of the bonds in certain cases specified in the
decision of issuance of the bonds, including when we fail to pay
coupon on any of our Russian bonds for more than 7 days or
fail to repay the principal on any of our Russian bonds for more
than 30 days, or when we default on or are required to
redeem any of our Russian bonds. We are also entitled to redeem
the bonds on July 26, 2012. The proceeds of the bond were
used to fund the construction of the Elga mining complex.
On October 20, 2009, we placed series 05
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds in an aggregate principal
amount of 5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are registered with
the FSFM and admitted to trading and listed at MICEX. The bonds
are secured by a guarantee from Yakutugol. The bonds are due on
October 9, 2018. The bonds bear a coupon to be paid
quarterly. The interest rate for the first 12 coupons was set at
12.5% per annum. We will be entitled to set the interest rates
for the following coupon periods at our discretion, in which
case the bondholders will have the right to request that we
repurchase the bonds before each such coupon period starts.
Hence, the bondholders have an option to demand repurchase of
the bonds at par value commencing on October 11, 2012. We
will be obliged to repurchase such bonds on October 19,
2012. The bonds are included on the CBR Lombard list; if the CBR
excludes the bonds from this list, the bondholders may also
demand repurchase of the bonds. Bondholders are also entitled to
demand early redemption of the bonds in same cases as described
above with respect to series 04 bonds. We are also entitled
to redeem the bonds on October 16, 2012. The proceeds of
the bond were used to fund the construction of the Elga mining
complex.
On November 13, 2009, we placed non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds in an aggregate principal amount
of 5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are admitted to trading at
MICEX. The bonds are due on November 9, 2012. The bonds
bear a coupon to be paid on a semi-annual basis. The interest
rate for the first four coupons was set at 12.5%, and we will be
entitled to determine the interest rate for the following coupon
periods at our discretion, in which case the bondholders will
have the right to request that we repurchase the bonds. The
bondholders have an option to demand repurchase of the bonds at
par value commencing on November 3, 2011. We will be
obliged to repurchase such bonds on November 16, 2011.
Bondholders are also entitled to demand early redemption of the
bonds if: (1) our shares are delisted from a respective
stock exchange, (2) we declare default under these or any
other Russian bonds, or (3) we are required to redeem any
189
other bonds. We used the proceeds of the bond to optimize our
credit portfolio by repaying in part the more expensive credit
facilities we incurred earlier.
On March 16, 2010, we placed non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds in an aggregate principal amount
of 5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are admitted to trading at
MICEX. The bonds are due on March 12, 2013. The bonds bear
a coupon to be paid on a semi-annual basis. The interest rate
for all six coupons was set at 9.75%. Bondholders are entitled
to demand early redemption of the bonds if: (1) our shares
are delisted from a respective stock exchange, (2) we
declare default under these or any other Russian bonds, or
(3) we are required to redeem any other bonds. We used the
proceeds of the bond to optimize our credit portfolio by
repaying more expensive short-term secured bank loans.
On April 28, 2010, we placed 5,000,000 non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds in an aggregate principal amount
of 5.0 billion rubles. The bonds are admitted to trading at
MICEX. The bonds are due on April 24, 2013. The bonds bear
a coupon to be paid on a semi-annual basis. The interest rate
for all six coupons was set at 9.75%. Bondholders are entitled
to demand early redemption of the bonds if: (1) our shares
are delisted from a respective stock exchange, (2) we
declare default under these or any other Russian bonds, or
(3) we are required to redeem any other bonds. We used the
proceeds of the bond to optimize our credit portfolio by
repaying more expensive short-term secured bank loans.
On September 7, 2010, we placed series 13 and
series 14 non-convertible interest-bearing bonds in an
aggregate principal amount of 10.0 billion rubles. The bonds are
registered with the FSFM and admitted to trading and listed at
MICEX. The bonds are due on August 25, 2020. The bonds bear
a coupon to be paid semi-annually. The interest rate for the
first 10 coupons was set at 10.0% per annum. We will be entitled
to set the interest rates for the following coupon periods at
our discretion, in which case the bondholders will have the
right to demand that we repurchase the bonds before each such
coupon period starts. The bondholders have an option to demand
repurchase of the bonds at par value commencing on
August 27, 2015. We will be obliged to repurchase such
bonds on September 4, 2015. Bondholders are entitled to
demand early redemption of the bonds in the same cases as
described above with respect to series 04 and
series 05 bonds. We are also entitled to redeem the bonds
on September 1, 2015. The proceeds of the bond were used to
fund the construction of the Elga mining complex and other
investment projects of the Group.
190
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
The following table sets forth the amount of our contractual
obligations and commercial commitments as of December 31,
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
|
|
Total
|
|
1 Year
|
|
2-3 Years
|
|
4-5 Years
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion of Long-Term
Debt(1)
|
|
|
2,077,809
|
|
|
|
2,077,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt Obligations, Net of Current
Portion(1)
|
|
|
5,240,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,142,075
|
|
|
|
2,032,556
|
|
|
|
65,990
|
|
Operating Lease Obligations
|
|
|
310,611
|
|
|
|
14,121
|
|
|
|
20,317
|
|
|
|
20,069
|
|
|
|
256,104
|
|
Purchase
Obligations(2)
|
|
|
201,352
|
|
|
|
201,352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructured Taxes Payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Retirement
Obligations(3)
|
|
|
56,220
|
|
|
|
7,004
|
|
|
|
10,231
|
|
|
|
5,271
|
|
|
|
33,715
|
|
Pension and Post Retirement
Benefits(4)(5)
|
|
|
188,068
|
|
|
|
34,596
|
|
|
|
27,057
|
|
|
|
31,648
|
|
|
|
94,767
|
|
Short-term Finance Lease Obligations
|
|
|
49,665
|
|
|
|
49,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term Finance Lease Obligations
|
|
|
130,367
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,645
|
|
|
|
43,002
|
|
|
|
11,720
|
|
Contingent payment for Bluestone acquisition
|
|
|
21,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual commitments to acquire plant, property and
equipment, raw materials and for delivery of goods and
services(6)
|
|
|
5,539,389
|
|
|
|
4,605,976
|
|
|
|
774,223
|
|
|
|
84,507
|
|
|
|
74,683
|
|
Estimated interest
expense(7)
|
|
|
2,097,749
|
|
|
|
585,009
|
|
|
|
1,023,358
|
|
|
|
489,382
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated average interest
rate(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
|
|
|
15,913,849
|
|
|
|
7,575,532
|
|
|
|
5,094,905
|
|
|
|
2,706,435
|
|
|
|
536,979
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not include interest. Interest payable as of
December 31, 2010 amounted to $5.5 million and
$43 million for Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion
of Long-Term Debt and Long-Term Debt Obligations, Net of Current
Portion, respectively. Interest payable is included in amount of
$48.5 million in current period figure. In the year ended
December 31, 2010, our interest expense was
$558.4 million and we paid out $565.2 million in
interest, net of amounts capitalized. |
|
(2) |
|
Accounts payable for capital expenditures. |
|
(3) |
|
See note 15 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(4) |
|
See note 16 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes $153.5 million pension and post-retirement
benefits due in more than one year. |
|
(6) |
|
See note 24 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(7) |
|
Interest expense is estimated for a five-year period based on
(1) estimated cash flows and change of the debt level,
(2) forecasted LIBOR rate where applicable, (3) actual
long-term contract interest rates and fixed rates, forecasted
with reasonable assurance on the basis of historic relations
with major banking institutions. |
We have also guaranteed the fulfillment of obligations to third
parties under various debt and lease agreements. The maximum
potential amount of future payments under these guarantees as of
December 31, 2010 amounted to $7,226 million, of which
$7,223 million related to guarantees given by us for our
subsidiaries.
Commitments for capital expenditures were $2,877 million as
of December 31, 2010. This amount includes our contractual
commitment related to the construction of a rail branch line to
the Elga coal deposit, which we have undertaken pursuant to the
terms of our subsoil license for the Elga coal deposit. The
total amount of commitments for capital expenditures under this
contract is estimated to be $447 million, including
191
VAT, and is subject to adjustment. Capital commitments under
this contract are expected to be fulfilled by December 2011,
including the completion of the rail branch construction in
2011. This estimate of $447 million was derived from the
amount of contractual obligations incurred pursuant to
Yakutugols agreement for construction of the rail branch
to the Elga coal deposit; this estimate is subject to change and
does not include other capital expenditures that will be
necessary to commence production in the Elga license area. For
more information regarding capital expenditures related to
development of the Elga license area, see Item 4.
Information on the Company Mining
Segment Mineral reserves (coal, iron ore and
limestone) Coal.
Inflation
Inflation in the Russian Federation was 8.8% in 2010, 8.8% in
2009 and 13.3% in 2008. Inflation has generally not had a
material impact on our results of operations during the period
under review in this section, as we were able to increase
selling prices in line with increases in ruble-denominated
costs. However, we cannot guarantee that inflation will not
materially adversely impact our results of operations in the
future in case inflation accelerates. See Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Financial Condition and Financial Reporting
Inflation could increase our costs and decrease operating
margins.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at year-end and
the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the year.
Management regularly evaluates these estimates. Management
estimates are based on historical experience and various other
assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. Accordingly,
actual results may differ materially from current expectations
under different assumptions or conditions.
We believe that the following are the more significant policies,
judgments and estimates used in the preparation of the financial
statements.
Accounting
for business combinations
During the past years, we have completed several significant
business combination transactions. In the future, we may
continue to grow our business through business combinations. We
accounted for all combinations using the purchase method of
accounting.
The accounting for business combinations under the purchase
method is complicated and involves the use of significant
judgment. Under the purchase method of accounting, a business
combination is accounted for at a purchase price based upon the
fair value of the consideration given, whether it is in the form
of cash, assets, stock, the assumption of liabilities, or the
contingent consideration. The assets acquired, liabilities
assumed and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at the
acquisition date are measured at their fair values. Determining
the fair values of the assets and liabilities acquired involves
the use of judgment, since the majority of the assets and
liabilities acquired do not have fair values that are readily
determinable. Different techniques may be used to determine fair
values, including market prices, where available, appraisals,
comparisons to transactions for similar assets and liabilities
and present value of estimated future cash flows, among others.
Since these estimates involve the use of significant judgment,
they can change as new information becomes available.
The most difficult estimations of individual fair values are
those involving property, plant and equipment, mineral licenses
and identifiable intangible assets. We use all available
information to make these fair value determinations and, for
major business acquisitions, typically engage an outside
appraisal firm to assist in the fair value determination of the
acquired long-lived assets. We have, if necessary, up to one
year after the acquisition closing date to finish these fair
value determinations and finalize the purchase price allocation.
192
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of the consideration transferred
plus the fair value of any non-controlling interests in the
acquiree at the acquisition date over the fair values of the
identifiable net assets acquired. For the acquisitions with the
effective date before January 1, 2009, the excess of the
fair value of net assets acquired over cost, called negative
goodwill, was allocated to the acquired non-current assets
(except for deferred taxes, if any) until they were reduced to
zero. Since January 1, 2009, the excess of the fair value
of net assets acquired over the fair value of consideration
transferred, plus the fair value of any non-controlling interest
should be recognized as a gain in consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income on the acquisition date.
ASC 350 prohibits the amortization of goodwill. Instead,
goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually and on an
interim basis when an event occurs or circumstances change
between annual tests that would more likely than not result in
impairment.
For the investees accounted for under the equity method, the
excess of cost of the stock of those companies over our share of
fair value of their net assets as of the acquisition date is
treated as goodwill embedded in the investment account. Goodwill
arising from equity method investments is not amortized, but
tested for impairment at least annually and on an interim basis
when an event occurs or circumstances change between annual
tests that would more likely than not result in impairment.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we reported goodwill of
$988.8 million and $894.4 million, respectively. Based
on the results of the impairment analysis of goodwill performed
by us as of December 31, 2010, no impairment loss was
recognized.
Non-controlling
interest
Non-controlling interests in the net assets and net results of
consolidated subsidiaries are shown under the
Non-controlling interests and Net income
attributable to non-controlling interests lines in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and statements of
income and comprehensive (loss) income, respectively. Losses
attributable to our group and the non-controlling interests in a
subsidiary may exceed their interests in the subsidiarys
equity. The excess, and any further losses attributable to our
group and the non-controlling interests, are to be attributed to
those interests. That is, the non-controlling interests continue
to be attributed to their share of losses even if that
attribution results in a deficit non-controlling interest
balance.
Prior to our adoption of FASB ASC 810,
Consolidation (ASC 810) on
January 1, 2009, we recognized 100% of losses for
majority-owned subsidiaries that incurred losses, after first
reducing the related non-controlling interests balances to
zero, unless minority shareholders were committed to fund the
losses. Further, when a majority-owned subsidiary becomes
profitable, we recognize 100% of profits until such time as the
excess losses previously recorded have been recovered.
Thereafter, we recognize profits in accordance with the
underlying ownership percentage.
Principles
of variable interest entity consolidation
Effective January 1, 2010, the group adopted required
changes to consolidation guidance for variable interest entities
that require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine
whether the enterprises variable interest or interests
give it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest
entity. These changes to the consolidation guidance defined the
primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity as the
enterprise that has (1) the power to direct the activities
of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the
entitys economic performance and (2) the obligation
to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be
significant to the variable interest entity, or the right to
receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be
significant to the variable interest entity. In addition, the
required changes provide guidance on shared power and joint
venture relationships, remove the scope exemption for qualified
special purpose entities, revise the definition of a variable
interest entity, and require additional disclosures.
The adoption of the above mentioned changes to consolidation
guidance did not have impact on the consolidated financial
statements of the group. The group does not have significant
consolidated variable interest entities.
193
Reporting
and functional currencies
We have determined our reporting currency to be the
U.S. dollar. The functional currencies for our Russian,
Romanian, Kazakh, German, Lithuanian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian,
Czech, Serbian, Turkish and Hungarian subsidiaries are the
Russian ruble, the Romanian lei, the Kazakh tenge, Euro, the
Lithuanian lit, the Bulgarian lev, the Ukrainian hryvnia, the
Czech koruna, the Serbian dinar, the Turkish lira and the
Hungarian forint, respectively. The U.S. dollar is the
functional currency of our other international operations.
The translation adjustments resulting from the process of
translating financial statements from the functional currency
into the reporting currency are included in determining other
comprehensive income. Our foreign subsidiaries translate their
functional currencies into U.S. dollars using the current
rate method as prescribed by FASB ASC 830, Foreign
Currency Matters, (ASC 830) for all
periods presented.
Management
estimates
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported carrying amounts of assets and liabilities,
and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the
date of the financial statements, and the amounts of revenues
and expenses recognized during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Property,
plant and equipment
Property, plant and equipment is recorded at cost less
accumulated depletion and depreciation. Property, plant and
equipment acquired in business combinations are initially
recorded at their respective fair values as determined by
independent appraisers in accordance with the requirements of
ASC 805. In the reporting periods ending before
January 1, 2009, for the purpose of determining the
carrying amounts of the property, plant and equipment pertaining
to interests of non-controlling shareholders in business
combinations when less than a 100% interest is acquired, we used
appraised fair values as of the acquisition dates in the absence
of reliable and accurate historical cost bases for property,
plant and equipment, which represented a departure from the
U.S. GAAP effective before January 1, 2009. The
portion of non-controlling interest not related to property,
plant and equipment was determined based on the historical cost
of those assets and liabilities.
Mineral
licenses
The mineral licenses are recorded at their fair values at the
date of acquisition, based on the appraised fair value. Fair
value of the mineral licenses acquired prior to August 22,
2004 (the date of change in the Russian Subsoil Law that makes
license extensions through the end of the estimated proven and
probable reserve period reasonably assured), is based in part on
independent mining engineer appraisals for proven and probable
reserves during the license term. Such mineral licenses are
amortized using the
units-of-production
method over the shorter of the license term or the estimated
proven and probable reserve depletion period.
Fair value of the mineral licenses acquired after
August 22, 2004 is based in part on independent mining
engineer appraisals of the estimated proven and probable reserve
through the estimated end of the depletion period. Such mineral
licenses are amortized using the
units-of-production
method through the end of the estimated proven and probable
reserve depletion period.
In order to calculate proven and probable reserves, estimates
and assumptions are used about a range of geological, technical
and economic factors, including but not limited to quantities,
grades, production techniques, recovery rates, production costs,
transport costs, commodity demand, commodity prices and exchange
rates. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating
proven and probable reserves, and assumptions that are valid at
the time of estimation may change significantly when new
information becomes available. Changes in the forecast prices of
commodities, exchange rates, production costs or recovery rates
may change the economic status of reserves and may, ultimately,
result in the reserves being restated.
In 2008, the group established a policy, according to which the
group would engage independent mining engineers to review its
proven and probable reserves at least every three years unless
circumstances or additional factors warrant an additional
analysis. This policy does not change the groups approach
to the
194
measurement of proven and probable reserves as of their
acquisition dates as part of business combinations that continue
to involve independent mining engineers. The group engaged
independent mining engineers to estimate the groups proven
and probable reserves as of December 31, 2010, but not as
of December 31, 2009, except for those related to newly
acquired subsidiaries. The groups proven and probable
reserve estimates as of that date were made by internal mining
engineers and the majority of the assumptions underlying these
estimates had been previously reviewed and verified by
independent mining engineers.
Our management evaluates our estimates and assumptions on an
ongoing basis; however, actual amounts could differ from those
based on such estimates and assumptions. As of December 31,
2010 and 2009, the carrying amount of our mineral licenses
amounted to $4,971.7 million and $5,133.1 million,
respectively.
Intangible
assets
Intangible assets with determinable useful lives are amortized
using the straight-line method over their estimated period of
benefit, ranging from two to sixteen years. Indefinite-lived
intangibles are evaluated annually for impairment or when
indicators exist indicating such assets may be impaired. Such
evaluation assumes determination of fair value of intangible
assets based on a valuation model that incorporates expected
future cash flows and profitability projections.
Retirement
benefit obligations
Our Russian subsidiaries are legally obligated to make defined
contributions to the Russian Pension Fund, managed by the
Russian Federation Social Security (a defined contribution plan
financed on a pay-as-you-go basis). Our contributions to the
Russian Pension Fund relating to defined contribution plans are
charged to income in the year to which they relate.
In 2009 contributions to the Russian Pension Fund, together with
other social contributions, were included within a unified
social tax (UST), which was calculated by the
application of a regressive rate from 26% (applied to the
portion of the annual gross salary below 280,000 rubles) to
104,800 rubles plus 2% (applied to the portion of
annual gross salary exceeding 600,000 rubles) to the annual
gross remuneration of each employee. UST was allocated to three
social funds (including the Russian Pension Fund), where the
rate of contributions to the Russian Pension Fund varies from
14% (applied to the portion of the annual gross salary below
280,000 rubles) to 56,800 rubles (applied to the portion of
annual gross salary exceeding 600,000 rubles).
Contributions to the Russian Pension Fund for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 were $134.6 million,
$75.2 million and $102.8 million, respectively.
In 2010, some changes were introduced to the Russian tax
legislation. The UST was replaced by direct insurance
contributions to the national extra-budgetary funds. In 2010 the
total rates of social contributions were 26%: contributions to
the Russian Pension Fund amount to 20% of the annual gross
salary of each employee, contributions to the Fund of obligatory
medical insurance amount to 3.1% and contributions to the Social
Insurance Fund amount to 2.9%. These rates apply to the part of
the annual gross salary below 415,000 rubles for each
employee. Annual gross salaries exceeding that amount are
non-taxable.
In 2011, the contribution to the Russian Pension Fund and Fund
of obligatory medical insurance will be further increased to 26%
and 5.1%, respectively. These tariffs will apply to the part of
annual gross salary below 463,000 rubles. Annual gross salaries
exceeding that amount are non-taxable.
In addition, we have a number of defined benefit pension plans
that cover the majority of production employees. Benefits under
these plans are primarily based upon years of service and
average earnings. We account for the cost of defined benefit
plans using the projected unit credit method. Under this method,
the cost of providing pensions is charged to the statement of
income and comprehensive income, so as to attribute the total
pension cost over the service lives of employees in accordance
with the benefit formula of the plan. Our obligation in respect
of defined retirement benefit plans is calculated separately for
each defined benefit plan by discounting the amounts of future
benefits that employees have already earned through their
service in the current and prior periods. The discount rate
applied represents the yield at year end on highly rated
long-term bonds.
195
Our U.S. subsidiaries adopted FASB ASC 715,
Compensation-Retirement Benefits (ASC
715), and use the Projected Unit Credit method of
accounting for post-retirement health care benefits, which is
intended to match revenues with expenses and attributes an equal
amount of an employees projected benefit to each year from
the date of plan entry to the date that the employee is first
eligible to retire with full benefits. The actuarially estimated
accumulated post-retirement benefit obligation
(APBO) was recognized at the acquisition of
the U.S. subsidiaries on May 7, 2009. The APBO
represents the present value of the estimated future benefits
payable to current retirees and a pro rata portion of estimated
benefits payable to active employees upon retirement disclosed
in note 16 of our consolidated financial statements.
Pension and Post-Retirement Benefit obligations and the results
of sensitivity analysis of Pension and Post-Retirement Benefit
obligations as of December 31, 2010 are disclosed in the
note 16 to our consolidated financial statements.
Revenue
recognition
Revenue is recognized on an accrual basis when earned and
realizable, which generally occurs when products are delivered
to customers. In some instances, while title of ownership has
been transferred, the revenue recognition criteria are not met
as the selling price is subject to adjustment based upon the
market prices. Accordingly, in those instances, revenue and the
related cost of goods sold are recorded as deferred revenues and
deferred cost of inventory in transit in the consolidated
balance sheets and are not recognized in the consolidated income
statement until the price becomes fixed and determinable, which
typically occurs when the price is settled with the
end-customer. In certain foreign jurisdictions (e.g.
Switzerland), the group generally retains title to goods sold to
end-customers solely to ensure the collectability of its
accounts receivable. In such instances, all other sales
recognition criteria are met, which allows the group to
recognize sales revenue in conformity with underlying sales
contracts.
Revenue is recognized net of applicable provisions for discounts
and allowances and associated sales taxes (VAT) and export
duties.
Revenues are inflows from sales of goods that constitute ongoing
major operations of the group and are reported as such in the
consolidated statement of comprehensive income. Inflows from
incidental and peripheral operations are considered gains and
are included, net of related costs, in other income in the
consolidated statement of comprehensive income.
The group is involved in re-selling goods and services produced
or rendered by other entities. Revenues are reported based on
the gross amount billed to the customer when the group has
earned revenue as a principal from the sale of goods or
services, or the net amount retained (that is, the amount billed
to the customer reduced by the amount billed by the supplier)
when the group has earned a commission or fee as an agent. The
group evaluates the relevant facts and circumstances and takes
into consideration the following factors in determining whether
to recognizes revenue on a gross basis: (1) the group is
the primary obligor in the arrangement; (2) the group has
general inventory risk including customer returns; (3) the
group has latitude in establishing price; (4) the group
changes the product or performs part of the service;
(5) the group has discretion in supplier selection;
(6) the group is involved in the determination of product
or service specifications; (7) the group has physical loss
inventory risk; (8) the group has credit risk. Otherwise,
revenues are reported net when the group performs as an agent or
a broker without assuming the risks and rewards of ownership of
goods. The evaluations of these factors, which at times can be
contradictory, are subject to significant judgment and
subjectivity. This accounting policy of reporting revenue gross
as a principal versus net as an agent has no effect on gross
profit, income from continuing operations, before taxes, or net
income.
In the situation when the group act as a supplier and as a buyer
with the same counterparty, the group analyzes the respective
purchase and sales agreements to identify whether these
transactions were concluded in contemplation with each other
and, therefore, should be combined for accounting purposes
deferring the revenue recognition to the point when the earnings
process has culminated.
196
In the power segment (see note 23), revenue is recognized
based on unit of power measure (kilowatts) delivered to
customers, since at that point revenue recognition criteria are
met. The billings are usually done on a monthly basis, several
days after each month end.
We categorize revenues as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
domestic;
|
|
|
|
Russia: sales of Russian production within Russia;
|
|
|
|
other domestic: sales of non-Russian production within the
country of production; and
|
|
|
|
export: sales of production outside of country of production.
|
Property,
plant and equipment
Capitalized production costs for internally developed assets
include material, direct labor costs, and allocable material and
manufacturing overhead costs. When construction activities are
performed over an extended period, interest costs incurred
during construction are capitalized.
Construction-in-progress
and equipment held for installation are not depreciated until
the constructed or installed asset is substantially ready for
its intended use.
The costs of planned major maintenance activities are recorded
as the costs are actually incurred and are not accrued in
advance of the planned maintenance. Costs for activities that
lead to the prolongation of useful life or to expanded future
use capabilities of an asset are capitalized. Maintenance and
repair costs are expensed as incurred.
Other than for mineral licenses and other long-lived mining
assets and processing plant and equipment, we record
depreciation primarily using the straight-line method on a pro
rata basis.
The following useful lives are used as a basis for recording
depreciation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Economic
|
|
|
Lives Estimates,
|
Category of Asset
|
|
Years
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
20-45
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
20-50
|
|
Operating machinery and equipment
|
|
|
7-30
|
|
Transportation equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
4-15
|
|
Tools, furniture, fixtures and other
|
|
|
4-8
|
|
The remaining useful economic lives of our property, plant and
equipment are revised on an annual basis.
Mining
assets and processing plant and equipment
Mineral exploration costs incurred prior to establishing proven
and probable reserves for a given property are expensed as
incurred. Proven and probable reserves are established based on
independent feasibility studies and appraisals performed by
mining engineers. No exploration costs were capitalized prior to
the point when proven and probable reserves are established.
Reserves are defined as that part of a mineral deposit, which
could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the
time of the reserve determination. Proven reserves are defined
as reserves, for which (a) quantity is computed from
dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill
holes (grade
and/or
quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling) and
(b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are
spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined
that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are
well-established. Probable reserves are defined as reserves, for
which quantity and grade
and/or
quality are computed from information similar to that used for
proven reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and
measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately
spaced. Accordingly, the degree of assurance, although lower
than that for proven reserves, is high enough to assume
continuity between points of observation.
197
Development costs are capitalized beginning after proven and
probable reserves are established. Costs of developing new
underground mines are capitalized. Underground development
costs, which are costs incurred to make the mineral physically
accessible, include costs to prepare property for shafts,
driving main entries for ventilation, haulage, personnel,
construction of airshafts, roof protection and other facilities.
At our surface mines, these costs include costs to further
delineate the mineral deposits and initially expose the mineral
deposits and construction costs for entry roads, and drilling.
Additionally, interest expense allocable to the cost of
developing mining properties and to constructing new facilities
is capitalized until assets are ready for their intended use.
Expenditures for improvements are capitalized, while costs
related to maintenance (turnarounds) are expensed as incurred.
In addition, costs incurred to maintain current production
capacity at a mine and exploration expenditures are charged to
expenses as incurred. Stripping costs incurred during the
production phase of a mine are expensed as incurred.
Mining assets and processing plant and equipment are those
assets, including
construction-in-progress,
which are intended to be used only for the needs of a certain
mine or field, and upon full extraction after exhausting of the
reserves of such mine or the field, these assets cannot be
further used for any other purpose without a capital
reconstruction. When mining assets and processing plant and
equipment are placed in production, the applicable capitalized
costs, including mine development costs, are depleted using the
unit-of-production
method at the ratio of tonnes of mineral mined or processed to
the estimated proven and probable mineral reserves that are
expected to be mined during the license term for mining assets
related to the mineral licenses acquired prior to
August 22, 2004 (refer to note 2(k) of our
consolidated financial statements), or the estimated lives of
the mines for mining assets related to the mineral licenses
acquired after that date.
A decision to abandon, reduce or expand activity on a specific
mine is based upon many factors, including general and specific
assessments of mineral reserves, anticipated future mineral
prices, anticipated costs of developing and operating a
producing mine, the expiration date of mineral licenses, and the
likelihood that we will continue exploration of the mine. Based
on the results at the conclusion of each phase of an exploration
program, properties that are not economically feasible for
production are re-evaluated to determine if future exploration
is warranted and that carrying values are appropriate. The
ultimate recovery of these costs depends on the discovery and
development of economic ore reserves or the sale of the
companies owning such mineral rights.
Long-lived
assets impairment, including definite-lived intangibles and
goodwill
We follow the requirements of ASC 360 Property, Plant
and Equipment, which addresses financial accounting and
reporting for the impairment and disposal of long-lived assets,
and ASC 350, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other,
with respect to impairment of goodwill and intangibles. We
review the carrying value of our long-lived assets, including
property, plant and equipment, investments, goodwill, licenses
to use mineral reserves (inclusive of capitalized costs related
to asset retirement obligations), and intangible assets for
impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount of such assets may not be fully
recoverable as prescribed by ASC 360 and ASC 350.
Recoverability of long-lived assets, excluding goodwill, is
assessed by a comparison of the carrying amount of the asset (or
the group of assets, including the asset in question, that
represents the lowest level of separately-identifiable cash
flows) to the total estimated undiscounted cash flows expected
to be generated by the asset or group of assets. If the
estimated future net undiscounted cash flows are less than the
carrying amount of the asset or group of assets, the asset or
group of assets is considered impaired and expense is recognized
equal to the amount required to reduce the carrying amount of
the asset or group of assets to their fair value. Fair value is
determined by discounting the cash flows expected to be
generated by the asset when the quoted market prices are not
available for the long-lived assets. For assets and groups of
assets relating to and including the licenses to use mineral
reserves, future cash flows include estimates of recoverable
minerals, mineral prices (considering current and historical
prices, price trends and other related factors), production
levels, capital and reclamation costs, all based on the life of
mine models prepared by our internal engineers. Recoverable
minerals refer to the estimated amount that will be obtained
from proven and probable reserves. Estimated future cash flows
are
198
based on our assumptions and are subject to risk and uncertainty
that are considered in the discount rate applied in the
impairment testing.
ASC 350 prohibits the amortization of goodwill. Instead,
goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually and on an
interim basis when an event occurs that could potentially lead
to the impairment, i.e., a significant decline in selling
prices, production volumes or operating margins. Under
ASC 350, goodwill is assessed for impairment by using the
fair value based method. We determine fair value by utilizing
discounted cash flows. The impairment test required by
ASC 350 for goodwill includes a two-step approach. Under
the first step, companies must compare the fair value of a
reporting unit to its carrying value. A reporting
unit is the level, at which goodwill impairment is measured and
is defined as an operating segment or one level below it if
certain conditions are met. If the fair value of the reporting
unit is less than its carrying value, goodwill is impaired.
Under step two, the amount of goodwill impairment is measured by
the amount that the reporting units goodwill carrying
value exceeds the implied fair value of goodwill.
The implied fair value of goodwill can only be determined by
deducting the fair value of all tangible and intangible net
assets (including unrecognized intangible assets) of the
reporting unit from the fair value of the reporting unit (as
determined in the first step). In this step, the fair value of
the reporting unit is allocated to all of the reporting
units assets and liabilities (a hypothetical purchase
price allocation).
If goodwill and another asset (or asset group) of a reporting
unit are tested for impairment at the same time, the other asset
(or asset group) shall be tested for impairment before goodwill.
If the asset group was impaired, the impairment loss would be
recognized prior to goodwill being tested for impairment.
When performing impairment tests, we use assumptions that
include estimates regarding the discount rates, growth rates and
expected changes in selling prices, sales volumes and operating
costs, as well as capital expenditures and working capital
requirements during the forecasted period. We estimate discount
rates using after-tax rates that reflect current market rates
for investments of similar risk. The growth rates are based on
our growth forecasts, which are largely in line with industry
trends. Changes in selling prices and direct costs are based on
historical experience and expectations of future changes in the
market. While impairment of long-lived assets does not affect
reported cash flows, it does result in a non-cash charge in the
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income,
which could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations or financial position.
We performed an impairment analysis of long-lived assets,
including definite-lived intangibles and goodwill at all our
major subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010. Cash flow
forecasts used in the test were based on the assumptions as of
December 31, 2010. The forecasted period for our non-mining
subsidiaries was assumed to be seven years to reach stabilized
cash flows, and the value beyond the forecasted period was based
on a terminal growth rate of 2.5%. For our mining subsidiaries
the forecasted period was based on the remaining life of the
mines. Cash flow projections were prepared using assumptions
that comparable market participants would use.
Forecasted inflation rates for the period
2010-2017,
which were used in cash flow projections, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Romania
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Bulgaria
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Discount rates were estimated in nominal terms on the weighted
average cost of capital basis. To discount cash flow projections
we used similar discount rates for Russia, Eastern Europe and
Kazakhstan, assuming that
199
this approach reflected market rates for investments of a
similar risk as of December 31, 2010 in these regions.
These rates, estimated for each year for the forecasted period,
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
12.68
|
%
|
|
|
12.27
|
%
|
|
|
11.79
|
%
|
|
|
11.38
|
%
|
|
|
10.97
|
%
|
|
|
10.55
|
%
|
|
|
10.14
|
%
|
Based on the results of the impairment analysis of long-lived
assets, including our impairment analysis of definite-lived
intangibles and goodwill performed for all major subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2010, no impairment loss was recognized.
Based on the sensitivity analysis carried out as of
December 31, 2010, the following minimum changes in key
assumptions used in the goodwill impairment test would trigger
the impairment of goodwill at some reporting units (the actual
impairment loss that we would need to recognize under these
hypotheses would depend on the appraisal of the fair values of
the reporting units assets, which has not been conducted):
|
|
|
|
|
a 1.6% point decrease in future planned revenues;
|
|
|
|
a 0.6% point increase in discount rates for each year within the
forecasted period;
|
|
|
|
a 1% point decrease in cash flows growth rate after the
forecasted period.
|
We believe that the values assigned to key assumptions and
estimates represent the most realistic assessment of future
trends.
Finance
lease
The cost of equipment acquired under the capital (finance) lease
contracts is measured at the lower of its fair value or the
present value of the minimum lease payments, and reflected in
the balance sheet at the measured amount less accumulated
depreciation. The cost of the equipment is subject to an annual
impairment review as described in note 2(n) to our
consolidated financial statements. Capital lease liabilities are
divided into long-term and current portions based on the agreed
payment schedule and discounted using the lessors implicit
interest rate. Depreciation of assets acquired under the capital
(finance) lease is included into depreciation charge for the
period.
Accounts
receivable
Accounts receivable are stated at net realizable value. If
receivables are deemed doubtful, bad debt expense and a
corresponding allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded. If
receivables are deemed uncollectible, the related receivable
balance is charged off. Recoveries of receivables previously
charged off are recorded when received. Receivables that do not
bear interest or bear below market interest rates and have an
expected term of more than one year are discounted with the
discount subsequently amortized to interest income over the term
of the receivable. We review the valuation of accounts
receivable on a regular basis. The amount of allowance for
doubtful accounts is calculated based on the ageing of balances
in accordance with contract terms. In addition to the allowance
for specific doubtful accounts, we apply specific rates to
overdue balances of its subsidiaries depending on the history of
cash collections and future expectations of conditions that
might impact the collectability of accounts of each individual
subsidiary. Accounts receivable, which are considered
non-recoverable (those aged over three years or due from
bankrupt entities) are written off against provision or charged
off to operating expenses (if no provision was created in
previous periods). Our standard credit terms are 30 days in
Russia and Western Europe, and vary from 30 to 60 days in
the U.S. We establish extended credit terms for related
parties customers which may vary from 30 to 180 days. The
group monitors collectability of accounts receivable including
those from its related parties on an ongoing basis primarily
through review of the accounts receivable aging to determine
whether accounts receivable are a concern.
Cash
and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents comprise cash on hand and in transit,
checks and deposits with banks, as well as other bank deposits
with an original maturity of three months or less.
200
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of acquisition/manufacturing
cost or market value. Cost is determined on a weighted average
basis and includes all costs in bringing the inventory to its
present location and condition. The elements of costs include
direct material, labor and allocable material and manufacturing
overhead.
Costs of production in processed and finished goods include the
purchase costs of raw materials and conversion costs such as
direct labor and allocation of fixed and variable production
overheads. Raw materials are valued at a purchase cost inclusive
of freight and other shipping costs.
Coal, nickel and iron ore inventory costs include direct labor,
supplies, depreciation of equipment, depletion of mining assets
and amortization of licenses to use mineral reserves, mine
operating overheads and other related costs. Operating overheads
are charged to expenses in the periods when the production is
temporarily paused or abnormally low.
Market value is the estimated price, at which inventories can be
sold in the normal course of business after allowing for the
cost of completion and sale. We determine market value of
inventories for a group of items of inventories with similar
characteristics. The term market means current
replacement cost not to exceed net realizable value (selling
price less reasonable estimable costs of completion and
disposal) or be less than net realizable value adjusted for a
normal profit margin. Market value for each group is compared
with an acquisition/manufacturing cost, and the lower of these
values is used to determine the amount of the write-down of
inventories, which is recorded within the cost of sales in the
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income. When
inventories are written down below cost at the close of a fiscal
year, such reduced amount is considered the cost basis for
subsequent purposes.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the write-down of
inventories to their net realizable value was $52.8 million
and $70.7 million, respectively. The most significant
decrease in the write-down of inventories is attributable to the
steel segment in the amount of $16.0 million. It is caused
by the fact that during the year ended December 31, 2010 we
mostly sold inventories that had been previously written down to
the net realizable value.
Income
taxes
Provision is made in the financial statements for taxation of
profits in accordance with applicable legislation currently in
force in individual jurisdictions. We account for income taxes
under the liability method in accordance with ASC 740,
Income Taxes (formerly SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes) and related
interpretations. Under the liability method, deferred income
taxes reflect the future tax consequences of temporary
differences between the tax and financial statement bases of
assets and liabilities and are measured using enacted tax rates
to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect
on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in the tax
rates is recognized as income in the period that includes the
enactment date. A valuation allowance is provided when it is
more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets
will not be realized in the future. These evaluations are based
on the expectations of future taxable income and reversals of
the various taxable temporary differences.
ASC 740 prescribes the minimum recognition threshold a tax
position must meet before being recognized in the financial
statements and provides guidance on derecognition, measurement,
classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim
periods, disclosure and transition. Unrecognized income tax
benefits of $4.3 million, including interest and penalties
of $0.7 million, as of December 31, 2010, and
$17.2 million, including interest and penalties of
$7.9 million, as of December 31, 2009, were recognized
by us in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
Taxes represent our provision for profit tax. During 2008,
income tax was calculated at 24% of taxable profit in Russia, at
10.5% in Switzerland, at 16% in Romania, at 15% in Lithuania, at
30% in Kazakhstan, and at 40.5% in the United States. Our
subsidiaries incorporated in Liechtenstein and the British
Virgin Islands are exempt from profit tax. In November 2008, the
tax legislation of Russia was amended to decrease Russian
statutory income tax rate from 24% to 20% starting from
January 1, 2009. Therefore, during
2009-2010,
201
income tax was calculated at 20% of taxable profit in Russia. In
addition, in December 2008 and November 2009, the tax
legislation of Kazakhstan was amended to decrease the statutory
income tax rate from 30% in 2008 to 20% in
2009-2012,
17.5% in 2013, 15% in 2014 and thereafter. However, in 2010, new
amendments in the tax legislation of Kazakhstan resulted in an
increase in the statutory tax rate back to 20% for 2013 and
thereafter. The changes in income tax rates are effective from
January 1 in each of the respective years.
Litigation,
claims and assessments
We are subject to various lawsuits, claims and proceedings
related to matters incidental to our business. Accruals of
probable cash outflows have been made based on an assessment of
a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. It is
possible that results of operations in any future period could
be materially affected by changes in assumptions or by the
effectiveness of these strategies.
We record liabilities for potential tax deficiencies. These
liabilities are based on managements judgment of the risk
of loss. In the event that we were to determine that tax-related
items would not be considered deficiencies or that items
previously not considered to be potential deficiencies could be
considered as potential tax deficiencies (as a result of an
audit, tax ruling or other positions or authority), an
adjustment to the liability would be recorded through income in
the period such determination was made. See Item 8.
Financial Information Litigation for a
description of various contingencies.
Asset
retirement obligations
We have numerous asset retirement obligations associated with
our core business activities. We are required to perform these
obligations under law or contract once an asset is permanently
taken out of service. Most of these obligations are not expected
to be paid until many years into the future and will be funded
from general resources at the time of removal. Our asset
retirement obligations primarily relate to mining and steel
production facilities with related landfills and dump areas and
mines. Our estimates of these obligations are based on current
regulatory or license requirements, as well as forecasted
dismantling and other related costs. Asset retirement
obligations are calculated in accordance with the provisions of
the ASC 410, Asset Retirement and Environmental
Obligations (ASC410).
In order to calculate the amount of asset retirement
obligations, the expected cash flows are discounted using an
estimate of the credit-adjusted risk-free rate as required by
ASC 410. The credit-adjusted risk-free rate is calculated
as a weighted average of risk-free interest rates for Russian
Federation bonds with maturity dates that coincide with the
expected timing of when the asset retirement activities will be
performed, adjusted for the effect of our credit standing. For
our U.S. subsidiaries, the credit-adjusted risk-free rate
is calculated as a weighted average of risk-free interest rates
for U.S. treasury bonds with maturity dates that coincide
with the expected timing of when the asset retirement activities
will be performed, adjusted for the effect of our credit
standing.
Shipping
and handling costs
We classify all amounts billed to customers in a sale
transaction and related to shipping and handling as part of
sales revenue and all related shipping and handling costs as
selling and distribution expenses. These costs totaled
$918.2 million, $689.8 million and $842.5 million
for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Comprehensive
income
FASB ASC 220, Comprehensive Income
(ASC 220), requires the reporting of
comprehensive income in addition to net income. Accumulated
other comprehensive income includes foreign currency translation
adjustments, unrealized holding gains and losses on
available-for-sale
securities and on derivative financial instruments, as well as
pension liabilities not recognized as net periodic pension cost.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, in
addition to net income, total comprehensive income included the
effect of translation of the financial statements denominated in
currencies other than the reporting currency (in accordance with
ASC 830), changes in the carrying values of
available-for-sale
securities, and change in
202
pension benefit obligation subsequent to the adoption of the
ASC 715. In accordance with ASC 715, we recognize actuarial
gains and losses, prior service costs and credits and transition
assets or obligations (the full surplus or deficit in their
plans) in the balance sheet. As of December 31, 2010, and
2009, the amount of comprehensive income included the effect of
curtailment and actuarial gains and losses. Accumulated other
comprehensive (loss) income is comprised of the following
components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cumulative currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(239.8
|
)
|
|
|
(215.8
|
)
|
Unrealized losses on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
Pension adjustments
|
|
|
39.7
|
|
|
|
49.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
(201.0
|
)
|
|
|
(172.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based
compensation
We apply the fair-value method of accounting for employee
stock-compensation costs as outlined in FASB ASC 718,
Compensation Stock Compensation
(ASC 718). During the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we did not enter in any
employee stock-compensation arrangements.
Segment
reporting
According to FASB ASC 280, Segment Reporting
(ASC 280), segment reporting follows our
internal organizational and reporting structure. Our operations
are presented in four business segments as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Mining segment, comprising production and sales of coal
(metallurgical and steam), iron ore and coke, which supplies raw
materials to the steel, ferroalloys and power segments and also
sells substantial amounts of raw materials to third parties;
|
|
|
|
Steel segment, comprising production and sales of semi-finished
steel products, carbon and specialty long products, carbon and
stainless flat products, value-added downstream metal products,
including forgings, stampings and wire products;
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloy segment, comprising production and sales of
ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon, which supplies raw
materials to the steel segment and also sells substantial
amounts of raw materials to third parties; and
|
|
|
|
Power segment, comprising generation and sales of electricity
and heat power, which supplies electricity, gas and heat power
to the mining, steel and ferroalloys segments.
|
Financial
instruments
The carrying amount of our financial instruments, which include
cash equivalents, marketable securities, non-marketable debt
securities, cost method investments, accounts receivable and
accounts payable, and short-term borrowings approximates their
fair value as of December 31, 2010 and 2009. For long-term
borrowings, the difference between fair value and carrying value
is shown in note 14 to our consolidated financial accounts.
We have determined, using available market information and
appropriate valuation methodologies, such as discounted cash
flows, the estimated fair values of financial instruments. Since
different entities are located and operate in different regions
of Russia and elsewhere with different business and financial
market characteristics, there are generally very limited or no
comparable market values available to assess the fair value of
our debt and other financial instruments. The cost method
investments are shares of Russian companies that are not
publicly traded and their market value is not available. It is
not practicable for us to estimate the fair value of these
investments, for which a quoted market price is not available
because it has not yet obtained or developed the valuation model
necessary to make the estimate, and the cost of obtaining an
independent valuation would be excessive considering the
materiality of our instruments. Therefore, such investments are
recorded at cost.
203
Guarantees
In accordance with FASB ASC 460, Guarantees
(ASC 460), the fair value of a guarantee is
determined and recorded as a liability at the time when the
guarantee is issued. The initial guarantee amount is
subsequently re-measured to reflect the changes in the
underlying liability. The expense or re-measurement adjustments
are included in the related line items of the consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive (loss) income, based on
the nature of the guarantee. When the likelihood of performing
on a guarantee becomes probable, a liability is accrued,
provided it is reasonably determinable on the basis of the facts
and circumstances at that time.
Accounting
for contingencies
Certain conditions may exist as of the date of these
consolidated financial statements, which may further result in a
loss to us, but which will only be resolved when one or more
future events occur or fail to occur. Our management makes an
assessment of such contingent liabilities, which is based on
assumptions and is a matter of opinion. In assessing loss
contingencies relating to legal or tax proceedings that involve
our or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings,
we, after consultation with legal or tax advisors, evaluate the
perceived merits of any legal or tax proceedings or unasserted
claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief
sought or expected to be sought therein.
If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable
that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the liability can
be estimated, then the estimated liability is accrued in our
consolidated financial statements. If the assessment indicates
that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable,
but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be
estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together
with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable
and material, would be disclosed.
Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed
unless they involve guarantees, in which case the nature of the
guarantee would be disclosed. However, in some instances in
which disclosure is not otherwise required, we may disclose
contingent liabilities or other uncertainties of an unusual
nature which, in the judgment of management after consultation
with its legal or tax counsel, may be of interest to
shareholders or others.
Derivative
instruments and hedging activities
We recognize our derivative instruments as either assets or
liabilities at fair value in accordance with FASB ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging (ASC
815). The accounting for changes in the fair value of
a derivative instrument depends on whether it has been
designated and qualifies as an accounting hedge and further, on
the type of hedging relationship. For the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we did not have any
derivatives designated as hedging instruments. Therefore, any
gain or loss on a derivative instrument we hold is recognized
currently in income. There were no significant gains or losses
related to the change in the fair value of derivative
instruments included in the net foreign exchange gain (loss) in
the accompanying consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive (loss) income for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2010. There were no foreign
currency forward and options contracts outstanding as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Investments
We recognize all our debt and equity investments in accordance
with FASB ASC 320, Investments Debt and
Equity Securities (ASC 320). At
acquisition, we classify debt and equity securities into one of
three categories:
held-to-maturity,
available-for-sale
or trading. At each reporting date we reassess appropriateness
of the classification.
Held-to-maturity
securities
Investments in debt securities that we have both the ability and
the intent to hold to maturity are classified as
held-to-maturity
and measured at amortized cost in the consolidated financial
statements.
204
Trading
securities
Investments (debt or equity), which we intend to sell in the
near term, and which are usually acquired as part of our
established strategy to buy and sell, generating profits based
on short-term price movements, are classified by us as trading
securities. Changes in fair value of trading securities are
recognized in earnings.
Available-for-sale
securities
Investments (debt or equity), which are not classified as
held-to-maturity
or trading, are classified as
available-for-sale.
Change in their fair value is reflected in other comprehensive
income.
Recoverability
of equity method and other investments
Our management periodically assesses the recoverability of the
groups equity method and other investments. For
investments in publicly traded entities, readily available
quoted market prices are an indication of the fair value of the
investments. For investments in non-publicly traded entities, if
an identified event or change in circumstances requires an
evaluation, management assesses their fair value based on
valuation techniques including discounted cash flow estimates or
sales proceeds, external appraisals and market prices of similar
investments as appropriate.
Our management considers the assumptions that a hypothetical
market place participant would use in his analysis of discounted
cash flows models and estimates of sales proceeds. If an
investment is considered to be impaired and the decline in value
is other than temporary, we record an impairment loss.
Recently
Issued Accounting Pronouncements
Accounting
Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles
Following the Codification, FASB no longer issues new standards
in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Positions or Emerging
Issues Task Force Abstracts. Instead, it issues Accounting
Standards Updates, or ASUs, which will serve to update the
Codification, provide background information about the guidance
and provide the basis for conclusions on the changes to the
Codification.
Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued the Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
(ASU
2010-06)
that amends the FASBs Accounting Standards Codification
(ASC) 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (ASC 820). ASU
2010-06
requires separate disclosure of significant transfers between
Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurement inputs and
a description of the reasons for the transfers. Additionally,
the entity is required to present separately information on
purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis in
the reconciliation for fair value measurements using
Level 3 inputs. ASU
2010-06 also
clarifies that the fair value measurement disclosures should be
presented for each class of assets and liabilities. A class is
typically a subset of a line item in the statement of financial
position. The entity also is required to provide information
about the valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair
value for both recurring and nonrecurring instruments classified
as either Level 2 or Level 3. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning
after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about
activity in Level 3 fair value measurements that are
effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2010. We adopted ASU
2010-06 as
of January 1, 2010, except for the disclosures about
activity in Level 3 fair value measurements that will be
adopted as of January 1, 2011. The adoption of ASU
2010-06 did
not have a material effect on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
Subsequent
Events
In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-09,
Subsequent Events (Topic 855): Amendments to Certain
Recognition and Disclosure Requirements (ASU
2010-09).
ASU 2010-09
amends ASC 855,
205
Subsequent Events (ASC 855), removing
the requirement for an SEC filer to disclose the date through
which subsequent events have been evaluated both in issued and
revised financial statements. ASU
2010-09 is
effective upon issuance. The adoption of ASU
2010-09 did
not have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
Credit
Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit
Losses
In July 2010, FASB issued ASU
2010-20,
Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit
Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit
Losses (ASU
2010-20).
The disclosures will provide financial statement users with
additional information about the nature of credit risks inherent
in entities financing receivables, how credit risk is
analyzed and assessed when determining the allowance for credit
losses and the reasons for the change in the allowance for
credit losses. ASU
2010-20 also
introduces a new terminology; in particular, the term
financial receivables. In January, 2011, FASB issued
ASU 2011-01,
Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about
Troubled Debt Restructurings in Update
No. 2010-20,
where the effective date of the amendments related to the
disclosures as of the end of a reporting period about troubled
debt restructurings for public entities, issued in ASU
2010-20, was
deferred and anticipates to be effective for interim and annual
periods ending after June 15, 2011. The disclosures about
activity that occurs during a reporting period are effective for
interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after
December 15, 2010. The amendments in ASU
2010-20
encourage, but do not require, comparative disclosures for
earlier reporting periods that ended before initial adoption.
However, an entity should provide comparative disclosures for
those reporting periods ending after initial adoption. We will
adopt ASU
2010-20 in
2011 and do not expect that it will have a material impact on
our financial position and results of operations.
Intangibles
Goodwill and Other
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-28,
When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for
Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts.
The amendments in this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill
impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative
carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is
required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment if it is
more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In
determining whether it is more likely than not that goodwill
impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are
any adverse qualitative factors indicating that impairment may
exist. We will initially adopt ASU
2010-28 in
2011 and does not expect ASU
2010-20 to
have a material impact on the Groups financial position
and results of operations.
Pro
Forma Information for Business Combinations
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-29,
Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations. ASU
2010-29
specifies that if a public entity presents comparative financial
statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of
the combining business as though the business combination(s)
that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the
beginning of the prior annual reporting period only. The
amendments in ASU
2010-29 also
expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures under Topic 805 to
include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the
business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue
and earnings. We will initially adopt ASU
2010-29 for
the 2011 annual reporting and do not expect it to have a
material impact on our financial position and results of
operations.
There were various other updates recently issued, most of which
represented technical corrections to the accounting literature
or application to specific industries and are not expected to a
have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
Trend
Information
Since the beginning of global financial crisis in the third
quarter of 2008, world steel producers and miners effectively
adjusted their production to the new level of demand. This
prevented the market from experiencing a huge oversupply, and
reduced the depth and the length of the fall in market prices
and buying
206
activity. Another positive factor for the industry is a steady
growth of Chinese demand, which partially mitigated the fall in
demand in other regions. China continues to increase its steel
production and consumption at a high rate, absorbing excessive
steelmaking raw materials from global markets.
We observed the signs of demand recovery in the second half of
2009 and continuing in 2010, since many miners and steelmakers
worldwide have restarted their idled capacities. In 2010 we
experienced improvement in steel demand on mature markets, like
the United States and Europe, which were severely affected by
the crisis and showed no signs of improvement during 2009. Steel
demand and production recovery in 2010 was rather sharp with
global figures exceeding pre-crises levels.
Demand
Mining. The demand for coking coal is
dependent on the steel industry, which is directly tied to
global economic cycles. The demand for internationally traded
coking coal fell in 2009 due to the global recession. In 2010
demand returned to pre-crisis levels due to stable import growth
from China and recovery of developed economies after the crises.
Global metallurgical coal import increased by 20.6% in 2010,
according to AME.
The steam coal market is driven by non-steel related factors,
such as growth in electricity consumption, balance between
supply and demand and seasonality. Global internationally traded
steam coal demand varied insignificantly in 2009 compared to
2008, decreasing by 0.4%, according to AME. In 2010 global steam
coal import increased by 4.6%, according to AME.
Demand for internationally traded iron ore rose in 2009 against
2008 due to the surge in imports from China by 5.6%, according
to AME. Global import demand for iron ore in 2010 has risen
10.6% due to demand increase from developed countries, according
to AME.
Steel. Russia is our single largest market for
steel products. In 2008 Russian rolled steel consumption totaled
to 38.4 million tonnes, according to Metal Expert. In 2009,
rolled steel consumption in Russia fell by 28.9% to
17.3 million tonnes, according to Metal Expert. In 2010
Russian rolled steel consumption almost returned to pre-crisis
level. It grew by 37.7% and reached 37.6 million tonnes,
according to Metal Expert.
We expect that Russias domestic steel consumption will
continue to grow in 2011.
The volume of steel products exports from Russia experienced a
9.2% decline in 2010 and amounted to 27.3 million tonnes,
according to Metal Expert. We believe that our Russian steel
products will retain competitiveness in the markets outside
Russia in 2011, due to a better position on the cost curve.
Imports of steel increased 54.6% year on year in 2010 to
5.1 million tonnes, due to increased consumption, according
to Metal Expert. Imported steel comprised only 13.7% of the
Russian steel market, according to Metal Expert. We expect
imports will slightly increase in 2011, due to growing
Russias steel consumption. But the share of imported steel
in the Russian steel market will stay relatively stable.
Ferroalloys. Demand for nickel and ferrochrome
grew substantially in 2010 not only in China and other Asian
countries, but also in developed regions, driven by the increase
in stainless steel production. Global stainless steel production
grew by 24.2% in 2010, according to CRU. Nickel supply was tight
most of 2010, especially in the first half of the year. This led
to the decrease in London Metal Exchange (LME) nickel stocks by
13.6% by the end of 2010, according to CRU. Ferrochrome supplies
to the market in 2010 were also limited; production was
insufficient in the first half of the year. In the second half
of 2010 ferrochrome producers increased supplies to the market
at a faster pace than consumption growth, which resulted in
increased ferrochrome market stocks by the end of 2010. We
expect that stainless steel production in all regions will
continue to improve in 2011, which will lead to an increase in
demand for nickel and ferrochrome.
Global ferrosilicon demand grew by 7.8% in 2010, on the back of
the general increase in steel production. Global steel
production increased by 16.7% in 2010, according to the World
Steel Association. Production grew in most regions; the largest
increase in crude steel production volumes took place in Asia,
the European Union and North America, according to the World
Steel Association. We expect that the ferrosilicon
207
market will see further increase in demand in 2011, since we
expect continued growth in steel production in the most regions
of the world.
Power. In 2010, the increase in electricity
output of our Russian generating enterprises was 15%. Heat
energy generated for sale increased by 13%.
In January 2010, the production of electricity by our generating
enterprises increased by 4%, and heat energy by 8%, compared to
January 2009.
The reduction in market demand for electricity and heat energy
has resulted in the need to adjust undertakings and completion
schedules with respect to power industry companies
investment programs. Currently the Russian government is
analyzing the progress made on these programs, with a view to
clarifying the timeline for installation of the necessary
production capacity, with due regard for the economic downturn.
The decisions made on this basis will form a new long-term
balance of power and capacity, which in turn will determine the
profitability of the power and capacity markets.
Sales
Mining. Overall, we expect sales volumes of
our mining segment to grow in 2011, due to an increase in demand
in the Asian markets. We expect domestic sales of our mining
products to increase due to increased demand. Export sales are
also expected to increase, since we are strategically
diversifying our sales geography. We believe that our policy of
concluding long-term contracts for coal and iron ore concentrate
sales strengthens our relationship with our customers and gives
us long-term presence in both the domestic and export markets.
Steel. Our steel segment sales volumes are
expected to increase in 2011 due to an increase in demand for
steel. During 2010, Mechel-Service, a steel sales subsidiary of
Mechel Service Global in Russia, continued its program of
expanding its sales network, enhancing its product portfolio and
extending the range of its services and enlarging its client
base. Mechel-Service has offices in 46 cities in Russia. In
2010, a line of welded reinforcing mesh production started
operating at designed capacity in the Moscow region. We are
planning to acquire additional units in order to increase
production volumes. In total sales volumes shares of such
products as cold rolled reinforcing wire, pipe rolled products,
structural shapes, stainless rolled products, high-quality
rolled steel products and wire products are steadily increasing.
In 2010, Mechel-Service continued expansion of its own truck
fleet to improve the quality of service for end users. We
believe that our strategy of expanding our own distribution
network of steel sales, expanding our product portfolio and
developing customer services will improve our market position
and will provide us with greater stability in steel sales.
Ferroalloys. We expect sales volumes of our
ferroalloys segment, specifically ferrochrome and ferronickel,
to increase in 2011. Domestic sales are expected to increase due
to growth of consumption. In addition, we expect an increase in
exports of our ferroalloy products, widening our geographic
market coverage and increasing sales volumes to traditional
export markets.
Power. In 2011, we expect an increase in the
sales of our power segment due to increased end-user demand from
industrial enterprises. At the same time, consumption by small
and mid-sized businesses and households, who are also customers
of power and heat-supply companies, will not change
significantly. We plan to expand our distribution channels,
building a new customer base among small and mid-sized
businesses, as well as public utilities. We also plan to
optimize our production capacity through further integration of
our intra-group assets. We hope that further integration of our
power assets, as well as diversification of our customer
portfolio, will allow us to avoid a sharp fall in power segment
sales.
Inventory
Overall, our inventory increased by $830.8 million, or 80%,
to $1,866.6 million as of December 31, 2010, from
$1,035.8 million as of December 31, 2009. The increase
was mainly due to growing production volumes in 2010 compared to
2009, the year of the global downturn, and the corresponding
decrease in demand and efficient usage of available inventories
of stock during 2009 along with a reduction of purchase prices
and the depreciation of the ruble.
208
Costs
Mining. Within our mining segment, we expect
our iron ore cash costs per tonne to increase in 2011 as a
result of increasing prices of power, explosives, automotive
tires and tubes for open pit equipment and land use fees, while
coal cash costs per tonne should remain relatively stable in
2011 as a result of increasing operational efficiency and
decreasing semi-fixed costs.
Steel. Excluding the effects of exchange rate
fluctuations, our steel cash costs per tonne should remain
relatively stable in 2011 as a result of maintaining production
volumes and achieving cost savings, as well as efficiency and
output gains arising as a result of our targeted capital
investment program. Specifically, as we continue to introduce
operational and technical changes at our plants allowing us to
better integrate their products, we expect to be better able to
control our cost increases. The increasing use of continuous
casters should provide both efficiency and production increases.
Ferroalloys. We expect electricity and natural
gas expenses to increase in 2011, which will lead to an increase
in the power cost component of our ferroalloys production cost
structure. At the same time, we are planning to conduct a number
of activities related to the reconstruction of smelting
furnaces. We believe that implementation of these activities
aimed at improving technical and economic performance and
reducing expenses will enable to achieve a stabilization of our
ferroalloys production costs.
Power. We expect that in 2011 the cost of the
production of electricity and heat energy will increase due to
an increase in the prices of key raw materials, particularly
natural gas and coal, as well as some ancillary materials.
However, we intend to maintain strict control over costs, which
should enable us to cut expenditure by reducing the
fixed-expense component of our production costs, optimizing
administrative expenses and increasing productivity to satisfy
increased market demand in some regions. We have given special
attention to high-priority financial and operating activities,
including technical refurbishment, development of existing
capacities and installation of new power generation capacity at
our production facilities.
The increase in sales volumes despite the potential increase in
weighted average cash expenses per product unit across our
segments may positively affect our financial results in 2011 in
comparison with those in 2010.
Seasonality
Seasonal effects have a relatively limited impact on our
results. Nonetheless, slowing of demand and, thus, a reduction
in sales volumes (and a related increase in inventories) is
typically evident in the first and fourth quarters of the
financial year as a result of the general reduction in economic
activity associated with the New Year holiday period in Russia
and elsewhere. We also maintain larger stockpiles of scrap
during the winter months in order to avoid potential supply
disruptions due to inclement weather. We are also dependent on
the Russian construction market, which also experiences
slowdowns in the winter months. Both our ferroalloys and mining
(in respect of coking coal and iron ore) segments revenues
generally have the same seasonality as the steel segment since
ferroalloys, coking coal and iron ore are primarily used in the
manufacture of steel and are closely linked to steel
consumption. By contrast, our power segment sales volumes
experience a different seasonality generally higher in the first
and the fourth quarters of the year, due to increased
electricity and steam consumption in the winter period. Our
sales of steam coal typically increase during the second and
third quarters as a result of increased steam coal purchases by
utilities, including Southern Kuzbass Power Plant, in
preparation for increased consumption during the winter heating
season.
Consumption of combustive, lubricative and energy supplies
during the winter months is generally higher than during the
rest of the year. In addition, railroad carriers demand that
iron ore concentrate be fully dried and coal concentrate be
partially dried for transportation during the winter months,
resulting in higher costs during that time.
209
|
|
Item 6.
|
Directors,
Senior Management and Employees
|
Directors
and Executive Officers
Board
of Directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year of Birth
|
|
Position
|
|
Igor V.
Zyuzin(4)
|
|
|
1960
|
|
|
Chairman and Director
|
Alexander E.
Yevtushenko(1)(3)
|
|
|
1947
|
|
|
Director
|
Vladimir A. Polin
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Director
|
Valentin V.
Proskurnya(4)
|
|
|
1945
|
|
|
Director
|
Roger I.
Gale(1)(2)(3)
|
|
|
1952
|
|
|
Director
|
A. David
Johnson(1)(2)(4)
|
|
|
1937
|
|
|
Director
|
Serafim V.
Kolpakov(1)(3)(4)
|
|
|
1933
|
|
|
Director
|
Igor S.
Kozhukhovsky(1)(4)
|
|
|
1956
|
|
|
Director
|
Vladimir V.
Gusev(1)(2)(3)
|
|
|
1945
|
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Independent Director under applicable New York Stock Exchange
regulations and Russian regulations. |
|
(2) |
|
Member of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. |
|
(3) |
|
Member of the Committee on Appointments and Remuneration. |
|
(4) |
|
Member of the Committee on Investments and Strategic Planning. |
Igor V. Zyuzin has been Chairman of our Board of
Directors since July 2010. He was our Chief Executive Officer
from December 2006 and until July 2010 and Chairman of our
Management Board from September 2007 and until July 2010. He
served as the Chairman of our Board of Directors from March
2003, when Mechel was founded, until December 2006 and has been
a member of our Board of Directors since that time.
Mr. Zyuzin also serves as the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, a position he has
held since May 1999, and has served as a member of the Board of
Directors of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant since 2001 and as a
member of the Board of Directors of Yakutugol since October
2007. Mr. Zyuzin has also served as the Chairman of the
Board of Directors of Mechel Mining a position he has held since
May 2008. Mr. Zyuzin has over 24 years of experience
in the coal mining industry and holds a degree in coal mining
from Tula Polytechnic Institute. Mr. Zyuzin also has a
degree in coal mining engineering economics and a doctorate in
coal mining technical sciences. Mr. Zyuzin beneficially
owns 66.76% of our common shares and 1.31% of the common shares
of Mechel Mining.
Alexander E. Yevtushenko has been a member of our Board
of Directors since June 2004. He served as the Chairman of our
Board of Directors from July 2009 until July 2010. From 2001 to
2004, Mr. Yevtushenko served as First Vice President of
Sokolovskaya OAO, a holding company for a group of Russian coal
mining and engineering enterprises. From 1999 to 2000, he was
President of the General Committee of the Inter-State Eurasian
Association of Coal and Metals. From 1991 to 1999,
Mr. Yevtushenko was First Deputy Fuels and Energy Minister
of the Russian Federation. From 1973 to 1991, he worked in
various positions, including as General Director of the
Raspadskaya Mine in the Kuzbass region, the Soviet Unions
largest coal mine. Mr. Yevtushenko graduated from the
Siberian Metallurgical Institute with a degree in mining
engineering. He has a doctorate in engineering and is a member
of the Academy of Mining Sciences of Russia.
Mr. Yevtushenko is the author of more than 50 scientific
publications, including Mineral Resources of the Coal Industry
of Russia, a study for which he was awarded the Science and
Technology Prize by the Russian government in 2002. He has
received a number of governmental awards, including the title of
Honorable Miner of the Russian Federation in 1997.
Vladimir A. Polin has been a member of our Board of
Directors since June 2007. He is the Director of Aluminium
Division East of Rusal Global Management B.V. ZAO, a
position he has held since July 2010. From December 2008 to June
2010 he served as Senior Vice President of Mechel OAO. From June
2006 to December 2008 Mr. Polin served as Chief Executive
Officer of Mechel-Steel Management. From July 2003 to June 2006,
he was our Senior Vice President for Production and Technical
Policy. From February 2002 until
210
June 2003, Mr. Polin served as the First Deputy General
Director of our Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant. From September
2001 until July 2002, Mr. Polin served as Head of Sales of
our Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. Mr. Polin has almost
27 years of operational and management experience in the
manufacturing and marketing of steel products, and holds a
degree in metallurgy from Chelyabinsk Polytechnic University.
Mr. Polin beneficially owns 0.002% of our common shares.
Valentin V. Proskurnya has been a member of our Board of
Directors since March 2003. From July 2007 to July 2009 he
served as the Chairman of our Board of Directors. From May to
December 2003, Mr. Proskurnya was the Director of Economics
at Mechel Trading House. From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Proskurnya
was a member of the Board of Directors of Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant. From 1999 to 2005, he was a member of Board
of Directors at Southern Kuzbass Coal Company.
Mr. Proskurnya has over 38 years of engineering,
financial and management experience in the coal mining industry
and holds a degree in labor economics from the Higher School of
Trade Unions. Mr. Proskurnya has been decorated with all
three grades of the Miners Glory order by the
Russian government. In addition, the Russian President awarded
him the title of Honorable Economist of the Russian Federation.
Roger I. Gale has been a member of our Board of Directors
since October 2004. Mr. Gale is currently Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sedia
Biosciences Corporation, based in the U.S. He was Chairman
of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Calypte
Biomedical Corporation, a U.S. company headquartered in
Portland, Oregon from mid-2006 to June 2008. From 2001 until
mid-2006, Mr. Gale was the Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Wavecrest Group
Enterprises Limited, a telecommunications service provider. From
1999 to 2001, he was Chairman of the Board of Directors and
co-founder of End2End Wireless Limited, a wireless
communications services provider. From 1996 to 1998,
Mr. Gale was Chief Executive Officer of AIG-Brunswick
Capital Management, a $300 million Russian investment fund
sponsored by OPIC. From 1988 to 1996, Mr. Gale worked for
the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank (the
IFC), including as the Chief of the
IFCs Resident Mission in Russia from 1992 to 1995.
Mr. Gale also worked for nine years for the Asian
Development Bank, and has lectured in economics at the
University of New England (Australia) and Lincoln College (New
Zealand). Mr. Gale holds a diploma from the Royal
Agricultural College and holds a masters degree in economics
from the University of New England.
A. David Johnson has been a member of our Board of
Directors since October 2004. Mr. Johnson is currently an
adviser to the board of directors of Neuerth Coal Holdings, a
position he has held since April 2007, and also serves as a
consultant to the board of directors of Joy Mining Machinery UK
Ltd. From 1990 to 2002, Mr. Johnson was Managing Director
of Joy Mining Machinery UK Ltd. From 1984 to 1990,
Mr. Johnson was the Managing Director of Dosco Overseas
Engineering, a UK-based mining equipment manufacturer. He also
worked at the UK National Coal Board from 1953 to 1960. From
1990 to 1992, he served as President of the Association of
British Mining Equipment Companies. In 1998, he was awarded the
Order of Friendship by the Russian government for services to
the Russian coal industry. Mr. Johnson is a qualified
mining engineer having obtained the UK Mining Qualifications
Board Certificate in 1959.
Serafim V. Kolpakov has been a member of our Board of
Directors since June 2004. Since 1992, Mr. Kolpakov has
served as President of the International Metallurgists Union, a
steel industry-focused research organization. From 1991 to 1992,
he was Vice President of the Advanced Materials Association in
Moscow, a public consulting and research organization. From 1985
to 1991, Mr. Kolpakov was Minister of Metallurgy of the
USSR and, from 1978 to 1985, First Deputy Minister and Deputy
Minister of Metallurgy of the USSR. From 1970 to 1978, he was
the General Director of Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Works.
Mr. Kolpakov graduated from the Moscow Institute of Steel
and Alloys with an engineering degree and is a Doctor of
Technical Sciences. He is a member of the International
Engineering Academy, the Engineering Academy of Russia (holding
the position of Vice President) and the Presidium of the Academy
of Information Technologies and Processes. Mr. Kolpakov has
invented more than 400 steel-making technology improvements, and
authored over 500 scientific publications. He has received a
number of government awards, including the State Prize of the
USSR in 1981 and 1985, the Prize of the Council of Ministers of
the USSR (twice) and the title of Honorable Metallurgist of the
Russian Federation and Czechoslovakia.
211
Igor S. Kozhukhovsky has been a member of our Board of
Directors since June 2008. Mr. Kozhukhovsky is currently a
member of the Board of Directors of, and the General Director
of, APBE ZAO and Management ZAO APBE ZAO, companies engaged in
the energy sector. From 2000 to 2008, Mr. Kozhukhovsky was
head of a department of UES. From 1997 to 1999, he was Deputy
Minister of Fuel and Energy of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Kozhukhovsky has degrees in Metallurgical Industrial
Engineering and Mining Electrical Engineering from the Siberian
Metallurgical Institute. He also has a doctorate in economics.
Vladimir V. Gusev has been a member of our Board of
Directors since July 2009. In 2008 Mr. Gusev held the
position of Vice President for Finance of the State Corporation
Olympstroy. From 2005 to 2008, he was Deputy Head of
the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation. From
1999-2005,
he was First Deputy Minister of Taxes and Levies of the Russian
Federation. Mr. Gusev has a law degree from St. Petersburg
State University and holds a doctorate in economics. He was
awarded with several national awards and, under the Decree of
the President of the Russian Federation in 2000, with the title
of Honored Economist of the Russian Federation. Mr. Gusev
has authored more than 30 scientific papers and publications.
All of our current directors were elected on June 30, 2010,
and their terms expire on the date of our next annual
shareholders meeting, which will take place not later than
June 30, 2011. The business and mailing address for all our
directors and executive officers is Krasnoarmeyskaya Street 1,
Moscow 125993, Russian Federation.
Executive
Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year of Birth
|
|
Position
|
|
Evgeny V. Mikhel
|
|
|
1974
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Management Board
|
Alexey G. Ivanushkin
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Oriel Resources Ltd., Director of
Oriel Resources Ltd. Moscow Representative Office
|
Victor A. Trigubko
|
|
|
1956
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Government Relations
|
Mukhamed M. Tsikanov
|
|
|
1955
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Economics and Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Stanislav A. Ploshchenko
|
|
|
1976
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Finance, Member of Management Board
|
Andrey D. Deineko
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel-Steel Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Boris G. Nikishichev
|
|
|
1946
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Mining Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Irina N. Ipeyeva
|
|
|
1963
|
|
|
Director of Legal Department, Member of Management Board
|
Elena V. Selivanova
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Vice President for Human Resources and Social Policy, Member of
Management Board
|
Sergey V. Zorin
|
|
|
1970
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel-Energo
|
Oleg V. Korzhov
|
|
|
1970
|
|
|
Vice President for Business Planning and Analysis, Member of
Management Board
|
Gennady A. Ovchinnikov
|
|
|
1951
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Ferroalloys Management, Member
of Management Board
|
Alexander S. Starodubov
|
|
|
1946
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mecheltrans Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Alexander V. Shmokhin
|
|
|
1942
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Mining
|
Alexander S. Proskurin
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Trading House, Member of
Management Board
|
Sergey N. Shuvalov
|
|
|
1974
|
|
|
Director of Treasury Operations Department, Member of Management
Board
|
Mikhail L. Urvantsev
|
|
|
1969
|
|
|
Vice President for Commercial Activities
|
212
Evgeny V. Mikhel has been our Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of our Management Board since July 2010. Before that he
was our First Deputy Chief Executive Officer from April 2009.
From September 2007 to April 2009, he was our Vice
President Legal Matters and Director of the Legal
Department. From July 2006 to September 2007, he was Director of
our Government Relations Department. From February to July 2006,
Mr. Mikhel held the position of Chief Counsel and Director
of the Department of Judicial Protection and Legal Regulation.
From July 2002 to June 2003, Mr. Mikhel worked as Deputy
General Director for Legal Matters. From May 2000 through July
2002, he was a legal adviser in the Bureau of Civil Law Disputes
and Support of International Economic Activity, as well as head
of the Department of Litigation and Enforcement of Court Orders
of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. From November 1998 to May
2000, Mr. Mikhel worked in the Chelyabinsk branch of
Sberbank as the head legal adviser. From September through
November 1998, he worked as legal adviser in the
Traktorzavodskoye Municipal Enterprise. Mr. Mikhel has a
law degree from the Urals State Law Academy.
Alexey G. Ivanushkin has been Chief Executive Officer of
Oriel Resources Ltd. since April 2009 and Director of Oriel
Resources Ltd. Moscow Representative Office since February 2009.
He has served as a member of the Board of Directors of Oriel
Resources Ltd. since October 2008. He was a member of our Board
of Directors from March 2003 until July 2009 and served as our
Chief Operating Officer from January 2004 to February 2009.
Mr. Ivanushkin served as Mechels Chief Executive
Officer from March 2003 until January 2004. Mr. Ivanushkin
also served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant from June 2002 to 2009. From
June 2004 to October 2004 he served as General Director of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company. From December 1999 to April 2002,
Mr. Ivanushkin served as the General Director of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. From 1993 to November 1999, he
was the director of the ferrous metals and ferroalloy department
of the Moscow office of Glencore International. From 1984 to
1992, Mr. Ivanushkin worked as an economist in the foreign
trade department of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and the
Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Ivanushkin graduated from the Moscow State University
of Foreign Relations (MGIMO) with a degree in economics and
international affairs. Mr. Ivanushkin beneficially owns
0.03% of our common shares.
Victor A. Trigubko has been our Senior Vice
President Government Relations since August 2006.
From 2005 to August 2006, he was our Vice President for
Government Relations, and from 2003 to 2005, he was our Vice
President for Representation in Central and Eastern Europe,
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Mechel Campia Turzii and a
member of the Board of Directors of Mechel Targoviste. From 2002
to 2003, Mr. Trigubko was Director of Mechel International
Holdings AGs representative office in Romania. From 1997
to 2002, he was the head of Izhstals representative office
in Moscow. From 1992 to 1997, he held executive positions with
the metallurgical company Unibros Steel Co. LTD with his last
position there being Deputy General Director. Mr. Trigubko
has also worked in the Foreign Relations Department of the USSR
State Committee for Labor and Social Issues and in the USSR
Trade Representation Office in Romania. Mr. Trigubko
graduated from Kalinin (now Tver) State University with a degree
in economics.
Mukhamed M. Tsikanov has been our Senior Vice
President Economics and Management since January
2008 and a member of our Management Board since March 2009.
Previously, he was Acting General Director of Yakutugol from
October 2007 to January 2008. He has served as the Chairman of
the Board of Directors of Mecheltrans since April 2009. From
September 2005 to October 2007, Mr. Tsikanov worked as the
General Director of Elgaugol. From 2004 to 2005, he was Senior
Vice President of Yukos-Moscow OOO. From 2000 to
2005, he was Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade
of the Russian Federation. From 1997 to 2000, he was Deputy
Minister of Economy of the Russian Federation. From January to
August 1997, Mr. Tsikanov was the First Deputy Head of the
Administrative Program for Economic Stabilization and
Development of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic. From March 1993
to 1997, he was Minister of Economy of the Kabardino-Balkarian
Republic. Prior to that, Mr. Tsikanov worked in various
scientific institutes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and
Russia from 1977 to 1993. Mr. Tsikanov holds a doctorate in
economics.
Stanislav A. Ploshchenko has been our Senior Vice
President Finance since April 2009 and a member of
our Management Board since September 2007. From July 2007 to
April 2009, he served as our Chief Financial Officer. He was our
Deputy Chief Financial Officer from April 2007 to July 2007 and
Deputy
213
Treasurer from June 2006 to April 2007. From June 2001 to June
2006, he worked for Commerzbank AG and Commerzbank (Eurasia)
ZAO. His last position at Commerzbank was head of the steel and
mining industry group of the Corporate Clients Department of
Commerzbank (Eurasia) ZAO. From 1995 to 1996,
Mr. Ploshchenko worked as an auditor for Banks Audit
Service OOO. Mr. Ploshchenko holds a masters degree in
international securities investment and banking from the ISMA
Centre at the University of Reading (U.K.), a bachelors degree
in international finance and trade from the University of
Portsmouth (U.K.) and a specialist diploma in international
economics from the Finance Academy under the Government of the
Russian Federation.
Andrey D. Deineko has been Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel-Steel Management since December 2008 and a member of our
Management Board since March 2009. From January 2008 to December
2008 he was Steel Division Director of Mechel-Steel
Management. Previously, he held the position of Director of the
Department of Industry in the Russian Ministry of Industry and
Energy from 2005 to 2007, having been Deputy Director of this
Department from 2004 to 2005. He was Director of the Department
of Industrial and Innovative Policy in Metallurgy in the Russian
Ministry of Industry and Science from 2002 to 2004. From 1999 to
2002, he was Deputy General Director of Oskol
Electrometallurgical Plant. He held the position of Deputy
General Director of INTERFIN Interbank Investment and Finance
Company from 1998 to 1999 and Head of Supply Division of
Zapad-Elite from 1997 to 1998. From 1976 to 1997, he held
various positions at the Bardin Central Scientific and Research
Institute of Ferrous Metallurgy, the last position being Deputy
Director. He has been awarded the title of Honorable
Metallurgist. Mr. Deineko graduated from the Moscow
Institute of Steel and Alloys with a degree in engineering, and
obtained his post-graduate degree in technical sciences from the
same institute.
Boris G. Nikishichev has been Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel Mining Management since August 2009 and a member of our
Management Board since September 2009. He was our Vice President
for Mining from July 2009 to June 2010. He has also served as a
member of the Board of Directors of Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company, a position he has held since June 2006, as a member of
the Board of Directors of Korshunov Mining Plant, a position he
has held since June 2007, as a member of the Board of Directors
of Port Posiet, a position he has held since May 2007, as a
member of the Board of Directors of Mecheltrans, a position he
has held since July 2007, as a member of the Board of Directors
of Mechel Mining, a position he has held since April 2008, and
as a member of the Board of Directors of Yakutugol, a position
he has held since June 2010. From January 2009 to April 2010
Mr. Nikishichev was Chief Executive Officer of Mechel
Engineering. From February 2007 to January 2009 he held the
position of Director of Mining of Mechel-Steel Management.
Previously, he was our Senior Vice President Mining
from February 2005 to 2007. From 2004 to February 2005, he
served as Deputy General Director of Raspadskaya Coal Company.
From 1998 to 2004, he held the position of First Vice President
in Sokolovskaya Holding Company. In addition, from 1999 to 2004,
he was also First Vice President of the Mining Industrialists of
Russia, a non-commercial partnership. From 1993 to 1999,
Mr. Nikishichev was Deputy General Director for Long-Term
Development and Capital Construction and Vice President/Director
for Restructuring of Coal Production in Russian Coal Company.
From 1991 to 1993, he served as First Deputy President of the
Management Board of the Russian Coal Company. From 1970 to 1990,
Mr. Nikishichev held various executive positions at
YuzhKuzbassUgol United Coal Mining Company. He graduated from
the Siberian Metallurgical Institute with a degree in mining
electrical engineering. Mr. Nikishichev also holds a
doctorate in technical science from the Moscow State Mining
University.
Irina N. Ipeyeva has been Director of our Legal
Department since April 2009 and a member of our Management Board
since September 2007. From September 2007 to April 2009, she was
our General Counsel, Deputy Director of the Legal Department and
Director of the Department of Corporate Governance and Property.
From 2003 to 2007, Ms. Ipeyeva held the position of General
Counsel and Director of the Department of Corporate Governance
and Property. From February to July 2006, she was Director of
the Department of Corporate Governance and Property of
Mechel-Steel Management. From March to June 2003,
Ms. Ipeyeva held the position of Deputy General Director
for Property Matters of Uglemet-Trading OOO, and from January
2001 to March 2003 she acted as Head of the Department for
Regulation of Corporate Relations and Property of Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company. From August 1988 to January 2001,
Ms. Ipeyeva worked at
214
the Kuzbassugleobogashcheniye Industrial Amalgamation and the
Tomusinskaya Concentration Factory, where she held positions
ranging from legal adviser to head of the legal department.
Ms. Ipeyeva graduated from the Kuibyshev State University
with a degree in law.
Elena V. Selivanova has been our Vice President for Human
Resources and Social Policy since April 2009 and a member of our
Management Board since September 2007. From January 2007 to
April 2009, she was Director of Human Resources. From April 2004
to November 2006, Ms. Selivanova held the position of
Executive Director of the Human Resources Department of
Volgotanker. From March 2002 to March 2004, Ms. Selivanova
was Director of the Department for Organizational Development
and Personnel Management of Firma Omega-97 OOO. From November
1999 to March 2002, Ms. Selivanova was Director of the
Personnel Service and Deputy Director for Personnel at
Vimpel-Kommunikatsii OAO. From July to October 1999, she was
Director of Personnel at Personalny Telefon OOO. From March 1998
through February 1999 she was Personnel Manager at Bakster
Export ZAO. Ms. Selivanova graduated from the Moscow State
Cultural Institute.
Sergey V. Zorin has been Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel-Energo since January 2011. From February 2010 to January
2011, he served as First Deputy Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel-Energo. From 2007 to 2010, Mr. Zorin served as
Deputy General Director Director of the branch of
IDGC of Centre JSC. From August 2006 to December 2006, he served
as General Director of Orelenergo OAO. From February 2005 to
August 2006, Mr. Zorin was Deputy General Director for
Finance and Economics of Tverenergo OAO. From 2003 to 2005, he
served as General Director of Arkhangelskie kommunalnye sistemy
OAO. From 2002 to 2003, Mr. Zorin served as Deputy General
Director of a representative office of RAO UES of Russia
Sevzapenergo. Mr. Zorin graduated from Chelyabinsk State
University with a degree in economic and social planning.
Oleg V. Korzhov has been our Vice President for Business
Planning and Analysis since April 2009 and a member of our
Management Board since March 2009. Previously he was Deputy
Chief Executive Officer for Economy and Finance of Mechel-Steel
Management from July 2008 to April 2009. From September 2005 to
January 2006 he held the position of Economic Planning Director
of Mechel OAO, and from February 2006 to July 2008 held the same
position at Mechel-Steel Management. From 2003 to 2005,
Mr. Korzhov was Director for Finance and Economy of
Evrazholding OOO. From 1998 to 2003 he was Deputy Economic
Director for Analysis and Pricing, and later Chief Economist of
Nizhnetagilsky Metallurgical Plant OAO. From 1993 to 1996 he
worked at the Nizhnetagilsky Metallurgical Plant.
Mr. Korzhov graduated from Ural Polytechnical Institute
with a degree in economics and management in metallurgy.
Mr. Korzhov obtained his post-graduate education at the
Academy of National Economy in general management. He also holds
the advanced academic degree of Candidate of Economic Sciences.
Gennady A. Ovchinnikov has been Chief Executive Officer
of Mechel Ferroalloys Management since December 2008 and a
member of our Management Board since March 2009. From July 2006
to September 2009 Mr. Ovchinnikov served as Managing
Director of Southern Urals Nickel Plant. From March 2005 to July
2006 he was Chief Executive Officer of Southern Urals Nickel
Plant. From April 2004 to March 2005 he held the position of
lead specialist in our technical department. From March 2001 to
April 2004 Mr. Ovchinnikov worked as Head of the Enrichment
and Agglomeration Bureau and Head of the Mining Engineering
Department at ZapSib. From 1974 to 2001 he held various
positions at Kuznetsky Metallurgical Plant OAO, including the
position of Director at the Abagurskaya Enrichment and
Agglomeration Factory. Mr. Ovchinnikov graduated from
Magnitogorsk Metallurgical and Mining Institute with a degree in
mineral enrichment. He also holds the advanced academic degree
of Candidate of Technical Sciences.
Alexander S. Starodubov has been Chief Executive Officer
of Mecheltrans Management since March 2010 and a member of our
Management Board since March 2009. From May 2009 to March 2010
he held the position of Chief Executive Officer of Mecheltrans.
From 2007 to April 2009 he served as the Chairman of the Board
of Directors of Mecheltrans. From April 2008 to May 2009 he held
the position of Managing Director of Mecheltrans and from 2002
to 2007 he served as Chief Executive Officer of Mecheltrans.
From 1999 to 2002 he was Deputy Chief Executive Officer of
Uglemet-Trading OOO. From 1987 to 1999 Mr. Starodubov was
director of the representative office of the F.E. Dzerzhinsky
Underground Mine.
215
Mr. Starodubov graduated from Siberian Metallurgical
Institute with a degree in technology and complex mechanization
of underground mining of mineral deposits and earned a diploma
in mining engineering.
Alexander V. Shmokhin has served as Chief Executive
Officer of Mechel Mining since February 2009. From 2004 to 2009,
he served as Executive Vice President for Kuzbass. From 2001 to
2004 he was Director of Kemerovo Office Deputy Chief
Executive Officer of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO. From
1997 to 2001 he held the position of director of the
representative office of Mezhdurechensk Coal Company OAO. From
1991 to 1997 he was Chief Expert of the Coal Industry Department
of the Committee for Interindustry Coordination and Industrial
Cooperation, and Head of the Directorate for Industry, Transport
and Communications of the Kemerovo Region Executive Committee.
Mr. Shmokhin graduated from Kemerovo Mining Institute with
a degree in mining engineering.
Alexander S. Proskurin has been Chief Executive Officer
of Mechel Trading House since April 2005 and a member of our
Management Board since August 2010. From April 2009 to March
2011 Mr. Proskurin also served as Director of Commercial
Activities Department of Mechel OAO. From 2004 to 2005, he
served as Director of Iron Ore Feed and Coal Products
Distribution Department of Mechel Steel Group OAO. From 2003 to
2004, he was a leading specialist in foreign economic activity
of a representative office of Conares Trading AG. From 2002 to
2003, he was Deputy General Director of Uglemet-Trading OOO.
From 1997 to 2002, Mr. Proskurin served as Commercial
Director of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company. Mr. Proskurin
graduated from Kuzbass Polytechnic Institute with a degree in
technology and complex mechanization of open pit mining of
mineral deposits. He also holds the advanced academic degree of
Candidate of Technical Sciences.
Sergey N. Shuvalov has been Director of Treasury
Operations Department of Mechel OAO since January 2011 and a
member of our Management Board since August 2010. From May 2009
to December 2010, he served as Treasurer of Mechel OAO and from
October 2006 to May 2009 he held a similar position in
Mechel-Steel Management. From July 2008 to March 2009, he also
served as Chief Financial Officer of Mechel Mining. From
February 2006 to October 2006, Mr. Shuvalov was Deputy
Treasurer of Mechel-Steel Management OOO and from July 2003 to
February 2006 he held a similar position in Mechel OAO. From
2000 to 2003, Mr. Shuvalov held various positions at Mining
and Metallurgical Company Norilsk Nickel OAO. In the period from
1995 to 2000, he held various positions at Import-Export Bank
Impexbank OOO and Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank OAO. Mr. Shuvalov
graduated from the Moscow State Aviation Institute with a degree
in rocket engines and from the Finance Academy under the
Government of the Russian Federation with a degree in finance
and credit.
Mikhail L. Urvantsev has been our Vice President for
Commercial Activities since April 2011. From November 2009 to
March 2011 he was Chief Executive Officer of UMZ OOO. From 2006
to 2009, he served as Chief Executive Officer of UMZ Trading
House OOO. From 2005 to 2006, Mr. Urvantsev held the
position of Commercial Director of Industrial Metallurgical
Holding Management Company OOO. From 2004 to 2005, he served as
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Trading House. In 2004, he was
Director of Supply Department of Mechel Steel Group OAO. From
2002 to 2004, he held the position of Deputy General Director of
Mechel Trading House. From 2001 to 2002, he was Commercial
Director of Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant. Mr. Urvantsev
graduated from Moscow Commercial University with a degree in
economics and management in trade and catering.
Compensation
Our directors and executive officers were paid an aggregate of
$13.3 million for services in all capacities provided to us
during 2010. The total amount set aside for pension, retirement
and other similar benefits for our directors and executive
officers as of December 31, 2010 was not material. Our
directors and executive officers are also provided with
voluntary medical insurance and the use of wireless services.
Board of
Directors
Members of our Board of Directors are elected by a majority vote
of shareholders at our annual shareholders meeting using a
cumulative voting system. Directors are elected to serve until
the next annual
216
shareholders meeting and may be re-elected an unlimited
number of times. Our Board of Directors currently consists of
nine members, six of whom are independent pursuant to the
director independence criteria set forth both in the applicable
FFMS regulations and the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) regulations, as well as in the Bylaw
on the Board of Directors of Mechel OAO. The Board of Directors
is responsible for our overall management, except matters
reserved for our shareholders. See Item 10.
Additional Information General Meetings of
Shareholders for more information regarding the competence
of our shareholders meetings. Some of the members of our
Board of Directors, as well as the members of the boards of
directors of our subsidiaries, serve pursuant to contracts.
These contracts do not provide for any benefits upon termination
of their directorship.
Committees
of the Board of Directors
Audit
Committee
The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors consists of Roger
Gale, Vladimir Gusev and David Johnson, each of whom is an
Independent Director. Our Audit Committee operates pursuant to a
bylaw, which is available at www.mechel.com. The purpose
of this Committee is to assist the Board of Directors with its
oversight responsibilities regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
the quality and integrity of our financial statements;
|
|
|
|
our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
|
the independent auditors qualifications and
independence; and
|
|
|
|
the performance of our internal audit function and independent
auditor.
|
Committee
on Investments and Strategic Planning
The members of the Committee on Investments and Strategic
Planning are Serafim Kolpakov, David Johnson, Igor Kozhukhovsky,
Igor Zyuzin and Valentin Proskurnya. The Committee on
Investments and Strategic Planning defines our strategic goals
and defines our priorities. The Committee makes recommendations
to the Board of Directors on our dividend policy and on the
adjustments to our strategy as required in order to enhance our
efficiency. Our Committee on Investments and Strategic Planning
operates pursuant to a bylaw, which is available at
www.mechel.com.
The following
sub-committees
were set up under the Committee on Investments and Strategic
Planning:
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-committee
on metallurgical production strategy, with members Serafim
Kolpakov and Vladimir Polin;
|
|
|
|
Sub-committee
on mining production strategy, with members Alexander
Yevtushenko and David Johnson; and
|
|
|
|
Sub-committee
on power production strategy, with members Igor Kozhukhovsky and
Valentin Proskurnya.
|
Committee
on Appointments and Remuneration
The members of the Committee on Appointments and Remuneration
are Roger Gale, Serafim Kolpakov, Vladimir Gusev and Alexander
Yevtushenko. The Committee on Appointments and Remuneration has
been established to maintain continuity and high professional
standards, as well as to work out a competitive remuneration
system, within our group. The Committee prepares recommendations
to the Board of Directors on candidates for appointment to the
Management Board or as our chief executive officer or other
executive officers or senior officers of our subsidiaries. It
also prepares appraisals of their performance and makes
recommendations regarding their remuneration. The Committee also
defines the requirements applicable to nominees to the Board of
Directors and informs the shareholders of such nominees. The
Committee operates pursuant to a bylaw, which is available at
www.mechel.com.
217
Management
Board
In August 2007, we created a Management Board to provide for
greater oversight of our operations. For more information, see
Item 10. Additional Information
Management Board. The members of the Management Board are
set out above under Directors and Executive
Officers.
Management
Companies
We have five management companies within the group which provide
management services to the companies within the mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power segments and to our companies within our
transport division.
Mechel-Steel
Management
In October 2005, Mechel Management OOO was established as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel OAO with the purpose of
providing management services to our subsidiaries by performing
the functions of their respective management bodies. Currently,
Mechel Management OOO provides management services to most of
the subsidiaries within our steel segment and since
September 14, 2009, Mechel Management OOO has been renamed
Mechel-Steel Management. The name has been changed in line with
the reorganization of our group management structure. In each
case, Mechel-Steel Management acts as a management body under a
service agreement executed with the following subsidiaries:
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant,
Urals Stampings Plant, Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant, Izhstal
and Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant.
Mechel
Mining Management
Mechel Mining Management was established in July 2008 as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel Mining with the purpose of
providing management services to the production subsidiaries of
Mechel Mining by performing the functions of the respective
executive management bodies of the companies within our mining
segment: Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Korshunov Mining Plant,
Yakutugol, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant and Mechel-Coke.
Mechel
Ferroalloys Management
Mechel Ferroalloys Management was established in May 2008 as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel OAO with the purpose of
providing management services to the production subsidiaries of
Oriel Resources by performing the functions of the respective
executive management bodies of the companies within our
ferroalloys segment: Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant and Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant.
Mechel-Energo
Mechel-Energo was established in May 2001 under the name of
Regional Energy Company ENERGOSBYT OOO. In April 2004, we
acquired the company with a view to make the strategic and
operational management of our power assets more efficient. The
name of the company was changed to its current name in April
2004. Mechel-Energo also performs the functions of the
respective executive management bodies of its subsidiaries:
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and Kuzbass Power Sales Company.
Mecheltrans
Management
Mecheltrans Management was established in March 2010 as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel OAO and since April 1,
2010 provides management services to the companies within our
transport division by performing the functions of the respective
executive management bodies of Mecheltrans, Port Posiet, Port
Kambarka and Port Temryuk.
218
Review
Commission
The Review Commission verifies the accuracy of our financial
reporting under Russian law and generally supervises our
financial activity. The members of our Review Commission are
nominated and elected by our shareholders to serve until the
next annual shareholders meeting. Our Chief Executive
Officer, a member of our Board of Directors and a member of our
Management Board may not simultaneously be a member of the
Review Commission. Our Review Commission currently has three
members: Lyudmila E. Radishevskaya, who serves as Chairman, and
Natalia G. Mikhaylova and Alexey V. Zagrebin. The powers and
duties of our Review Commission are governed by regulations
approved by our shareholders meeting.
Ms. Radishevskaya is the Chief Accountant of Mechel Trade
House, Ms. Mikhaylova is a senior litigation lawyer of
Mechel-Steel Management and Mr. Zagrebin is a head of
internal audit department of Mechel-Service.
Internal
Control and Audit Department
The Internal Control and Audit Departments main function
is to systematically, consistently and independently from our
management assess and improve the efficiency of our groups
risk management, internal control, corporate governance and
information systems. The activities of the Internal Control and
Audit Department are governed by the Bylaw on the Internal
Control and Audit Department. Elena V.
Pavlovskaya-Mokhnatkinà is the head of the Internal Control
and Audit Department. The Department is functionally
subordinated to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors,
and administrated by our Chief Executive Officer.
Corporate
Governance Principles
Our corporate governance principles are based on the Russian
Corporate Governance Code recommended by the FFMS and
supplemented by the obligations of the Board of Directors
prescribed by Russian law, our charter and internal rules of
procedure. The principles are intended to ensure that we are
managed and monitored in a responsible and value-driven manner.
They include the protection of shareholders rights,
comprehensive disclosure and transparency requirements and rules
governing conflicts of interest. We are committed to continuing
to adapt our corporate governance principles to developments in
best-practices. Our corporate governance principles are
reflected in our corporate documents, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
the Charter;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Board of Directors;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the General Meeting of Shareholders;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the General Director;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Collegial Executive Body (Management Board);
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Review Commission;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Internal Control and Audit Department;
|
|
|
|
the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Prohibition and Prevention of Insider Trading;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Disclosure of Information That May
Significantly Impact the Market Value of our Shares;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on Information Policy;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Appointment and Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Investments and Strategic Planning Committee of
the Board of Directors;
|
|
|
|
the Bylaw on the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors; and
|
|
|
|
the Code of Corporate Governance.
|
219
These documents are available at www.mechel.com and
www.mechel.ru.
We also comply with the corporate governance requirements
applicable to Russian public companies listed on Russian stock
exchanges. Such requirements include: (1) the obligation to
have at least three independent directors; (2) the
establishment of an audit committee and a committee on human
resources and compensation; (3) the establishment of a
collegial executive management body; (4) the adoption of a
bylaw on insider trading; (5) the adoption of a bylaw
setting out the rules and policies on disclosure of information
about the issuer; and (6) implementation of internal
control procedures.
We also comply with applicable corporate governance requirements
of the NYSE. The NYSE permits listed companies that are foreign
private issuers, such as Mechel, to follow their home
jurisdiction governance practice where it differs from the NYSE
requirements. In addition, we have voluntarily complied with
certain other requirements applicable to U.S. companies
under NYSE listing standard 303A. A summary description of NYSE
listing standard 303A showing our compliance therewith
and/or the
alternative corporate governance practices followed by us is
available at www.mechel.com. See also
Item 16G. Corporate Governance.
Employees
At December 31, 2010, we employed approximately
88,146 people as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
15,554
|
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and subsidiaries (Tomusinsk Open
Pit Mine, Vzryvprom)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
9,308
|
|
|
|
78
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
6,428
|
|
|
|
87
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
6,269
|
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
Yakutugol, Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine, Kangalassk Open Pit Mine
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
4,779
|
|
|
|
82
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
4,378
|
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
Urals Stampings Plant (with branches)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
4,118
|
|
|
|
68
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore
|
|
|
3,557
|
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
Mechel-Remservice
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ore mining equipment repair
|
|
|
2,966
|
|
|
|
76
|
%
|
Mechel Service Global (including subsidiaries)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
2,538
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
2,309
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
Spetsremzavod
|
|
Russia
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
2,202
|
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
1,950
|
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
Mechel-Energo
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
1,940
|
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,695
|
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
1,590
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,304
|
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
Mechel-Materials
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
1,233
|
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
Metallurgshakhtspetsstroy
|
|
Russia
|
|
Capital construction
|
|
|
1,059
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
791
|
|
|
|
71
|
%
|
220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
SC Mechel Reparatii Targoviste SRL
|
|
Romania
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
749
|
|
|
|
78
|
%
|
Bluestone
|
|
United States
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
740
|
|
|
|
57
|
%
|
Management Metallurgical Equipment Repair
|
|
Russia
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Laminorul Plant
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
674
|
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
669
|
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
Electronetwork
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
594
|
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
578
|
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
Voskhod-Oriel, Voskhod-Chrome
|
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
416
|
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
409
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
Power
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Energo Management
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
302
|
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
239
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Pugachev open pit
|
|
Russia
|
|
Limestone
|
|
|
180
|
|
|
|
62
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scrap metal
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Engineering
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scientific research
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading House
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading
|
|
Switzerland, Belgium and Liechtenstein
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Carbon
|
|
Switzerland, Belgium
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Other (including all managing companies)
|
|
Various
|
|
Various
|
|
|
3,098
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88,146
|
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221
At December 31, 2009, we employed approximately
79,972 people as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
16,038
|
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and subsidiaries (Tomusinsk Open
Pit Mine, Vzryvprom)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
10,370
|
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
6,281
|
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
6,107
|
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
Yakutugol, Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine, Kangalassk Open Pit Mine
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
5,520
|
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
4,341
|
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore
|
|
|
4,073
|
|
|
|
89
|
%
|
Urals Stampings Plant (with Chelyabinsk branch)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
3,293
|
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
2,824
|
|
|
|
89
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
2,311
|
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
62
|
%
|
Mechel-Energo
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
1,617
|
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
Mechel Service Global (including subsidiaries)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
1,432
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,354
|
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
1,238
|
|
|
|
94
|
%
|
Spetsremzavod
|
|
Russia
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
1,040
|
|
|
|
62
|
%
|
Mechel-Materials
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
942
|
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
770
|
|
|
|
56
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
734
|
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Bluestone
|
|
United States
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
648
|
|
|
|
51
|
%
|
Management Metallurgical Equipment Repair
|
|
Russia
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
612
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
566
|
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
Power
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
383
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Voskhod-Oriel, Voskhod-Chrome
|
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Metallurgshakhtspetsstroy
|
|
Russia
|
|
Capital construction
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
SC Mechel Reparatii Targoviste SRL
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
|
88
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Energo Management
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
309
|
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
Electronetwork
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
301
|
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
293
|
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
222
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Pugachev open pit
|
|
Russia
|
|
Limestone
|
|
|
177
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scrap metal
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
DVNPU
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scientific research
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading House
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Engineering
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scientific research
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading
|
|
Switzerland, Belgium and Liechtenstein
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Other (including all managing companies)
|
|
Various
|
|
Various
|
|
|
785
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,972
|
|
|
|
71
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2008, we employed approximately
83,070 people as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
17,004
|
|
|
|
76.3
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and subsidiaries (Tomusinsk Open
Pit Mine, Tomusinsk Energo Management, Vzryvprom)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
11,812
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
8,106
|
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
6,882
|
|
|
|
96.3
|
%
|
Yakutugol, Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine, Kangalassk Open Pit Mine
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
6,516
|
|
|
|
98.0
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
4,195
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore
|
|
|
4,064
|
|
|
|
88.5
|
%
|
Urals Stampings Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
3,783
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
3,151
|
|
|
|
83.3
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
2,597
|
|
|
|
87.3
|
%
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,650
|
|
|
|
66.5
|
%
|
Mechel-Energo
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
1,490
|
|
|
|
28.2
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,313
|
|
|
|
72.4
|
%
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
1,186
|
|
|
|
82.9
|
%
|
Spetsremzavod
|
|
Russia
|
|
Melting facility repair
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel-Service
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
802
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
706
|
|
|
|
62.0
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
32.4
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
659
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
%
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
Power
|
|
|
649
|
|
|
|
66.6
|
%
|
223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
555
|
|
|
|
50.5
|
%
|
Zavod Ogneuporov
|
|
Russia
|
|
Refractory products
|
|
|
538
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
370
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
SC Mechel Reparatii Targoviste SRL
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
362
|
|
|
|
58.0
|
%
|
Metallurgshakhtspetsstroy
|
|
Russia
|
|
Capital construction
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel-Materials
|
|
Russia
|
|
Processing
|
|
|
301
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
299
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
%
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel-Steel Management
|
|
Russia
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scrap metal
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
Russia
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading House
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
Various
|
|
Various
|
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,070
|
|
|
|
74.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set out below is information about membership of our employees
in trade unions:
|
|
|
|
|
Employees of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant, Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Korshunov
Mining Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant, Mechel-Coke, Izhstal,
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant, Spetsremzavod, Management Metallurgical
Equipment Repair, Mechel-Materials and Pugachev open pit are
members of the Ore Mining and Smelting Trade Union of Russia.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Urals Stampings Plant are members of Trade Union of
Machinists of the Russian Federation, employees of Chelyabinsk
and Izhevsk branches of Urals Stampings Plant are members of the
Ore Mining and Smelting Trade Union of Russia.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company are members of the
Russian Independent Trade Union of Coal Industry Workers and of
the Independent Trade Union of Miners.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Yakutugol and Mechel-Remservice are members of the
Russian Independent Trade Union of Coal Industry Workers.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Voskhod-Chrome and Voskhod-Oriel are members of
Public Association Trade Union Organization Voskhod.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Port Posiet are members of the Russian Independent
Stevedores Trade Union.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and Kuzbass Power
Sales Company are members of the All-Russian Power Industry
Trade Union.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Mechel Targoviste are members of Free Independent
Trade Union of Specialty Steels Plant Mechel Targoviste
and of the Metallurgists Trade Union of Mechel Targoviste.
|
224
|
|
|
|
|
Employees of Mechel Campia Turzii are members of Trade Union
Industria Sarmei Campia Turzii.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Ductil Steel are members of Trade Union Ductil
Buzau.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Laminorul Plant are members of Trade Union Metal 94
and of Free Independent Trade Union of Laminorul Braila.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Toplofikatsia Rousse are members of the National
Federation of Energy Workers of Bulgaria, the Confederation of
Labor Podkrepa and the Union of Energy Workers of Bulgaria.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Mechel Nemunas are members of the Trade Union
Nemunas.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Bluestone companies are members of the United Mine
Workers of America.
|
As of October 30, 2010, 37 employees of Port Kambarka
were members of the Trade Union Organization of Port Kambarka.
Since November 1, 2010 Trade Union Organization of Port
Kambarka ceased to exist based on the courts decision.
We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
|
|
Item 7.
|
Major
Shareholders and Related Party Transactions
|
The following table sets forth information regarding our major
shareholders, which means shareholders that are the beneficial
owners of 5% or more of our common shares, as of March 31,
2011, based on the information available to us:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Common
|
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Igor V.
Zyuzin(1)
|
|
|
277,903,025
|
|
|
|
66.76
|
%
|
Other(2)(3)
|
|
|
138,367,720
|
|
|
|
33.24
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Zyuzin is the Chairman of our Board of Directors. See
Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and
Employees Directors and Executive Officers.
His business address is Krasnoarmeyskaya Street 1, Moscow
125993, Russian Federation. Further information regarding
Mr. Zyuzins shareholdings is available in the
Schedule 13D filed by Mr. Zyuzin with the SEC. |
|
(2) |
|
According to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as of
March 31, 2011, 115,425,447 common ADSs and 29,761,608 GDSs
were outstanding, representing 35.0% of our total issued common
shares. |
|
(3) |
|
We believe our directors and executive officers as a group,
other than Mr. Zyuzin, own fewer than 1% of our shares. |
As of March 31, 2011, there were 115,425,447 common ADSs
outstanding, all of which were held by one registered holder
with an address in the United States. In November 2010 we
commissioned a report on our shareholding structure from IPREO,
according to which approximately 10.11% of our total issued
common shares in the form of ADSs were held by
U.S. investors.
None of our common shareholders have voting rights which differ
from any other holders of our common shares. Based on our share
register, we believe we are not directly or indirectly owned or
controlled by another corporation or government, and that there
are no arrangements the operation of which may result in a
change of control.
Mechel has 138,756,915 preferred shares of which 41.83% are held
by the Justice persons, 18.17% are in public float and the
remaining preferred shares are held by Skyblock Limited, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel. The Justice persons acquired
60% of our preferred shares in connection with our acquisition
of Bluestone. The Justice persons are residents of the United
States. During 2010, the Justice persons sold 18.17% of the
preferred shares they owned creating the current public float.
225
Related
Party Transactions
In addition to the below, see note 9 to the consolidated
financial statements.
Transactions
with related metallurgical plants
In the second half of 2009 due to the global financial crisis, a
number of small and mid-sized Russian metallurgical plants did
not have sufficient working capital to continue their operations
and were subjected to bankruptcy procedures and other demands
from their creditors. Utilizing the opportunity to win the share
these plants occupied in our core markets, we agreed to work on
a commercial basis with these plants, supplying raw materials to
these plants and purchasing their products pursuant to
short-term supply and purchase contracts. In certain cases, we
also obtained representation on their board of directors and
management. In 2009, these plants included:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2009
|
|
Segment
|
|
Products
|
|
Location
|
|
Volga Fest
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished steel products
|
|
Russia
|
Rostov Electrometallurgical Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished cast steel products
|
|
Russia
|
Vostochnaya Mine
|
|
Mining
|
|
Coal
|
|
Russia
|
Experimental TES
|
|
Power
|
|
Electric power
|
|
Russia
|
Zlatoust Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished steel products
|
|
Russia
|
Guryevsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished and long steel products, grinding steel balls
|
|
Russia
|
Volgograd Small Diameter Pipe Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Pipes
|
|
Russia
|
Engels Pipe Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Pipes
|
|
Russia
|
In 2010 we entered into similar arrangements with the following
Russian and foreign plants and a Swiss trading company (which
trades in the products of the Russian metallurgical plants
described above):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2010
|
|
Segment
|
|
Products
|
|
Location
|
|
Donetsk Electrometallurgical Plant
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished steel products
|
|
Ukraine
|
Invicta Merchant Bar
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished steel products
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Metrus Trading GmbH
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished and long steel products, pipes
|
|
Switzerland
|
MIR Steel
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished rolled steel products
|
|
United Kingdom
|
Nytva
|
|
Steel
|
|
Bimetallic alloys, cutlery
|
|
Russia
|
Estar Egypt for Industries
|
|
Steel
|
|
Semi-finished rolled steel products
|
|
Egypt
|
All the metallurgical plants and trading companies set out above
are considered related parties in our consolidated financial
statements and are herein referred to as the related
metallurgical plants.
In particular, we conduct the following transactions with the
related metallurgical plants:
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of raw materials and semi-finished products from third
parties and their resale to the related metallurgical plants;
|
|
|
|
Sales of raw materials and semi-finished products produced by
our group and certain services to the related metallurgical
plants;
|
|
|
|
Purchase of semi-finished products from the related
metallurgical plants for further processing by our
group; and
|
|
|
|
Purchase of semi-finished and finished products from the related
metallurgical plants for sale to third parties by our trading
companies.
|
These transactions are carried out in joint interest of both
parties and on market terms, except that we provide extended
credit terms, varying from 30 to 180 days, which assists
the related metallurgical plans with their working capital
management. Our management carefully monitors receivables from
and prepayments to the related metallurgical plants and we have
not incurred any losses for unpaid amounts. Accounts receivable
from and prepayments to the related metallurgical plants
amounted to $512.0 million as of December 31, 2010. No allowance
was credited against this amount as of December 31, 2010.
226
The products of these plants are supplementary to and help to
expand our product line in the steel market and particularly
benefit our Mechel Service business in Russia. In some cases,
the products of the related metallurgical plants are
high-quality and specialized products for which there is a
stable demand in the domestic and export markets. The related
metallurgical plants obtain the benefit of our strong supply and
sales network. In general, our group is either the largest
supplier or customer of the related metallurgical plants, which
also allows us to more closely work with these plants to improve
the efficiency of their operations. While trading activities do
not typically generate as high margins as sales of products
produced by us, our transactions with the related metallurgical
plants nevertheless allow us to earn additional margin which
contributes to our net income.
During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the
groups transactions with the related metallurgical plants
for the four categories of transactions set out above amounted
to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nature
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Category of transaction
|
|
of Item
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Purchase of raw materials and semi-finished products from third
parties and their resale to the related metallurgical plants
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
|
211,193
|
|
|
|
8,817
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
(1)
|
|
|
227,512
|
|
|
|
9,002
|
|
Sales of goods produced by our group and certain services to the
related metallurgical plants
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
|
218,603
|
|
|
|
57,206
|
|
Purchase of semi-finished products from the related
metallurgical plants for further processing by our group
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
|
174,821
|
|
|
|
4,683
|
|
Purchase of semi-finished and finished products from the related
metallurgical plants for sale to third parties by our trading
companies
|
|
|
Costs
|
|
|
|
974,206
|
|
|
|
113,145
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
|
1,051,184
|
|
|
|
123,653
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Recognized as revenues in the
amount of $201.2 million and $nil in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009. See note 9 to the
consolidated financial statements.
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the group had the
following balances with the related metallurgical plants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Assets
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Trade accounts receivable
|
|
|
183,106
|
|
|
|
41,079
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
328,912
|
|
|
|
51,099
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
512,018
|
|
|
|
92,178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade accounts payable
|
|
|
91,122
|
|
|
|
11,396
|
|
Advanced received and other payables
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,843
|
|
|
|
11,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories in stock purchased from these entities amounted to
$166.3 million and $66.1 million as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
As the market situation improved in 2010, most of the related
metallurgical plants exited formal bankruptcy procedures and
agreed with their creditors to restructure and extend the
repayment of their debts. With their improved finances and due
to the continued strength in the steel sector, we expect that
our commercial dealings with the related metallurgical plants
will continue to benefit our group and we intend to continue
such dealings. From December 31, 2010 to the date of this
document, our commercial dealings with the related metallurgical
plants have continued substantially in the same manner as
described above.
For substantially all of the sales in the first and fourth
categories of transactions (i.e., resales of products supplied
to and resales of products purchased from the related
metallurgical plants), the group recorded the costs and sales
separately on a gross basis in the statement of income and
comprehensive income (loss). See note 9 to the consolidated
financial statements.
227
Transactions
with Metallurg-Trust
In 2010, the group started transactions with
Metallurg-Trust OOO (Metallurg-Trust), a
trading company which can be significantly influenced by the
group through business relationships. Metallurg-Trust is mostly
involved in reselling the goods produced by Russian related
metallurgical plants described above on the Russian market and
supplying raw materials and semi-finished goods to the Russian
related metallurgical plants. In 2010, the group sold to
Metallurg-Trust $220.2 million of pig iron and
semi-finished goods produced by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
for further supply to the Russian related metallurgical plants.
The transactions used market pricing, although extended credit
terms of
90-180 days
were provided. Accounts receivable from Metallurg-Trust amounted
to $127.8 million as of December 31, 2010. No
allowance was created against this amount as of
December 31, 2010.
See also Item 3. Key
Information Risk
Factors Risks Relating to our Financial
Condition and Financial Reporting Any material
change in our commercial dealings with or loss of accounts
receivable from or prepayments to certain related parties could
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations and financial condition.
Transactions
with the Controlling Shareholder
As of the date of this document, the Controlling Shareholder
owns 100% of the shares of Calridge Ltd.
(Calridge), and in addition, holds his
shareholdings in Mechel through Calridge and its subsidiaries.
For the period since January 1, 2008 to the date of this
document (the covered period), Calridge and
the group extended financing to each other through loans and
purchase of promissory notes of Calridge at market rates of
interest. As of the date of this document, the group did not
have any loans outstanding to Calridge. As of December 31,
2010, 2009 and 2008, the total amount of loans outstanding were
$nil, $nil and $2.4 million, respectively. The largest
total amount of loans outstanding during the covered period was
$135.7 million in June 2010. As of the date of this
document, the group did not hold any promissory notes of
Calridge. As of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the total
amount of promissory notes of Calridge outstanding held by the
group (including those under the asset management agreement with
Coalmetbank, which was a related party of the group until
September 2009) were $nil, $59.0 million and
$52.8 million, respectively. The largest total amount of
promissory notes of Calridge held by the group (including those
under the asset management agreement with Coalmetbank) during
the covered period was $59.0 million. As of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, there were no outstanding
loans payable to Calridge. The largest total amount of loans
outstanding during the covered period was $47.5 million in
July 2010. See also note 9 to the consolidated financial
statements.
On June 30, 2008, the Justice persons entered into an
option agreement with Calridge to sell 100% of capital stock and
membership interests in the Bluestone companies. Under the
option agreement, Calridge paid $100.0 million in cash as a
prepayment on July 3, 2008. On August 19, 2008,
Calridge assigned all the rights under the option agreement to a
subsidiary of Mechel for the consideration of
$100.0 million plus accrued interest of $1.5 million.
Mechel completed the acquisition of the Bluestone companies in
May 2009.
On June 30, 2008, Mechel acquired 613,624 ordinary shares,
or 1.72%, of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company from the Controlling
Shareholder in exchange for 190,985,726 ordinary shares, or
1.56%, of Mechel-Mining. The fair value of the exchanged share
packages was estimated based on the available market quotes of
the shares involved and considered to be equal. The exchange was
accounted for as a transaction between entities under common
control and recorded at historical cost. See note 3(h) to
the consolidated financial statements.
In September 2010, the Controlling Shareholder acquired Usina
Siderurgica do Para Ltda (Usipar), a steel
company located in Brazil. During the period from September
through December 31, 2010, the groups purchases of
pig iron ore amounted $7.5 million, and the groups
sales of coke and other raw materials to Usipar amounted
$13.4 million. As of December 31, 2010, trade accounts
receivable from and prepayments to Usipar amounted to
$42.2 million. No allowance was credited against this
amount as of December 31, 2010.
228
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Information
|
See Item 18. Financial Statements.
Litigation
Other than the legal proceedings described below, we are not
involved in any legal proceedings that we believe to be material.
New
Uregolsk license area
In 1994, Sibirginsk Open Pit Mine (currently a branch of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company) received a subsoil license to
develop all reserves of the Uregolsky 1-2 area. However, due to
what we believe was a technical error made when the license was
originally issued, there is an uncertainty as to whether the
Uregolsk license area includes a part of the mine site with
37 million tonnes of coal deposits (the New Uregolsk
license area). See Item 4. Information on the
Company Mining Segment Coal
Production.
On May 19, 2008, a criminal case was initiated under
Article 255 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
against an unspecified group of persons for violating subsoil
safety and use regulations on the New Uregolsk license area of
the Uregolsk coal deposit. On September 15, 2008, the
district court ruled the order to open a criminal case to be
illegal. The prosecutor appealed this decision, but the decision
was upheld by the court of cassation. On February 10, 2009,
the investigative officer issued a decision not to prosecute
based on the results of the investigation. The statute of
limitation on such criminal charges is two years.
On March 18, 2009, another criminal case under
Article 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
was initiated against the management of Sibirginsk Open Pit Mine
alleging deliberate illegal business practices involving
violation of license regulations and rules governing subsoil
use, and conducting mining operations outside the area of the
Uregolsk license without a proper permit. On July 16, 2010,
the criminal case was closed on grounds that no elements of
crime were found.
Under Russian law, the state is the owner of subsoil resources.
Generally, Russian law allows the state authorities to recover
damages for illegally mined minerals. The Russian state
authorities have not made any claims for damages for the
1.1 million tonnes of coal that Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company mined on the New Uregolsk license area for the period
from January 1, 2006 to March 13, 2008, which we
believe was extracted in full compliance with the prevailing
legislation and with the prior consent and knowledge of the
relevant authorities. In March 2011, Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company participated in a tender held for the right to use the
New Uregolsk license area and on March 21, 2011 it was
granted the right to use the New Uregolsk license area.
Currently, no mining activity is conducted on the New Uregolsk
license area.
Tax
On April 15, 2010, our subsidiary Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant received assessment from the tax authority for VAT, income
tax, interest and incurred penalties for the total amount of
1.3 billion rubles relating to the year 2007. We have
contested this assessment with higher-level tax authorities. The
higher-level tax authority invalidated the tax authoritys
assessment in the amount of 1.14 billion rubles.
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant filed a claim with the Moscow
Arbitrazh Court for the remaining amount of 172.8 million
rubles. On March 28, 2011, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court
rendered a decision in our favor. The tax authority may appeal
the decision within one month.
On February 17, 2010, Korshunov Mining Plant filed a claim
against the Russian tax authorities seeking the invalidation of
a tax assessment issued by the tax authorities for the
2005-2007
period in a total amount exceeding 127.4 million rubles,
including 73.3 million rubles assessed in connection with
transfer pricing. On June 25, 2010, the Moscow Arbitrazh
Court ruled in our favor to reduce the assessment by
8.0 million rubles. Korshunov Mining Plant appealed. The
decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court was upheld by the court
of appeal and the court of cassation and entered into force. On
February 11, 2011, we also appealed the decision to the
Supreme Arbitrazh Court to seek invalidation of the profit tax
assessment in the amount of 73.3 million rubles connected
with transfer pricing. On February 25, 2011, we appealed
this decision to the Supreme
229
Arbitrazh Court to seek invalidation of the profit tax
assessment in the amount of 34.2 million rubles. On
March 4, 2011, the Supreme Arbitrazh Court rejected the
claim. The tax assessment was paid under a collection order in
January 2011.
In October 2008, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant filed a claim
against the Russian tax authorities seeking the invalidation of
a tax assessment issued by the tax authorities for the
2005-2006
period in a total amount exceeding 3.6 billion rubles. On
March 27, 2009, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court invalidated the
tax authorities assessment in part, but recognized a tax
assessment in the remaining amount of 505.8 million rubles,
including fines. On August 3, 2009, the Ninth Arbitrazh
Court of Appeal upheld the decision. On November 19, 2009,
the Federal Arbitrazh Court of Moscow District reversed the
decisions of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and the Ninth Arbitrazh
Court of Appeal and the case was remanded for a new trial. On
April 2, 2010, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court rendered a
decision to deny claims of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. On
June 25, 2010, the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal reversed
the decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and invalidated the
tax authorities assessment in the amount of
505.8 million rubles. The tax authorities did not appeal
and the decision of the court of appeal entered into force.
On February 11, 2009, Korshunov Mining Plant filed a claim
against the Russian tax authorities seeking the refund of
overpaid mineral extraction tax for the year 2005 in the amount
exceeding 223.3 million rubles, including fines. On
January 15, 2010, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court dismissed our
claim. The decision of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court was upheld by
the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal on April 07, 2010, by
the Federal Arbitrazh Court of Moscow district on
August 10, 2010, and by the Supreme Arbitrazh Court on
October 21, 2010. On January 18, 19 and 21, 2011, we
filed twelve petitions with the Arbitrazh Court of the Irkutsk
region and with the Federal Arbitrazh Court of East Siberian
District to reopen the case based on new facts discovered.
Petitions were filed with mentioned above courts with respect to
different periods in respect of which we claim overpaid tax. The
Arbitrazh Court of the Irkutsk Region rejected nine of our
claims, one claim will be considered on April 21, 2011, and
two of our claims will be considered by the Federal Arbitrazh
Court of East Siberian District on April 12, 2011.
On November 17, 2009, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant filed
a claim against the Russian tax authorities seeking the
invalidation of VAT and profit tax overpayments offset executed
by tax authorities in the amount of 414.0 million rubles.
On September 23, 2010, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court rendered
a decision in our favor. The amount of wrongly offset taxes was
paid back to us. The tax authorities appealed the decision of
the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and the court rejected the claim.
On December 24, 2010, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company filed a
claim against the tax authorities seeking the invalidation of a
tax assessment in the amount of 138.9 million rubles
relating to
2007-2008
period. The court hearing is scheduled for April 21, 2011.
In addition, we have identified possible tax liabilities arising
out of differing interpretations of tax laws and regulations,
largely related to mineral extraction tax, which are not accrued
in our consolidated financial statements as the amount of such
liabilities was not significant as of December 31, 2010.
See 26(d) to our consolidated financial statements.
Antimonopoly
In the summer of 2008, in the course of a regulatory inquiry
into business practices on the Russian market of coking grades
of coal concentrates, the FAS initiated an antimonopoly
investigation into the business of our subsidiaries Mechel
Trading House, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, Yakutugol and
Mechel Trading on allegations of abuse of their dominant
position on the Russian market of coking coal concentrate. As a
result of the investigation, in August 2008 the FAS issued
findings according to which these subsidiaries were held to have
violated Russian antimonopoly law by abusing their dominant
position on the Russian market for certain grades of coking coal
concentrate. The FAS issued a directive requiring these
subsidiaries to cease the violations and to change the terms of
supply of coking coal concentrate to customers in Russia by:
(1) refraining from establishing monopolistically high or
low prices; (2) providing, to the extent possible, equal
supply terms to all customers without discrimination;
(3) submitting to the FAS during the next 5 years
economic justifications of each coking coal concentrate price
increase of more than 5% as compared to the
230
prices of previous quarter; (4) reducing sale prices by 15%
for the period from September 2008 until December 2008; and
(5) executing long-term supply contracts of at least three
years duration with effect from 2009. We fulfilled all
terms set forth in the FAS directive and intend to continue to
comply with them in the future.
Furthermore, as a result of the antimonopoly investigation, the
FAS initiated administrative proceedings against Mechel Trading
House, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and Yakutugol which
resulted in fines being imposed on these companies in the total
amount of 797.7 million rubles, which is equal to
approximately 5% of these subsidiaries total sales of
coking coal concentrate for 2007. The companies were granted a
deferral of the payment of the fines in accordance with the law.
All fines have been paid in full.
In December 2008, the FAS initiated an investigation against
Yakutugol for alleged violations of the antimonopoly legislation
committed by way of abusing its dominant position in the market
of steam coal. During the course of the investigation no
violations were found on the part of Yakutugol and the case was
closed.
Environmental
and safety
During the period from March 2 to April 13, 2009, following
the results of comprehensive inspections of industrial safety
conditions at subsidiaries of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company,
Rostekhnadzor has identified a number of violations, including
the lack of expert examination of industrial safety of certain
facilities, failure to implement measures to address safety
violations identified in previous inspections, carrying on
operations deviating from the approved projects and plans, and
untimely updating of equipment. Rostekhnadzor imposed temporary
bans on operations of four of our facilities and submitted the
materials on all of the alleged administrative infractions to
the court. Following the results of consideration of the cases,
the court suspended the operations of one facility for
17 days. Currently, the operations of the facility in
question have resumed. We implemented all immediate requirements
prescribed in Rostekhnadzors directive. The requirements
with respect to revision of existing projects or development of
new projects have been addressed in our mining development plan
for 2011 and their implementation is being monitored by
Rostekhnadzor.
In April 2009, Rostekhnadzor also conducted inspections at
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant. In the course of the inspections,
a number of violations were identified, mainly of a technical
nature and connected with excessive wear of obsolete equipment
and the companys failure to comply with certain industrial
safety requirements, which resulted in destruction of boiler
cladding and excessive levels of gas and dust in the boiler
department. Rostekhnadzor stated in its order of April 6,
2009 that the identified violations must be rectified by
implementing a number of measures. Most of the identified
violations (197 out of 208) were rectified and certain
prescribed measures were implemented within the time limits
established by Rostekhnadzor. One of the measures was revoked by
Rostekhnadzor. The remaining ten violations are being rectified
by implementing the prescribed measures in accordance with a
schedule agreed with Rostekhnadzor. In addition, the cladding
and thermal insulation of the most problematic boilers have been
repaired.
On July 2, 2010, following an inspection of compliance with
industrial safety regulations, Rostekhnadzor issued an order to
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant requiring it to undertake certain
measures to rectify identified inconsistancies with the
industrial safety regulations. The court of first instance
rendered a decision in support to the Rostekhnadzor s
order. Part of the measures prescribed by Rostekhnadzor, namely
165 out of 219 measures have already been implemented, nine
measures have been revoked from execution. We are currently in
process of implementing the remaining 45 measures. We have filed
a request to the court to extend the deadline for the
implementation of these measures. On March 2, 2011, the
court allowed us to stay execution until April 15, 2011. On
April 5, 2011, we filed a request to the court for a new
extension of the deadline.
Pursuant to a claim of the Novokuznetsk Environmental
Prosecutors Office against Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
concerning the discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere above
the maximum allowable level, the court ruled in September 2008
that we must limit the discharge of pollutants into the
atmosphere to comply with the maximum allowable level. We have
complied with the ruling effective as of November 2009. The
court also mandated us to reconstruct the de-dusting system. We
applied for stay of execution and the
231
court allowed us to stay execution of this mandate, originally
until July 1, 2010 and more recently until August 1,
2011.
On August 16, 2010, a spontaneous ignition of coal started
in a mined-out section of a longwall working area at
New-Olzherassk Underground Mine, a branch of Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company. Rostekhnadzor imposed a temporary ban on
operations at the branch. On August 23, 2010, the fire was
sealed off. On August 26, 2010, the court rendered a
decision to suspend operations at the New-Olzherassk Underground
Mine for 90 days. On October 1, 2010, the court ruled
to cancel the suspension of operations. Overburden and
restoration works are now being implemented at the longwall
working area and mining operations are expected to resume at the
end of the second quarter of 2011.
In 2008, Pinnacle Mining Company (Pinnacle)
filed a suit against the Bluestone companies and a third party
engineering firm in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Beckley, West Virginia. Pinnacle asserts
claims against the defendants for negligence, strict liability,
violation of the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, and injunctive relief. The case arises from mining activity
conducted by Bluestone companies in the safety zone
of a coal slurry impoundment maintained by Pinnacle. The parties
filed a joint motion to stay, and the court granted the stay,
which has allowed additional time for the regulatory agencies
involved to determine what steps are necessary for remediation.
A plan has been submitted by the defendants and was approved by
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP). We are vigorously defending the
matter and have asserted issues of comparative fault by the
plaintiff and our engineering company at the time of the
incident in November 2007. Currently, an evaluation of the
likelihood of success on this case is not possible. The
regulatory agency will ultimately determine the resolution of
this matter. Although some initial indications from WVDEP
suggested that grouting of the mine may be the required
remediation, recent developments indicate that the remediation
could be less extensive. If grouting would be determined to be
necessary, the estimated cost could be $50.0 million. At
this time more cost effective methods of repair and remediation
have been tentatively agreed to by the parties and the
regulatory agencies. Once the necessary remediation mandated by
the relevant agencies is finalized, it should be possible to
give a more accurate estimate of the potential range of loss. We
have full indemnity on this claim from the previous owner of
Bluestone in accordance with the terms of the acquisition
agreement, however, there is no assurance that the previous
owner of Bluestone will not contest our requests for
indemnification.
Commercial
litigation
In May 2009, Suncoke served Bluestone with a claim for failure
to perform its obligations under contracts to supply coal to
Suncoke in 2008. Our position is that Suncoke was able to cover
the subject coal at no additional cost and that Suncoke was also
in violation of its contractual obligations in 2008 for not
accepting delivery of the tonnage as agreed under the supply
contract. Suncoke demands approximately $67.0 million plus
attorney fees. In March 2010 Suncoke filed a lawsuit with the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for the New
Castle County against Bluestone claiming damages for failure to
supply coal in 2008 and 2009. We have full indemnity on this
claim from the previous owner of Bluestone in accordance with
the terms of the acquisition agreement, however, there is no
assurance that the previous owner of Bluestone will not contest
our requests for indemnification.
On March 19, 2009, MMK filed a claim in court against
Mechel Trading House seeking invalidation of its five-year
coking coal concentrate supply contract on the grounds that the
contract was not approved by MMKs management board. On
June 11, 2009, the court of first instance rendered a
decision to deny the claim. MMK appealed this decision both in
the court of appeal and in the court of cassation, however,
MMKs appeal was dismissed. The court decision entered into
full force.
On May 20, 2009, Metalltrade filed a court claim against
Mechel Trading House seeking to terminate its five-year coking
coal concentrate supply contract. On January 13, 2010, the
court denied the claim. Metalltrade did not appeal. The court
decision entered into full force.
232
U.S.
securities litigation
On April 8, 2009 a person who had been a holder of our
common ADSs during the period October 2007-July 2008 filed an
action against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging claims against us and
also naming as defendants the persons who were then our chief
executive officer, our senior vice president and our vice
president for finance. The case, Frederick v. Mechel OAO,
No. 09 CV 3617 alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
claims arise from the FAS directive described above in
Antimonopoly, in which the FAS claimed
that our pricing of coal concentrate of coking grades within the
Russian Federation violated Russian antimonopoly laws and that,
in addition, we used pricing mechanisms which could give rise to
tax claims and the imposition of considerable sanctions on the
part of the Russian government. The plaintiff in the class
action alleges that we and our officers should have foreseen or
did foresee these actions by the Russian authorities, and that
the failure to disclose these risks constituted securities fraud
under U.S. law. Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in the
case, and the lead plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint,
filed on February 19, 2010, seeks certification of a class
comprising all those who purchased Mechels securities on
the New York Stock Exchange between October 3, 2007 and
July 25, 2008, and seeks imposition of unspecified damages.
We have engaged counsel and we are contesting this lawsuit
vigorously. On April 2, 2010, we moved the court to dismiss
all the claims against us. That motion has been fully briefed
since June 21, 2010, and is awaiting decision. We express
no opinion as to the likely outcome of the motion or of the case
in general.
Dividend
Distribution Policy
We will determine the amount of dividends payable on our common
shares based on cash needs of our business, which will be
influenced by the market situation, the level and availability
of debt and the requirements of our capital investment program.
In addition, our New Oriel Resources Facility Agreements and New
Yakutugol Facility Agreements impose certain restrictions on the
payment of dividends on common shares. See Operating and
Financial Review and Prospects Description of
Certain Indebtedness.
We calculate the amount of dividends payable on our preferred
shares based on a formula which is fixed in our charter. See
Item 10. Additional Information
Description of Capital Stock Dividends.
The decision to pay dividends and the amount thereof must be
recommended by our Board of Directors taking into account the
Charters provisions and approved by our shareholders. The
amount of dividends, if any, approved by the shareholders may
not be higher than the amount proposed by the Board of
Directors. In particular, dividends may be declared and paid
only out of net profits calculated under Russian accounting
standards and as long as the following conditions have been met:
|
|
|
|
|
our charter capital has been paid in full;
|
|
|
|
the value of our net assets, calculated under Russian accounting
standards, is not less (and would not become less as a result of
the proposed dividend payment) than the sum of our charter
capital, our reserve fund and the difference between the
liquidation value and the par value of our issued and
outstanding preferred shares;
|
|
|
|
we have repurchased all shares from shareholders having the
right to demand repurchase; and
|
|
|
|
we are not, and would not become as the result of the proposed
dividend payment, insolvent.
|
For a further description, please refer to Item 10.
Additional Information Description of Capital
Stock Dividends. See also Item 3.
Key Information Risk Factors Risks
Relating to Our Shares and the Trading Market Our
ability to pay dividends depends primarily upon receipt of
sufficient funds from our subsidiaries.
On June 30, 2010, Mechel declared a dividend of
453.7 million rubles for common shares and
456.5 million rubles for preferred shares (of which 182.6
million rubles for the preferred shares held by Skyblock
Limited), which was paid in July and December 2010. On
June 30, 2009, Mechel declared a dividend of
2.3 billion rubles for common shares and 7.0 billion
rubles for preferred shares (of which
233
2.8 billion rubles for the preferred shares held by
Skyblock Limited), which was paid in October, November and
December 2009. On June 29, 2008, Mechel declared a dividend
of 10.98 billion rubles for common shares, which was paid
in July and December 2008. In each case we could not pay
dividends to those shareholders who did not provide us with
their bank account details.
On April 8, 2011 our board of directors convened the annual
general shareholders meeting on June 6, 2011. The
board determined April 20, 2011 to be the record date for
shareholders entitled to participate in the annual general
shareholders meeting.
We anticipate that any dividends we may pay in the future on
shares represented by ADSs will be declared and paid to the
depositary in rubles and will be converted into
U.S. dollars by the depositary and distributed to holders
of ADSs, net of the depositarys fees and expenses.
Accordingly, the value of dividends received by holders of ADSs
will be subject to fluctuations in the exchange rate between the
ruble and the U.S. dollar.
Significant
Changes
Other than as described in this document, no significant change
in our business has occurred since December 31, 2010.
|
|
Item 9.
|
The
Offer and Listing
|
Our common ADSs have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol MTL since October 2004. Our common
shares have been listed on the Russian Trading System (the
RTS) under the symbol MTLR since
June 2004, and in October 2008 were promoted to quotation list
A-2.
In December 2008, our common shares were admitted to trading on
the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange
(MICEX) and included in quotation list
V, and were promoted to quotation list
A-1
in March 2009. Since the liquidity of our shares on MICEX is
typically much higher than on RTS, in the table below starting
from January 2009 we use MICEX data (conversion from rubles into
U.S. dollars is made using the Central Bank of Russia
exchange rate).
The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices
per common ADS and common share for: (1) the most recent
six months; (2) the most recent nine quarters; and
(3) all years following our initial public offering in
2004. As of May 19, 2008, we changed the ratio of our
common shares to common ADSs from 3:1
234
to 1:1 by issuing two new common ADSs for each common ADS of
record as of May 16, 2008. The common ADS prices below have
been recalculated to reflect the new common
ADS-to-common
share ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common ADSs
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
|
(In U.S. dollars)
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
31.30
|
|
|
|
28.40
|
|
|
|
31.58
|
|
|
|
28.86
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
34.59
|
|
|
|
28.65
|
|
|
|
32.74
|
|
|
|
29.64
|
|
January 2011
|
|
|
34.10
|
|
|
|
30.38
|
|
|
|
31.67
|
|
|
|
30.57
|
|
December 2010
|
|
|
29.58
|
|
|
|
24.47
|
|
|
|
29.04
|
|
|
|
24.32
|
|
November 2010
|
|
|
25.99
|
|
|
|
23.33
|
|
|
|
25.26
|
|
|
|
23.48
|
|
October 2010
|
|
|
25.34
|
|
|
|
22.35
|
|
|
|
25.24
|
|
|
|
22.90
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
34.59
|
|
|
|
28.40
|
|
|
|
32.74
|
|
|
|
28.86
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
29.58
|
|
|
|
22.35
|
|
|
|
29.04
|
|
|
|
22.90
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
25.24
|
|
|
|
17.45
|
|
|
|
25.09
|
|
|
|
17.85
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
30.80
|
|
|
|
18.14
|
|
|
|
30.11
|
|
|
|
19.23
|
|
First Quarter 2010
|
|
|
28.75
|
|
|
|
19.72
|
|
|
|
28.31
|
|
|
|
17.64
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2009
|
|
|
21.82
|
|
|
|
16.23
|
|
|
|
17.81
|
|
|
|
14.99
|
|
Third Quarter 2009
|
|
|
18.12
|
|
|
|
7.17
|
|
|
|
16.39
|
|
|
|
6.59
|
|
Second Quarter 2009
|
|
|
12.55
|
|
|
|
4.50
|
|
|
|
10.29
|
|
|
|
4.30
|
|
First Quarter 2009
|
|
|
5.73
|
|
|
|
2.57
|
|
|
|
5.23
|
|
|
|
2.29
|
|
2010
|
|
|
30.80
|
|
|
|
17.45
|
|
|
|
30.11
|
|
|
|
17.64
|
|
2009
|
|
|
21.82
|
|
|
|
2.57
|
|
|
|
17.81
|
|
|
|
2.29
|
|
2008
|
|
|
57.62
|
|
|
|
3.66
|
|
|
|
45.00
|
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
2007
|
|
|
34.63
|
|
|
|
7.91
|
|
|
|
25.71
|
|
|
|
8.30
|
|
2006
|
|
|
10.32
|
|
|
|
6.34
|
|
|
|
10.20
|
|
|
|
6.25
|
|
2005
|
|
|
12.17
|
|
|
|
7.02
|
|
|
|
11.20
|
|
|
|
7.75
|
|
2004
|
|
|
7.48
|
|
|
|
5.26
|
|
|
|
17.00
|
|
|
|
0.36
|
|
Our preferred ADSs have been listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol MTL PR since May 2010.
Each preferred ADS represents one-half of a preferred share.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices
per preferred ADS for: (1) the most recent six months;
(2) the most recent four quarters; and (3) all years
following the public offering in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred ADSs
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
|
(In U.S. dollars)
|
|
March 2011
|
|
|
10.91
|
|
|
|
9.98
|
|
February 2011
|
|
|
10.70
|
|
|
|
9.30
|
|
January 2011
|
|
|
11.00
|
|
|
|
9.69
|
|
December 2010
|
|
|
9.66
|
|
|
|
7.90
|
|
November 2010
|
|
|
8.24
|
|
|
|
7.73
|
|
October 2010
|
|
|
8.38
|
|
|
|
7.75
|
|
First Quarter 2011
|
|
|
11.00
|
|
|
|
9.30
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2010
|
|
|
9.66
|
|
|
|
7.73
|
|
Third Quarter 2010
|
|
|
8.29
|
|
|
|
6.66
|
|
Second Quarter 2010
|
|
|
7.90
|
|
|
|
6.60
|
|
2010
|
|
|
9.66
|
|
|
|
6.60
|
|
235
|
|
Item 10.
|
Additional
Information
|
Charter
and Certain Requirements of Russian Legislation
We describe below our registered common shares, the material
provisions of our charter in effect on the date of this document
and certain requirements of Russian legislation. In addition to
this description, we urge you to review our charter, which is
included as an exhibit to this document, to review its complete
terms.
Our
Purpose
Article 4.1 of our charter provides that our primary
purpose is to earn profit, as well as to provide the
highest-quality products and services for our customers.
Description
of Capital Stock
General
Pursuant to our charter, as amended, we have the right to issue
registered common shares, preferred shares and other securities
provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation with
respect to securities. Our capital stock currently consists of
555,027,660 shares, including 416,270,745 common shares,
each with a nominal value of 10 rubles, and 138,756,915
preferred shares, each with a nominal value of 10 rubles, all of
which are fully paid, issued and outstanding under Russian law.
Under Russian legislation, charter capital refers to the
aggregate nominal value of the issued and outstanding shares. We
are authorized to issue an additional 81,698,341 common shares
with a nominal value of 10 rubles each. None of our capital
stock is under option or agreed conditionally or unconditionally
to be put under option. Any of our shares that are owned by our
subsidiaries are not considered treasury shares under Russian
law (i.e., they are considered outstanding shares), and we are
able to vote such shares and dispose of such shares without any
further corporate actions by our shareholders or board of
directors, provided that such disposals are not major or
interested party transactions. Currently, our wholly-owned
subsidiary Skyblock Limited holds 55,502,766 preferred shares.
The shares are considered issued and outstanding shares under
Russian law and have all the rights attaching to other preferred
shares. The preferred shares owned by Skyblock Limited are not
considered outstanding for purposes of our U.S. GAAP
financial statements.
Currently, we have more than 1,000 holders of voting shares,
which determines the applicability of certain provisions of the
Joint-Stock Companies Law, as described below. Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas is considered under Russian law to
be the sole holder of all of the shares underlying our ADSs and
GDSs.
A resolution of our board of directors dated May 14, 2008
approved an increase in our charter capital through the issuance
of 55,000,000 preferred shares with a nominal value of 10
rubles. On September 19, 2008, our Board of Directors
amended its resolution to increase the number of preferred
shares being issued to 138,756,915 preferred shares which is the
maximum number of preferred shares authorized by our charter.
The decision to issue 138,756,915 preferred shares was
registered with the FFMS on October 23, 2008. On
April 2, 2009, we placed all 138,756,915 of the preferred
shares authorized for issuance at the placement price of 10
rubles per share. All the preferred shares were taken up by our
wholly-owned subsidiary Skyblock Limited, which was the sole
offeree. A report on the placement of the preferred shares was
registered with the FFMS on April 14, 2009. We transferred
83,254,149 preferred shares to the sellers of 100% of the shares
and interest of Bluestone Industries, Inc., Dynamic Energy, Inc.
and JCJ Coal Group, LLC and certain other companies as part of
the consideration in our acquisition of the Bluestone. Our
preferred shares are not convertible into common shares, bonds
or other securities of Mechel.
Rights
attaching to common shares
Holders of our common shares have the right to vote at all
shareholder meetings. As required by the Joint-Stock Companies
Law and our charter, all of our common shares have the same
nominal value and grant
236
to their holders identical rights. Each fully paid common share,
except for treasury shares, gives its holder the right to:
|
|
|
|
|
freely transfer the shares without the consent of other
shareholders or the company;
|
|
|
|
receive dividends in accordance with our charter and current
legislation;
|
|
|
|
participate in shareholders meetings and vote on all
matters of shareholders competence;
|
|
|
|
transfer voting rights to its representative on the basis of a
power of attorney;
|
|
|
|
elect and be elected to the governing and controlling bodies of
the company;
|
|
|
|
if holding, alone or with other holders, 2% or more of the
voting stock, within 30 days after the end of our fiscal
year, make proposals to the agenda of the annual
shareholders meeting and nominate candidates to our board
of directors, review commission and counting commission;
|
|
|
|
if holding, alone or with other holders, 10% or more of the
voting stock, demand that the board of directors call an
extraordinary shareholders meeting or an unscheduled audit
by our review commission or an independent auditor;
|
|
|
|
demand, under the following circumstances, the repurchase by us
of all or some of the shares owned by it, as long as such holder
voted against or did not participate in the voting on the
decision approving the following:
|
|
|
|
our reorganization;
|
|
|
|
conclusion of a major transaction, as defined under Russian
law; and
|
|
|
|
amendment of our charter or approval of a new version of our
charter that restricts the holders rights;
|
|
|
|
upon liquidation, receive a proportionate amount of our property
after our obligations to our creditors are fulfilled;
|
|
|
|
have access to certain company documents, receive copies for a
reasonable fee and, if holding alone or with other holders, 25%
or more of the voting stock, have free access to accounting
documents; and
|
|
|
|
exercise other rights of a shareholder provided by our charter,
Russian legislation and decisions of shareholders meetings
approved in accordance with its competence.
|
Rights
attaching to preferred shares
Pursuant to our charter, as amended, all of our preferred shares
have the same nominal value and grant to their holders identical
rights. Each fully paid preferred share gives its holder the
right to:
|
|
|
|
|
freely transfer preferred shares without the consent of other
shareholders;
|
|
|
|
receive dividends in accordance with our charter and current
legislation;
|
|
|
|
upon liquidation, receive a portion of our liquidation value,
which is equal to a portion of our assets calculated pro rata to
the portion represented by one preferred share in our charter
capital;
|
|
|
|
have access to certain company documents and receive copies for
a reasonable fee;
|
|
|
|
transfer all or part of the rights attached to the preferred
shares to its representative on the basis of a power of
attorney; and
|
|
|
|
participate in shareholders meetings and vote on the
following matters:
|
|
|
|
|
|
our reorganization and liquidation;
|
|
|
|
any amendment of our charter or approval of a new version of our
charter that restricts the preferred shareholders rights,
including amendments to the formula for calculation of dividends
and/or the
amount of the liquidation value attached to the shares; and
|
237
|
|
|
|
|
participate in shareholders meetings and vote on all
matters on which common shareholders are entitled to vote if for
any reason the annual shareholders meeting did not adopt a
resolution to pay the full amount of dividends to which
preferred shareholders are entitled under our charter. The
holders of preferred shares enjoy this right effective from the
first shareholders meeting to be held after the relevant
annual shareholders meeting and until the date when
dividends on preferred shares are paid in full.
|
Pre-emptive
rights
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter provide existing
shareholders with a pre-emptive right to purchase shares or
securities convertible into shares in an amount proportionate to
their existing holding of shares of the same category as the
newly issued shares. In addition, the Joint-Stock Companies Law
provides shareholders with a pre-emptive right to purchase
shares or securities convertible into shares during a closed
subscription if the shareholders voted against or did not
participate in the voting on the decision approving such
subscription. The pre-emptive right does not apply to placement
of shares or securities convertible into shares through a closed
subscription among existing shareholders only, provided that
such shareholders may each acquire a whole number of shares or
securities convertible into shares being placed in an amount
proportionate to their existing holdings. We must provide
shareholders with written notice of the proposed placement of
shares at least 45 days prior to the offering, during which
time shareholders may exercise their pre-emptive rights.
Dividends
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter set forth the
procedure for determining the dividends that we distribute to
our shareholders. Shareholders may decide on whether or not to
pay the dividends upon results of a financial quarter, half a
year, nine months
and/or year.
Dividends are recommended to a shareholders meeting by the
board of directors, and approved by the shareholders
meeting by a majority vote. A decision on quarterly dividends
must be taken within three months of the end of the respective
quarter; a decision on annual dividends must be taken at the
annual shareholders meeting. A decision on payment of
dividends for common shares can be taken only after the decision
on payment of dividends for preferred shares is taken. The
dividend approved at the shareholders meeting may not be
more than the amount recommended by the board of directors.
Dividends are distributed to holders of our shares as of the
record date for the shareholders meeting approving the
dividends. See General Meetings of
Shareholders Notice and participation.
Dividends are not paid on treasury shares. In accordance with
the amendments to the Joint-Stock Companies Law, which entered
into force on December 31, 2010, a company is required to
pay dividends within the time period, which is indicated in the
charter or the shareholders resolution approving the
dividends, which may not be more than 60 days from the date
of such resolution. A shareholder who is entitled to the
declared dividends but has not received them has a right to make
a claim to the company for the unpaid dividends within three
years upon expiry of the dividend payment period. Upon expiry of
this three year period, claims for declared and unpaid dividends
will lapse in favour of the company.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law allows dividends to be declared
only out of net profits calculated under Russian accounting
standards and as long as the following conditions have been met:
|
|
|
|
|
the charter capital of the company has been paid in full;
|
|
|
|
the value of the companys net assets is not less (and
would not become less as a result of the proposed dividend
payment) than the sum of the companys charter capital, the
companys reserve fund and the difference between the
liquidation value and the par value of the issued and
outstanding preferred shares of the company;
|
|
|
|
the company has repurchased all shares from shareholders who
demanded repurchase; and
|
|
|
|
the company is not, and would not become, insolvent as the
result of the proposed dividend payment.
|
Pursuant to our charter, as amended, we shall calculate the
dividends for preferred shares on the basis of our consolidated
financial statements prepared under accepted international
accounting standards which we
238
apply for the relevant accounting period, including IFRS and
U.S. GAAP. The annual fixed dividend for one preferred
share amounts to 20% of our net profit under our annual
consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with
the applicable international accounting standards and audited by
an independent auditor, divided by 138,756,915.
For the purpose of calculating the amount of dividends for
preferred shares, we convert our net profit under the applicable
international accounting standards into rubles using the
official exchange rate of the CBR as of the date the board of
directors decides to recommend the amount of dividends for the
preferred shares.
If the dividend to be paid for one common share exceeds the
dividend to be paid for one preferred share for the same year,
we must increase the dividend to be paid for one preferred share
up to the amount of dividend to be paid for one common share.
For this purpose, if the nominal value of our common shares has
changed (e.g., through a share split), the dividend to be paid
for one common share is calculated as if its nominal value has
not changed. If dividends for common shares are to be paid in
kind, the monetary value of such payment must be evaluated by an
independent appraiser.
Distributions
to shareholders on liquidation
Under Russian legislation, liquidation of a company results in
its termination without the transfer of rights and obligations
to other persons as legal successors. The Joint-Stock Companies
Law and our charter allows us to be liquidated:
|
|
|
|
|
by a three-quarters majority vote of a shareholders
meeting; or
|
|
|
|
by a court order.
|
Following a decision to liquidate the company, the right to
manage our affairs would pass to the liquidation commission
which, in the case of voluntary liquidation, is appointed by a
shareholders meeting and, in an involuntary liquidation,
is appointed by the court. Creditors may file claims within a
period to be determined by the liquidation commission, but which
may not be less than two months from the date of publication of
notice of liquidation by the liquidation commission.
The Civil Code gives creditors the following order of priority
during liquidation:
|
|
|
|
|
individuals owed compensation for injuries or deaths;
|
|
|
|
payments related to disbursement of accrued vacation pay and
wages of persons currently or formerly employed under an
employment agreement and remuneration to owners of intellectual
property rights;
|
|
|
|
federal and local governmental entities claiming taxes and
similar payments to the budgets and non-budgetary funds; and
|
|
|
|
other creditors in accordance with Russian legislation.
|
Claims of creditors in connection with obligations secured by a
pledge of the companys property (secured
claims) are satisfied out of the proceeds of sale of
the pledged property prior to claims of any other creditors
except for the creditors of the first and second priorities
described above, provided that claims of such creditors arose
before the pledge agreements in respect of the companys
property were made. To the extent that the proceeds of sale of
the pledged property are not sufficient to satisfy secured
claims, the latter are satisfied simultaneously with claims of
the fourth priority creditors as described above.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter provides for an
order of priority for distribution of assets of a company
remaining after settlement with creditors are completed among
the companys shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
payments to repurchase shares from shareholders having the right
to demand repurchase;
|
|
|
|
payments of declared but unpaid dividends on preferred shares
and the liquidation value of the preferred shares determined by
the companys charter, as amended; and
|
|
|
|
payments to holders of common and preferred shares with account
of the previously paid liquidation value of the preferred shares.
|
239
Liability
of shareholders
The Civil Code and the Joint-Stock Companies Law generally
provide that shareholders in a Russian joint-stock company are
not liable for the obligations of a joint-stock company and bear
only the risk of loss of their investment. This may not be the
case, however, when one entity is capable of determining
decisions made by another entity. The entity capable of
determining such decisions is called an effective
parent. The entity whose decisions are capable of being so
determined is called an effective subsidiary. The
effective parent bears joint and several responsibility for
transactions concluded by the effective subsidiary in carrying
out these decisions if:
|
|
|
|
|
this decision-making capability is provided for in the charter
of the effective subsidiary or in a contract between such
entities; and
|
|
|
|
the effective parent gives binding instructions to the effective
subsidiary based on the above-mentioned decision-making
capability.
|
Thus, a shareholder of an effective parent is not itself liable
for the debts of the effective parents effective
subsidiary, unless that shareholder is itself an effective
parent of the effective parent. Accordingly, a shareholder will
not be personally liable for our debts or those of our effective
subsidiaries unless such shareholder controls our business and
the conditions set forth above are met.
In addition, an effective parent is secondarily liable for an
effective subsidiarys debts if an effective subsidiary
becomes insolvent or bankrupt resulting from the fault of an
effective parent only when the effective parent has used the
right to give binding instructions, knowing that the consequence
of carrying out this action would be insolvency of this
effective subsidiary. Shareholders of the effective subsidiary
may claim compensation for the effective subsidiarys
losses from the effective parent that caused the effective
subsidiary to take any action or fail to take any action knowing
that such action or failure to take action would result in
losses.
Russian law also provides for other cases in which shareholders
may be held liable to us.
Charter
capital increase
We may increase our charter capital by:
|
|
|
|
|
issuing additional shares, or
|
|
|
|
increasing the nominal value of already issued shares.
|
A decision on any issuance of shares or securities convertible
into shares by closed subscription, or an issuance by open
subscription of common shares or securities convertible into
common shares constituting more than 25% of the number of issued
common shares, requires a three-quarters majority vote of a
shareholders meeting. A decision to increase the charter
capital by increasing the nominal value of issued shares
requires a majority vote of a shareholders meeting. In
addition, the issuance of shares above the number of authorized
and non-issued shares provided in our charter necessitates a
charter amendment, which requires a three-quarters majority vote
of a shareholders meeting.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law requires that the value of newly
issued shares be determined by the board of directors based on
their market value but not less than their nominal value, except
in limited circumstances where: (1) existing shareholders
exercise a pre-emptive right to purchase shares at not less than
90% of the price paid by third parties, or (2) fees of up
to 10% are paid to intermediaries, in which case the fees paid
may be deducted from the price. The price may not be set at less
than the nominal value of the shares. The board of directors
shall value any in-kind contributions for new shares, based on
the appraisal report of an independent appraiser.
Russian securities regulations set out detailed procedures for
the issuance and registration of shares of a joint-stock
company. These procedures require:
|
|
|
|
|
taking a decision on share placement and approving the
resolution on share issuance;
|
240
|
|
|
|
|
registration of a share issuance with the FFMS;
|
|
|
|
following the placement of the shares, registration and public
disclosure of the results of the placement of shares; and
|
|
|
|
public disclosure of information relating to the share issuance.
|
Capital
decrease; share buy-backs
The Joint-Stock Companies Law does not allow a company to reduce
its charter capital below the minimum charter capital required
by law, which is 100,000 rubles for an open joint-stock company.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter require that any
decision to reduce our charter capital, whether through a
repurchase and cancellation of shares or a reduction in the
nominal value of the shares, be made at a shareholders
meeting. Additionally, within three business days after taking
the decision to reduce our charter capital, we must notify this
decision to the authority which carries out state registration
of legal entities and publish this decision twice with a monthly
interval. Within 30 days of the latest of such
publications, our creditors, whose claim rights had occurred
prior to the publication, would then have the right to
accelerate our indebtedness and to demand reimbursement of
applicable damages.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law allows our shareholders or our
board of directors to authorize the repurchase of our shares for
consideration valued at up to 10% of Mechels net assets.
The repurchased shares must be resold at a value not less than a
market value within one year of their repurchase or, failing
that, the shareholders must decide to cancel such shares and
decrease the charter capital. Repurchased shares do not bear
voting rights.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law allows us to repurchase our shares
only if:
|
|
|
|
|
our charter capital is paid in full;
|
|
|
|
we are not and would not become, insolvent as a result of the
repurchase;
|
|
|
|
the value of our net assets is not less (and would not become
less, as a result of the proposed repurchase) than the sum of
our charter capital, the reserve fund and the difference between
the liquidation value and par value of our issued and
outstanding preferred shares;
|
|
|
|
we have repurchased all shares from shareholders having the
right to demand repurchase of their shares in accordance with
Russian law, as described immediately below; and
|
|
|
|
the charter capital has been decreased by acquiring a part of
the shares with the view to reduce their total number, provided
that following such decrease the charter capital has not become
lower than the minimum amount of the charter capital set forth
by the Joint-Stock Companies Law (which is equal to 100,000
rubles).
|
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter provide that our
shareholders may demand repurchase of all or some of their
shares so long as the shareholder demanding repurchase voted
against or did not participate in the voting on the decision
approving any of the following actions:
|
|
|
|
|
reorganization;
|
|
|
|
conclusion of a major transaction, as defined under Russian
law; or
|
|
|
|
amendment of our charter or approval of a restated version of
our charter in a manner which restricts shareholders
rights.
|
We may spend up to 10% of our net assets calculated under
Russian accounting standards on the date of the adoption of the
decision which gives rise for a share redemption demanded by the
shareholders. If the value of shares in respect of which
shareholders have exercised their right to demand repurchase
exceeds 10% of our net assets, we will repurchase shares from
each such shareholder on a pro-rata basis.
241
Registration
and transfer of shares
Russian legislation requires that a joint-stock company maintain
a register of its shareholders. Ownership of our shares is
evidenced solely by entries made in such register. Any of our
shareholders registered in a register may obtain an extract from
our register certifying the number of shares that such
shareholder holds. Since September 2, 2008, Registrar
NIKoil Company (JSC) has maintained our shareholder register,
replacing Regional Independent Registrar Agency OAO.
The purchase, sale or other transfer of shares is accomplished
through the registration of such transfer in the shareholder
register, or the registration of such transfer with a depositary
if shares are held and recorded by a depositary. The registrar
or depositary may not require any documents in addition to those
required by Russian legislation in order to transfer shares in
the register or with a depositary. Refusal to register the
shares in the name of the transferee or, upon request of the
beneficial holder, in the name of a nominee holder, is not
allowed except in certain instances provided for by Russian
legislation, and may be challenged in court.
Reserve
fund
Russian legislation requires that each joint-stock company
establish a reserve fund to be used only to cover the
companys losses, redeem the companys bonds and
repurchase the companys shares in cases when other funds
are not available. Our charter provides for a reserve fund of 5%
of our charter capital, funded through mandatory annual
transfers of at least 5% of our statutory net profits until the
reserve fund has reached the 5% requirement.
Disclosure
of Information
Russian securities regulations require us to make the following
periodic public disclosures and filings:
|
|
|
|
|
filing quarterly reports with the FFMS, MICEX and RTS containing
information about us, our shareholders, registrar and
depositary, the structure of our management bodies, the members
of the Board of Directors, management board and review
commission, our branches and representative offices, our
subsidiaries and affiliates, our shares, bank accounts and
auditors, important developments during the reporting quarter,
quarterly accounting reports prepared in accordance with Russian
accounting standards, and other information about our financial
and business activity;
|
|
|
|
disclosure of the aforementioned quarterly reports on our
website at www.mechel.ru;
|
|
|
|
filing with the FFMS, MICEX and RTS and publishing any
information concerning material facts and changes in our
financial and business activity, including our reorganization,
certain changes in the amount of our assets, decisions on share
issuances, certain changes in ownership and shareholding as well
as shareholder and management bodies resolutions;
|
|
|
|
disclosure of the aforementioned information concerning material
facts in the newswire of authorized information agencies and on
our website at www.mechel.ru;
|
|
|
|
disclosing information on various stages of securities
placement, issuance and registration through publication of
certain data as required by the securities regulations by means
of publishing it in the newswire of authorized information
agencies and on our website at www.mechel.ru, as well as
by filing it with the FFMS, RTS and MICEX;
|
|
|
|
disclosing our charter and internal corporate governance
documents on our website and filing them with MICEX and RTS;
|
|
|
|
disclosing our annual report and annual financial statements
prepared in accordance with Russian accounting standards on our
website and filing them with MICEX and RTS;
|
|
|
|
filing with MICEX and RTS on a quarterly basis a list of our
affiliated companies and individuals and disclosing such list
and its amendments on our website at
www.mechel.ru; and
|
242
|
|
|
|
|
other information as required by applicable Russian securities
legislation and the rules of MICEX and RTS.
|
General
Meetings of Shareholders
Procedure
The powers of a shareholders meeting are set forth in the
Joint-Stock Companies Law and in our charter. A
shareholders meeting may not decide issues that are not
included in the list of its competence by the Joint-Stock
Companies Law and our charter. Among the issues which the
shareholders have the exclusive power to decide are:
|
|
|
|
|
charter amendments;
|
|
|
|
reorganizations or liquidations;
|
|
|
|
election and early removal of the members of the board of
directors;
|
|
|
|
determination of the number, nominal value and type of
authorized shares and rights granted by such shares;
|
|
|
|
changes in the companys charter capital;
|
|
|
|
appointment and early removal of the members of our review
commission and counting commission;
|
|
|
|
approval of our external auditor;
|
|
|
|
approval of certain interested party transactions (the value of
which is 2% or more of the balance sheet value of the
companys assets) and major transactions (the value of
which is more than 50% of the balance sheet value of the
companys assets);
|
|
|
|
distribution of profits and losses, including approval of
dividends;
|
|
|
|
decisions on our participation in commercial or industrial
groups or other associations of commercial entities;
|
|
|
|
redemption by the company of issued shares in cases provided for
by the Joint-Stock Companies Law;
|
|
|
|
approval of certain internal documents regulating the activity
of our governing bodies; and
|
|
|
|
other issues, as provided by the Joint-Stock Companies Law and
our charter.
|
Voting at a shareholders meeting is generally carried out
on the principle of one vote per voting share, with the
exception of the election of the board of directors, which is
done through cumulative voting. Decisions are generally passed
by a majority vote of the voting stock present at a
shareholders meeting. However, Russian law requires a
three-quarters majority vote of the voting stock present at a
shareholders meeting to approve the following:
|
|
|
|
|
charter amendments;
|
|
|
|
reorganizations or liquidations;
|
|
|
|
major transactions involving assets in excess of 50% of the
balance sheet value of the companys assets;
|
|
|
|
determination of the number, nominal value and category (type)
of authorized shares and the rights granted by such shares;
|
|
|
|
repurchase by the company of its issued shares;
|
|
|
|
any issuance of shares or securities convertible into common
shares by closed subscription;
|
243
|
|
|
|
|
issuance by open subscription of common shares or securities
convertible into common shares, in each case, constituting 25%
or more of the number of issued and outstanding common
shares; and
|
|
|
|
a decrease of charter capital by means of a change in the
nominal value of shares.
|
The quorum requirement for our shareholders meeting is met if
shareholders (or their representatives) accounting for more than
50% of the issued voting shares are present. If the quorum
requirement is not met, another shareholders meeting with
the same agenda may (and, in the case of an annual meeting,
must) be scheduled and the quorum requirement is satisfied if
shareholders (or their representatives) accounting for at least
30% of the issued voting shares are present at that meeting.
The annual shareholders meeting must be convened by the
board of directors and be held between March 1 and June 30 of
each year, and the agenda must include the following items:
|
|
|
|
|
election of the members of the board of directors and review
commission;
|
|
|
|
approval of the annual report and annual financial statements,
including the balance sheet and profit and loss statement;
|
|
|
|
approval of distribution of profits, including approval of
annual dividends and losses, if any; and
|
|
|
|
appointment of an independent auditor.
|
A shareholder or group of shareholders owning in the aggregate
at least 2% of the outstanding voting shares may introduce
proposals for the agenda of the annual shareholders
meeting and may nominate candidates to the board of directors,
general director, the review commission and counting commission.
Any agenda proposals or nominations must be provided to the
company no later than 30 days after the preceding financial
year ends.
Extraordinary shareholders meetings may be called either
by the board of directors on its own initiative, or at the
request of the review commission, the independent auditor of the
statutory accounts or a shareholder or group of shareholders
owning in the aggregate at least 10% of the issued voting shares
as of the date of the request.
A general meeting of shareholders may be held in a form of a
meeting or by an absentee ballot. The form of a meeting
contemplates the adoption of resolutions by the
shareholders meeting through the attendance of the
shareholders or their authorized representatives for the purpose
of discussing and voting on issues of the agenda, provided that
if a ballot is mailed to shareholders for participation at a
meeting convened in such form, the shareholders may complete and
mail the ballot back to the company without personally attending
the meeting. A shareholders meeting by absentee ballot
contemplates the determination of shareholders opinions on
issues on the agenda by means of a written poll.
The following issues cannot be decided by a shareholders
meeting by absentee ballot:
|
|
|
|
|
election of directors;
|
|
|
|
election of the review commission;
|
|
|
|
approval of a companys independent auditor for statutory
accounts; and
|
|
|
|
approval of the annual report and annual financial statements,
including balance sheet, profit and loss statement and any
distribution of profits and losses, including approval of annual
dividends, if any.
|
Notice
and participation
All shareholders entitled to participate in a shareholders
meeting must be notified of the meeting, whether the meeting is
to be held in direct form or by absentee ballot, not less than
30 days prior to the date of the meeting, and such
notification shall specify the agenda for the meeting or, if the
companys charter determines it, by publishing a notice of
the meeting in a printed publication. However, if it is an
extraordinary shareholders meeting to elect the board of
directors or it is a general shareholders meeting to elect
the board of directors of a reorganized company, shareholders
must be notified (by printed publication) at least 70 days
244
prior to the date of the meeting. Under our charter, we may
either provide notice by mail to our shareholders or publish a
notice in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, an official newspaper
founded by the Russian government. Only those items that were
set out in the agenda may be voted upon at a shareholders
meeting.
The list of shareholders entitled to participate in a
shareholders meeting is compiled on the basis of the data
in our shareholder register on the date established by the board
of directors, which date may neither be earlier than the date of
adoption of the board resolution to hold a shareholders
meeting nor more than 50 days before the date of the
meeting (or, in the case of an extraordinary shareholders
meeting to elect the board of directors, not more than
85 days before the date of the meeting).
The right to participate in a shareholders meeting may be
exercised by a shareholder as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
by personally participating in the discussion of agenda items
and voting thereon;
|
|
|
|
by sending an authorized representative to participate in the
discussion of agenda items and to vote thereon;
|
|
|
|
by absentee ballot; or
|
|
|
|
by delegating the right to fill out the absentee ballot to an
authorized representative.
|
Board of
Directors
The Joint-Stock Companies Law and our charter provide that our
entire board of directors is up for election at each annual
shareholders meeting and that our board of directors is
elected through cumulative voting. Under cumulative voting, each
shareholder has a number of votes equal to the number of voting
shares held by such shareholder multiplied by the number of
persons to be elected to our board of directors, and the
shareholder may give all such votes to one candidate or spread
them between two or more candidates. Before the expiration of
their term, the members of the board of directors may be removed
as a group at any time without cause by a majority vote of the
voting shares at a shareholders meeting.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law requires at least a five-member
board of directors for all joint-stock companies, at least a
seven-member board of directors for a joint-stock company with
more than 1,000 holders of voting shares, and at least a
nine-member board of directors for a joint-stock company with
more than 10,000 holders of voting shares. Only natural persons
(as opposed to legal entities) are entitled to sit on the board.
Members of the board of directors are not required to be
shareholders of the company. Members of the management board are
not permitted to constitute more than 25% of the members of the
board of directors. The actual number of directors is determined
by the companys charter or decision of the
shareholders meeting. Our charter provides that our board
of directors shall consist of nine members, and the majority of
our directors shall be independent.
The Joint-Stock Companies Law prohibits the board of directors
from acting on issues that fall within the exclusive competence
of the shareholders meeting. Our board of directors has
the power to direct the general management of the company, and
to decide the following issues:
|
|
|
|
|
determination of our business priorities and approving our
annual and quarterly budget;
|
|
|
|
convening annual and extraordinary shareholders meetings,
except in certain circumstances specified in the Joint-Stock
Companies Law;
|
|
|
|
approval of the agenda of the shareholders meeting and
determination of the record date for shareholders entitled to
participate in a shareholders meeting;
|
|
|
|
placement of our bonds and other securities, except in certain
circumstances specified in the Joint-Stock Companies Law and our
charter;
|
|
|
|
determination of the price of our property and of our securities
to be placed or repurchased, as provided for by the Joint-Stock
Companies Law;
|
245
|
|
|
|
|
repurchase of our shares, bonds and other securities in certain
cases provided for by the Joint-Stock Companies Law;
|
|
|
|
appointment of the general director and members of the
management board, and early termination of their powers and the
establishment of their compensation;
|
|
|
|
recommendation to the general shareholders meeting on the
amount of a dividend and the payment procedure thereof;
|
|
|
|
recommendation on the amount of remuneration and compensation to
be paid to the members of our review commission and on the fees
payable for the services of an independent auditor;
|
|
|
|
the use of our reserve fund and other funds;
|
|
|
|
the creation and liquidation of branches and representative
offices;
|
|
|
|
approval of internal documents, except for those documents whose
approval falls within the competence of the companys
shareholders or general director or the management board;
|
|
|
|
approval of major and interested party transactions in the cases
provided for by the Joint-Stock Companies Law;
|
|
|
|
increasing our charter capital by issuing additional shares
within the limits of the authorized charter capital, except in
certain circumstance specified in our charter;
|
|
|
|
approval of decisions on securities issuances and of the
prospectus relating to such securities issuances, as well as of
reports on the results of such securities issuances;
|
|
|
|
approval of our share registrar; and
|
|
|
|
other issues, as provided for by the Joint-Stock Companies Law
and our charter.
|
Our charter generally requires a majority vote of the directors
present for an action to pass, with the exception of actions for
which Russian legislation requires a unanimous vote or a
majority vote of the disinterested and independent directors, as
described herein. A board meeting is considered duly assembled
and legally competent to act when at least five directors,
including at least one independent director, are present. In
addition, our charter requires the presence of at least three
quarters of the total number of directors, including at least
one third of the total number of independent directors, for
board meetings convened to make decisions on certain matters
specified in our charter.
Management
Board
In August 2007, an extraordinary shareholders meeting
approved the Bylaw on the collegial executive body
(Management Board). Pursuant to the Bylaw, the management
board engages in discussions regarding important corporate
issues and makes recommendations to our board of directors. The
management board operates on the basis of our charter and
applicable internal regulations. The management boards
size is defined by the board of directors, and it is comprised
of senior management of Mechel and our subsidiaries, with each
member of the management board elected by the board of
directors. A meeting of the management board is quorate if at
least half of its members participate in the meeting.
The management board decides on the following issues, among
others:
|
|
|
|
|
developing and submitting to the board of directors plans and
drafts regarding the development strategy of our businesses;
|
|
|
|
reporting to the board of directors on the realization of
investment projects in the amount of more than $30 million;
|
|
|
|
developing and introducing to the board of directors investment
projects in the amount of more than $50 million;
|
|
|
|
submitting to the board of directors proposals on bonds
placement and acquisitions;
|
246
|
|
|
|
|
submitting to the board of directors proposals on participation
(obtaining or increasing participation) or giving up (reducing)
our participation in other entities;
|
|
|
|
approving annual and long-term investment programs;
|
|
|
|
approving transactions related to disposals by the company of
capital assets with a value of between 10% to 25% of the balance
sheet assets of the company;
|
|
|
|
making decisions regarding the exercise of our rights as a
shareholder or a participant of other entities;
|
|
|
|
making recommendations on certain matters relating to the
management of our subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
developing and establishing methods of compensation and monetary
motivation for our employees; and
|
|
|
|
other issues related to our
day-to-day
business referred to the management board by its chairman, the
board of directors or by a shareholder holding not less than 20%
of our voting shares.
|
General
Director
The general director (also referred to in this document as our
Chief Executive Officer) is our sole executive body and manages
our current operations and organizes the implementation of
resolutions of our shareholders meeting and the board of
directors. The general director acts on our behalf without a
power of attorney and has the following rights and
responsibilities:
|
|
|
|
|
performing the routine management of our operations;
|
|
|
|
exercising the right of first signature on financial documents;
|
|
|
|
managing our property to provide for our current operations
within the limits established by our charter and prevailing
Russian legislation;
|
|
|
|
representing our interests both in Russia and abroad;
|
|
|
|
approving staff, executing labor contracts with our employees
and rewarding and disciplining employees;
|
|
|
|
entering into transactions on our behalf;
|
|
|
|
issuing powers of attorney on our behalf;
|
|
|
|
opening and closing our bank accounts;
|
|
|
|
organizing our accounting and reporting process;
|
|
|
|
issuing orders and instructions binding on all our employees;
|
|
|
|
organizing the implementation of resolutions of our
shareholders meeting and our board of directors; and
|
|
|
|
performing other functions necessary to achieve our aims and to
provide for our normal operations, in compliance with prevailing
legislation and our charter, except for the functions laid upon
our other management bodies by the Joint-Stock Companies Law and
our charter.
|
The general director is appointed by the board of directors for
a period of one year. The term of office runs from the time of
his appointment until such time as a general director is
appointed by the board of directors one year later. The general
director may be re-appointed an unlimited number of times. If,
for any reason, a new general director is not elected (e.g., no
candidate is nominated within the periods and in the manner
provided by our charter, all candidates withdraw their
candidacies, no candidate receives the required number of votes,
elections are not held due to a lack of quorum of the board of
directors or for other reasons), the authority of the current
general director shall be extended until such time as a new
individual executive body is elected or re-elected.
247
The general director may on his own initiative renounce his
powers at any time by written notice to the board of directors.
The authority of the general director may be terminated before
the expiration of his term of office by a resolution of the
board of directors on the following grounds:
|
|
|
|
|
failure to comply with the requirements of our charter,
resolutions of the shareholders meeting or the board of
directors or our internal documents;
|
|
|
|
in the cases stipulated by the employment agreement with the
general director; and
|
|
|
|
in other events provided by current legislation.
|
Upon resolution of the shareholders meeting, the authority
of the sole executive body may be vested in a commercial
organization (a managing organization) or an
individual entrepreneur (a manager) on a
contractual basis. Under the Civil Code, if the authority of a
companys sole executive body has been vested in a managing
organization or a manager, the company exercises its legal
rights and assumes its legal obligations through such managing
organization or manager. A resolution to transfer the authority
of a companys sole executive body to a managing
organization or a manager shall be passed by the general meeting
of shareholders only upon recommendation of the board of
directors of the company.
Our general director is required under Russian law to disclose
information on his holdings of our securities and on sales
and/or
purchases of our securities.
Role of
the Review Commission
The review commission exercises control over our financial and
business operations.
The review commission is elected by the shareholders
meeting for a period of one year and consists of three persons.
Shares owned by members of our board of directors or persons
holding positions in our management bodies cannot participate in
the voting, when members of the review commission are elected.
The term of office of the review commission runs from the moment
it is elected by the shareholders to the moment it is elected or
re-elected by the next annual shareholders meeting. The
authority of individual members or the whole review commission
may be terminated before the expiration of the term of office
thereof by a resolution of the shareholders meeting on the
grounds and in compliance with the procedure stipulated by our
internal documents. If the number of members of the review
commission falls to less than half of the required membership
thereof, the board of directors must convene an extraordinary
shareholders meeting to elect a new review commission. The
remaining members of the review commission continue to perform
their functions until a new review commission is elected.
Both a shareholder and any person proposed by a shareholder may
become a member of the review commission. Members of the review
commission cannot simultaneously be members of the board of
directors, be members of the liquidation commission, be the
general director or be members of the management board.
The review commission elects its chairman and secretary from
within its members.
Upon a request from the review commission, the general director
and members of the board of directors, the management board and
the liquidation commission must undertake to make available
documents pertaining to our financial and business operations.
The review commission is entitled to request that an
extraordinary shareholders meeting be convened in
accordance with the procedure provided by our charter.
On the basis of the results of its examination of our financial
and business operations, the review commission prepares
opinions, which contain the following:
|
|
|
|
|
confirmation of the reliability of the data contained in our
reports and other financial documents; and
|
|
|
|
information on any identified cases of violations of accounting
and reporting procedures stipulated by Russian legislation and
violations of Russian legislation identified in financial and
business operations.
|
248
The board of directors determines remuneration and compensation
of expenses to the members of the review commission.
Interested
Party Transactions
Under the Joint-Stock Companies Law, certain transactions
defined as interested party transactions require
approval by disinterested directors or shareholders of the
company. Interested party transactions include
transactions involving a member of the board of directors or
member of any executive body of the company, any person that
owns, together with its affiliates, at least 20% of a
companys issued voting stock or any person who is able to
direct the actions of the company, if that person,
and/or that
persons spouse, parents, children, adoptive parents or
children, brothers or sisters or affiliates, is/are:
|
|
|
|
|
a party to, or beneficiary of, a transaction with the company,
whether directly or as a representative or intermediary;
|
|
|
|
the owner (the various or in the aggregate) of at least 20% of
the issued voting shares of a legal entity that is a party to,
or beneficiary of, a transaction with the company, whether
directly or as a representative or intermediary; or
|
|
|
|
a member of the board of directors or a member of any management
body of a company that is a party to, or beneficiary of, a
transaction with the company, whether directly or as a
representative or intermediary, or a member of any management
body of a management organization of such a company.
|
The Joint-Stock Companies Law requires that an interested party
transaction by a company with more than 1,000 shareholders be
approved by a majority vote of the independent directors of the
company who are not interested in the transaction. An
independent director is a person who is not, and
within the year preceding the decision was not, the general
director, a member of any executive body or an affiliate of the
company and whose sole nexus to the company is in the capacity
of a member of the board of directors. Additionally, such
persons spouse, parents, children, adoptive parents or
children, brothers or sisters may not occupy positions in the
executive bodies of the company or be its general director. For
companies with 1,000 or fewer shareholders, an interested party
transaction must be approved by a majority vote of the directors
who are not interested in the transaction if the number of these
directors is sufficient to constitute a quorum.
Approval by a majority of shareholders who are not interested in
the transaction is required if:
|
|
|
|
|
the value of such transaction or a number of interrelated
transactions is 2% or more of the balance sheet value of the
companys assets determined under Russian accounting
standards;
|
|
|
|
the transaction or a number of interrelated transactions
involves the issuance, by subscription, of common shares or
securities convertible into common shares, or secondary market
sale of such securities, in an amount exceeding 2% of the
companys issued common shares and common shares into which
issued convertible securities may be converted;
|
|
|
|
the number of directors who are not interested in the
transaction is not sufficient to constitute a quorum; or
|
|
|
|
all the members of the board of directors of the company are
interested parties, or none of them is an independent director.
|
Approval by a majority of shareholders who are not interested in
the transaction may not be required for an interested party
transaction if such transaction is substantially similar to
transactions concluded by the company and the interested party
in the ordinary course of business before such party became an
interested party with respect to the transaction.
The approval of interested party transactions is not required in
the following instances:
|
|
|
|
|
the company has only one shareholder that simultaneously
performs the functions of the executive body of the company;
|
|
|
|
all shareholders of the company are deemed interested in such
transactions;
|
249
|
|
|
|
|
the transactions arise from the shareholders executing their
pre-emptive rights to purchase newly issued shares of the
company;
|
|
|
|
the transactions arise from the repurchase, whether mandatory or
not, by the company of the issued shares;
|
|
|
|
the company is merging with or into another company; or
|
|
|
|
the company is required by federal legislation to enter into the
transaction, and settlements under such transaction are made
pursuant to fixed rate schedules and prices established by
appropriate state authorities.
|
For information on certain risks relating to interested party
transactions see Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors Risks Relating to Our Business and
Industry In the event that the minority shareholders
of our subsidiaries were to successfully challenge past
interested party transactions or do not approve interested party
transactions in the future, we could be limited in our
operational flexibility.
Major
Transactions
The Joint-Stock Companies Law defines a major
transaction as a transaction, or a number of related
transactions, involving the acquisition or disposal, or a
possibility of disposal (whether directly or indirectly), of
property having a value of 25% or more of the balance sheet
value of the assets of a company as determined under Russian
accounting standards as of the latest reporting date preceding
the transaction, with the exception of transactions completed in
the ordinary course of business or transactions involving the
placement of common shares or securities convertible into common
shares by means of subscription (disposal). Major transactions
involving assets ranging from 25% to 50% of the balance sheet
value of the assets of a company require unanimous approval by
all members of the board of directors or, failing to receive
such approval, a majority vote of the voting stock at a
shareholders meeting. Major transactions involving assets
in excess of 50% of the balance sheet value of the assets of a
company require a three-quarters majority vote of the voting
stock held by shareholders present at the general
shareholders meeting.
For information on our controlling shareholders potential
ability to approve major transactions see Item 3. Key
Information Risk Factors Risks Relating
to Our Business and Industry The concentration of
our shares with our controlling shareholder will limit your
ability to influence corporate matters.
Change in
Control
Anti-takeover
protection
Russian legislation requires the following:
|
|
|
|
|
A person intending to acquire more than 30% of an open
joint-stock companys common shares and voting preferred
shares (including, for such purposes, shares already owned by
such person and its affiliates), will be entitled to make a
public tender offer to other holders of such shares pursuant to
the requirements of the Joint Stock Companies Law.
|
|
|
|
A person that has acquired more than 30% of an open joint-stock
companys common shares and voting preferred shares
(including shares already owned by such person and its
affiliates, but excluding shares that were acquired pursuant to
previous voluntary or mandatory offers in compliance with the
requirements of the Joint Stock Companies Law) will be required
to make, within 35 days of acquiring such shares, a public
tender offer for other shares of the same class and for
securities convertible into such shares, at a price which is not
less than the price determined based on a weighted market price
of the shares during trading sessions on a stock exchange for
the six months preceding the date when a public tender offer was
sent, or at a price not less than the market price, which must
be determined by an independent appraiser if the shares have an
insufficient or non-existent trading history. From the moment of
acquisition of more than 30% of the shares until the moment the
of sending of an offer to the company, the person making the
offer and its affiliates will be able to vote only 30% of the
shares of the company (regardless of the size of their actual
holdings). These rules are also applied (or
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
reapplied) to acquisitions resulting in a person or a group of
persons owning more than 50% and 75% of a companys
outstanding common shares and voting preferred shares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A person that, as a result of such a voluntary or mandatory
offer, becomes (individually or counting the shares held by its
affiliates) the owner of more than 95% of the companys
common shares and voting preferred shares, must buy out the
remaining shares of the company as well as other securities
convertible into such shares upon request of the holders of such
shares or other securities, and may require such holders to sell
such shares and other securities, at a price not less than the
prices of the preceding acquisition by the offeror. The offeror
is entitled to require the holders of the remaining shares of
the company, as well as other securities convertible into such
shares, to sell such shares and other securities, provided that
the offeror acquired not less than 10% of the total number of
shares of the company as a result of acceptance by other
shareholders of the voluntary or mandatory tender offer as
described above.
|
|
|
|
An offer of the kind described in any of the preceding three
paragraphs must be accompanied by a bank guarantee of payment.
If securities are listed on a stock exchange, prior notice of
the offer must be filed with the FFMS; otherwise, notice must be
filed with the FFMS no later than the date of the offer. The
FFMS may order amendments to the terms of the offer (including
price) in order to bring them into compliance with the
requirements of the current legislation.
|
|
|
|
Once such an offer has been made, competing offers for the same
securities can be made by third parties and, in certain
circumstances, acceptance of the initial offer may be withdrawn
by the security holders who choose to accept such competing
offer. From the making of such an offer until 20 days after
its expiry (which period may in certain cases exceed
100 days) the companys shareholders meeting
will have the sole power to make decisions on charter capital
increase by way of issuance of additional shares, issuance of
securities convertible into shares, including options of an open
joint-stock company, approval of certain transactions or a
number of related transactions, involving the acquisition or
disposal, or a possibility of disposal (whether directly or
indirectly), of property having a value of 10% or more of the
balance sheet value of the assets of a company as determined
under Russian accounting standards as of the latest reporting
date preceding the transaction, with the exception of
transactions completed in the ordinary course of business, and
on certain other significant matters.
|
The above rule may be supplemented through rulemaking by the
FFMS, which may result in a wider, narrower or more specific
interpretation of these rules by the government and judicial
authorities, as well as by market participants.
Approval
of the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service
Pursuant to the Competition Law, acquisitions of voting shares
of a joint-stock company, involving companies with a combined
value of assets or annual revenues, exceeding a certain
threshold under Russian accounting standards, or companies
registered as having more than a 35% share of a certain
commodity market, and which would result in a shareholder (or a
group of shareholders defined under Russian law) holding more
than 25%, 50% or 75% of the voting capital stock of such
company, or in a transfer between such companies of assets or
rights to assets, the value of which exceeds a certain amount,
or obtaining rights to determine the conditions of business
activity of an entity or to exercise the authorities of its
executive body must be approved in advance by the FAS. Such
transactions executed between members of a group of companies
may require only a subsequent notification to the FAS if prior
notification about the members of the group of companies has
been filed with the FAS and the information contained in this
notification is still accurate as of the date of the relevant
transaction and had not been changed within 30 days from
the date of groups disclosure and prior to the date of the
transactions settlement. See Item 4.
Information on the Company Regulatory
Matters Russian Antimonopoly Regulation.
Notification
of foreign ownership
Foreign individuals and foreign companies that acquire shares in
a Russian joint- stock company, regardless of whether they are
registered with the Russian tax authorities, may need to notify
the Russian tax
251
authorities within one month following such acquisition.
However, the procedure for notifying the Russian tax authorities
by foreign individuals or companies that are not registered with
such tax authorities at the time of their share acquisitions
remains unclear.
Under the Strategic Industries Law, any foreign investor or
group of companies is required to notify Russian authorities on
its acquisition of 5% or more of the charter capital of a
Strategic Company.
The FAS is the federal executive authority for execution of
control over making foreign investments in the Russian
Federation. See Item 3. Key Information
Risk Factors Risks Relating to the Russian
Federation Legal risks and uncertainties
Expansion of limitations on foreign investment in strategic
sectors could affect our ability to attract
and/or
retain foreign investments and Item 4.
Information on the Company Regulatory
Matters The Strategic Industries Law.
Material
Contracts
None.
Exchange
Controls
The Federal Law On Currency Regulation and Currency
Control, which came into effect as of June 18, 2004,
sets forth certain restrictions on settlements between residents
of Russia with respect to transactions involving foreign
securities (including ADSs), including requirements for
settlement in Russian rubles.
Repatriation
of Export Proceeds
Russian companies must repatriate 100% of their receivables from
the export of goods and services (with a limited number of
exceptions concerning, in particular, certain types of secured
financing) within the time frame provided under the respective
agreement.
Restrictions
on Remittance to Non-residents
The Federal Law On Foreign Investments in the Russian
Federation, dated July 9, 1999, as amended,
specifically guarantees foreign investors the right to
repatriate their earnings from Russian investments. However, the
evolving Russian exchange control regime may affect
investors ability to do so. Ruble dividends on shares may
be paid to the depositary or its nominee and converted into
U.S. dollars by the depositary for distribution to owners
of ADSs without restriction. In addition, ADSs may be sold by
non-residents of Russia for U.S. dollars outside Russia
without regard to Russian currency control laws so long as the
buyer is not a Russian resident for currency control purposes.
Taxation
The following discussion is not intended as tax advice to any
particular investor. No opinion of counsel will be issued with
respect to the following discussion and, therefore, such
discussion is not based on an opinion of counsel. It is also not
a complete analysis or listing of all potential
U.S. federal or Russian income and withholding tax
consequences of ownership of shares or ADSs. We urge such
holders to consult their tax advisers regarding the specific
U.S. federal, state and local and Russian tax consequences
of the ownership and disposition of the shares or ADSs,
including their eligibility for the benefits of a double tax
treaty between the Russian Federation and their country of
residence, in light of their particular facts and circumstances,
as well as the applicability and effect of state, regional and
local tax laws and foreign tax law.
Russian
Income and Withholding Tax Considerations
The following is a summary of certain Russian tax considerations
relevant to payments to Russian resident and non-resident
holders of the shares and the ADSs and to the purchase,
ownership and disposition of the shares and the ADSs by Russian
resident and non-resident holders. This summary is based on the
laws of Russia in effect as of the date of this document. The
discussion with respect to Russian legislation is based
252
on our understanding of current Russian law and tax rules, which
are subject to frequent change and varying interpretations.
This summary does not seek to address the applicability of, and
procedures in relation to, taxes levied by the regions,
municipalities or other non-federal level authorities of the
Russian Federation. Nor does the summary seek to address the
availability of double tax treaty relief, and it should be noted
that there might be practical difficulties involved in claiming
relief under an applicable double tax treaty. You should consult
your own professional advisors regarding the tax consequences of
investing in the shares and ADSs. No representations with
respect to the Russian tax consequences to any particular holder
are made hereby.
The Russian tax rules applicable to ADSs are characterized by
uncertainties and by an absence of special provisions with
respect to transactions involving ADSs. Both the substantive
provisions of Russian tax law and the interpretation and
application of those provisions by the Russian authorities may
be subject to more rapid and unpredictable change than in a
jurisdiction with more developed capital markets and a more
developed taxation system. In particular, the interpretation and
application of such provisions will in practice rest
substantially with local tax inspectors.
For the purposes of this summary, a Russian resident
holder means: (1) an individual holder of the shares
and ADSs, actually present in the Russian Federation for
183 days or more in 12 consecutive months; or (2) an
organization, organized under Russian law; or (3) an
organization, organized under a foreign law, that holds and
disposes of the shares and ADSs through its permanent
establishment in Russia. Individual presence in Russia is not
considered interrupted if an individual departs for short
periods (less than six months) for the purpose of medical
treatment or education.
For the purposes of this summary, a non-resident
holder is a holder of the shares or ADSs which is not
qualified to be a Russian resident holder as defined in the
previous paragraph.
Taxation
of acquisition of the shares and ADSs
No Russian tax implications should arise for holders of the
shares and ADSs upon purchase of the shares and ADSs. However,
under the certain conditions a taxable material gain may arise
for individuals if the shares and ADSs are purchased at a price
below the deemed market value.
Taxation
of dividends
A Russian company that pays dividends is generally obliged to
act as a tax agent to withhold tax on the dividends and remit
the amount of tax due to the Russian Federation state budget.
However, the applicable withholding tax rate will depend on the
status of the dividends recipient.
Russian
resident holders
Shares
Dividends paid to a Russian resident holder of the shares that
is a Russian organization or an individual will be generally
subject to Russian withholding tax at the rate of 9%. Dividends
received by Russian organizations are subject to withholding tax
at the rate of 0% provided that the recipient organization
constantly owns for a period of 365 calendar days or more at
least 50% of participation shares in the share capital of the
paying organization or share depositary receipts qualifying for
dividends equal to at least 50% of the total amount of dividends
paid by the organization, as well as the acquisition cost of
these shares exceeds 500 million rubles (the latter
condition expired on January 1, 2011 and does not apply to
dividends accrued for 2010 and subsequent periods). However it
is difficult to predict how the Russian tax authorities may
interpret the conditions listed above. Therefore, there can be
no assurance that the 0% withholding tax rate will apply.
The effective rate of this tax may be lower than 9% owing to the
fact that generally this tax should be calculated by multiplying
the basic tax rate (9%) by the difference between (i) the
dividends to be distributed by us to our shareholders (other
than to non-resident companies and non-resident individuals),
and
253
(ii) dividends collected by us in the current and preceding
tax periods from other Russian persons (except for dividends
which are taxable at the rate of 0% under the current Russian
tax law).
According to clarifications issued by the Russian tax
authorities, it may be possible to claim that the reduced
withholding tax rate should apply to dividends paid to a Russian
permanent establishment of a foreign organization, based on
non-discrimination provisions of a double tax treaty between
Russia and the country of tax residency of the respective
foreign organization. However, as the Russian Tax Code does not
specifically provide for the application of the reduced tax rate
in such situations and the application of treaty-based
non-discrimination cases is still rare in Russian tax practice,
no assurance can be given that any claims for application of the
reduced tax rate would not be challenged by the Russian tax
authorities, hence it is likely that 15% withholding tax rate
would be applied by us.
ADSs
There are uncertainties in relation to withholding tax on
dividends payable to Russian resident holders of ADSs primarily
because the taxation of dividends payable under ADSs is not
specifically addressed under Russian tax law. In the absence of
any official interpretative guidance and, as the depositary (and
not the holders of the ADSs) is the legal holder of shares under
Russian law, we will be likely to withhold tax at a domestic
rate of 15% applicable to dividends payable to non-resident
holders (as described below). Upon receiving dividends, Russian
holders which are organizations may be required to pay
additional Russian profits tax at the rate of 9% (the rate
applied to dividends received from non-residents) or 20% (if the
income received will not be recognized as dividends) while
Russian holders who are individuals may be required to pay
Russian personal income tax at the rate of 9% or 13% (the higher
rate applies if the income received will not be recognized as a
dividend for Russian tax purposes). There is also no established
procedure providing for the refund of tax withheld from
dividends payable through the depositary to Russian resident
holders of ADSs. Accordingly, Russian residents are urged to
consult their own tax advisors regarding the tax treatment of
the purchase, ownership and disposition of the ADSs.
Non-resident
holders
Shares
Dividends paid to a non-resident holder of shares will generally
be subject to Russian withholding tax, which we will withhold.
Under Russian domestic law dividends paid to a non-resident
holder, which is an organization or individual will be subject
to Russian withholding tax at a rate of 15%. Withholding tax on
dividends may be generally reduced under the terms of a double
tax treaty between the Russian Federation and the country of tax
treaty residence of a non-resident holder of the shares.
ADSs
Comments provided in the previous section (see
Taxation of dividends Non-resident
holders Shares) are also applicable to ADSs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, treaty relief for dividends
received may not be available to non-resident holders of ADSs.
The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation repeatedly
expressed an opinion in their private responses that depositary
receipt holders (rather than the depositary) should be treated
as the beneficial owners of dividends for the purposes of the
double tax treaty provisions applicable to taxation of dividend
income from the underlying shares, provided that the tax
residencies of the depositary receipt holders are duly
confirmed. However, in the absence of any specific provisions in
Russian tax legislation with respect to taxation of dividends
attributable to ADS holders, it is unclear how the Russian tax
authorities and courts would ultimately treat the ADS holders in
this regard. Moreover, from a practical perspective, it may not
be possible for the depositary to collect residence
confirmations from all ADS holders and to submit such
information to us and, in addition, we may be unaware of the
exact amount of income payable to each particular holder.
Although non-resident holders of ADSs may apply for a refund of
a portion of the tax withheld under an applicable tax treaty,
the procedure to do so may be time-consuming and no assurance
can be given that the Russian tax authorities will grant a
refund. See Tax treaty procedures below.
254
The following should be noted with respect to individuals who
are non-resident holders of ADSs. We will not be able to act as
a tax agent for these individuals and will not be able to
withhold personal income tax with respect to such dividend
payments. We may also be obligated to withhold income tax at the
rate of 15% from dividend payments made to the depositary. In
practice, it may be impossible to apply a beneficial withholding
tax rate in advance with respect to payments made in favor of
individuals, as documentation is to be first provided to the tax
authorities to obtain their approval for the double tax treaty
relief. Individuals who are non-resident holders of ADSs will
then be obliged to submit a personal tax return to the Russian
tax authorities. When submitting the tax return, individuals may
claim an application of the reduced rates of withholding tax
established by the respective international double tax treaties,
provided that the procedures described in Tax
treaty procedures are complied with. Obtaining the
respective approvals from the tax authorities may be
time-consuming and burdensome. In practice, the tax authorities
may not take into account the 15% tax withheld from payment of
dividends to the depositary, as the tax authorities are unlikely
to treat the 15% withholding tax as a tax liability of
individual holders. Therefore, it is possible that non-resident
holders may be subject to up to a 45% effective tax on dividends
accrued on shares held on deposit, i.e. 15% income tax withheld
by us plus 30% Russian personal income tax payable on the
self-assessment basis.
The dividends taxation rate may be reduced to 5% or 10% under
the United States-Russia income tax treaty for
U.S. Non-Resident holders; a 10% rate applies to dividends
paid to U.S. holders owning less than 10% of the
entitys outstanding shares and 5% for U.S. holders,
which are legal entities, owning 10% or more of the
entitys outstanding shares. Under current regulations,
authorization from the Russian tax authorities is not required
to allow us to withhold at reduced rates under applicable double
tax treaties provided that all other requirements are met. See
Tax treaty procedures.
If a U.S. Non-Resident holder does not provide to us
appropriate evidence of U.S. residency before the dividend
payment date, we are required to withhold tax at the full rate.
In this case, U.S. holders qualifying for a reduced rate
under the United States-Russia income tax treaty may claim a
refund from the Russian tax authorities within three years.
There is significant uncertainty regarding the availability and
timing of such refunds.
Taxation
of capital gains
The following sections summarize the taxation of capital gains
in respect of the disposition of the shares and ADSs.
Russian
resident holders
As the Russian legislation related to taxation of capital gains
derived by Russian resident holders (including organizations and
individuals) in connection with ADSs is not entirely clear, we
urge Russian residents to consult their own tax advisors
regarding the tax treatment of the purchase, ownership and
disposition of ADSs.
Organizations
Capital gains arising from the sale of the shares and ADSs by a
Russian resident holder that is an organization will be taxable
at the regular Russian corporate income tax rate of 20%. Russian
tax legislation contains a requirement that a profit arising
from activities connected with securities quoted on a stock
exchange must be calculated and accounted for separately from a
profit from activities connected with securities that are not
quoted on a stock exchange and from other profits. Therefore,
Russian resident holders may be able to apply losses arising in
respect of the listed shares and the ADSs to offset capital
gains, or as a carry-forward amount to offset future capital
gains, from the sale, exchange or other disposition of
securities quoted on a stock exchange and, in respect of the
non-listed ADSs, from the sale, exchange or other disposition of
securities not quoted on a stock exchange. Special tax rules
apply to Russian organizations that hold a broker
and/or
dealer license.
The Russian Tax Code also establishes special rules for the
calculation of the tax base for the purposes of transactions
with securities.
255
Individuals
Capital gains arising from the sale, exchange or other
disposition of the shares and ADSs by individuals who are
Russian resident holders must be declared on the holders
tax return and are subject to personal income tax at a rate of
13%.
The income in respect of sale of the shares or the ADSs by an
individual is calculated as sale proceeds less documented
expenses related to the purchase of these securities (including
cost of securities and expenses associated with purchase,
safe-keeping and sale of these securities).
Under Russian law, the acquisition value can be deducted at the
source of the payment, if the sale was made by a holder through
a professional trustee, dealer or broker that is a Russian
organization or a foreign company with a permanent establishment
in Russia. This professional trustee, dealer or broker should
also act as a tax agent and withhold the applicable tax. Such a
tax agent will be required to report to the Russian tax
authorities the amount of income realized by the individual and
tax withheld upon the sale of the shares and ADSs not later than
April 1 of the year following the reporting year.
Non-resident
holders
Organizations
Capital gains arising from the sale, exchange or other
disposition of the shares and ADSs by organizations that are
non-resident holders should not be subject to tax in Russia if
immovable property located in Russia constitutes 50% or less of
our assets. If more than 50% of our assets were to consist of
immovable property located in Russia, organizations that are
non-resident holders of the shares and ADSs should be subject
(except as described below) to a 20% withholding tax on the
gross proceeds from sale, exchange or other disposition of the
shares and ADSs or 20% withholding tax on the difference between
the sales, exchange or other disposition price and the
acquisition costs of the shares and ADSs.
However, it should be noted that the determination of whether
more than 50% of our assets consist of immovable property
located in Russia is inherently factual and is made on an
on-going basis, and the relevant Russian legislation and
regulations in this respect are not entirely clear. Hence, there
can be no assurance that immovable property owned by us and
located in Russia will not constitute more than 50% of the
companys assets as at the date of the sale of shares and
ADSs by non-residents. Certain international double tax treaties
may provide for protection from the Russian taxation in such
instances.
Where the shares and ADSs are sold by organizations to persons
other than a Russian company or a foreign company with a
registered permanent establishment in Russia, even if the
resulting capital gain is considered taxable in Russia, there is
currently no mechanism under which the purchaser will be able to
withhold the tax and remit it to the Russian budget.
Individuals
The taxation of the income of non-resident individuals depends
on whether the income is received from Russian or non-Russian
sources. Russian tax law considers the place of sale as an
indicator of source. Accordingly, the sale of the shares and
ADSs outside of Russia by individuals who are non-resident
holders should not be considered Russian source income and,
therefore, should not be taxable in Russia. However the Russian
tax law gives no clear indication as to how the place of sale of
the shares and ADSs should be defined in this respect.
Therefore, the Russian tax authorities may have a certain amount
of flexibility in concluding whether a transaction is within
Russia or outside of Russia.
The sale, exchange or other disposal of the shares and the ADSs
by non-resident holders in Russia will be considered Russian
source income and will be subject to tax at the rate of 30% on
the difference between the sales price and the acquisition value
of such shares and ADSs as well as other documented expenses,
such as depositary expenses and broker fees, among others. Under
Russian law, the acquisition value can only be deducted at the
source of the payment if the sale was made by a non-resident
holder through a professional trust manager, dealer or broker
that is a Russian organization or a foreign company with a
permanent
256
establishment in Russia. Such professional trust manager, dealer
or broker should also act as a tax agent and withhold the
applicable tax. Such a tax agent will be required to report to
the Russian tax authorities the amount of income realized by the
non-resident individual and tax withheld upon the sale of the
shares and ADSs not later than on April 1 of the year following
the reporting year.
Otherwise, if the sale is made to other organizations and
individuals, generally no withholding needs to be made and the
non-resident holder will have an obligation to file a tax
return, report his realized income and apply for a deduction of
acquisition expenses (which includes filing of support
documentation).
Although Russian tax law imposes this responsibility only on
professional trust manager, brokers or dealers, in practice, the
tax authorities may require Russian organizations or foreign
companies with a permanent establishment in Russia that are not
professional trust manager, dealers or brokers to act as tax
agents and withhold the applicable tax when purchasing
securities from non-resident individuals.
Regardless of the residence of the purchaser, a U.S. holder
which is a legal entity should not be subject to any Russian
income or withholding taxes in connection with the sale,
exchange or other disposition of ADSs if immovable property
constitutes 50% or less of our assets or if ADSs are sold via
foreign exchanges where they are legally circulated.
In some circumstances, a non-resident holder may be exempt from
Russian personal income tax on the sale, exchange or other
disposition of the shares and ADSs under the terms of a double
tax treaty between the Russian Federation and the country of
residence of the non-resident holder. Under the United
States-Russia income tax treaty, capital gains from the sale of
the shares
and/or ADSs
by U.S. holders should be relieved from taxation in Russia,
unless 50% or more of our assets (as the term fixed
assets is used in the Russian version of the United
States-Russia Tax Treaty) were to consist of immovable property
located in Russia. If this 50% threshold is not met, individuals
who are U.S. holders may seek to obtain the benefit of the
United States-Russia Tax Treaty in relation to capital gains
resulting from the sale, exchange or other disposition of the
shares
and/or ADSs.
Regardless of the residence of the purchaser, a U.S. holder
which is a legal entity should not be subject to any Russian
income or withholding taxes in connection with the sale,
exchange or other disposition of ADSs if immovable property
constitutes 50% or less of our assets or if ADSs are sold via
foreign exchanges where they are legally circulated.
In order to apply the provisions of relevant double tax
treaties, the individual holders should receive clearance from
the Russian tax authorities as described below. See
Tax treaty procedures below.
Tax
treaty procedures
The Russian Tax Code does not contain a requirement that a
non-resident holder that is an organization must obtain tax
treaty clearance from the Russian tax authorities prior to
receiving any income in order to qualify for benefits under an
applicable tax treaty. However, a non-resident organization
seeking to obtain relief from Russian withholding tax under a
tax treaty must provide to a tax agent (i.e. the entity paying
income to a non-resident) a confirmation of its tax treaty
residence that complies with the applicable requirements in
advance of receiving the relevant income.
In accordance with the Russian Tax Code, a non-resident holder
who is an individual must present to the tax authorities a
document confirming his residency in his home country and also
other supporting documentation including a statement confirming
the income received and the tax paid offshore, confirmed by the
foreign tax authorities. Technically, such a requirement means
that an individual cannot rely on the tax treaty until he or she
pays the tax in the jurisdiction of his or her residence.
Therefore advance relief from withholding taxes for individuals
will generally be impossible as it is very unlikely that the
supporting documentation for the treaty relief can be provided
to the tax authorities and approval from the latter obtained
before the year end. A non-resident holder who is an individual
may apply for treaty-based benefits within one year following
the end of the tax period in which the relevant income was
received.
If a non-resident holder that is an organization does not obtain
double tax treaty relief at the time that income or gains are
realized and tax is withheld by a Russian tax agent, the
non-resident holder may apply for a refund within three years
from the end of the tax period (a calendar year) in which the
tax was withheld. To
257
process a claim for a refund, the Russian tax authorities
require: (1) a confirmation of the tax treaty residence of
the non-resident at the time the income was paid, (2) an
application for the refund of the tax withheld in a format
provided by the Russian tax authorities, and (3) copies of
the relevant contracts under which the foreign entity received
income as well as payment documents confirming the payment of
the tax withheld to the Russian budget (Form 1012DT for
dividends and interest and Form 1011DT for other income are
designed by the Russian tax authorities to combine requirements
(i) and (ii) specified above and recommended for
application). The Russian tax authorities may require a Russian
translation of the above documents if they are prepared in a
foreign language. The refund of the tax withheld should be
granted within one month of the filing of the above set of
documents with the Russian tax authorities. However, procedures
for processing such claims have not been clearly established and
there is significant uncertainty regarding the availability and
timing of such refunds.
The procedures referred to above may be more complicated with
respect to ADSs, because Russian tax law does not specifically
address taxation and tax treaty procedures for dividends payable
under ADSs. Thus, no assurance can be given that we will be able
to apply the respective double tax treaties when paying
dividends to non-resident holders.
A resident of the United States who is fully eligible for
benefits under the United States-Russia income tax treaty is
referred to in this Russian Income and Withholding Tax
Considerations section as a U.S. holder.
Subject to certain provisions of the United States-Russia income
tax treaty relating to limitations on benefits, a person
generally will be a resident of the United States for treaty
purposes and entitled to treaty benefits if such person is:
|
|
|
|
|
liable, under the laws of the United States, for
U.S. federal income tax (other than taxes in respect only
of income from sources in the United States or capital situated
therein) by reason of the holders domicile, residence,
citizenship, place of incorporation, or any other similar
criterion (and, for income derived by a partnership, trust or
estate, residence is determined in accordance with the residence
of the person liable to tax with respect to such
income); and
|
|
|
|
not also a resident of the Russian Federation for purposes of
the United States-Russia income tax treaty.
|
The benefits under the United States-Russia income tax treaty
discussed in this document generally are not available to United
States persons who hold shares or ADSs in connection with the
conduct of a business in the Russian Federation through a
permanent establishment as defined in the United States-Russia
income tax treaty. Subject to certain exceptions, a United
States persons permanent establishment under the United
States-Russia income tax treaty is a fixed place of business
through which such person carries on business activities in the
Russian Federation (generally including, but not limited to, a
place of management, a branch, an office and a factory). Under
certain circumstances, a United States person may be deemed to
have a permanent establishment in the Russian Federation as a
result of activities carried on in the Russian Federation
through agents of the United States person. This summary does
not address the treatment of those holders.
United
States-Russia income tax treaty procedures
Under current rules, to claim the benefit of a reduced rate of
withholding under the United States-Russia income tax treaty, a
non-resident generally must provide official certification from
the U.S. tax authorities of eligibility for the treaty
benefits in the manner required by Russian law.
A U.S. holder may obtain the appropriate certification by
mailing completed forms, together with the holders name,
taxpayer identification number, the tax period for which
certification is required, and other applicable information, to
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the
IRS). The procedures for obtaining
certification are described in greater detail in the
instructions to IRS Form 8802. As obtaining the required
certification from the IRS may take at least six to eight weeks,
U.S. holders should apply for such certification as soon as
possible.
If tax is withheld by a Russian resident on dividends or other
amounts at a rate different from that provided in the tax
treaty, a U.S. holder may apply for a tax refund by filing
a package of documents with the Russian local tax inspectorate
to which the withholding tax was remitted within three years
from the
258
withholding date for U.S. holders which are legal entities,
and within one year from the withholding date for individual
U.S. holders. The package should include confirmations of
residence of the foreign holder (IRS Form 6166), a copy of
the agreement or other documents substantiating the payment of
income, documents confirming the beneficial ownership of the
dividends recipient and the transfer of tax to the budget. Under
the provisions of the Tax Code the refund of the tax should be
effected within one month after the submission of the documents.
However, procedures for processing such claims have not been
clearly established, and there is significant uncertainty
regarding the availability and timing of such refunds.
Neither the depositary nor we will have any obligation to assist
a U.S. holder of shares or ADSs with the completion and
filing of any tax forms.
U.S.
Federal Income Tax Considerations
The following is a summary of material U.S. federal income
tax consequences of the purchase, ownership and disposition of
shares or ADSs by a U.S. Holder. Solely for
purposes of the U.S. Federal Income Tax
Considerations section, a U.S. Holder is a beneficial
owner of shares or ADSs that is, for U.S. federal income
tax purposes: (1) an individual who is a citizen or
resident of the United States, (2) a corporation created or
organized in or under the laws of the United States, any state
thereof or the District of Columbia, (3) an estate the
income of which is subject to U.S. federal income tax
regardless of its source, or (4) a trust, if a
U.S. court can exercise primary supervision over the
administration of the trust and one or more United States
persons can control all substantial trust decisions, or if the
trust has a valid election in place to be treated as a United
States person.
If a partnership (including any entity treated as a partnership
for U.S. federal income tax purposes) is a beneficial owner
of shares or ADSs, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of
a partner in the partnership will generally depend on the status
of the partner and the activities of the partnership. A partner
of a partnership holding shares or ADSs should consult its tax
adviser regarding the associated tax consequences.
This summary does not discuss all aspects of U.S. federal
income taxation that may be relevant to investors in light of
their particular circumstances, such as investors subject to
special tax rules (including, without limitation:
(i) financial institutions; (ii) insurance companies;
(iii) dealers in stocks, securities, or currencies or
notional principal contracts; (iv) regulated investment
companies; (v) real estate investment trusts;
(vi) tax-exempt organizations; (vii) partnerships,
pass-through entities, or persons that hold shares or ADSs
through pass-through entities; (viii) holders that are not
U.S. Holders; (ix) holders that own (directly,
indirectly or constructively) 10% or more of our voting stock;
(x) investors that hold shares or ADSs as part of a
straddle, hedge, conversion, constructive sale or other
integrated transaction for U.S. federal income tax
purposes; (xi) investors that have a functional currency
other than the U.S. dollar and
(xii) U.S. expatriates and former long-term residents
of the United States), all of whom may be subject to tax rules
that differ significantly from those summarized below. This
summary does not address tax consequences applicable to holders
of equity interests in a holder of the shares or ADSs,
U.S. federal estate, gift or alternative minimum tax
considerations, or
non-U.S.,
state or local tax considerations. This summary only addresses
investors that will acquire shares or ADSs in the offering, and
it assumes that investors will hold their shares or ADSs as
capital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes
(generally, property held for investment).
U.S. Holders of ADSs should be treated for
U.S. federal income tax purposes as owners of the
underlying shares represented by those ADSs. Accordingly, except
as noted, the U.S. federal income tax consequences
discussed below should apply equally to U.S. Holders of
ADSs and shares.
This summary is based upon current U.S. federal income tax
law, including the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code), its legislative history, existing,
temporary and proposed regulations thereunder, published rulings
and court decisions, all of which are subject to differing
interpretation or change (possibly with retroactive effect), and
the United States-Russia income tax treaty.
The discussion below assumes that the representations contained
in the deposit agreements are true and that the obligations in
the deposit agreements and any related agreements have been and
will be complied with in accordance with the terms.
259
Investors should consult their tax advisers as to the
consequences under U.S. federal, estate, gift, state, local
and applicable
non-U.S. tax
laws of the purchase, ownership and disposition of shares or
ADSs.
Taxation
of dividends on shares or ADSs
For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the gross amount of a
distribution, including any Russian withholding taxes, with
respect to shares or ADSs will be treated as a taxable dividend
to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and
profits, computed in accordance with U.S. federal income
tax principles. For taxable years beginning before
January 1, 2013, certain dividends received by
non-corporate U.S. Holders should be taxed at the lower
applicable capital gains rate. This lower capital gains rate is
only applicable to dividends paid by qualified foreign
corporations (which term excludes PFICs, as defined below)
and only with respect to shares or ADSs held for a minimum
holding period (generally, 61 days during the
121-day
period beginning 60 days before the ex-dividend date). A
company will be a qualified foreign corporation if it is
eligible for the benefits of an applicable United States income
tax treaty. Non-corporate U.S. Holders are strongly urged
to consult their tax advisers as to the applicability of the
lower capital gains rate to dividends received with respect to
shares or ADSs. Distributions in excess of our current and
accumulated earnings and profits will be applied against and
will reduce a U.S. Holders tax basis in shares or
ADSs and, to the extent in excess of such tax basis, will be
treated as gain from a sale or exchange of such shares or ADSs.
We do not intend to calculate our earnings and profits for
U.S. federal income tax purposes and, unless we make such
calculations, U.S. Holders should expect that any
distributions with respect to shares or ADSs generally will be
reported to them as a dividend, even if that distribution would
otherwise be treated as a return of capital or as a capital gain
pursuant to the rules described above. Such dividends will not
be eligible for the dividends received deduction allowed to
corporations.
If a dividend distribution is paid in rubles, the amount
includible in income will be the U.S. dollar value of the
dividend, calculated using the exchange rate in effect on the
date the dividend is includible in income by the
U.S. Holder, regardless of whether the payment is actually
converted into U.S. dollars. Any gain or loss resulting
from currency exchange rate fluctuations during the period from
the date the dividend is includible in the income of the
U.S. Holder to the date the rubles are converted into
U.S. dollars will be treated as ordinary income or loss.
U.S. Holders should be required to recognize foreign
currency gain or loss on the receipt of a refund of Russian
withholding tax pursuant to the United States-Russia income tax
treaty to the extent the U.S. dollar value of the refund
differs from the U.S. dollar equivalent of that amount on
the date of receipt of the underlying dividend.
Russian withholding tax under the United States-Russia income
tax treaty should be treated as a foreign income tax that,
subject to generally applicable limitations and conditions, is
eligible for a U.S. foreign tax credit against the
U.S. federal income tax liability of the U.S. Holder
or, at the election of the U.S. Holder, may be deducted in
computing taxable income. If, however, the holder of an ADS is
not treated as the owner of the underlying shares represented by
the ADS for U.S. federal income tax purposes, then Russian
withholding tax would not be treated as a foreign income tax
eligible for a U.S. foreign tax credit as described in the
preceding sentence. If Russian tax is withheld at a rate in
excess of the applicable rate under the United States-Russia
income tax treaty, a U.S. foreign tax credit for the excess
amount may not be allowed to be claimed, even though the
procedures for claiming refunds and the practical likelihood
that refunds will be made available in a timely fashion are
uncertain.
For U.S. foreign tax credit purposes, a dividend
distribution will be treated as foreign source income and will
generally be classified as passive category income
but could, in the case of certain U.S. Holders, constitute
general category income. The rules relating to the
determination of the U.S. foreign tax credit, or deduction
in lieu of the U.S. foreign tax credit, are complex and
U.S. Holders should consult their tax advisers with respect
to those rules.
Taxation
on sale or other disposition of shares or ADSs
The sale or other disposition of shares or ADSs will generally
result in the recognition of gain or loss in an amount equal to
the difference between the amount realized on the sale or other
disposition and the
260
adjusted basis in such shares or ADSs. Such gain or loss
generally will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if
the shares or ADSs have been held for more than one year.
Capital gains of individuals derived from capital assets held
for more than one year are currently eligible for reduced rates
of taxation. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to
significant limitations.
Deposits and withdrawals of shares by U.S. Holders in
exchange for ADSs should not result in the realization of gain
or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Gain or loss realized on the sale or other disposition of shares
or ADSs will generally be treated as U.S. source income and
therefore the use of U.S. foreign tax credits relating to
any Russian taxes imposed upon such sale may be limited.
U.S. Holders are strongly urged to consult their tax
advisers as to the availability of tax credits for any Russian
taxes withheld on the sale or other disposition of shares or
ADSs.
If a U.S. Holder receives any foreign currency on the sale
or other disposition of shares or ADSs, such U.S. Holder
generally will realize an amount equal to the U.S. dollar
value of such foreign currency on the settlement date of such
sale or other disposition if (1) such U.S. Holder is a
cash basis or electing accrual basis taxpayer and the shares or
ADSs are treated as being traded on an established
securities market or (2) such settlement date is also
the date of such sale or other disposition. If the foreign
currency so received is converted to U.S. dollars on the
settlement date, such U.S. Holder should not recognize
foreign currency gain or loss on such conversion. If the foreign
currency so received is not converted into U.S. dollars on
the settlement date, such U.S. Holder will have a basis in
such foreign currency equal to its U.S. dollar value on the
settlement date. Any gain or loss on a subsequent conversion or
other disposition of such foreign currency generally will be
treated as ordinary income or loss to such U.S. Holder and
generally will be income or loss from sources within the United
States for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes. Each
U.S. Holder should consult its tax adviser regarding the
U.S. federal income tax consequences of receiving foreign
currency from the sale or other disposition of shares or ADSs.
Passive
foreign investment company status
A
non-U.S. company
is a passive foreign investment company
(PFIC) in any taxable year in which, after
taking into account the income and assets of certain
subsidiaries, either (1) at least 75% of its gross income
is passive income or (2) at least 50% of the average value
of its assets (based on an average of the quarterly values of
the assets) is attributable to assets that produce or are held
to produce passive income. We believe, and the foregoing
discussion assumes, that for U.S. federal income tax
purposes, we were not a PFIC for the taxable year ending in
2010, we will not be a PFIC for the current taxable year and we
will not become a PFIC in the future. However, the PFIC
determination is made annually and may involve facts that are
not within our control. If we were a PFIC, materially adverse
U.S. federal income tax consequences could result for
U.S. Holders. Investors should consult their tax advisers
as to the consequences of an investment in a PFIC.
Information
reporting and backup withholding
U.S. Holders may be subject to the information reporting
requirements of the Code, as well as to backup withholding on
the payment of dividends on, and the proceeds received from the
disposition of, shares or ADSs. Backup withholding may apply if
a U.S. Holder: (1) fails to furnish its taxpayer
identification number (TIN), which, in the
case of an individual, is his or her social security number;
(2) fails to provide certification of exempt status;
(3) is notified by the IRS that he has failed properly to
report payments of interest and dividends; (4) under
certain circumstances, fails to certify, under penalties of
perjury, that he has furnished a correct TIN or we have been
notified by the IRS that such U.S. Holder is subject to
backup withholding for failure to furnish a correct TIN; or
(5) otherwise fails to comply with the applicable
requirements of the backup withholding rules. U.S. Holders
should consult their tax advisers regarding their qualification
for exemption from backup withholding and the procedure for
obtaining such an exemption, if applicable.
Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Amounts withheld as
backup withholding may be credited against a
U.S. Holders federal income tax liability, and a
U.S. Holder may obtain a refund of any excess
261
amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules by timely
filing the appropriate claim for refund with the IRS and
furnishing all required information.
Recently enacted legislation may require individual
U.S. Holders to report to the IRS certain information with
respect to their beneficial ownership of certain foreign
financial assets, such as the shares or ADSs, if the aggregate
value of such assets exceeds $50,000. U.S. Holders who fail
to report required information could be subject to substantial
penalties. Prospective investors should consult their tax
advisors concerning the application of the information reporting
and backup withholding rules to their particular circumstances.
Documents
on Display
The documents that are exhibits to or incorporated by reference
in this document can be read at the SECs Public Reference
Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room can be
obtained by calling the SEC at +1-800-SEC-0330. These filings
are also available at the website maintained by the SEC at
http://www.sec.gov.
Some of our reports and other information can also be inspected
at the offices of the NYSE at 20 Broad Street, New York,
New York 10005.
Glossary
Blast furnace: A towering cylinder lined with
heat-resistant (refractory) bricks, used by integrated steel
mills to smelt iron from ore. Its name comes from the
blast of hot air and gases forced up through the
iron ore, coke and limestone that load the furnace.
Carbon steel: A type of steel generally having
no specified minimum quantity of any alloying element and
containing only an incidental amount of any element other than
carbon, silicon, manganese, copper, sulfur and phosphorus.
CIF: Cost, Insurance and Freight, a commercial
term pursuant to which the seller must pay the costs, insurance
and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of
destination but the risk of loss or damage to the goods, as well
as any additional costs due to events occurring after the time
of delivery, are transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Coils: Steel sheet that has been wound. A
slab, once rolled in a hot-strip mill, can be more than one mile
long; coils are the most efficient way to store and transport
sheet steel.
Continuous casting: A method of pouring steel
directly from a ladle through a tundish, shaped to form billets
or slabs. Continuous casting avoids the need for blooming mills
for rolling billets into slabs. Continuous cast metal solidifies
in a few minutes, versus several hours for an ingot. As a result
of this, the chemical composition and mechanical properties are
more uniform.
FCA: Free Carrier, a commercial term pursuant
to which the seller must deliver the goods, cleared for export,
to the carrier nominated by the buyer at the named place. Costs
for transportation and risk of loss transfer to the buyer after
delivery to the carrier.
Flat-rolled steel/Flat products: Category of
steel that includes sheet, strip and tin plate, among others.
FOB: Free on Board, a commercial term pursuant
to which the buyer bears all costs and risks of loss of or
damage to the goods from the point the goods pass the
ships rail at the named point of shipment.
Galvanized steel: Steel coated with a layer of
zinc to provide corrosion resistance in underbody auto parts,
garbage cans, storage tanks, fencing wire, etc. Sheet steel
normally must be cold-rolled prior to galvanizing. Galvanized
steel is subdivided into hot-dipped galvanized and
electrogalvanized steel.
Hot rolled: Product that is sold in its
as-produced state off the hot mill with no
additional treatment, aside from being pickled and oiled (if
specified).
Magnetic separator: A device used in a process
when magnetically susceptible mineral is separated from gangue
minerals by applying a strong magnetic field.
262
Non-reserve mineral deposits: A mineral
deposit that is a coal-, iron-, nickel-, chrome- or
limestone-bearing body that has been sufficiently sampled and
analyzed in trenches, outcrops, drilling and underground
workings to assume continuity between sample points. However,
this coal, iron, nickel, chrome or limestone deposit does not
qualify as a commercially viable coal, iron, nickel, chrome or
limestone reserve as prescribed by SEC standards until a final
comprehensive evaluation based upon unit cost per tonne,
recoverability and other material factors concludes legal and
economic feasibility. In particular, our non-reserve mineral
deposits meet the SECs economic feasibility standard but
do not qualify as mineral reserves because the deposits are
either contained within the license boundary but are scheduled
to be extracted beyond the license period or are adjacent but
not contained within the license boundary. In both such cases,
we intend to obtain the legal right to extract such deposits in
the future. See Risk Factors Risks Relating to
Our Business and Industry Our business could be
adversely affected if we fail to obtain or renew necessary
subsoil licenses and mining and other permits or fail to comply
with the terms of our subsoil licenses and mining and other
permits and Risk Factors Risks Relating
to the Russian Federation Legal risks and
uncertainties Weaknesses relating to the Russian
legal system and legislation create an uncertain investment
climate.
Pipes: A tube used to transport fluids or
gases. Pipe and tube are often used interchangeably, with a
given label applied primarily as a matter of historical use.
Probable reserves: Reserves for which quantity
and grade
and/or
quality are computed from information similar to that used for
proven reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling and
measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately
spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for
proven reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between
points of observation.
Proven reserves: Reserves for which
(1) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in
outcrops, trenches, workings or drill holes; grade
and/or
quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and
(2) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are
spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined
that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are
well-established.
Raw Steel: Steel in primary form of hot molten
metal.
Rebar or Reinforcement bar: A commodity-grade
steel used to strengthen concrete in highway and building
construction.
Reserve: That part of a mineral deposit which
could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the
time of the reserve determination.
Rolled steel (products): Steel produced to a
desired thickness by being passed through a set of rollers.
Scrap (Ferrous): Ferrous (iron-containing)
material that generally is remelted and recast into new steel in
electric arc furnaces. Integrated steel mills also use scrap for
up to 25% of their basic oxygen furnace charge. Scrap includes
waste steel generated from within the steel mill, through edge
trimming and rejects, as well as excess steel trimmed by auto
and appliance stampers, which is auctioned to scrap buyers as
factory bundles.
Sections: Blooms or billets that are
hot-rolled in a rolling mill to form, among other shapes,
L, U, T or I
shapes. Sections can also be produced by welding together pieces
of flat products. Sections can be used for a wide variety of
purposes in the construction, machinery and transport industries.
Semi-finished steel: Steel shapes (for
example, blooms, billets or slabs) that later are rolled into
finished products such as beams, bars or sheet.
Sheet steel: Thin, flat-rolled steel created
in a hot-strip mill by rolling a cast slab flat while
maintaining the side dimensions. The malleable steel lengthens
to several thousand feet as it is squeezed by the rolling mill.
The most common differences among steel bars, strip, plate and
sheet are merely their physical dimensions of width and gauge
(thickness).
Sintering: A process that combines
iron-bearing particles into small chunks. Previously, these
materials were too fine to withstand the air currents of the
smelting process and were thrown away. The iron is now conserved
because the chunks can be charged into the blast furnace.
263
Slab: The most common type of semi-finished
steel. Traditional slabs measure
18-25
centimeters thick,
75-225
centimeters wide and are usually about 6-12 meters long, while
the output of the recently developed thin slab
casters is approximately five centimeters thick. After casting,
slabs are sent to the hot-strip mill to be rolled into coiled
sheet and plate products.
Specialty steel: Alloyed steel produced by the
addition of various metals (e.g., manganese) in small quantities
during the steel-making process to improve mechanical properties
such as strength and resistance to stress. Specialty steels are
intermediary products between standard steel grades and
stainless steel alloys (with a high content of nickel and
chrome). Specialty steel products are typically used as long
products (e.g., specialty bar quality, bearing steel, tool steel
and high-speed steel).
Tailings: Material rejected from a mine after
the valuable minerals have been recovered.
Welded mesh: Cold rolled or drawn wire cuts of
certain length welded together at specified distances in
longitudinal and traverse directions into sheets of rectangular
shapes.
Wire rod: Round, semi-finished steel that is
rolled from a billet and coiled for further processing. Wire rod
is commonly drawn into wire products or used to tie bundles.
Wire rod rolling mills (rolling facilities) can run as fast as
6,000 meters per minute.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
In the normal course of business, our financial position is
routinely subject to a variety of risks. We are exposed to
market risks associated with foreign currency exchange rates,
interest rates and commodity prices. We are also subject to the
risks associated with the business environment in which we
operate, including the collectability of accounts receivable.
We do not enter into hedging transactions to manage the risks
specified above.
We do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for
trading purposes.
Currency
Risk
The functional currencies for our Russian and Romanian
subsidiaries are the ruble and lei, respectively. The
U.S. dollar is the functional currency of our other
international operations. Our reporting currency is the
U.S. dollar.
In the past we entered into forward transactions to buy
U.S. dollars for euros to hedge our exposure to movements
in foreign currency exchange rates arising in relation to
euro-denominated accounts receivable of our trading
subsidiaries. These derivatives were not designated as hedging
contracts for accounting purposes. As of December 31, 2010,
we did not have any forward transactions.
264
We are exposed to movements in the ruble and euro exchange rates
relative to the U.S. dollar, our reporting currency. The
following table sets forth our monetary assets and liabilities
by currency as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010
|
|
U.S. Dollar
|
|
Ruble
|
|
Euro
|
|
Lei
|
|
Other
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Current Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
89,755
|
|
|
|
153,356
|
|
|
|
62,653
|
|
|
|
20,842
|
|
|
|
14,194
|
|
|
|
340,800
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
176,002
|
|
|
|
265,531
|
|
|
|
32,982
|
|
|
|
10,828
|
|
|
|
43,764
|
|
|
|
529,107
|
|
Due from related parties
|
|
|
501,823
|
|
|
|
169,236
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
10,843
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
682,342
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
3,630
|
|
|
|
22,017
|
|
|
|
4,813
|
|
|
|
502
|
|
|
|
3,518
|
|
|
|
34,480
|
|
Short-term investments in related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0
|
)
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
302,609
|
|
|
|
172,118
|
|
|
|
171,253
|
|
|
|
38,649
|
|
|
|
53,022
|
|
|
|
737,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
assets(1)
|
|
|
1,073,818
|
|
|
|
782,258
|
|
|
|
272,141
|
|
|
|
81,664
|
|
|
|
114,498
|
|
|
|
2,324,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
(199,339
|
)
|
|
|
(1,570,000
|
)
|
|
|
(112,677
|
)
|
|
|
(21,099
|
)
|
|
|
(174,695
|
)
|
|
|
(2,077,809
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances received
|
|
|
(98,767
|
)
|
|
|
(125,935
|
)
|
|
|
(1,733
|
)
|
|
|
(2,709
|
)
|
|
|
(13,925
|
)
|
|
|
(243,069
|
)
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
(24,569
|
)
|
|
|
(221,559
|
)
|
|
|
(8,959
|
)
|
|
|
(4,683
|
)
|
|
|
(4,977
|
)
|
|
|
(264,746
|
)
|
Taxes and social charges payable
|
|
|
(19,995
|
)
|
|
|
(174,172
|
)
|
|
|
(7,030
|
)
|
|
|
(30,006
|
)
|
|
|
(13,579
|
)
|
|
|
(244,782
|
)
|
Unrecognized income tax benefit
|
|
|
(4,266
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,266
|
)
|
Trade payables to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
(46,418
|
)
|
|
|
(465,010
|
)
|
|
|
(43,337
|
)
|
|
|
(75,821
|
)
|
|
|
(16,447
|
)
|
|
|
(647,033
|
)
|
Pension obligations, current portion
|
|
|
(1,259
|
)
|
|
|
(32,090
|
)
|
|
|
(343
|
)
|
|
|
(734
|
)
|
|
|
(170
|
)
|
|
|
(34,596
|
)
|
Due to related parties
|
|
|
(9,717
|
)
|
|
|
(35,281
|
)
|
|
|
(7,899
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43,797
|
)
|
|
|
(96,694
|
)
|
Asset retirement obligation, current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,324
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(339
|
)
|
|
|
(341
|
)
|
|
|
(7,004
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(3,331
|
)
|
|
|
(24,762
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(183
|
)
|
|
|
(28,276
|
)
|
Finance lease liabilities, current portion
|
|
|
(10,153
|
)
|
|
|
(35,526
|
)
|
|
|
(3,607
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(379
|
)
|
|
|
(49,665
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,639
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,639
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
(417,814
|
)
|
|
|
(2,692,299
|
)
|
|
|
(185,583
|
)
|
|
|
(135,391
|
)
|
|
|
(268,491
|
)
|
|
|
(3,699,579
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
(2,836,143
|
)
|
|
|
(2,187,361
|
)
|
|
|
(199,468
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,648
|
)
|
|
|
(5,240,620
|
)
|
Pension obligations, net of current portion
|
|
|
(39,275
|
)
|
|
|
(103,346
|
)
|
|
|
(5,262
|
)
|
|
|
(4,960
|
)
|
|
|
(629
|
)
|
|
|
(153,472
|
)
|
Asset retirement obligation, net of current portion
|
|
|
(3,661
|
)
|
|
|
(39,137
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,631
|
)
|
|
|
(2,788
|
)
|
|
|
(49,216
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(680,297
|
)
|
|
|
(539,546
|
)
|
|
|
(6,509
|
)
|
|
|
(17,004
|
)
|
|
|
(273,066
|
)
|
|
|
(1,516,422
|
)
|
Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
|
|
(21,739
|
)
|
|
|
(104,171
|
)
|
|
|
(4,443
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(130,367
|
)
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(27,865
|
)
|
|
|
(320
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(582
|
)
|
|
|
(6,573
|
)
|
|
|
(35,341
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(3,608,980
|
)
|
|
|
(2,973,880
|
)
|
|
|
(215,683
|
)
|
|
|
(26,177
|
)
|
|
|
(300,718
|
)
|
|
|
(7,125,438
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net monetary assets (liabilities)
|
|
|
(2,963,756
|
)
|
|
|
(5,179,389
|
)
|
|
|
(129,125
|
)
|
|
|
(81,797
|
)
|
|
|
(454,756
|
)
|
|
|
(8,808,823
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not include inventories and deferred costs of inventory in
transit. |
265
The table below summarizes our debt position by currency and
rate method as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Dollar
|
|
Ruble
|
|
Euro
|
|
Ron
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Fixed-rate debt
|
|
|
1,238,508
|
|
|
|
982,468
|
|
|
|
102,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,323,599
|
|
Variable-rate debt
|
|
|
2,115,925
|
|
|
|
2,558,984
|
|
|
|
304,318
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
4,994,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
3,354,433
|
|
|
|
3,541,452
|
|
|
|
406,941
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
7,318,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate risk
Our interest rate exposure results mainly from debt obligations.
As of December 31, 2010, we had $2,323.6 million in
fixed-rate borrowings and $4,994.8 million in variable-rate
borrowings.
We have not entered into transactions designed to hedge against
interest rate risks, which may exist in connection with our
current or future indebtedness. We monitor the market and assess
our options for hedging interest rate risks and may enter into
such arrangements in the future.
The table below presents the principal cash flows and related
range of interest rates, by contractual maturity dates, of our
fixed-rate debt obligations as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Actual at
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Maturity Date as of December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2010)
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Fixed-rate U.S. dollar debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
420,833
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
79,167
|
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
8.0
|
Alfa-Bank
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
6.5
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
95,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95,000
|
|
|
3.8-4.0
|
Other
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
25,222
|
|
|
|
644
|
|
|
|
5,308
|
|
|
|
1,067
|
|
|
|
11,267
|
|
|
|
43,508
|
|
|
0.0-12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
220,222
|
|
|
|
644
|
|
|
|
426,141
|
|
|
|
501,067
|
|
|
|
90,434
|
|
|
|
1,238,508
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate euro debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
59,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,740
|
|
|
4.0-5.0
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
2,244
|
|
|
|
2,244
|
|
|
|
2,244
|
|
|
|
1,122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,854
|
|
|
4.8
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
1,376
|
|
|
|
1,376
|
|
|
|
1,376
|
|
|
|
1,376
|
|
|
|
4,127
|
|
|
|
9,631
|
|
|
5.2
|
Other
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
22,440
|
|
|
|
680
|
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
1,584
|
|
|
|
25,398
|
|
|
0.0-9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,800
|
|
|
|
4,300
|
|
|
|
3,967
|
|
|
|
2,845
|
|
|
|
5,711
|
|
|
|
102,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate ruble debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VTB
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
164,059
|
|
|
|
446,240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
610,299
|
|
|
6.9-14.6
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
196,870
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
196,870
|
|
|
7.0
|
MBRR
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
49,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,218
|
|
|
6.5
|
MDM
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
32,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,812
|
|
|
5.4-6.6
|
Promsvyazbank
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
12,521
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,521
|
|
|
7.5
|
Sberbank
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
4,030
|
|
|
|
4,032
|
|
|
|
21,017
|
|
|
|
4,032
|
|
|
|
904
|
|
|
|
34,015
|
|
|
9.5-16.0
|
Other
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
3,460
|
|
|
|
15,093
|
|
|
|
12,026
|
|
|
|
12,698
|
|
|
|
3,456
|
|
|
|
46,733
|
|
|
0.0-15.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
462,970
|
|
|
|
465,365
|
|
|
|
33,043
|
|
|
|
16,730
|
|
|
|
4,360
|
|
|
|
982,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
768,992
|
|
|
|
470,309
|
|
|
|
463,151
|
|
|
|
520,642
|
|
|
|
100,505
|
|
|
|
2,323,599
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266
The table below presents the principal cash flows and related
range of interest rates, by contractual maturity dates, of our
variable-rate debt obligations as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate (Actual at
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Maturity Date as of December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2010)
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Variable-rate U.S. dollar debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syndicated Loan Tranche A
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
207,407
|
|
|
|
355,556
|
|
|
|
237,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800,000
|
|
|
5.3
|
Syndicated Loan Tranche B
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
26,667
|
|
|
|
320,000
|
|
|
|
320,000
|
|
|
|
320,000
|
|
|
|
213,333
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
6.3
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
15,292
|
|
|
|
7,250
|
|
|
|
7,250
|
|
|
|
7,250
|
|
|
|
1,812
|
|
|
|
38,854
|
|
|
2.5-5.9
|
ING
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
23,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,225
|
|
|
1.0
|
Other
|
|
|
USD
|
|
|
|
48,945
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
754
|
|
|
|
3,770
|
|
|
|
53,846
|
|
|
1.6-7.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
321,536
|
|
|
|
682,806
|
|
|
|
564,664
|
|
|
|
328,004
|
|
|
|
218,915
|
|
|
|
2,115,925
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate euro debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortis
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
9,219
|
|
|
|
9,507
|
|
|
|
8,493
|
|
|
|
8,166
|
|
|
|
21,379
|
|
|
|
56,764
|
|
|
2.3-5.6
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
6,734
|
|
|
|
8,208
|
|
|
|
7,313
|
|
|
|
4,332
|
|
|
|
16,213
|
|
|
|
42,800
|
|
|
1.6-4.8
|
VTB
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
31,313
|
|
|
|
1,093
|
|
|
|
2,915
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,321
|
|
|
6.1-8.5
|
ING
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
13,179
|
|
|
|
6,343
|
|
|
|
6,699
|
|
|
|
4,611
|
|
|
|
9,722
|
|
|
|
40,554
|
|
|
2.5-4.6
|
Commerzbank
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
3,029
|
|
|
|
3,029
|
|
|
|
3,029
|
|
|
|
3,029
|
|
|
|
18,172
|
|
|
|
30,288
|
|
|
1.8
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
1,212
|
|
|
|
2,397
|
|
|
|
2,397
|
|
|
|
2,397
|
|
|
|
8,389
|
|
|
|
16,792
|
|
|
5.7
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
2,456
|
|
|
|
4,029
|
|
|
|
3,147
|
|
|
|
3,147
|
|
|
|
4,720
|
|
|
|
17,499
|
|
|
1.6-3.2
|
Other
|
|
|
EUR
|
|
|
|
54,527
|
|
|
|
1,003
|
|
|
|
7,495
|
|
|
|
1,022
|
|
|
|
253
|
|
|
|
64,300
|
|
|
1.3-7.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121,669
|
|
|
|
35,609
|
|
|
|
41,488
|
|
|
|
26,704
|
|
|
|
78,848
|
|
|
|
304,318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate ruble debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
328,117
|
|
|
|
328,117
|
|
|
|
328,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,117
|
|
|
|
1,312,468
|
|
|
8.5-19.0
|
Sberbank
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
325,023
|
|
|
|
28,231
|
|
|
|
22,404
|
|
|
|
248,086
|
|
|
|
248,720
|
|
|
|
872,464
|
|
|
6.5-12.3
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
196,870
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
196,870
|
|
|
7.0
|
Bank of Moscow
|
|
|
RUR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,082
|
|
|
|
4,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177,182
|
|
|
7.9-9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
850,010
|
|
|
|
529,430
|
|
|
|
354,621
|
|
|
|
248,086
|
|
|
|
576,837
|
|
|
|
2,558,984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate LEI debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
LEI
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,308,818
|
|
|
|
1,247,845
|
|
|
|
960,773
|
|
|
|
602,794
|
|
|
|
874,600
|
|
|
|
4,994,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The carrying amounts of short-term loans approximate their fair
values due to their short maturity. We believe that the carrying
value of our long-term debt approximates its fair value.
Commodity
Price Risk
In the normal course of our business, we are primarily exposed
to market risk of price fluctuations related to the purchase,
production and sale of steel products, and to a lesser extent,
to the purchase, production and sale of coal, coke and other
products.
We do not use commodity derivatives or long-term, fixed-price
sales contracts to manage our commodity price risks.
Under certain of our ferroalloy products sales agreements, we
grant a third-party reseller a sales price concession under
which the selling price, which is typically prepaid by the
reseller, is subject to adjustment based upon the level of
market prices using the LME. Historically, these selling price
adjustments occur within a one month period from the date the
products are delivered to the reseller. As of December 31,
2010
267
we had no stocks in the distribution channels. See
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects Critical Accounting Policies and
Estimates Revenue recognition.
Equity
Price Risk
We also have minor investments in shares of Russian companies
that are not publicly traded and, accordingly, their market
values are not available. We consider that it is not practicable
for us to estimate the fair values of these investments because
we have not yet obtained or developed the valuation models
necessary to make the estimates, and the cost of obtaining an
independent valuation is believed by management to be excessive
considering the significance of the investments. Accordingly,
these investments are omitted from the risk information
disclosure presented herein.
We do not use derivative instruments or any other arrangements
to manage our equity price risks.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Description
of Securities Other than Equity Securities
|
Depositary
Fees and Charges
Our common American Depositary Shares, or common ADSs, each
representing one common share, are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol MTL. The common ADSs are
evidenced by common American Depositary Receipts, or common
ADRs, issued by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
depositary (DBTCA) under the Deposit
Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2004, among Mechel OAO,
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, and holders and
beneficial owners of common ADSs, as amended on May 21,
2007 and May 19, 2008. Common ADS holders are required to
pay the following service fees to DBTCA:
|
|
|
|
|
Service
|
|
Fees (in U.S. dollars)
|
|
Issuance of common ADSs
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per common ADS
|
|
Cancellation of common ADSs
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per common ADS
|
|
Distribution of cash dividends or other cash distributions
|
|
|
Up to $0.02 per common ADS
|
|
Distribution of common ADSs pursuant to(1) stock dividends,
free stock distributions or (2) exercises of rights to
purchase additional common ADSs or distribution of proceeds
thereof
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per common ADS
|
|
Distribution of securities other than common ADSs or rights to
purchase additional common ADSs or the distribution of proceeds
thereof
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per common ADS
|
|
Common ADR transfer, combination or
split-up fee
|
|
|
$1.50 per transfer
|
|
Share register inspection annual fee
|
|
|
$0.01 per common ADS
|
|
Operation and maintenance annual fee
|
|
|
$0.02 per common ADS
|
*
|
|
|
|
* |
|
This fee, when combined with the fees for cash distributions,
shall not exceed $0.02 per common ADS per year. |
Our preferred American Depositary Shares, or preferred ADSs,
each representing one-half of a preferred share, are traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol MTL PR.
The preferred ADSs are evidenced by preferred American
Depositary Receipts, or preferred ADRs, issued by DBTCA under
the Deposit Agreement, dated as of May 12, 2010, among
Mechel OAO, Deutsche Bank Trust Company
268
Americas, and holders and beneficial owners of preferred ADSs.
Preferred ADS holders are required to pay the following service
fees to DBTCA.
|
|
|
|
|
Service
|
|
Fees (in U.S. dollars)
|
|
Issuance of preferred ADSs
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per preferred ADS
|
|
Cancellation of preferred ADSs
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per preferred ADS
|
|
Distribution of cash dividends or other cash distributions
|
|
|
Up to $0.02 per preferred ADS
|
|
Distribution of preferred ADSs pursuant to (1) stock
dividends, free stock distributions or (2) exercises of
rights to purchase additional preferred ADSs or distribution of
proceeds thereof
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per preferred ADS
|
|
Distribution of securities other than preferred ADSs or rights
to purchase additional preferred ADSs or the distribution of
proceeds thereof
|
|
|
Up to $0.05 per preferred ADS
|
|
Preferred ADR transfer, combination or
split-up fee
|
|
|
$1.50 per transfer
|
|
Share register inspection annual fee
|
|
|
$0.01 per preferred ADS
|
|
Operation and maintenance annual fee
|
|
|
$0.02 per preferred ADS
|
*
|
|
|
|
* |
|
This fee, when combined with the fees for cash distributions,
shall not exceed $0.02 per preferred ADS per year. |
In addition, holders of ADSs may also be charged for the
following expenses: (1) taxes and governmental charges;
(2) cable, telex and facsimile transmission and delivery
charges; (3) transfer or registration fees of the Russian
share registrar; (4) fees or charges of DBTCA for
conversion of foreign currency into U.S. dollars; and
(5) expenses of DBTCA in connection with the issuance of
definitive certificates.
Holders of ADSs are responsible for any taxes or other
governmental charges payable on their ADSs or on the deposited
securities underlying the ADSs. DBTCA may refuse to transfer the
ADSs or to allow holders to withdraw the deposited securities
underlying their ADSs until such payment is made, or it may
deduct the amount of taxes owed from any payments to ADS
holders. It may also sell deposited securities, by public or
private sale, to pay any taxes owed. ADS holders will remain
liable if the proceeds of the sale are not enough to pay the
taxes. If DBTCA sells deposited securities, it will, if
appropriate, reduce the number of ADSs to reflect the sale and
pay to ADS holders any proceeds, or send to ADS holders any
property, remaining after it has paid the taxes.
Depositary
Payments for 2009 and 2010
In consideration for its appointment as depositary, DBTCA agreed
to reimburse us for costs of the maintenance of our ADR programs
and of ADR-programs related investor relations activities. For
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010, DBTCA has
agreed to reimburse us $1.242 million in regard to our
common ADR program, and we expect this amount to be paid to us
in 2011. DBTCA has also agreed to reimburse us
$2.494 million in regard to our preferred ADS program for
the year ended December 31, 2010.
269
In addition, for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2010, DBTCA made the following payments on our behalf in
relation to our ADR programs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment
|
|
|
|
(in U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Category
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
New York Stock Exchange listing fees
|
|
|
132,029
|
|
|
|
132,029
|
|
Proxy solicitation expenses
|
|
|
20,300
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
ADS holder identification expenses
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
Full Targeting Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
BD Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
162,329
|
|
|
|
185,029
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, DBTCA waived the cost of various ADR
programs-related support services that it provided to us in
2010. DBTCA had valued these services at $237,500 per annum for
common ADSs when DBTCA was re-appointed in 2008 and $190,000 per
annum for preferred ADSs when DBTCA was appointed in 2010. Under
certain circumstances, including termination of the appointment
of DBTCA prior to 2013, we would be required to repay to DBTCA
some or all of the payments made to us or on our behalf
(including fees waived by it) since its appointment.
PART II
|
|
Item 13.
|
Defaults,
Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies
|
None.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Material
Modifications to the Rights of Security Holders and Use of
Proceeds
|
None.
|
|
Item 15.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
|
|
(a)
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
|
As required by
Rules 13a-15
and 15d-15
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, management has
evaluated, with the participation of our chief executive officer
and chief financial officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report. Disclosure controls and procedures refer to
controls and other procedures designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed in the reports we file or
submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized
and reported, within the time periods specified in the rules and
forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Disclosure
controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls
and other procedures designed to ensure that information
required to be disclosed by us in our reports that we file or
submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized
and reported to management, including our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow
timely decisions regarding our required disclosure. In designing
and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures,
management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no
matter how well designed and operated, can provide only
reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control
objectives, and management was required to apply its judgment in
evaluating and implementing possible controls and procedures.
As described below, four material weaknesses were identified in
our internal control over financial reporting. Exchange Act
Rule 12b-2
(17 CFR
240.12b-2)
and
Rule 1-02
of
Regulation S-X
(17 CFR 210.1-02) define a material weakness as a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control
over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of the
registrants annual or
270
interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected
on a timely basis. As a result of the material weaknesses, our
chief executive officer and chief financial officer have
concluded that, as of December 31, 2010, the end of the
period covered by this report, our disclosure controls and
procedures were not effective at a reasonable assurance level.
|
|
(b)
|
Managements
Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
|
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting.
Internal control over financial reporting refers to a process
designed by, or under the supervision of, our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer and effected by our Board of
Directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and
includes those policies and procedures that:
|
|
|
|
|
pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of our assets;
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in
accordance with authorizations of our management and members of
our Board of Directors; and
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of
our assets that could have a material effect on our financial
statements.
|
Internal control over financial reporting cannot provide
absolute assurance of achieving financial reporting objectives
because of its inherent limitations. Internal control over
financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence
and compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and
breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal control over
financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or
improper override. Because of such limitations, there is a risk
that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on
a timely basis by internal control over financial reporting.
However, these inherent limitations are known features of the
financial reporting process, and it is possible to design into
the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this
risk.
Our management evaluated the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010
using the framework set forth in the report of the Treadway
Commissions Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO),
Internal Control Integrated Framework.
As a result of managements evaluation of our internal
control over financial reporting, management identified four
material weaknesses in our internal control. These material
weaknesses are described below:
|
|
|
|
|
We did not have an adequate system of internal controls over the
preparation and review of the groups U.S. GAAP
consolidated financial statements, U.S. GAAP transformation
process, and group reporting packages received from subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
completeness of our commitments and contingencies disclosures;
|
|
|
|
We did not operate effective controls over the classification
and reporting for transportation costs incurred by our
subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
aggregation and analysis of transactions with certain related
parties, including the analysis of revenue recognition criteria
and the application of the variable interest model to certain of
our related parties.
|
As a result of these material weaknesses, management has
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was
ineffective as of December 31, 2010.
271
Additional
information regarding these Material Weaknesses
follows:
(1) We did not have an adequate system of internal
controls over the preparation and review of the groups
U.S. GAAP consolidated financial statements, U.S. GAAP
transformation process, and group reporting packages received
from subsidiaries.
We failed to implement adequate system of internal controls over
period-end financial reporting, as a result, numerous audit
adjustments to the consolidated financial statements were
identified resulting from errors in the underlying data or
misapplication of accounting principles. The identified
deficiencies that individually or when aggregated resulted, or
could have resulted, in material errors to the financial
statements have been identified as separate material weaknesses
in this report. Any remaining adjustments or deficiencies were
not material individually or in the aggregate, nevertheless,
there is a reasonable possibility that due to these design and
operating control deficiencies over the period end financial
reporting and U.S. GAAP transformation processes, a material
misstatement in our consolidated financial statements related to
any of our significant accounts may not be prevented or detected
on a timely basis. This material weakness affects all
significant accounts related to our non-routine and estimation
processes.
(2) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the completeness of our commitments and contingencies
disclosures.
We did not design and operate effective controls over
completeness and correctness of the information management used
to prepare our commitments and contingencies disclosure at a
number of subsidiaries. As a result, material adjustments were
made to our financial statement disclosures related to
commitments and contingencies, including sales and purchase
commitments and guarantees. Specifically, personnel executing
the review of the data input by management of our subsidiaries
are not performing sufficient detailed review of underlying data
and not validating the source documentation. These deficiencies
and resulting errors are not detected by our U.S. GAAP
transformation review controls due to a material weakness in
this process described above. This material weakness affects our
commitments and contingencies disclosures.
(3) We did not operate effective controls over the
classification and reporting for transportation costs incurred
by our subsidiaries.
We did not operate effective controls over the classification
and reporting of transportation costs incurred by our
subsidiaries. As a result, material adjustments were made to our
financial statements related to the classification of
transportation expenses. Specifically, errors in transportation
expense input data were not detected by review of the
consolidation adjustments. Further lack of consistent
application of the groups policy for reporting
transportation expenses and ineffective performance of required
reviews, including those required in the consolidation process,
resulted in errors in cost of goods and selling and distribution
expenses, prior to the recording of audit adjustments. This
material weakness affects cost of sales, selling and
distribution expenses and related financial statement
disclosures.
(4) We did not design and operate effective controls
over aggregation and analysis of transactions with certain
related parties, including the analysis of revenue recognition
criteria and the application of the variable interest model to
certain of our related parties.
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
aggregation and analysis of transactions with related parties,
including the application of the variable interest model to
certain of our related parties. As a result, material
adjustments were made to the footnote disclosures related to
operations with related parties. Specifically, we failed to
develop and effectively operate controls designed to capture,
validate and analyze all related party arrangements and the
impact of those relationships upon our U.S. GAAP financial
reporting and disclosure. This material weakness affects related
parties footnote disclosure.
Ernst & Young LLC, an independent registered public
accounting firm, has audited our consolidated financial
statements and has also issued an attestation report on the
effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2010, which contains an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial
reporting.
272
|
|
(c)
|
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
The Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Mechel OAO
We have audited Mechel OAO, an open joint-stock company, and
subsidiaries (hereinafter referred to as the
Group) internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(the COSO criteria). The Groups management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial
reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the
accompanying Managements Annual Report on Internal Control
over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the companys internal control over financial
reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such
that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the companys annual or interim financial
statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
The following material weaknesses have been identified and
described in Item 15 (b) Managements Annual
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting:
|
|
|
|
|
The Groups management did not have an adequate system of
internal controls over the preparation and review of the
Groups U.S. GAAP consolidated financial statements,
U.S. GAAP transformation process, and Group reporting
packages received from subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
The Groups management did not design and operate effective
controls over the completeness of commitments and contingencies
disclosures;
|
|
|
|
The Groups management did not operate effective controls
over the classification and reporting for transportation costs
incurred by the Groups subsidiaries;
|
|
|
|
The Groups management did not design and operate effective
controls over aggregation and analysis of transactions with
certain related parties, including the analysis of revenue
recognition criteria and the application of the variable
interest model to certain of the Groups related parties.
|
273
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of the Group as of December 31,
2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income
and comprehensive income (loss), equity, and cash flows for each
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010.
These material weaknesses were considered in determining the
nature, timing and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of
the 2010 financial statements and this report does not affect
our report dated April 12, 2011 which contains a
qualification because the value of property, plant, and
equipment pertaining to non-controlling shareholders in the
accounting for acquisitions of various subsidiaries before
January 1, 2009 has been recorded at appraised values
rather than at historical cost as then required by accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States.
In our opinion, because of the effect of the material weaknesses
described above on the achievement of the objectives of the
control criteria, the Group has not maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on the COSO criteria.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLC
Moscow, Russia
April 12, 2011
|
|
(d)
|
Remediation
Activities and Changes in Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
|
(i)
Remediation Activities Being Undertaken
(1) We did not have an adequate system of internal
controls over the preparation and review of the groups
U.S. GAAP consolidated financial statements, U.S. GAAP
transformation process, and group reporting packages received
from subsidiaries.
During the year we implemented a new accounting and
consolidation system and that software is based on an SAP
platform. We have implemented certain controls relating to data
correctness validation. We have implemented a detailed review
checklist to be used by the owners of controls related to the
review of U.S. GAAP financial statement transformation. We
also conducted a training program for the International
Reporting Departments specialists involved in U.S. GAAP
transformation preparation.
We plan to continue formalization of the U.S. GAAP
transformation process in order to address the areas where
adjustments were proposed in the prior year and to develop
detailed checklists to facilitate the review controls over
various aspects of financial statement closing process. We are
also taking steps to formalize account reconciliations and
analyses for significant financial statement accounts in order
to enhance controls designed to prevent or timely detect
financial reporting errors. We also expect to implement a
process that ensures the timely review and approval of complex
accounting estimates by qualified accounting personnel and
subject matter experts, where appropriate. In addition, we plan
to increase the number of specialists who are involved in the
U.S. GAAP financial statement closing process.
(2) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the completeness of our commitments and contingencies
disclosures.
In order to remedy this material weakness, we intend to
re-design and implement additional controls to facilitate the
overall accuracy of the initial capture of data from contract
databases at our subsidiaries.. Further we plan to implement
additional review procedures designed to include timely review
and validation of data captured in our commitment and
contingency disclosure schedules at the subsidiaries by
comparing input, on a test basis, with the underlying source
documents. In addition we plan to continue to work to remediate
deficiencies in our U.S. GAAP transformation process and
enhance the effectiveness of review of subsidiary commitment and
contingency disclosure input at a consolidation level designed
specifically to identify errors in the data or lack of
consistency in the application of our policies. Finally we plan
to further review our process for capturing, evaluating and
disclosing routine sales and purchase commitments. We also
intend to redesign verification procedures of the amount of
commitments under our contracts with third parties.
274
(3) We did not operate effective controls over the
classification and reporting for transportation costs incurred
by our subsidiaries.
During 2010 we redesigned the data collection forms pertaining
to transportation expenses to allow us to gain complete
information thereon. We also redesigned and implemented controls
over completeness and correctness of the information in the data
collection forms. In addition, we developed and implemented
controls allowing us to detect complete chains of reissuance of
transportation costs by our subsidiaries.
In order to remedy this material weakness, we plan to implement
additional review focused on timely validation of the accuracy
of and consistent adherence to the groups existing
policies for capturing, summarizing and reporting by our
subsidiaries of information pertaining to transportation expense
reimbursement. We also intend to develop a review checklist to
ensure that existing required review and validation procedures
are performed consistently by those involved in the
consolidation adjustment process. We plan to implement
additional reviews to ensure consistency in adherence to
existing policies and our procedures for the elimination of
intercompany transactions in our automated consolidation
accounting and reporting system and to reallocate the
responsibilities in the financial statement intercompany
elimination process.
(4) We did not design and operate effective controls
over aggregation and analysis of transactions with certain
related parties, including the analysis of revenue recognition
criteria and the application of the variable interest model to
certain of our related parties.
In 2010 we developed detailed instructions on the methodology to
identify related parties, including variable interest entities
analysis. This instruction also provides guidance on gathering
information and the preparation of respective footnote
disclosure. Also a questionnaire for group senior management and
senior management of group subsidiaries, as well as the members
of the Board of Directors, was prepared and implemented in order
to assist in related parties determination.
We intend to design and establish procedure for gathering data,
which would allow us to conduct periodic comprehensive analysis
of and assessment of proper U.S. GAAP reporting and
disclosure for transactions with related parties. Such
procedures will also include review of contracts pertaining to
such transactions and analysis of revenue recognition criteria
thereof, as well as analysis necessary for the application of
the variable interest model to certain of our related parties.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Owing to the remediation activities we performed in 2010 we
undertook the following efforts to address this material
weakness, identified by us in 2009 that we have determined to be
a material change in our Internal Control over Financial
Reporting:
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
accounting and reporting for business combinations
In order to remediate this material weakness we have performed
the following actions:
(a) we prepared and implemented policies, procedures and
controls over the accounting and financial reporting for Mergers
and Acquisitions;
(b) we developed and implemented the use of a checklist for
newly acquired companies, designed to ensure that all necessary
information about the acquired entity important for proper
purchase accounting is collected and validated;
(c) we implemented the procedures for accounting for new
acquisitions that encompasses the use of the new checklist,
including additional internal controls;
(d) we communicated and introduced our new policy,
procedures and controls related to acquisitions in the training
seminar program held for the International Reporting Department
employees.
In addition, we performed additional analysis and other
post-closing procedures to ensure that the consolidated
financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, we believe that the
financial statements included in this report fairly present in
all material respects our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows for the periods presented.
Except for the remediation efforts undertaken as described in
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting section,
there have been no material changes in our internal control over
financial reporting
275
identified in the evaluation required by
Rule 13a-15
or
Rule 15d-15
of the Exchange Act that occurred during the period covered by
this annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 16A.
|
Audit
Committee Financial Expert
|
Our Board of Directors has determined that Roger Gale, chairman
of our audit committee, is an audit committee financial
expert. Mr. Gale is independent in accordance with
SEC
Rule 10A-3.
For a description of Mr. Gales experience, see
Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and
Employees Directors and Executive Officers.
We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that
applies to our directors, officers and employees. It is
available at www.mechel.com and www.mechel.ru.
Hard copies of our code of business conduct and ethics are
available free of charge to any person upon request. In order to
request a hard copy, please send an inquiry to ir@mechel.com.
indicating postal address to which the hard copies should be
sent and a contact person.
|
|
Item 16C.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
Ernst & Young LLC has served as our independent
registered public accountants for each of the fiscal years in
the three year period ended December 31, 2010, for which
audited financial statements appear in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F.
The following table presents the aggregate fees for professional
services and other services rendered by Ernst & Young
LLC in 2010 and 2009, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, net of VAT)
|
|
|
Audit Fees
|
|
|
11,364.0
|
|
|
|
10,817.7
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
|
|
65.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Fees
|
|
|
145.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Fees
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
11,583.0
|
|
|
|
10,820.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit
Fees
The amount of audit fees includes fees necessary to perform an
audit or interim review in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and
services that generally only the independent auditor can
reasonably provide, such as comfort letters, statutory audits,
attest services, consents and assistance with, and review of,
documents filed with the SEC.
Audit-related
Fees
This category usually includes assurance and related services
that are typically performed by the independent auditor. More
specifically, these services could include, among others,
employee benefit plan audits, IT-related audits, consultation
concerning financial accounting and reporting standards.
Tax
Fees
Tax services include, among others, tax consultation related to
proposed and consummated transactions, restructuring, personal
taxation and general tax consultation.
Other
Fees
Other fees include subscription and training fees.
276
Audit
Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 required that we implement a
pre-approval process for all engagements with our independent
public accountants. In compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley
requirements pertaining to auditor independence, our Audit
Committee pre-approves the engagement terms and fees of
Ernst & Young LLC for all audit and non-audit
services, including tax services. All audit and tax services
rendered by Ernst & Young LLC in 2010 were approved by
the Audit Committee before Ernst & Young LLC was
engaged for such services. No services of any kind were approved
pursuant to a waiver permitted pursuant to 17 CFR
210.2-01(c)(7)(i)(C).
|
|
Item 16D.
|
Exemptions
from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees
|
None.
|
|
Item 16E.
|
Purchases
of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated
Purchasers
|
We did not repurchase any of our shares, GDSs or ADSs in 2010.
|
|
Item 16F.
|
Change
in Registrants Certifying Accountant
|
Not applicable.
|
|
Item 16G.
|
Corporate
Governance
|
The New York Stock Exchange permits us to follow certain home
country corporate governance practices, which differ from those
required for U.S. companies under the New York Stock
Exchanges Listed Company Manual. The following table sets
forth the most important differences between the New York Stock
Exchange corporate governance requirements for
U.S. companies under NYSE Listed Company Manual
Section 303A and our current practices.
|
|
|
NYSE Corporate Governance Rules for U.S. Companies
|
|
Our Corporate Governance Practices
|
|
A majority of directors must be independent, as determined by
the board. (Section 303A.01 and 02).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Non-management directors must meet at regularly scheduled
executive sessions without management. (Section 303A.03).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Listed companies must have a nominating/corporate governance and
a compensation committee, each composed entirely of independent
directors and having a written charter specifying the
committees purpose and responsibilities, as well as annual
performance evaluation of the committee. (Section 303A.04
and 05).
|
|
We have a single Committee on Appointments and Remuneration
composed entirely of independent directors.
|
Listed companies must have an audit committee that satisfies the
requirements of
Rule 10A-3
under the Exchange Act. (Section 303A.06).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Audit committee must have a minimum of three members and have a
written charter specifying the committees purpose, an
annual performance evaluation and its duties and
responsibilities. (Section 303A.07(a) and(b)).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Listed companies must have an internal audit function.
(Section 303A.07(c)).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Shareholders must be given the opportunity to vote on all equity
compensation plans and material revisions thereto.
(Section 303A.08).
|
|
Our charter requires the shareholders meeting to approve
remuneration of board members.
|
277
|
|
|
NYSE Corporate Governance Rules for U.S. Companies
|
|
Our Corporate Governance Practices
|
|
Listed companies must adopt and disclose corporate governance
guidelines. (Section 303A.09).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
Listed companies must adopt and disclose a code of business
conduct and ethics for directors, officers and employees, and
promptly disclose any waivers of the code for directors or
executive officers. (Section 303A.10).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
The CEO must certify to the NYSE each year that he or she is not
aware of any violation by the company of NYSE corporate
governance listing standards, qualifying the certification to
the extent necessary. The CEO must promptly notify the NYSE in
writing after any executive officer of the listed company
becomes aware of any material non-compliance with any applicable
provisions of the NYSE Listing Standards. Listed companies must
submit an executed Written Affirmation annually to the NYSE. In
addition, listed companies must submit an interim Written
Affirmation each time a change occurs to the board or any of the
committees subject to the NYSE Listing Standards. The annual and
interim Written Affirmations must be in the form specified by
the NYSE. (Section 303A.12).
|
|
We comply with this requirement.
|
PART III
|
|
Item 17.
|
Financial
Statements
|
See instead Item 18. Financial Statements.
|
|
Item 18.
|
Financial
Statements
|
The following financial statements, together with the report of
Ernst & Young LLC, are filed as part of this annual
report on
Form 20-F.
278
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
1
|
.1
|
|
Charter of Mechel OAO (new version) registered on
November 18, 2010
|
|
1
|
.2
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on
January 12, 2011
|
|
8
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of Mechel
|
|
12
|
.1
|
|
Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
12
|
.2
|
|
Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
13
|
.1
|
|
Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
13
|
.2
|
|
Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of independent registered public accounting firm
|
|
23
|
.2
|
|
Consent of Marston & Marston, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.3
|
|
Consent of Weir International, Inc.
|
We hereby agree to furnish to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, upon its request, copies of any instruments defining
the rights of holders of long-term debt issued by us or any of
our consolidated subsidiaries.
279
SIGNATURES
The registrant hereby certifies that it meets all of the
requirements for filing on
Form 20-F
and that it has duly caused and authorized the undersigned to
sign this annual report on its behalf.
Mechel OAO
Name: Evgeny V. Mikhel
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
Date: April 12, 2011
280
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Shareholders and the Board of Directors
Mechel OAO
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Mechel OAO, an open joint stock company, and subsidiaries
(hereinafter referred to as the Group) as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income (loss), equity,
and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Groups management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
As more fully described in Note 2(h) to the consolidated
financial statements, the value of property, plant, and
equipment pertaining to non-controlling shareholders in the
accounting for acquisitions of various subsidiaries before
January 1, 2009 has been recorded at appraised values
rather than at historical cost as then required by accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States.
In our opinion, except for the effects of the matter discussed
in the preceding paragraph, the financial statements referred to
above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of the Group as of December 31, 2010 and
2009, and the consolidated results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States.
As discussed in Note 2(gg) to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2009, the Group adopted
both the Financial Accounting Standards Boards Statement
No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements (primarily codified in
ASC 810-10,
Consolidation Overall) relating to the presentation
and accounting for noncontrolling interests and the Financial
Accounting Standards Boards Statement No. 141(R),
Business Combinations (primarily codified in
ASC 805-10,
Business Combinations Overall) relating to the
presentation and accounting for business combinations.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
Groups internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in
Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our
report dated April 12, 2011 expressed an adverse opinion
thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLC
Moscow, Russia
April 12, 2011
F-2
MECHEL
OAO
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
except share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
340,800
|
|
|
$
|
414,696
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of
$52,785 in 2010 and $66,764 in 2009
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
529,107
|
|
|
|
348,323
|
|
Due from related parties
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
682,342
|
|
|
|
105,076
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
1,866,626
|
|
|
|
1,035,786
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
34,480
|
|
|
|
21,812
|
|
Short-term investments in related parties
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,855
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
737,651
|
|
|
|
551,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,191,006
|
|
|
|
2,483,283
|
|
Long-term investments in related parties
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
86,144
|
|
Other long-term investments
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
14,624
|
|
|
|
23,563
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
5,413,086
|
|
|
|
4,471,375
|
|
Mineral licenses, net
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
4,971,728
|
|
|
|
5,133,105
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
178,471
|
|
|
|
67,294
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
9,564
|
|
|
|
24,173
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
3
|
(i)
|
|
|
988,785
|
|
|
|
894,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
15,776,028
|
|
|
$
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
2,077,809
|
|
|
$
|
1,923,049
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade payable to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
647,033
|
|
|
|
473,903
|
|
Advances received
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
243,069
|
|
|
|
156,126
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
264,746
|
|
|
|
170,056
|
|
Taxes and social charges payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
244,782
|
|
|
|
169,695
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
4,266
|
|
|
|
17,172
|
|
Due to related parties
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
96,694
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
Asset retirement obligation, current portion
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
7,004
|
|
|
|
5,772
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
28,276
|
|
|
|
18,550
|
|
Pension obligations, current portion
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
34,596
|
|
|
|
31,717
|
|
Dividends payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,639
|
|
|
|
4,919
|
|
Finance lease liabilities, current portion
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
49,665
|
|
|
|
35,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,699,579
|
|
|
|
3,020,424
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
5,240,620
|
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
Asset retirement obligations, net of current portion
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
49,216
|
|
|
|
53,923
|
|
Pension obligations, net of current portion
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
153,472
|
|
|
|
152,272
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
1,516,422
|
|
|
|
1,453,480
|
|
Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
130,367
|
|
|
|
58,694
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,341
|
|
|
|
39,371
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares (10 Russian rubles par value;
497,969,086 shares authorized, 416,270,745 shares
issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
133,507
|
|
Preferred shares (10 Russian rubles par value;
138,756,915 shares authorized, 83,254,149 shares
issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
25,314
|
|
|
|
25,314
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
862,126
|
|
|
|
874,327
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(200,983
|
)
|
|
|
(172,400
|
)
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,822,861
|
|
|
|
3,188,973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,642,825
|
|
|
|
4,049,721
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interests
|
|
|
3
|
(j)
|
|
|
308,186
|
|
|
|
280,968
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,951,011
|
|
|
|
4,330,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
15,776,028
|
|
|
$
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-3
MECHEL
OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenue, net (including related party amounts of $686,172,
$107,104 and $68,328 during 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
$
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
$
|
9,950,705
|
|
Cost of goods sold (including related party amounts of
$1,225,802, $123,443 and $12,213 during 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,149,310
|
)
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,596,726
|
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,435,283
|
)
|
|
|
(1,062,810
|
)
|
|
|
(1,348,989
|
)
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
(110,759
|
)
|
|
|
(105,203
|
)
|
|
|
(116,590
|
)
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
(6,545
|
)
|
|
|
(7,398
|
)
|
|
|
(6,078
|
)
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(10,776
|
)
|
|
|
(20,940
|
)
|
|
|
(4,323
|
)
|
Recovery of allowance (allowance) for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
11,933
|
|
|
|
38,019
|
|
|
|
(103,632
|
)
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
(513,089
|
)
|
|
|
(389,477
|
)
|
|
|
(554,716
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,064,519
|
)
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,532,207
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
Other income and (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from equity investments
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,167
|
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(558,397
|
)
|
|
|
(498,986
|
)
|
|
|
(324,083
|
)
|
Foreign exchange loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,544
|
)
|
|
|
(174,336
|
)
|
|
|
(877,428
|
)
|
Other (expenses) income, net
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
(8,987
|
)
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income and (expense), net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(563,577
|
)
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
968,630
|
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
(276,656
|
)
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
Less: Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
3
|
(j)
|
|
|
(34,761
|
)
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(8,780
|
)
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
648,433
|
|
|
$
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
691,974
|
|
|
$
|
76,331
|
|
|
$
|
1,229,381
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,218
|
)
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,466
|
)
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,838
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661,128
|
|
|
|
(264,355
|
)
|
|
|
1,020,836
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (income) loss attributable to non-controlling
interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,498
|
)
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
(26,822
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
628,630
|
|
|
$
|
(257,596
|
)
|
|
$
|
994,014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.56
|
|
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.56
|
|
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-4
MECHEL
OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
657,213
|
|
|
$
|
73,741
|
|
|
$
|
1,140,544
|
|
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,761
|
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
329,959
|
|
|
|
321,117
|
|
|
|
360,587
|
|
Depletion and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144,621
|
|
|
|
85,558
|
|
|
|
102,710
|
|
Foreign exchange loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,544
|
|
|
|
174,336
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
75,395
|
|
|
|
(31,665
|
)
|
|
|
(403,816
|
)
|
(Recovery of allowance) allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
5, 7
|
|
|
|
(10,567
|
)
|
|
|
(38,019
|
)
|
|
|
103,632
|
|
Change in inventory reserves
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(20,225
|
)
|
|
|
(186,263
|
)
|
|
|
278,176
|
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
6,545
|
|
|
|
7,398
|
|
|
|
6,078
|
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10,776
|
|
|
|
20,940
|
|
|
|
4,323
|
|
Change in undistributed earnings of equity investments
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
(1,184
|
)
|
|
|
(1,200
|
)
|
|
|
(717
|
)
|
Non-cash interest on long-term tax and pension liabilities
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
14,409
|
|
|
|
15,954
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
Loss on sale of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,016
|
|
|
|
2,789
|
|
|
|
15,641
|
|
Loss (gain) on sale of investments
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
2,589
|
|
|
|
(155
|
)
|
|
|
(4,568
|
)
|
Gain on discharged asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,967
|
)
|
|
|
(9,595
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on accounts payable with expired legal term
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
(5,523
|
)
|
|
|
(2,571
|
)
|
|
|
(2,370
|
)
|
Gain on forgiveness of fines and penalties
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,241
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of loan origination fee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,970
|
|
|
|
42,561
|
|
|
|
28,102
|
|
Loss (gain) resulting from remeasurement of contingent obligation
|
|
|
3
|
(e)
|
|
|
1,630
|
|
|
|
(494,238
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefit plan curtailment gain
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
(13,910
|
)
|
|
|
(37,717
|
)
|
|
|
(23,421
|
)
|
Gain from bargain purchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,515
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remeasurement of equity interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,044
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension service cost, amortization of prior service cost and
actuarial (gain) loss, other expenses
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
6,946
|
|
|
|
7,032
|
|
|
|
9,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change before changes in working capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,274,527
|
|
|
|
(48,648
|
)
|
|
|
2,599,337
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in working capital items, net of effects from
acquisition of new subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(148,199
|
)
|
|
|
97,272
|
|
|
|
(140,545
|
)
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(761,717
|
)
|
|
|
481,307
|
|
|
|
(658,930
|
)
|
Trade payable to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,869
|
|
|
|
(100,069
|
)
|
|
|
594,639
|
|
Advances received
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,047
|
|
|
|
30,516
|
|
|
|
(6,230
|
)
|
Accrued taxes and other liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,757
|
|
|
|
38,450
|
|
|
|
(8,353
|
)
|
Settlements with related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(506,676
|
)
|
|
|
(77,380
|
)
|
|
|
(9,308
|
)
|
Deferred revenue and cost of inventory in transit, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
437
|
|
|
|
10,548
|
|
|
|
(16,591
|
)
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(260,529
|
)
|
|
|
131,273
|
|
|
|
(79,196
|
)
|
Advanced payments to non-state pension funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,922
|
)
|
|
|
7,545
|
|
|
|
4,254
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,965
|
)
|
|
|
(9,145
|
)
|
|
|
(49,136
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147,371
|
)
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
F-5
MECHEL
OAO
Consolidated Statements of Cash
Flows (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Oriel, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,439,600
|
)
|
Acquisition of Ductil Steel S.A., less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(197,621
|
)
|
Acquisition of HBL, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,387
|
)
|
|
|
(14,593
|
)
|
Advances paid for the BCG Companies
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(438,623
|
)
|
Acquisition of the BCG Companies, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,908
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of TPP Rousse, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(a)
|
|
|
(70,197
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of SC Donau Commodities SRL, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(c)
|
|
|
(11,040
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Ramateks, less cash acquired
|
|
|
3
|
(b)
|
|
|
(2,640
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of other subsidiaries, less cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,621
|
)
|
|
|
(8,022
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in asset trust management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(45,592
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from asset trust management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,126
|
|
|
|
38,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of investments in affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,834
|
|
|
|
2,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,346
|
|
|
|
6,913
|
|
|
|
7,457
|
|
Short-term loans issued and other investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(275,811
|
)
|
|
|
(137,276
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from short-term loans issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
207,132
|
|
|
|
46,803
|
|
|
|
930
|
|
Proceeds from disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
9,768
|
|
|
|
2,403
|
|
|
|
3,644
|
|
Purchases of mineral licenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,299
|
)
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(990,100
|
)
|
|
|
(610,445
|
)
|
|
|
(1,166,987
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,119,203
|
)
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from short-term borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,529,461
|
|
|
|
1,412,000
|
|
|
|
5,593,547
|
|
Repayment of short-term borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,682,814
|
)
|
|
|
(3,704,128
|
)
|
|
|
(3,856,110
|
)
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(23,325
|
)
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
|
|
(467,916
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,651,911
|
|
|
|
3,022,998
|
|
|
|
99,377
|
|
Repayment of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,191,909
|
)
|
|
|
(99,225
|
)
|
|
|
(21,388
|
)
|
Acquisition of non-controlling interest in subsidiaries
|
|
|
3
|
(j)
|
|
|
(17,481
|
)
|
|
|
(14,631
|
)
|
|
|
(51,346
|
)
|
Repayment of obligations under finance lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,718
|
)
|
|
|
(33,514
|
)
|
|
|
(48,541
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,210,125
|
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,447
|
)
|
|
|
(67,315
|
)
|
|
|
(209,767
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(73,896
|
)
|
|
|
159,857
|
|
|
|
18,060
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
414,696
|
|
|
|
254,839
|
|
|
|
236,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
340,800
|
|
|
$
|
414,696
|
|
|
$
|
254,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplementary Cash Flow Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of amount capitalized
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(565,235
|
)
|
|
$
|
(383,385
|
)
|
|
$
|
(266,010
|
)
|
Income taxes (paid) received, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(209,991
|
)
|
|
$
|
27,233
|
|
|
$
|
(750,863
|
)
|
Non-cash Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of equipment under finance lease
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
141,541
|
|
|
$
|
19,741
|
|
|
$
|
10,637
|
|
Issuance of preferred shares for the acquisition of the BCG
Companies
|
|
|
3
|
(e)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
496,159
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Contingent consideration recognized upon the acquisition of the
BCG Companies
|
|
|
3
|
(e)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
514,607
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-6
MECHEL
OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attributable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Share-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
holders of
|
|
|
Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
|
Paid-In
|
|
|
(Loss)
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Mechel
|
|
|
Controlling
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
OAO
|
|
|
Interests
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of US dollars, except share numbers)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
415,070
|
|
|
$
|
305,467
|
|
|
$
|
2,650,889
|
|
|
$
|
3,504,933
|
|
|
$
|
300,523
|
|
|
$
|
3,805,456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(468,135
|
)
|
|
|
(468,135
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(468,135
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(227,618
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(227,618
|
)
|
|
|
(62,015
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
415,070
|
|
|
$
|
158,937
|
|
|
$
|
3,323,298
|
|
|
$
|
4,030,812
|
|
|
$
|
290,849
|
|
|
$
|
4,321,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316,004
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316,004
|
)
|
|
|
(9,349
|
)
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,588
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,588
|
)
|
|
|
(3,122
|
)
|
|
|
(14,710
|
)
|
Issuance of preferred shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,254,149
|
|
|
|
25,314
|
|
|
|
470,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
496,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
496,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
83,254,149
|
|
|
$
|
25,314
|
|
|
$
|
874,327
|
|
|
$
|
(172,400
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,188,973
|
|
|
$
|
4,049,721
|
|
|
$
|
280,968
|
|
|
$
|
4,330,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
657,213
|
|
|
|
34,761
|
|
|
|
691,974
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,325
|
)
|
|
|
(23,325
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,325
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,955
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23,955
|
)
|
|
|
(2,263
|
)
|
|
|
(26,218
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,838
|
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,466
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,466
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,466
|
)
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,201
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,201
|
)
|
|
|
(5,280
|
)
|
|
|
(17,481
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
83,254,149
|
|
|
$
|
25,314
|
|
|
$
|
862,126
|
|
|
$
|
(200,983
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,822,861
|
|
|
$
|
4,642,825
|
|
|
$
|
308,186
|
|
|
$
|
4,951,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-7
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and for each of the
three years in the period ended
December 31, 2010
(All amounts are in thousands of U.S. dollars, unless stated
otherwise)
Mechel OAO (Mechel, formerly Mechel
Steel Group OAO) was incorporated on March 19, 2003, under
the laws of the Russian Federation in connection with a
reorganization to serve as a holding company for various steel
and mining companies owned by two individual shareholders (the
Controlling Shareholders). The Controlling
Shareholders, directly or through their affiliates, either
acquired existing companies or established new companies, at
varying dates from 1995 through March 19, 2003, which were
contributed to Mechel after its formation. Mechel and its
subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as the
Group. Set forth below is a summary of the
Groups primary subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest in Voting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date Control
|
|
Stock Held by
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core
|
|
Acquired/ Date of
|
|
the Group at December 31,
|
|
Name of Subsidiary
|
|
Registered in
|
|
Business
|
|
Incorporation (*)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Mechel International Holdings GmBH (MIH)
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
Holding and trading
|
|
July 1, 1995
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel Metal Supply AG (MMS)
|
|
Liechtenstein
|
|
Trading
|
|
Oct 30, 2000
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading House (MTH)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Trading
|
|
June 23, 1997
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
Jan 21, 1999
|
|
|
96.6
|
%
|
|
|
95.9
|
%
|
|
|
95.4
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine (TOPM)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
Jan 21, 1999
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Dec 27, 2001
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant (SUNP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
Dec 27, 2001
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant (VMPP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
May 24, 2002
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant (BMP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
June 14, 2002
|
|
|
91.4
|
%
|
|
|
91.4
|
%
|
|
|
91.4
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Aug 28, 2002
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
Ural Stampings Plant (USP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
April 24, 2003
|
|
|
93.8
|
%
|
|
|
93.8
|
%
|
|
|
93.8
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant (KMP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore mining
|
|
Oct 16, 2003
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
June 20, 2003
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas (MN)
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Oct 15, 2003
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel Energo
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power trading
|
|
Feb 3, 2004
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Transportation
|
|
Feb 11, 2004
|
|
|
97.1
|
%
|
|
|
97.1
|
%
|
|
|
97.1
|
%
|
Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
April 14, 2004
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
May 14, 2004
|
|
|
88.4
|
%
|
|
|
88.4
|
%
|
|
|
88.4
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Transportation
|
|
April 27, 2005
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
Mechel Service**
|
|
Russia
|
|
Trading
|
|
May 5, 2005
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading Ltd.
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
Trading
|
|
Dec 20, 2005
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scrap collecting
|
|
March 14, 2006
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant (Moskoks)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke production
|
|
Oct 4, 2006
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
F-8
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest in Voting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date Control
|
|
Stock Held by
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core
|
|
Acquired/ Date of
|
|
the Group at December 31,
|
|
Name of Subsidiary
|
|
Registered in
|
|
Business
|
|
Incorporation (*)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant (SKPP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power generation
|
|
April 19, 2007
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
Mechel Finance
|
|
Russia
|
|
Corporate finance
|
|
June 6, 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company (KPSC)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power sales
|
|
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
72.1
|
%
|
|
|
72.1
|
%
|
|
|
72.1
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant (BFP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloy production
|
|
Aug 6, 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Yakutugol
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
Oct 19, 2007
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel-Carbon
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
Trading
|
|
April 2, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
99.2
|
%
|
|
|
90.0
|
%
|
Ductil Steel S.A. (Ductil Steel)
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
April 8, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Oriel Resources Plc. (Oriel)
|
|
Great Britain
|
|
Chrome and nickel
|
|
Apr 17, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Mechel-Mining OAO
|
|
Russia
|
|
Holding
|
|
April 18, 2008
|
|
|
98.69
|
%
|
|
|
98.44
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
HBL Holding GmbH (HBL)
|
|
Germany
|
|
Trading
|
|
Sept 26, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
The BCG Companies
|
|
USA
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
May 7, 2009
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Laminorul S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Feb 25, 2010
|
|
|
90.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramateks
|
|
Turkey
|
|
Trading
|
|
June 18, 2010
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toplofikatsia Rousse (TPP Rousse)
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
Power generation
|
|
Dec 9, 2010
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
49.0
|
%
|
|
|
49.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Date, when a control interest was acquired or a new company
established by either the Group or Controlling Shareholders. |
|
** |
|
On March 10, 2009, a new subsidiary of Mechel OAO, Mechel
Service Global B.V., was incorporated. |
|
|
(b)
|
Controlling
Shareholders and reorganization
|
From 1995 until December 2006, the Controlling Shareholders
acted in concert pursuant to a written Ownership, Control and
Voting Agreement, which requires them to vote all shares of
Mechels subsidiaries owned by them in the same manner. The
establishment of the Group in March 2003 involved the
contribution of certain of the above subsidiaries, acquired
before March 19, 2003, by the Controlling Shareholders to
Mechel in exchange for all the outstanding capital stock of
Mechel, forming a new holding company via an exchange of shares.
As a result of this restructuring, the Controlling Shareholders
maintained their original equal ownership in the subsidiaries
through Mechel and Mechel became a direct holder of the stock of
the subsidiaries.
Shareholders in each of Mechels subsidiaries before the
restructuring who were not Controlling Shareholders did not
contribute any shares in these subsidiaries to Mechel in
exchange for its shares and were considered as outside the
control group, and these shareholders retained a non-controlling
interest in the subsidiaries. Thus, to the extent
non-controlling interests existed in the entities under common
control prior to March 19, 2003, such non-controlling
interests did not change as a result of the formation of Mechel
and the reorganization of the Group.
During 2006, one of the Controlling Shareholders sold all his
Mechels stock to the other Controlling Shareholder, and
the Ownership, Control and Voting Agreement was terminated on
December 21, 2006.
F-9
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(c)
|
Basis
of presentation
|
The formation of Mechel and contribution of the
subsidiaries shares into Mechels capital represents
a reorganization of entities under common control, and
accordingly, has been accounted for in a manner akin to a
pooling for the periods presented.
The Group operates in four business segments: steel (comprising
steel and steel products), mining (comprising coal, iron ore and
coke), ferroalloy (comprising nickel, chrome and ferrosilicon)
and power (comprising electricity and heat power), and conducts
operations in Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, the USA and Europe.
The Group sells its products within Russia and foreign markets.
Through acquisitions, the Group has added various businesses to
explore new opportunities and build an integrated steel, mining,
ferroalloy and power group. The Group operates in a highly
competitive and cyclical industry; any local or global downturn
in the industries may have an adverse effect on the Groups
results of operations and financial condition. The Group will
require a significant amount of cash to fund capital improvement
programs and business acquisitions. While the Group will utilize
funds from operations, it expects to continue to rely on capital
markets and other financing sources for its capital needs.
|
|
2.
|
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
|
Russian affiliates and subsidiaries of the Group maintain their
books and records in Russian rubles and prepare accounting
reports in accordance with the accounting principles and
practices mandated by Russian Accounting Regulations
(RAR). Foreign subsidiaries and affiliates maintain
their books and records in different foreign functional
currencies and prepare accounting reports in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in
various jurisdictions. The financial statements and accounting
reports for the Group and its subsidiaries and affiliates for
the purposes of preparation of these consolidated financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles in the United States of America
(U.S. GAAP) have been translated and adjusted
on the basis of the respective standalone Russian statutory or
other GAAP financial statements.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements differ from
the financial statements issued for Russian statutory and other
GAAP purposes in that they reflect certain adjustments, not
recorded in the statutory books, which are appropriate to
present the financial position, results of operations and cash
flows in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The principal
adjustments relate to: (1) purchase accounting;
(2) recognition of interest expense and certain operating
expenses; (3) valuation and depreciation of property, plant
and equipment and mineral licenses; (4) pension benefit
obligations; (5) foreign currency translation;
(6) deferred income taxes; (7) accounting for tax
penalties; (8) revenue recognition; (9) valuation
allowances for unrecoverable assets, and (10) recording
investments at fair value.
In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued the Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
2009-01
(ASU
2009-01).
ASU 2009-01,
also issued as FASB statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) 168, The FASB Accounting
Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, is effective for financial
statements issued after September 15, 2009. ASU
2009-01
requires that the FASBs Accounting Standards Codification
(ASC) become the single source of authoritative
U.S. GAAP principles recognized by the FASB. The Group
adopted ASU
2009-01 and
changed references to U.S. GAAP in its consolidated
financial statements issued for the year ended December 31,
2009. The adoption of ASU
2009-01 did
not have an impact on the Groups consolidated financial
position or results of operations.
F-10
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(b)
|
Basis
of consolidation
|
The consolidated financial statements of the Group include the
accounts of all majority owned subsidiaries where no
non-controlling interests or group of non-controlling interests
exercises substantive participating rights. Investments in
companies that the Group does not control, but has the ability
to exercise significant influence over their operating and
financial policies, are accounted for under the equity method.
Accordingly, the Groups share of net earnings and losses
from these companies is included in the consolidated income
statements as income from equity investments. All other
investments in equity securities are recorded at cost and
adjusted for impairment, if any. Intercompany profits,
transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.
Effective January 1, 2010, the Group adopted required
changes to consolidation guidance for variable interest entities
that require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine
whether the enterprises variable interest or interests
give it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest
entity. These changes to the consolidation guidance defined the
primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity as the
enterprise that has (1) the power to direct the activities
of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the
entitys economic performance and (2) the obligation
to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be
significant to the variable interest entity, or the right to
receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be
significant to the variable interest entity. In addition, the
required changes provide guidance on shared power and joint
venture relationships, remove the scope exemption for qualified
special purpose entities, revise the definition of a variable
interest entity, and require additional disclosures.
The adoption of the above mentioned changes to consolidation
guidance did not have impact on the consolidated financial
statements of the Group. The Group does not have significant
consolidated variable interest entities.
|
|
(c)
|
Business
combinations
|
From January 1, 2009, the Group accounts for its business
acquisitions according to FASB ASC 805, Business
Combinations (ASC 805), and FASB ASC 810,
Consolidation (ASC 810). The Group
applies the acquisition method of accounting and recognizes the
assets acquired, liabilities assumed and any non-controlling
interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date, based on their
respective estimated fair values measured as of that date.
Determining the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities
assumed requires managements judgment and often involves
the use of significant estimates and assumptions, including
assumptions with respect to future cash inflows and outflows,
discount rates, license and other asset lives and market
multiples, among other items.
Goodwill represents the excess of the consideration transferred
plus the fair value of any non-controlling interests in the
acquiree at the acquisition date over the fair values of the
identifiable net assets acquired. For the acquisitions with the
effective date before January 1, 2009, the excess of the
fair value of net assets acquired over cost, known as negative
goodwill, was allocated to the acquired non-current assets,
except for the deferred taxes, if any, until they were reduced
to zero. Since January 1, 2009, the excess of the fair
value of net assets acquired over the fair value of the
consideration transferred plus the fair value of any
non-controlling interests is recognized as a gain in the
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive (loss)
income on the acquisition date.
For investees accounted for under the equity method, the excess
of cost to acquire a share in those companies over the
Groups share of fair value of their net assets as of the
acquisition date is treated as goodwill embedded in the
investment account. Goodwill arising from equity method
investments is not amortized, but tested for impairment on
annual basis.
F-11
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(e)
|
Non-controlling
interest
|
Non-controlling interests in the net assets and net results of
consolidated subsidiaries are shown under the
Non-controlling interests and Net income
attributable to non-controlling interests lines in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and statements of
income and comprehensive income (loss), respectively. Losses
attributable to the Group and the non-controlling interests in a
subsidiary may exceed their interests in the subsidiarys
equity. The excess, and any further losses attributable the
Group and the non-controlling interests, are to be attributed to
those interests. That is, the non-controlling interests continue
to be attributed to its share of losses even if that attribution
results in a deficit non-controlling interest balance.
Prior to the Group s adoption of ASC 810 on
January 1, 2009, the Group recognized 100% of losses for
majority-owned subsidiaries that incur losses, after first
reducing the related non-controlling interests balances to
zero, unless minority shareholders were committed to fund the
losses. Further, when a majority-owned subsidiary becomes
profitable, the Group recognizes 100% of profits until such time
as the excess losses previously recorded have been recovered.
Thereafter, the Group recognizes profits in accordance with the
underlying ownership percentage.
|
|
(f)
|
Reporting
and functional currencies
|
The Group has determined its reporting currency to be the
U.S. dollar. The functional currencies for Russian,
Romanian, Kazakh, German, Bulgarian and Turkish subsidiaries of
the Group are the Russian ruble, the Romanian lei, the Kazakh
tenge, euro, the Bulgarian lev and the Turkish lira,
respectively. The U.S. dollar is the functional currency of
the other international operations of the Group.
The translation adjustments resulting from the process of
translating financial statements from the functional currency
into the reporting currency are included in determining other
comprehensive income. Mechels Russian, Romanian, Kazakh,
German, Bulgarian and Turkish subsidiaries translate local
currencies into U.S. dollars using the current rate method
as prescribed by FASB ASC 830, Foreign Currency
Matters (ASC 830), for all periods presented.
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported carrying amounts of assets and liabilities,
and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the
date of the financial statements, and the amounts of revenues
and expenses recognized during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
|
|
(h)
|
Property,
plant and equipment
|
Property, plant and equipment is recorded at cost less
accumulated depletion and depreciation. Property, plant and
equipment acquired in business combinations are initially
recorded at their respective fair values as determined by
independent appraisers in accordance with the requirements of
ASC 805. In the reporting periods ending before
January 1, 2009, for the purpose of determining the
carrying amounts of the property, plant and equipment pertaining
to interests of non-controlling shareholders in business
combinations when less than a 100% interest is acquired, the
Group used appraised fair values as of the acquisition dates in
the absence of reliable and accurate historical cost bases for
property, plant and equipment, which represented a departure
from the U.S. GAAP effective before January 1, 2009.
The portion of non-controlling interest not related to property,
plant and equipment was determined based on the historical cost
of those assets and liabilities.
F-12
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(i)
|
Mining
assets and processing plant and equipment
|
Mineral exploration costs incurred prior to establishing proven
and probable reserves for a given property are expensed as
incurred. Proven and probable reserves are established based on
independent feasibility studies and appraisals performed by
mining engineers. No exploration costs were capitalized prior to
the point when proven and probable reserves are established.
Reserves are defined as that part of a mineral deposit, which
could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the
time of the reserve determination. Proven reserves are defined
as reserves, for which (a) quantity is computed from
dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill
holes; grade
and/or
quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and
(b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are
spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined
that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are
well-established. Probable reserves are defined as reserves, for
which quantity and grade
and/or
quality are computed from information similar to that used for
proven reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and
measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately
spaced. Accordingly, the degree of assurance, although lower
than that for proven reserves, is high enough to assume
continuity between points of observation.
Development costs are capitalized beginning after proven and
probable reserves are established. Costs of developing new
underground mines are capitalized. Underground development
costs, which are costs incurred to make the mineral physically
accessible, include costs to prepare property for shafts,
driving main entries for ventilation, haulage, personnel,
construction of airshafts, roof protection and other facilities.
At the Groups surface mines, these costs include costs to
further delineate the mineral deposits and initially expose the
mineral deposits and construction costs for entry roads, and
drilling. Additionally, interest expense allocable to the cost
of developing mining properties and to constructing new
facilities is capitalized until assets are ready for their
intended use.
Expenditures for improvements are capitalized, while costs
related to maintenance (turnarounds) are expensed as incurred.
In addition, cost incurred to maintain current production
capacity at a mine and exploration expenditures are charged to
expenses as incurred. Stripping costs incurred during the
production phase of a mine are expensed as incurred.
Mining assets and processing plant and equipment are those
assets, including construction in progress, which are intended
to be used only for the needs of a certain mine or field, and
upon full extraction after exhausting of the reserves of such
mine or the field, these assets cannot be further used for any
other purpose without a capital reconstruction. When mining
assets and processing plant and equipment are placed in
production, the applicable capitalized costs, including mine
development costs, are depleted using the
unit-of-production
method at the ratio of tonnes of mineral mined or processed to
the estimated proven and probable mineral reserves that are
expected to be mined during the license term for mining assets
related to the mineral licenses acquired prior to
August 22, 2004 (refer to Note 2(k)), or the estimated
lives of the mines for mining assets related to the mineral
licenses acquired after that date.
A decision to abandon, reduce or expand activity on a specific
mine is based upon many factors, including general and specific
assessments of mineral reserves, anticipated future mineral
prices, anticipated costs of developing and operating a
producing mine, the expiration date of mineral licenses, and the
likelihood that the Group will continue exploration on the mine.
Based on the results at the conclusion of each phase of an
exploration program, properties that are not economically
feasible for production are re-evaluated to determine if future
exploration is warranted and that carrying values are
appropriate. The ultimate recovery of these costs depends on the
discovery and development of economic ore reserves or the sale
of the companies owning such mineral rights.
F-13
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(j)
|
Other
property, plant and equipment
|
Capitalized production costs for internally developed assets
include material, direct labor costs, and allocable material and
manufacturing overhead costs. When construction activities are
performed over an extended period, interest costs incurred
during construction are capitalized.
Construction-in-progress
and equipment held for installation are not depreciated until
the constructed or installed asset is substantially ready for
its intended use.
The costs of planned major maintenance activities are recorded
as the costs are actually incurred and are not accrued in
advance of the planned maintenance. Costs for activities that
lead to the prolongation of useful life or to expanded future
use capabilities of an asset are capitalized. Maintenance and
repair costs are expensed as incurred.
Property, plant and equipment are depreciated using the
straight-line method. Upon sale or retirement, the acquisition
or production cost and related accumulated depreciation are
removed from the balance sheet and any gain or loss is included
in the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income (loss).
The following useful lives are used as a basis for calculating
depreciation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useful Economic
|
|
|
Lives Estimates,
|
Category of Asset
|
|
Years
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
20-45
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
20-50
|
|
Operating machinery and equipment, including transfer devices
|
|
|
7-30
|
|
Transportation equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
4-15
|
|
Tools, furniture, fixtures and other
|
|
|
4-8
|
|
The mineral licenses are recorded at their fair values at the
date of acquisition, based on the appraised fair value. Fair
value of the mineral licenses acquired prior to August 22,
2004 (the date of change in the Russian Subsoil Law that makes
license extensions through the end of the estimated proven and
probable reserve period reasonably assured), is based on
independent mining engineer appraisals for proven and probable
reserves during the license term. Such mineral licenses are
amortized using the
units-of-production
method over the shorter of the license term or the estimated
proven and probable reserve depletion period.
Fair value of the mineral licenses acquired after
August 22, 2004 is based on independent mining engineer
appraisals of the estimated proven and probable reserve through
the estimated end of the depletion period. Such mineral licenses
are amortized using the
units-of-production
method through the end of the estimated proven and probable
reserve depletion period.
In order to calculate proven and probable reserves, estimates
and assumptions are used about a range of geological, technical
and economic factors, including but not limited to quantities,
grades, production techniques, recovery rates, production costs,
transport costs, commodity demand, commodity prices and exchange
rates. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating
proven and probable reserves, and assumptions that are valid at
the time of estimation may change significantly when new
information becomes available. Changes in the forecast prices of
commodities, exchange rates, production costs or recovery rates
may change the economic status of reserves and may, ultimately,
result in the reserves being restated.
In 2008, the Group established a policy, according to which the
Group would engage independent mining engineers to review its
proven and probable reserves at least every three years unless
circumstances or additional factors warrant an additional
analysis. This policy does not change the Groups approach
to the measurement of proven and probable reserves as of their
acquisition dates as part of business combinations
F-14
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
that continue to involve independent mining engineers. The Group
engaged independent mining engineers to estimate the
Groups proven and probable reserves as of
December 31, 2010, but not as of December 31, 2009,
except for those related to newly acquired subsidiaries. The
Groups proven and probable reserve estimates as of that
date were made by internal mining engineers and the majority of
the assumptions underlying these estimates had been previously
reviewed and verified by independent mining engineers.
Intangible assets with determinable useful lives are amortized
using the straight-line method over their estimated period of
benefit, ranging from two to sixteen years. Indefinite-lived
intangibles are evaluated annually for impairment or when
indicators exist indicating such assets may be impaired, such
evaluation assumes determination of fair value of intangible
assets based on a valuation model that incorporates expected
future cash flows and profitability projections.
|
|
(m)
|
Asset
retirement obligations
|
The Group has numerous asset retirement obligations associated
with its core business activities. The Group is required to
perform these obligations under law or contract once an asset is
permanently taken out of service. Most of these obligations are
not expected to be paid until many years into the future and
will be funded from general resources at the time of removal.
The Groups asset retirement obligations primarily relate
to mining and steel production facilities with related
landfills, dump areas and mines. The Groups estimates of
these obligations are based on current regulatory or license
requirements, as well as forecasted dismantling and other
related costs. Asset retirement obligations are calculated in
accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC 410, Asset
Retirement and Environmental Obligations (ASC
410).
In order to calculate the amount of asset retirement
obligations, the expected cash flows are discounted using the
estimate of credit-adjusted risk-free rate as required by
ASC 410. The credit-adjusted risk-free rate is calculated
as a weighted average of risk-free interest rates for Russian
Federation bonds or the U.S. treasury bonds depending on
the location of the assets with maturity dates that are similar
with the expected timing of when the asset retirement activities
will be performed, adjusted for the effect of the Groups
credit standing.
|
|
(n)
|
Long-lived
assets impairment, including definite-lived intangibles and
goodwill
|
The Group follows the requirements of FASB ASC 360,
Property, Plant and Equipment (ASC 360),
which addresses financial accounting and reporting for the
impairment and disposal of long-lived assets, and FASB
ASC 350, Intangibles Goodwill and
Other (ASC 350), with respect to impairment of
goodwill and intangibles. The Group reviews the carrying value
of its long-lived assets, including property, plant and
equipment, investments, goodwill, licenses to use mineral
reserves (inclusive of capitalized costs related to asset
retirement obligations), and intangible assets for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of such assets may not be fully recoverable as
prescribed by ASC 350 and ASC 360. Recoverability of
long-lived assets, excluding goodwill, is assessed by a
comparison of the carrying amount of the asset (or the group of
assets, including the asset in question, that represents the
lowest level of separately-identifiable cash flows) to the total
estimated undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by
the asset or group of assets. If the estimated future net
undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying amount of the
asset or group of assets, the asset or group of assets is
considered impaired and impairment charge is recognized equal to
the amount required to reduce the carrying amount of the asset
or group of assets to their fair value.
Fair value is determined by discounting the cash flows expected
to be generated by the asset, when the quoted market prices are
not available for the long-lived assets. For assets and groups
of assets relating to and including the licenses to use mineral
reserves, future cash flows include estimates of recoverable
minerals, mineral prices (considering current and historical
prices, price trends and other related factors), production
F-15
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
levels, capital and reclamation costs, all based on the life of
mine models prepared by the Groups engineers. Recoverable
minerals refer to the estimated amount that will be obtained
from proven and probable reserves. Estimated future cash flows
are based on the Groups assumptions and are subject to
risk and uncertainty that are considered in the discount rate
applied in the impairment testing.
ASC 350 prohibits the amortization of goodwill. Instead,
goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually and on an
interim basis when an event occurs that could potentially lead
to the impairment, i.e. significant decline in selling prices,
production volumes or operating margins. Under ASC 350,
goodwill is assessed for impairment by using the fair value
based method. The Group determines fair value by utilizing
discounted cash flows. The impairment test required by
ASC 350 for goodwill includes a two-step approach. Under
the first step, companies must compare the fair value of a
reporting unit to its carrying value. A reporting
unit is the level, at which goodwill impairment is measured and
it is defined as an operating segment or one level below it if
certain conditions are met. If the fair value of the reporting
unit is less than its carrying value, goodwill is impaired.
Under step two, the amount of goodwill impairment is measured by
the amount that the reporting units goodwill carrying
value exceeds the implied fair value of goodwill.
The implied fair value of goodwill can only be determined by
deducting the fair value of all tangible and intangible net
assets (including unrecognized intangible assets) of the
reporting unit from the fair value of the reporting unit (as
determined in the first step). In this step, the fair value of
the reporting unit is allocated to all of the reporting
units assets and liabilities (a hypothetical purchase
price allocation).
If goodwill and another asset (or asset group) of a reporting
unit are tested for impairment at the same time, the other asset
(or asset group) shall be tested for impairment before goodwill.
If the asset group was impaired, the impairment loss would be
recognized prior to goodwill being tested for impairment.
When performing impairment tests, the Group uses assumptions
that include estimates regarding the discount rates, growth
rates and expected changes in selling prices, sales volumes and
operating costs as well as capital expenditures and working
capital requirements during the forecasted period. The Group
estimates discount rates using after-tax rates that reflect
current market rates for investments of similar risk. The growth
rates are based on the Groups growth forecasts, which are
largely in line with industry trends. Changes in selling prices
and direct costs are based on historical experience and
expectations of future changes in the market. While impairment
of long-lived assets does not affect reported cash flows, it
does result in a non-cash charge in the consolidated statements
of income and comprehensive income (loss), which could have a
material adverse effect on the Groups results of
operations or financial position.
The Group performed an impairment analysis of long-lived assets,
including definite-lived intangibles and goodwill at all major
Groups subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010. Cash
flow forecasts used in the test were based on the assumptions as
of December 31, 2010. The forecasted period for non-mining
subsidiaries of the Group was assumed to be seven years to reach
stabilized cash flows, and the value beyond the forecasted
period was based on the terminal growth rate of 2.5%. For mining
subsidiaries of the Group the forecasted period was based on the
remaining life of the mines. Cash flows projections were
prepared using assumptions that comparable market participants
would use.
Forecasted inflation rates for the period
2011-2017
that were used in cash flow projections were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
USA
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Bulgaria
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Romania
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Other European countries
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
F-16
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Discount rates were estimated in nominal terms on the weighted
average cost of capital basis. To discount cash flows
projections, the Group used similar discount rates for Russia,
Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, and the USA, assuming that this
approach reflected market rates for investments of a similar
risk as of December 31, 2010 in these regions. These rates,
estimated for each year for the forecasted period, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
12.68
|
%
|
|
|
12.27
|
%
|
|
|
11.79
|
%
|
|
|
11.38
|
%
|
|
|
10.97
|
%
|
|
|
10.55
|
%
|
|
|
10.14
|
%
|
Based on the results of the impairment analysis of long-lived
assets, including definite-lived intangibles and goodwill
performed by the Group for all major subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2010, no impairment loss was recognized.
Based on the sensitivity analysis carried out as of
December 31, 2010, the following minimum changes in key
assumptions used in the goodwill impairment test would trigger
the impairment of goodwill at some reporting units (the actual
impairment loss that the Group would need to recognize under
these hypotheses would depend on the appraisal of the fair
values of the reporting units assets, which has not been
conducted):
|
|
|
|
|
1.6% decrease in future planned revenues;
|
|
|
|
0.6% point increase in discount rates for each year within the
forecasted period;
|
|
|
|
1.0% point decrease in cash flows growth rate after the
forecasted period.
|
The Group believes that the values assigned to key assumptions
and estimates represent the most realistic assessment of future
trends.
The cost of equipment acquired under the capital (finance) lease
contracts is measured at the lower of its fair value or the
present value of the minimum lease payments, and reflected in
the balance sheet at the measured amount less accumulated
depreciation. The cost of the equipment is subject to an annual
impairment review as described in 2(n). Capital lease
liabilities are divided into long-term and current portions
based on the agreed payment schedule and discounted using the
lessors implicit interest rate. Depreciation of assets
acquired under the capital (finance) lease is included into
depreciation charge for the period.
Inventories are stated at the lower of acquisition/manufacturing
cost or market value. Cost is determined on a weighted average
basis and includes all costs in bringing the inventory to its
present location and condition. The elements of costs include
direct material, labor and allocable material and manufacturing
overhead.
Costs of production in process and finished goods include the
purchase costs of raw materials and conversion costs such as
direct labor and allocation of fixed and variable production
overheads. Raw materials are valued at a purchase cost inclusive
of freight and other shipping costs.
Coal, nickel and iron ore inventory costs include direct labor,
supplies, depreciation of equipment, depletion of mining assets
and amortization of licenses to use mineral reserves, mine
operating overheads and other related costs. Operating overheads
are charged to expenses in the periods when the production is
temporarily paused or abnormally low.
Market value is the estimated price, at which inventories can be
sold in the normal course of business after allowing for the
cost of completion and sale. The Group determines market value
of inventories for a group of items of inventories with similar
characteristics. The term market means current
replacement cost not to exceed net realizable value (selling
price less reasonable estimable costs of completion and
disposal) or
F-17
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
be less than net realizable value adjusted for a normal profit
margin. Market value for each group is compared with an
acquisition/manufacturing cost, and the lower of these values is
used to determining the amount of the write-down of inventories,
which is recorded within the cost of sales in the consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income (loss). When
inventories are written down below cost at the close of a fiscal
year, such reduced amount is considered the cost basis for
subsequent accounting purposes.
Accounts receivable are stated at net realizable value. If
receivables are deemed doubtful, bad debt expense and a
corresponding allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded. If
receivables are deemed uncollectible, the related receivable
balance is charged off. Recoveries of receivables previously
charged off are recorded when cash received. Receivables that do
not bear interest or bear below market interest rates and have
an expected term of more than one year are discounted with the
discount subsequently amortized to interest income over the term
of the receivable. The Group reviews the valuation of accounts
receivable on a regular basis. The amount of allowance for
doubtful accounts is calculated based on the ageing of balances
in accordance with contract terms. In addition to the allowance
for specific doubtful accounts, the Group applies specific rates
to overdue balances of its subsidiaries depending on the history
of cash collections and future expectations of conditions that
might impact the collectibility of accounts of each individual
subsidiary. Accounts receivable, which are considered
non-recoverable (those aged over three years or due from
bankrupt entities), are written-off against allowance or charged
off to operating expenses (if no allowance was created in
previous periods). The Groups standard credit terms vary
from 30 to 60 days. The Group also extends the credit terms
to its related party customers from 30 up to 180 days. The
Group monitors collectibility of accounts receivable, including
those from its related parties, on an ongoing basis primarily
through review of the accounts receivable aging to determine
whether accounts receivable are a concern.
|
|
(r)
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
Cash and cash equivalents comprise cash on hand and in transit,
checks and deposits with banks, as well as other bank deposits
with an original maturity of three months or less.
|
|
(s)
|
Retirement
benefit obligations
|
The Groups Russian subsidiaries are legally obligated to
make defined contributions to the Russian pension fund, managed
by the Russian Federation Social Security (a defined
contribution plan financed on a pay-as-you-go basis). The
Groups contributions to the Russian pension fund relating
to defined contribution plans are charged to income in the year,
to which they relate.
In 2009, contribution to the Russian pension fund together with
other social contributions were included within a unified social
tax (UST), which was calculated by the application
of a regressive rate from 26% (applied to the part of the annual
gross salary below 280 thousand Russian rubles (or approximately
$9) to 104.8 thousand Russian rubles plus 2% (applied to the
part of the annual gross salary above 600 thousand Russian
rubles) to the annual gross remuneration of each employee. UST
is allocated to three social funds (including the Russian
pension fund), where the rate of contributions to the Russian
pension fund varies from 14% (applied to the part of the annual
gross salary below 280 thousand Russian rubles) to 56.8 thousand
Russian rubles (applied to the part of the annual gross salary
exceeding 600 thousand Russian rubles). Contributions to the
Russian pension fund for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008 were $134,579, $75,164 and $102,827, respectively.
In 2010, some changes were introduced to the Russian tax
legislation. The UST was replaced by the direct insurance
contributions to the national extra-budgetary funds. In 2010,
the total rate of social contributions was 26%: contributions to
the Russian pension fund in the amount of 20% of the annual
gross salary of each employee, contributions to the fund of
obligatory medical insurance in the amount of 3.1%, and
F-18
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
contributions to the social insurance fund in the amount of
2.9%. These rates are applied to part of the annual gross salary
below 415 thousand Russian rubles (approximately $13.6) for each
employee and 0% thereafter.
In 2011, the contributions to the Russian pension fund and the
fund of obligatory medical insurance will be further increased
to 26% and 5.1%, respectively. These rates will be applied to
part of annual gross salary below 463 thousand Russian rubles
(approximately $15.2). Annual gross salaries exceeding that
amounts will be non-taxable.
The BCG Companies contribute to multiemployer defined benefit
pension plans sponsored by the United Mine Workers of America
(UMWA) labor union. The amount of contributions to
the UMWA based on the number of employees, a specified rate and
the total number of employee hours worked for the year ended
December 31, 2010 was $4,238, and for the period from the
acquisition date through December 31, 2009 was
approximately $2,000.
In addition, the Group has a number of defined benefit pension
plans that cover the majority of production employees. Benefits
under these plans are primarily based upon years of service and
average earnings. The Group accounts for the cost of defined
benefit plans using the projected unit credit method. Under this
method, the cost of providing pensions is charged to the income
statement, so as to attribute the total pension cost over the
service lives of employees in accordance with the benefit
formula of the plan. The Groups obligation in respect of
defined retirement benefit plans is calculated separately for
each defined benefit plan by discounting the amounts of future
benefits that employees have already earned through their
service in the current and prior periods. The discount rate
applied represents the yield at the year end on highly rated
long-term bonds.
The Groups U.S. subsidiaries adopted the FASB
ASC 715, Compensation Retirement
Benefits (ASC 715), and use the Projected Unit
Credit method of accounting for post-retirement health care
benefits, which is intended to match revenues with expenses and
attributes an equal amount of an employees projected
benefit to each year from date of plan entry to the date that
the employee is first eligible to retire with full benefits. The
actuarially estimated accumulated postretirement benefit
obligation (APBO) was recognized at the acquisition
of the U.S. subsidiaries on May 7, 2009 (refer to
Note 3(e)). The APBO represents the present value of the
estimated future benefits payable to current retirees and a pro
rata portion of estimated benefits payable to active employees
upon retirement (refer to Note 16).
Revenue is recognized on an accrual basis when earned and
realizable, which generally occurs when products are delivered
to customers. In some instances, while title of ownership has
been transferred, the revenue recognition criteria are not met
as the selling price is subject to adjustment based upon the
market prices. Accordingly, in those instances, revenue and the
related cost of goods sold are recorded as deferred revenues and
deferred cost of inventory in transit in the consolidated
balance sheets and are not recognized in the consolidated income
statement until the price becomes fixed and determinable, which
typically occurs when the price is settled with the
end-customer. In certain foreign jurisdictions (e.g.
Switzerland), the Group generally retains title to goods sold to
end-customers solely to ensure the collectibility of its
accounts receivable. In such instances, all other sales
recognition criteria are met, which allows the Group to
recognize sales revenue in conformity with underlying sales
contracts.
Revenue is recognized net of applicable provisions for discounts
and allowances and associated sales taxes (VAT) and export
duties.
Revenues are inflows from sales of goods that constitute ongoing
major operations of the Group and are reported as such in the
consolidated statement of income and comprehensive income
(loss). Inflows from incidental and peripheral operations are
considered gains and are included, net of related costs, in
other income in the consolidated statement of income and
comprehensive income (loss).
F-19
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Group is involved in re-selling goods and services produced
or rendered by other entities. Revenues are reported based on
the gross amount billed to the customer when the Group has
earned revenue as a principal from the sale of goods or
services, or the net amount retained (that is, the amount billed
to the customer reduced by the amount billed by the supplier)
when the Group has earned a commission or fee as an agent. The
Group evaluates the relevant facts and circumstances and takes
into consideration the following factors in determining whether
to recognizes revenue on a gross basis: (1) the Group is
the primary obligor in the arrangement; (2) the Group has
general inventory risk including customer returns; (3) the
Group has latitude in establishing price; (4) the Group
changes the product or performs part of the service;
(5) the Group has discretion in supplier selection;
(6) the Group is involved in the determination of product
or service specifications; (7) the Group has physical loss
inventory risk; (8) the Group has credit risk. Otherwise,
revenues are reported net when the Group performs as an agent or
a broker without assuming the risks and rewards of ownership of
goods. The evaluations of these factors, which at times can be
contradictory, are subject to significant judgment and
subjectivity. This accounting policy of reporting revenue gross
as a principal versus net as an agent has no effect on gross
profit, income from continuing operations before taxes, or net
income.
In the situation when the Group act as a supplier and as a buyer
with the same counterparty, the Group analyzes the respective
purchase and sales agreements to identify whether these
transactions were concluded in contemplation with each other
and, therefore, should be combined for accounting purposes
deferring the revenue recognition to the point when the earnings
process has culminated.
In the Power segment (refer to Note 23), revenue is
recognized based on unit of power measure (kilowatts) delivered
to customers, since at that point revenue recognition criteria
are met. The billings are usually done on a monthly basis,
several days after each month end.
Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. During the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the amounts of
advertising costs were insignificant.
|
|
(v)
|
Shipping
and handling costs
|
The Group classifies all amounts billed to customers in a sale
transaction and related to shipping and handling as part of
sales revenue and all related shipping and handling costs as
selling and distribution expenses. These costs totaled $918,231,
$689,777 and $842,475 for the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Provision is made in the financial statements for taxation of
profits in accordance with applicable legislation currently in
force in individual jurisdictions. The Group accounts for income
taxes under the liability method in accordance with FASB
ASC 740, Income Taxes (ASC 740).
Under the liability method, deferred income taxes reflect the
future tax consequences of temporary differences between the tax
and financial statement bases of assets and liabilities and are
measured using enacted tax rates to apply to taxable income in
the years in which those temporary differences are expected to
be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and
liabilities of a change in the tax rates is recognized in income
in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation
allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some
or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized in the
future. These evaluations are based on the expectations of
future taxable income and reversals of the various taxable
temporary differences.
ASC 740 prescribes the minimum recognition threshold a tax
position must meet before being recognized in the financial
statements and provides guidance on derecognition, measurement,
classification, interest and
F-20
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and
transition. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Group
included accruals for unrecognized income tax benefits totaling
$4,266 and $17,172, including interest and penalties of $717 and
$7,928, as a component of accrued liabilities, respectively.
Interest and penalties recognized in accordance with
ASC 740 are classified in the financial statements as
income taxes.
FASB ASC 220, Comprehensive Income (ASC
220), requires the reporting of comprehensive income in
addition to net income. Accumulated other comprehensive income
includes foreign currency translation adjustments, unrealized
holding gains and losses on
available-for-sale
securities and on derivative financial instruments, as well as
pension liabilities not recognized as net periodic pension cost.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, in
addition to net income, total comprehensive income included the
effect of translation of the financial statements denominated in
currencies other than the reporting currency (in accordance with
ASC 830), changes in the carrying values of
available-for-sale
securities, and change in pension benefit obligation subsequent
to the adoption of the ASC 715. In accordance with
ASC 715, the Group recognizes actuarial gains and losses,
prior service costs and credits and transition assets or
obligations (the full surplus or deficit in their plans) in the
balance sheet. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the amount
of comprehensive income included the effect of curtailment and
actuarial gains and losses.
Accumulated other comprehensive loss is comprised of the
following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
Cumulative currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(239,769
|
)
|
|
|
(215,814
|
)
|
Unrealized losses on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(936
|
)
|
|
|
(5,774
|
)
|
Pension adjustments, net of related income taxes of $6,792 in
2010
|
|
|
39,722
|
|
|
|
49,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(200,983
|
)
|
|
|
(172,400
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(y)
|
Stock-based
compensation
|
The Group applies the fair-value method of accounting for
employee stock-compensation costs as outlined in FASB
ASC 718, Compensation Stock
Compensation (ASC 718). During the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Group did not enter
in any employee stock-compensation arrangements.
According to FASB ASC 280, Segment Reporting
(ASC 280), segment reporting follows the internal
organizational and reporting structure of the Group. The
Groups operations are presented in four business segments
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment, comprising production and sales of semi-finished
steel products, carbon and specialty long products, carbon and
stainless flat products, value-added downstream metal products,
including forgings, stampings, and hardware;
|
|
|
|
Mining segment, comprising production and sales of coal (coking
and steam), coke products and iron ore, which supplies raw
materials to the Steel, Ferroalloy and Power segments and also
sells substantial amounts of raw materials to third parties;
|
|
|
|
Power segment, comprising generation and sales of electricity
and heat power, which supplies electricity, gas and heat power
to the Steel, Ferroalloy and Mining segments;
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloy segment, comprising production and sales of nickel,
chrome and ferrosilicon, which supplies raw materials to the
Steel segment and also sells substantial amounts of raw
materials to third parties.
|
F-21
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(aa)
|
Financial
instruments
|
The carrying amount of the Groups financial instruments,
which include cash equivalents, marketable securities,
non-marketable debt securities, cost method investments,
accounts receivable and accounts payable, and short-term
borrowings approximates their fair value as of December 31,
2010 and 2009. For long-term borrowings, the difference between
fair value and carrying value is shown in Note 14. The
Group, using available market information and appropriate
valuation methodologies, such as discounted cash flows, has
determined the estimated fair values of financial instruments.
Since different entities are located and operate in different
regions of Russia and elsewhere with different business and
financial market characteristics, there are generally very
limited or no comparable market values available to assess the
fair value of the Groups debt and other financial
instruments. The cost method investments are shares of Russian
companies that are not publicly traded and their market value is
not available. It is not practicable for the Group to estimate
the fair value of these investments, for which a quoted market
price is not available because it has not yet obtained or
developed the valuation model necessary to make the estimate,
and the cost of obtaining an independent valuation would be
excessive considering the materiality of the instruments to the
Group. Therefore, such investments are recorded at cost (refer
to Note 8).
In accordance with FASB ASC 460, Guarantees
(ASC 460), the fair value of a guarantee is
determined and recorded as a liability at the time when the
guarantee is issued. The initial guarantee amount is
subsequently remeasured to reflect the changes in the underlying
liability. The expense or re-measurement adjustments are is
included in the related line items of the consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive (loss) income, based on
the nature of the guarantee. When the likelihood of performing
on a guarantee becomes probable, a liability is accrued,
provided it is reasonably determinable on the basis of the facts
and circumstances at that time.
|
|
(cc)
|
Accounting
for contingencies
|
Certain conditions may exist as of the date of these
consolidated financial statements, which may further result in a
loss to the Group, but which will only be resolved when one or
more future events occur or fail to occur. The Groups
management makes an assessment of such contingent liabilities,
which is based on assumptions and is a matter of opinion. In
assessing loss contingencies relating to legal or tax
proceedings that involve the Group or unasserted claims that may
result in such proceedings, the Group, after consultation with
legal or tax advisors, evaluates the perceived merits of any
legal or tax proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the
perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to
be sought therein.
If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable
that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the liability can
be estimated, then the estimated liability is accrued in the
Groups consolidated financial statements. If the
assessment indicates that a potentially material loss
contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is
probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the
contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of
possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed.
Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed
unless they involve guarantees, in which case the nature of the
guarantee would be disclosed. However, in some instances in
which disclosure is not otherwise required, the Group may
disclose contingent liabilities or other uncertainties of an
unusual nature which, in the judgment of management after
consultation with its legal or tax counsel, may be of interest
to shareholders or others.
F-22
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(dd)
|
Derivative
instruments and hedging activities
|
The Group recognizes its derivative instruments as either assets
or liabilities at fair value in accordance with FASB
ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (ASC
815). The accounting for changes in the fair value of a
derivative instrument depends on whether it has been designated
and qualifies as an accounting hedge and further, on the type of
hedging relationship. For the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009 and 2008, the Group did not have any derivatives
designated as hedging instruments. Therefore, any gain or loss
on a derivative instrument held by the Group is recognized
currently in income. There were no significant gains or losses
related to the change in the fair value of derivative
instruments included in the net foreign exchange gain (loss) in
the accompanying consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income (loss) for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2010. There were no foreign
currency forward and options contracts outstanding as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009.
The Group recognizes all its debt and equity investments in
accordance with FASB ASC 320, Investments
Debt and Equity Securities (ASC 320). At
acquisition, the Group classifies debt and equity securities
into one of three categories:
held-to-maturity,
available-for-sale
or trading. At each reporting date the Group reassesses
appropriateness of the classification.
Held-to-maturity
securities
Investments in debt securities that the Group has both the
ability and the intent to hold to maturity are classified as
held-to-maturity
and measured at amortized cost in the consolidated financial
statements.
Trading
securities
Investments (debt or equity), which the Group intends to sell in
the near term, and which are usually acquired as part of the
Groups established strategy to buy and sell, generating
profits based on short-term price movements, are classified by
the Group as trading securities. Changes in fair value of
trading securities are recognized in earnings.
Available-for-sale
securities
Investments (debt or equity), which are not classified as
held-to-maturity
or trading are classified as
available-for-sale.
Change in their fair value is reflected in other comprehensive
income (loss).
Recoverability
of equity method and other investments
Management periodically assesses the recoverability of the
Groups equity method and other investments. For
investments in publicly traded entities, readily available
quoted market prices are an indication of the fair value of the
investments. For investments in non-publicly traded entities, if
an identified event or change in circumstances requires an
evaluation, management assesses their fair value based on
valuation techniques including discounted cash flow estimates or
sales proceeds, external appraisals and market prices of similar
investments as appropriate.
Management considers the assumptions that a hypothetical market
place participant would use in his analysis of discounted cash
flows models and estimates of sales proceeds. If an investment
is considered to be impaired and the decline in value is other
than temporary, the Group records an impairment loss.
F-23
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(ff)
|
Concentration
of credit and other risks
|
Financial instruments, which potentially expose the Group to
concentrations of credit risk, consist primarily of cash and
cash equivalents, short-term and long-term investments, trade
accounts receivable and other receivables. Generally, the Group
does not require any collateral to be pledged in connection with
its investments in the above financial instruments.
The following table presents the exchange rates for the
functional and operating currencies at various subsidiaries,
other than the reporting currency:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year End Rates*
|
|
Average Exchange Rates* for the
|
|
|
At April 12,
|
|
at December 31,
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
Currency
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Russian ruble
|
|
|
27.98
|
|
|
|
30.48
|
|
|
|
30.24
|
|
|
|
29.38
|
|
|
|
30.37
|
|
|
|
31.72
|
|
|
|
24.86
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
0.69
|
|
|
|
0.76
|
|
|
|
0.70
|
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
0.75
|
|
|
|
0.72
|
|
|
|
0.68
|
|
Romanian lei
|
|
|
2.84
|
|
|
|
3.20
|
|
|
|
2.94
|
|
|
|
2.83
|
|
|
|
3.18
|
|
|
|
3.04
|
|
|
|
2.52
|
|
Kazakh tenge
|
|
|
145.40
|
|
|
|
147.40
|
|
|
|
148.36
|
|
|
|
120.77
|
|
|
|
147.34
|
|
|
|
147.51
|
|
|
|
120.33
|
|
Bulgarian lev
|
|
|
1.36
|
|
|
|
1.46
|
|
|
|
1.36
|
|
|
|
1.40
|
|
|
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
1.33
|
|
Turkish lira
|
|
|
1.51
|
|
|
|
1.54
|
|
|
|
1.49
|
|
|
|
1.53
|
|
|
|
1.51
|
|
|
|
1.56
|
|
|
|
1.55
|
|
|
|
|
(*) |
|
Exchange rates shown in local currency units for one U.S.
dollar |
The majority of the balances and operations not already
denominated in the reporting currency were denominated in the
Russian ruble, euro, Romanian lei, Kazakh tenge, Bulgarian lev
and Turkish lira.
The Russian ruble is not a convertible currency outside the
territory of Russia. Official exchange rates are determined
daily by the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) and are
generally considered to be a reasonable approximation of market
rates.
|
|
(gg)
|
Recently
issued accounting pronouncements
|
Following the Codification, FASB no longer issues new standards
in the form of Statements, FASB Staff Positions or Emerging
Issues Task Force Abstracts. Instead, it issues Accounting
Standards Updates, or ASUs, which will serve to update the
Codification, provide background information about the guidance
and provide the basis for conclusions on the changes to the
Codification.
Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued the Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
2010-06
(ASU
2010-06),
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
(ASU
2010-06)
that amends the FASBs Accounting Standards Codification
(ASC) 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (ASC 820). ASU
2010-06
requires separate disclosure of significant transfers between
Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurement inputs and
a description of the reasons for the transfers. Additionally,
the entity is required to present separately information on
purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis in
the reconciliation for fair value measurements using
Level 3 inputs. ASU
2010-06 also
clarifies that the fair value measurement disclosures should be
presented for each class of assets and liabilities. A class is
typically a subset of a line item in the statement of financial
position. The entity also is required to provide information
about the valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair
value for both recurring and nonrecurring instruments classified
as either Level 2 or Level 3. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning
after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about
activity in Level 3 fair value measurements that are
effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2010. The Group adopted ASU
2010-06
F-24
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
starting from January 1, 2010, except for the disclosures
about activity in Level 3 fair value measurements that will
be adopted starting from January 1, 2011. The adoption of
ASU 2010-06
did not have a material effect on the Groups financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
Subsequent
Events
In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-09,
Subsequent Events (Topic 855): Amendments to Certain
Recognition and Disclosure Requirements (ASU
2010-09).
ASU 2010-09
amends ASC 855, Subsequent Events (ASC
855), removing the requirement for an SEC filer to
disclose the date through which subsequent events have been
evaluated both in issued and revised financial statements. ASU
2010-09 is
effective upon issuance. The adoption of ASU
2010-09 did
not have a material impact on the Groups financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
Credit
Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit
Losses
In July 2010, FASB issued ASU
2010-20,
Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit
Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit
Losses (ASU
2010-20).
The disclosures will provide financial statement users with
additional information about the nature of credit risks inherent
in entities financing receivables, how credit risk is
analyzed and assessed when determining the allowance for credit
losses and the reasons for the change in the allowance for
credit losses. ASU
2010-20 also
introduces a new terminology, in particular, the term financial
receivables. In January, 2011, FASB issued ASU
2011-01,
Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about
Troubled Debt Restructurings in Update
No. 2010-20,
where the effective date of the amendments related to the
disclosures as of the end of a reporting period about troubled
debt restructurings for public entities, issued in ASU
2010-20, was
deferred and anticipates to be effective for interim and annual
periods ending after June 15, 2011. The disclosures about
activity that occurs during a reporting period are effective for
interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after
December 15, 2010.
The amendments in ASU
2010-20
encourage, but do not require, comparative disclosures for
earlier reporting periods that ended before initial adoption.
However, an entity should provide comparative disclosures for
those reporting periods ending after initial adoption. The Group
will adopt ASU
2010-20 in
2011 and does not expect that it will have a material impact on
the Groups financial position and results of operations.
Intangibles
Goodwill and Other
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-28,
When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for
Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts.
The amendments in this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill
impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative
carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is
required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment if it is
more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In
determining whether it is more likely than not that goodwill
impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are
any adverse qualitative factors indicating that impairment may
exist. The Group will initially adopt ASU
2010-28 in
2011 and does not expect that it will have a material impact on
the Groups financial position and results of operations.
Pro Forma
Information for Business Combinations
In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-29,
Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations. ASU
2010-29
specifies that if a public entity presents comparative financial
statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of
the combining business as though the business combination(s)
that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the
beginning of the prior annual reporting period only. The
amendments in ASU
2010-29 also
expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures under Topic 805 to
include a description of the nature and amount of material,
nonrecurring pro forma
F-25
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
adjustments directly attributable to the business combination
included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The
Group will initially adopt ASU
2010-29 for
the 2011 annual reporting and does not expect that it will have
a material impact on the Groups financial position and
results of operations.
There were various other updates recently issued, most of which
represented technical corrections to the accounting literature
or application to specific industries and are not expected to a
have a material impact on the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows of the Group.
Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior
periods consolidated financial statements to conform to
the current year presentation. Such reclassifications affect the
presentation of certain items in the consolidated balance sheet
and the consolidated statement of income and comprehensive
income (loss) under transactions with related parties and have
no impact on net income or equity.
As described above, the Group prospectively adopted
authoritative guidance related to non-controlling interest
included in ASC 810 with the exception of the presentation
and disclosure requirements, which were adopted retrospectively.
ASC 810 requires the non-controlling interests to be
classified as a separate component of equity, net income and
cash flows.
|
|
3.
|
ACQUISITIONS,
INVESTMENTS AND DISPOSALS
|
As disclosed in the preceding note, the Group experienced
significant growth through acquisitions. The following describes
business combinations between January 1, 2008 and
December 31, 2010.
On December 17, 2007, the Group acquired a 49% interest in
Toplofikatsia Rousse (TPP Rousse), a power plant
located in Rousse, Republic of Bulgaria, for $73,539 paid in
cash. The purchase of 49% shares was accounted for using the
equity method of accounting and was included within long-term
investments in related parties until December 9, 2010
(refer to Note 9 (e)).
On December 9, 2010, the Group acquired remaining 51% of
the common shares of TPP Rousse for $71,932 paid in cash. As a
result the Group increased its share in the share capital of TPP
Rousse up to 100% from the previously owned 49%.
The acquisition of the remaining stake in TPP Rousse is in line
with the Groups strategy to further develop its power
segment. It provides new opportunities for distribution and sale
of electric power in European market and will strengthen
Groups position in power industry.
The acquisition of 51% was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting. The results of operations of TPP Rousse
are included in the consolidated financial statements from the
date of acquisition of control, December 9, 2010. The
purchase price allocation is preliminary, pending the receipt of
the final
F-26
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
property, plant and equipment and other identifiable assets
appraisal. The following table summarizes the historical values
of assets and liabilities acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 9, 2010
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
1,735
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
10,934
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
58,313
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
154
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(29,414
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(3,575
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(1,691
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
36,456
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
104,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
141,042
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of the date of acquisition of control, the previously held
equity interest was remeasured at the fair value in accordance
with ASC 805. The remeasurement of equity interest resulted
in a loss of $2,044, which was recognized in the consolidated
statement of income and comprehensive income for the year ended
December 31, 2010.
Goodwill of $104,586 (subject to the purchase price allocation
finalization) arising from the Groups acquisition of TPP
Rousse represents expected benefits from the synergies related
to the vertical integration of the Groups business and
expansion into additional markets for steam coal, which is used
to fuel power plants in the European Union. TPP Rousse is
included in the Power segment.
On June 18, 2010, the Group acquired 100% of the shares of
Ramateks group of companies (Ramateks) for a
consideration of $3,000 paid in cash. Ramateks includes two
trading entities selling primarily steel products in Turkey. The
acquisition is consistent with the Groups program to
expand its sales network and enlarge its client base.
This acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. The results of operations of Ramateks are included
in the consolidated financial statements from the date of
acquisition of control, June 18, 2010. The purchase price
allocation is preliminary, pending the receipt of the final net
assets appraisal. The following table summarizes the historical
values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 18, 2010
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
360
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
15,419
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
7,276
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
740
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(21,025
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(2,190
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
580
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
2,420
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-27
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Goodwill of $2,420 (subject to the purchase price allocation
finalization) arising from the Groups acquisition of
Ramateks represents expected benefits from the synergies related
to the expansion of the trading activities and strengthening the
position in the European market. Ramateks is included in the
Steel segment.
|
|
(c)
|
Donau
Commodities SRL and Laminorul S.A.
|
On February 25, 2010, the Group acquired 100% of the shares
of Donau Commodities SRL, which held 90.9% of ownership interest
in Laminorul S.A., a steel plant located in Braila, Romania, for
a consideration of 8.7 million euros paid in cash. The
acquisition is consistent with the Groups program to
expand its production and sales of steel products, in particular
related to construction and building industries in Romania.
This acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. The difference between the consideration paid and
the fair value of net assets acquired was recorded as a bargain
purchase. The results of operations of Donau Commodities SRL and
Laminorul S.A. are included in the consolidated financial
statements from the date of acquisition of control,
February 25, 2010. The following table summarizes the fair
values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 25, 2010
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
812
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
22,108
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
36,380
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
365
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(30,332
|
)
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
(5,197
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(4,779
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
19,357
|
|
Non-controlling interest
|
|
|
(1,760
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain from bargain purchase
|
|
|
(5,746
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
11,851
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A gain from bargain purchase of $5,746 arising from the
acquisition of Donau Commodities SRL and Laminorul S.A. is a
result of the decision of the former owners to sell these
companies and turn their attention to other businesses due to
the operational difficulties experienced by these entities and
lack of sufficient working capital to finance business
operations. This gain from bargain purchase was recognized in
consolidated statement of income and comprehensive income as a
component of other income (expense).
Donau Commodities SRL and Laminorul S.A. are included in the
Steel segment.
On September 26, 2008, the Group acquired 100% of the
shares of HBL Holding GmbH (HBL) for a consideration
of $55,855, of which $47,468 paid in cash in 2008 and $8,387 in
2009. HBL integrates twelve service and trading companies in
Germany. The acquisition is consistent with Groups program
to expand its sales network, enhance and extend range of its
services, and enlarge its client base. HBL is included in the
Steel segment.
This acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. The results of operations of HBL are included in the
consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition
of control, September 26, 2008. The excess of the fair
value of the net assets acquired over the purchase price has
been allocated as a pro rata reduction of $14,308 of the amounts
that otherwise would have been assigned to property, plant
F-28
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
and equipment, in accordance with ASC 805. The following
table summarizes the final fair values of net assets acquired at
the date of acquisition of control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 26, 2008
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
32,875
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
37,739
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
35,438
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
45
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(40,746
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(7,384
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(2,112
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
55,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
55,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On August 19, 2008, the Group entered into a stock purchase
and sale agreement, last amended and finalized as of May 6,
2009 (Agreement) with the owners
(Seller) of all the issued and outstanding stock of
Bluestone Industries, Inc., Dynamic Energy, Inc. and JCJ Coal
Group LLC (the BCG Companies). The BCG Companies are
coal producers located in the United States, which possess and
lease coking coal reserves, coal mines and processing plants.
The acquisition is in line with the Groups strategy aimed
at further developing of its mining segment. By acquiring the
BCG Companies the Group would gain control over the high quality
coal assets, obtain access to the U.S. coking coal
consumers, and reinforce its international standing.
The closing of the Agreement took place on May 7, 2009
(Closing Date). The purchase price (Purchase
Price) that the Group either has already paid or should
pay in a five year term to the Seller under the Agreement
constituted $436,414 plus 83,254,149 preferred shares of Mechel
OAO plus two contingent payments (Contingent
Payment) less the amount exceeding the BCG Companies
target debt of $132,000. In accordance with the Agreement, by
December 18, 2008, the Group remitted to the Seller a
series of partial prepayments in the total amount of $436,414.
As of Closing Date, the Group transferred 83,254,149 of its
preferred shares to the Seller.
The Contingent Payment consists of two parts. The first part of
the Contingent Payment includes a Contingent Share Value Right
(CVR). Any potential CVR cash payment due to the
actual total return from the preferred shares being less or
equal to the target value of $986,063 will be paid on the fifth
anniversary of the Closing Date and will equal the amount by
which the target return exceeds the sum of the aggregate market
value of the preferred shares and all dividends received. The
target return could be increased up to $1,585,000 based on the
additional tonnes of proven and probable reserves or measured
and indicated resources in excess of 261.6 million tonnes
of in-place measured and indicated resources and proven and
probable reserves identified until the Closing Date, limited by
196.9 million tonnes discovered during the results of
additional geological researches of the reserves of the BCG
Companies.
The Group shall be released from its obligations in respect of
the Contingent Payment if the market value of the preferred
shares plus the cumulative dividends declared to the Seller
exceeds $1,783,125 or, on July 7, 2011, 112.5% of the total
of the first part of the Contingent Payment and $986,063. The
Group has a right to pay the discounted amount of Contingent
Payment prior to its maturity. If the Group pays the Contingent
Payment at any time within five years from the Closing Date, the
first part of the Contingent Payment shall be determined as
$598,937. An unconditional and irrevocable guarantee was granted
by Mechel-Mining OAO to the Seller in respect of this CVR cash
payment. The CVR part of the Contingent Payment can be decreased
F-29
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
by a maximum of $200,000, which is the limit of identifiable
damages caused to the BCG companies by Sellers actions
occurred during the pre-closing period, including claims and
litigation.
The second part of the Contingent Payment is to be made within
five years from the Closing Date and depends on the results of
additional geological researches of the reserves of the BCG
Companies (Drilling Program). Organization and
completion of Drilling Program by independent experts is
Sellers responsibility, and it must be fulfilled until
July 7, 2011. The amount of the first part of the
Contingent Payment will be proportional to the quantity of
additional coal reserves and resources of the BCG Companies
identified until that date, as compared to those reserves and
resources existing at the date of acquisition. Each tonne of the
additional coal reserves and resources will be remitted to the
Sellers at $3.04 per tonne if the payment occurs on May 7,
2014, and will be discounted in case of earlier repayment.
Mechel-Mining OAO issued an unconditional and irrevocable
guarantee to the Seller in respect of this payment. The
guarantee is limited to $1,000,000.
On May 6, 2009, the Group entered into pledge agreements
relating to all the outstanding stock and capital membership in
the BCG Companies in favor of the Seller. These pledges were
made to secure the Contingent Payment, and will be released when
the Contingent Payment obligations will have been fulfilled,
terminated or expired.
The Group accounted for the acquisition of the BCG Companies
under the purchase method of accounting in accordance with
ASC 805. The following table summarizes the fair values of
the purchase consideration at the Closing Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 7, 2009
|
|
|
Cash payment
|
|
|
436,414
|
|
Mechel OAO preferred shares
|
|
|
496,159
|
|
CVR contingent payment
|
|
|
495,234
|
|
Drilling Program contingent payment
|
|
|
19,373
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
1,447,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CVR contingent payment is a residual of estimated target
value of the CVR and fair value of Mechel OAO preferred shares
transferred. The target value of the CVR was determined by the
Group based on an appraisal performed by independent mining
engineers as of the acquisition date. The estimation implied the
review of all existing evidence for the Sellers
opportunity to convert an additional inferred tonnage to proven
and probable, or measured and indicated categories to be
discovered during the results of Drilling Program and limited by
196.9 million tonnes. The probability for the Seller to
convert the additional inferred tonnage to proven and probable,
or measured and indicated categories after the completion of
Drilling Program was estimated by the independent appraisal at
78.63%. The CVR contingent payment was classified as a long-term
liability in accordance with FASB ASC 480,
Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (ASC
480), and ASC 815. The present value of the CVR
target value as of May 7, 2009 was calculated using the
discount rate of 8% per annum and amounted to $991,393. The
contingent liability recognized as of the acquisition date
amounted to $495,234, and was calculated as the difference
between the estimated target value and the preferred shares fair
value as of May 7, 2009.
Mechel OAO preferred shares were not marketable until
May 6, 2010, and they were appraised by an independent
third party using the probability-weighted expected return
method. Under this method, the value of the Companys
capital is estimated based on an analysis of current and future
values for the entire enterprise based on different scenarios.
Each scenario determines a common and preferred equity value
based on measured cash distributions as of the scenario event
date, after considering the rights of both preferred and common
equity and any other claims by other capital stakeholders. An
appropriate probability was applied to each of the scenarios.
The weighted average preferred share value was determined as
$5.96 (196 rubles) as of May 7, 2009.
F-30
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Drilling Program contingent payment was determined by the
Group based on an appraisal performed by independent mining
engineers at acquisition date. The estimation was made in
conjunction with the estimation of the CVR contingent payment.
As a result of the analysis, that incorporated the independent
mining engineers assumptions about the Sellers
successful effort to identify additional mineral reserves and
resources as a result of the Drilling Program, additional
contingent mineral reserves were estimated at $72,918 and
included in the fair value of the BCG Companies mineral
licenses. The Drilling Program contingent payment was appraised
applying the same assumptions about the conversion of the
inferred tonnage and the agreed rate of $3.04 per tonne as
indicated above. It matures on May 7, 2014, and was
classified as long-term liability in accordance with
ASC 480 and ASC 805 and was discounted using the
discount rate of 8%, stated in the Merger agreement for actual
settlement of contingent obligation, which represents the
estimate of the amount that would have been paid if the Group
had settled the liability at the balance sheet date. The present
value of the Drilling Program contingent payment as of
May 7, 2009 amounted to $19,373.
The Group determined the fair values of the BCG Companies
assets acquired and liabilities assumed for property, plant and
equipment, intangible assets, mineral rights, asset retirement
obligations, non-pension employees benefits, deferred income
taxes and tax contingencies based on independent appraisal. The
Group internally determined the fair values for current assets
and current and long-term liabilities of the BCG Companies as of
May 7, 2009. The results of operations of the BCG Companies
are included in the consolidated financial statements from the
date of acquisition of control, May 7, 2009. The following
table summarizes the fair values of net assets acquired at the
date of acquisition of control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 7, 2009
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
4,908
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
43,126
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
138,678
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
2,172,382
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
976
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(111,286
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(93,164
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(708,440
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
1,447,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
1,447,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The income approach was used in valuing the coal mineral
licenses of the BCG Companies. In using the Income approach, the
opinion of value was developed using the Multi-Period Excess
Earnings Method (MPEEM). The MPEEM is a specific
application of the discounted cash flow method. The principle
behind the MPEEM is that the value of a mineral license is equal
to the present value of the incremental after-tax cash flows
attributable only to the subject mineral license after deducting
contributory asset charges. The principle behind a contributory
asset charge is that a mineral license rents or
leases from a hypothetical third party all the
assets it requires to produce the cash flows resulting from its
development, that each project rents only those assets it needs
(including elements of goodwill) and not the ones that it does
not need, and that each project pays the owner of the assets a
fair return on (and of, when appropriate) the fair value of the
rented assets. Thus, any net cash flows remaining after such
charges are attributable to the subject asset being valued. The
incremental after-tax cash flows attributable to the subject
asset are then discounted to their present value.
Both the cost and market approaches were utilized in appraising
plant and equipment and intangible assets. For the cost
approach, the reproduction/replacement cost was determined
recognizing the concept that a prudent investor would pay no
more for an asset than the cost to reproduce or replace the
asset with an
F-31
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
identical or similar unit of equal utility. The market approach
focuses on the actions of actual buyers and sellers in the
market for similar assets. It was applied when the Group had
sufficient detailed information to find comparable sales data in
the marketplace.
In accordance with ASC 805, the Group adjusts the
contingent liability arising from the contingent consideration
arrangements each reporting period, with a corresponding gain or
loss reflected in the statement of operations, based on changes
in the fair value of the obligation. The Group determined the
fair value of Mechel OAO preferred shares as of
December 31, 2009 based on an independent appraisal using
the same method as of the acquisition date. The weighted average
preferred share value was determined as $12.97 (392 Russian
rubles) as of December 31, 2009. The estimations of the CVR
target value and Drilling Program contingent payment remained
unchanged, except for the effects of accretion from the date of
the acquisition through December 31, 2009.
The contingent payment as of December 31, 2009 and
May 7, 2009 in the amount of $20,369 and $514,607,
respectively, is recorded within other long-term liabilities.
The change in the fair value of Mechel OAO preferred shares
during the post-acquisition period through December 31,
2009 resulted in a $494,238 decrease in the CVR contingent
payment, which was recorded as a non-taxable gain in Other
income and expense, net in the consolidated financial
statements. This gain is a result of the changes resulting from
the events after the acquisitions date, primarily because of the
significant increase in the value of preferred shares following
similar increase in the Mechel OAO common stock quotes, and does
not constitute a measurement period adjustment that would
require adjustment of the purchase consideration. The fair value
of the contingent payment as of December 31, 2010 amounted
to $21,999 the whole amount related to the Drilling Program
contingent payment. The CVR contingent payment amount was equal
to $0 and did not change since December 31, 2009.
On June 11, 2010, the Group and the Seller signed an
amendment to the Agreement that was a result of the
Sellers commitment to settle a third party litigation.
With this amendment, the target value of CVR, the target value
amount in the event of the CVR prepayment and the amount which
triggers the automatic extinguishment of CVR were increased by
$3,500 and amounted to $989,563, $1,588,500 and $1,787,063,
respectively. The Group accounted for the amendments of the
Agreement as the change in the fair value of the CVR contingent
payment, and the resulting effect to the CVR value as of
December 31, 2010 was $0.
On May 6, 2010, Mechel OAO preferred shares were listed on
the NYSE. Based on the preferred shares market quotes and the
calculations set by the Agreement, in March 2011, the market
value of the preferred shares plus the cumulative dividends
declared to the Seller exceeded $1,787,063, which resulted in
the automatic extinguishment of the CVR. Following the automatic
extinguishment of the CVR, on March 18, 2011, the Group was
released of the CVR contingent payment, pledge agreements
relating to the outstanding stock and capital membership in the
BCG Companies in favor of the Seller, and the CVR guarantee
issued by Mechel-Mining OAO.
The BCG Companies are included in the Mining segment.
On April 8, 2008, the Group acquired 100% of the shares of
Ductil Steel S.A. (Ductil Steel) located in Romania
for $224,003 in cash, out of which $23,592 was prepaid in 2007.
Ductil Steel is one of the top Romanian producers of wire and
wire products. Its principal assets are two production sites:
the Otelu Rosu plant producing billets that are used as raw
material inputs for the Buzau plant, its second production site.
Ductil Steel is included in the Steel segment.
This acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. The results of operations of Ductil Steel are
included in the consolidated financial statements from the date
of acquisition of control,
F-32
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
April 8, 2008. The following table summarizes the fair
values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 8, 2008
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
2,790
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
86,396
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
113,491
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
5
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(92,615
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(8,093
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(10,661
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
91,313
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
132,690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
224,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $132,690 arising from the Groups acquisition
of Ductil Steel represents expected benefits from the synergies
related to wire and wire products trading and strengthening the
position in the European market.
On March 26, 2008, the Group entered into a public offer to
acquire all of the issued shares of Oriel Resources Plc.
(Oriel). The offer was extended to any Oriel shares
issued or unconditionally allotted and fully paid while the
offer remained open for acceptance, including Oriel shares
issued pursuant to the exercise of options granted under the
Oriel Share Option Scheme, the exercise of Oriel warrants or
otherwise. The offer was made on the basis of $2.1986 in cash
for each Oriel share. The offer valued the entire issued and to
be issued share capital of Oriel at approximately
$1.5 billion. The cash consideration payable by Mechel for
Oriel was funded using a $1.5 billion loan facility
arranged by Royal Bank of Scotland and Merrill Lynch for the
purposes of the offer (Oriel credit facility).
During the period from April 17 through June 30, 2008, the
Group acquired 99.74% of Oriels shares for $1,461,716 in
cash, which includes $2,487 of agency fees and costs to cancel
the warrants of $812. From July through October 2008, the Group
acquired the remaining 0.26% of Oriels shares for $5,798
in cash and became an owner of 100% of Oriels shares for
the total of $1,467,514.
Oriel Resources Plc. is a London-based chrome and nickel mining
and processing company operating mainly in Kazakhstan and
Russia. Oriels current mining projects include the Voskhod
chrome and the Shevchenko nickel projects, both located in north
western Kazakhstan. Interlinked with Voskhod is the
vertically-integrated Tikhvin ferrochrome smelting plant in
Russia, which commenced its production in April 2007.
Current mineral licenses of Oriel expire in 2029 for a chrome
deposit and 2017 for a nickel deposit. Based on the current
mining program, the Group expects chrome deposit to be depleted
before the license expiration date. Consequently, the value
assigned to chrome licenses is amortized using the
units-of-production
method through the end of the estimated proven and probable
reserve depletion period. The value of nickel license is not
amortized as long as the project is at the exploration stage.
This acquisition was accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting. The excess of the fair value of the net assets
acquired over the purchase price has been allocated as a pro
rata reduction of $30,587 of the amounts that otherwise would
have been assigned to long-lived assets in accordance with the
ASC 805. The
F-33
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
results of operations of Oriel are included in the consolidated
financial statements from the date of acquisition of control,
April 17, 2008. The following table summarizes the fair
values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 17, 2008
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
27,914
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
139,664
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
359,769
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
1,724,730
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
2,378
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(158,057
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(113,136
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(521,083
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
1,462,179
|
|
Non-controlling interest share in net assets
|
|
|
(463
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
1,461,716
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oriel is included in the Ferroalloy segment.
On June 30, 2008, Mechel OAO signed a shares exchange
agreement with Mr. Igor V. Zyuzin (the Groups
Controlling Shareholder). In accordance with this agreement, the
Group exchanged 190,985,726 common shares of Mechel -Mining OAO
(1.56% of total shares) for 613,624 common shares of Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC) (1.72% of total shares).
It was accounted for as a transaction between entities under
common control and recorded at historical cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
914,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Ductil Steel (Note 3(f)), Steel segment
|
|
|
132,690
|
|
Acquisition of non-controlling interest in SUNP, Ferroalloy
segment
|
|
|
4,532
|
|
Increase in goodwill as a result of derecognition of deferred
tax assets related to acquisitions (Note 19)
|
|
|
44,568
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(185,792
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
910,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of EkosPlus, Mining segment
|
|
|
4,533
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(20,603
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
894,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of TPP Rousse (Note 3(a)), Energy segment
|
|
|
104,586
|
|
Acquisition of Ramateks (Note 3(b)), Steel segment
|
|
|
2,420
|
|
Acquisition of other subsidiaries, Steel segment
|
|
|
2,371
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(14,966
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
988,785
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-34
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Goodwill arising on the above acquisitions is not deductible for
tax purposes.
|
|
(j)
|
Non-controlling
interests
|
The following table summarizes changes in non-controlling
interests for the three years ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
300,523
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of the non-controlling interest in existing
subsidiaries by the Group
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
Non-conrolling share in subsidiaries income from
continuing operations
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(62,015
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
290,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of the non-controlling interest in existing
subsidiaries by the Group
|
|
|
(3,368
|
)
|
New acquisitions
|
|
|
246
|
|
Non-controlling share in subsidiaries income from
continuing operations
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(9,349
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
280,968
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of the non-controlling interest in existing
subsidiaries by the Group
|
|
|
(7,040
|
)
|
New acquisitions
|
|
|
1,760
|
|
Non-controlling share in subsidiaries income from
continuing operations
|
|
|
34,761
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(2,263
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
308,186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At various dates during 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Group purchased
non-controlling interest in the following subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Controlling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant (SUNP)
|
|
May-July
|
|
|
4.15
|
%
|
|
|
18,936
|
|
|
|
31,780
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
March-October
|
|
|
0.24
|
%
|
|
|
11,230
|
|
|
|
13,646
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
April-August
|
|
|
0.39
|
%
|
|
|
4,211
|
|
|
|
4,661
|
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant (BMP)
|
|
January-April
|
|
|
0.01
|
%
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Tomusinsk Energo Management (TEM)
|
|
May
|
|
|
2.80
|
%
|
|
|
527
|
|
|
|
400
|
|
Izhstal
|
|
May
|
|
|
0.20
|
%
|
|
|
355
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant (SKPP)
|
|
January-March
|
|
|
0.22
|
%
|
|
|
297
|
|
|
|
658
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine (TOPM)
|
|
March-April
|
|
|
0.06
|
%
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company (KPSC)
|
|
January
|
|
|
0.11
|
%
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,496
|
|
|
|
51,346
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-35
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Controlling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
September-October
|
|
|
0.44
|
%
|
|
|
3,043
|
|
|
|
11,131
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
April
|
|
|
0.01
|
%
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Carbon AG
|
|
July-September
|
|
|
9.21
|
%
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delizea Finance Ltd.
|
|
January
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
Luckstone Corporation
|
|
January
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Nerungribank
|
|
January
|
|
|
4.89
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morcenter TECK
|
|
March
|
|
|
0.83
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,368
|
|
|
|
14,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
February-December
|
|
|
0.71
|
%
|
|
|
4,947
|
|
|
|
16,505
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
January-February
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Mechel Carbon
|
|
June
|
|
|
0.79
|
%
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
308
|
|
Other
|
|
January-August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
303
|
|
|
|
658
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,280
|
|
|
|
17,481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In April and May 2008, the Group acquired 4.15% of common shares
of SUNP for $31,780 paid in cash. The acquisition resulted in a
goodwill of $4,532.
On different dates from April through August 2008, the Group
acquired 0.39% of voting shares of CMP for $4,661 paid in cash.
The purchase of a non-controlling interest in CMP was accounted
for using the purchase method of accounting and was recorded in
the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
On different dates from March through October 2008, the Group
acquired 0.24% of voting shares of SKCC for $13,646 paid in
cash. The purchase of a non-controlling interest in SKCC was
accounted for using the purchase method of accounting and was
recorded in the consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2008.
In January 2009, the Groups subsidiary Oriel Resources
Plc. acquired the remaining 10% of Delizea Finance Ltd. and
Luckstone Corporation for $3,000 and $500 paid in cash,
respectively, completing the process of consolidation of its
Kazakhstan assets. The purchase of interests in Delizea Finance
Ltd. and Luckstone Corporation was accounted for as an equity
transaction and recorded in the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.
On different dates from September to October 2009, the Group
acquired 0.44% of voting shares of SKCC for $11,131 paid in
cash. The purchase of a non-controlling interest in SKCC was
accounted for as an equity transaction and was recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
On different dates from February through December 2010, the
Group acquired 0.71% of voting shares of SKCC for $16,505 paid
in cash. The purchase of a non-controlling interest in SKCC was
accounted for as an
F-36
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
equity transaction and was recorded in the consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010.
During 2010, Mechel OAO exchanged the 100% of interest in the
BCG Companies for the common shares of Mechel-Mining OAO and
made additional capital contributions increasing the
Groups interest in Mechel-Mining OAO up to 98.69%. These
transactions resulted in a dilution of the non-controlling
interest in Mechel-Mining OAO. The exchange of shares was
accounted for as an equity transaction and was recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as an increase in the additional paid-in
capital in the amount of $528.
|
|
(k)
|
Pro
forma condensed consolidated income statement data
(unaudited)
|
The following unaudited pro forma consolidated income statement
information for (i) 12 months ended December 31,
2010, gives effect to the business combinations that occurred in
2010, as if they had occurred at the beginning of 2010 and
(ii) 12 months ended December 31, 2009, gives
effect to the business combinations that occurred in 2010 and
2009, as if they had occurred at the beginning of 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
9,793,988
|
|
|
|
5,951,436
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
655,968
|
|
|
|
243,420
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
|
1.55
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
The business combinations that occurred in 2010 contributed
$75,740 to consolidated revenues and $16,235 of net loss to the
Groups consolidated net income for the year ended
December 31, 2010 from the dates of such acquisitions.
The following unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated income
statement information for (i) 12 months ended
December 31, 2009, gives effect to the business
combinations that occurred in 2009, as if they had occurred at
the beginning of 2009 and (ii) 12 months ended
December 31, 2008, gives effect to the business
combinations that occurred in 2009 and 2008, as if they had
occurred at the beginning of 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
5,828,311
|
|
|
|
10,564,369
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
263,843
|
|
|
|
464,728
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
|
0.31
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
The business conbinations that occurred in 2009 contributed
$140,235 to consolidated revenues and $45,335 of net loss to the
Groups consolidated net income for the year ended
December 31, 2009 from the dates of such acquisitions.
These unaudited pro forma amounts are provided for informational
purposes only and do not purport to present the results of
operations of the Group had the transactions assumed therein
occurred on or as of the dates indicated, nor is it necessarily
indicative of the results of operations, which may be achieved
in the future.
F-37
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
4.
|
CASH AND
CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
Cash and cash equivalents are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Russian ruble bank accounts
|
|
|
152,957
|
|
|
|
209,211
|
|
USD bank accounts
|
|
|
89,725
|
|
|
|
172,782
|
|
Euro bank accounts
|
|
|
60,665
|
|
|
|
20,638
|
|
Bank accounts in other currencies
|
|
|
30,842
|
|
|
|
5,705
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6,611
|
|
|
|
6,360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
340,800
|
|
|
|
414,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010, $332 included in bank accounts in
other currencies was restricted for use in accordance with
guarantees provided by Banka Comerciala Romana S.A. (BCR bank).
As of December 31, 2009, $55,984 included in USD bank
accounts was restricted for use in accordance with various
guarantees provided by BNP Paribas to the Groups
subsidiaries (refer to Note 24), and $359 was restricted
for use in accordance with the guarantees with VTB bank and BCR
bank.
As of December 31, 2010, short-term deposits of $808 and
$185 with an original maturity of less than 90 days were
included in euro bank accounts and bank accounts in other
currencies, respectively. As of December 31, 2009,
short-term deposits with an original maturity of less than
90 days in the amounts of $170,364, $2,129 and $1,782 were
included in Russian ruble bank accounts, euro bank accounts, and
bank accounts in other currencies, respectively.
As of December 31, 2009, other cash and cash equivalents
included $3,029 of deposits for letters of credit entered into
by the Groups subsidiaries for the plant, property and
equipment acquisition.
|
|
5.
|
ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE, NET
|
Accounts receivable, net are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Domestic customers
|
|
|
392,219
|
|
|
|
273,537
|
|
Foreign customers
|
|
|
189,673
|
|
|
|
141,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts receivable
|
|
|
581,892
|
|
|
|
415,087
|
|
Less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(52,785
|
)
|
|
|
(66,764
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
529,107
|
|
|
|
348,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following summarizes the changes in the allowance for
doubtful accounts for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
(66,764
|
)
|
|
|
(110,613
|
)
|
|
|
(26,781
|
)
|
Recovery of allowance (allowance) for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
21,221
|
|
|
|
38,019
|
|
|
|
(103,632
|
)
|
Accounts receivable written off, net
|
|
|
(432
|
)
|
|
|
(954
|
)
|
|
|
385
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts of acquired entities
|
|
|
(8,856
|
)
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
|
(1,470
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
2,046
|
|
|
|
6,845
|
|
|
|
20,885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(52,785
|
)
|
|
|
(66,764
|
)
|
|
|
(110,613
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-38
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The significant decrease in allowance for doubtful accounts in
2010 and 2009 is due to an improvement of the collectibility of
accounts receivable and increase in sales made on a prepayment
basis.
The significant increase in allowance for doubtful accounts in
2008 was due to the increased exposure of the Group to potential
losses on its accounts receivable because of the financial
crisis. A substantial portion of such increase was earmarked to
several customers experiencing liquidity problems. In 2010 and
2009, most of such customers repaid their debts.
Inventories are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
1,049,795
|
|
|
|
575,462
|
|
Raw materials and purchased parts
|
|
|
573,375
|
|
|
|
327,214
|
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
243,456
|
|
|
|
133,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventories
|
|
|
1,866,626
|
|
|
|
1,035,786
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the write-down of
inventories to their net realizable value was $52,820 and
$70,714, respectively. The most significant decrease in the
write-down of inventories in 2010 and 2009 is attributable to
the Steel segment in the amount of $15,970 and $117,847,
respectively. In the period of the global economic downturn,
significant amounts of inventories were written down to their
net realizable value following the related market price
decreases, and such reduced amount is considered the cost basis
for subsequent accounting purposes. During the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Group mostly sold
inventories that had been previously written down to the net
realizable value. The decrease in inventories write-down is
reflected as part of goods sold in the consolidated statement of
income and comprehensive income (loss).
The (decrease) increase in the write-downs of inventories by
segment for the years ended December 31 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
(15,970
|
)
|
|
|
(117,847
|
)
|
|
|
180,661
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
(6,614
|
)
|
|
|
5,516
|
|
|
|
2,831
|
|
Ferroalloy segment
|
|
|
2,186
|
|
|
|
(74,417
|
)
|
|
|
94,714
|
|
Energy segment
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
484
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total change in the write-down of inventories
|
|
|
(20,225
|
)
|
|
|
(186,264
|
)
|
|
|
278,176
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-39
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
7.
|
PREPAYMENTS
AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS
|
Prepayments and other current assets are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
VAT and other taxes recoverable
|
|
|
308,427
|
|
|
|
247,795
|
|
Bank deposits with original maturities over 90 days
|
|
|
200,060
|
|
|
|
89,805
|
|
Prepayments and advances for materials
|
|
|
128,184
|
|
|
|
55,849
|
|
Capitalized loan origination fees
|
|
|
30,071
|
|
|
|
30,165
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
15,613
|
|
|
|
28,472
|
|
Short-term loans issued
|
|
|
13,280
|
|
|
|
55,223
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
12,531
|
|
|
|
6,867
|
|
Promissory notes received
|
|
|
8,058
|
|
|
|
4,204
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
21,427
|
|
|
|
33,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
737,651
|
|
|
|
551,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following summarizes the changes in the allowance for
doubtful accounts included in prepayments, other current assets
and advances for materials for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
(15,734
|
)
|
|
|
(19,892
|
)
|
|
|
(7,972
|
)
|
(Allowance for) recovery of allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(1,324
|
)
|
|
|
3,457
|
|
|
|
(12,055
|
)
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts of acquired entities
|
|
|
(42
|
)
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
(2,039
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
926
|
|
|
|
793
|
|
|
|
2,174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(16,174
|
)
|
|
|
(15,734
|
)
|
|
|
(19,892
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally in Russia, VAT related to sales is payable to the tax
authorities on an accrual basis based upon invoices issued to
the customer. VAT incurred on purchases may be reclaimed,
subject to certain restrictions, against VAT related to sales.
VAT related to purchase transactions, which is not yet
reclaimable against VAT related to sales as of the balance sheet
dates, is recognized in the balance sheets on a gross basis,
i.e. as other current assets and taxes and social charges
payable.
The capitalized origination fees on the Groups loans in
the amount of $30,071 and $30,165 are being amortized using the
effective interest method over the loan term. The capitalized
origination fees are classified between short-term and long-term
assets in a manner consistent with the related debt.
As of December 31, 2009, short-term loans issued included
$51,249 of funds transferred by TOPM to Coalmetbank under the
asset management agreement that guaranteed a rate of return of
10.5% p.a. Coalmetbank used these funds to acquire one-year
promissory notes issued by Calridge Ltd., a related party (refer
to Note 9). Interest receivable related to this loan in the
amount $4,720 was included in other current assets as of
December 31, 2009. In 2010, these loans were fully repaid.
The BCG Companies have total bonding requirements of $19,900, of
which $12,531 and $6,687 is collateralized by cash deposits and
investments that are included in certificates of deposit and
short-term investments restricted as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively. As of that dates, the primary bonding
program included over $19,494 and $8,700 in bonding capacity
under this insured program that contained $7,021 and $5,900 in
cash and investment collateral. The insurer requires monthly
payments of additional cash collateral amounting to $70 until
acceptable collateral levels are achieved, projected by the
insurer to occur after the first quarter of 2011.
F-40
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Long-term investments are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Equity method investments
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
Other related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in related parties
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
86,144
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
Cost method investments
|
|
|
6,641
|
|
|
|
8,972
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,471
|
|
|
|
5,473
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other long-term investments
|
|
|
14,624
|
|
|
|
23,563
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term investments
|
|
|
23,388
|
|
|
|
109,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The proceeds from sale of
available-for-sale
securities and the gross realized gains that have been included
in earnings as a result of this sale in 2010 comprised $9,346
and $1,411, respectively ($nil during 2009).
|
|
(a)
|
Equity
method investments
|
Equity method investments are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent Voting Shares Held at
|
|
|
Investment Carrying Value at
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Investee
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
TPP Rousse (Power segment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,364
|
|
Mechel Energy AG (Conares Eagle) (Mining segment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
TPTU (Mining segment)
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
4,297
|
|
|
|
4,541
|
|
TRMZ (Mining segment)
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
2,435
|
|
|
|
2,187
|
|
RIKT (Mining segment)
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
2,032
|
|
|
|
2,197
|
|
Other (Mining segment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-44
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,647
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity method investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The core business of TPP Rousse is generation of electricity and
heat for sales in Europe. The Groups subsidiaries owned
49% of the common shares of TPP Rousse until December 9,
2010, when the Group purchased remaining 51% of the common
shares of TPP Rousse and has been consolidating it since that
date (refer to Note 3(a)).
Mechel Energy AG is a joint venture with U.K. trading partners
of the Group that facilitates the Groups sales in Europe.
In 2008, Mechel Energy AG ceased to perform active trading
operations, distributed all its net assets as dividends to its
shareholders and was a dormant company until its liquidation in
July 2010.
TPTU (Tomusinskiy Transportation Management Center) shares are
owned by SKCC. The core business is provision of transportation
services both to the Groups subsidiaries and third parties.
TRMZ (Tomusinskiy Auto Repair Shop) shares are owned by SKCC and
its subsidiaries. TRMZ provides repair services to the
Groups subsidiaries.
F-41
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
RIKT (Russian-Italian Telephone Company) shares are owned by
SKCC and its subsidiaries. The core business is provision of
communication services both to the Groups subsidiaries and
third parties.
Summarized unaudited financial information on equity method
investees as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the
years then ended is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Data
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Revenues and other income
|
|
|
33,767
|
|
|
|
98,547
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
2,906
|
|
|
|
7,824
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
1,894
|
|
|
|
3,572
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
14,268
|
|
|
|
72,831
|
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
15,861
|
|
|
|
84,579
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
3,836
|
|
|
|
81,199
|
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
549
|
|
|
|
6,303
|
|
The following table shows movements in the equity method
investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
91,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
207
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(6,316
|
)
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(6,569
|
)
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
2,374
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in Nerungribank
|
|
|
1,924
|
|
Disposal of Nerungribank
|
|
|
(4,913
|
)
|
Effect of consolidation of TPP Rousse
|
|
|
(74,748
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
2,367
|
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
the Group received cash dividends of $nil, $11 and $6,569,
respectively.
F-42
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(b)
|
Cost
method investments
|
Cost method investments represent investments in equity
securities of various Russian companies, where the Group has
less than a 20% equity interest and no significant influence. As
shares of those Russian companies are not publicly traded, their
market value is not available and the investment is recorded at
cost.
The investments were not evaluated for impairment because the
Group did not identify any events or changes in circumstances
that may have a significant effect on the fair value of these
investments.
|
|
(c)
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
Investments in
available-for-sale
securities were as follows as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
6,448
|
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(936
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
6,448
|
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(936
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in
available-for-sale
securities were as follows as of December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
14,893
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,775
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
14,893
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,775
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
available-for-sale
securities represented investments into equity securities of
well-established Russian energy companies.
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
the Group had the following transactions and current balances in
settlement with related parties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
(Received), Net
|
|
|
From
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Calridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
87,836
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related metallurgical plants
|
|
|
1,228,542
|
|
|
|
419,786
|
|
|
|
1,390
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
512,018
|
|
|
|
(91,843
|
)
|
|
|
420,175
|
|
Metallurg-Trust
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
220,168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,760
|
|
|
|
(4,232
|
)
|
|
|
123,528
|
|
Laminorul
|
|
|
1,140
|
|
|
|
12,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTU
|
|
|
2,857
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
(71
|
)
|
|
|
118
|
|
TRMZ
|
|
|
4,043
|
|
|
|
1,378
|
|
|
|
1,278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(545
|
)
|
|
|
(384
|
)
|
TPP Rousse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nerungribank
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usipar
|
|
|
7,456
|
|
|
|
13,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,214
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,214
|
|
Other
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,244,306
|
|
|
|
686,172
|
|
|
|
3,089
|
|
|
|
87,836
|
|
|
|
682,342
|
|
|
|
(96,694
|
)
|
|
|
585,648
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-43
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
(Received), Net
|
|
|
From
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Calridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(822
|
)
|
|
|
16,449
|
|
|
|
5,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,043
|
|
Related metallurgical plants
|
|
|
117,828
|
|
|
|
57,206
|
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,178
|
|
|
|
(11,749
|
)
|
|
|
80,429
|
|
Laminorul
|
|
|
1,442
|
|
|
|
5,356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,824
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,824
|
|
Mechel Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIKT
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
TPTU
|
|
|
1,977
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
|
|
(67
|
)
|
TRMZ
|
|
|
6,114
|
|
|
|
513
|
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
(1,664
|
)
|
|
|
(1,323
|
)
|
TPP Rousse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,542
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,542
|
|
Coalmetbank
|
|
|
766
|
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
(9,506
|
)
|
|
|
113,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(94
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,002
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
128,556
|
|
|
|
107,104
|
|
|
|
(10,135
|
)
|
|
|
130,143
|
|
|
|
110,931
|
|
|
|
(13,500
|
)
|
|
|
97,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
(Received), Net
|
|
|
From
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Calridge
|
|
|
1,508
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114,236
|
)
|
|
|
2,382
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,382
|
|
GPU
|
|
|
8,342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,925
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Energy AG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIKT
|
|
|
246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
TPP Rousse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,783
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,755
|
|
TPTU
|
|
|
4,346
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
(192
|
)
|
TRMZ
|
|
|
8,490
|
|
|
|
536
|
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
(1,364
|
)
|
|
|
(1,348
|
)
|
Coalmetbank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,130
|
|
|
|
67,907
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,907
|
|
Other
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
22,942
|
|
|
|
68,328
|
|
|
|
3,362
|
|
|
|
(30,720
|
)
|
|
|
90,078
|
|
|
|
(1,588
|
)
|
|
|
88,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Energy AG, in which the Group owned 50% of its ordinary
shares, purchased coal from the Group during the year ended
December 31, 2008 in the amount of $2,988.
|
|
(b)
|
Tomusinskiy
Transportation Management Center (TPTU)
|
The Group subsidiaries own 40% of the ordinary shares in TPTU,
which provides transportation services. During the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Group purchased
transportation services in the amount of $2,857, $1,977 and
$4,346, respectively.
F-44
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(c)
|
Tomusinskiy
Auto Repair Shop (TRMZ)
|
The Group subsidiaries own 25% of the ordinary shares in TRMZ,
which provides auto repair services. During the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Group purchased
repair services in the amount of $4,043, $6,114 and $8,490,
respectively.
Calridge Ltd. is a company wholly owned by the Controlling
Shareholder. On June 30, 2008, the Justice family entered
into the Option Agreement to sell 100% of capital stock or
membership interests of the BCG Companies. Under the Option
Agreement, Calridge Ltd. paid $100,000 in cash as a prepayment
on July 3, 2008. In accordance with the Assignment
Agreement dated August 19, 2008, Calridge Ltd. assigned to
MIH all the rights, title and interest in and to the Option
Agreement for the consideration of $100,000 plus accrued
interest of $1,459 that was repaid by MIH by October 2008.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Group drew
down loans from Calridge Ltd. in the amount of $16,600, which
were fully repaid as of December 31, 2008, and issued loans
to Calridge Ltd. in the amount of $2,364. The net financing
provided by Calridge Ltd. to the Group amounted to $114,236.
In 2008, the Group transferred cash under the asset management
agreement in the amount of $52,756 to Coalmetbank (formerly
Uglemetbank). The bank further used these funds to acquire
promissory notes issued by Calridge Ltd. bearing interest at
8.6-14.5% p.a.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Group issued
loans to Calridge Ltd. in the amount of $16,449, which were
fully repaid as of December 31, 2009. Interest income
received from these loans issued comprised $822 in 2009.
In 2009, the Group also transferred cash under the asset
management agreement in the amount of $54,807 to Coalmetbank.
The bank further used these funds to acquire promissory notes
issued by Calridge Ltd. bearing interest at 8.6-14.5% p.a.
The outstanding amounts of Calridge Ltd. promissory notes as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $59,030 and $52,756,
respectively. Whereas, as discussed in Note 9(i),
Coalmetbank was considered as related party to the Group as of
December 31, 2008 but not as of December 31, 2009,
$51,875 of such promissory notes held by the Group in the
Coalmetbank trust accounts was included in the short-term loans
issued to third parties as of December 31, 2009, $4,863 and
$2,292 of other balances with Calridge Ltd. within receivables
from related parties and long-term investments in related
parties, respectively (refer to Notes 7 and 8). As of
December 31, 2008, the promissory notes were included in
the short-term investments in related parties in the whole
amount.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Group issued
U.S. dollar-denominated loans to Calridge Ltd. in the total
amount of $135,336 bearing interest at 4%-8.5% p.a., which were
fully repaid as of December 31, 2010. Interest income from
these loans issued amounted to $358 in 2010. During the year
ended December 31, 2010, the Group also obtained loans from
Calridge Ltd. in the amount of $47,500 bearing interest at
3.5%-11.5%, which were fully repaid as of December 31,
2010. Interest expense comprised $322 in 2010.
In January and February 2010, Calridge Ltd. settled the whole
amount of its outstanding promissory notes to Coalmetbank, and
Coalmetbank repaid the total amount of $59,030 to the Group.
Interest income received from these loans issued comprised $125
in 2010.
F-45
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Groups subsidiaries owned 49% of the common shares in
TPP Rousse until December 9, 2010, when the Group purchased
the remaining 51% of the common shares of TPP Rousse and has
been consolidating it from that date (refer to Note 3 (a)).
During the period from January 1, 2010 through
December 8, 2010, and the years ended December 31,
2009 and 2008, the Groups sales to TPP Rousse amounted to
$19,196, $43,782 and $64,783, respectively. As of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Group had accounts
receivable from TPP Rousse in the amounts of $5,542 and $19,755,
respectively.
|
|
(g)
|
Mining
and Engineering Management Company (GPU)
|
Prior to June 2008, the CEO of Mining and Engineering Management
Company (GPU) was a close relative to the management
of one of the Groups subsidiaries. Effective June 2008,
GPU has not been treated as a related party since the related
person is no longer with the Group.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Group
purchased services on mine construction for $8,342, $5,418 of
which were capitalized. The Groups sales of construction
materials to GPU amounted to $2,925 and disclosed as other
income.
Coalmetbank (formerly referred to as Uglemetbank) is a middle
size regional bank, which provides mostly cash settlement
services for the Group. In the period from June 30, 2008
through November 28, 2009, the Group participated in the
board of directors of Coalmetbank. In addition, together with
its related party (see Note 9(j) below), the Group held a
significant ownership interest therein from November 19,
2008 through September 18, 2009. The Groups ownership
interest in Coalmetbank was 0% and 18.98% as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Cash held in Coalmetbank was $130,435 as of December 31,
2008. During the period from June 30, 2008 through
December 31, 2008, the Group acquired promissory notes from
Coalmetbank in the amount of $5,888, placed cash on deposit at
Coalmetbank in the amount of $13,486 and transferred $52,756
under the asset management agreement.
During the period from January 1, 2009 through
November 28, 2009, the Group acquired promissory notes from
Coalmetbank in the amount of $58,887 bearing interest at 9-9.2%
p.a. In addition, the Group provided funds under the asset
management agreement to Coalmetbank in the amount of $54,807
(refer to Note 9(e)). The total amount of income received
under the asset management agreement was $9,506 in 2009.
Mechel Fund (Penfosib) is a non-governmental pension fund which
provides pension insurance to the Groups employees, who
are members of pension plans. The Groups pension and
postretirement benefits, including those funded through Mechel
Fund, are disclosed in Note 16. In 2008, the Groups
subsidiaries made founder contributions to Mechel Fund in the
total amount of $17,501 (refer to Note 22).
During 2008, Mechel Fund provided to the Groups
subsidiaries short-term ruble-denominated loans in the amount of
$6,115 bearing interest at 8.8% p.a. The loans and related
interest were fully repaid by December 31, 2008.
In June 2009, the Group sold its interest of 18.98% in
Coalmetbank to Mechel Fund for $2,343 paid in cash, and Mechel
Fund increased its share in Coalmetbank up to 97.87%.
F-46
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In September 2009, the Group recalled its representatives from
the Mechel Fund Council, formally severed all links to
Mechel Fund as a founding party and refrained from participation
in the operating management of Mechel Fund. Consequently,
effective from September 18, 2009, the Group does not
consider Mechel Fund as its related party.
|
|
(k)
|
Transactions
with the Controlling Shareholder
|
As described in Note 3(h), on June 30, 2008, Mechel
OAO acquired 613,624 ordinary shares of SKCC (1.72%) from
Mr. Igor V. Zyuzin in exchange for 190,985,726 ordinary
shares, or 1.56%, of Mechel Mining OAO. The fair value of the
exchanged share packages was estimated based on the available
market quotes of the shares involved and considered to be equal.
The exchange was accounted for as a transaction between entities
under common control and recorded at historical cost.
|
|
(l)
|
Transactions
with the related metallurgical plants
|
In the second half of 2009, certain Russian and foreign
metallurgical plants and trading companies, which were formerly
part of the Estar Group or controlled by the Estar Group
shareholders (the related metallurgical plants)
became related parties to the Group through the representation
in the board of directors, management and other arrangements. In
2009, the companies that had business transactions with the
Group were as follows: Volga Fest, Rostov Electrometallurgical
Plant, Vostochnaya Mine, Experimental TES, Zlatoust
Metallurgical Plant, Guryevsk Metallurgical Plant, Volgograd
Small Diameter Pipe Plant, and Engels Pipe Plant. In addition,
in 2010, the Group started transactions with Donetsk
Electrometallurgical Plant, Invicta Merchant Bar, Metrus Trading
GmbH, MIR Steel, Nytva, Estar Egypt for Industries. These
transactions were carried at in joint interest of both parties
in expanding the Groups operations and products range on
the steel market and allowing these entities access to the
Groups strong supply and sales network.
During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the
Group had the following transactions and current balances in
settlement with the related metallurgical plants:
|
|
|
|
|
Re-selling of goods purchased by the Group from third parties to
the related metallurgical plants. Proceeds related to these
sales amounted to $227,512 and $9,002 in the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. For a part of
such transactions, the Group determined that it functioned as a
principal, and the amounts of $201,186 and $nil were included in
revenue from sale of goods in the consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income (loss) for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In 2010, these
sales included $65,774 of goods produced by the related
metallurgical plants resold further to other entities of the
former Estar group.
|
For the other part of such transactions, the Group determined
that their results should be recognized as operating gains.
Therefore they are reported, net of related costs, within other
income (expenses), net in the consolidated statements of income
and comprehensive income (loss) in the amount of $1,194 and $186
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from sales of products manufactured by the Group and
services rendered to the related metallurgical plants amounted
to $218,603 and $57,206 for the years ended December 31,
2010 and 2009, respectively.
|
|
|
|
Cost of the related metallurgical plants products used in
the Groups production amounted to $174,821 and $4,683 for
the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods produced by the related metallurgical plants and
further sold by the Group to third party customers amounted to
$974,206 and $113,145, including transportation costs, for the
years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. For
such transactions, the Group determined that it functioned as a
principal, and the amounts of $1,051,184 and $123,653 were
included in revenue from the sale of goods in the consolidated
statement of income and comprehensive income (loss) for the
years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
|
F-47
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The related metallurgical plants used raw materials and
semi-finished goods purchased from the Group in their
production. The Group concluded that its sales to the related
metallurgical plants and the Groups purchases from these
entities were not in contemplation with each other and are
reported separately in the statement of income and comprehensive
income.
During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the
Group had the following transactions and current balances in
settlement with the related metallurgical plants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel sales
|
|
|
360,270
|
|
|
|
41,873
|
|
Ferronickel and other ferroalloys sales
|
|
|
19,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal sales
|
|
|
9,150
|
|
|
|
6,899
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
31,364
|
|
|
|
8,434
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
419,786
|
|
|
|
57,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods for resale, production and operating expenses
|
|
|
1,213,426
|
|
|
|
115,448
|
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
14,993
|
|
|
|
2,371
|
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,228,542
|
|
|
|
117,828
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade accounts receivable
|
|
|
183,106
|
|
|
|
41,079
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
328,912
|
|
|
|
51,099
|
|
|
|
|
512,018
|
|
|
|
92,178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade accounts payable
|
|
|
91,122
|
|
|
|
11,396
|
|
Advanced received and other payables
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,843
|
|
|
|
11,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories in stock purchased from these entities amounted to
$166,268 and $66,078 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
In 2010, the Group started transactions with a trading company
Metallurg-Trust, a party which can be significantly influenced
by the Group through business relationships. Metallurg-Trust is
mostly involved in reselling the goods produced by Russian
metallurgical plants described in Note 9(l) on the domestic
market and supplying raw materials and semi-finished goods. In
2010, the Group sold to Metallurg-Trust $220,168 of pig iron and
semi-finished goods produced by CMP for further supply to the
Russian metallurgical plants mentioned above. Receivables from
Metallurg-Trust amounted to $127,760 as of December 31,
2010. The Group provided to Metallurg-Trust extended credit
terms varying from 90 to 180 days. No allowance was created
against this amount as the Group considers it to be fully
collectible.
F-48
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(n) Laminorul
S.A.
In October 2009, the Group became a related party to Laminorul
S.A., a steel company located in Romania, through representation
in the Administrative Council. The Group entered into agreement
for materials processing with Laminorul S.A. in June 2009.
During the period from October 2009 through December 31,
2009, the Groups sales to Laminorul S.A. amounted to
$5,356, the Groups purchases of materials processing
services from Laminorul S.A. amounted to $1,442. As of
December 31, 2009, accounts receivable from Laminorul S.A.
equaled to $6,824.
On February 25, 2010, the Group acquired 100% of the shares
of Donau Commodities SRL, which held 90.9% of interest in
ownership of Laminorul S.A. During the period from January 2010
through February 25, 2010, the Groups sales to
Laminorul S.A. amounted to $12,231 and the Groups
purchases of materials processing services from Laminorul S.A.
amounted to $1,140.
Nerungribank OOO is a commercial bank located in Nerungri, the
Republic Sakha, which provides a range of banking services to
local clients. The Group subsidiaries owned 43.6% of the
ordinary shares in Nerungribank during the period from January
2010 through April 2010. On April 2, 2010, in addition to
the existing interest, the Group acquired 40.58% and during the
period from June through December 2010, the Group acquired 9.69%
of the common shares of Nerungribank. During the period when
Nerungribank was a related party to the Group, the amount of
interest income received was $49. The Groups purchases of
banking service amounted $60. On December 28, 2010, the
Group sold 93.06% of the ordinary shares in Nerungribank to a
third party, and since that date Nerungribank is no longer
considered a related party to the Group.
|
|
(p)
|
Usina
Siderurgica do Para Ltda (Usipar)
|
Usipar is a steel company located in Brazil, owned by the
Controlling Shareholder, and it became a related party of the
Group since September 2010. During the period from September
through December 31, 2010, the Groups purchases of
pig iron amounted $7,456, and the Groups sales of coke and
other raw materials to Usipar amounted $13,372. As of
December 31, 2010, the Group had trade accounts receivable
from Usipar and prepayments in the amount of $13,372 and
$28,841, respectively.
F-49
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
10.
|
PROPERTY,
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT, NET
|
Property, plant and equipment, net are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
119,069
|
|
|
|
112,240
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
1,267,715
|
|
|
|
1,221,736
|
|
Transfer devices
|
|
|
137,562
|
|
|
|
131,871
|
|
Operating machinery and equipment
|
|
|
2,390,703
|
|
|
|
2,093,950
|
|
Transportation equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
555,112
|
|
|
|
438,994
|
|
Tools, furniture, fixtures and other
|
|
|
65,599
|
|
|
|
54,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,535,760
|
|
|
|
4,053,452
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(1,583,807
|
)
|
|
|
(1,278,834
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
2,951,953
|
|
|
|
2,774,618
|
|
Mining plant and equipment
|
|
|
503,588
|
|
|
|
405,209
|
|
Less accumulated depletion
|
|
|
(71,310
|
)
|
|
|
(55,515
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
432,278
|
|
|
|
349,694
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
2,028,855
|
|
|
|
1,347,063
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
5,413,086
|
|
|
|
4,471,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included within
construction-in-progress
are advances to suppliers of equipment of $248,499 and $174,511
as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. During the
years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Group incurred
interest expenses of $671,100 and $582,346, respectively, of
which interest capitalized in the cost of property, plant and
equipment was $112,703 and $87,252, respectively. The
depreciation charge amounted to $329,959 and $321,117 for the
years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Mining plant and equipment, net included mining construction in
progress in the amount of $95,668 and $79,342 as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
During 2009 and 2010, the Group decided to abandon and dispose
of certain production equipment as a result of changes in its
production strategy. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the
carrying value of such equipment amounted to $10,776 and
$20,940, respectively, and was written off in full, out of which
$2,993, $3,039 and $4,744 (in 2010) and $3,496, $1,669 and
$15,775 (in 2009) related to the Mining, Steel and
Ferroalloy segments.
F-50
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
11.
|
MINERAL
LICENSES, NET
|
Mineral licenses, net are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Coal deposits
|
|
|
3,897,684
|
|
|
|
3,909,010
|
|
Chrome deposits
|
|
|
1,398,340
|
|
|
|
1,389,233
|
|
Iron ore deposits
|
|
|
71,996
|
|
|
|
72,836
|
|
Nickel deposits
|
|
|
36,963
|
|
|
|
37,137
|
|
Limestone deposits
|
|
|
2,841
|
|
|
|
2,863
|
|
Quartzite deposits
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
1,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral licenses before depletion
|
|
|
5,408,162
|
|
|
|
5,412,858
|
|
Accumulated depletion
|
|
|
(436,434
|
)
|
|
|
(279,753
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral licenses, net
|
|
|
4,971,728
|
|
|
|
5,133,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of existing mineral licenses were recorded upon acquisition
of mining and ferroalloy subsidiaries. Fair values of mineral
licenses pertaining to the appraised underlying mineral assets
at the date of acquisition were determined by the Group based on
appraisals performed by independent mining engineers for each
acquisition date. The carrying values of the mineral licenses
were reduced proportionate to the depletion of the respective
mineral reserves at each deposit related to mining and
production of reserves adjusted for the reserves re-measurement
and purchase accounting effects. No residual value is assumed in
the mineral license valuation.
As described in Note 3(e) above, on May 7, 2009, the
Group acquired control over the BCG Companies. The BCG Companies
are coal producers located in the United States, which possess
and lease coking coal reserves, coal mines and processing
plants. The total value allocated to the cost of the BCG
Companies coal mineral licenses as of the date of
acquisition amounted to $2,172,382.
As described in Note 3(g) above, during the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Group acquired 100% of Oriels
shares. Oriel holds mining licenses for a chrome deposit and a
nickel deposit in Kazakhstan. The total value allocated to the
cost of Oriels chrome and nickel mineral licenses at the
date of acquisition amounted to $1,717,040 and $7,690,
respectively.
To determine the value of the mineral licenses as of
December 31, 2010, the Group used quantities of underlying
mineral assets, production data and other factors, including
economic viability and any new exploration data.
The Groups mining segment production activities are
located within Russia, Kazakhstan and the United States. The
Groups mineral reserves and deposits are situated on the
land belonging to government and regional authorities. In
Russia, mining minerals require a subsoil license from the state
authorities with respect to identified mineral deposits. The
Group obtains licenses from such authorities and pays certain
taxes to explore and produce from these deposits. These licenses
expire up to 2027, with the most significant licenses expiring
between 2012 and 2024, and management believes that they may be
extended at the initiative of the Group without substantial
cost. Management intends to extend such licenses for deposits
expected to remain productive subsequent to their license expiry
dates. In Kazakhstan, the Group has mining licenses for the
period ended in 2029 for a chrome deposit and license expiring
in 2017 for a nickel deposit. In the United States, the Group
controls coal reserves and resources through a combination of
lease and ownership. The leases contain percentage royalties,
which vary from 3% to 8.5% and depend on coal selling prices and
most of these leases contain minimums recoupable from the future
production. The leases expire over the period from 2011 to 2018,
and they generally contain extension clauses.
F-51
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Group holds the license for the development of the Elga coal
deposit, located in the Far Eastern part of the Russian
Federation. The current license expires in 2020 and is subject
to renewal conditioned upon complying with certain commitments
and obligations undertaken by Mechel under the Purchase and
Sales Agreement and the license requirements. According to the
license, as amended in May 2010, the Group is required to meet
certain operational milestones as follows: (a) complete the
legal permits for development of the Elga coal deposit by
June 30, 2010 (a plan of initial mine block development was
approved by the state authorities on June 30, 2010);
(b) commence construction of the mining plant in November
2009 (the Group commenced construction of the initial mine block
of Elga open pit mine in November 2009); (c) complete
construction of the first phase of Elga complex by
December 31, 2013 and commence coal production by
November 30, 2010 (the Group commenced overburden mining at
the initial mine block of Elga open pit mine in November 2010);
(d) reach an estimated annual coal production capacity of
9.0 million tonnes in July 2013; and (e) reach
targeted annual coal production of 18 million tonnes by
July 2018. All amendments of the terms of the license were
approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology. As
part of the license conditions, as amended in May 2010, the
Group is also required to construct a rail branch line of
approximately 315 kilometers in length by December 31,
2011. There is a risk that the Group will not be able to comply
with the timely construction of the railway in the isolated area
of the Elgaugol mine deposit. Failure to meet this requirement
could result in the suspension or termination of the license for
the development of the Elga coal deposit. The Group has
significant commitments for the construction of the railway
(refer to Note 24). Management believes that as of
April 12, 2011, the Group is in compliance with the
requirements and commitments set by the license.
The mineral licenses validity is subject to meeting different
license requirements, which are currently fulfilled by the
Group, except for the requirements related to two mineral
licenses owned by SKCC. The Group failed to commence coal
production at Raspadsk license area (New-Olzherassk underground
mine) and Sorokinsk license area (Krasnogorsk open pit) in 2009
due to unfavorable economic conditions, but expects to commence
such production in 2011. The carrying value of these licenses as
of December 31, 2010 amounted to $19,161. During
2009-2010,
the Group applied to the local authorities for the changes in
the coal production commencement terms stated in these licenses.
The Group believes that the probability that the local
authorities would revoke these licenses is remote.
|
|
12.
|
OTHER
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
|
Other non-current assets are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Capitalized loan origination fees
|
|
|
112,269
|
|
|
|
40,844
|
|
Prepaid royalty
|
|
|
19,326
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advance payments to non-state pension funds
|
|
|
14,208
|
|
|
|
19,259
|
|
Prepaid bonds
|
|
|
8,010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
24,658
|
|
|
|
7,191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other non-current assets
|
|
|
178,471
|
|
|
|
67,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, advance payments of
$14,208 and $19,259 were made by Yakutugol under a pension
benefit program to Almaznaya Osen and Mechel Fund
non-state pension funds (refer to Note 16).
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the amounts of $112,269
and $40,844, respectively, related to capitalized origination
fees on bank loans that were recorded as a non-current asset,
and are being amortized using the effective interest method over
the loan term (refer to Note 13). The capitalized
origination fees are classified between short-term and long-term
assets in a manner consistent with the related debt. The Export
F-52
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Credit Agency (ECA) fees capitalized within loan origination
fees amounted to $16,283 and $6,548 as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively. The ECA fees are the export credit
insurance issued by the respective Export Credit Agency acting
as an intermediary between national governments and exporters
receiving financing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion of Long-Term
Debt:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
744,223
|
|
|
|
5.4-8.5
|
|
|
|
493,271
|
|
|
|
9.0-16.5
|
|
Bonds issue
|
|
|
328,117
|
|
|
|
8.5-12.5
|
|
|
|
165,321
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
3,448
|
|
|
|
0.0-7.0
|
|
|
|
2,279
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,075,788
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
660,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
241,882
|
|
|
|
0.0-6.5
|
|
|
|
211,277
|
|
|
|
0.0-9.5
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
241,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
103,692
|
|
|
|
2.0-6.5
|
|
|
|
85,584
|
|
|
|
1.7-8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
103,692
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,584
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
5,750
|
|
|
|
5.5-12.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term borrowings
|
|
|
1,436,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
963,932
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
640,844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
959,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term
debt
|
|
|
2,077,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,923,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-53
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The weighted average interest rate of the ruble-denominated
short-term borrowings as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was
6.8% and 14.1% p.a., respectively. The weighted average interest
rate of the U.S. dollar-denominated short-term borrowings
as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was 4.7% and 4.0% p.a.,
respectively. The weighted average interest rate of the
euro-denominated short-term borrowings as of December 31,
2010 and 2009 was 5.2% and 5.2% p.a., respectively. The weighted
average interest rate of the Romanian lei-denominated short-term
borrowings as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was 7.6% and
8.1% p.a., respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Long-Term Debt, Net of Current Portion:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
1,481,019
|
|
|
|
7.0-16.0
|
|
|
|
776,885
|
|
|
|
10.6-18.2
|
|
Bonds issue
|
|
|
984,352
|
|
|
|
9.8-19.0
|
|
|
|
487,265
|
|
|
|
12.5-19.0
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
289
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,465,660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,264,460
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syndicated loan
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
5.3-6.3
|
|
|
|
2,348,996
|
|
|
|
7.2-8.2
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
1,080,229
|
|
|
|
0.0-8.0
|
|
|
|
1,170,945
|
|
|
|
3.3-14.0
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
32,323
|
|
|
|
0.0-12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,112,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,519,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
302,722
|
|
|
|
1.3-9.0
|
|
|
|
224,692
|
|
|
|
1.3-8.2
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
530
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
303,252
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,050
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,124
|
|
|
|
12.8-15.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,124
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term obligations
|
|
|
5,881,464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,033,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: current portion
|
|
|
(640,844
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(959,117
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
5,240,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted average interest rate of the ruble-denominated
long-term borrowings as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was
10.4% and 13.9% p.a., respectively. The weighted average
interest rate of the U.S. dollar-denominated long-term
borrowings as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was 6.5% and
8.0% p.a., respectively. The weighted average interest rate of
the euro-denominated long-term borrowings as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 was 4.2% and 4.9% p.a.,
respectively. The weighted average interest rate of the Romanian
lei-denominated long-term borrowings as of December 31,
2009 was 13.5% p.a.
F-54
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Aggregate scheduled maturities of the debt outstanding as of
December 31, 2010, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Payable By:
|
|
|
|
|
2011 (current portion)
|
|
|
2,077,809
|
|
2012
|
|
|
1,718,476
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,423,599
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,123,436
|
|
2015
|
|
|
909,119
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
65,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7,318,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol
and Oriel credit facility
In July 2009, the Group executed a $1,600,000 loan arrangement
(Yakutugol credit facility) for refinancing its
syndicated loan facilities which had been obtained in 2007 for
acquisition of its subsidiaries, Yakutugol and Elgaugol.
Yakutugol credit facility was provided by a
syndicate of banks with Commerzbank as facility Agreement Agent
bearing interest at LIBOR plus 6.0% p.a., and provided for equal
monthly installments from September 2009 through December 2012.
In July 2009, the Group executed a $1,000,000 loan arrangement
(Oriel credit facility) for refinancing its
syndicated loan facilities which had been obtained in 2008 for
acquisition of its subsidiary, Oriel. The Oriel
credit facility was provided by a syndicate of banks with
Commerzbank as facility Agreement Agent bearing interest at
LIBOR plus 7.0% p.a., and provided for equal monthly
installments from July 2010 through December 2012.
New
syndicated loan
In September 2010, the Group executed a $2,000,000 syndicated
credit facility agreement and refinanced its remaining debt
obligations under Yakutugol and Oriel
credit facilities. The new facility is split between CMP, SKCC,
SUNP and Yakutugol in the amounts of $95,238, $857,143, $190,476
and $857,143, respectively. The facility is drawn in two
tranches, a
3-year and a
5-year
tranche in amount of $800,000 and $1,200,000, respectively. The
repayment is scheduled in monthly installments after the 9 and
15 month grace periods, respectively. The credit facility
bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus 5.0-6.0% p.a.
The Group appointed ING Bank N.V. and the Royal Bank of Scotland
N.V. as Coordinators. In addition, BNP Paribas SA, CJSC
UniCredit Bank, Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft, HSBC Bank plc,
Natixis, OJSC Nordea Bank, Raiffeisen Zentralbank
Oesterreich AG, Société Générale, UniCredit
Bank AG, VTB Bank (Austria) AG, VTB Bank (Deutschland) AG and
VTB Bank (France) SA acted as Mandated Lead Arrangers and Morgan
Stanley and Credit Suisse as Lenders for the facility.
Guarantees under the new syndicated loan are jointly issued by
BMP, KMP, Mechel OAO, Mechel Carbon AG, Mechel-Mining OAO,
Mechel Service Global B.V., Mechel Trading AG, Oriel, SKCC and
Yakutugol for the total amount of $2,000,000. In addition, the
loan is secured by 1,212,594 common shares of Yakutugol (29.99%
of total common shares); 10,832,764 common shares of SKCC
(29.99%); 474,294 common shares of CMP (14.99%) and 149,935
common shares of SUNP (25%).
The Group treated this refinancing as debt modification under
FASB ASC 470, Debt (ASC 470). The
fees associated with the modified debt, along with existing
capitalized origination fees, were capitalized and amortized as
an adjustment of interest expense over the remaining term of the
syndicated loan using the interest method.
F-55
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Gazprombank
facility agreement
In February 2009, the Group signed a $1,000,000
U.S. dollar-denominated credit facility agreement with
Gazprombank bearing interest at 14.0% p.a. The loan is repayable
in quarterly installments in
2010-2012.
The indebtedness under the credit facility is secured by the
pledge of 1,010,498 common shares of Yakutugol (25% of total
common shares) and 9,027,306 common shares of SKCC (25%).
In February 2010, the Group signed a prolongation agreement with
Gazprombank. According to this agreement, the credit facility
including the short-term portion of $480,000 falling due in 2010
was rescheduled to be repaid in
2013-2015
and the interest rate was gradually reduced from 14.0% to 9.0%,
8.0% and 7.5% p.a. Consequently, the whole amount of the
Gazprombank debt outstanding as of December 31, 2010 is
classified as long-term. The Group treated this modification as
debt extinguishment under
ASC 470-50,
but at the date of such prolongation the Gazprombank interest
rates for the Group were consistent with the current market
rates for similar borrowers. As a result there was no income
statement effect as a result of such debt extinguishment.
Bonds
On June 21, 2006, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($184,877). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 6 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 8.4% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
eighth coupon periods was set as equal to that of the first
period. The bondholders had an option to demand repayment of the
bonds at par value starting June 21, 2010. The interest
rate for the ninth and tenth coupon was set at 8.5% p.a. The
interest rate for the eleventh to the fourteenth coupon periods
is set by the Group and made public 10 days before the
respective coupon period starts. The next demand repayment
option is set on June 10, 2011. The obligatory redemption
date is June 12, 2013. Bonds are secured by a guarantee
issued by MTH. The aggregate amount of the guarantee issued is
5 billion Russian rubles ($164,059). The costs related to
the issuance of bonds in the amount of $739 were capitalized and
are amortized to interest expense over the term of bonds. The
balance outstanding as of December 31, 2010 was $164,059
and is classified as current debt.
On July 30, 2009, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($159,154). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 3 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 19% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
twelfth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The interest rate for the thirteenth to the
twenty-eighth coupon periods is set by the Group and made public
5 days before the respective coupon period starts. The
bondholders have an option to demand repayment of the bonds at
par value starting July 21, 2012. The obligatory redemption
date is July 21, 2016. Bonds are secured by a guarantee
issued by Yakutugol. The aggregate amount of the guarantee
issued is 5.2 billion Russian rubles ($169,610). The costs
related to the issuance of bonds in the amount of $1,844 were
capitalized and are amortized to interest expense over the term
of bonds. The balance outstanding as of December 31, 2010
was $164,059 and is classified as long-term debt.
On October 20, 2009, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($170,327). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 3 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 12.5% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
twelfth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The interest rate for the thirteenth to the thirty-sixth
coupon periods is set by the Group and made public 5 days
before the respective coupon period starts. The bondholders have
an option to demand repayment of the bonds at par value starting
October 11, 2012. The obligatory redemption date is
October 9, 2018. Bonds are secured by a guarantee issued by
Yakutugol. The
F-56
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
aggregate amount of the guarantee issued is 5.1 billion
Russian rubles ($168,216). The costs related to the issuance of
bonds in the amount of $703 were capitalized and are amortized
to interest expense over the term of bonds. The balance
outstanding as of December 31, 2010 was $164,059 and is
classified as long-term debt.
On November 13, 2009, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($174,398). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 6 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 12.5% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
fourth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The interest rate for the fifth and sixth coupon periods
is set by the Group and made public 5 days before the
respective coupon period starts. The bondholders have an option
to demand repayment of the bonds at par value starting
November 3, 2011. The obligatory redemption date is
November 9, 2012. The costs related to the issuance of
bonds in the amount of $643 were capitalized and are amortized
to interest expense over the term of bonds. The balance
outstanding as of December 31, 2010 was $164,059 and is
classified as current debt.
On March 16, 2010, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($170,443). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 6 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 9.75% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
sixth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The obligatory redemption date is March 12, 2013.
The costs related to the issuance of bonds in the amount of
$1,620 were capitalized and are amortized to interest expense
over the term of bonds. The balance outstanding as of
December 31, 2010 was $164,059 and is classified as
long-term debt.
On April 28, 2010, Mechel OAO issued 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
5 billion Russian rubles ($172,044). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 6 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 9.75% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
sixth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The obligatory redemption date is April 24, 2013.
The costs related to the issuance of bonds in the amount of $360
were capitalized and are amortized to interest expense over the
term of bonds. The balance outstanding as of December 31,
2010 was $164,059 and is classified as long-term debt.
On September 7, 2010, Mechel OAO issued two 5,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
10 billion Russian rubles ($327,042). The bonds were issued
at 100% par value. Interest is payable every 6 months in
arrears. The interest rate for the first coupon period was
determined upon the issuance based on the bids of buyers and
amounted to 10.0% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
tenth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The interest rate for the eleventh to twentieth coupon
periods is set by the Group and made public 5 days before
the respective coupon period starts. The bondholders have an
option to demand repayment of the bonds at par value starting
August 27, 2015. The obligatory redemption date is
August 25, 2020. The costs related to the issuance of bonds
in the amount of $864 were capitalized and are amortized to
interest expense over the term of bonds. The balance outstanding
as of December 31, 2010 was $328,118 and is classified as
long-term debt.
Other
loans
Other significant debt provided by bank financing included
credit line facilities from Sberbank, VTB, Bank of Moscow,
Uralsib Bank, Alfa-Bank, UniCredit Bank, BNP Paribas and other
institutions. The unused portion under all credit facilities as
of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $943,646 and $491,369,
respectively. As of December 31, 2010, the Groups
credit facilities provided aggregated borrowing capacity of
$8,262,075, of which $3,021,459 expires within a year.
F-57
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The outstanding balances of short-term and long-term debt by
denominated currencies as of December 31, 2010 and 2009
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Short-Term and Long-Term Debt:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
1,312,469
|
|
|
|
652,586
|
|
Sberbank
|
|
|
906,479
|
|
|
|
281,746
|
|
VTB
|
|
|
610,298
|
|
|
|
495,963
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
393,741
|
|
|
|
360,400
|
|
Bank of Moscow
|
|
|
177,183
|
|
|
|
56,209
|
|
MBRR
|
|
|
49,218
|
|
|
|
|
|
MDM
|
|
|
32,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promsvyazbank
|
|
|
12,521
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moscow Credit Bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,290
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,979
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,841
|
|
Other
|
|
|
46,727
|
|
|
|
3,317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,541,448
|
|
|
|
1,925,331
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syndicated credit facility (previously referred to as
Yakutugol and Oriel facilities)
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
2,348,996
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
Alfa-bank
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
95,000
|
|
|
|
73,000
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
38,855
|
|
|
|
68,453
|
|
ING Bank
|
|
|
23,225
|
|
|
|
52,632
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
Other
|
|
|
97,354
|
|
|
|
141,587
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,354,434
|
|
|
|
3,731,668
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
59,740
|
|
|
|
71,730
|
|
Fortis Bank
|
|
|
56,785
|
|
|
|
67,262
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
50,653
|
|
|
|
44,790
|
|
ING Bank
|
|
|
40,553
|
|
|
|
26,291
|
|
VTB
|
|
|
35,320
|
|
|
|
29,256
|
|
Commerzbank
|
|
|
30,287
|
|
|
|
24,615
|
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
|
26,423
|
|
|
|
22,167
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
17,499
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
Sberbank
|
|
|
6,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
83,192
|
|
|
|
16,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
406,944
|
|
|
|
310,634
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
20,943
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,603
|
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term and long-term debt
|
|
|
7,318,429
|
|
|
|
5,997,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-58
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In 2010 and 2009, Gazprombank provided long-term and short-term
ruble and U.S. dollar-denominated loans to CMP, Mechel
Service and MTH bearing interest at 7.0-9.8% p.a. The
outstanding balance as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was
$393,741 and $395,400, respectively.
In 2010 and 2009, Sberbank provided long-term and short-term
ruble and euro-denominated loans to the Groups
subsidiaries bearing interest at 6.5-16.5% p.a. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $912,971 and
$281,746, respectively. The indebtedness under the long-term
credit facility with CMP totaling to $492,176 as of
December 31, 2010 is secured by the pledge of 1,866,711
common shares of BMP (25% plus 1 share of total common
shares).
During 2008, VTB provided a short-term ruble-denominated loan to
the Groups subsidiaries (CMP, SKCC and Yakutugol) bearing
interest at 12.0%, which was increased by the bank in November
2009 up to 14.6% p.a. for Yakutugol and SKCC and up to 14.0%
p.a. for CMP. In September 2010, the interest rate was decreased
to 9.75% p.a. for SKCC. In accordance with an amendment to the
agreement, the loan should be repaid in November 2012. The
outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were
$446,240 and $495,963, respectively.
In 2009, VTB provided euro-denominated long-term and short-term
loans to HBL bearing interest 8.3-8.5% p.a. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $31,312 and
$23,648, respectively.
During 2010, VTB provided ruble and euro-denominated long-term
and short-term loans to CMP and Mechel OAO, bearing interest at
6.1-8.6% in the total amount of $398,952. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $168,066 and
$nil, respectively.
In 2010 and 2009, Bank of Moscow provided long-term and
short-term ruble-denominated loans to MTH and Yakutugol bearing
interest at 7.9-12.0% p.a. The outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $177,183 and $56,209,
respectively.
In 2010 and 2009, Uralsib Bank provided BMP, KMP and Izhstal
with short-term U.S. dollar and euro-denominated loans
bearing interest at 3.8-9.5% p.a. The outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $154,740 and $144,730,
respectively.
During 2010, Alfa-bank provided Mechel Trading Ltd. with two
short-term U.S. dollar-denominated loans bearing interest
at 6.5%-8.0% p.a. in the total amount of $200,000. The
outstanding balance as of December 31, 2010 was $100,000.
In 2010 and 2009, UniCredit Bank provided short-term and
long-term U.S. dollar, ruble and euro-denominated loans to
the Groups subsidiaries bearing interest at 1.6-9.0% p.a.
The outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009
were $89,508 and $123,084, respectively.
During
2008-2010,
ING Bank provided the Groups subsidiaries with short-term
and long-term U.S. dollar, Romanian lei and
euro-denominated loans bearing interest at 1.0-6.0% p.a. The
outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were
$63,778 and $78,923, respectively.
During 2009 and 2008, Fortis Bank provided the Groups
subsidiaries with U.S. dollar and euro-denominated loans
bearing interest at 0.5-5.6% p.a. The outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 were $56,785 and $67,262,
respectively.
During 2010, MBRR provided Mechel-Energo with a short-term
ruble-denominated loan bearing interest at 6.5% p.a. in the
amount of $49,392. The outstanding balance as of
December 31, 2010 was $49,218.
During 2009 and 2008, Raiffeisenbank provided to the
Groups subsidiaries with short-term and long-term
multi-currency-denominated loans bearing interest at 1.6-7.6%
p.a. The outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and
2009 were $33,102 and $59,997, respectively.
F-59
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During 2009, upon the acquisition of the BCG Companies, the
Group included in its debt portfolio long-term
U.S. dollar-denominated loans from Carter Bank and Trust,
First United National Bank, Caterpillar Finance, Peoples
Capital and Leasing Corporation and other banks in the
total amount of $115,527 bearing interest
at 0.0-11.3%
p.a. The outstanding balances as of December 31, 2010 and
2009 were $32,849 and $100,719, respectively.
Pledges
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the carrying value of
property, plant and equipment pledged under the loan agreements
amounted to $721,800 and $693,051, respectively. Carrying value
of inventories pledged under the loan agreements amounted to
$148,521 and $116,234 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. Accounts receivable pledged as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009 amounted to $96,551 and
$143,433, respectively. Cash pledged under the loan agreements
amounted to $72,864 and $25,913 as of December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively. In addition to the subsidiaries share
pledges disclosed elsewhere in this Note, 632,393 common shares
of CMP (20% of total common shares) were pledged under the
long-term credit facility with BNP Paribas as of
December 31, 2010.
Covenants
The Groups loan agreements contain a number of covenants
and restrictions, which include, but are not limited to
financial ratios, maximum amount of debt, minimum value of
shareholders equity and cross-default provisions. The
covenants also include, among other restrictions, limitations on
(i) indebtedness of certain companies in the Group, and
(ii) amounts that can be expended for new investments and
acquisitions. Covenant breaches generally permit lenders to
demand accelerated repayment of principal and interest.
As of December 31, 2009, the Group breached a number of
financial and non-financial covenants in various loan agreements
but received appropriate consents and covenant amendments from
the banks and as of the date of the issuance of the financial
statements, the Group did not have any violations of the
covenants, which might lead to the demand for accelerated
repayment of principal and interest under various facility
agreements.
As of December 31, 2009, the Group received consents and
covenant amendments relating to the following breaches under the
most significant long-term and short-term loan arrangements
totaling $4,096,217:
|
|
|
|
|
The Group was not in compliance with certain financial ratios,
specifically, Net Borrowings as defined by the
applicable debt agreements, do not exceed $5,500,000, while the
actual Groups Net Borrowings amount as of
December 31, 2009 was $5,677,471. The amount of the
covenant was amended to $5,750,000;
|
|
|
|
HBL breached the financial ratios Financial Indebtedness
to EBITDA and EBITDA to Net Interest Expense
set at level of at lowest 3:1 and at highest 3:1, respectively,
under the long-term euro-denominated loan agreement signed with
VTB (Deutchland) while the actual ratios as of December 31,
2009 were 10.8:1 and 0.7:1, respectively. The outstanding
balance under this loan agreement was $23,648 as of
December 31, 2009;
|
|
|
|
Ductil Steel breached Debt to EBITDA ratio set at
less than 3:1 under the long-term U.S. dollar denominated
loan agreement with ING Bank. Ductil Steel also was not in
compliance with the following covenant: the Borrower shall
route through the Bank a percentage of its turnover equal to
that of the Total Facility granted by the Bank in
Borrowers total bank debts. The outstanding amount
under this loan agreement was $22,481 as of December 31,
2009;
|
F-60
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
MTH, being a guarantor under the facility agreement between SKCC
and UniCredit Bank, breached the Equity ratio set at
a level of the highest $200,000. The outstanding amount under
this guarantee agreement was $40,000 as of December 31,
2009;
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol and SKCC did not reach the minimum level of export
sales turnover to be routed through the bank account that was
set at 50% under the long-term U.S. dollar-denominated loan
agreement with Gazprombank. The outstanding amount under these
loans was $1,000,000 as of December 31, 2009.
|
In June 2009, the BCG Companies received a request from the
lenders under the long-term U.S. dollar-denominated
facility agreement with Peoples Capital and Leasing
Corporation regarding an immediate repayment of the outstanding
amount of $3,446 as of December 31, 2009, due to the change
in ownership. As of the date of the issuance of these financial
statements, a new repayment schedule is under discussion between
counterparties.
As of December 31, 2010, the Group had no breaches of
financial and non-financial covenants. Accordingly, no
reclassifications of long-term debt to short-term liabilities
due to covenant violations were made as of December 31,
2010 and 2009.
Specifically, as of December 31, 2010 the Group had to
comply with the following ratios under the most significant loan
agreements:
|
|
|
|
|
The Groups Shareholder Equity shall be at all times
greater than or equal to $4 billion, while the actual
amount as of December 31, 2010 was $4,642,825;
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Net Borrowings to EBITDA shall be not more than
3.5, while the actual ratio is 3.45;
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBITDA to net interest expenses shall be equal to
or more than 2, while the actual ratio was 3.72.
|
|
|
14.
|
FAIR
VALUE MEASUREMENTS
|
Effective January 1, 2008, the Group adopted ASC 820,
which defines fair value as the exchange price that would be
received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit
price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the
asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants at the measurement date. ASC 820 establishes a
three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs
used to measure fair value. This hierarchy requires entities to
maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of
unobservable inputs. The three levels of inputs used to measure
fair value are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 Quoted prices in active markets
for identical assets or liabilities;
|
|
|
|
Level 2 Observable inputs other than
quoted prices included in Level 1, such as quoted prices
for similar assets and liabilities in active markets; quoted
prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in
markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable
or can be corroborated by observable market data;
|
|
|
|
Level 3 Unobservable inputs that are
supported by little or no market activity and that are
significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. This
includes certain pricing models, discounted cash flow
methodologies and similar techniques that use significant
unobservable inputs.
|
F-61
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Assets
Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
The Group has segregated all financial assets that are measured
at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2009
and 2008 into the most appropriate level within the fair value
hierarchy based on the inputs used to determine the fair value
at the measurement date in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Measurements
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingent liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,999
|
)
|
|
|
(21,999
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,999
|
)
|
|
|
(21,999
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Measurements
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingent liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To determine the fair value of
available-for-sale
securities quoted market prices in active markets for identical
assets were used by the Group and they were considered as
Level 1 inputs.
The contingent liability measured at fair value is represented
by the Drilling Program contingent liability (refer to
Note 3(e)), which was calculated using the estimated
tonnage of coal in-place determined by the independent
appraisal. The maturity date of the contingent liability is
May 7, 2014. The present value of contingent liability was
determined using an 8% discount rate, stated in the Merger
agreement for actual settlement of contingent obligation, which
represents the estimate of the amount that would have been paid
if the Group had settled the liability at the balance sheet date.
F-62
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Groups model inputs used involve significant
management judgment. Such assets and liabilities are typically
classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The
table below sets forth a summary of changes in the fair value of
Groups Level 3 financial liability at
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingent
|
|
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
Balance at the acquisition date
|
|
|
(514,607
|
)
|
Gain resulting from remeasurement of contingent liability
(Note 22)
|
|
|
494,238
|
|
Transfers in and out of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at at beginning of year
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss resulting from remeasurement of contingent liability
(Note 22)
|
|
|
(1,630
|
)
|
Transfers in and out of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(21,999
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010, the fair value of variable and
fixed rate long-term loans (based on future cash flows
discounted at current long-term market rates available for
corporations) was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying Value incl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Accrued as of
|
|
|
Fair Value as of
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated debt
|
|
|
2,264,631
|
|
|
|
2,100,583
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated debt
|
|
|
2,822,258
|
|
|
|
2,808,031
|
|
Euro-denominated debt
|
|
|
199,467
|
|
|
|
197,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
5,286,356
|
|
|
|
5,105,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of cash and cash equivalents, short-term
investments, accounts receivable and accounts payable,
short-term borrowings, bank financing, equipment financing
contracts and other financial instruments not included in the
tables above approximates carrying value.
The Group assessed the maximum amount of loss due to credit risk
that would be incurred if the parties that make up a
concentration of credit risk failed to perform according to the
terms of contracts and consider the probable amount of such loss
immaterial for the periods presented in these financial
statements.
|
|
15.
|
ASSET
RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
|
The Group has numerous asset removal obligations that it is
required to perform under law or contract once an asset is
permanently taken out of service. The majority of these
obligations are not expected to be paid for many years, and will
be funded from general Group resources at the time of removal.
The Groups asset retirement obligations primarily relate
to its steel and mining production facilities with related
landfills and dump areas and its mines.
F-63
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table presents the movements in asset retirement
obligations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation at beginning of year
|
|
|
59,695
|
|
|
|
71,604
|
|
|
|
71,294
|
|
Liabilities incurred in the current year
|
|
|
1,770
|
|
|
|
3,359
|
|
|
|
6,066
|
|
Liabilities settled in the current year
|
|
|
(2,821
|
)
|
|
|
(6,706
|
)
|
|
|
(5,300
|
)
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
6,545
|
|
|
|
7,398
|
|
|
|
6,078
|
|
Revision in estimated cash flow
|
|
|
(8,228
|
)
|
|
|
(13,262
|
)
|
|
|
7,155
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(741
|
)
|
|
|
(2,698
|
)
|
|
|
(13,689
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation at end of year
|
|
|
56,220
|
|
|
|
59,695
|
|
|
|
71,604
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities incurred during the year ended December 31,
2010 are mainly represented by the obligations arising on the
acquisitions of TPP Rousse in the amount of $1,688. Liabilities
incurred during the year ended December 31, 2009 are
represented by the obligations arising on the acquisition of the
BCG Companies in the amount of $3,359. Liabilities incurred
during the year ended December 31, 2008 are represented by
the obligations arising on the acquisitions of Oriel and Ductil
Steel in the amounts of $3,264 and $2,802, respectively.
Revision in estimated cash flow represented the effect of the
changes resulting from the management revisions to the timing
and/or the
amounts of the original estimates, and is recorded through an
increase or decrease in the value of the underlying non-current
assets. The effects of revisions in estimated cash flows relate
mainly to continuous refinement of future asset removal
activities and restoration costs at CMP and SKCC during the year
ended December 31, 2010, at Izhstal during the year ended
December 31, 2009 and at CMP and SKCC during the year ended
December 31, 2008 as assessed by the Group with the help of
independent environmental engineers.
|
|
16.
|
PENSION
AND POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
|
In addition to the state pension and social insurance required
by the Russian legislation, the Group has a number of defined
benefit occupational pension plans that cover the majority of
production employees and some other postretirement benefit plans.
A number of the Groups companies provide their former
employees with old age retirement pensions. The old age
retirement pension is conditional to the member qualifying for
the state old age pension. Some employees are also eligible for
an early retirement in accordance with the state pension
regulations and specific coal industry rules (so-called
territorial treaties), which also provide for
certain post retirement benefits in addition to old age
pensions. Additionally the Group voluntarily provides financial
support, of a defined benefit nature, to its old age and
disabled pensioners, who did not acquire any pension under the
occupational pension program.
The Group also provides several types of long-term employee
benefits such as
death-in-service
benefit and invalidity pension of a defined benefit nature. The
Group may also provide the former employees with reimbursement
of coal and wood used for heating purposes. In addition,
one-time lump sum benefits are paid to employees of a number of
the Groups companies upon retirement depending on the
employment service with the Group and the salary level of an
individual employee. All pension plans are unfunded until the
qualifying event occurs.
Several entities contribute certain amounts to non-state pension
funds (Almaznaya Osen and Mechel Fund), which, together
with amounts earned from investing the contributions, are
intended to provide pensions to members of pension plans.
However, pursuant to agreements between the Group and these
non-state pension
F-64
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
funds, under certain circumstances, these assets are not
effectively restricted from possible withdrawal by the employer.
Based on this fact, these assets do not qualify as plan
assets under U.S. GAAP and these pension schemes are
considered to be fully unfunded.
During 2010, the Group introduced a new corporate plan for the
majority of the Russian entities except for Yakutugol. As a
result the Group ceased to bear any liabilities to provide
either pension or lump sum upon retirement benefits, or both, to
the employees who do not participate in the corporate pension
plan. In addition, the Group terminated the provision of the
guarantees concerning the amount of the pension provided via a
non-state pension fund to those employees who were born after a
certain year.
As of December 31, 2010, there were approximately 71,618
active participants under the defined benefit pension plans and
29,620 pensioners receiving monthly pensions or other regular
financial support from these plans. As of December 31,
2009, the related figures were 70,594 and 27,234, respectively.
The majority of employees at the Groups major subsidiaries
belong to the trade unions.
The total number of the BCG Companies employees and their
dependents eligible for benefits as of December 31, 2010
was 669 and the total number of retirees and their dependents
was 142. As of December 31, 2009, the related figures were
220 and 142, respectively. The majority of employees belong to
the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).
Actuarial valuation of pension and other post employment and
postretirement benefits was performed in March 2011, with the
measurement date of December 31, 2010. Members census
data as of that date was collected for all relevant business
units of the Group.
Pension costs determined by the Group are supported by an
independent qualified actuary, and are charged to the statements
of income and comprehensive income (loss) ratably over
employees working service with the Group.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, projected benefit
obligation and other postretirement benefit obligations amounted
to $188,068 and $183,989, respectively.
Projected
benefit obligation
The movements in the projected benefit obligation
(PBO) were as follows during the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
|
|
330,366
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
6,990
|
|
|
|
7,680
|
|
|
|
9,245
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
12,572
|
|
|
|
14,917
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
Obligations arising from acquisitions and other
|
|
|
1,564
|
|
|
|
1,665
|
|
|
|
6,901
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(15,091
|
)
|
|
|
(15,000
|
)
|
|
|
(11,895
|
)
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(4,505
|
)
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
(74,889
|
)
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
8,852
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
(1,750
|
)
|
Curtailment gain
|
|
|
(18,237
|
)
|
|
|
(38,573
|
)
|
|
|
(52,156
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(1,491
|
)
|
|
|
(6,345
|
)
|
|
|
(37,218
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
|
147,534
|
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The curtailment gain was recognized in 2010 due to an
introduction of a new corporate plan for the majority of the
Russian entities resulting in a termination of the defined
benefit pension and lump sum upon retirement for certain
employees and overall decrease in number of employees.
F-65
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The plan amendments in 2010 related to the adoption of changes
to the collective bargaining agreements of Yakutugol introducing
partial compensation of heating expenses to current employees
and pensioners and change in valuation of lump sum upon
retirement provided by Yakutugol.
The main reason for the reduction in the PBO in 2009 related to
curtailments, settlements and actuarial gains related to
Yakutugol, and were specifically attributable to the revisions
in the resettlement program due to changes in the program,
eligibility, assumptions and significant reduction in number of
employees at Yakutugol, which resulted in the decrease in the
PBO by $35,782.
The main reasons for the reduction in the PBO in 2008 related to
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Revisions in the resettlement program due to changes in
assumptions and significant reduction in number of employees at
Yakutugol resulted in the decrease in PBO by $8,248;
|
|
|
|
Change in assumptions, significant reduction in number of
employees, settlement of obligations towards withdrawn deferred
pensioners, and changes in benefit formula resulted in the
overall decrease in the PBO by $37,215;
|
|
|
|
Actuarial gain of $39,923 related to changes in discount rates,
staff turnover, retirement age and other assumptions.
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as
follows as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Pension obligation, current portion
|
|
|
33,337
|
|
|
|
30,610
|
|
Pension obligation, net of current portion
|
|
|
114,197
|
|
|
|
126,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pension obligation
|
|
|
147,534
|
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of net periodic benefit cost were as follows for
the year ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
6,990
|
|
|
|
7,680
|
|
|
|
9,245
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
670
|
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
12,572
|
|
|
|
14,917
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
Amortization of actuarial gain
|
|
|
(2,581
|
)
|
|
|
(3,187
|
)
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
Curtailment gain
|
|
|
(13,910
|
)
|
|
|
(37,717
|
)
|
|
|
(23,421
|
)
|
Termination benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,524
|
|
Other benefits
|
|
|
545
|
|
|
|
1,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
4,286
|
|
|
|
(16,329
|
)
|
|
|
9,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PBO, accumulated benefit obligation, fair value of plan
assets and funded status were as follows as of December 31,
2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
|
147,534
|
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
116,549
|
|
|
|
115,843
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status
|
|
|
(147,534
|
)
|
|
|
(156,880
|
)
|
F-66
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income
(AOCI) were as follows for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Net gain
|
|
|
(59,233
|
)
|
|
|
(57,079
|
)
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
8,801
|
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognised in AOCI
|
|
|
(49,673
|
)
|
|
|
(54,064
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The change in the PBO recognized in OCI was as follows for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Additional (gain) loss arising during the year
|
|
|
(4,505
|
)
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
(74,889
|
)
|
Less re-classified (gain) loss amortization
|
|
|
(606
|
)
|
|
|
(2,490
|
)
|
|
|
20,276
|
|
Additional prior service cost (credit) from plan amendment
|
|
|
8,852
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
(1,750
|
)
|
Less re-classified prior service cost amortization
|
|
|
3,023
|
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
2,461
|
|
|
|
(2,245
|
)
|
|
|
9,756
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognised in other comprehensive income for the
year
|
|
|
4,391
|
|
|
|
5,279
|
|
|
|
(87,659
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The key actuarial assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations were as follows as of December 31, 2010 and
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
|
8.70
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
7.00
|
%
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
5.15
|
%
|
|
|
5.25
|
%
|
Bulgarian entities
|
|
|
5.20
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
7.29
|
%
|
|
|
7.79
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
Bulgarian entities
|
|
|
5.79
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
F-67
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The key actuarial assumptions used to determine net benefit cost
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
8.70
|
%
|
|
|
9.00
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
13.00
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
5.25
|
%
|
|
|
5.25
|
%
|
Bulgarian entities
|
|
|
5.50
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
7.79
|
%
|
|
|
8.61
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
|
|
6.10
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
|
|
4.00
|
%
|
Bulgarian entities
|
|
|
5.49
|
%
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
The results of sensitivity analysis of PBO as of
December 31, 2010 are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in PBO
|
|
|
as of December 31, 2010
|
|
|
% from the Base Case PBO
|
|
Discount rate of 1% p.a. lower than base case
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
Salary growth of 1% p.a. higher than base case
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Staff turnover rate plus 3% p.p. for all ages
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)%
|
The amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected
to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost
during the year ended December 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Transition obligation (asset)
|
|
|
|
|
Net gain
|
|
|
(4,323
|
)
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
1,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amounts expected to be recognized during 2011
|
|
|
(2,741
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
2016-2020
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Pensions (including monthly financial support)
|
|
|
16,489
|
|
|
|
6,706
|
|
|
|
7,340
|
|
|
|
8,055
|
|
|
|
8,994
|
|
|
|
39,676
|
|
|
|
87,260
|
|
Other benefits
|
|
|
16,848
|
|
|
|
5,326
|
|
|
|
4,895
|
|
|
|
5,394
|
|
|
|
6,044
|
|
|
|
31,918
|
|
|
|
70,425
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expected benefits to be paid
|
|
|
33,337
|
|
|
|
12,032
|
|
|
|
12,235
|
|
|
|
13,449
|
|
|
|
15,038
|
|
|
|
71,594
|
|
|
|
157,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-68
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other
postretirement benefit obligations
Upon the acquisition by the Group of the BCG Companies on
May 7, 2009 (refer to Note 3(e)), the Group recognized
the healthcare postretirement benefit obligations. The movements
in accumulated postretirement benefit obligation were as follows
during the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at beginning of
year
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
1,178
|
|
|
|
515
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,837
|
|
|
|
1,037
|
|
Obligations arising from acquisitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,420
|
|
Actuarial loss
|
|
|
12,001
|
|
|
|
4,875
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(1,591
|
)
|
|
|
(738
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at end of
year
|
|
|
40,534
|
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as
follows as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Postretirement obligation, current portion
|
|
|
1,259
|
|
|
|
1,107
|
|
Postretirement obligation, net of current portion
|
|
|
39,275
|
|
|
|
26,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total postretirement obligation
|
|
|
40,534
|
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of net periodic benefit cost were as follows for
the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
1,178
|
|
|
|
515
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,837
|
|
|
|
1,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
3,159
|
|
|
|
1,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of accumulated postretirement benefit obligation,
employer contributions, benefits paid and funded status were as
follows as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
|
40,534
|
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
1,591
|
|
|
|
738
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(1,591
|
)
|
|
|
(738
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status at end of year
|
|
|
(40,534
|
)
|
|
|
(27,109
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in AOCI were as follows for the year ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
|
16,733
|
|
|
|
4,876
|
|
F-69
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other changes in assets and benefit obligations recognized in
other comprehensive income were as follows as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
|
12,001
|
|
|
|
4,876
|
|
Amortization of net gain
|
|
|
(144
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recognized in other comprehensive income
|
|
|
11,857
|
|
|
|
4,876
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other information used in actuarial valuation as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Market-related value of assets as of beginning of fiscal period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of future annual benefits of plan participants covered by
insurance contracts issued by the employer or related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative amortization methods used
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Unrecognized net (gain)/loss
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Employer commitments to make future plan amendments (that serve
as the basis for the employers accounting for the plan)
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
The key actuarial assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations at December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.64
|
%
|
|
|
6.28
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Healthcare cost trend rate
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
Ultimate rate
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
Number of years to reach ultimate rate
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
The key actuarial assumptions used to determine net benefit cost
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.28
|
%
|
|
|
7.40
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Healthcare cost trend assumed for the subsequent year
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
Ultimate rate
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
Number of years to reach ultimate rate
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
F-70
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The results of sensitivity analysis of postretirement benefit
obligations as of December 31, 2010 are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Benefit Obligations
|
|
|
|
as of December 31, 2010
|
|
|
Annual effect of 1% point increase in healthcare cost trend
on:
|
|
|
|
|
Service and interest cost components
|
|
|
1,429
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
7,921
|
|
Annual effect of 1% point decrease in healthcare cost trend
on:
|
|
|
|
|
Service and interest cost components
|
|
|
(1,034
|
)
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
(6,176
|
)
|
The amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected
to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost
during the year ended December 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Transition obligation (asset)
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
645
|
|
Prior service cost (credit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amounts expected to be recognized during 2011
|
|
|
645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016-2020
|
|
Total
|
|
Estimated future benefit payments reflecting expected future
service
|
|
|
1,259
|
|
|
|
1,353
|
|
|
|
1,437
|
|
|
|
1,531
|
|
|
|
1,630
|
|
|
|
9,044
|
|
|
|
16,254
|
|
In 2010 and 2009, several Groups subsidiaries entered into
agreements with third parties for the lease of transport and
production equipment. The leases were classified as finance
(capital) lease in accordance with ASC 840,
Leases, as they contain a bargain purchase option
and the title to the leased equipment transfers to the lessee at
the end of the lease term.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the net book value of the
leased assets was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Transport equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
195,054
|
|
|
|
105,981
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
93,639
|
|
|
|
39,455
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
1,731
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(34,263
|
)
|
|
|
(19,495
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net value of property, plant and equipment, obtained under
capital lease agreements
|
|
|
256,161
|
|
|
|
125,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-71
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The carrying amount and maturities of capital lease liabilities
as of December 31, 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payable
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Net Payable
|
|
|
Payable in 2011
|
|
|
71,111
|
|
|
|
(21,447
|
)
|
|
|
49,664
|
|
Payable in 2012
|
|
|
58,130
|
|
|
|
(13,856
|
)
|
|
|
44,274
|
|
Payable in 2013
|
|
|
39,893
|
|
|
|
(8,521
|
)
|
|
|
31,372
|
|
Payable in 2014
|
|
|
31,017
|
|
|
|
(5,262
|
)
|
|
|
25,755
|
|
Payable in 2015
|
|
|
19,926
|
|
|
|
(2,679
|
)
|
|
|
17,247
|
|
Payable thereafter
|
|
|
13,505
|
|
|
|
(1,785
|
)
|
|
|
11,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital lease liabilities
|
|
|
233,582
|
|
|
|
(53,550
|
)
|
|
|
180,032
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, part of leased property,
plant and equipment was pledged under the operating assignment
agreements.
The discount rate used for the calculation of the present value
of minimum lease payments equals the implicit rate for the
lessor and varies on different groups of equipment from 2.7% to
13.2% (U.S. dollar-denominated contracts), from 6.8% to
26.4% (euro-denominated contracts) and from 5.1% to 23.4%
(ruble-denominated contracts). Interest expense charged to the
accompanying Groups statements of income and comprehensive
income (loss) in 2010 and 2009 amounted to $18,664 and $12,916,
respectively.
Capital
stock
The capital stock of Mechel OAO consists of 497,969,086
authorized common shares with par value of 10 Russian rubles
(approximately $0.3), of which 416,270,745 common shares were
outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Preferred
shares
On April 30, 2008, Mechels Extraordinary
Shareholders Meeting adopted changes to its Charter,
authorizing up to 138,756,915 preferred shares with a nominal
value of 10 Russian rubles each for future issuances
(representing 25% of the Mechel OAOs share capital). Under
the Russian law and the Mechel OAOs Charter, these stocks
are non-cumulative and have no voting rights, unless dividends
are not paid in the year. The dividend yield is also fixed by
the Charter and amounts to 0.2% of Mechels consolidated
net income per 1% of preferred stocks issued.
On May 7, 2009, the Group transferred 83,254,149 preferred
shares to the sellers of the BCG Companies as a part of purchase
consideration. As of the acquisition date, the estimated value
of the preferred shares amounted to $496,159 (refer to
Note 3(e)). An excess of the appraised value of the
preferred shares over their par value was accounted for as
additional paid-in capital.
Dividends
In accordance with applicable legislation, Mechel and its
subsidiaries can distribute all profits as dividends or transfer
them to reserves. Dividends may only be declared from
accumulated undistributed and unreserved earnings as shown in
the statutory financial statements of both Russian and foreign
Groups subsidiaries. Dividends from Russian companies are
generally subject to a 9% withholding tax for residents and 15%
for non-residents, which can be reduced or eliminated if paid to
foreign owners under certain applicable double tax treaties.
Effective January 1, 2008, intercompany dividends may be
subject to a withholding tax of 0% (if at the date of dividends
declaration, the dividend-recipient company held a controlling
(over 50%) interest in the share capital of the dividend payer
for a period over one year, if the cost
F-72
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
of acquisition of shares of the company paying dividends
exceeded 500 million Russian rubles). Additional dividend
tax could be imposed on the transfer of undistributed earnings
of subsidiaries to Mechel (generally, tax rate is assumed as
9%). Approximately $9,365,246 and $7,961,352 of statutory
undistributed earnings were available for dividends as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
On June 30, 2009, Mechel declared a dividend of
6,510 million Russian rubles ($208,066) to its shareholders
for 2008, out of which $134,498 was distributed to the holders
of preferred shares. During July-December 2009, the dividends
declared for 2008 were paid in full amount.
On June 30, 2010, Mechel declared a dividend of
727.6 million Russian rubles ($23,325) to its shareholders
for 2009, out of which $8,780 was subject to the distribution to
the holders of preferred shares. During July-December 2010, the
dividends declared for 2009 were paid in full amount.
Earnings
per share
Net income per common share for all periods presented was
determined in accordance with FASB ASC 260, Earnings Per
Share (ASC 260), by dividing income available
to shareholders by the weighted average number of shares
outstanding during the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
|
|
648,433
|
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
Total weighted average number of shares outstanding during the
period
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per common share
|
|
|
1.56
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to common shareholders of Mechel OAO for
the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 has been
computed by deducting the dividends on preferred shares for the
years then ended, declared on June 30, 2010 and 2009, in
the amount of $8,780 and $134,498, respectively, from net income
attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO.
Total weighted-average number of common shares outstanding
during the period was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fraction of
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
Dates Outstanding
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Period (Days)
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares: January
1-December 31
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total weighted average shares outstanding during the
period
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares: January
1-December 31
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total weighted average shares outstanding during the
period
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shares: January
1-December 31
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
365
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total weighted average shares outstanding during the
period
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were no dilutive securities issued as of December 31,
2010, 2009 and 2008.
F-73
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Acquisitions
of non-controlling interests
In January 2009, the Group purchased the remaining 10% of
certain Oriel subsidiaries for $3,500 paid in cash. The
transaction was accounted for as an equity transaction, and the
difference between the consideration paid and the amount by
which the non-controlling interest was adjusted, of $3,500, was
attributed to additional paid-in capital.
In September-October 2009, the Group purchased 0.44% of SKCC
from non-controlling shareholders for $11,131 paid in cash. The
transaction was accounted for as an equity transaction, and the
difference between the fair value of the consideration paid and
share of carrying value of net assets acquired, of $8,088, was
attributed to additional paid-in capital.
In February-December 2010, the Group purchased 0.71% of SKCC
from non-controlling shareholders for $16,505 paid in cash. The
transaction was accounted for as an equity transaction, and the
difference between the fair value of the consideration paid and
share of carrying value of net assets acquired, of $11,558, was
attributed to additional paid-in capital.
Income before income tax and non-controlling interests
attributable to different jurisdictions was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
1,179,656
|
|
|
|
(390,020
|
)
|
|
|
1,291,336
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
61,583
|
|
|
|
(45,254
|
)
|
|
|
(4,988
|
)
|
British Virgin Islands
|
|
|
144,032
|
|
|
|
518,437
|
|
|
|
(22,402
|
)
|
Romania
|
|
|
(114,597
|
)
|
|
|
(99,069
|
)
|
|
|
70,122
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
(3,514
|
)
|
|
|
(3,477
|
)
|
|
|
(645
|
)
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
(48,751
|
)
|
|
|
34,009
|
|
|
|
15,437
|
|
USA
|
|
|
(34,223
|
)
|
|
|
(50,103
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(215,556
|
)
|
|
|
130,701
|
|
|
|
(592
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
968,630
|
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-74
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Current income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
195,514
|
|
|
|
41,940
|
|
|
|
513,632
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
921
|
|
|
|
3,911
|
|
|
|
2,843
|
|
Romania
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
6,002
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
72
|
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
531
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,215
|
|
|
|
4,651
|
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
201,261
|
|
|
|
50,558
|
|
|
|
522,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
34,147
|
|
|
|
(10,829
|
)
|
|
|
(138,442
|
)
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
(2,822
|
)
|
|
|
3,073
|
|
|
|
(3,409
|
)
|
Romania
|
|
|
(794
|
)
|
|
|
(2,680
|
)
|
|
|
(1,039
|
)
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
230
|
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
55,964
|
|
|
|
(3,251
|
)
|
|
|
(260,838
|
)
|
USA
|
|
|
(8,007
|
)
|
|
|
(20,200
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(3,141
|
)
|
|
|
1,992
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,395
|
|
|
|
(31,665
|
)
|
|
|
(403,816
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
|
276,656
|
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes represent the Groups provision for profit tax.
During 2008, income tax was calculated at 24% of taxable profit
in Russia, at 10.5% in Switzerland, at 16% in Romania, at 15% in
Lithuania, at 30% in Kazakhstan and at 40.5% in the USA. The
Groups subsidiaries incorporated in Liechtenstein and
British Virgin Islands are exempt from profit tax. In November
2008, the tax legislation of Russia was amended to decrease
Russian statutory income tax rate from 24% to 20% starting from
January 1, 2009. Therefore, during
2009-2010,
income tax was calculated at 20% of taxable profit in Russia. In
addition, in December 2008 and November 2009, the tax
legislation of Kazakhstan was amended to decrease the statutory
income tax rate from 30% in 2008 to 20% in 2009-2012,
17.5%-2013, 15%-2014 and thereafter. However, in 2010, new
amendments in the tax legislation of Kazakhstan resulted in an
increase in the statutory tax rate back to 20% for 2013 and
thereafter. The changes in income tax rates are effective from
January 1 in each of the respective years. As of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the effect of these
changes in the total amount of $59,635, $3,010 and $341,056,
respectively, was recognized as an increase (in 2010) and a
decrease (in
2008-2009)
in the income tax expense for the year then ended in the
Groups statement of income and comprehensive income (loss).
F-75
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The reconciliation between the income tax expense computed by
applying the Russian enacted statutory tax rates to the income
before tax and non-controlling interest, to the income tax
expense reported in the financial statements is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Theoretical income tax expense computed on income before taxes
at Russian statutory rate (20% in 2009 and 2010 and 24% in 2008)
|
|
|
193,726
|
|
|
|
19,045
|
|
|
|
323,584
|
|
Effects of other jurisdictions and permanent differences:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remeasurement of contingent liability, non-taxable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(95,771
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Non-deductible expenses and non-taxable income, net
|
|
|
11,720
|
|
|
|
7,244
|
|
|
|
35,427
|
|
Social expenditures
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
|
|
3,975
|
|
|
|
2,164
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
55,179
|
|
|
|
106,019
|
|
|
|
136,443
|
|
Change in unrecognized tax benefits under
ASC 740-10
|
|
|
(12,964
|
)
|
|
|
(7,345
|
)
|
|
|
(35,376
|
)
|
Different tax rates in foreign jurisdictions
|
|
|
(34,828
|
)
|
|
|
(9,657
|
)
|
|
|
8,803
|
|
Fines and penalties related to taxes
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(1,296
|
)
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
Change in tax rate and tax legislation
|
|
|
59,635
|
|
|
|
(3,010
|
)
|
|
|
(341,056
|
)
|
Other permanent differences
|
|
|
3,106
|
|
|
|
(311
|
)
|
|
|
(14,428
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense, as reported
|
|
|
276,656
|
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The deferred tax balances were calculated by applying the
currently enacted statutory tax rate in each jurisdiction
applicable to the period in which the temporary differences
between the carrying amounts and tax base (both in respective
local currencies) of assets and liabilities are expected to
reverse.
F-76
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets, current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
10,207
|
|
|
|
8,758
|
|
Net operating loss carry-forward
|
|
|
58,730
|
|
|
|
13,614
|
|
Bad debt allowance
|
|
|
4,384
|
|
|
|
5,633
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
648
|
|
|
|
4,669
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
6,932
|
|
|
|
10,231
|
|
Vacation provision
|
|
|
1,579
|
|
|
|
3,814
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,622
|
|
|
|
1,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset, current
|
|
|
87,102
|
|
|
|
48,217
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, current
|
|
|
(3,883
|
)
|
|
|
(10,956
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset net of valuation allowance, current
|
|
|
83,219
|
|
|
|
37,261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets, non-current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry-forward
|
|
|
332,356
|
|
|
|
329,570
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
7,485
|
|
|
|
6,729
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
11,269
|
|
|
|
10,757
|
|
Pension obligations
|
|
|
16,166
|
|
|
|
10,095
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,820
|
|
|
|
1,607
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets, non-current
|
|
|
373,096
|
|
|
|
358,758
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, non-current
|
|
|
(306,592
|
)
|
|
|
(258,047
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset net of valuation allowance, non-current
|
|
|
66,504
|
|
|
|
100,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset, net
|
|
|
149,723
|
|
|
|
137,972
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities, current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timing difference in revenue recognition
|
|
|
4,529
|
|
|
|
11,002
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
7,124
|
|
|
|
4,582
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
24,936
|
|
|
|
11,320
|
|
Bad debt allowance
|
|
|
8,413
|
|
|
|
3,720
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,142
|
|
|
|
4,794
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities, current
|
|
|
47,144
|
|
|
|
35,418
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities, non-current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
384,525
|
|
|
|
351,822
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
1,196,181
|
|
|
|
1,157,423
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
2,072
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
18,038
|
|
|
|
1,864
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,454
|
|
|
|
15,418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities, non-current
|
|
|
1,603,233
|
|
|
|
1,528,599
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liability
|
|
|
1,650,377
|
|
|
|
1,564,017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-77
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A deferred tax liability of approximately $93,830 and $171,971
as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, has not
been recognized for temporary differences related to the
Groups investment in foreign subsidiaries primarily as a
result of unremitted earnings of consolidated subsidiaries, as
it is the Groups intention, generally, to reinvest such
earnings permanently.
Similarly, a deferred tax liability of $429,125 and $328,188 as
of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, has not been
recognized for temporary difference related to unremitted
earnings of consolidated domestic subsidiaries as management
believes the Group has both the ability and intention to effect
a tax-free reorganization or merger of major subsidiaries into
Mechel.
In 2007, at the date of its acquisition of Yakutugol, the Group
recorded deferred tax assets of $44,568 resulting from the
recognition of pension liabilities. The amounts related to
payments made to the non-state pension fund Almaznaya
Osen and periodic and one-time payments made as
post-retirement support to the employees. In previous years,
such payments were treated as deductible expenses for tax
purposes. In 2008, the Group changed its position with respect
to the deduction of payments to the non-state pension
fund Almaznaya Osen and started treating them as
non-deductible for tax purposes. Additionally, the Group
excluded expenses to the non-state pension fund from expenses
periodically deducted for profit tax purposes and re-filed its
profits tax returns for
2006-2007
based on the results of tax authorities audits. The effect
of related adjustments was applied to increase the remaining
balance of goodwill attributable to the Yakutugols
acquisition. In addition, the Group derecognized most of its
other deferred tax assets related to pension benefit obligations
as of December 31, 2007 as increase in income tax expense
in 2008.
Based on the new Russian tax law effective January 1, 2008,
intercompany dividends are subject to a withholding tax of 0%
(if at the date of dividends declaration, the dividend-recipient
company held a controlling (over 50%) interest in the share
capital of the dividend payer for a period over 1 year, if
the cost of acquisition of shares of the company paying
dividends exceeded 500 million Russian rubles) or 9%, if
being distributed by Russian companies to Russian companies, and
15%, if being distributed by foreign companies to Russian
companies or by Russian companies to foreign companies.
For financial reporting purposes, a valuation allowance is
recognized to reflect managements estimate for realization
of the deferred tax assets. Valuation allowances are provided
when it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred
tax assets will not be realized in the future. These evaluations
are based on expectations of future taxable income and reversals
of the various taxable temporary differences. Deferred tax
assets on net operating loss carryforwards which are considered
to be realized in the future, are related to the Russian,
Kazakhstan and U.S. jurisdictions. For the Russian,
Kazakhstan and U.S. income tax purposes, certain
subsidiaries of the Group have accumulated tax losses incurred
primarily in
2008-2010,
which may be carried forward for use against their future income
within 10 years in the full amounts.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, deferred tax assets on
net operating loss carryforwards for statutory income tax
purposes amounted to $391,086 and $343,184, respectively. As
management concluded that the utilization of a substantial
portion of such losses is not probable, the valuation allowances
in the amount of $307,875 and $256,919 were recorded against net
operating loss carryforwards by the Group as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The significant
increase in tax losses subject to carryforward in 2010 was
caused by interest payments on borrowings, which were taken to
finance the 2010 and 2009 acquisitions, and operating losses
incurred by the several Group subsidiaries due to a substantial
fall in market prices for the main commodities manufactured or
mined by the Group.
Unrecognized
Tax Benefits
Unrecognized income tax benefits of $4,266, including interest
and penalties of $717, as of December 31, 2010 and $17,172,
including interest and penalties of $7,928, as of
December 31, 2009 were recorded by the Group in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
F-78
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of
unrecognized income tax benefits, net of interest and penalties,
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits at the beginning of year
|
|
|
9,244
|
|
|
|
18,511
|
|
Increases as a result of tax positions taken during prior periods
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decreases as a result of tax positions taken during prior periods
|
|
|
(7,213
|
)
|
|
|
(8,745
|
)
|
Increases as a result of tax positions taken during the current
period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,586
|
|
Decreases relating to settlements with tax authorities
|
|
|
(503
|
)
|
|
|
(1,248
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
(860
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits at the end of year
|
|
|
3,549
|
|
|
|
9,244
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction in unrecognized income tax benefits in 2010 was
largely a result of a lapse of the applicable statute of
limitations. All unrecognized income tax benefits, if
recognized, would affect the effective tax rate. Interest and
penalties recognized in accordance with ASC 740 are
classified in the financial statements as income taxes. The
Group recognized interest and penalties of $606 and $1,270 in
2010 and 2009, respectively.
As of December 31, 2010, the tax years ended
December 31,
2008-2010
remained subject to examination by Russian tax authorities. As
of December 31, 2010, the tax years ended December 31,
2006-2010
remained subject to examination by Swiss, Liechtenstein,
Romanian and the U.S. tax authorities. In some companies
certain periods were reviewed by the tax authorities and based
on the history the Group believes that probability of the
repetitive review is less than 10%. Based on the underlying
purchase agreement, any tax risks, which may be identified by
the U.S. tax authorities for the period before the date of
acquisition of the BCG Companies will be imposed to the Seller.
Although the Group believes it is more likely than not that all
recognized income tax benefits would be sustained upon
examination, the Group has recognized some income tax benefits
that have a reasonable possibility of successfully being
challenged by the tax authorities.
|
|
20.
|
TAXES
OTHER THAN INCOME TAX
|
Taxes other than income tax included in the consolidated income
statements are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Property and land tax
|
|
|
91,235
|
|
|
|
79,253
|
|
|
|
85,415
|
|
VAT
|
|
|
2,887
|
|
|
|
8,600
|
|
|
|
1,618
|
|
Fines and penalties related to taxes
|
|
|
1,881
|
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
|
35,280
|
|
Other taxes and penalties
|
|
|
14,756
|
|
|
|
16,971
|
|
|
|
(5,723
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
110,759
|
|
|
|
105,203
|
|
|
|
116,590
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and land tax includes accruals for land tax, which
amounted to $37,775, $31,931 and $34,300 for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. This tax is
levied on the land beneath the Groups production
subsidiaries that is occupied based on the right of perpetual
use. According to land legislation, the right of perpetual use
has to be re-registered before January 1, 2012 through
purchase of land or operating leases up to 49 years.
Property and land tax also includes expenses for the operating
lease of land, which ranges between 1 and 49 years. These
land lease expenses amounted to $14,583, $10,323 and $9,394 for
the years ended
F-79
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The amount
of rental payments is determined by local authorities and cannot
be reasonably estimated beyond a five-year horizon. The table
below presents future land rental payments for the next five
years and thereafter under non-cancelable operating lease
agreements based on the current rental rates:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
|
|
Year of Payment
|
|
Lease Payments
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
14,121
|
|
2012
|
|
|
10,133
|
|
2013
|
|
|
10,184
|
|
2014
|
|
|
10,065
|
|
2015
|
|
|
10,004
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
256,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total land operating lease payments
|
|
|
310,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in other taxes and penalties related to taxes in 2010
are $5,636 relating to fees for the environmental restoration
and air contaminant emission. Included in other taxes and
penalties in 2009 are $5,091 relating to fees for the
environmental restoration and air contaminant emission and
$6,259 relating to social taxes, wealth taxes, mining taxes and
penalties that belong to previous financial years.
Included in other taxes and penalties in 2008 are penalties to
the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) amounted to
$32,111.
|
|
21.
|
GENERAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses are
comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Personnel and social contributions
|
|
|
303,911
|
|
|
|
221,976
|
|
|
|
263,446
|
|
Office expenses
|
|
|
47,197
|
|
|
|
40,272
|
|
|
|
48,143
|
|
Audit and consulting services
|
|
|
26,430
|
|
|
|
35,990
|
|
|
|
31,262
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
24,262
|
|
|
|
22,789
|
|
|
|
23,314
|
|
Social expenses
|
|
|
24,190
|
|
|
|
22,743
|
|
|
|
56,303
|
|
Consumables
|
|
|
14,410
|
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
23,903
|
|
Banking charges and services
|
|
|
13,891
|
|
|
|
10,843
|
|
|
|
11,314
|
|
Business trips
|
|
|
9,320
|
|
|
|
5,518
|
|
|
|
11,094
|
|
Rent
|
|
|
7,776
|
|
|
|
5,169
|
|
|
|
6,681
|
|
Disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
783
|
|
|
|
2,865
|
|
|
|
11,318
|
|
Other
|
|
|
40,919
|
|
|
|
8,915
|
|
|
|
67,938
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total general, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
513,089
|
|
|
|
389,477
|
|
|
|
554,716
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent represents office-related expenses. Expenses for the
operating lease of land, which ranges between 1 and
49 years are included into other taxes and disclosed in
Note 20.
F-80
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
22.
|
OTHER
INCOME (EXPENSES), NET
|
Other income (expenses), net is comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(Loss) gain resulting from remeasurement of contingent liability
(refer to Note 3(e))
|
|
|
(1,630
|
)
|
|
|
494,238
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions to Mechel Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,501
|
)
|
(Loss) gain on sale of investments
|
|
|
(2,589
|
)
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
4,568
|
|
Gain on forgiveness of fines and penalties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,241
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on accounts payable with expired legal term
|
|
|
5,523
|
|
|
|
2,571
|
|
|
|
2,370
|
|
Gain from bargain purchase
|
|
|
7,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on remeasurement of equity interest (refer to
Note 3(a))
|
|
|
(2,044
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on currency operations
|
|
|
(6,408
|
)
|
|
|
(3,653
|
)
|
|
|
(4,464
|
)
|
Other taxes
|
|
|
(5,743
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(811
|
)
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
(3,611
|
)
|
|
|
5,705
|
|
|
|
(2,983
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expenses), net
|
|
|
(8,987
|
)
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions to Mechel Fund included founder contributions to
the pension fund Mechel Fund made by a number of the
Groups subsidiaries in the total amount of $17,501 during
the year ended December 31, 2008, which based on the
managements interpretation of the Russian legislation do
not meet the definition of an asset.
Gain on accounts payable with expired legal term constitutes
gain on the write-off of payable amounts that were written-off
due to legal liquidation of the creditors or expiration of the
statute of limitation.
Gain on bargain purchase of $7,515 arose from the Groups
acquisition of Donau Commodities SRL and Laminorul S.A. (refer
to Note 3(c)), and other subsidiaries.
|
|
23.
|
SEGMENTAL
INFORMATION
|
The Group has four reportable business segments: Steel, Mining,
Ferroalloy and Power. These segments are combinations of
subsidiaries and have separate management teams and offer
different products and services. The above four segments meet
criteria for reportable segments. Subsidiaries are consolidated
by the segment to which they belong based on their products and
by which they are managed.
In the second quarter of 2010, the Groups management made
a decision to transfer the Groups coke producing
facilities Moskoks and Mechel-Coke to the Mining segment. In
prior periods, they were included in the Steel segment. The
comparative data for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008 was restated accordingly to account for the coke producing
facilities in the Mining segment.
The Groups management evaluates performance of the
segments based on segment revenues, gross margin, operating
income and income before income taxes and non-controlling
interest.
F-81
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Segmental information for 2010, 2009 and 2008 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
*****
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
*****
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
*****
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
|
3,050,950
|
|
|
|
5,586,224
|
|
|
|
455,199
|
|
|
|
653,663
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
1,713,245
|
|
|
|
3,143,282
|
|
|
|
363,652
|
|
|
|
533,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
3,664,468
|
|
|
|
5,164,077
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
|
|
688,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
805,215
|
|
|
|
247,453
|
|
|
|
173,853
|
|
|
|
409,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,635,536
|
|
|
|
398,745
|
|
|
|
159,020
|
|
|
|
67,157
|
|
|
|
338,816
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
963,738
|
|
|
|
901,886
|
|
|
|
196,175
|
|
|
|
150,614
|
|
|
|
339,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,588,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
2,116,815
|
|
|
|
1,106,434
|
|
|
|
95,124
|
|
|
|
299,277
|
|
|
|
(20,924
|
)
|
|
|
3,596,726
|
|
|
|
840,935
|
|
|
|
638,010
|
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
230,271
|
|
|
|
45,856
|
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
2,867,526
|
|
|
|
1,491,894
|
|
|
|
13,410
|
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
3,751
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin*, %
|
|
|
54.9
|
%
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
28.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36.9
|
%
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
|
|
19.3
|
%
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
%
|
|
|
62.8
|
%
|
|
|
27.8
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
281,392
|
|
|
|
110,910
|
|
|
|
67,303
|
|
|
|
14,975
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
474,580
|
|
|
|
231,585
|
|
|
|
110,292
|
|
|
|
48,727
|
|
|
|
16,071
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,675
|
|
|
|
286,626
|
|
|
|
131,142
|
|
|
|
22,738
|
|
|
|
22,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,993
|
|
|
|
3,039
|
|
|
|
4,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,776
|
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
1,669
|
|
|
|
15,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,940
|
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
3,527
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
1,185,892
|
|
|
|
297,557
|
|
|
|
22,958
|
|
|
|
46,724
|
|
|
|
(20,924
|
)
|
|
|
1,532,207
|
|
|
|
205,169
|
|
|
|
(18,497
|
)
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
45,856
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
1,827,174
|
|
|
|
746,514
|
|
|
|
(50,576
|
)
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
3,751
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from equity investees
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
1,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(318
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
11,275
|
|
|
|
5,570
|
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,167
|
|
|
|
10,600
|
|
|
|
9,980
|
|
|
|
809
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
2,882
|
|
|
|
4,522
|
|
|
|
4,210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment interest income
|
|
|
122,001
|
|
|
|
29,166
|
|
|
|
5,166
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156,333
|
|
|
|
96,213
|
|
|
|
33,884
|
|
|
|
9,232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,329
|
|
|
|
23,256
|
|
|
|
68,270
|
|
|
|
10,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense**
|
|
|
333,633
|
|
|
|
201,085
|
|
|
|
22,112
|
|
|
|
1,567
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
558,397
|
|
|
|
255,698
|
|
|
|
192,143
|
|
|
|
50,495
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
498,986
|
|
|
|
77,800
|
|
|
|
156,492
|
|
|
|
89,466
|
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
324,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment interest expense
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
27,057
|
|
|
|
111,129
|
|
|
|
18,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156,333
|
|
|
|
10,167
|
|
|
|
28,890
|
|
|
|
73,094
|
|
|
|
27,178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,329
|
|
|
|
49,633
|
|
|
|
17,683
|
|
|
|
3,144
|
|
|
|
31,260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment assets***
|
|
|
8,159,792
|
|
|
|
4,863,128
|
|
|
|
2,186,668
|
|
|
|
566,440
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,776,028
|
|
|
|
7,356,647
|
|
|
|
3,165,877
|
|
|
|
2,196,254
|
|
|
|
464,533
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
5,441,394
|
|
|
|
3,404,386
|
|
|
|
2,652,177
|
|
|
|
511,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invesments in equity investees****
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,764
|
|
|
|
11,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
10,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
621,928
|
|
|
|
315,246
|
|
|
|
41,712
|
|
|
|
11,214
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
990,100
|
|
|
|
374,737
|
|
|
|
200,867
|
|
|
|
32,774
|
|
|
|
4,366
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
612,744
|
|
|
|
737,827
|
|
|
|
311,093
|
|
|
|
101,287
|
|
|
|
21,124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,171,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax (expense)/benefit
|
|
|
(185,807
|
)
|
|
|
(20,953
|
)
|
|
|
(64,616
|
)
|
|
|
(5,280
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(276,656
|
)
|
|
|
(2,687
|
)
|
|
|
(8,412
|
)
|
|
|
(2,236
|
)
|
|
|
(5,558
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(330,372
|
)
|
|
|
(46,348
|
)
|
|
|
252,188
|
|
|
|
5,645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Gross margin percentage is calculated as a function of total
revenues for the segment, including both from external customers
and intersegment. |
|
** |
|
Interest expense incurred by the production subsidiaries is
included in the corresponding segment. Directly attributed
interest expense incurred by the servicing subsidiaries (trading
houses and corporate) is included in the appropriate segment
based on the nature and purpose of the debt, while the interest
expense related to general financing of the Group is allocated
to segments proportionate to respective segment revenues. |
|
*** |
|
Net of effects of intersegment eliminations |
|
**** |
|
Included in total segment assets. |
|
***** |
|
Eliminations represent adjustments for the elimination of
intersegment unrealized profit (loss). |
|
|
|
The amount of electricity transmission costs, included in the
selling and distribution expenses of power segment, for 2010,
2009 and 2008 is $208,912, $154,980 and $223,253,
respectively. |
F-82
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table presents the Groups revenues
segregated between domestic and export sales. Domestic
represents sales by a subsidiary in the country in which it is
located. This category is further divided between subsidiaries
located in Russia and other countries. Export represents
cross-border sales by a subsidiary regardless of its location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Domestic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
4,803,083
|
|
|
|
2,714,246
|
|
|
|
5,337,695
|
|
Other
|
|
|
754,780
|
|
|
|
478,553
|
|
|
|
863,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,557,863
|
|
|
|
3,192,799
|
|
|
|
6,200,703
|
|
Export
|
|
|
4,188,173
|
|
|
|
2,561,347
|
|
|
|
3,750,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue, net
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of total revenue by country is based on the location
of the customer. The Groups total revenue from external
customers by geographic area for the last three fiscal years was
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
4,819,233
|
|
|
|
2,739,417
|
|
|
|
5,341,256
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
1,841,829
|
|
|
|
1,139,608
|
|
|
|
2,157,868
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
1,257,586
|
|
|
|
869,156
|
|
|
|
1,195,508
|
|
CIS
|
|
|
628,427
|
|
|
|
277,781
|
|
|
|
620,278
|
|
Middle East
|
|
|
908,480
|
|
|
|
585,446
|
|
|
|
391,377
|
|
USA
|
|
|
97,216
|
|
|
|
48,076
|
|
|
|
53,231
|
|
Other regions
|
|
|
193,265
|
|
|
|
94,662
|
|
|
|
191,187
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
9,746,036
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of the Groups long-lived assets are located
in Russia. The carrying amounts of long-lived assets pertaining
to the Groups major operations located outside Russia as
of December 31, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
USA
|
|
|
2,294,066
|
|
|
|
2,285,155
|
|
CIS
|
|
|
1,587,515
|
|
|
|
1,645,828
|
|
Romania
|
|
|
228,636
|
|
|
|
212,926
|
|
Bulgaria
|
|
|
59,470
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
45,919
|
|
|
|
34,866
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
8,863
|
|
|
|
10,039
|
|
Turkey
|
|
|
6,609
|
|
|
|
|
|
Switzerland/Liechtenstein
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
749
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,325
|
|
|
|
742
|
|
Because of the significant number of customers, there are no
individual external customers that generate sales greater than
10% of the Groups consolidated total revenue.
F-83
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
24.
|
COMMITMENTS
AND CONTINGENCIES
|
Commitments
In the course of carrying out its operations and other
activities, the Group and its subsidiaries enter into various
agreements, which would require the Group to invest in or
provide financing to specific projects or undertakings. In
managements opinion, these commitments are entered into
under standard terms, which are representative of each specific
projects potential and should not result in an
unreasonable loss.
As of December 31, 2010, total Groups contract
commitments amounted to $5,539,389, which consisted of the
following: commitment to acquire property, plant and equipment
of $2,876,589, commitment to acquire raw materials of
$1,032,334, commitment for delivery of goods and services of
$1,479,443 and other commitments of $151,023. These commitments
extend for 9 years, with $4,605,976 to be fulfilled before
December 31, 2011 (of which $2,262,902 related to property,
plant and equipment, $766,933 related to raw materials,
$1,472,437 related to goods and services and other commitments
of $103,704) and $933,413 (of which $613,687 related to
property, plant and equipment, $265,401 related to raw
materials, $7,006 related to goods and services and other
commitments of $47,319) to be fulfilled thereafter.
Included in the commitments related to acquisition of property,
plant and equipment are amounts arising from various purchase
agreements in respect of railway construction for the Elgaugol
project. The total amount of remaining commitments under the
construction contracts as of December 31, 2010 is equal to
$446,516.
Included in the commitments related to acquisition of property,
plant and equipment are amounts arising from various finance
lease agreements concluded in 2010 under which leased property
is expected to be received in 2011. The total amount of lease
contracts commitments as of December 31, 2010 is
equal to $240,150.
The BCG Companies utilize coal preparation and loading
facilities on its property that are owned and operated by third
parties. The agreements covering the BCG Companies use of these
facilities expire in 2016 and require minimum payment amounts
should the BCG Companies fail to achieve defined throughput
levels. These minimum amounts total $3,960 annually for the
period from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2015 and
$2,640 in the aggregate for the period thereafter.
Contingencies
As of December 31, 2010, the Group guaranteed the
fulfillment of obligations to third parties under various debt
and lease agreements for the total amount of $7,226,477. The
guarantees given under the various agreements of the Group to
third parties for its own subsidiaries amounted to $7,223,169
and $3,308 for individuals, respectively. In case the borrower
fails to fulfill its obligations under the loan agreement, the
Group repays the outstanding amount under the debt agreement
with all interests, fines and penalties due.
Included into the above guarantees are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the guarantee arising under the $2,000,000 syndicated credit
facility agreement which refinanced remaining debt obligations
under the Yakutugol and Oriel credit
facility (refer to Note 13), that is jointly guaranteed by
BMP, KMP, Mechel OAO, Mechel Carbon AG, Mechel-Mining OAO,
Mechel Service Global B.V., Mechel Trading AG, Oriel, SKCC and
Yakutugol for a total of $2,000,000;
|
|
|
|
the limited guarantee issued by Mechel-Mining OAO in the amount
of $1,000,000 in favor of James C. Justice Companies Inc. under
the Mechel-Mining OAO Drilling Program Agreement (refer to
Note 3(e));
|
F-84
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
the guarantees issued by Mechel OAO under the Gazprombank,
Sberbank, VTB, Bank of Moscow, Uralsib Bank and Alfa-Bank credit
facilities amounted to $2,782,635;
|
|
|
|
the guarantees issued by MTH under the National Deposit Center
and VTB loans to Mechel OAO in the amount of $164,182 and
$164,670, respectively;
|
|
|
|
the guarantee arising under the Mechel OAO ruble-denominated
bonds issued in an aggregate principal amount of
10.3 billion Russian rubles to finance the Groups
investment projects, in particular the construction of Elga coal
mining complex, that is guaranteed by Yakutugol in the amount of
10 billion Russian rubles ($337,826);
|
|
|
|
the guarantee issued by Mechel OAO in the amount of $17,190
under Brunswick Rail Leasing Limited lease agreement to Mechel
Trans; $14,810 under Caterpilar Financial lease agreement to
Yakutugol and Mechel-Materials; and $4,843 under Sberbank
Leasing lease agreements to Mechel-Materials;
|
|
|
|
the guarantee issued by Mechel Trans under VTB Leasing and
Gazprombank Leasing lease agreements in the amount of $8,730 and
$3,466, respectively;
|
|
|
|
the remaining guarantees were issued by other Groups
subsidiaries under various loan agreements described in
Note 13.
|
Environmental
In the course of the Groups operations, the Group may be
subject to environmental claims and legal proceedings. The
quantification of environmental exposures requires an assessment
of many factors, including changing laws and regulations,
improvements in environmental technologies, the quality of
information available related to specific sites, the assessment
stage of each site investigation, preliminary findings and the
length of time involved in remediation or settlement. The BCG
Companies are subject to extensive U.S. laws, government
regulations and other requirements relating to the protection of
the environment, health and safety and other matters, which
could impose additional costs to the Group. The
U.S. regulatory agencies have the authority to temporarily
or permanently close the BCG Companies mines or modify
their operations because the operations of the BCG Companies may
impact the environment or cause or contribute to contamination
or exposure to hazardous substances, which could result in
environmental liabilities and limit the Groups ability to
produce and sell coal in the United States. Management does not
believe that any pending environmental claims or proceedings
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position
and results of operations.
The Group estimated the total amount of capital investments to
address environmental concerns at its various subsidiaries at
$40,100 as of December 31, 2010. These amounts are not
accrued in the consolidated financial statements until actual
capital investments are made.
Possible liabilities, which were identified by management as
those that can be subject to potential claims from environmental
authorities are not accrued in the consolidated financial
statements. The amount of such liabilities was not significant.
|
|
(b)
|
EU
ascension commitments
|
Integration of Romania into the European Union (EU)
required, in particular, adoption of a new national strategy
aimed at restructuring of major metallurgical entities,
including Mechel Targoviste S.A. and Mechel Campia Turzii S.A.
As an integral part of the restructuring process, individual
viability plans agreed with EU consultants are to be
incorporated into the business plans of entities. Implementation
of these plans and achievement of the targets should be provided
by investors in accordance with their contractual obligations
under privatization contracts. Viability plans of Mechel
Targoviste S.A. and Mechel Campia Turzii S.A. include additional
investments into technology development and ecology improvement.
After the completion
F-85
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
of the restructuring, key business performance indicators of
both companies are to be in line with effectiveness requirements
of the EU.
In September 2010, the European Commission confirmed the
compliance of Mechel Targoviste S.A. and Mechel Campia Turzii
S.A. with all the key benchmark indicators required.
The Group is subject to taxation to the largest extent in
Russia, and secondarily in other jurisdictions. Russian tax,
currency and customs legislation is subject to varying
interpretations, and changes, which can occur frequently.
Managements interpretation of such legislation as applied
to the transactions and activity of the Group may be challenged
by the relevant regional and federal authorities. Recent events
within the Russian Federation suggest that the tax authorities
are taking a more assertive position in its interpretation of
the legislation and assessments and as a result, it is possible
that transactions and activities that have not been challenged
in the past may be challenged. As such, significant additional
taxes, penalties and interest may be assessed. Fiscal periods
remain open to review by the authorities in respect of taxes for
three calendar years preceding the year of review. Under certain
circumstances reviews may cover longer periods.
In Russia, generally tax declarations remain open and subject to
inspection for a period of three years. The fact that a year has
been reviewed does not close that year, or any tax declaration
applicable to that year, from further review during the
three-year period.
In other tax jurisdictions where the Group conducts operations
or holds shares, taxes are generally charged on the income
arising in that jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions agreements
to avoid double taxation are signed between different
jurisdictions; however, the risk of additional taxation exists,
especially in respect of certain domiciles where some of the
Group entities are located and which are considered to be tax
havens.
Management believes that it has paid or accrued all taxes that
are applicable. Where uncertainty exists, the Group has accrued
tax liabilities based on managements best estimate of the
probable outflow of resources embodying economic benefits, which
will be required to settle these liabilities. In accordance with
FASB ASC 450, Contingencies (ASC
450), the Group accrued $8,898 and $11,856 of other tax
claims that management believes are probable, as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition,
income tax accrual was made under ASC 740 (refer to
Note 19).
As of December 31, 2010, the Group does not believe that
any other material tax matters exist relating to the Group,
including current pending or future governmental claims and
demands, which would require adjustment to the accompanying
financial statements in order for those statements not to be
materially misstated or misleading.
Possible liabilities, which were identified by management as
those that can be subject to different interpretations of the
tax law and regulations and largely related to mineral
extraction tax are not accrued in the consolidated financial
statements. The amount of such liabilities was insignificant.
|
|
(d)
|
Litigation,
claims and assessments
|
The Group is subject to various lawsuits and claims with respect
to such matters as personal injury, wrongful death, damage to
property, exposure to hazardous substances, governmental
regulations including environmental remediation, employment and
contract disputes and other claims and actions arising out of
the normal course of business. In the cases related to the
U.S. subsidiaries, insurance or other indemnification
protection is generally available to the Group from the previous
owners, which should offset the financial impact on the Group,
if any. Therefore, managements current estimates related
to these pending claims, individually and in the aggregate, are
immaterial to the financial position, results of operations or
cash flows of the Group. If the Group is unable to recover the
losses from the previous owners, it is reasonably possible
F-86
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
that the ultimate liabilities with respect to these lawsuits and
claims may be material to the financial position, results of
operations or cash flows of the Group.
In 2008, Pinnacle Mining Company (Pinnacle) filed a
suit against the Groups US subsidiary and a third party
engineering firm in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Beckley, West Virginia. Pinnacle asserts
claims against defendants for negligence, strict liability,
violation of the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, and injunctive relief. The case arises from mining activity
by the Groups subsidiary in the safety zone of
a coal slurry impoundment maintained by Pinnacle. The parties
filed a joint motion to stay, and the court granted the stay,
which has allowed additional time for the regulatory agencies
involved to determine what steps are necessary for remediation.
A plan has been submitted by the defendants and was approved by
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP). Currently WVDEP is still working with
Pinnacle and the Groups US subsidiary to achieve an
agreed-upon
remediation for the undermining and at this point of the case
the estimation of the probable expenses with regard to the
remediation for the undermining is not possible.
In May 2009, Suncoke served the Groups US subsidiary with
the claim for failure of performance of its obligations under
contracts to supply coal to Suncoke in 2008. Suncoke has not
made any further legal actions against the Group since that
time. The Group is defending on the grounds that Suncoke was
able to cover the subject coal at no additional cost to Suncoke
and Suncoke was also in violation of its contractual obligations
in 2008 for not accepting delivery of the tonnage as provided in
the contract agreement. The maximum amount of this claim is
$67,046.
The Groups US subsidiary is a defendant in a case brought
in September 2008 in the Circuit Court of Ohio County by
Mountain State Carbon, LLC. The lawsuit alleges breach of
contract, implied duty of good faith and fair dealing against
the Groups US subsidiary. Mountain State claims damages of
$4,500.
On May 10, 2010, a claim was filed with the American
Arbitration Association in the amount of $76,700 by law firm
Bachmann, Hess, alleging breach of attorney contingent fee
agreement by the Groups US subsidiary and its former
majority shareholder.
The Group does not expect to suffer any losses resulting from
these lawsuits that related to event prior to the Groups
acquisition of the BCG Companies as it has full indemnity from
the BCG Companies previous owners in accordance with the
terms of the acquisition agreement.
In March 2009, Dean Frederick, a minority Groups
shareholder, filed a court suit in the Southern district court
of New York, USA, claiming that the Group had not disclosed
significant facts of the Groups financial position,
business activities among the Groups subsidiaries and
improper conduct of business through the use of transfer pricing
on sales of coal and tax evasion. Claims were based on the
Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) decision and
press publications around it. The amount of claims and evidences
of the Groups alleged wrong-doing were not stated in the
suit. The Group plans to submit a petition asking for a
dismissal of the case. Management cannot predict the outcome of
the suit but expects to be able to defend its position in court.
As of December 31, 2009, $55,984 included in Cash (refer to
Note 4) was restricted for use in accordance with
various guarantees provided by BNP Paribas to the Groups
subsidiaries. In February 2010, the Group signed a settlement
agreement with BNP Paribas in accordance with which BNP Paribas
irrevocably agreed to release the above stated funds and the
Group agreed to withdraw the proceedings against BNP Paribas
before the Geneva District Court.
F-87
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(e)
|
Russian
business environment
|
Russia continues economic reforms and development of its legal,
tax and regulatory frameworks as required by a market economy.
The future stability of the Russian economy is largely dependent
upon these reforms and developments and the effectiveness of
economic, financial and monetary measures undertaken by the
government.
The Russian economy is vulnerable to market downturns and
economic slowdowns elsewhere in the world. The global financial
crisis has resulted in a decline in the gross domestic product,
capital markets instability, significant deterioration of
liquidity in the banking sector, and tighter credit conditions
within Russia. While the Russian Government has introduced a
range of stabilization measures aimed at providing liquidity to
Russian banks and companies, there continues to be uncertainty
regarding the access to capital and cost of capital for the
Group and its counterparties, which could affect the
Groups financial position, results of operations and
business prospects. These considerations similarly apply to
other jurisdictions where the Group operates.
While management believes it is taking appropriate measures to
support the sustainability of the Groups business in the
current circumstances, unexpected further deterioration in the
areas described above could negatively affect the Groups
results and financial position in a manner not currently
determinable.
Placement
of bonds
On February 22, 2011, Mechel OAO issued 10,000,000
ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
10 billion Russian rubles ($342,996 as of the placement
date). The bonds were issued at 100% par value. Interest is
payable every 6 months in arrears. The interest rate for
the first coupon period was determined upon the issuance based
on the bids of buyers and amounted to 8.25% p.a. The interest
rate for the second to the sixth coupon periods is set as equal
to that of the first period. The interest rate for the seventh
to twentieth coupon periods is set by the Group and made public
5 days before the respective coupon period starts. The
bondholders have an option to demand repayment of the bonds at
par value starting February 21, 2014. The obligatory
redemption date is February 9, 2021.
New
borrowings
Subsequent to December 31, 2010, most significant new
borrowings entered by the Group were as follows:
In January 2011, SKCC obtained a loan in the amount of $40,000
from UniCredit Bank repayable in 2012 bearing interest rate at
LIBOR plus 3.4% p.a. The borrowers obligations under the
loan agreement are guaranteed by Mechel OAO;
In February 2011, SKCC obtained a credit line in the amount of
6.2 billion Russian rubles ($210,787 as of the date of the
agreement) from Transcreditbank repayable in 2016 bearing
interest rate at 9.7% p.a. secured by the pledge of equipment
and assets. The borrowers obligations under the loan
agreement are guaranteed by Mechel OAO;
In February 2011, CMP obtained a working capital credit line in
the amount of 4.3 billion Russian rubles ($146,191 as of
the date of agreement) from Sberbank repayable in August 2011
bearing interest rate at 6.4-6.9% p.a. The borrowers
obligations under the loan agreement are guaranteed by Mechel
OAO.
F-88
MECHEL
OAO
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Changes
in tax legislation
Before 2011, dividends received by the Russian entities were
subject to profits tax at 0% only when all the relevant criteria
described in Note 19 are satisfied; otherwise the tax rate
was 9%. One criterion is that the cost of the acquisition or
receipt of ownership of the holding in the charter capital of
the organization paying the dividends or depositary receipts
conferring the right to receive dividends exceeds
500 million roubles. This criterion has been abolished by
the Federal Law starting from January 1, 2011 in relation
to the dividends accrued on the basis of results of the
activities of organizations for 2010 and subsequent periods.
New
Uregolsk license area
In March 2011, SKCC purchased the right to use the New Uregolsk
license area for approximately $3,800 paid in cash. Currently,
no mining activity is conducted in the New Uregolsk license area.
Environmental
claim
In March 2011, the Chelyabinsk Department of Rosprirodnadzor
(the Federal Service for Natural Resources Oversight) claimed
against CMP demanding the payment of $10,221 due to the damage
caused to the Miass river. Currently, CMP is reviewing the
allegations of the environmental violations stated in the claim.
The Group cannot predict the outcome of this claim but expects
to reach an agreement with the environmental authorities.
F-89