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,
2009
|
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)
Alexander Tolkach, tel.: +7-495-221-8888,
e-mail:
alexander.tolkach@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
|
|
AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES, EACH ADS
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
|
REPRESENTING ONE COMMON SHARE
|
|
|
COMMON SHARES, PAR VALUE
|
|
NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE(1)
|
10 RUSSIAN RUBLES PER SHARE
|
|
|
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 (including
115,568,183 shares in the form of ADSs)
138,756,915 preferred shares (including 55,502,766 shares held
by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel)
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 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.
2
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.
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 OAO
|
|
Russia, Sakha Republic
|
Elgaugol
|
|
Elgaugol 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
|
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
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant OAO
|
|
Russia, Moscow region
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Mechel-Coke OOO
|
|
Russia, Chelyabinsk region
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Ductil Steel S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
Mechel-Steel Management
|
|
Mechel-Steel Management OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
Laminorul Plant
|
|
Laminorul S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
Name as Used in This Document
|
|
Official Name
|
|
Location
|
|
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
|
Marketing and Distribution
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
Mechel Finance
|
|
Mechel Finance OOO
|
|
Russia, Moscow
|
4
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.
5
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, 2009,
2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005, 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,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income
data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
4,397,811
|
|
|
|
3,804,995
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
(4,166,864
|
)
|
|
|
(2,860,224
|
)
|
|
|
(2,469,134
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
2,516,978
|
|
|
|
1,537,587
|
|
|
|
1,335,861
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
(1,119,385
|
)
|
|
|
(811,889
|
)
|
|
|
(820,133
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
|
|
725,698
|
|
|
|
515,728
|
|
Other (expense) income,
net(2)
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12,146
|
)
|
|
|
139,135
|
|
|
|
10,131
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
1,385,447
|
|
|
|
864,833
|
|
|
|
525,859
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(356,320
|
)
|
|
|
(230,599
|
)
|
|
|
(136,643
|
)
|
Income from continuing operations, net of tax
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,127
|
|
|
|
634,234
|
|
|
|
389,216
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
543
|
|
|
|
(1,157
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
|
|
634,777
|
|
|
|
388,059
|
|
Less net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
(116,234
|
)
|
|
|
(31,528
|
)
|
|
|
(6,879
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
|
|
381,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders of Mechel
OAO
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
|
|
381,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
|
|
634,777
|
|
|
|
388,059
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
|
|
157,288
|
|
|
|
155,451
|
|
|
|
(65,513
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
(14,365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
(5,059
|
)
|
|
|
11,203
|
|
|
|
2,181
|
|
Additional minimum pension liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,669
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
(264,355
|
)
|
|
|
1,020,836
|
|
|
|
1,167,149
|
|
|
|
796,762
|
|
|
|
324,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to non-controlling
interests
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
(26,822
|
)
|
|
|
(136,849
|
)
|
|
|
(38,059
|
)
|
|
|
4,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
(257,596
|
)
|
|
|
994,014
|
|
|
|
1,030,300
|
|
|
|
758,703
|
|
|
|
329,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
0.95
|
|
Income per share effect of discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
Net (loss) income per share
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
1.48
|
|
|
|
0.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per common share
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
|
|
1.12
|
|
|
|
0.76
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
0.48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends per preferred share
|
|
|
1.62
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number shares outstanding
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
408,979,356
|
|
|
|
403,118,680
|
|
Mining segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
1,826,180
|
|
|
|
4,031,967
|
|
|
|
1,970,969
|
|
|
|
1,354,285
|
|
|
|
1,270,931
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(989,446
|
)
|
|
|
(1,229,631
|
)
|
|
|
(1,008,485
|
)
|
|
|
(830,632
|
)
|
|
|
(565,126
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
836,734
|
|
|
|
2,802,336
|
|
|
|
962,484
|
|
|
|
523,653
|
|
|
|
705,805
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(610,417
|
)
|
|
|
(1,001,796
|
)
|
|
|
(391,015
|
)
|
|
|
(332,611
|
)
|
|
|
(295,512
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
226,317
|
|
|
|
1,800,540
|
|
|
|
571,469
|
|
|
|
191,042
|
|
|
|
410,293
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
3,504,050
|
|
|
|
5,773,719
|
|
|
|
4,414,492
|
|
|
|
3,083,654
|
|
|
|
2,767,028
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(2,876,211
|
)
|
|
|
(4,219,344
|
)
|
|
|
(3,374,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2,240,001
|
)
|
|
|
(2,158,499
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
627,839
|
|
|
|
1,554,375
|
|
|
|
1,040,072
|
|
|
|
843,653
|
|
|
|
608,529
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(681,859
|
)
|
|
|
(783,936
|
)
|
|
|
(502,811
|
)
|
|
|
(457,100
|
)
|
|
|
(502,248
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
(54,020
|
)
|
|
|
770,439
|
|
|
|
537,261
|
|
|
|
386,553
|
|
|
|
106,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment statements of income and comprehensive
income
data(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
430,809
|
|
|
|
584,631
|
|
|
|
636,656
|
|
|
|
339,748
|
|
|
|
156,241
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(392,428
|
)
|
|
|
(571,162
|
)
|
|
|
(253,725
|
)
|
|
|
(174,675
|
)
|
|
|
(150,749
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
13,469
|
|
|
|
382,931
|
|
|
|
165,073
|
|
|
|
5,492
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(65,967
|
)
|
|
|
(63,986
|
)
|
|
|
(32,824
|
)
|
|
|
(17,777
|
)
|
|
|
(20,201
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(50,517
|
)
|
|
|
350,107
|
|
|
|
147,296
|
|
|
|
(14,709
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment statements of income and comprehensive income
data(3):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
872,784
|
|
|
|
1,028,110
|
|
|
|
598,515
|
|
|
|
123,322
|
|
|
|
24,532
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(642,516
|
)
|
|
|
(714,094
|
)
|
|
|
(393,153
|
)
|
|
|
(110,273
|
)
|
|
|
(20,242
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
230,268
|
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
205,362
|
|
|
|
13,049
|
|
|
|
4,290
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(189,566
|
)
|
|
|
(284,610
|
)
|
|
|
(192,735
|
)
|
|
|
(4,400
|
)
|
|
|
(2,172
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
12,627
|
|
|
|
8,649
|
|
|
|
2,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated balance sheet data (at period end):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
9,227,643
|
|
|
|
4,457,404
|
|
|
|
3,600,083
|
|
Equity attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
4,049,721
|
|
|
|
4,030,812
|
|
|
|
3,504,933
|
|
|
|
2,864,963
|
|
|
|
2,210,474
|
|
Equity attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
280,968
|
|
|
|
290,849
|
|
|
|
300,523
|
|
|
|
163,036
|
|
|
|
127,834
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
219,816
|
|
|
|
2,321,922
|
|
|
|
322,604
|
|
|
|
45,615
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated cash flows data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
|
|
904,969
|
|
|
|
554,923
|
|
|
|
620,875
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
|
|
(3,408,088
|
)
|
|
|
(548,522
|
)
|
|
|
(920,771
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
|
|
2,547,503
|
|
|
|
(166,798
|
)
|
|
|
(382,806
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-U.S.
GAAP
measures(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
EBITDA(2)
|
|
|
998,295
|
|
|
|
2,046,811
|
|
|
|
1,658,662
|
|
|
|
1,068,258
|
|
|
|
726,252
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted
EBITDA(2)
|
|
|
1,172,631
|
|
|
|
2,924,239
|
|
|
|
1,603,962
|
|
|
|
1,009,485
|
|
|
|
763,687
|
|
Mining Segment
EBITDA(2)
|
|
|
1,107,660
|
|
|
|
1,897,012
|
|
|
|
713,624
|
|
|
|
277,647
|
|
|
|
455,528
|
|
Mining Segment Adjusted
EBITDA(2)
|
|
|
1,039,091
|
|
|
|
2,039,294
|
|
|
|
706,178
|
|
|
|
261,824
|
|
|
|
469,693
|
|
Steel Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
54,215
|
|
|
|
629,572
|
|
|
|
709,462
|
|
|
|
643,499
|
|
|
|
252,364
|
|
Steel Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
134,458
|
|
|
|
966,115
|
|
|
|
654,762
|
|
|
|
584,726
|
|
|
|
289,799
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
(135,370
|
)
|
|
|
(420,074
|
)
|
|
|
323,760
|
|
|
|
146,141
|
|
|
|
3,637
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
27,365
|
|
|
|
(21,306
|
)
|
|
|
321,930
|
|
|
|
147,798
|
|
|
|
3,637
|
|
Power Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
51,249
|
|
|
|
51,769
|
|
|
|
26,212
|
|
|
|
9,190
|
|
|
|
3,211
|
|
Power Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
51,176
|
|
|
|
51,604
|
|
|
|
26,440
|
|
|
|
9,457
|
|
|
|
2,948
|
|
|
|
|
(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) |
|
Includes a gain on revaluation of the CVR contingent liability
in 2009 of $494.2 million related to the preferred shares
used as consideration in the Bluestone acquisition. This gain is
a non-cash item. Future fluctuations in the fair value of the
preferred shares, the success of the drilling program at
Bluestone, dividend payments on the preferred shares, passage of
time and other factors, some of which are beyond our control,
could impact the fair value of the CVR contingent payment and
result in further revaluation gains and losses. See note 4
to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(3) |
|
Segment revenues and cost of goods sold include intersegment
sales. |
|
(4) |
|
EBITDA represents net income before interest expense, income
taxes and depreciation, depletion and amortization. Adjusted
EBITDA represents EBITDA before foreign exchange gains and
losses. While foreign exchange gains and losses are a recurring
item, they are not indicative of our ongoing operating
performance. We present EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA because we
consider them to be important supplemental measures of our
operating performance and believe they are frequently used by
securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in
the evaluation of companies in our industry. We also present
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA by segment because our overall
performance is best explained with reference to results of each
segment. |
8
Reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to net income is as
follows for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
603,249
|
|
|
|
381,180
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
406,675
|
|
|
|
463,297
|
|
|
|
290,315
|
|
|
|
196,227
|
|
|
|
167,600
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
498,986
|
|
|
|
324,083
|
|
|
|
98,976
|
|
|
|
38,183
|
|
|
|
40,829
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
356,320
|
|
|
|
230,599
|
|
|
|
136,643
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBITDA
|
|
|
998,295
|
|
|
|
2,046,811
|
|
|
|
1,658,662
|
|
|
|
1,068,258
|
|
|
|
726,252
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
174,336
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
|
|
(54,700
|
)
|
|
|
(58,773
|
)
|
|
|
37,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
1,172,631
|
|
|
|
2,924,239
|
|
|
|
1,603,962
|
|
|
|
1,009,485
|
|
|
|
763,687
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
622,207
|
|
|
|
1,200,445
|
|
|
|
403,525
|
|
|
|
117,803
|
|
|
|
317,411
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
225,078
|
|
|
|
280,276
|
|
|
|
136,479
|
|
|
|
84,167
|
|
|
|
58,678
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
254,161
|
|
|
|
120,594
|
|
|
|
40,046
|
|
|
|
11,202
|
|
|
|
5,361
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
6,214
|
|
|
|
295,697
|
|
|
|
133,574
|
|
|
|
64,475
|
|
|
|
74,078
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
1,107,660
|
|
|
|
1,897,012
|
|
|
|
713,624
|
|
|
|
277,647
|
|
|
|
455,528
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(68,569
|
)
|
|
|
142,282
|
|
|
|
(7,446
|
)
|
|
|
(15,823
|
)
|
|
|
14,165
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
1,039,091
|
|
|
|
2,039,294
|
|
|
|
706,178
|
|
|
|
261,824
|
|
|
|
469,693
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
(300,560
|
)
|
|
|
229,522
|
|
|
|
375,115
|
|
|
|
387,763
|
|
|
|
59,830
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
116,800
|
|
|
|
137,492
|
|
|
|
124,156
|
|
|
|
102,257
|
|
|
|
95,715
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
233,090
|
|
|
|
181,536
|
|
|
|
77,634
|
|
|
|
26,471
|
|
|
|
35,158
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
4,885
|
|
|
|
81,022
|
|
|
|
132,557
|
|
|
|
127,008
|
|
|
|
61,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
54,215
|
|
|
|
629,572
|
|
|
|
709,462
|
|
|
|
643,499
|
|
|
|
252,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
80,243
|
|
|
|
336,543
|
|
|
|
(54,700
|
)
|
|
|
(58,773
|
)
|
|
|
37,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
134,458
|
|
|
|
966,115
|
|
|
|
654,762
|
|
|
|
584,726
|
|
|
|
289,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA
reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
(309,922
|
)
|
|
|
(283,235
|
)
|
|
|
222,024
|
|
|
|
99,458
|
|
|
|
(9,034
|
)
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
48,727
|
|
|
|
22,738
|
|
|
|
13,366
|
|
|
|
9,224
|
|
|
|
11,885
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
123,589
|
|
|
|
92,611
|
|
|
|
1,344
|
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
255
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
2,236
|
|
|
|
(252,188
|
)
|
|
|
87,026
|
|
|
|
37,019
|
|
|
|
531
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
(135,370
|
)
|
|
|
(420,074
|
)
|
|
|
323,760
|
|
|
|
146,141
|
|
|
|
3,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
162,735
|
|
|
|
398,768
|
|
|
|
(1,830
|
)
|
|
|
1,657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
27,365
|
|
|
|
(21,306
|
)
|
|
|
321,930
|
|
|
|
147,798
|
|
|
|
3,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Segment EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
1,793
|
|
|
|
3,037
|
|
|
|
(13,597
|
)
|
|
|
6,066
|
|
|
|
1,230
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
16,070
|
|
|
|
22,791
|
|
|
|
16,314
|
|
|
|
579
|
|
|
|
1,322
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
27,828
|
|
|
|
31,585
|
|
|
|
20,332
|
|
|
|
448
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
5,558
|
|
|
|
(5,644
|
)
|
|
|
3,163
|
|
|
|
2,097
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Segment EBITDA
|
|
|
51,249
|
|
|
|
51,769
|
|
|
|
26,212
|
|
|
|
9,190
|
|
|
|
3,211
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(73
|
)
|
|
|
(165
|
)
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
(263
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Segment Adjusted EBITDA
|
|
|
51,176
|
|
|
|
51,604
|
|
|
|
26,440
|
|
|
|
9,457
|
|
|
|
2,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are measures of our operating
performance that are not required by, or presented in accordance
with, U.S. GAAP. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are not
measurements 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, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered
as a measure of discretionary cash available to us to invest in
the growth of our business. |
|
|
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA have limitations as analytical tools,
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: |
|
|
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do not reflect the impact
of financing costs, which are significant and could further
increase if we incur more debt, on our operating performance.
|
|
|
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do not reflect the impact
of income taxes on our operating performance.
|
|
|
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do 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 EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do
not reflect our future cash requirements for such replacements.
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA does not reflect the impact of
foreign exchange gains and losses, which may recur.
|
|
|
|
Other companies in our industry may calculate EBITDA
and Adjusted EBITDA differently or may use them for different
purposes than we do, limiting their usefulness as comparative
measures.
|
|
|
|
We compensate for these limitations by relying primarily on our
U.S. GAAP operating results and using EBITDA and Adjusted
EBITDA only supplementally. See our consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income and consolidated statements of
cash flows included elsewhere in this document. EBITDA presented
here may not be the same as EBITDA defined in our loan
agreements. |
Exchange
Rates
The following tables show, for the periods indicated, certain
information regarding the 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
|
|
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
|
|
2005
|
|
|
29.00
|
|
|
|
27.46
|
|
|
|
28.29
|
|
|
|
28.78
|
|
|
|
|
(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 2010
|
|
|
29.98
|
|
|
|
29.19
|
|
February 2010
|
|
|
30.52
|
|
|
|
29.88
|
|
January 2010
|
|
|
30.43
|
|
|
|
29.38
|
|
December 2009
|
|
|
30.76
|
|
|
|
29.06
|
|
November 2009
|
|
|
29.82
|
|
|
|
28.67
|
|
October 2009
|
|
|
30.12
|
|
|
|
28.94
|
|
The exchange rate between the ruble and the U.S. dollar on
April 26, 2010 was 29.27 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
Acquisition
of Laminorul S.A. Braila
On February 25, 2010, we acquired 100% of the shares of
Donau Commodities SRL which holds 90.9% of the shares of
Laminorul Plant S.A. Braila (Laminorul
Plant), a steel plant located in Braila (Romania) and
listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, for consideration of
9.4 million subject to a final price adjustment. On
April 19, 2010, the Romanian Competition Council approved
the transaction. The acquisition is consistent with our program
of expanding production and sales of steel products, in
particular related to construction and building industries in
Romania.
Laminorul Plant is located in southeast Romania in close
proximity to the Braila ports on the Danube River. The plant has
two rolling mills for production of shapes (including beams,
channels, equal and unequal
11
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 shipbuilding.
Placement
of Russian Bonds
On March 16, 2010, we placed non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds, admitted to trading by MICEX,
in the total principal amount of 5.0 billion rubles
($170.4 million as of the placement date). The bonds are
due on March 12, 2013. Interest is to be paid on a
semi-annual basis at a rate of 9.75%. We intend to use the
proceeds of the bond to optimize our credit portfolio by
repaying more expensive short-term secured bank loans.
On April 12, 2010, three additional issues of our
non-convertible interest-bearing exchange bonds in the total
principal amount of 13.0 billion rubles were admitted to
trading by MICEX. We can place these bonds at any time subject
to market conditions. On April 16, 2010, we started placing
two of these bond issues for a total principal amount of
10.0 billion rubles. The bonds will be due on the 1092nd
calendar day after the date of commencement of placement. The
interest rate for all six coupons will be determined during book
building on April 26, 2010. The end of placement is scheduled
for April 28, 2010.
Extension
of Facility Agreements with Gazprombank
On February 24, 2010, the maturity dates of the facility
agreements executed by our subsidiaries Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass with Gazprombank OAO (Gazprombank) on
February 6, 2009 for a total amount of $1.0 billion
were extended. The facilities are to be repaid in eight equal
amounts on a quarterly basis starting from the first quarter of
2013. Interest is paid on a monthly basis at the rate of 9%.
Fire
at Mechel-Coke
On March 11, 2010, a fire destroyed a pipeline for
recycling coke gas and damaged parts of a tunnel at Coke
Shop No. 2 of Mechel-Coke, a subsidiary of Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, during scheduled steam-cleaning of the
pipeline. The accident caused the death of one of our employees
and injured another. Operations at the damaged coke oven battery
were suspended.
These operations resumed on March 19, 2010. The suspension
did not impact operations at the blast furnace production shop
of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant. On March 26, 2010 the
Russian Federal Service for Ecological, Technological and Atom
Supervision (Rostekhnadzor) concluded that
the accident was caused by high pressure of gas during steam
cleaning operations. While Mechel-Coke was not faulted for the
accident, some managers of Mechel-Coke are under investigation
of the Prosecutor office of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical District
for violating safely regulations and could face administrative
and criminal charges.
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
working capital deficit and recently faced a liquidity
shortage.
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.
12
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. 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. 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. For the year ended December 31, 2009 we
had operating income of $245.6 million, as compared to
$2,556.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Net cash provided by operating activities was
$561.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009,
as compared to $2,229.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008. As of 31 December 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. Cash and
cash equivalents as of December 31, 2009 were
$414.7 million, as compared to $254.8 million as of
December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2009, we had
breached a number 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.
We have experienced increasing price levels for our products in
the later part of 2009 and early 2010 compared to the first half
of 2009. Although there is no certainty that such experience
will continue in the future, our plans for 2010 are based on a
continuation of these improved price levels accompanied by an
increase in demand for our products. On this basis we expect
operating cash flows to provide an increased source of funds in
2010 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 2010. See Operating and
Financial Review and Prospects Debt Financings in
2009 and Outlook for 2010. See also notes 2 and 15 to
our consolidated financial statements. 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.
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
13
as debt we incurred to finance our working capital needs and
investment program in late 2008 and 2009. A substantial portion
of our bank loans are from Russian banks, including state-owned
banks such as Sberbank, VTB Bank and Gazprombank. As of
December 31, 2009, our consolidated total debt, including
capital lease obligations, was $6,092.2 million, with a
short-term portion of $1,959.0 million. Our interest
expense for the year ended December 31, 2009 was
$499.0 million, net of the amount capitalized.
In order to secure bank financings, we have pledged shares in
certain key subsidiaries, including 85% of Yakutugol, 70% of
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, 35% of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant and 50%-1 share of Oriel Resources. 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. In addition, our business requires
maintenance capital expenditures in order to maintain existing
production levels. We spent $612.7 million during 2009
(including $72.4 million in maintenance capital
expenditures) and our capital investment program includes
capital spending of up to $1.4 billion in 2010 (including
up to $244.9 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 $3.7 billion for the three-year period of
2010-2012
(including up to $564.7 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.
14
Inflation
could increase our costs and decrease operating
margins.
In 2009, the inflation rate in Russia was 8.8% and averaged
11.3% over the
2005-2008
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.
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) place us at a competitive disadvantage 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 American Depositary
Shares (ADSs) and our unregistered global
depositary shares representing our common shares
(GDSs), 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. 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 newly enacted limits will override prior
FFMS permissions for higher amounts. Our 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 ADSs and GDSs and deliver a corresponding number of the
underlying common shares to holders of ADSs and GDSs. We have
also received FFMS permission for a total of 41,627,074
preferred shares to be circulated in the form of global
depositary receipts, representing 30% of the total number of
preferred shares currently authorized for issuance, which was
the maximum amount allowed at that time. 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.
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
15
costs relative to our revenues. In 2009, the ruble depreciated
in real terms against the U.S. dollar by 12.2% as compared
with 2008, according to the Central Bank of the Russian
Federation.
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.
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 euros. 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 2008 and early 2009, we were in breach of certain covenants
in certain of our loan agreements representing 78.9% of our
total indebtedness as of December 31, 2008. In July 2009,
we restructured all these loans. As of December 31, 2009,
we were in breach of a number of financial and non-financial
covenants in various loan agreements, but we received
appropriate consents and covenant amendments from the banks, and
currently, we do not have any violations of any covenants under
our loan agreements which could lead to the demand for
accelerated repayment of principal and interest. See
note 15 to our consolidated financial statements. We cannot
assure you that we will be able to obtain such consents and
covenant amendments in the future.
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 our 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
16
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.
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 have
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 five 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, 2009. The material weaknesses in our internal
control over financial reporting identified for the year ended
December 31, 2009 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, 2009 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 and 2008,
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 have had in the
past and may still have material weaknesses in our internal
control
17
over financial reporting, and we make no assurances that
additional material weaknesses will not be identified in the
future.
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 and iron ore. 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. 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 nickel, 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 on 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, in particular, according to publicly
available information, certain Russian steel consumers recently
approached FAS with a request to investigate pricing of some
steel products on the Russian market. 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.
18
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 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 8.0% in 2007, 21.1% in 2008 and 11.0% in
2009. 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 cost 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 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
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. 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 developed 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 more difficult and expensive to obtain and
the review process continues to lengthen.
19
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
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. In particular, due to the
significant capital investment required to develop the Elga coal
deposit, it is not expected to generate a return on capital
until after the current license period. See Item 4.
Information on the Company Mining
Segment Mineral reserves (coal, iron ore and
limestone) Coal.
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
20
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 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 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, 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. It may take
some time to implement our operating standards and adjust them
according to local laws, and it is possible that for a certain
period of time we may
21
face some uncertainties with respect to the operational and
financial needs of these businesses, which may hinder our
integration efforts.
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.
For example, in the case of the Bluestone acquisition, though we
performed a pre-acquisition review of the companies
assets, liabilities, operations, legal matters and financial
condition and though we believe we have identified in this
document the current material risks associated with the
Bluestone companies in the context of our group, we may not have
yet fully identified the extent of the historical, current and
future costs related to the Bluestone companies assets,
liabilities, operations, legal matters and financial condition,
including health, safety and environmental liability, problems
with permits and regulatory compliance, labor issues and
potential litigation. As noted above, implementing our operating
standards at newly acquired companies takes time, and our
assumptions regarding the liability and cost of operating
U.S. assets and doing business in the United States are
subject to change as we integrate the Bluestone companies into
our group. If more than expected liabilities and costs
associated with the Bluestone acquisition arise, including
liabilities and costs that affect the calculation of coal
reserves owned or controlled by the Bluestone companies, we may
not realize the investment benefits, operational synergies and
marketing advantages we expect from the Bluestone acquisition,
which could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.
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 in 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
22
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 $62.5 million.
Increasing
costs of electricity, natural gas and labor could materially
adversely affect our operating margins.
In 2009, our Russian operations purchased approximately
4.2 billion
kilowatt-hours
(kWh) of electricity, representing 75% of
their needs, at a total cost of $176.4 million, implying an
average cost of 4.2 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. In addition, according to a
long-term macroeconomic forecast made by the Ministry for
Economic Development of the Russian Federation in 2008,
electricity prices for industrial users are expected to reach
7.4-7.5 cents per kWh by 2015 and 8.5-9.6 cents per kWh by 2020.
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 2009,
we purchased 940,994.5 thousand cubic meters of gas at a total
cost of $236.6 million, implying an average price of $251.4
per thousand cubic meters, which was 29% lower than in 2008 due
to the global financial crisis. According to the forecast of the
Ministry for Economic Development of the Russian Federation,
price for gas is expected to reach the level of $343.4 per
thousand cubic meters by 2012. Further, 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.
The Ministry for Economic Development of the Russian Federation
has forecasted natural gas prices in the range of $280.0 to
$298.2 per thousand cubic meters in 2010.
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 13.6% in ruble terms in the
2005-2008
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. 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 Russian Railways
rolling stock, track infrastructure and passenger- and
cargo-handling facilities.
23
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 owner is Pervaya Gruzovaya Kompaniya OAO
(First Freight Company), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Russian Railways, which provides us with its
railcars, mainly to transport coal products and iron ore
concentrate. At present, only two companies, Russian Railways
and First 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
7.2 million tonnes in 2009, for which we paid
$85.2 million.
In 2009, tariffs were indexed twice, which resulted in an 11%
average tariff increase. With effect from January 10, 2010,
all tariffs have been increased by an additional 9.4%. 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.
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 into the European Union constituted approximately
17.9% of our steel segment revenues and approximately 50.6% of
our steel segment export revenues in 2009. 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 8.4% of our revenues from the ferrosilicon sales
and approximately 1.5% of our total ferroalloys segment revenues
in 2009.
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 2009. In January 2009,
the Russian government increased the import duties on certain
types of steel products (corrosion-resistant steel and some
other steel products) from 5% to 15%. These tariffs and duties
may be reduced or eliminated in the future, which could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects. 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 is
equal to 1,205,000
24
tonnes during the effective term of the trade agreement and is
divided into annual volumes. We believe that we benefit from
this agreement because it prevents subsidized Ukrainian exports
from reducing the prices we otherwise could obtain for these
products in the Russian market. However, the agreement expires
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 in force. The elimination of this duty will
have a negative effect on our sales on the Russian market.
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.
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. We are currently preparing the applications for the next
stage of the registration process. Significant resources are
required to complete this process and, if such resources are not
available internally, we may need to engage third parties for
additional costs. If we fail to register a substance by the
relevant deadline, we will not be allowed to export the specific
product into the E.U. or produce it in the E.U. which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and prospects.
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
25
(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.
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 26(c) to our consolidated financial
statements.
Based on the current regulatory environment in Russia and
elsewhere where we conduct our operations, as of
December 31, 2009, we have not created any reserves for
environmental liabilities and compliance costs, other than an
accrual in the amount of $59.7 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
26
environmental regulations in the past and we have paid certain
fines levied by regulatory authorities in connection with these
infractions. 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 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.
27
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.
Our business depends on the continuing validity of our subsoil
licenses and the issuance of new subsoil licenses and our
compliance with the terms thereof, particularly subsoil licenses
for our Russian and Kazakh mining operations. Regulatory
authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing of
license issuance, renewal 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 Russian Regulation Subsoil
licensing Maintenance and termination of
licenses. If regulatory authorities determine that we have
violated the terms of our licenses, it could lead to 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. See Item 4. Information on the
Company Mining Segment Mineral reserves
(coal, iron ore and limestone). 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.
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.
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, we are required to meet certain operational
milestones, including the construction of a rail branch line of
approximately 315 kilometers in length by September 30,
2010 and the mining plant and the commencement of coal
production by November 2010. 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. In order to be in
compliance with the license, we have filed an application with
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology to amend the terms
of the
28
license and extend the deadlines. If current construction
schedule is not met and the terms of the license are not amended
to extend current deadlines, 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 Chief Executive Officer, 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. 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 other key personnel, particularly
Mr. Zyuzin, our Chief Executive Officer and controlling
shareholder. Mr. Zyuzin has provided, and continues to
provide, strategic direction and leadership 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.
As of March 29, 2010, 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;
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
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; 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,
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and Korshunov Mining Plant, 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 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
30
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 addition, in connection with our transfer of management of
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant to Mechel-Steel Management, in
2008 the FAS issued a directive addressed to these companies. 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 and Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant to Mechel Ferroalloys Management and the
consolidation of our ferroalloy assets under our subsidiary
Oriel Resources, in October 2008 the FAS issued two directives
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 ten 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.
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.
31
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.
A
substantial majority of our employees are represented by trade
unions, and our operations depend of good labor
relations.
As of December 31, 2009, approximately 71% of 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
32
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 in 2011.
Though we believe the Bluestone companies have a good
relationship with the UMWA, there are no assurances that our
acquisition of Bluestone will not be detrimental to that
relationship. 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 July 1, 2009, the UMWA pension
plans unfunded liability was $3.8 billion.
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 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
33
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.
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. 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 20 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.
34
In addition, given that the depositary is already the record
owner of approximately 35% of our shares under our ADS program,
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.
|
|
|
|
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
program. If, however, the FAS were to rescind or disregard its
above mentioned interpretation, the ADS program 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 program. If, however, FAS were to rescind or disregard
its above mentioned interpretation, the ADS program 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 Industry Law.
|
35
An inability to deposit shares into the ADS program 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
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.
Voting
rights with respect to the shares represented by our ADSs are
limited by the terms of the 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 agreement 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 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 agreement, 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.
36
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
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
37
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 agreement provides 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.
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
38
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. However, Russian
gross domestic product declined by 7.9% in 2009, according to
Rosstat. Furthermore, 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. 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, the
global economic slowdown and the collapse or near-collapse of
several large financial institutions 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
39
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 3(n) to our consolidated
financial statements.
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 affect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations and the value of our shares
and ADSs.
40
Shortage
of skilled Russian labor could materially adversely affect our
business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Currently the Russian labor market does not suffer from an acute
shortage of skilled workers, but such a shortage may occur in
the future. 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 2009, 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 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,
41
although it may be clearly evident that a particular enterprise
has mined a licensed subsoil area for decades, the historical
documentation relating to their 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;
|
|
|
|
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: Kaslinsky
Architectural Art Casting Plant OOO, Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant,
Mechel-BusinessService, Mechel-Service, Port Kambarka,
SocResource, PromComplex, VtorResource-Yuzhny, Mechel-Zakazchik,
DVNPU, and Mechel-Ferroalloys Management Company.
42
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.
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
43
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 resulting from the action or
inaction of an effective parent. 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 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
44
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 agreement governing our ADSs, will not be 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.
|
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. Recent 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; (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
45
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.
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. See Item 8.
Financial Information. Litigation Tax. We have
so far successfully challenged these assessments in court. 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
2007-2009
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 Russian
Regulation The Strategic Industries Law.
46
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 published on March 5, 2009 in
the Russian official gazette Rossiyskaya Gazeta (the
Strategic Subsoil List), it qualifies
as a company with strategic importance for the national defense
and security of the Russian Federation (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.
Therefore, any sale to a foreign investor or group of entities
of a stake 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 Russian Regulation
The Strategic Industries Law, will be subject to prior
approval from 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 blocking minority stake in 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.
47
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 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.
48
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.
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 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
49
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.
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.
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.
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.
50
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
$5.8 billion in 2009, $10.0 billion in 2008 and
$6.7 billion in 2007, with operations organized into four
industrial segments: mining, steel, ferroalloys and power.
Our mining segment produces coking and steam coal, as well as
iron ore and iron ore concentrate. 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 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 2009 we
controlled 21.3% of Russias overall coal-washing capacity.
51
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.
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 and Yakutugol; Bluestone will also be transferred
under Mechel Mining). After this consolidation, Mechel Mining
established Mechel Mining Management, a management company which
acts as executive body 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. 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.
Our steel and steel-related production facilities in Russia
include two integrated steel mills, a coke plant, a wire
products plant, a forging and stamping mill and a scrap
processing facility in the southern Ural Mountains, a wire
products plant in northwestern Russia near the border with
Finland and a coke and coal gas plant near Moscow. 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 acts as the executive body of our
subsidiaries in the steel segment.
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 ferroalloy 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 Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant, a 100% interest in
Bratsk Ferroalloys Plant, an 84.06% interest in Southern Urals
Nickel Plant, and holds through its subsidiaries licenses for
the Voskhod chrome and the Shevchenko nickel deposits in
Kazakhstan. Southern Urals Nickel Plant operates two open pit
nickel mines, Sakhara and Buruktal, and a nickel production
plant in Orsk in the Orenburg region, in the southern part of
Russias Ural Mountains. In the course of the consolidation
we established Mechel Ferroalloys Management, a management
company that acts as the executive body of each of the companies
in our ferroalloys segment.
Our power segment produces and sells electricity to internal and
external customers. The segment was formed in April 2007, when
we acquired a controlling interest in Southern Kuzbass Power
Plant, located in Kaltan, in the Kemerovo region. 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 JSC (Toplofikatsia
Rousse), a power plant located in Rousse, Bulgaria,
which uses steam coal mined by our Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company. 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.
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 Pacific
Ocean and on the Black Sea and a freight river port on a
tributary of the Volga River in central Russia. We have a
freight railcar pool, and we have begun building a private rail
branch line to access
52
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 42 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 Systems, 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 agreement.
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.
In 2008, we were the largest coking coal producer in Russia,
according to the Central Dispatching Department, a Russian
information agency reporting on the fuel and energy industry. In
2009, we were the fourth largest producer of coking coal in
Russia, based on the data from the Central Dispatching
Department, as the result of a decrease in our coking coal
production in the first half of 2009. However, in the second
half of 2009 we improved our position and were the second
largest coking coal producer for that six month period with a
16.5% market share in the coking coal market in Russia by
production volume, according to the Central Dispatching
Department. At the same time, we maintained our position as
Russias largest hard-coking coal producer with a 43.8%
market share in 2009, according to the Central Dispatching
Department. In 2009, our export sales of coking coal were the
third 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 the Rosinformugol, we also control 25.2% of
Russias coking coal washing capacity by volume. According
to AME Mineral Economics (AME) we were one of
the largest coking coal exporters in the world in 2009.
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 in Russia amounted to
181.9 million tonnes as of December 31, 2009.
Our coal reserves allow us to supply steel producers globally
with a full range of coals to make high-quality coke or to use
in PCI-assisted steel manufacturing. In particular, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company produces semi-hard and semi-soft coking
coal concentrates and PCI grades of coal. Most of the coking
coal grades of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company are sold in Russia,
while PCI grades of coals are exported. Yakutugol produces hard
coking coal concentrate grade used by customers both in Russia
and in the Asia-Pacific region, while our newly acquired
Bluestone coal assets produce hard and semi-hard coking coal
concentrate grades used by customers in the United States,
Europe, Asia-Pacific 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 largest producer of specialty steel
products and Russias second largest producer of long steel
products.
According to Metal Expert, a source for global and steel and raw
materials market news, in 2009, we were Russias second
largest producer of long steel products (excluding square
billets) by production volume, and largest producer of
reinforcement bars (rebar) and wire rod. 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 2009 was approximately 26.9%, according to
Metal Expert. According to Metal Expert and Chermet, a Russian
ferrous metals industry association
(Chermet), we are Russias largest
producer of specialty steel by production volume, accounting for
36.9% of Russias total specialty steel output in 2009. Our
product range in specialty steel is broader and more
comprehensive than other Russian producers, 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 coking coal and
ferroalloys (FeSi, FeNi, FeCr), and 12% and 84% self-sufficient
with respect to iron ore and steam coal, respectively. We
believe that the level of our self-sufficiency in raw materials
gives our steel business a significant competitive advantage.
In 2009, we internally sourced 61% of the coking coal, 12% of
the iron ore concentrate, 57% of the nickel, 99% of the
ferrosilicon and 71% of the ferrochrome requirements of our
steel segment. We constantly adjust the level of inputs that we
source from our group companies and external sources on the
basis of external economic factors such as market prices and
transportation costs, as well as internal changes in demand for
certain grades or types of materials. We are capable of
satisfying approximately one-fourth of our groups
electricity needs from our own generation facilities; in 2009,
we satisfied approximately 22% 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.
The high degree of vertical integration allows our Russian-based
operations to have a number of cost advantages
vis-à-vis
many of our international competitors. These advantages include
access to power and gas supplies that are inexpensive relative
to many Western producers. 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 will enable us to
expand the cargo-handling capacity of the port up to
9.0 million tonnes per year in 2011 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
56
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, 2009, our subsidiary Mecheltrans owned
and leased more than 3,881 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
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 will need to
reconstruct about 60 kilometers of railways, build
250 kilometers of railway, and construct about
100 railway bridges, 33 of which we have already
constructed. In 2010 we plan to construct 35 further bridges.
Currently, we are reallocating our mining machinery for
overburden mining on the Elga coal deposit. To date we have
invested $351.9 million in the Elga project, representing
18.4% of the total estimated capital investment for the project
planned for the period through 2012.
In 2009, Mechel-Service started to form its own truck fleet for
metal products delivery to our clients in the Moscow region. In
2010, we plan to increase the number of trucks in Krasnodar,
Ekaterinburg, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk.
One of
the lowest-cost coking coal concentrate producers
worldwide
According to AME, our Russian coking coal operations are in the
first quartile of the global cash cost curve. Approximately 67%
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 and metals 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 2009, we further expanded the
geography of the Bluestone companies sales by using our
existing international distribution channels to Asia and South
America and plan to increase production at Bluestone to
7.0 million tonnes over three years to expand sales to the
growing South American markets such as Brazil.
57
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
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 2009 was approximately 26.9%.
Established
distribution and sales platform
Our Mechel-Service distribution platform in Russia has 55
storage sites in 42 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. In 2009, we organized retail sites for small shipments to
private customers which allows us to obtain additional margins.
In Europe, we actively develop sales of metal products through
Mechel Service Global which has offices and facilities in eight
European countries. Two of these facilities provide a number of
value added services to our customers including mechanic, gas,
plasma, laser and water cutting, and welding, bending, and the
production of welded mesh and frames. Mechel Service Global
includes the business of HBL Holding which we acquired in
September 2008.
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.
We also have a non-retail sales and distribution network
represented by our Swiss subsidiary Mechel Trading AG with
offices in four countries and agents in five additional
countries. This network facilitated sales constituting 32% of
our total sales both in 2009 and 2008, 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 20 acquisitions in the mining, steel, power, ferroalloy 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 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
58
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 Yakutugol is an example of our ability to
integrate new acquisitions while identifying and eliminating
inefficiencies. After bringing Yakutugol under our management in
October 2007, we reduced the cash cost of coking concentrate
production from approximately $50 per tonne in the fourth
quarter 2007 to approximately $25 per tonne in the second
quarter 2008.
Recently, we acquired the Bluestone companies in the United
States, which is Mechels first experience of acquiring and
integrating a company 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 and has successfully transformed us
from a small coal trading operation to a large, integrated coal,
steel, ferroalloys and power producer. Mr. Zyuzin, one of the
founders of our group and our controlling shareholder, is our
Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Zyuzin has over 23 years
of experience in the coal mining industry and has a doctorate in
coal mining technical sciences. Our Senior Vice President,
Vladimir Polin, has almost 26 years of production-floor,
marketing and management experience in the metals business. 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 18.0 million tonnes in 2009 to
37.0 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 by 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 Seam areas, 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 potential benefit of
the private rail branch line we are constructing to deliver
Elgas future coal production to the market.
59
We intend
to increase our groups output of high-value-added steel
products and continue to optimize our product mix.
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. We have already built a solid presence
in the construction steel business, including the largest market
share in rebar, according to Metal Expert based on Russian
production volumes in 2009. We are also a market leader in wire
rod production and have a strong presence in the construction
steel market. We are also one of Russias primary producers
of specialty steel, having the largest market share, according
to Chermet and Metal Expert based on Russian production volumes
in 2009.
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;
|
|
|
|
is in 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 recent 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 we expect
to more than double our capacity to mine and process 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.
60
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.
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
to improve steel segment 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 2007 through 2009 we completed
modernization of production facilities at Mechel Targoviste,
Southern Urals Nickel Plant, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and
Urals Stampings Plant. In continuation of this strategy in 2010
and beyond, we aim to realize projects to construct the
universal rail and structural steel mill at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and modernize the electric arc furnace at
Izhstal. See Capital Investment Program.
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 production and
logistics facilities and sales network provides us with a strong
platform to grow our sales. Before the financial crisis,
Mechel-Services operations in Europe were limited to
Germany, Romania and Belgium. In 2009 Mechel-Service expanded
its distribution network to Netherlands, Serbia, Bulgaria and
Italy. We plan to further expand our Mechel-Service network in
Europe.
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, nickel,
chrome ore and limestone assets and coke, steel and ferroalloy
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
61
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, ferroalloy 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 steam coal
concentrates, as well as iron ore, iron ore concentrate and
limestone. Our coal operations consist of Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company, Yakutugol and Bluestone, which together produced
10.2 million tonnes of coking coal and 7.5 million
tonnes of steam coal in 2009. Our iron ore operations consist of
Korshunov Mining Plant which produced 11.3 million tonnes
of iron ore and 4.2 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate
in 2009. Our limestone operations consist of Pugachev limestone
quarry which produced 1.9 million tonnes of limestone in
2009.
Description
of key products
Coking coal and coking coal
concentrates. Coking coal is washed,
low-phosphorous bituminous coal designated for further
processing into coke in coking furnaces, which in turn is used
in the blast furnace in the production of pig iron, a precursor
of steel in integrated steel mills. Coking coals have high
plasticity, meaning that they are amenable to being softened,
liquefied and re-solidified into hard and porous lumps when
heated in the absence of air. From our Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company and Yakutugol we offer coking coal of marks
OS (meager and caking), KS (coking and caking), KS (blend),
KO (coking and meager) and K9 (coking). We process coking coal
into coking coal concentrate to reduce ash content. We offer
coking coal concentrate of marks OS (meager and caking), KO
(coking and meager), KS (coking and caking) and K9 (coking). Our
West Virginia-based Bluestone subsidiaries produce low, medium
and high volatility hard coking coal. Coking coals can be mixed
in different proportions to provide blends with the best
characteristics for any specific customer. Blending takes place
directly in port when loading to a vessel, without any
additional washing at processing plants. This approach saves
money and provides a competitive advantage over competitors with
higher processing costs.
Steam coal and steam coal concentrates. Steam
coal has properties that make it suitable for use in thermal
applications, including electric power generation. From our
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company we offer steam coal and steam coal
concentrate of marks T (lean) and A (anthracite) in various
grain-size classes, GZhO (gas, fat and meager) and TR (lean and
run-of-mine).
We also offer steam coal from Yakutugol of marks 3SS (weakly to
non-caking), K6 (coking and oxidized), D (long-flame) and B2
(brown category 2). Our Bluestone subsidiaries produce medium
and high volatility bituminous steam coal.
Other coal products. From our Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company we also offer our customers middlings and
anthracite concentrates of various grades.
Iron ore concentrate. From our Korshunov
Mining Plant we offer iron ore concentrate with a standard iron
weight 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,
62
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 steel plants for conversion to coke for use in
pig iron smelting. 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
2001-2002.
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. In 2009, the Bluestone
preparation plants processed all of the washable raw coal we
produced in the Bluestone complexes. 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 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.
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Mine(1)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
1,446
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,522
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
|
|
2,181
|
|
|
|
20.9
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
1,337
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,952
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
|
|
2,385
|
|
|
|
22.9
|
%
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
614
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
880
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
Lenin
Underground(3)
|
|
|
1,253
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
1,130
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
2,077
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
%
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
|
408
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
876
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
1,188
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
Nerungrinsk Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
3,020
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
%
|
|
|
8,053
|
|
|
|
53.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,708
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
%
|
Keystone Mining
Complexes(4)
|
|
|
1,066
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
637
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Coking Coal
|
|
|
10,243
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
15,147
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
10,419
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
|
2,867
|
|
|
|
38.0
|
%
|
|
|
5,525
|
|
|
|
49.1
|
%
|
|
|
5,630
|
|
|
|
52.2
|
%
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
714
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
%
|
|
|
797
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,469
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
525
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
868
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Olzherassk Underground
|
|
|
917
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
|
|
836
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
1,783
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
%
|
Nerungrinsky Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
2,205
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
|
|
2,874
|
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
|
|
827
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
Kangalassk Open
Pit(4)
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya
Underground(4)
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
423
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Keystone Mining
Complexes(4)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(4)
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Steam Coal
|
|
|
7,539
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
11,245
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
10,775
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Coal
|
|
|
17,782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Coking Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.2
|
%
|
% Steam Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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
7.4 million tonnes in 2009 and 11.0 million tonnes in
2008.
64
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
|
|
Dec 2013
|
|
In production
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|
|
1954
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company OAO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, Olzherassk
|
|
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
|
|
Olzherassk Open
Pit(4)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
Olzherassk-2, Raspadsk
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
Jan 2030
|
|
In development
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
2015
|
|
New-Olzherassk
Underground(4)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
1973
|
|
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
|
|
Kangalassk Open Pit Mine
OAO(5)(6)
|
|
Dec 2014
|
|
In
production(3)
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
1962
|
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya Underground
|
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya
|
|
Dzhebariki-Khaya Mine
OAO(5)(6)
|
|
Dec 2013
|
|
In
production(3)
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
|
|
1972
|
|
Nerungrinsky Open Pit
|
|
Piatimetrovy coal seam, Promezhutochny
|
|
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 |
65
|
|
|
|
|
surveys (for the Olzherassk, Razvedochny, Erunakovsk-3,
Piatimetrovy coal seam and Promezhutochny 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. |
|
(4) |
|
Deposits are partially included in our reserves, as SEC
standards for reserve estimates allow inclusion in reserves of
only the mineral deposits that can be extracted with economic
benefits during the license period. |
|
(5) |
|
In process of re-registration due to merger of the previous
license holder into this company. |
|
(6) |
|
Merged into Yakutugol as of March 31, 2010. Their licenses
are expected to be re-issued to Yakutugol. |
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 owns the Kangalassk and
Nerungrinsk open pit mines, the Dzhebariki-Khaya underground
mine and a coal license for the Piatimetrovy coal seam and the
Promezhutochny license area. 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,
Taiwan 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 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, we are required to meet certain
operational milestones: (1) completing the legal permits
for development of the Elga coal deposit by June 2009 (which is
currently pending the final approval by the state authorities);
(2) commencing construction of the mining plant in November
2009 (which has been approved for extension by state
authorities); (3) completing construction of the mining
plant (including water supply) by October 30, 2010 and
commencing coal production by November 30, 2010;
(4) reaching an estimated annual coal production 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 September 30, 2010.
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. We do not expect to have excess capacity at
the rail road.
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
to supervise the construction process and 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 plan to
commence temporary transportation on the rail branch line until
the 124th kilometer and to complete construction of an
access road to the Elga deposit. We plan to complete the
construction of the rail road to the Elga coal deposit and to
open cargo transportation by December 30, 2011.
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
66
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.
Meanwhile, in May 2008, the Kemerovo region prosecutors
office opened a criminal case on the basis of Southern Kuzbass
Coal Companys alleged unlawful usage of the mineral
deposits on the New Uregolsk license area. However, the decision
of the Zavodskoy district court in Kemerovo, the Kemerovo
region, dated September 15, 2008, invalidated the order on
institution of criminal proceedings and this decision was not
appealed. 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 and
mineral deposits as set forth in this document as of
December 31, 2009 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 five 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 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 2009 Bluestone produced 1.4 million tonnes of clean coal
(i.e., coal ready to be sold).
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
|
|
2010 to 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
2001
|
|
|
3 Underground
|
|
2013
|
|
2 In production
|
|
1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Idle
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining Complex
|
|
1 Open Pit
|
|
2012
|
|
In production
|
|
1982
|
|
|
1 Underground
|
|
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. In development refers to sites where
preliminary work is being carried out. |
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 2009 (13.8 million tonnes) was supplied by our
own mining operations. In 2009, the capacity of our washing
plants in Russia accounted for 25.2% of the total domestic
coking coal washing capacity in Russia by volume, according to
Rosinformugol. Bluestone currently uses three washing plants:
the washing plant at the Keystone Mining Complex (Keystone
No. 1) which is owned by Bluestone; the washing plant
at the Justice Energy Mining Complex (Red Fox Property) which is
held by Bluestone pursuant to a long-term lease, and the washing
plant at the Dynamic Energy Mining Complex (Coal Mountain
Property) which is also held by Bluestone pursuant to a
long-term lease. One more coal washing plant is under
construction at the Keystone Mining Complex No. 2.
Investments
in coal companies
We own 16.1% of Mezhdurechye OAO, a Russian coal producer whose
production volume accounted for 5.5% of Russian coking coal
output and 2.0% of Russian total coal output in 2009, according
to the Central Dispatching Department.
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
|
|
|
|
1982
|
|
Rudnogorsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
June 2014
|
|
In production
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
1986
|
|
Krasnoyarovsk
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
July 2015
|
|
Feasibility
study(1)
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
68
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Not included in our mineral reserves and deposits. |
The table below summarizes our iron ore and iron ore concentrate
production for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
|
(% Fe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(1)
|
|
|
Korshunovsk ore production
|
|
|
5,683
|
|
|
|
25.4
|
%
|
|
|
5,702
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
%
|
|
|
6,573
|
|
|
|
25.8
|
%
|
Rudnogorsk ore production
|
|
|
5,605
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
%
|
|
|
5,911
|
|
|
|
34.6
|
%
|
|
|
5,754
|
|
|
|
35.6
|
%
|
Tatianinsk ore production
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
28.7
|
%
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
%
|
|
|
468
|
|
|
|
29.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ore production
|
|
|
11,289
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
%
|
|
|
11,724
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
12,795
|
|
|
|
30.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iron ore concentrate production
|
|
|
4,208
|
|
|
|
62.4
|
%
|
|
|
4,700
|
|
|
|
62.2
|
%
|
|
|
4,963
|
|
|
|
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 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 2009, approximately 95.8% of the
limestone produced at Pugachev was used internally as auxiliary,
with 68.5% shipped to Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, 23.2%
shipped to Southern Urals Nickel Plant, 0.7% to Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant, 3.4% to Izhstal, and approximately 4.2%
sold to third parties. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Limestone production
|
|
|
1,865
|
|
|
|
1,692
|
|
|
|
1,832
|
|
The decrease of limestone production volumes in 2009 relates to
a decrease in limestone requirements from third-party customers.
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
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes(1))
|
|
(% of total sales,
|
|
|
|
|
including intra-group)
|
|
Coking coal
concentrate(2)
|
|
|
4,848
|
|
|
|
8,360
|
|
|
|
6,018
|
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
62
|
%
|
Steam
coal(2)
|
|
|
8,867
|
|
|
|
8,543
|
|
|
|
7,230
|
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
3,787
|
|
|
|
2,713
|
|
|
|
2,358
|
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
51
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes resale of mining products purchased from third parties. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes only post-acquisition volumes of Yakutugol and
Bluestone. |
69
The significant decrease in coking coal concentrate sales in
2009 against 2008 was due to poor demand in both the export and
domestic markets, especially in the first half of 2009.
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 define domestic sales as sales by our Russian and
foreign subsidiaries to customers located within their
respective countries. See note 25 to our annual
consolidated financial statements included herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
538.3
|
|
|
|
34.8
|
%
|
|
|
1,860.9
|
|
|
|
55.8
|
%
|
|
|
622.9
|
|
|
|
45.4
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
35.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
64.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
662.5
|
|
|
|
42.8
|
%
|
|
|
925.0
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
%
|
|
|
436.3
|
|
|
|
31.8
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
84.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
233.0
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
|
|
339.4
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
213.6
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
67.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
115.1
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
208.1
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
99.7
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,548.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
3,333.4
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
1,372.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Sales
|
|
|
30.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
69.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes revenues from transportation, distribution,
construction and other miscellaneous services provided to local
customers. |
Marketing
and distribution
In 2009, our mining products were marketed domestically in
Russia primarily through Mechel Trading House and
internationally through Mechel Trading 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)
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
28.9
|
%
|
|
|
39.5
|
%
|
|
|
59.5
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
|
|
14.2
|
%
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
40.6
|
%
|
|
|
32.1
|
%
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Other regions
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 distributor customers resell and,
in some cases, further export our products. |
70
The following table sets forth information about the five
largest customers of our mining segment, which together
accounted for 29.5% of our mining segment sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
|
Products
|
Customer
|
|
Sales
|
|
Product
|
|
Sales
|
|
EvrazHolding
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
31.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
ArcelorMittal
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
Suifenhe Herun Economic and Trade Co., LTD
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
Iron ore concentrate
|
|
|
33.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Far Eastern Generating Company OAO
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
41.6
|
%
|
JFE Steel Corporation
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
Coking coal concentrate
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam coal
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
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
EvrazHolding, accounting for 13.9% of our total coking coal
concentrate sales and 9.6% of our total mining segment sales in
2009.
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. See Item 8.
Financial Information Litigation
Commercial litigation.
In April 2010, following an initiative from the Russian
government, the Saint-Petersburg International Mercantile
Exchange held the first Russian coking coal concentrate exchange
trading. Mechel Trading House participated in this trading.
Steel mills and coking plants are expected to become the main
coking coal concentrate consumers trading at the exchange.
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 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
$15.7 million in 2009. In total, 1.4 million tonnes of
steam coal was consumed
71
within the group. Far Eastern Generating Company OAO is our
largest domestic customer of steam coal, accounting for 4.7% of
our total steam coal sales and 4.2% of our total mining segment
sales in 2009.
Iron ore concentrate is shipped via railway directly from our
Korshunov Mining Plant to customers. Our largest domestic
customer, EvrazHolding, accounted for 31.8% of our total iron
ore concentrate sales and 9.6% of our total mining segment sales
in 2009. We set our prices on a monthly basis.
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 279 open cars and has
2,980 open cars under equipment finance leases. Mecheltrans
transported domestically approximately 38.0 million tonnes
of our cargo in 2009, approximately 70.5% of which was comprised
of coal and iron ore.
Export
sales
We export coking coal, steam coal concentrate, low bituminous
and anthracite steam coal, and iron ore concentrate.
In the year ended December 31, 2009, the largest foreign
customer of our mining segment was ArcelorMittal, accounting for
6.8% of our total mining segment sales. ArcelorMittal purchases
consisted of coking coal concentrate and steam coal.
We were Russias third largest exporter of coking coal
concentrate in 2009, according to RasMin. Our exports of coking
coal concentrate primarily go to China, Japan, South Korea and
South Africa. In 2009, JFE Steel Corporation was our largest
foreign customer of coking coal concentrate, accounting for
11.0% of our total coking coal concentrate sales and 4.1% of our
total mining segment sales. Shipments are made by rail to sea
ports and further by sea.
Our exports of steam coal are primarily to China, Japan,
Bulgaria, Turkey, Belgium and Israel, which together accounted
for 57.9% of our total steam coal sales and 24.7% of our total
mining segment sales in 2009. Our largest foreign customers of
steam coal were Rizhao Port (Group) Logistics Co., Ltd. in
China, National Coal Supply Corp., Ltd. in Israel and
Toplofikatsia Rousse in Bulgaria. Steam coal is shipped to
customers from our warehouses by railway and, in some cases,
further by ship from Russian and Ukrainian ports.
Our Port Posiet processed 3.35 million tonnes of coal in
2009. From Port Posiet we ship primarily our steam coal and
coking coal concentrate to Japan, Korea and China. The
ports current capacity is approximately 3.0 million
tonnes of annual cargo-handling throughput and 200,000-220,000
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 2009, 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
2009, which accounted for 67.0% of our total iron ore
concentrate sales and 10.1% of our total mining segment sales in
2009. We ship iron ore concentrate to China by rail and by sea.
Sales by
U.S. subsidiaries
Since its acquisition, the Bluestone mining business sold
1.2 million tonnes of coking and steam coal in 2009, 69% of
which was sold to the export market. Most of the Bluestone
export sales, or 30% of the total sales, were shipped to South
East Asia. 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 go
directly to coking plants in North America or to port facilities
for transloading into ocean going ships. In 2009, all Bluestone
exports went through the port of Norfolk, Virginia.
72
Market
share and competition
Coal
According to Rosinformugol, in 2009 the Russian coal mining
industry was represented by 213 companies, which operated
94 underground mines and 119 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 Rosinformugols and the Central Dispatching
Departments data, the ten largest coal mining companies in
Russia produced 78.5% of the overall coal production volume in
2009.
According to data from the Central Dispatching Department, in
2009, we were the fourth largest coking coal producer in Russia,
with a 13.0% share of total production by volume, and we had a
5.1% market share with respect to overall Russian coal
production by volume. This is a lower rank than we held in
previous years, and is the result of a sharp decrease in our
coking coal production in the first half of 2009. However, in
the second half of 2009, we improved our position and became the
second largest coking coal producer for that six month period,
after Raspadskaya OAO. We also controlled 25.2% of the coking
coal washing facilities in Russia by capacity at the end of
2009, according to Rosinformugol. The following table lists the
main Russian coking coal producers in 2009, 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
|
|
Raspadskaya OAO
|
|
Raspadskaya ZAO
|
|
|
10,548.0
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
Yuzhkuzbassugol Coal Company ZAO
|
|
|
10,005.1
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
%
|
Sibuglemet Holding
|
|
Polusukhinskaya Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,770.5
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
Mezhdurechye
OAO(1)
|
|
|
3,333.1
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
Antonovskaya Mine ZAO
|
|
|
1,024.1
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
Bolshevik Mine OAO
|
|
|
988.3
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sibuglemet Total
|
|
|
8,116.0
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
4,949.1
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
Yakutugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
|
3,019.6
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Total
|
|
|
7,968.7
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
Vorkutaugol OAO
|
|
|
6,033.3
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
Belon Group
|
|
PO Sibir-Ugol OAO
|
|
|
3,371.0
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
SUEK OAO
|
|
SUEK OAO (Kemerovo region)
|
|
|
3,015.7
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
2,688.9
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
9,334.8
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
61,081.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Central Dispatching Department.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We own 16.1% of Mezhdurechye OAO. |
73
According to data from the Central Dispatching Department, in
2009, we were the fourth largest steam coal producer in Russia
in terms of volume, with a 3.1% share of total production. The
following table lists the main Russian steam coal producers in
2009, 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 oblast)
|
|
|
28,989.8
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Krasnoyarsk krai)
|
|
|
28,066.5
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
Vostsibugol OOO (Irkutskaya oblast)
|
|
|
10,579.1
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Republic of Khakasia)
|
|
|
8,520.3
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Tugnuiskii razrez)
|
|
|
5,856.8
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
SUEK OAO (Zabaikalsky krai)
|
|
|
5,444.1
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
|
5,214.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
Urgalugol OAO
|
|
|
2,712.3
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUEK Total
|
|
|
95,383.8
|
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
Kuzbassrazrezugol Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
43,408.1
|
|
|
|
18.1
|
%
|
SDS-Ugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
Chernigovets ZAO
|
|
|
4,446.8
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
Salek ZAO
|
|
|
3,315.5
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
Yuzhnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,102.5
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
Kiselevsky Open-Pit Mine OAO
|
|
|
2,002.8
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
Kiselevskaya Shaft Mine OOO
|
|
|
749.6
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
UK Prokopyevskugol OOO
|
|
|
241.0
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
Itatugol OOO
|
|
|
100.5
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SDS-Ugol Total
|
|
|
12,958.7
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company OAO
|
|
|
4,613.0
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
Yakutugol Holding Company OAO
|
|
|
2,781.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Total
|
|
|
7,394.9
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EvrazGroup
|
|
Yuzhkuzbassugol Coal Company ZAO
|
|
|
4,074.0
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
LUTEK OAO
|
|
LUTEK OAO
|
|
|
4,566.9
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
Zarechnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
Zarechnaya Shaft Mine OAO
|
|
|
5,190.1
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
Kuzbasskaya TK OAO
|
|
Kuzbasskaya TK OAO
|
|
|
6,150.0
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
Primorskugol OAO
|
|
|
5,214.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
55,219.4
|
|
|
|
23.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
239,560.8
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
74
According to AME, we were among the world 15 largest coking coal
exporters in 2009. The following table lists the major world
metallurgical coal (i.e. coking coal and coal for pulverized, or
finely crushed, coal injection (PCI)) exporters and their shares
of the total metallurgical coal international trade in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metallurgical Coal
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
Internationally
|
|
|
|
(Thousands of
|
|
|
Traded
|
|
Company
|
|
Tonnes)
|
|
|
Metallurgical Coal
|
|
|
BHP Billiton Limited
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
%
|
Mitsubishi Corporation
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
Teck Resources Limited
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
%
|
Anglo American plc
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
Rio Tinto Group
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
Xstrata plc
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Wesfarmers Limited
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
Peabody Energy Corporation
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
Mitsui & Co Ltd.
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
Walter Energy Inc.
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
Macarthur Coal Limited
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Marubeni Corporation
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
79.8
|
|
|
|
37.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Metallurgical Coal Exports
|
|
|
214.7
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: AME
According to the U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information
Administration, the total production of coal in the United
States in 2009 was 973.2 million tonnes. Bluestones
share of total production was 0.14%.
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 Rudprom, the market
is dominated by relatively few producers, with the top three
mining groups being Metalloinvest, the Evraz Group and
Severstal-Resurs, representing over 70.4% of total production of
iron ore concentrate. We were sixth in production volume in 2009
with 4.2 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate,
representing 4.7% 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 has been prepared by our
internal mining engineers as of December 31, 2009. 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.
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
75
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.
Additionally, to meet the legally viable requirement of the SEC,
only material that is scheduled to be mined during the license
period of existing subsoil licenses based on planned production
was included in reserves.
Our Russian subsoil licenses expire on dates falling in 2012
through 2033. Our most significant licenses expire between 2012
and 2024. These subsoil licenses, however, may be terminated
prior to, or may not be extended at, the time of their
expiration. However, we believe that they may be extended at our
initiative without substantial cost. We intend to extend such
licenses for deposits expected to remain productive subsequent
to their license expiry dates. 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, 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 Russian Regulation Subsoil
licensing. The Bluestone companies mining permits
expire in 2010 through 2014.
In addition to our mineral reserves, we have mineral deposits in
Russia. Our mineral deposits are similar to our mineral reserves
in all respects, except that the deposit is either:
(1) contained within the license boundary but is scheduled
to be extracted beyond the license period; or (2) is
adjacent to but not contained within the license boundary. In
both such cases, we intend to obtain the legal right to extract
such deposit in the future. Mineral deposits may never be
converted into mineral reserves if licenses are not renewed
and/or
extraction of such mineral deposits does not become economically
viable in the future.
The table below summarizes our reserves (including the reserves
associated with our ferroalloys segment) as of December 31,
2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
Coking
|
|
Steam
|
|
Iron Ore
|
|
Nickel
Ore(1)
|
|
Chrome
Ore(1)
|
|
Limestone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Reserves
|
|
|
341.2
|
|
|
|
181.5
|
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
18.3
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
Grade (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
|
|
55
|
%
|
Deposits
|
|
|
702.9
|
|
|
|
297.8
|
|
|
|
109.6
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
Grade (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
See Ferroalloys Segment Mineral
reserves (ferroalloys) for detail on the mineral reserves
and deposits of our ferroalloys segment. |
Coal
As of December 31, 2009, we had coal reserves (proven and
probable) totaling 522.7 million tonnes, of which
approximately 65% was coking coal. The table below summarizes
coal reserves by mine.
76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
Reserves(1)
|
|
Coking
Coal(2)
|
|
|
Steam
Coal(2)
|
|
|
Value(3)(4)
|
|
|
%
Sulfur(4)
|
|
|
|
(In millions of
tonnes)(5)(6)(7)
|
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103.8
|
|
|
|
5,700
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
8,350
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
8,171
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
New-Olzherassk Underground
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
7,900
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
8,449
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,531
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
Lenin Underground
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,467
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
47.0
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
5,300
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Elga
|
|
|
66.8
|
|
|
|
23.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keystone Mining
Complex(8)
|
|
|
130.0
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynamic Energy Mining
Complex(9)
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Energy Mining
Complex(10)
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
341.2
|
|
|
|
181.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
65.3
|
%
|
|
|
34.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reserve estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be
mined, taking into account dilution and losses. |
|
(2) |
|
We own 95.8% 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 and deposits 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 81.5%, 81%,
67%, 60-66%
and 67%, 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 $38-45 per tonne; run-of-mine steam
coal $18-37 per tonne.
|
|
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit:
run-of-mine
coking coal $78 per tonne.
|
|
|
|
Elga: coking coal concentrate $180;
steam coal concentrate $60 per tonne.
|
In estimating our Bluestone reserves we use prices in the range
of $126-132
for coking coal and $61 for steam coal which are in line with
3-year average prices.
|
|
|
(8) |
|
Coal reserves of 131.4 million tonnes in total consist of
70.0 million tonnes of proven and 61.4 million tonnes
of probable reserves. |
|
(9) |
|
Coal reserves of 21.1 million tonnes in total consist of
11.5 million tonnes of proven and 9.6 million tonnes
of probable reserves. |
|
|
|
(10) |
|
Coal reserves of 10.0 million tonnes in total consist of
6.9 million tonnes of proven and 3.1 million tonnes of
probable reserves. |
77
As of December 31, 2009, we had coal deposits totaling
1,001 million tonnes, of which approximately 70% was coking
coal. The table below summarizes coal deposits by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating
|
|
|
|
|
Coal Deposits
|
|
Coking Coal
|
|
|
Steam Coal
|
|
|
Value(1)(2)
|
|
|
%
Sulfur(2)
|
|
|
|
(In millions of
tonnes)(3)(4)
|
|
|
Krasnogorsk Open Pit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101.5
|
|
|
|
5,771
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
8,350
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Olzherassk Open Pit
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
8,265
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
Sibirginsk Open Pit
|
|
|
19.0
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
8,466
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Sibirginsk Underground
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,531
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
Lenin Underground
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,467
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
Nerungrinsk Open Pit
|
|
|
91.3
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
5,300
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
Elga
|
|
|
543.9
|
|
|
|
168.6
|
|
|
|
5,285
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
702.9
|
|
|
|
297.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
70.2
|
%
|
|
|
29.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Heating values (in kcal/kg) are reported on a moisture- and
ash-free basis. |
|
(2) |
|
The figures represent the average for the relevant unlicensed
period. |
|
(3) |
|
Estimates use the tonnages that are expected to be mined, taking
into account dilution and losses. |
|
(4) |
|
Tonnages are reported on a wet
in-place
basis. |
Our Kangalassk Open Pit and Dzhebariki-Khaya Underground mining
properties contain neither mineral reserves nor mineral
deposits, as we have defined mineral deposits (see
Mineral reserves (coal, iron ore and
limestone) above). Although these are operating mines and
the geological sampling and density requirements have been met,
they fail to meet the economic criteria. Our Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company subsidiary also has a number of coal mining
licenses with which no mineral reserves or deposits 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 will allow us to commence coal mining in 2010. The plan was
approved by the Central Commission for Development of the
Federal Agency for Subsoil Use. In 2010, we will produce the
plan for the first construction phase of Elga complex with
annual production capacity of 9.0 million tonnes of coal.
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 deposits, approximately 315 kilometers in
length, and this branch line must be operational by
September 30, 2010. Previous detailed studies have
estimated that it will take three to four years to construct
such a branch line. The current construction schedule is very
aggressive and it may not be achievable due to limited financing
during the period from September 2008 to August 2009 because of
the global financial crisis. If this schedule is not met, our
subsoil license for Elga may be suspended or terminated. In
order to be in compliance with the license deadlines, we have
filed an application with the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Ecology to amend the terms of the license and
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
extend the deadlines as follows: (1) construction of the
rail branch line to be completed by December 30, 2012, and
(2) construction of the mining plant with annual coal
production capacity of 9.0 million tonnes to be completed by
December 30, 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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, 2009, we had iron ore reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 64.1 million tonnes at an average
iron grade of 27.0%. The table below summarizes iron ore
reserves by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
Iron Ore
Reserves(1)(2)
|
|
Tonnes(3)(4)
|
|
|
(%
Fe)(5)
|
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
|
Korshunovsk
|
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
Rudnogorsk
|
|
|
30.1
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
|
Tatianinsk
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
27.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 $59 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 70.2%. |
As of December 31, 2009, we had iron ore deposits totaling
109.6 million tonnes at an average iron grade of 27.8%. The
table below summarizes iron ore deposits by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
Iron Ore
Deposits(1)
|
|
Tonnes(2)
|
|
|
(%
Fe)(3)
|
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
|
Korshunovsk
|
|
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
|
Rudnogorsk
|
|
|
68.0
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
|
Tatianinsk
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
109.6
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes adjustments for dilution and mine recovery, based on
historical records. |
|
(2) |
|
Volumes are reported on a wet basis. |
|
(3) |
|
Metallurgical recovery is projected to be 70.2%. |
79
Limestone
As of December 31, 2009, we had limestone reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 8.2 million tonnes at 55.2% calcium
oxide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Limestone
Reserves(1)(2)(3)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
(% CaO)
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Pugachev
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
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 $5.1 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. |
As of December 31, 2009, we had limestone deposits totaling
6.2 million tonnes at 55.2% calcium oxide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Limestone
Deposits(1)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
(% CaO)
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Pugachev
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
55.2
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes adjustments for dilution and mine recovery, based on
historical records. |
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 coal (steam and coking coal),
iron ore and limestone, and our ferroalloys segment, which
includes ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon.
Our steel segment has production facilities in Russia, Lithuania
and Romania. Our acquisition of Laminorul Plant represents
further expansion of our production and marketing capacity into
the European Union. The acquisition of Laminorul Plant allows us
to optimize our existing production chain and maximize the
efficiency of our intra-group sales structure, while at the same
time reducing costs in our growing Romanian steel business. See
Recent Developments. Our total crude
steel output was 6.1 million tonnes in 2007,
5.9 million tonnes in 2008 and 5.5 million tonnes in
2009.
Description
of key products
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.
80
Pig iron. Pig iron is a high-carbon form of
iron 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.
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. Blooms are also part of the
high-quality bar manufacturing process. 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 Chelyabinsk branch. 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 in Romania and Mechel
Nemunas Co. Ltd. (Mechel Nemunas) in
Lithuania. Our wide-ranging wire products line includes spring
wire; barbed 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; and others.
81
The following table sets out our production volumes by primary
steel product categories and main products within these
categories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Coke (6% moisture)
|
|
|
3,233
|
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
|
|
3,886
|
|
Coking Products
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
3,805
|
|
|
|
3,500
|
|
|
|
3,686
|
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
1,913
|
|
|
|
1,687
|
|
|
|
1,705
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Semi-Finished Products
|
|
|
1,806
|
|
|
|
1,710
|
|
|
|
1,647
|
|
Long Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
3,099
|
|
|
|
3,348
|
|
|
|
3,040
|
|
Stainless Long Products
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Alloyed Long Products
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
Rebar
|
|
|
1,536
|
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
|
|
1,637
|
|
Wire Rod
|
|
|
631
|
|
|
|
580
|
|
|
|
591
|
|
Low-Alloyed Engineering Steel
|
|
|
430
|
|
|
|
606
|
|
|
|
711
|
|
Flat Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
357
|
|
|
|
393
|
|
Stainless Flat Products
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Flat Products
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
320
|
|
|
|
356
|
|
Forgings, including:
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
Stainless Forgings
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Forged Alloys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Stampings
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Wire Products, including:
|
|
|
627
|
|
|
|
719
|
|
|
|
689
|
|
Wire
|
|
|
487
|
|
|
|
556
|
|
|
|
536
|
|
Ropes
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
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, the principal raw material used to
produce steel is iron ore and the metal is chemically smelted
from the ore. Mined iron ore is crushed, concentrated and mixed
with limestone and a small amount of coke. The mixture is
sintered, crushed and then constantly fed, in alternating layers
with more coke, into a blast furnace. At the same time natural
gas and oxygen are injected into the furnace to reduce the iron,
melt the mixture and obtain pig iron, an intermediate product
with an iron content of
94-97%, a
carbon content of 2-4% and 1-2% non-ferrous elements. Liquid pig
iron is processed further in a BOF to produce molten steel with
less than 2% carbon content. The molten steel, depending on the
products in which it will be used, undergoes additional refining
and is mixed with manganese, nickel, chrome, and titanium
ferroalloys and other components to give it special properties.
Approximately 67% 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 31% of world steel output is made in
EAFs.
82
Steel products are broadly subdivided into two
categories flat and long products. Flat products are
hot-rolled or cold-rolled coils
and/or
coated 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 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 are ISO
9001:2000 certified. Mechel Campia Turzii, Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, Mechel Targoviste, Urals Stampings Plant
and Izhstal are ISO 9001:2008 certified. Wire-drawing workshop
No. 3 of Mechel Campia Turzii is ISO 14001 certified.
Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant produces semi-finished products
for further milling in Russia or our internal needs. Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant is an integrated coke and coke gas,
sintering production, blast furnace, 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 which are
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, though for presentation
purposes Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants specialty steel
operations are presented in this section.
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plants (including the
Chelyabinsk branch of Urals Stampings Plant) 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, vacuum induction and plasmic furnaces; vacuum arc and
electroslag remelting furnaces; five comprehensive steel
treatment machines; two steel vacuum-degassed machines, an
argon-oxygen refining machine; 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
83
wide and up to 6 millimeters thick hot-rolled coils; a
cold-rolled product workshop for 0.3-4 millimeter cold-rolled
stainless sheet; a forged piece hammer workshop; and a forging
and pressing workshop equipped with five presses and forging
machines of 1,250-2,000 tonnes. In addition, we have at our
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, together with Mechel-Coke,
eight coking batteries, seven 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Sintering
|
|
|
5,200
|
|
|
|
86.4
|
%
|
|
|
700
|
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
4,300
|
|
|
|
88.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
5,177
|
|
|
|
90.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
4,751
|
|
|
|
87.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Forging and pressing
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
53.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Coking
|
|
|
3,100
|
|
|
|
74.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant produced, together with its
wholly owned subsidiary Mechel-Coke, 4.7 million tonnes of
raw steel, 4.1 million tonnes of rolled products and
2.3 million tonnes of coke in 2009.
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., an Italian supplier of equipment and
plants to the metals industry (Danieli), is
the basic equipment provider for the concasting machine and the
out-of-furnace
processing complex. Currently, all basic manufacturing equipment
has been supplied and
construction-and-assembling
operations are being completed. Commissioning of the concasting
machine is scheduled for the second half of 2010.
In 2008, we started construction of a universal rail and
structural steel mill at the Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
The project is 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, including high speed and
low-temperature
rails,
H-beams,
shapes and grooves for port construction.
The project will require US$665.0 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 during
the
2011-2030
period. The annual minimum supply volume is fixed at 400,000
tonnes of rail.
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
84
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 profitable. In August
2009 one of the 30 tonne electric furnaces at another
arc-furnace workshop ceased operating as part of the
plants modernization. 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
98.6
|
%
|
|
|
170
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
390
|
|
|
|
72.2
|
%
|
|
|
120
|
|
Wire products and seized rolling
|
|
|
57.1
|
|
|
|
51.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Forging and stamping
|
|
|
21.6
|
|
|
|
55.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Izhstal produced approximately 189 thousand tonnes of raw steel,
281.7 thousand tonnes of rolled products, 29.3 thousand tonnes
of wire products and seized rolling and 12.0 thousand tonnes of
stampings and forgings in 2009.
In 2009, Izhstals total output was reduced as part of our
strategy to focus on high-quality products. Other reasons for
Izhstals low capacity utilization rates were reduced
customer orders and the inefficiency of running high-capacity
industrial processes like blooming mills at a low utilization
rate. 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. Currently, the concasting machine
equipment has been supplied and
construction-and-assembling
operations are being finalized; pre-commissioning of the
concasting machine is scheduled for May 2010. The main parts of
the EAF and the
out-of-furnace
processing complex equipment have been supplied and
construction-and-assembling
operations are being carried out; the commissioning is expected
to be completed by mid-2010. With regard to the reconstruction
of rolling mill No. 250, Siemens VAI Metals Technologies
S.R.L has delivered 47% of the equipment and 90% of the basic
engineering. The upgrade process is expected to 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 5.5-12 millimeters in diameter and 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. In 2009, we invested $1.85 million
to improve product quality, increase output, reduce production
costs and increase profitability. Due to this investment, in
September 2009 we commissioned a complete cold rolling line with
a total cost of $1.6 million and began production of cold
rolled reinforcing wire which is a new kind of wire product for
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant. The wire is actively used in the
construction industry for welding meshes and production
85
of stir-ups.
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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
90.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
480
|
|
|
|
68.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant produced a total of 599,775 tonnes
of steel products made from semi-finished steel products in
2009, including 270,818 tonnes of wire rod and 328,957 tonnes of
wire products.
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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
100.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant produced 96,211 tonnes of wire
products in 2009.
Urals
Stampings Plant
Urals Stampings Plant is one of Russias largest producers
of 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
|
|
|
|
|
Utilization
|
|
Increase
|
Production Areas
|
|
Capacity in 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Stampings and forgings
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
48.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Urals Stampings Plant produced 48,925 tonnes of specialty steel
stampings in 2009.
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 long
products in Romania and the second largest producer of raw steel
in Romania, according to 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.
86
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 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
550
|
|
|
|
58.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Forging and pressing
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
780
|
|
|
|
40.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Seized rolling
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
12.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Targoviste produced 321,210 tonnes of raw steel, 316,317
tonnes of rolled products, 2,312 tonnes of seized rolling and
213 tonnes of forgings in 2009.
In 2009, 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. The
low forging and pressing capacity utilization rates were due to
a decrease in demand due to the global economic slowdown.
Mechel
Campia Turzii
Mechel Campia Turzii is a leading Romanian domestic 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Rolling(1)
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
45.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
48.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 118,365 tonnes of rolled products
and 48,499 tonnes of wire products in 2009.
One arc-furnace melting workshop and two rolling mills were
taken off-line in the course of our reorganization of the
production line at Mechel Campia Turzii.
87
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.
Mechel Nemunass principal production facilities include
drawing machines and nail presses with shank threading, chain
linking machines and butt-welding machines. 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
81.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Nemunas produced 56,808 tonnes of wire products in 2009.
Ductil
Steel
Ductil Steel is a Romanian company that owns the Buzau plant,
which produces carbon and low alloyed steel rolled and wire
products, and the Otelu Rosu plant, which produces steel and
billets for rolling. The Otelu Rosu plants products are
supplied to the Buzau plant, Mechel Campia Turzii and to third
parties domestically within Romania.
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 will be 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.
Additionally, the Mechel East Europe Metallurgical Division will
handle human resources policy and coordinate contacts with banks
and other financial institutions. The divisions top
priority will be the modernization of the Ductil Steel Buzau,
Otelu Rosu, Mechel Targoviste and Mechel Campia Turzii steel
plants.
Ductil Steels principal production facilities include 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. 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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Steel-making
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
67.2
|
%
|
|
|
212
|
|
Rolling
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
|
76.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Wire products
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
61.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Ductil Steel produced 260,663 tonnes of raw steel, 230,230
tonnes of rolled products and 64,671 tonnes of wire products in
2009.
88
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
% of
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
138.7
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
377.5
|
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
248.8
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Coking Products
|
|
|
22.6
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
36.0
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
45.4
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Semi-Finished Products, including:
|
|
|
496.8
|
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
475.7
|
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
555.1
|
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Semi-Finished
Products(1)
|
|
|
481.3
|
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
|
|
425.1
|
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
446.5
|
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Long Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
1,463.6
|
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
|
|
2,682.4
|
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
1,830.1
|
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
Stainless Long Products
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
53.0
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
44.8
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Alloyed Long Products
|
|
|
68.6
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
158.0
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
151.9
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Rebar
|
|
|
877.5
|
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
1,632.8
|
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
|
|
1,017.1
|
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
Wire Rod
|
|
|
203.5
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
240.3
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
190.1
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Engineering Steel
|
|
|
270.5
|
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
598.3
|
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
|
|
426.3
|
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products, including:
|
|
|
262.0
|
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
475.6
|
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
421.8
|
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Stainless Flat Products
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
184.6
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
193.5
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Flat Products
|
|
|
158.8
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
291.0
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
228.3
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
Forgings, including:
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
180.9
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
164.7
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Stainless Forgings
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Carbon and Low-Alloyed Forgings
|
|
|
58.8
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
107.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
86.9
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Forged Alloys
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
136.8
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
236.1
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
201.4
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
Wire Products, including:
|
|
|
473.2
|
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
891.5
|
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
603.4
|
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
Wire
|
|
|
319.5
|
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
640.2
|
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
|
414.5
|
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Ropes
|
|
|
45.8
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
84.4
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
192.1
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
121.0
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
241.5
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,307.6
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
5,495.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
4,306.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes revenues from slab sales. |
89
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)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
51.5
|
%
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
59.2
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
18.3
|
%
|
|
|
24.7
|
%
|
|
|
19.5
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2009, the five largest customers of our steel segment
products were Severstal OAO (coke and other steel products), Sun
Wise General Trading LLC (carbon and low-alloys semi-finished
products, wire rod and other steel products), MIT FZA (carbon
and low-alloyed semi-finished products, wire rod, carbon and
low-alloyed flat steel and other steel products), Metallservis
OAO (carbon and low-alloyed semi-finished products, carbon and
low-alloyed long steel and other steel products), and Balli
Steel Public Limited Company (carbon and low-alloyed
semi-finished products, rebar and other steel products), which
together accounted for 8.8% of our steel segment sales.
On November 13, 2008, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and
Russian Railways signed an agreement for supply of rails during
the
2011-2030
period. The minimum annual supply volume is fixed at 400,000
tonnes of rails.
The majority of our steel segment export sales are made to
independent distributors pursuant to framework contracts. These
framework contracts 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
U.S. incorporated entities and U.S. citizens and
residents from engaging in commercial, financial or trade
transactions with such countries, including countries such as
Iran and Syria (the Sanctioned Countries). We
estimate that approximately 7.1% of our total sales in 2009 were
sold in the Sanctioned Countries, mostly by independent
distributors to other distributors or end-users. Such sales
accounted for 2.2% of our total sales in 2008.
In addition, we have a very limited number of direct sales to
customers in the Sanctioned Countries, amounting to
approximately 0.5% of our total sales in 2009. The increase of
our indirect sales to Iran and to Syria in 2009 was the result
of a steady demand and pricing for construction steel in Iran
and in Syria, whereas in the rest of our markets, especially in
Russia and in Europe, demand was weak due to the economic
situation during 2009. We believe that if demand for steel
increases elsewhere, our indirect sales to Iran and Syria will
decrease.
We are aware of governmental initiatives in the United States
and elsewhere to adopt laws, regulations or policies prohibiting
transactions with or investment in, or requiring divestment
from, entities doing business with the Sanctioned Countries.
While we are not a U.S. person that would be subject to
such regulations, we recognize that dealings with the Sanctioned
Countries can have an adverse effect on our international
reputation.
90
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 25 to our consolidated
financial statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
138.7
|
|
|
|
377.5
|
|
|
|
248.8
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
94.5
|
%
|
|
|
77.6
|
%
|
|
|
78.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
22.4
|
%
|
|
|
22.0
|
%
|
Coking Products
|
|
|
22.6
|
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
36.0
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
63.2
|
%
|
|
|
52.6
|
%
|
|
|
64.2
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
36.8
|
%
|
|
|
47.4
|
%
|
|
|
35.8
|
%
|
Pig Iron
|
|
|
45.4
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
39.8
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
60.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products
|
|
|
496.8
|
|
|
|
475.7
|
|
|
|
555.1
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
18.7
|
%
|
|
|
12.6
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
92.2
|
%
|
|
|
81.3
|
%
|
|
|
87.4
|
%
|
Long Steel Products
|
|
|
1,463.6
|
|
|
|
2,682.4
|
|
|
|
1,830.1
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
69.2
|
%
|
|
|
81.8
|
%
|
|
|
75.4
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
30.8
|
%
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
|
|
24.6
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products
|
|
|
262.0
|
|
|
|
475.6
|
|
|
|
421.8
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
86.7
|
%
|
|
|
79.7
|
%
|
|
|
79.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
20.3
|
%
|
|
|
21.0
|
%
|
Forgings
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
180.9
|
|
|
|
164.7
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
60.1
|
%
|
|
|
53.8
|
%
|
|
|
61.4
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
39.9
|
%
|
|
|
46.2
|
%
|
|
|
38.6
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
136.8
|
|
|
|
236.1
|
|
|
|
201.4
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
85.5
|
%
|
|
|
84.9
|
%
|
|
|
79.5
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
14.5
|
%
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
20.5
|
%
|
Wire Products
|
|
|
473.2
|
|
|
|
891.5
|
|
|
|
603.4
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
|
|
79.4
|
%
|
|
|
77.9
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
20.6
|
%
|
|
|
22.1
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
192.1
|
|
|
|
121.0
|
|
|
|
241.5
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
88.3
|
%
|
|
|
83.8
|
%
|
|
|
88.3
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
16.2
|
%
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,307.6
|
|
|
|
5,495.1
|
|
|
|
4,306.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
64.6
|
%
|
|
|
74.6
|
%
|
|
|
68.5
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
35.4
|
%
|
|
|
25.4
|
%
|
|
|
31.5
|
%
|
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
91
industries. Our forgings and stampings are primarily used in the
automotive, aerospace, petrochemical, textile and food and
consumer goods sectors.
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 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Works,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Railway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wire Products
|
|
Pipe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction,
|
|
Power
|
|
Other
|
Use by Industry
|
|
Plants
|
|
Factories
|
|
Construction
|
|
Engineering
|
|
Repair
|
|
Generation
|
|
Industries(1)
|
|
Semi-Finished Steel Products
|
|
|
98.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
Long Steel Products
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
44.8
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
43.8
|
%
|
Flat Steel Products
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
68.8
|
%
|
Forgings
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
53.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
46.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Stampings
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
88.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
11.6
|
%
|
Wire Products
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
36.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
35.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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 with our steel products.
Mechel-Service serves our end-user customers in Russia. Mechel
Service Global and Mechel Service help us to develop and service
our long-standing customer relationships by providing highly
specialized and technical sales and service to our customers.
In 2009, 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 Estar Group
Companies and the Donetsk Electrometallurgical Plant
(DEMP), which are considered related parties
in our consolidated financial statement. See notes 10 and 27 to
our consolidated financial statements.
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 has
55 storage sites in 42 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
926 employees as of December 31, 2009.
92
Our Romanian domestic sales are carried out by our Romanian
subsidiaries Mechel Campia Turzii, Mechel Targoviste, Ductil
Steel and Mechel Service Romania.
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 products to
local end-user customers in Europe through Mechel Service
Globals subsidiaries. In 2009, Mechel Service Global
opened new offices in Belgium, France, Italy, Serbia and
Bulgaria. In Germany, HBL Holding, a subsidiary of Mechel
Service Global, opened a new office and a covered warehouse with
modern equipment for cutting high-quality steel in the city of
Rheine. Our production facilities supply high-quality steel 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 products to wholesalers on a
walk-in basis.
Our Romanian export sales are carried out directly by our
Romanian production facilities Mechel Campia Turzii, Mechel
Targoviste and Ductil Steel as well as by Mechel Service Global
and Mechel Trading.
Distribution
Rail transportation is used for nearly all 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 86.6% of
overall domestic crude steel output in 2009, 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 19.3% of Russias total commodity steel products output
(including long products, flat products, and semi-finished
products) in 2009. 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 Vanady 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 14.5% of the volume of Russian
commodity steel production in 2009. The company produces
primarily flat products (hot-rolled and cold-rolled), including
galvanized products. NLMK exported 76.5% of its products in
2009. 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
|
93
|
|
|
|
|
Berezovsky Electro-Steel Works. These facilities are managed by
the NLMK-Long steel OOO which had a 3.0% share in domestic
commodity steel products output in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works OAO
(MMK) is Russias third-leading steel
manufacturer by volume, accounting for 16.0% of the volume of
Russian commodity steel products output in 2009. MMKs
product mix is comprised mostly of flat products, representing
88.6% of its commercial steel products output (including
production of slabs) in 2009. Domestically, MMK controls a
significant portion of the supplies to the oil and gas and
automotive sectors. MMK exported 50.5% of its output in 2009.
Its production facilities are located in Magnitogorsk in the
southern Urals.
|
|
|
|
Severstal OAO had a 15.7% share by volume of Russian
commodity steel products output in 2009. The company specializes
in flat products which constitute a significant part of its
production. Severstal is the third-leading producer of flat
products and controls 25.6% of Russias total flat product
production output. Domestic sales accounted for 47.9% of
Severstals output in 2009, 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 10.1% share
of Russian commodity steel products output. OEMK produces only
long products, and Ural Steel produces both long and flat
products. Metalloinvest exported 73.3% of its commodity steel
production in 2009. The companys production facilities are
located in the Central and Urals federal districts of Russia.
Alisher Usmanov, one of Metalloinvests main owners, 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 largest and most
comprehensive producer of specialty steel and alloys in Russia,
and accounted for 36.9% of total Russian specialty steel output
by volume in 2009, 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 2009 were as follows, according to Metal Expert:
|
|
|
|
|
Reinforcement bar (rebar)
In rebar, we compete in the 6-40 millimeters range.
In 2009, the largest domestic rebar producers were Mechel
(26.9%), Evraz Group (26.3%), NLMK-Long steel (21.7%) and
Severstal (6.4%). At present, the Russian domestic market for
rebar is protected from Ukrainian imports by an import quota.
The quota has been imposed by agreement between Russia and
Ukraine as the result of a review of the import tariff which was
in force until July 14, 2007. The agreement expires on
January 1, 2011.
|
|
|
|
Wire rod There were five major producers of
wire rod in Russia in 2009: Mechel (39.6%), Evraz Group (23.9%),
Severstal (15.7%), NLMK-Long steel (11.5%) and MMK (8.9%). We
produce some of the highest quality and widest ranges of wire
rod (5-10 millimeters) among Russian producers.
|
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 2009,
producing 23.9% of the total Russian output by volume, and we
had significant shares of Russian 2009 production volumes of
stainless long products (50.4%), tool steel (31.5%) and
high-speed steel (47.3%).
94
The following tables set forth additional information regarding
our 2009 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.
|
|
|
5,413.0
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
%
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
2,939.6
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
1,373.8
|
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
Metalloinvest Management Company OOO
|
|
|
1,334.0
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
999.4
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
999.2
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
3,617.6
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
16,676.6
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
927.8
|
|
|
|
39.6
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
560.1
|
|
|
|
23.9
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
367.3
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
269.8
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
207.5
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
Amurmetall OAO
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,344.0
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Including wire rod further processed into wire and other
products within the same holding company. |
95
Long
products Rebar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
1,372.6
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
1,339.4
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
1,104.0
|
|
|
|
21.7
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
576.0
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
%
|
MMK OAO
|
|
|
327.0
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
Metalloinvest Management Company OOO
|
|
|
206.5
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
168.0
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,093.5
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Flat
stainless steel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
70.6
|
%
|
Severstal OAO
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
%
|
VMZ Red October
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
MMZ Hammer & Sickle
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Wire
products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
414.5
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
354.3
|
|
|
|
27.4
|
%
|
NLMK-Long steel OOO
|
|
|
189.5
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
179.2
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
%
|
Evraz Group S.A.
|
|
|
124.6
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,290.6
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Prommetiz, manufacturers data.
96
Wire
products Spring wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
|
|
58.9
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
33.9
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Manufacturers data.
Wire
products High-tensile wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
52.5
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
%
|
Severstal-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
50.5
|
|
|
|
45.8
|
%
|
MMK-Metiz OAO
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
110.3
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Prommetiz.
The following tables set forth additional information on our
market shares in Romania for various categories of steel
products in 2009.
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)
|
|
|
439.0
|
|
|
|
94.0
|
%
|
Otelinox Targoviste
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
Laminate Bucuresti
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
467.0
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wire
rod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Campia Turzii, Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
135.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
135.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97
Sections
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Laminorul Braila
|
|
|
52.4
|
(1)
|
|
|
92.9
|
%
|
ArcelorMittal Hunedoara
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of this volume, 47.20 thousand tonnes were produced under a
tolling contract with Mechel Targoviste. |
Bars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel company (Mechel Targoviste)
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
%
|
TMK-CSRresita
|
|
|
28.6
|
|
|
|
36.2
|
%
|
ArcelorMittal Hunedoara
|
|
|
30.2
|
|
|
|
38.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
79.0
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
91.5
|
|
|
|
53.2
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
44.1
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
Sarme si Cabluri Harsova
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
%
|
Ductil Buzau
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
172.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Galvanized
wire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel companies (Mechel Campia Turzii, Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
36.9
|
|
|
|
59.2
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
%
|
Sarme si Cabluri Harsova
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
Welded
mesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mechel company (Ductil Steel)
|
|
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
Metalicplas Dej
|
|
|
35.1
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
%
|
Dan Steel Beclean
|
|
|
38.5
|
|
|
|
36.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
104.6
|
|
|
|
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 supplied 61.0% of our own group-wide
coking coal needs in 2009, although our total coking coal
concentrate production volume exceeded our groups needs.
We process coking coal concentrate into coke at Mechel-Coke,
located in the Urals, and Moscow Coke and Gas Plant, which we
acquired in 2006. Coke is used both in pig iron production at
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and in our ferroalloys
production. In 2009, we produced and internally used
approximately 2.1 million tonnes of coke in our production
facilities and produced and sold another approximately
1.0 million tonnes of coke to third parties. In 2009, our
production facilities used 4.0 million tonnes of coking
coal (including 2.9 million tonnes used by Mechel-Coke and
1.1 million tonnes used by Moscow Coke and Gas Plant), and
61.0% of total usage was sourced internally.
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
2009, our steel-making operations used 5.9 million tonnes
of iron ore feed, approximately 31.0% in the form of pellets and
69.0% in the form of sinter, and we internally sourced 11.7% of
our total iron ore feed requirements during this period.
Korshunov Mining Plant supplied our steel segment with 394
thousand tonnes of iron ore concentrate in 2009. 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 Lebedinsky
GOK and Mikhailovsky GOK under monthly and quarterly contracts
on market terms.
We produce 63.7% of our steel production in basic oxygen
furnaces. In steel making, ferrous scrap represents
approximately 46% of feedstock, and we are approximately 32.7%
self-sufficient in this raw material, which amounts to 777,000
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 branch in Chelyabinsk through which it purchases
scrap metal from third-party suppliers and sells it to the
companies within our group.
In 2009, we used nickel sourced from Norilsk Nickel and
Ufaleynickel in the production of stainless and other specialty
steels. In 2009 our production facilities used 4,178 tonnes of
nickel (including 1,569 tonnes at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, 1,693 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch of Urals Stampings
Plant and 916 tonnes at Izhstal) of which 57.4% was supplied by
ferronickel produced at Southern Urals Nickel Plant and 42.6%
was purchased from third parties.
In 2009, our production facilities used 23,746 tonnes of
ferrosilicon (including 21,166 tonnes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, 409 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch of
Urals Stampings Plant and 2,171 tonnes at Izhstal), almost all
of which was supplied by Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant.
In 2009, our production facilities used 16,291 tonnes of
ferrochrome (including 10,353 tonnes at Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant, 1,725 tonnes at the Chelyabinsk branch
of Urals Stampings Plant and
99
4,212 tonnes at Izhstal) of which 70.6% was supplied by
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant and 29.4% was purchased from third
parties.
We internally source all of our limestone requirements from our
Pugachev quarry. In 2009, we used approximately 1.1 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 2009, our steel and ferroalloy operations
consumed approximately 5.2 billion kWh of electricity, of
which 2.0 billion kWh was used at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant, 2.5 billion kWh was used at other Russian facilities
and 609.2 million 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 1.7 billion kWh of electricity for internal
consumption in 2009, yielding 22% self-sufficiency overall for
our group (including mining operations), which consumed
6.3 billion kWh of electricity in 2009. 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 2009, we
consumed 2,392.3 million cubic meters of blast furnace gas,
457.7 million cubic meters of coke gas and
941.0 million cubic meters of natural gas. In 2009 Southern
Kuzbass Power Plant and Toplofikatsia Rousse consumed
1.4 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 31.9% of its water needs through
recycling, 60.8% from a local river. Mechel Targoviste sources
1.6% 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 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. 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 2009, approximately 2.9% 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.
100
European
Union
Our steel sales to the European Union in 2009 were approximately
$0.6 billion, or 17.9% 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
2009, the quota covered approximately 37.2% of our steel segment
products exported to the European Union.
In 2009, the total E.U. quota for Russian steel was 3,107
thousand tonnes, and we received 318.5 thousand tonnes of the
total quota. We have used 44% of our individual quotas both in
long and flat steel products. The European Union-Russia Steel
Agreement for 2010 provides for the total Russian quota to be
3,119 thousand tonnes. Our quota is set at approximately 335.4
thousand tonnes, which includes 19.7 thousand tonnes for flat
products and 315.7 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 110.8 thousand tonnes for 2010.
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, Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant and Tikhvin
Ferroalloy Plant, respectively. The following table sets our
production volumes for each of our ferroalloy segment products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes)
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
91.9
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
57.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
101
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. Carbon ferrochrome is used in the
iron industry to alloy construction steel and heat-resistant and
stainless steels. We produce 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 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. 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 up to 8% of the carbon being dissolved in this
alloy. 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 operates two open-pit nickel ore
mines, Sakhara and Buruktal, as well as a nickel production
plant in Orsk. 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.
102
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
|
|
|
|
1968
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
(% Ni)
|
|
|
(In thousands of
tonnes)(1)
|
|
Sakhara ore production
|
|
|
964.5
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
1,025.7
|
|
|
|
1.07
|
%
|
|
|
1,236.1
|
|
|
|
1.13
|
%
|
Buruktal ore production
|
|
|
1,679.3
|
|
|
|
1.07
|
%
|
|
|
1,436.4
|
|
|
|
1.05
|
%
|
|
|
1,591.3
|
|
|
|
1.05
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total ore production
|
|
|
2,643.8
|
|
|
|
1.04
|
%
|
|
|
2,462.1
|
|
|
|
1.06
|
%
|
|
|
2,827.4
|
|
|
|
1.09
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickel production
|
|
|
15,565.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,158.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,111.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 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 1.2 million tonnes of chrome
ore and 0.9 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
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
103
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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Low-ferrous ferronickel production
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
89
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant produced 15,565 tonnes of nickel in
2009.
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.
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 2009
|
|
Rate in 2009
|
|
(2010-2012)
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
Ferrosilicon production
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant produced 86,010 tonnes of ferrosilicon
in 2009.
104
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 and starting from 2010 we intend to increase its
production capacity to 180,000 tonnes of high carbon
ferrochrome per annum. 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. In the
first half of 2009, the plant operated at a low level of
capacity (60%) because of difficulties in marketing its output.
By the end of 2009, the plant reached its current capacity. The
plant consumes 330,000 tonnes of chromite ore concentrate
per annum, and consumption is expected to reach
400,000 tonnes per annum after the planned production
capacity increase is implemented in 2011.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Nickel(1)
|
|
|
190.6
|
|
|
|
52.4
|
%
|
|
|
281.3
|
|
|
|
64.8
|
%
|
|
|
468.9
|
|
|
|
93.6
|
%
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
66.6
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
|
|
79.3
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
%
|
|
|
29.0
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
92.8
|
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
|
|
68.2
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
434.0
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
501.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Sales of nickel contained in ferronickel and converter matte. |
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)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
23.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
Other CIS
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
69.6
|
%
|
|
|
74.4
|
%
|
|
|
93.6
|
%
|
Asia
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Middle East
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
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. |
105
In 2009, our ferroalloys segment sales outside of Russia were
principally to Europe. Sales in Europe accounted for 69.6% 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 64.2%
of our ferroalloys segment sales in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
Customer
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Product
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Outokumpu Rossija Oy
|
|
|
19.0
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
36.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Stratton Metals, LTD.
|
|
|
18.6
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
35.5
|
%
|
Glencore
|
|
|
11.1
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
17.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
Scanalloys, LTD.
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome
|
|
|
28.7
|
%
|
A&M Trading
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
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 25 to our consolidated
financial statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Nickel(1)
|
|
|
190.6
|
|
|
|
281.3
|
|
|
|
468.9
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
97.4
|
%
|
|
|
93.4
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
66.6
|
|
|
|
79.3
|
|
|
|
29.0
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
47.3
|
%
|
|
|
92.0
|
%
|
|
|
97.3
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
52.7
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
92.8
|
|
|
|
68.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Export
|
|
|
95.1
|
%
|
|
|
94.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
50.6
|
%
|
|
|
94.3
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
49.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
363.7
|
|
|
|
434.0
|
|
|
|
501.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
23.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
Export
|
|
|
86.8
|
%
|
|
|
76.8
|
%
|
|
|
93.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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 2.6% of total nickel revenues were
received from domestic sales in 2009.
106
In 2009, ferrosilicon was sold to Russian domestic consumers
such as Metalloinvest-Steel OOO, EvrazHolding (Zapsib, NTMK,
NKMK) and Severstal OAO, which together accounted for 35.0% of
the total ferrosilicon sales by revenue and 6.4% of the total
ferroalloys segment revenues.
Volgograd Metallurgical Works Red October was our major domestic
ferrochrome customer in 2009, which accounted for 2.2% of the
total ferrochrome sales and 0.6% of the total ferroalloys
segment revenues.
In 2009, Mechel Trading House began sales of ferroalloy products
produced by Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant, Southern Urals Nickel Plant
and Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant to third-party customers.
Previously, all domestic sales were managed directly by the
production plants.
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 97.4% of our total
ferronickel sales and 51.1% of our total ferroalloys segment
revenues. All of our ferronickel export sales in 2009 were
delivered to four customers: Outokumpu Rossija Oy, Stratton
Metals Ltd., Glencore International AG and A&M Trading.
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.
In 2009, ferrosilicon export sales were delivered to such
customers as Posco, Scanalloys Ltd. and ACTS Trading
Corporation, which together accounted for 35.3% of our total
ferrosilicon sales by revenue and 6.5% of our total ferroalloys
segment revenues. Deliveries to Japanese and South Korean
customers were effected on CFR delivery terms (including
transportation by railway, handling in ports of Vanino and
Nakhodka and chartering vessels to major Japanese ports). We
mostly sell ferrosilicon at spot prices.
Ferrochrome was supplied to Europe mainly through such trading
companies as Scanalloys Ltd., Glencore and DCM DECOmetal GmbH in
2009. Those sales together accounted for 62.6% of our total
ferrochrome sales and 11.5% of the total ferroalloys segment
revenues. Ferrochrome was delivered mainly by railway to the
port of St. Petersburg, and small amounts were delivered to
Eastern Europe by railcars. We mostly sell ferrochrome at spot
prices.
Market
share and competition
According to Metal Expert, Mechel is the third largest Russian
producer of ferrosilicon and the second largest producer of
ferrochrome by volume. In 2009, we had a 18.8% and 23.8% market
share by volume of Russian ferrosilicon and ferrochrome
production, respectively.
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 55.9% market share by production
volume in 2009. It controls Yurginsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO.
Kuznetsk Ferroalloys produces microsilica and quartzite. It is
primarily export-oriented, having exported 87.0% of its
ferrosilicon production volume in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
(ChEMK) is the largest Russian
ferrochrome producer, with a 51.8% market share by production
volume in 2009. It is also the second largest ferrosilicon
producer with a 17.5% production share in 2009. In addition it
produces silicomanganese and silicocalcium. ChEMK exports most
of its production. In 2009, it exported 97.3% and 96.1% by
volume of its ferrochrome and ferrosilicon production,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO (Serov) is
the third largest Russian ferrochrome producer, with a 23.1%
market share by production volume in 2009. It also produces
ferrosilicon, having a 2.1% production share in 2009. The plant
is controlled by the Kazakh industrial group ENRC, which is one
of the
|
107
|
|
|
|
|
largest chrome ore and ferrochrome producers in the world,
according to CRU. Serov also produces ferrosilicochrome. Serov
exported 89.2% of its ferrochrome production volume in 2009, and
almost all of the ferrosilicon it produced in 2009 was supplied
domestically.
|
The following tables set forth additional information regarding
our 2009 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
|
|
|
275.4
|
|
|
|
55.9
|
%
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Chelyabinsk
|
|
|
86.4
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant OAO
|
|
Irkutsk
|
|
|
92.9
|
|
|
|
18.8
|
%
|
Yurginsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Kemerovo
|
|
|
20.9
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
Novolipetsk Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Lipetsk
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
493.1
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
Ferroalloys
Ferrochrome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Production
|
|
Manufacturer
|
|
Region
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Volume, %
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of tonnes, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Plant OAO
|
|
Chelyabinsk
|
|
|
207.7
|
|
|
|
51.8
|
%
|
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant ZAO
|
|
Leningrad
|
|
|
95.2
|
|
|
|
23.8
|
%
|
Serov Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
92.7
|
|
|
|
23.1
|
%
|
Klyuchevsk Ferroalloys Plant OAO
|
|
Sverdlovsk
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
400.7
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Metal Expert.
The Russian nickel market is heavily dominated by Norilsk Nickel
OAO, which according to its company website produced 232,800
tonnes of nickel in 2009 at its Russian facilities and has more
than a 90.0% share of Russian domestic nickel output by volume.
108
Our share of the total world nickel production was approximately
1.2% in 2009. The following table sets forth the major nickel
producing countries and their and Mechels shares of the
total world nickel production in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nickel Production
|
|
|
% of Total World
|
|
Country
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
255.5
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
China
|
|
|
242.9
|
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
Japan
|
|
|
142.2
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
Australia
|
|
|
129.8
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
Canada
|
|
|
116.9
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
Cuba
|
|
|
31.8
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
Ukraine
|
|
|
12.8
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
385.5
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
1,317.4
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Company data.
Our share of the total world high-carbon ferrochrome production
was approximately 1.4% in 2009. The following table sets forth
the major high-carbon ferrochrome producing countries and their
and Mechels shares of the total world high-carbon
ferrochrome production in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-Carbon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrochrome Production
|
|
|
% of Total World
|
|
Country
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
South Africa
|
|
|
2,316.8
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
%
|
China
|
|
|
1,306.2
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
889.5
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
%
|
Russia
|
|
|
400.8
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
850.2
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
5,763.5
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Metal Expert, Company data.
Our share of the total world ferrosilicon production was
approximately 1.5% in 2009. The following table sets forth the
major ferrosilicon producing countries and their and
Mechels shares of the total world ferrosilicon production
in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrosilicon Production
|
|
|
% of Total World
|
|
Country
|
|
(Thousands of Tonnes)
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
China
|
|
|
4,139.5
|
|
|
|
71.6
|
%
|
Russia
|
|
|
438.0
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Brazil
|
|
|
203.0
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Norway
|
|
|
189.0
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
USA
|
|
|
118.5
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
Iceland
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
South Africa
|
|
|
86.0
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Other
|
|
|
506.8
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total World Production
|
|
|
5 780.8
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: CRU, Company data.
109
Mineral
reserves (ferroalloys)
Please see Mining Segment Mineral
reserves (coal, iron ore and limestone) for a description
of our mineral reserves and mineral deposits generally and our
reporting of proven and probable reserves.
Nickel
ore
As of December 31, 2009, we had nickel ore reserves (proven
and probable) totaling 7.7 million tonnes at an average
nickel grade of 1.0%. The table below summarizes our nickel ore
reserves by mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
|
Nickel Ore
Reserves(1)(2)(3)
|
|
Tonnes(4)
|
|
|
(%
Ni)(5)
|
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
|
Sakhara
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
Buruktal
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 $18,325
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 73.8%. |
As of December 31, 2009, we had nickel ore deposits
totaling 51.0 million tonnes at an average nickel grade of
1.0%. The table below summarizes nickel ore deposits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
Nickel Ore
Deposits(1)
|
|
Tonnes(2)
|
|
(%
Ni)(3)
|
|
|
(In millions of tonnes)
|
|
Buruktal
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes adjustments for dilution and mine recovery, based on
historical records. |
|
(2) |
|
Volumes are reported on a dry basis. |
|
(3) |
|
Metallurgical recovery is projected to be 73.8%. |
Chrome
ore
At December 31, 2009 Voskhod has total proven and probable
reserves of 18.3 million tonnes including 0.9 million
tonnes of proven and 17.4 million tonnes of probable
reserves at an average grade of 42.2%
Cr2O3
with projected recovery of rate of 72%. In estimating our
reserves we use an average contract price of $202 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.
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, power generation facilities
at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
and Urals Stampings Plant with
110
installed capacity of 220 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 49% 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In million kWh)
|
|
Electricity
|
|
|
3,487.7
|
|
|
|
4,088.8
|
|
|
|
3,473.5
|
|
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, 2009. The electricity output of the plant for
the year ended December 31, 2009 was 1,758.2 million
kWh. The heat power generated by the plant for the year ended
December 31, 2009 was 767.1 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 2009, it consumed 1.0 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)
|
|
|
2009 (million kWh)
|
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
April 1951
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
101.9
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
November 1951
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
96.9
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1950
|
|
|
August 1952
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
313.8
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1952
|
|
|
February 1953
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
186.4
|
|
T-115-8,8 LMZ
|
|
|
1996
|
|
|
December 2003
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
250.1
|
|
T-88/106-90 LMZ
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
July 1954
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
370.6
|
|
VK-50-2 LMZ
|
|
|
1954
|
|
|
December 1954
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
74.2
|
|
T-88/106-90 LMZ
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
September 1956
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
364.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
554
|
|
|
|
1,758.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Siberia. Its
distributed power volume in 2009 amounted to 12.4 billion
kWh. We acquired Kuzbass Power Sales Company in 2007. The
addition of Kuzbass Power Sales Company, along with 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 the public, to social
infrastructure companies, housing and public utilities and large
industrial companies. Due to
111
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 four 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 Russian Regulation Regulation of
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. Currently, the plant generates 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.
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 552 employees as of December 31,
2009.
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 structural
units in the cities of Beloretsk, Vidnoye, Izhevsk,
Mezhdurechensk, Chebarkul and Chelyabinsk.
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, Mezhdurechensk and
Myski.
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 4.8 billion kWh of
electricity and 4.1 million Gcal of heat energy in 2009.
Capital
Investment Program
Our capital investment program includes capital spending of up
to $3.7 billion for the three-year period of
2010-2012.
Our capital investment program is primarily targeted at
expanding the mining segment and increasing the efficiency of
the steel segment. The split is approximately $2.1 billion
in mining, approximately $1,135.9 million in steel,
approximately $192.4 million in ferroalloys and
approximately $77.8 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 high levels of
indebtedness relative to our free cash flows and pledges of
shares and assets of our subsidiaries to our current lenders. 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.
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
$1,560.9 million to the development of the Elga coal
deposit and construction of a rail branch line in
2010-2012.
Investments in Southern Kuzbass Coal Company will amount to
$300.5 million. We will invest approximately
$126.9 million in
2010-2012
for
112
increasing coal production at the Sibirginsk mine of Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company. In the iron ore business, we will invest
approximately $47.9 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, started in
2008, is the construction of a universal rail and structural
steel 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.
Due to the global financial crisis, the level of capital
investments in 2009 was reduced as compared to capital
investments in 2008, and completion timelines for a number of
projects were extended. Any interruption in the currently
improving global economic situation may similarly require us to
delay the implementation of our capital investment program.
The following table sets out by segment and facility the major
items of our capital expenditures currently in progress or
expected to be commenced in
2010-2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
350.1
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
1,912.8
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase of coal production of Sibirginsk mine
|
|
Increase in project capacity to 2.4 million tonnes per annum
|
|
|
247.6
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
137.1
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
195.5
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
Modernization of slab concaster with ladle furnace at
arc-furnace shop No. 6
|
|
Design capacity 1.2 million tonnes of slabs per annum
|
|
|
106.3
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Izhstal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modernization of arc-furnace melting facilities; renovation of
arc-furnace shop No. 23
|
|
Increase of arc-furnace steel melting capacity to 480,000 tonnes
per annum and steel quality improvements; decommissioning older
open-hearth furnace
|
|
|
128.6
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
Reconstruction of mill No. 250
|
|
Increase in capacity to 300,000
|
|
|
67.0
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
tonnes per annum and increase in quality of rolled products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction of coking battery No. 6
|
|
Design capacity 470,000 tonnes of coke per annum
|
|
|
51.1
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconstruction of steel-making shop of Otelu Rosu
|
|
Increase of billet production by 600,000 tonnes per annum
|
|
|
48.7
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
41.6
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transport division
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
Technical modernization of Port Posiet
|
|
Increase of production capacity by 9.0 million tonnes per
annum
|
|
|
102.6
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance expenditures
|
|
Maintaining current output capacity
|
|
|
26.7
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Materialy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction of grinding-mixing complex on manufacture of
Portland cement and Portland blast-furnace cement
|
|
Design capacity 1.6 million tonnes of Portland cement per annum
|
|
|
98.4
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We estimate that approximately $312.5 million of the
aforementioned planned expenditures for these projects have been
made as of December 31, 2009. In 2009, we spent
$612.7 million 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 (seven employees), a
Production and Technical Division at Mechel Mining Management
(eleven employees), a Department of Wire Products Technology
Development at Mechel-Steel Management (two employees), and a
Department of Technical Development at Mechel Ferroalloys
Management (two employees). In December 2008, we established
Mechel Engineering with a headcount of 89 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 109 employees was
transferred under the management of Mechel Engineering.
114
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, Mechel Targoviste and Yakutugol have
specialized research divisions with a total of 482 researchers
involved in the improvement of existing technologies and
products.
Our research and development expenses in the years ending
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 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.
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 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; and
|
|
|
|
transportation activities.
|
115
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
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
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 2009, we incurred
minerals extraction taxes in the amount of $27.6 million,
which is included in the statement of income and comprehensive
income as production related overheads. See note 22 to our
consolidated financial statements.
116
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.
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 permits a subsoil licensee to request an
extension of a production license 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 complies with 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 the federal authorities to amend
the license.
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.
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
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects and Item 3. Key
117
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 license 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 re-issue 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.
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
118
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 it is
not clear when and whether the amendments will be promulgated
into law. 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 of 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 Rostekhnadzor, 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 Rostekhnadzor. The emission
reduction plan is generally required to be implemented within a
specific period. If, by the end of that period, a companys
discharges of pollutants are still in excess of statutory
limits, a new emission reduction plan must be submitted to
Rostekhnadzor for approval.
119
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 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 2009, in Russia, we incurred
above-norms/above-limit fees and penalties in the amount of
approximately $3.4 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, Rostekhnadzor, the
Federal Service for Hydrometrology and Environmental Monitoring,
the Federal Agency for Subsoil Use, the Federal Agency for
Forestry and the Federal Agency for Water Resources. 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 is now under its supervision. For
these reasons, the environmental enforcement authorities have
now been redistributed among federal bodies and federal central
and regional executive bodies.
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 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
120
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.
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.
121
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 or 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 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);
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
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, 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
123
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 officially published in Rossiyskaya
Gazeta on March 5, 2009. 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.
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
124
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;
|
|
|
|
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
125
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 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
126
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 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
127
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,
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.
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
128
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 to be traded at
non-regulated prices.
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
set by the respective regional authorities subject to the
minimum and maximum levels defined by the FTS. These levels are
calculated under a formula based on the average weighted target
price of one unit of electric power (1 kWh) on the wholesale
market (published annually by the TSA). The formula also takes
account of the regulated prices for power transmission services,
for services provided by the TSA and the higher prices paid by
retail customers.
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,
Mezhdurechensk and Myski.
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, 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.
129
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 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.
130
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 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
131
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 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.
|
132
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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 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.
|
133
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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 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.
|
134
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.
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 25 to our consolidated financial statements.
History
of Incorporation
Mechel OAO was incorporated on March 19, 2003, as a holding
company for various mining and steel companies owned by
Mr. Zyuzin, Mr. 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
(coking and steam) and iron ore, which supplies raw materials to
our steel segment and also sells substantial amounts of raw
materials to third
|
135
|
|
|
|
|
parties, and includes logistical assets, such as our seaports on
the Black Sea and the Pacific Ocean 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, as well as steel industry materials such as
limestone, coke and coking products, and our river port in the
Volga River watershed;
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The table below sets forth by segment our key mining, steel,
ferroalloys and power subsidiaries, presented in chronological
order by date of acquisition.
136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
January 1999
|
|
|
95.8
|
%
|
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
|
%
|
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
|
|
May 2009
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Steel Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Semi-finished steel products, carbon and specialty long and flat
steel products, forgings, coke and coking 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
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Metal scrap processing
|
|
March 2006
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke and gas works, organic chemicals
|
|
October 2006
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
Ductil Steel
|
|
Romania
|
|
Carbon steel, low-alloyed steel rolled and wire products
|
|
April 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
HBL Holding GmbH
|
|
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
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
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
|
|
April 2007
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Electricity distribution
|
|
June 2007
|
|
|
72.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Except where the acquisition date occurred after
December 31, 2009 (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, 2009. 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) |
|
With effect from 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. |
Intersegment
sales
We are an integrated mining, steel, ferroalloys and power group.
As such, within our group the companies in our reporting
segments supply materials to other companies in the same
reporting segment or different
137
reporting segments. In the year ended December 31, 2009,
the mining segment supplied approximately 61% of the steel
segments coking coal requirements, approximately 12% of
the steel segments iron ore concentrate requirements,
approximately 84% of the power segments coal requirements
and approximately 74% of the ferroalloys segments coal
requirements. The ferroalloys segment supplied approximately 85%
of the steel segments requirements in ferrochrome,
ferrosilicon and ferronickel. The steel segment also supplies
wires, ropes, wire products and other metal products to the
mining segment for use in its
day-to-day
operations, as well as 100% of coke for use in the production of
ferronickel, ferrochrome and ferrosilicon by the ferroalloys
segment. The power segment supplies approximately one fourth of
the groups overall electricity requirements, with the
remainder of the electricity being sold to third parties. 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 4 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.
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant. Southern Kuzbass
Power Plant was spun-off from Kuzbassenergo as the result of
Kuzbassenergos reorganization in July 2006. The plant is
located in Kaltan in the Kemerovo region, in the southern part
of Russias coal-rich Kuzbass region. In April 2007, we
acquired at auction a 94.3% interest in Southern Kuzbass Power
Plant for $270.8 million. We increased our stake in
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant to 98.0% during the period from May
to December 2007 by purchasing shares from third parties
pursuant to a mandatory offer. From January to March 2008 we
further increased our stake in Southern Kuzbass Power Plant to
98.3% for a total consideration of $0.7 million.
Kuzbass Power Sales Company. Kuzbass Power
Sales Company is a power distribution company located in
Kemerovo. We acquired 49% of Kuzbass Power Sales Company in June
2007 at auction for a purchase price of $46.4 million,
which increased our stake to 50.2%. In October and November
2007, we acquired a further 21.83% stake from third parties for
$40.9 million. During 2008, we acquired shares from
minority shareholders, increasing our total stake to 72.1%.
Port Temryuk. Port Temryuk is a seaport
located at the Taman shore of the Sea of Azov, an inlet of the
Black Sea, and primarily utilized for small tonnage river-sea
type vessels in southern Russia. The port specializes mainly in
coal and metal transshipment. We purchased 100% of Port
Temryuk-Sotra from third parties for $6.3 million in July
2007. In order to organize coal transshipment, we purchased the
Temryuk-Sotra, Soyuztranzit and Tekhnoprodintorg companies. The
assets of the acquired companies, as well as the acquired assets
of a Russian Railways transshipment complex were transferred to
the balance sheet of the newly created Port Temryuk company.
Currently, Soyuztranzit and Tekhnoprodintorg have been
liquidated and Temryuk-Sotra is in the process of liquidation,
which is expected to be completed in 2010.
138
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant. Bratsk Ferroalloy
Plant is the largest enterprise in Eastern Siberia producing
high-grade ferrosilicon, according to Metal Expert. We acquired
100% of Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant from third parties in August
2007 for $186.9 million.
Yakutugol. Yakutugol, located in the Sakha
Republic in eastern Siberia, extracts predominantly coking coal,
as well as steam coal, in open pit and underground mines.
Yakutugol consists of the Nerungrinsk open pit mine, the
Kangalassk open pit mine and the Dzhebariki-Khaya underground
mine. Most of Yakutugols high-grade coking coal output is
exported to customers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China.
We acquired a blocking minority stake of 25% plus one share for
$411.2 million in January 2005, and increased this stake by
purchasing at auction from the government of the Sakha Republic
in October 2007 the remaining 75% less one share of Yakutugol
and 68.86% of the shares of Elgaugol for a total consideration
of $2.3 billion. In 2009, Yakutugol produced
3.0 million tonnes of coking coal, which represented 37.9%
of our total production of coking coal in 2009.
Elgaugol. Elgaugols principal asset was
its license to mine coal at the Elga coalfield, a deposit of
high-grade coal that has been explored in the past several
decades. As noted above, we acquired 68.86% of Elgaugol from a
company owned by the government of the Sakha Republic in
conjunction with our acquisition of the remaining outstanding
shares of Yakutugol for a total consideration of
$2.3 billion in October 2007. Combined with
Yakutugols stake of 2.35% in Elgaugol, the acquisition
gave us a total stake in Elgaugol of 71.21%. The mining license
to the Elga coal deposit was transferred to Yakutugol at the end
of the first quarter of 2008. Elgaugol was liquidated in
September 2009.
Ductil Steel. Ductil Steel owns two Romanian
steel plants: a plant in Buzau which produces carbon steel and
low-alloyed steel rolled and wire products, and the Otelu Rosu
plant, which specializes in steel and billets for rolling. 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
twelve service and trading companies in Germany. We acquired
100% of HBL Holding in September 2008 for approximately
$55.9 million.
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
$986.1 million, which could be increased up to
$1,585.0 million
and/or
decreased by amount of any damages (capped at
$200.0 million for CVR purposes) and set-offs effected by
Mechel. This increase is 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. The transaction documents contemplate that the
parties will conduct a public offering of the preferred shares
within four years of the closing date, and the sellers of the
Bluestone companies have certain rights to sell the preferred
shares in such an offering. Mr. Zyuzin agreed to vote all
common shares beneficially owned by him in favor of dividends on
preferred shares at any meeting of shareholders and to use his
reasonable best efforts
139
to effect an offering of preferred shares. 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 are currently not marketable, 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 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
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.
The fair value of the CVR contingent payment is closely linked
to the fair value of our preferred shares that are currently not
marketable, success of the sellers drilling efforts,
dividend payments, passage of time and other factors, some of
which are beyond our control. The changes in these factors or
underlying assumptions could significantly impact the fair value
of the CVR contingent payment in the future through the date of
its ultimate settlement or extinguishment. The CVR contingent
payment obligation will automatically extinguish if the market
value of the preferred shares plus cumulative dividends thereon
declared to the sellers exceeds certain thresholds. For a more
detailed description of the Bluestone acquisition transaction,
see note 4(a) to our consolidated financial statements.
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, such as market supply and demand,
which are beyond our control. 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. Also see 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,
140
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
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, has been 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 resulted in modest 1.8% growth in global real
GDP and 2.2% GDP contraction in 2009, according to CRU.
According to Rosstat, Russia recorded real GDP growth of 5.6% in
2008, and 7.9% contraction in GDP and 10.8% contraction in
industrial production in 2009. This slow down in economic growth
and severe constraints in capital spending, both globally and in
Russia, led to poor demand for our products and a substantial
decrease in the prices for our products. According to the
Russian Ministry of Economic Developments forecast, GDP in
Russia will increase by 3.1% in 2010. We have observed certain
signs of improvement in our core markets in the first quarter of
2010. 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 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 lower production costs.
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 2009. Our sales into
the European Union constituted approximately 17.9% of our steel
segment revenues and 50.6% of our steel segment export revenues
in 2009. Excluding steel segment revenues from our Romanian
subsidiaries and HBL Holdings sales, which are not subject
to these import duties, our sales into the European Union which
were subject to such duties constituted approximately 1.0% of
our steel segment revenues and 2.9% or our steel segment export
revenues in 2009. 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. As we are seeking to expand our exports into the European
Union, it is likely that our share of exports into the European
Union that will be subject to these trade restrictions will
increase in future periods; however, we expect that increasing
sales by our operations in Romania, further enhanced by our
acquisition of Ductil Steel in April 2008, will help to mitigate
the effect of E.U. trade restrictions on our steel products in
the future.
141
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 2009 were
protected by these import tariffs. In January 2009, the Russian
government increased import duties on certain types of steel
products (corrosion-resistant steel and some other steel
products) from 5% to 15%. 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%. 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 steel industry has experienced a consolidation trend in
recent years. Recent consolidations included the acquisition by
Mittal Steel Company N.V. (Mittal Steel) of
Arcelor S.A. (Arcelor) in 2006 and the merger
of Tata Steel Ltd (Tata Steel) and Corus
Group plc (Corus) in 2007. Corus was itself
the result of a merger between British Steel Plc and Koninklijke
Hoogovens N.V. in 2002.
The global financial crisis has sharply slowed the pace of
consolidation. 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, being driven by the central
governments plan to consolidate its capacity.
Recent and 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. In addition, we acquired
Bluestone.
Chinese companies have intensified cross-border acquisition
activity during 2009, looking for feedstocks for their growing
steel production. A major example of this activity was an
attempt by Chinalco to acquire a stake in Rio Tinto plc, one of
the worlds leading iron ore producers. BHP Billiton and
Rio Tinto expect to form a joint venture which may become the
worlds leading iron ore supplier. 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.
Consolidation in the ferroalloys industry is primarily driven by
the largest diversified mining companies, such as BHP Billiton,
Rio Tinto, Vale and Xstrata, and large-scale international
traders, such as Glencore. These companies are steadily looking
to increase their resource base and find new growth
opportunities. There were no large deals in ferroalloys segment
in 2009.
142
Price
trends for products
Coking
coal and steam coal
Due to the global financial crisis, for the Japanese financial
year (JFY) 2009/2010 contract prices for
premium hard coking coal were settled at $129 per tonne (FOB
Australia) in April 2009, down from $300 per tonne in JFY
2008/2009. The price for JFY 2007/2008 was $96 per tonne.
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 $120 per tonne (FOB Australia) in May 2009 from $400 per
tonne (FOB Australia) in the middle of 2008. 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 (393% in 2009 against
2008), 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 even $230 per tonne (FOB
Australia) in the first quarter of 2010.
Prices for steam coal generally increased during the period from
2007 to the middle of 2008, reaching a high of $209 per tonne
(CIF Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp) in July 2008 from a low of $69
per tonne in January 2007. 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 by March 2009.
Subsequently, prices began to rise as a result of the global
economy recovering. Prices reached $80 per tonne by the end of
2009. At the beginning of 2010, prices reached $86 per tonne and
then declined to $70 per tonne by the end of the first quarter
of 2010.
Iron
ore
Due to the global financial crisis, for JFY 2009/2010 the
contract price for iron ore was settled at $57 per tonne,
representing a 28% decrease from $79 per tonne in JFY 2008/2009
(63% elemental iron, Carajas fines, FOB Brazil). The price for
JFY 2007/2008 for iron ore was $46 per tonne on the same basis.
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
$63 per tonne (CFR China) in April 2009 from $203 per tonne in
March 2008. 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 (Chinese iron ore
import volume increased by 42% in 2009 against 2008) pushed
prices to the level of $110 per tonne (CFR China) by the end of
2009 and even $130 per tonne (CFR China) by the end of the first
quarter of 2010.
Nickel
Nickel prices generally decreased during the
2007-2009
period under review. On the London Metal Exchange
(LME) the cash nickel price decreased by
44.9% in December 2009 compared with January 2007. The cash
price of nickel reached a high of $54,200 per tonne in May 2007
and a low of $8,810 per tonne in October 2008, according to
Metal Bulletin. The price increase during the
2006-2007
period was primarily due to a nickel deficit in the global
market caused by speculative trading on the LME and a decrease
in global nickel inventories. The situation changed in the
second half of 2007, when demand for nickel fell. In 2008, the
nickel price slipped further, driven by deterioration in the
global economic environment. Nickel prices started to increase
in April 2009 and increased by 93.4% by December 2009 as
compared to the beginning of the year. This increase was
primarily driven by strong demand from China and other Asian
countries. Nickel price have increased by a further 15.3% since
the beginning of 2010 and reached $21,300 per tonne on
March 15, 2010.
Ferrochrome
Ferrochrome prices increased by 35.3% during the
2007-2009
period under review. The price reached a high of $6,283 per
tonne of chrome content (high-carbon ferrochrome price;
Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) Europe) in May 2008 and a
low of $1,433 per tonne of chrome content in April-May 2009,
according to Metal Bulletin. The price started to increase in
May 2009 and reached $1,984 per tonne of chrome content by the
end of 2009. Prices increased generally due to strong demand
from Asian stainless steel producers and limited
143
supply. Prices increased further in the first quarter of 2010
and reached $2,811 per tonne of chrome content by mid-March 2010.
Ferrosilicon
Ferrosilicon prices increased by 51.1% during the
2007-2009
period under review, reaching a high of $2,235 per tonne
(ferrosilicon with 75% silicon content; Chinese export FOB) in
June 2008 from a low price of $785 per tonne in March 2007,
according to Metal Bulletin. The price gradually increased
during 2009 and through the first quarter of 2010, driven by
increases in production costs and improved demand, and reached
$1,265 per tonne in March 2010.
Steel
During the
2007-2009
period under review, steel prices were extremely volatile due to
the changing market conditions. The price of rebar increased to
a high of $1,326 per tonne (Russian domestic market,
ex-warehouse) in August 2008, and fell to a low of $371 per
tonne in January 2009. The export price of square billet in the
period under review reached a high of $1,185 per tonne (Russian
export, FOB Black/Baltic sea) in June 2008, and fell to a low of
$298 per tonne in March 2009, according to Metal-Courier. The
prices for steel products increased gradually during 2009 and
through the first quarter of 2010, driven by stable demand and
increases in production costs, reaching $543 per tonne for rebar
in the Russian domestic market and $520 per tonne for square
billet (Russian export) in March 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. Currently, time-charter rates are 30% of the
pre-crisis rates. 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. However, such increases in
freight rates could be constrained by a number of factors in the
sea transportation industry.
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 there are
multiple freight carriers that compete based on price.
Exchange
rates
The escalation in the value of the U.S. dollar versus many
other currencies, a trend which started in the fourth quarter of
2008, has resulted in decreased prices, in U.S. dollar
terms, of coking and steam coal, iron ore, nickel and steel
products that we price in other currencies. The U.S. dollar
continued to grow against currencies of the jurisdictions in
which we have operations, including the Russian ruble, the
Romanian lei, the Lithuanian litas, the Bulgarian lev and the
Kazakhstan tenge. During 2009, the U.S. dollars value
against most of these currencies has decreased but remained
significantly higher than in 2007 and the first half of 2008.
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, 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
144
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 a increase in
our costs relative to our revenues.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth our consolidated statement of
income data for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(68.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
(52.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(4,166,864
|
)
|
|
|
(62.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
%
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
47.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,516,978
|
|
|
|
37.7
|
%
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(26.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,119,385
|
)
|
|
|
(16.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
%
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
25.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
|
|
20.9
|
%
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)%
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(12,146
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
%
|
|
|
1,385,447
|
|
|
|
20.7
|
%
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(356,320
|
)
|
|
|
(5.3
|
)%
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Net income
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
%
|
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(0.0
|
)%
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(116,234
|
)
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders of Mechel
OAO
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
145
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
|
|
|
1,548,902
|
|
|
|
3,333,406
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
10,570
|
|
|
|
11,271
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
18,282
|
|
|
|
27,695
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
248,426
|
|
|
|
659,595
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,826,180
|
|
|
|
4,031,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
3,307,624
|
|
|
|
5,495,139
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
55,356
|
|
|
|
96,752
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
131,459
|
|
|
|
174,814
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
9,611
|
|
|
|
7,014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,504,050
|
|
|
|
5,773,719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
261,766
|
|
|
|
257,368
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
41,861
|
|
|
|
29,468
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
35,189
|
|
|
|
53,131
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
872,784
|
|
|
|
1,028,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
879,677
|
|
|
|
1,467,722
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated revenues
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% from mining segment
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
33.5
|
%
|
% from steel segment
|
|
|
57.5
|
%
|
|
|
55.2
|
%
|
% from ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
% from power segment
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
Mining
segment
Our total mining segment sales decreased by
$2,205.8 million, or 54.7%, to $1,826.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $4,032.0 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 price 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
146
70% from $405 per tonne in August 2008 to $120 per tonne in May
2009, according to Metal Bulletin. The volume 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.
Coking coal concentrate supplied to our steel segment decreased
by $269.3 million, or 54.3%, to $226.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $495.8 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008, where $247.9 million
of the decrease was due to a decrease in sales prices and
$21.4 million of the decrease was due to a decrease in
sales volumes. The decrease in sales volumes is explained by the
decrease in coke production in 2009 due to the reduced demand
for the steel products caused by the global financial crisis.
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 price 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
price 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 $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 69.3% of
the mining segment sales in the year ended December 31,
2009, compared to 60.6% 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.
147
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 $2,269.7 million,
or 39.3%, to $3,504.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $5,773.7 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 only 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%.
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 price 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 price decrease of $10.7 million and
a sales volume 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.
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
148
in the Russian market was weak due to the depressed economic
situation of the construction industry during 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 price
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 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
149
sales volumes was due to the lack of demand from the key
consuming industries (crane production and lifting
machine-building, mining and construction industries).
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales comprised 35.4% of
steel segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2009,
compared to 25.4% 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 volume 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 volume, while Russian sales volume 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.
150
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 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
|
|
|
989,446
|
|
|
|
54.2
|
%
|
|
|
1,229,631
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
836,734
|
|
|
|
45.8
|
%
|
|
|
2,802,336
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
2,876,211
|
|
|
|
82.1
|
%
|
|
|
4,219,344
|
|
|
|
73.1
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
627,839
|
|
|
|
17.9
|
%
|
|
|
1,554,375
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
392,428
|
|
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
|
|
571,162
|
|
|
|
97.7
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
13,469
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
642,516
|
|
|
|
73.6
|
%
|
|
|
714,094
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
230,268
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
Mining
segment
Mining segment cost of goods sold decreased by
$240.2 million, or 19.5%, to $989.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $1,229.6 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. The mining segments
gross margin percentage decreased from 69.5% in the year ended
December 31, 2008, to 45.8% 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
151
crisis. At the same time production cash costs per tonne for
coking coal concentrate and steam coal at the Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company decreased by 3.3% and 13.2%, respectively, mostly
due to the depreciation of the ruble, partially offset by higher
per unit costs due to lower production volumes of 30.2% and
40.7%, respectively. Production cash costs per tonne for coking
coal concentrate at Yakutugol increased by 5.1%, as the effect
of the depreciation of the ruble was outweighed by a significant
increase in per unit costs due to a 62.5% decrease in production
volumes. Production cash costs per tonne for steam coal at
Yakutugol decreased by 10.0%, mostly due to the depreciation of
the ruble, partially offset by higher per unit costs due to
lower production volumes by 19.7%. 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
$1,343.1 million, or 31.8%, to $2,876.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, from $4,219.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. Steel segment cost of
goods sold was 82.1% of the segments revenues in the year
ended December 31, 2009, as compared to 73.1% in the year
ended December 31, 2008, resulting in a decrease in gross
margin from 26.9% to 17.9%. 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, plants 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, 2009 and 2008,
including as a percentage of segment revenues.
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
404,084
|
|
|
|
22.1
|
%
|
|
|
678,070
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
46,743
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
60,450
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
1,627
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
13,564
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
3,292
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
2,530
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Loss on write-off property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
151,175
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
|
|
246,386
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
610,417
|
|
|
|
33.4
|
%
|
|
|
1,001,796
|
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
467,800
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
%
|
|
|
406,687
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
47,211
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
49,421
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
1,669
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
3,527
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
2,792
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(37,757
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
78,031
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
199,921
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
243,478
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
681,859
|
|
|
|
19.5
|
%
|
|
|
783,936
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities, and
decreased by $274.0 million, or 40.4%, from
$678.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 to
$404.1 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 16.8%
to 22.1% due to a decrease in sales prices of all our products.
153
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes, as
well as other taxes. Taxes other than income tax decreased by
$13.7 million, or 22.7%, from $60.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008, to $46.7 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 in respect of 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 $12.0 million
from $13.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
to $1.6 million 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 with 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 by 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 the obsolete property, plants and equipment that
are 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 $95.2 million, or 38.6%, to
$151.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009,
from $246.4 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 $31.3 million, or
23.4%, to $102.3 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $32.5 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
$1.3 million, or 8.7%, to $16.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $15.0 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
$13.8 million, or 38.4% to $22.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $35.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 as a result of cost cutting
measures. Social expenses decreased by $16.7 million, or
74.9%, to $5.6 million in the year ended December 31,
2009 from $22.3 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
$34.7 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.
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
$61.1 million, or 15.0%, to $467.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $406.7 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 7.0% in the
year ended December 31, 2008 to 13.4% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. The increase was due to the decreases in
sales prices for all our products.
154
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes and
other taxes. These taxes amounted to $47.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of
$2.2 million, or 4.5%, from $49.4 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 $37.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2009, a decrease of $10.1 million, or
21.3%, from $47.5 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008, mainly due to the depreciation of the
ruble.
Allowance for doubtful accounts decreased by
$115.8 million, or 148.5%, to $37.8 million income in
the year ended December 31, 2009 from $78.0 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
$43.6 million, or 17.9%, to $199.9 million from
$243.5 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 5.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2009. Payroll and related social taxes
decreased by $8.7 million, or 8.0%, to $100.3 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$109.0 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 $7.7 million, or 34.7%, to $14.5 million
in the year ended December 31, 2009 from $22.2 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 $5.8 million, or 16.6%, to
$29.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$35.0 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 $5.7 million, or 33.1%, to
$22.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 from
$17.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
primarily due to increases in consulting fees. Other
administrative and operating expenses decreased by
$27.2 million, or 45.2%, to $33.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2009 from $60.2 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.
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
155
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 by 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 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.
156
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
|
|
|
226,317
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
|
|
1,800,540
|
|
|
|
44.7
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
(54,020
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)%
|
|
|
770,439
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
(6.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(50,517
|
)
|
|
|
(8.6
|
)%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
Elimination of intersegment unrealized (profit)
loss(1)
|
|
|
60,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,401
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 steel and ferroalloy segments that was generated by the
mining, steel and ferroalloys 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
$1,574.2 million, or 87.4%, to $226.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2009 from $1,800.5 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008. The operating margin
percentage decreased to 12.4% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from 44.7% 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 $824.4 million,
or 107.0%, to $54.0 million loss in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from $770.4 million income in the
year ended December 31, 2008. The operating margin
percentage decreased to negative 1.5% in the year ended
December 31, 2009 from 13.3% 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
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.
157
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 4(a)
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.
158
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.
Year
ended December 31, 2008 compared to year ended
December 31, 2007
Net
revenues
Consolidated net revenues increased by $3,266.9 million, or
48.9%, to $9,950.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008, from $6,683.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007.
Across our segments, our acquisitions in 2008 and 2007 led to
higher consolidated net revenues due to higher production and
sales volumes arising primarily from the consolidation of the
results of operations of acquired companies. Approximately
48.4%, or $1,580.8 million, of the increase in our
consolidated net revenues in the year ended December 31,
2008 compared to the year ended December 31, 2007 was due
to the consolidation of companies acquired during the year,
including $1,277.1 million in respect of Yakutugol,
$68.2 million in respect of chrome sales of Tikhvin
Ferroalloy Plant, $203.0 million in respect of steel
products of Ductil Steel and $32.5 million in respect of
steel products of the HBL Holding companies. The remainder of
our increase in revenues was due to organic growth, which was
driven largely by price increases and changes in the product mix
towards higher value-added products.
159
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
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
3,333,406
|
|
|
|
1,372,508
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
11,271
|
|
|
|
12,051
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
27,695
|
|
|
|
11,272
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
659,595
|
|
|
|
575,138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4,031,967
|
|
|
|
1,970,969
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
5,495,139
|
|
|
|
4,306,875
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
96,752
|
|
|
|
79,135
|
|
To power segment
|
|
|
174,814
|
|
|
|
22,509
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
7,014
|
|
|
|
5,973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,773,719
|
|
|
|
4,414,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
|
|
501,143
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
150,614
|
|
|
|
135,513
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
584,631
|
|
|
|
636,656
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To third parties
|
|
|
688,143
|
|
|
|
503,316
|
|
To steel segment
|
|
|
257,368
|
|
|
|
38,587
|
|
To ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
29,468
|
|
|
|
26,225
|
|
To mining segment
|
|
|
53,131
|
|
|
|
30,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,028,110
|
|
|
|
598,515
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
1,467,722
|
|
|
|
936,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated revenues
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% from mining segment
|
|
|
33.5
|
%
|
|
|
20.5
|
%
|
% from steel segment
|
|
|
55.2
|
%
|
|
|
64.4
|
%
|
% from ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
% from power segment
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
Mining
segment
Our total mining segment sales increased by
$2,061.0 million, or 104.6%, to $4,032.0 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 from $1,971.0 million
in the year ended December 31, 2007.
Coking coal concentrate sales to third parties increased by
$1,238.0 million, or 198.7%, to $1,860.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 from $622.9 million
in the year ended December 31, 2007 as a result of an
increase in sales prices of $995.6 million and an increase
in sales volumes of $242.4 million. The sales price
increase was due to the sharp increase in international coking
coal prices through the second quarter of 2008, when the premium
hard coking coal price rose more than 300% to $300 per tonne.
The volume of coking coal concentrate sold to third parties
increased by 2,342 thousand tonnes, or 38.9%, to 8,360 thousand
tonnes in the year ended December 31, 2008 from 6,018
thousand tonnes in the year ended
160
December 31, 2007. The increase in sales volumes during the
period was principally due to the consolidation of Yakutugol in
our consolidated financial statements for full year 2008 as
compared to three months in 2007. If Yakutugols results of
operations are excluded, our coking coal volumes sold in the
year ended December 31, 2008 would have decreased by 9.7%
due to Southern Kuzbass Coal Companys decrease in
production volumes. 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 new 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. See
Item 4. Information on the Company Mining
Segment Marketing and distribution
Domestic sales. Previously, the delivery terms for most of
our major domestic customers provided for sale at spot market
prices.
Coking coal concentrate supplied to our steel segment increased
by $87.9 million, or 21.6%, to $495.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $407.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007. Of this increase,
$219.7 million was due to an increase in sales prices that
was partially offset by a decrease in sales volumes of
$131.8 million. The decrease in sales volumes was due to
the shift in purchases of coking coal by Mechel-Coke and Moscow
Coke and Gas Plant from external suppliers, as we focused on
exports of coking coal due favorable market conditions in the
first three quarters of 2008, which resulted in approximately
45.3% of our coking coal sales volume coming from exports in
2008. The decrease in sales volumes was also due to a decrease
in coke and pig iron production in the fourth quarter of 2008
due to reduced demand for steel products caused by the global
financial crisis.
Steam coal and steam coal concentrate sales to third parties
increased by $488.7 million, or 112.0%, to
$925.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $436.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, where $409.4 million of the increase was due to an
increase in sales prices and $79.3 million was due to an
increase in sales volumes. The increase in sales volumes during
the period was principally due to the consolidation of Yakutugol
in our consolidated financial statements for full year 2008 as
compared to three months in 2007. If Yakutugols results of
operations are excluded, our steam coal volumes sold in 2008
would have decreased by 17.5%, the net effect of an increase in
the volume of steam coal supplied to the power segment and a
decrease in export demand in the fourth quarter of 2008. Export
prices for steam coal and steam coal concentrate rose sharply in
the second quarter of 2008 as a result of increasing demand,
especially in Asia, and limited supply growth from major
exporting countries. Russian prices increased due to growing
production costs and global steam coal price increases.
Sales of steam coal supplied to the power and ferroalloys
segments increased by $31.4 million, or 169.7%, to
$49.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$18.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2007, as
a result of an increase in sales prices of $9.3 million and
an increase in sales volumes of $22.1 million. The increase
in sales volumes was due to the consolidation of Southern
Kuzbass Power Plant in our consolidated financial statements for
full year 2008 as compared to nine month in 2007, as well as by
an increase in electricity sales by Mechel-Energo, to which
co-generation units from Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company were transferred in the first
quarter of 2008.
Sales of iron ore to third parties increased by
$125.8 million, or 58.9%, to $339.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $213.6 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007 as a result of an increase
in sales prices of $93.7 million and an increase in sales
volumes of $32.1 million. The sales price increase was due
to stable iron ore demand growth and limited supply in the first
half of 2008, especially in Asia. The sales volume increase was
due to our increased iron ore export deliveries to China.
Supplies of iron ore by our mining segment to our steel segment
decreased by $4.2 million, or 2.7%, to $148.9 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$153.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2007 as
a result of a decrease in sales volumes of $22.8 million
partially offset by an increase in sales prices of
$18.6 million. The decrease in sales volumes was due to the
shift in purchases of iron ore by Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant from external suppliers, as we focused on exports of iron
ore due the favorable market conditions in the first three
quarters of 2008. The decrease in sales volumes was also due to
the decrease in
161
pig iron production in the fourth quarter of 2008 due to reduced
demand for steel products caused by the global financial crisis.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales were 60.6% of mining
segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2008, compared
to 40.2% in the year ended December 31, 2007. The increase
in the proportion of our export sales was due to the higher
export volumes of coking coal, steam coal and iron ore due to
higher sales prices on export markets. The average steam coal
sales export price on FCA basis in 2008 was $102.7 per tonne in
comparison with $43.9 per tonne for Russian sales on FCA basis.
The average coking coal export price on FCA basis in 2008 was
$221.2 per tonne in comparison with $179.4 per tonne for Russian
sales on FCA basis. The average iron ore export price on FCA
basis in 2008 was $108.6 per tonne in comparison with $86.6 per
tonne for Russian sales on FCA basis.
Steel
segment
Our steel segment revenues increased by $1,359.2 million,
or 30.8%, to $5,773.7 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $4,414.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007.
Coke sales increased by $128.7 million, or 51.7%, to
$377.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $248.8 million in the year ended December 31,
2007 as a result of an increase in sales prices of
$172.6 million partially offset by a decrease in sales
volumes of $43.9 million. The increase in sales prices was
due to an increase in the price of coking coal which is the key
raw material in the production of coke. The decrease in sales
volumes was in line with weakened demand in the second half of
2008 due to the global financial crisis.
Rebar sales increased by $615.7 million, or 60.5%, to
$1,632.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $1,017.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2007 as a result of an increase in sales prices of
$475.6 million and an increase in sales volumes of
$140.1 million. The increase in sales prices was due to an
increase in prices of raw materials used in steelmaking and were
supported by strong demand in first nine months of 2009. The
increase in sales volumes was due to the acquisition of Ductil
Steel in April 2008.
Wire-rod sales increased by $50.2 million, or 26.4%, to
$240.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $190.1 million in the year ended December 31,
2007 as a result of an increase in sales prices of
$61.8 million offset by a decrease in sales volumes of
$11.6 million. The increase in sales prices was due to an
increase in the prices of raw materials used in steelmaking. The
decrease in sales volumes was due to a shift in our product mix
towards high value-added products produced from wire-rod.
Low alloyed engineering steel sales increased by
$172.0 million, or 40.3%, to $598.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $426.3 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007, as a result of an
increase in sales prices of $167.5 and an increase in sales
volumes of $4.5 million. The increase in sales prices was
due to an increase in the prices of raw materials used in
steelmaking. The increase in sales volumes was due to demand
growth in the first three quarters of 2008.
Carbon and low-alloyed forgings sales increased by
$20.3 million, or 23.4%, to $107.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $86.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, as a result of an increase in
sales prices of $13.7 million and an increase in sales
volumes of $6.6 million. The increase in sales prices was
due to an increase in the prices of raw materials used in
steelmaking. The increase in sales volumes was due to strong
demand in export markets in the first half of 2008.
Stampings sales increased by $34.7 million, or 17.2%, to
$236.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $201.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2007 as a result of an increase in sales prices of
$56.1 million partially offset by an increase in sales
volumes of $21.5 million. The increase in sales prices due
to an increase in the prices of raw materials used in
steelmaking. The decrease in sales volumes was due to the demand
slump in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Wire sales increased by $225.7 million, or 54.5%, to
$640.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $414.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2007 as a result of an increase in sales prices of
$190.7 million and an increase in sales volumes of
$35.0 million. The increase in sales prices was due to an
162
increase in the prices of raw materials used in steelmaking. The
increase in sales volumes was due to the acquisition of Ductil
Steel in April 2008 and a shift in our product mix towards high
value-added products such as wire.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales comprised 25.4% of
steel segment sales in the year ended December 31, 2008,
compared to 31.5% in the year ended December 31, 2007. The
decrease in the proportion of our export sales was mostly due to
favorable Russian pricing and robust Russian steel consumption
growth which exceeded the Russian steel industrys
production volume increases.
Ferroalloys
segment
Nickel sales to third parties decreased by $187.6 million,
or 40.0%, to $281.3 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $468.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, mainly as a result of a decrease
in sales prices of $183.6 million. Average sales prices
decreased by $14,126.9 from $35,775.2 per tonne in 2007 to
$21,648.3 per tonne in 2008.
Nickel supplies to the steel segment decreased by
$36.6 million, or 29.1%, to $89.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $125.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007, mostly due to a decrease in
sales prices.
Ferrosilicon sales to third parties increased by
$50.3 million, or 173.4%, to $79.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $29.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, mainly as a result of an increase
in sales prices of $22.6 million and an increase in sales
volumes of $27.7 million. The increase in sales volumes was
due to the consolidation of Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant in our
consolidated financial statements for full year 2008 as compared
to five months in 2007. The increase in sales prices was due to
an increase in international ferrosilicon prices in the first
half of 2008.
Ferrosilicoan supplies to our steel segment increased by
$29.8 million, or 307.2%, to $39.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $9.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, as a result of an increase in
sales prices of $11.1 million and an increase in sales
volumes of $18.7 million. The increase in sales volumes was
due to the consolidation of Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant in our
consolidated financial statements for full year 2008 as compared
to five months in 2007.
Chrome sales to third parties were $68.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 compared to nil in the year
ended December 31, 2007, as a result of our acquisition of
Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant in April 2008.
Chrome supplies to the steel segment were $21.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to nil in the
year ended December 31, 2007, as a result of our
acquisition of Tikhvin Ferroalloy Plant in April 2008.
Excluding intersegment sales, export sales were 76.8% of
ferroalloys segment sales in the year ended December 31,
2008, compared to 93.7% in the year ended December 31,
2007. The decrease in the proportion of our export sales was due
to the consolidation of Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant in our
consolidated financial statements commencing in August 2007,
because Bratsk Ferroalloy Plants export sales are a small
proportion of its overall sales, with Russian sales representing
92.0% of its overall sales in the year ended December 31,
2008.
Power
segment
Our power segment revenues increased by $429.6 million, or
71.8%, to $1,028.1 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $598.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007. The increase in energy segment
revenues is mostly due to the consolidation of Southern Kuzbass
Power Plant and Kuzbass Power Sales Company in our consolidated
financial statements for full year 2008 as compared to nine and
seven months of 2007, respectively.
Prior to our acquisition of Southern Kuzbass Power Plant and
Kuzbass Power Sales Company in April and June 2007,
respectively, our power segment consisted of intersegment and
third-party sales of electricity produced by co-generation units
burning blast furnace gas and coal gas produced as a byproduct
of industrial
163
processes at our Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Moscow Coke
and Gas Plant, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and Mechel-Coke.
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant contributed $18.2 million to
the power segment revenues through power generation capacity
sales to third parties in the year ended December 31, 2008.
Power supplies to the steel segment increased by
$218.8 million, or 567.0%, to $257.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $38.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007, as a result of an increase in
electricity sales by Mechel-Energo, to which co-generation units
from Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant were transferred in the
first quarter of 2008.
Cost of
goods sold and gross profit
Consolidated cost of goods sold was 52.9% of consolidated
revenues in the year ended December 31, 2008, as compared
to 62.3% of consolidated revenues in the year ended
December 31, 2007, resulting in an increase in consolidated
gross margin to 47.1% in the year ended December 31, 2008
from 37.7% for the year ended December 31, 2007. 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, 2008 and 2007, including as a percentage of
segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
% 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
|
|
|
1,229,631
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
1,008,485
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
2,802,336
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
|
|
962,484
|
|
|
|
48.8
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
4,219,344
|
|
|
|
73.1
|
%
|
|
|
3,374,420
|
|
|
|
76.4
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
1,554,375
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
1,040,072
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
571,162
|
|
|
|
97.7
|
%
|
|
|
253,725
|
|
|
|
39.9
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
13,469
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
382,931
|
|
|
|
60.1
|
%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
714,094
|
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
|
|
393,153
|
|
|
|
65.7
|
%
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
205,362
|
|
|
|
34.3
|
%
|
Mining
segment
Mining segment cost of goods sold increased by
$221.1 million, or 21.9%, to $1,229.6 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $1,008.5 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007. Mining segment gross
margin increased from 48.8% in the year ended December 31,
2007 to 69.5% in the year ended December 31, 2008.
The increase in the mining segments gross margin
percentage was due to increases in coking coal, steam coal and
iron ore sales prices both on export and Russian markets. At the
same time, coking coal concentrate production cash costs per
tonne at Southern Kuzbass Coal Company increased by 42.5% due to
an increase in the prices of spare parts and fuel, an increase
in heat prices following the transfer of co-generation units
from Southern Kuzbass Coal Company to Mechel-Energo and an
increase in payroll expenses due to salary indexation, as well
as an increase in fixed costs per tonne due to a decrease in
production volumes. Production cash costs of coking coal at
Yakutugol decreased by 6.2% due to the implementation of a cost
cutting strategy following our acquisition of Yakutugol in
October 2008. The production cash costs of steam coal at
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company increased by 17.4% for the same
reasons as for the increase in production cash costs of coking
coal and coking coal concentrate. The production cash costs of
steam coal at Yakutugol decreased by 30.4% for the same
164
reasons as for coking coal and coking coal concentrate.
Production cash costs of iron ore increased by 9.9% due to
increases in electricity prices, production personnel wages and
the prices of mining supplies used in iron ore production, such
as spare parts, fuel and explosives.
Steel
segment
Steel segment cost of goods sold increased by
$844.9 million, or 25.0%, to $4,219.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $3,374.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007. Steel segment cost of
goods sold was 73.1% of the segments revenues in the year
ended December 31, 2008, as compared to 76.4% in the year
ended December 31, 2007, resulting in an increase in gross
margin from 23.6% to 26.9%. The increase in the gross margin was
due to an increase in sales prices, as well as a decrease in the
price of nickel, a major raw material in stainless steel
production.
Ferroalloys
segment
Ferroalloys segment cost of goods sold increased by
$317.5 million, or 125.1%, to $571.2 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $253.7 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007. Ferroalloys segment cost
of goods sold was 97.7% of the segments revenues in the
year ended December 31, 2008, as compared to 39.9% in the
year ended December 31, 2007, resulting in a decrease in
gross margin from 60.1% to 2.3%. The decrease in gross margin
was due to a decrease in nickel and chrome sales prices caused
by growing coke prices, as coke is one of the major raw
materials in nickel and chrome production, as well as due to a
write-down of inventory to the market value and a provision for
obsolete stock of $94.7 million.
Power
segment
Power segment cost of goods sold increased by
$320.9 million, or 81.6%, to $714.1 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $393.2 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007. Power segment gross
margin decreased from 34.3% in the year ended December 31,
2007 to 30.5% in the year ended December 31, 2008. The
decrease in gross margin was due to an increase in steam coal
sales prices, as steam coal is the major raw material in
electricity production, which exceeded the growth in electricity
sales prices.
Selling,
distribution and operating expenses
Selling, distribution and operating expenses increased by
$1,014.9 million, or 90.7%, to $2,134.3 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $1,119.4 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007 mainly due to an increase
in transportation expenses in the steel and mining segments,
general and administrative expenses in the mining segment and
bad debt allowance expenses in the steel segment, as explained
below. As a percentage of consolidated revenues, selling,
distribution and operating expenses increased to 21.4% in the
year ended December 31, 2008, as compared to 16.7% in the
year ended December 31, 2007. Our selling, distribution and
operating expenses consist primarily of selling and distribution
expenses, taxes other than income tax, loss on write-offs of
property, plant and equipment, allowance for doubtful accounts
and general, administrative and other operating expenses. The
table below sets forth these costs by segment for the years
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, including as a percentage
of segment revenues.
165
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% 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
|
|
|
678,070
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
%
|
|
|
241,090
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
60,450
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
3,815
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
13,564
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
(1,441
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
2,530
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
1,071
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Loss on write-off property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
246,386
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
|
|
146,480
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,001,796
|
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
|
|
391,015
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
406,687
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
194,855
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
49,421
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
71,243
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
Loss on write off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
3,527
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
2,792
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
1,708
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
78,031
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
3,602
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
243,478
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
231,403
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
783,936
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
|
|
502,811
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
10,185
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
3,400
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
7,528
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
2,232
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
591
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
322
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
47,541
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
%
|
|
|
21,572
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
63,986
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
32,824
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
254,047
|
|
|
|
24.7
|
%
|
|
|
182,466
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
3,282
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
1,408
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
9,805
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
(752
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
17,311
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
9,613
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
284,610
|
|
|
|
27.7
|
%
|
|
|
192,735
|
|
|
|
32.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
transportation expenses related to our selling activities, and
increased by $437.0 million in line with sales volume
increases in 2008. As a percentage of mining segment revenues,
selling and distribution expenses increased from 12.2% to 16.8%
due to an increase in the share of sales on delivery terms where
transportation expenses are included in the final sales prices
and therefore are incurred by the seller.
Taxes other than income tax include property and land taxes, as
well as other taxes. Taxes other than income tax increased by
$56.6 million, or 1,484.4%, to $60.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $3.8 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007. The increase was mainly due
to the recognition of
166
$32.1 million in tax penalties and fines imposed by the FAS
under antimonopoly legislation on Mechel Trading House, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company and Yakutugol. In addition, prior period
taxes were lower due to the reversal of a $25.7 million tax
liability related to Korshunov Mining Plant in 2007 in respect
of mineral extraction taxes and social taxes for prior periods.
On December 18, 2007, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the
Russian Federation issued an order in our favor that clarified
an aspect of tax law that was previously uncertain, resulting in
a reduction in our mineral extraction tax liability for the
years
2003-2007.
Allowance for doubtful accounts increased by $15.0 million,
to a $13.6 million expense in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from income of $1.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007, due to the increased exposure
to losses on our accounts receivable because of the global
financial crisis. In accordance with our accounting policy we
provide for bad debts by applying 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 our
companies. As in the fourth quarter of 2008 the overdue balances
increased, the allowance also increased.
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment was
$0.8 million compared to nil in the year ended
December 31, 2007. This is due to the write-off of the
construction-in-progress
objects that are not planned for further use in production
process at Southern Kuzbass Coal Company.
General, administrative and other expenses which consist of
payroll and payroll taxes, depreciation, rent and maintenance,
legal and consulting expenses, office overhead and other
expenses, increased by $99.9 million, or 68.2%, to
$246.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $146.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2007. The overall increase in general, administrative and other
expenses was due to the consolidation of Yakutugol in the mining
segment since October 2007. Salaries and related social taxes
increased by $56.8 million, or 74.0%, to
$133.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $76.7 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, mainly due to indexation of salary rates to inflation at
our production companies and due to the consolidation of
Yakutugol. Legal and consulting fees and insurance services
increased by $4.5 million, or 42.9%, to $15.0 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from $10.5 million
in the year ended December 31, 2007, due to increases in
consulting fees. Rent and maintenance, business travel expenses,
bank charges and office expenses increased by
$19.8 million, or 123.4%, to $35.9 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $16.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, and depreciation increased by
$5.7 million, or 119.8%, to $10.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $4.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, mainly due to the consolidation of
Yakutugol. Social expenses decreased by $3.1 million, or
12.3%, to $22.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $25.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, mainly due to the depreciation of the ruble against the
U.S. dollar. Other administrative and operating expenses
increased by $16.2 million due to the consolidation of
Yakutugol.
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
$211.8 million, or 108.7%, to $406.7 million in the
year ended December 31, 2008 from $194.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2007 and increased as a
percentage of steel segment revenues from 4.4% in the year ended
December 31, 2007 to 7.0% in the year ended
December 31, 2008. The increase was mainly due to an
increase in the share of sales on delivery terms where
transportation expenses are included in the final sales prices
and therefore are incurred by the seller.
Taxes other than income tax decreased by $21.8 million, or
30.6%, to $49.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $71.2 million in the year ended December 31,
2007. As a percentage of segment revenues, these taxes decreased
from 1.6% to 0.9%. Property and land taxes increased by
$2.7 million, or 6.0%, to $47.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $44.8 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, due to an increase in the property
tax base resulting from putting new fixed assets into operation.
At the same time, in the year ended December 31, 2007, we
incurred $10.1 million in tax penalties and fines as a
result of prior period tax audits at our Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant. The remaining part of
167
the decrease of $14.5 million was mainly due to a decrease
in non-reimbursable VAT expenses at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical
Plant and a tax expense accrued at Mechel Campia Turzii and
Mechel Trading House.
Allowance for doubtful accounts increased by $74.4 million,
or 2,066.7%, to $78.0 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $3.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2007, due to increased exposure to losses on
our accounts receivable because of the global financial crisis.
A substantial portion of such increase was attributable to
several customers experiencing liquidity problems, the most
significant of which were GAZ Group, Metalltrade OOO and,
Stupinsk Metallurgical Company OAO.
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment was
$3.5 million compared to nil in the year ended
December 31, 2007. This amount relates to the write-off of
the
construction-in-progress
objects that are not planned for further use in the production
process at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$12.1 million, or 5.2%, to $243.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $231.4 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007, and decreased as a percentage
of segment revenues from 5.2% in the year ended
December 31, 2007, to 4.2% in the year ended
December 31, 2008. Payroll and related social taxes
decreased by $2.2 million, or 2.0%, to $109.0 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$111.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2007 due
to reduced working hours at our companies in the last quarter of
2008. Social expenses (including pension obligations) decreased
by $1.1 million, or 4.7%, to $22.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $23.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, mainly due to the depreciation of
the ruble. Rent and maintenance, business travel expenses, bank
charges and office expenses decreased by $0.9 million, or
2.6%, to $35.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $35.9 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, primarily due to the effect of cost cutting measures
implemented at our companies. Professional expenses, which
include auditing, accounting, legal and engineering fees, and
insurance services decreased by $1.2 million, or 6.5%, to
$17.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$18.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2007,
primarily due to an decrease in insurance expenses as a result
of cost-cutting measures implemented at our companies. Other
administrative and operating expenses increased by
$17.5 million, or 41.1%, to $60.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $42.7 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, mainly due to acquisitions, and an
overall increase of segment activities in the first half of 2008.
Ferroalloys
segment
Selling and distribution expenses for our ferroalloys segment
consisted almost entirely of transportation expenses related to
our selling activities. Such expenses increased by
$6.8 million, or 200.0%, to $10.2 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $3.4 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, and increased as a percentage of
segment revenues from 0.5% in the year ended December 31,
2007, to 1.7% in the year ended December 31, 2008.
Taxes other than income tax decreased by $4.1 million, or
54.7%, to $3.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $7.5 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, and decreased as a percentage of segment revenues from
1.2% in the year ended December 31, 2007 to 0.6% in the
year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease in tax expenses
is primarily due to the $2.1 million reduction in income
tax accruals for 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Southern Urals Nickel
Plant as a result of excluding gains from the forgiveness of tax
fines and penalties from taxable profit. Property and land taxes
increased by $1.9 million, or 65.5%; to $4.8 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from $2.9 million
in the year ended December 31, 2007, mostly due to the
acquisitions of Oriel Resources and Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant.
Allowance for doubtful accounts increased to $2.2 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from $2.0 thousand
in the year ended December 31, 2007, due to the increased
exposure to losses on our accounts receivable because of the
global financial crisis.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$25.9 million, or 120.0%, to $47.5 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $21.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, and increased as a percentage of
segment revenues from 3.4% in the year ended December 31,
2007, to 8.1% in the year ended
168
December 31, 2008. The overall increase of general,
administrative and other expenses in this segment was due to
acquisitions.
Power
segment
Selling and distribution expenses consisted almost entirely of
electricity transmission costs incurred by Kuzbass Power Sales
Company for usage of the power grid, over which electricity is
distributed to end consumers. These costs are incurred by all
power distribution companies under agreements between such
companies and the grid operator. These expenses increased by
$71.5 million, or 39.2%, to $254.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $182.5 million in the
year ended December 31, 2007 due to the consolidation of
Kuzbass Power Sales Company in the power segment since June
2007. These costs decreased as a percentage of segment revenues
because of an increase in electricity prices in 2008 in
comparison with 2007 due to the ongoing liberalization of the
Russian electricity market.
Taxes other than income tax increased by $1.9 million, or
135.7%, to $3.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $1.4 million in the year ended December 31,
2007. As a percentage of segment revenues, these taxes increased
from 0.2% to 0.3%.
Allowance for doubtful accounts increased by $10.6 million,
to a $9.8 million expense in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $0.8 million income in the year
ended December 31, 2007, due to the increased exposure to
losses on our accounts receivable because of the global
financial crisis.
General, administrative and other expenses increased by
$7.7 million, or 80.2%, to $17.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008 from $9.6 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007, and increased as a percentage of
segment revenues from 1.6% in the year ended December 31,
2007 to 1.7% in the year ended December 31, 2008. The
overall increase in general, administrative and other expenses
in this segment was due to acquisitions.
Operating
income
Operating income increased by $1,158.7 million, or 82.9%,
to $2,556.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2008 from $1,397.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2007. Operating income as a percentage of
consolidated revenues increased to 25.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from 20.9% in the year ended
December 31, 2007, mainly due to the increase in gross
margin resulting from sales prices increases in the steel and
mining segments in the first half of 2008. However, this effect
was partially offset by the losses incurred by our steel and
ferroalloys segments in the fourth quarter of 2008 due to the
global financial crisis.
The table below sets out operating income by segment, including
as a percentage of segment revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Segment
|
|
Operating Income by Segment
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except for percentages)
|
|
|
Mining segment
|
|
|
1,800,540
|
|
|
|
44.7
|
%
|
|
|
571,469
|
|
|
|
29.0
|
%
|
Steel segment
|
|
|
770,439
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
537,261
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
Ferroalloys segment
|
|
|
(50,517
|
)
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)%
|
|
|
350,107
|
|
|
|
55.0
|
%
|
Power segment
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
12,627
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
Elimination of intersegment unrealized (profit)
loss(1)
|
|
|
6,401
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(73,871
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our management evaluates performance of our segments before the
effect of elimination of unrealized profit in inventory balances
of steel and ferroalloy segments that was generated by the
mining, steel and ferroalloys segments but not recognized as
profit in our consolidated financial statements until the sale
of |
169
|
|
|
|
|
such inventories to third parties. Therefore, we present our
segments before such elimination, the effect of which is
presented separately. The significant decrease of intersegment
unrealized profit adjustment in the year ended December 31,
2008 in comparison with the year ended December 31, 2007 is
explained by the sharp decrease of gross margin of our mining
and ferroalloys segments in the 4th quarter 2008 following the
global financial crisis. |
Mining
segment
Mining segment operating income increased by
$1,229.0 million, or 215.1%, to $1,800.5 million in
the year ended December 31, 2008 from $571.5 million
in the year ended December 31, 2007. Operating margin
percentage increased to 44.7% in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from 29.0% in the year ended
December 31, 2007, mainly due to the consolidation of
Yakutugol in the mining segment since October 2007 as well as an
increase in coking coal, steam coal and iron ore sales prices in
the first half of 2008.
Steel
segment
Steel segment operating income increased by $233.1 million,
or 43.4%, to $770.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $537.3 million in the year
ended December 31, 2007. Operating margin percentage
increased to 13.3% in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
12.2% in the year ended December 31, 2007 due to the
increase in gross profit following an increase in sales prices
in the first half of 2008.
Ferroalloys
segment
Ferroalloys segment operating income decreased by
$400.6 million, or 114.4%, to a $50.5 million loss in
the year ended December 31, 2008 from $350.1 million
income in the year ended December 31, 2007. Operating
margin percentage decreased to negative 0.9% from 55.0%, mainly
due to a decrease in nickel sales prices with a simultaneous
increase in the price of raw materials (primarily coke).
Power
segment
Power segment operating income increased by $16.8 million,
or 133.3%, to $29.4 million in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from $12.6 million in the year ended
December 31, 2007. Operating margin percentage increased to
2.9% from 2.1% due to the decrease in the share of selling and
distribution expenses primarily consisting of electricity
transmission costs incurred by Kuzbass Power Sales Company.
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, 2008 and 2007, including as a
percentage of revenues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% 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
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
12,278
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(324,083
|
)
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(98,976
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)%
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
19,844
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
Foreign exchange gain (loss)
|
|
|
(877,428
|
)
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)%
|
|
|
54,700
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(12,146
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170
Income from equity investees was $0.7 million compared to
$8.0 thousand in the year ended December 31, 2007 and
consists of our share of the income of our equity investments
such as Toplofikatsia Rousse and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
offset by losses on equity investments such as Mechel Energy AG.
Interest income decreased by $0.7 million, or 5.7%, to
$11.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$12.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2007. The
decrease was due to a reduction in income from deposits held by
our Russian and foreign subsidiaries in various banks following
a decrease in such deposits.
Interest expense increased by $225.1 million, or 227.4%, to
$324.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $99.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2007. The increase was associated with the overall increase of
average loan balances in 2008, especially the syndicated loan
related to the Yakutugol acquisition and the loan for the Oriel
Resources acquisition. See Liquidity and
Capital Resources Description of Certain
Indebtedness.
Other income decreased by $38.6 million, or 195.0%, from
$19.8 million income in the year ended December 31,
2007 to a $18.8 million loss in the year ended
December 31, 2008. The decrease was due to equity
contributions to pension fund Penfosib made by a number of
our companies in 2008 which do not meet the definition of an
asset, totaling $17.5 million. In addition, in the year
ended December 31, 2007, we recorded other income gain due
to the release of an accounting provision in respect of a
$10.7 million tax liability relating to our Korshunov
Mining Plant, as well as income from the release of prior-period
tax provisions for Mechel International Holdings AG in the
amount of $9.3 million.
Foreign exchange loss increased by $932.1 million, or
1,704.0%, to a $877.4 million loss in the year ended
December 31, 2008 from a $54.7 million gain in the
year ended December 31, 2007. This foreign exchange loss
was primarily attributable to losses from the revaluation of the
U.S. dollar-denominated syndicated loan related to
acquisition of Yakutugol and the loan for the acquisition of
Oriel Resources.
Income
tax expense
Income tax expense decreased by $237.4 million, or 66.6%,
to $118.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $356.3 million in the year ended December 31,
2007, and our effective tax rate decreased to 8.8% from 25.7%.
The decrease in income tax expenses is attributable to the
decrease in taxable income and the decrease in the Russian
statutory income tax rate from 24% to 20% effective
January 1, 2009. In addition, in December 2008, the tax
legislation of Kazakhstan was amended to decrease the statutory
income tax rate from 30% in 2008 to 20% in 2009. The effect of
both decreases was recorded as the decrease of deferred tax
liabilities in both our Russian and Kazakh subsidiaries. As of
December 31, 2008, the effect of these changes in the total
amount of $341.1 million was recognized as a reduction in
the income tax expense for the year then ended.
Net
income attributable to non-controlling interests
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests of
subsidiaries decreased by $27.4 million, or 23.6%, to
$88.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2008 from
$116.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2007.
The net income attributable to non-controlling interests of our
subsidiaries in 2008 consisted of the share of non-controlling
shareholders in the net income of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
of $25.1 million, of Korshunov Mining Plant of
$26.6 million, of Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine of
$12.9 million, of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant of
$7.3 million, of Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant of
$3.0 million, of Mechel Targoviste of $3.7 million, of
Urals Stampings Plant of $2.5 million, of ferroalloys
segment companies of $2.3 million and of power segment
companies of $2.2 million.
Net
income attributable to shareholders of Mechel
For the reasons set forth above, net income attributable to our
shareholders increased by $227.5 million, or 24.9%, to
$1,140.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2008
from $913.0 million in the year ended December 31,
2007.
171
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Capital
requirements
We expect that our principal capital requirements in the near
future will be 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.,
2010-2012,
we expect our capital expenditures on our metals production
facilities to total approximately $1,135.9 million,
approximately 95.65% of which will be in
2010-2011
and approximately 4.35% in 2012. We intend to direct
approximately $1,560.9 million 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 2010 to 2012. We
intend to finance our capital investments with cash flow from
operations and external financing sources attracted for specific
projects.
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, 2009 was
$5,997.5 million. 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 2009, we paid dividends for 2008 in an amount equal to
$208.1 million, out of which $134.5 million 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 and 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 summarises our cash flows for the periods
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Net cash provided by operations
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
|
|
904,969
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
|
|
(3,408,088
|
)
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
|
|
2,547,503
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities was
$561.7 million, $2,229.9 million and
$905.0 million in the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, 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.
172
We define net working capital as changes in accounts receivable,
inventories, trade payables, advances received, accrued taxes
and other liabilities, settlements with related parties, current
assets and liabilities of discontinued operations, deferred
revenue and cost of inventory in transit, prepayments to
non-state pension funds, unrecognized income tax benefits and
other current assets.
Our working capital increased by $3,059.1 million, or 85%,
to a working capital deficit of $537.1 million as of
December 31, 2009 from a $3,596.3 million working
capital deficit as of December 31, 2008. The increase in
working capital was primarily due to a decrease in current
liabilities of $3,321.0 million attributable to short term
debt. Our net working capital deficit was $610.3 million in
2009, reflecting primarily:
|
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
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 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;
|
|
|
|
an increase in balances with related parties of
$77.4 million primary due to activity with companies of
Estar Group Companies; and
|
|
|
|
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 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.
|
We had a working capital deficit of $3,596.3 million as of
December 31, 2008. The decrease in working capital from
December 31, 2007 was primarily due to an increase in
current liabilities of $4,014.3 million attributable to
short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt of
$2,158.9 million with loan covenant violations, used to
finance our acquisitions. Our net working capital requirements
increased by $19.4 million, or 5.5%, to $369.4 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008 from a
$350.0 million net working capital requirements in the year
ended December 31, 2007, reflecting:
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in accounts receivable of $140.5 million
primarily due to an overall increase in sales revenues in 2008
and the expansion of our business across our segments. At the
same time, a significant increase in allowance for doubtful
accounts in 2008 was due to our increased exposure to losses on
our accounts receivable because of the global financial crisis.
A substantial portion of such increase was related to the fourth
quarter and attributable to several customers experiencing
liquidity problems. A
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
significant decrease in coking coal sales prices led to a
corresponding decrease in accounts receivable of our major
subsidiaries in the mining segment;
|
|
|
|
|
|
an increase in inventories of $658.9 million due to a
significant increase in the stock of finished goods held at
Mechel-Service, Mechel Carbon and Mechel Trading warehouses as
of December 31, 2008 due to a decrease in customer demand
and our decision to reduce sales volumes due to unusually low
prices;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in advances received of $6.2 million due to an
overall decrease in sales through our domestic subsidiaries
engaged in trading, which was partly offset by an increase in
advances received from our export traders pursuant to our policy
of promoting sales on a prepayment basis;
|
|
|
|
an increase in accounts payable of $594.6 million due to
our management of working capital requirements by offsetting
increased accounts receivable balances from customers. Following
this policy we extended our payment period in contracts with
suppliers of goods and services;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in accrued taxes and other liabilities of
$8.4 million due to a reduction in taxes payable to budget
and non-budget funds. Cost of goods sold increased across all
segments in the year ended December 31, 2008, resulting in
a decrease in the income tax base;
|
|
|
|
an increase in other current assets of $79.2 million due to
an increase in tax prepayments, primarily related to corporate
income taxes at Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company, Mechel Trading House, Mechel-Service and
Yakutugol, which were partially offset by a decrease in Southern
Urals Nickel Plants bank deposits as of December 31,
2007; and
|
|
|
|
an increase in settlements with related parties of
$9.3 million due to an increase in trading activity with
Toplofikatsia Rousse, which consumes steam coal from Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company.
|
|
|
|
a decrease in advance payments to non-state pension funds of
$4.3 million due to payments made by these funds on the
individual pension accounts of the participants of pension
programs.
|
Net cash used in investing activities was $709.9 million in
the year ended December 31, 2009 and $3,249.7 million
in the year ended December 31, 2008. Substantially all of
the cash used for investing activities in the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 related to the acquisition of
businesses, mineral licenses and property, plant and equipment.
Expenditures related to the acquisition of businesses, equity
method investments and non-controlling interests in our
subsidiaries amounted to $11.5 million and
$2,090.4 million in the years ended December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively. Capital expenditures relating to
purchases of property, plant and equipment and purchases of
mineral licenses amounted to $612.7 million and
$1,171.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively.
Net cash provided by financing activities was
$375.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2009 and
$1,247.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008.
We 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, and received short-term debt
proceeds of $5,593.5 million and repaid short-term debt of
$3,856.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2008.
In February 2009 we obtained a loan in the amount
$1,000 million from Gazprombank. The loan is secured by 35%
of the shares of Yakutugol and 35% of the shares of Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company. In July 2009, we signed an agreement with
the syndicate of banks to refinance the Oriel facility in the
amount of $1,000 million. The facilities were used to repay
the bridge facility obtained in April 2008 for the Oriel
acquisition in the amount $1,500 million. The remaining
amount of short-term debt proceeds for the period was from loan
receipts obtained by our subsidiaries from various banks to
finance operating activities. In 2009, we also paid dividends of
$208.1 million, including dividends of $134.5 million
on our preferred shares.
Net cash provided by financing activities was
$1,247.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2008.
We received short-term debt proceeds of $5,593.5 million
and repaid short-term debt of $3,856.1 million in the year
ended December 31, 2008. In April 2008, Mechel obtained a
loan in the amount of $1,500.0 million to finance the
acquisition of Oriel Resources. Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
and Mechel Trading House obtained credit lines from Gazprombank
in the amount of $1,939.5 million to finance operating
activities and
174
repaid existing facilities in the amount of
$1,930.7 million. During the year ended December 31,
2008, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company obtained a credit line from
VTB (Kemerovo) of $346.0 million. The remaining amount of
short-term debt proceeds for the period was from loan receipts
obtained by our subsidiaries from various banks to finance
operating activities. In 2008, we also paid dividends in the
amount of $467.9 million.
Liquidity
We had cash and cash equivalents of $414.7 million as of
December 31, 2009 and $254.8 million as of
December 31, 2008. Our cash and cash equivalents were held
in rubles (9.4% and 28.5% as of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively) and U.S. dollars
(41.7% and 28.1% as of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively), euros (4.5% and 18.7% as
of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively) and certain other currencies of the CIS and
Eastern Europe.
As of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, we had
unused credit lines of approximately $491.4 million and
$684.9 million, respectively, out of total available credit
lines of $6,488.9 million and $6,054.2 million,
respectively. These credit lines permit drawings at a weighted
average interest rate of approximately 14.7% and 7.4% as of
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
The following table summarizes our liquidity as of
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Estimated Liquidity
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
414.7
|
|
|
|
254.8
|
|
|
|
236.8
|
|
Amounts available under credit facilities
|
|
|
491.4
|
|
|
|
684.9
|
|
|
|
211.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated liquidity
|
|
|
906.1
|
|
|
|
939.7
|
|
|
|
448.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term debt (short-term borrowings and current portion of
long-term debt) decreased by $3,226.4 million, or 62.7%, to
$1,923.0 million as of December 31, 2009 from
$5,149.4 million as of December 31, 2008. This
decrease was attributable to the restructuring of the VTB Bank
facility in the amount of $510.5 million, as well as to the
repayment and extension of short-term ruble-denominated,
U.S. dollar-denominated and euro-denominated loans provided
by Royal Bank of Scotland, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, BNP Paribas,
Sberbank, Alfa Bank, Commerzbank and other banks to various
subsidiaries. In addition, as of December 31, 2008
long-term debt in the amount of $1,563.6 million was
classified as current portion due to our breach of covenants.
These loans were
re-classified
according to their respective agreed repayment dates as of
December 31, 2009.
Long-term debt net of current portion increased by
$3,854.7 million, or 1753.6%, to $4,074.5 million as
of December 31, 2009 from $219.8 million as of
December 31, 2008. This increase was attributable to new
financing received from a syndicate of banks under the new Oriel
Resources and Yakutugol facility agreements, Gazprombank and
various other banks as well as bond issuances. Long-term debt
increased by $977.5 million because part of our loans which
were re-classified to the short term portion in the year ended
December 31, 2008 due to the breach of covenants, were
shown in the long-term debt in accordance with their maturity
dates as of December 31, 2009. The percentage of our
outstanding debt with maturities within two to four years
increased to 59.3% as of December 31, 2009 from 3.7% as of
December 31, 2008.
Debt
Financings in 2009 and Outlook for 2010
Background
of the debt restructuring
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.
175
As of December 31, 2008, we had the following financial
covenant violations related to the most significant loan
agreements:
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol Facility Agreements. The
Shareholders Equity to Net Borrowings ratio was 1:1.29
whereas the maximum permitted under the facility agreements was
1:1.15. The facilities were obtained from a syndicate of
international banks in December 2007 in the total amount of
$2.0 billion to refinance the acquisition of Yakutugol.
|
|
|
|
Oriel Resources Facility Agreement. The
Shareholders Equity to Net Borrowings ratio was 1:1.29
whereas the maximum permitted under the facility agreement was
1:1.15. The facility was obtained from a syndicate of
international banks in March 2008 in the amount of
$1.5 billion to finance the acquisition of Oriel Resources.
|
At 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. We had cash and cash equivalents of
$254.8 million at December 31, 2008.
Additional
debt financings and debt restructuring in 2009
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.
All our operating segments continued to be negatively impacted
by the global economic slowdown through the first half of 2009,
especially in Russia, which experienced an overall 7.9% decline
in gross domestic product in 2009.
In late 2008 and early 2009, to address our liquidity shortage
we obtained the following major loans from Russian state-owned
banks:
|
|
|
|
|
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 drew on this facility to fund the
operations of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant.
|
|
|
|
Loan from Gazprombank. In February 2009, we
obtained two credit facilities in the total amount of
$1.0 billion from Gazprombank. The facility was initially
repayable in quarterly installments starting in the first
quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2012 but, in
February 2010, the maturity of the facilities were extended to
2013-2015.
We fully drew on this facility to partially repay the Yakutugol
and Oriel Facility Agreements.
|
See Description of Certain Indebtedness for a
summary description of the terms of these facilities.
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
176
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:
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol Facility Agreement. This facility
agreement was refinanced in an amount equal to $1.6 billion
at an interest rate of LIBOR+6%. The maturity of the loan was
restructured to provide for equal monthly installments from
September 2009 to December 2012.
|
|
|
|
Oriel Resources Facility Agreement. The
facility agreement was refinanced in an amount equal to
$1.0 billion at an interest rate of LIBOR+7%. The maturity
of the loan was restructured to provide for equal monthly
installments from July 2010 to December 2012.
|
See Description of Certain Indebtedness for a
summary description of the terms of these facilities. In
connection with the restructuring and refinancing of these
facilities, various other modifications were made to the
financial and non-financial covenants and the security package.
In September 2009, we obtained two credit facilities in the
total amount of 9.0 billion rubles ($297.6 million)
from Gazprombank. The facilities matures in March 2011. We fully
drew on these facility to refinance the short-term debt of
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and Mechel Trade House. See
Description of Certain Indebtedness for a summary
description of the terms of these facilities.
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). Two of these series in the total amount
of 10.0 billion rubles had terms of 7-9 years and were
placed specifically for the purpose of funding the construction
of the Elga mining complex. The bonds of the first series were
subscribed by Russian state-owned banks, whereas the second
series was placed in the open market. The third series had a
term of three years and its proceeds were used to repay more
expensive debt. See Russian bonds for a summary
description of the terms of these bonds.
Results
of operations and financial condition at end of
2009
The continuing weakness in the demand and prices for our
products through the first half of 2009 negatively impacted all
our segments. For the year ended December 31, 2009 we had
operating income of $245.6 million, as compared to
$2,556.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Net cash provided by operating activities was
$561.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009,
as compared to $2,229.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008. Capital expenditures for the year ended
December 31, 2009 were $612.7 million. Dividends paid
in the year ended December 31, 2009 were
$208.1 million.
At 31 December 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 at December 31, 2009, as compared to
$3,596.3 million as of December 31, 2008. Cash and
cash equivalents at December 31, 2009 were
$414.7 million, as compared to $254.8 million at
December 31, 2008.
Covenant
defaults
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 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 expended for new investments and
acquisitions. Covenant breaches generally permit lenders to
demand accelerated repayment of principal and interest.
As of December 31, 2009, we had breached a number 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 and the date of this document, we did not
have any violations of the covenants which might lead to the
demand for accelerated repayment of principal and interest under
our various facility agreements. Specifically, we received
consents and covenant amendments relating to breaches under the
most significant long-term and short-term
177
loan arrangements totaling $4,096.2 million as of
December 31, 2009. See note 15 to our consolidated
financial statements.
The most significant of these breaches were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Net Borrowings, as used in various debt agreements
totaling $3,006.6 million, were limited to
$5,500.0 million, while our actual Net Borrowings amounted
to $5,677.5 million as of December 31, 2009. The
covenant was amended to $5,750.0 million.
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company did not reach the
minimum level of export sales turnover to be routed through the
lenders bank account. This default related to the two
credit facilities from Gazprombank in the total outstanding
amount of $1,000.0 million as of December 31, 2009.
|
Outlook
for 2010
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 above.
In addition, we have experienced increasing price levels for our
products in the later part of 2009 and early 2010 compared to
the first half of 2009. Although there is no certainty that such
experience will continue in the future, our plans for 2010 are
based on a continuation of these improved price levels
accompanied by an increase in demand for our products. On this
basis we expect operating cash flows to provide an increased
source of funds in 2010 to be available for capital expenditures
and debt servicing.
To refinance debt falling due in 2010, we have initiated
discussions with various banks and other lenders to obtain new
long-term borrowing facilities as well as renewing or
refinancing existing arrangements. We had unutilized committed
credit facilities from financial institutions expiring after
2010 in the total amount of $328.5 million as of
December 31, 2009. In addition, as disclosed in
note 27 to our consolidated financial statements, during
the period from January 1, 2010 through the date of
authorization of issue of the consolidated financial statements,
we received additional financing in the total amount of
$437.4 million. As of date of this document, we have
registered, but not yet issued, ruble bonds in an aggregate
principal amount of 40 billion rubles
($1,372.8 million) with the Moscow Interbank Currency
Exchange (MICEX). Under this program, in April 2010, we are
placing a bond issue in the amount of 10 billion rubles
($343.2 million) of such registered bonds which should
provide us with additional financing flexibility during 2010. We
expect to continue to issue additional ruble bonds during 2010
and obtain bank borrowings to provide specific financing for
capital projects.
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 2010. 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. See note 2 to our consolidated
financial statements.
Description
of Certain Indebtedness
New
Oriel Resources Facility Agreements
General
On July 10, 2009, we agreed with ABN AMRO Bank N.V,
Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG, BNP Paribas SA, Calyon,
Commerzbank AG, Credit Europe Bank N.V. Malta Branch, Demir-Halk
Bank (Nederland) N.V., Eurasian Financial Securities p.l.c.,
Fortis Bank (Nederland) N.V., Garantibank International N.V.,
Hillside Apex Fund Limited, ICICI Bank UK PLC, ING Bank
N.V., JSC Orgresbank, NATIXIS London Branch and
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG as original lenders and
Commerzbank AG as facility agent, to refinance the
$1.5 billion Oriel Resources Facility Agreement dated
March 20, 2008 and to extend to our subsidiaries
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
and Southern Urals Nickel
178
Plant facilities in the aggregate amount of $1.0 billion.
The three loan facility agreements executed by our subsidiaries
are identical in all material aspects except for the respective
loan amounts thereunder. The loan facility was made available to
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant in the amount of
$300.0 million, to Southern Kuzbass Coal Company in the
amount of $600.0 million and to Southern Urals Nickel Plant
in the amount of $100.0 million.
The due date of each of the facilities is December 12, 2012.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest is payable at LIBOR or a fixed rate which may be agreed
with the lenders, plus a margin of 7% per year. Margin is
subject to adjustment with reference to certain of our
consolidated financial ratios. Accrued interest is payable on
the last day of each one month interest period. Additional
accumulated interest in the amount of 1% per annum is also
contributed to the lenders at the final maturity date. The
lenders are also compensated for certain compliance costs.
Repayment
and prepayments
The facilities are repayable in 30 equal monthly installments
starting on July 12, 2010.
The borrowers may prepay the loan facilities at any time without
any premium or penalty following five business days prior
written notice to the facility agent, provided certain
conditions are met.
An obligation to prepay a facility arises, inter alia,
when: (1) a member of our group receives proceeds from the
disposal of preferred shares held by such member to a person
other than a member of our group, (2) dividends on
preferred shares paid in any calendar year to the former owners
of our Bluestone business exceed Bluestone cashflow for the same
period, or (3) a member of our group receives proceeds from
an IPO.
Guarantee
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreements are guaranteed by Mechel, Mechel-Mining, Mechel
Finance, Yakutugol, Mechel Trading House, Mechel Trading,
Mechel-Coke, and Oriel Resources.
Security
The borrowers obligation under the loan facility
agreements are secured by a pledge of 13.6% of the common shares
of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, a pledge of 13.6% of the
common shares of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and a pledge of
50%-1 of the common shares of Oriel Resources. The borrowers
have also granted security over certain of their assets and
equipment to secure their obligations.
Covenants
and other matters
Under the facility agreements acquisitions by members of our
group are permitted if such acquisitions in aggregate do not
exceed $15.0 million for the period from utilization of the
facility until December 31, 2009 and $25.0 million for
2010. The facility agreements permit: (1) capital
expenditures incurred in respect of certain projects permitted
under the facility agreements if such expenditures are financed
from the proceeds of a facility aimed for financing capital
expenditures and permitted under the facility agreements, or if
they are incurred with the prior consent of the facility agent,
(2) any other capital expenditures incurred or agreed to be
incurred after July 12, 2010 if they are financed from the
proceeds of a facility aimed for financing capital expenditures
and permitted under the facility agreements and the then ratio
of our consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA is no more than
3.0:1.0, or if such expenditures are financed by excess cashflow
which is not required to be repaid under the facility agreement,
and (3) maintenance or mandatory capital expenditures if
their aggregate amount does not exceed $150.0 million in
2010, $160.0 million in 2011 and $140.0 million in
2012. Facilities (incurred in any form of financial instrument)
aimed for financing capital expenditures are permitted under the
facility agreements if such facilities are aimed at:
(1) financing projects permitted under the facility
agreements and (i) have a term not less than five years,
(ii) have certain security thereunder and (iii) their
material terms are notified to the facility agent, or
(2) financing other projects
179
incurred after July 12, 2010 and (i) provide for no
payments thereunder while any amounts are outstanding under
either the new Oriel Resources facility agreements or the new
Yakutugol facility agreements, or (ii) have a term less
than two years and the aggregate amount of all such facilities
is equal or less than $50.0 million. The facility
agreements permit dividends if: (1) declared before
June 1, 2010 or paid before July 12, 2010 and in
aggregate not exceeding $75.0 million (excluding dividends
on preferred shares, but including dividends on common shares
payable for 2008), and (2) declared after June 1,
2010, if the ratio of our consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA
is no more than 3.0:1.0 or if such dividends are funded from
excess cashflow not subject to prepayment under the facility
agreements, and (3) paid on preferred shares.
Any disposal of or security over preferred shares held by a
member of our group is subject to prior consent of the facility
agent. Proceeds from the disposal of preferred shares held by
Skyblock or other member of our group are to be transferred to
Mechel or another obligor under the facility agreements.
Under the facility agreements Mechel must ensure that: the ratio
of its consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed
5.0:1.0 in 2010 and 3.0:1.0 in 2011 and thereafter, and the
ratio of its EBITDA to consolidated interest expenses does not
fall below 2:1 in 2010 and below 4:1 in 2011 and thereafter and
that the aggregate net borrowings of our group does not exceed
$5.75 billion up to and including December 31, 2009.
The borrowers shall ensure that their aggregate financial
indebtedness does not exceed $4.1 billion at all times. The
facility agreements also contain negative pledge provisions
which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, us or any of our
subsidiaries from creating or allowing to exist any mortgage,
pledge, lien, charge, assignment, hypothecation or any other
arrangement having a similar effect in relation to our secured
assets.
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 to other debt.
The facility agreements are governed by English law.
New
Yakutugol Facility Agreements
General
On July 10, 2009, we agreed with ABN AMRO Bank N.V,
Bayerische Landesbank, BNP Paribas SA, Calyon, Commerzbank AG,
Fortis Bank (Nederland) N.V., ING Bank N.V., JSC
Orgresbank, NATIXIS, DZBank AG, Erste Groupe Bank
AG, HSBC Bank PLC, HSH Nordbank AG, Intesa Sanpaolo Bank
Ireland, JSC Bank Societe Generale Vostok,
Caterpillar Financial Services, Sumitomo Matsui, Societe
Generale SA, KBC Bank, Landesbank, NATIXI Bank (ZAO), RABOBANK,
and Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberosterreich as original lenders and
Commerzbank AG as facility agent, to amend and restate our
$2.0 billion Yakutugol Facility Agreement dated
December 10, 2007. The total new commitments of our
subsidiaries Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company and Southern Urals Nickel Plant amount to
approximately $1.6 billion. The three loan facility
agreements executed by our subsidiaries are identical in all
material aspects except for the respective loan amounts
thereunder. The loan facility was made available on
July 10, 2009 to Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant in the
amount of $1.1 billion, to Southern Kuzbass Coal Company in
the amount of $393.0 million and to Southern Urals Nickel
Plant in the amount of $126.0 million.
The due date of each of the facilities is December 12, 2012.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest is payable at LIBOR or a fixed rate which may be agreed
with the lenders, plus a margin of 6% per year. The margin is
subject to adjustment with reference to certain of our
consolidated financial ratios. Accrued interest is payable on
the last day of each one month interest period. Additional
accumulated interest in the amount 1% per annum is also
contributed to the lenders at the final maturity date. The
lenders are also compensated for certain compliance costs.
180
Repayment
and prepayments
The facility is repayable in 40 monthly installments
starting on September 14, 2009, all of them in equal
amounts, except the first one which equalled one fourteenth of
the principal amount.
The borrowers may prepay the loan facilities at any time without
any premium or penalty following five business days prior
written notice being given to the facility agent provided
certain conditions are met.
The obligation to prepay the facility arises, inter alia,
when: (1) a member of our group receives proceeds from the
disposal of preferred shares held by such member to a person
other than a member of our group, (2) dividends on
preferred shares paid in any calendar year to the former owners
of our Bluestone business exceed Bluestone cashflow for the same
period, or (3) a member of our group receives proceeds from
an IPO.
Guarantee
The borrowers obligations under the loan facility
agreements are guaranteed by Mechel, Mechel-Mining, Mechel
Finance, Yakutugol, Mechel Trading House, Mechel Trading,
Mechel-Coke, and Oriel Resources.
Security
The borrowers obligation under the loan facility
agreements are secured by a pledge of 21.4% of the common shares
of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, a pledge of 21.4% of the
common shares of Southern Kuzbass Coal Company, a pledge of
50%-1 of the common shares in Yakutugol and a secondary pledge
of 50%-1 of the common shares of Oriel Resources. The borrowers
have also granted security over certain of their assets and
equipment to secure their obligations.
Covenants
and other matters
The main covenants of this facility agreement are identical to
the covenants of the new Oriel Resources facility agreements
described above.
The facility agreements are governed by Russian law.
Amended
Credit Facility Agreements for Yakutugol, Southern Kuzbass Coal
Company and Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant from VTB
Bank
In November 2009, our subsidiaries Yakutugol, Southern Kuzbass
Coal Company and Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant each entered
into agreements amending the one-year credit facility agreements
executed with VTB Bank in November 2008 for the total amount of
15 billion rubles. Set out below are the amended terms and
covenants of the facility agreements.
Interest
rate and interest period
The interest rate was increased to 14% per annum for Chelyabinsk
Metallurgical Plant and to 14.6% for Yakutugol and Southern
Kuzbass Coal Company. VTB Bank is no longer required to give ten
days prior notice before it unilaterally increases the
interest rate in accordance with the terms of the agreements.
Any new interest rate becomes effective from the month following
the month when VTB Bank has informed the borrowers of the new
rate.
Pursuant to the amendments, if we fail to meet certain ratios
specified in the agreement, the interest rate will increase to
14.86% for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant and to 16.24% for
Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company until we achieve the
required ratios.
Repayment
and prepayment
The terms of the facilities were extended until
November 25, 2012 for Southern Kuzbass Coal Company and
until November 26, 2012 for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
and Yakutugol. Each of the facilities is to be repaid in six
equal monthly tranches starting on June 27, 2012.
181
The new 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 (with
the exception of the new Oriel Resources and Yakutugol
facilities).
The borrowers must obtain preliminary written approval from the
lender to: (1) acquire stocks in amounts exceeding 10% of
the borrowers balance sheet assets value, (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 moneys, except to affiliates, (4) dispose of
assets in amounts equal to or exceeding 5% of the
borrowers balance sheet assets value, (5) perform any
other transactions if they amount to or exceed 40% of the
borrowers balance sheet assets value (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, and (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
borrower 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 export/import
transactions of the borrowers.
Security
The obligations of Yakutugol and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
are secured by 25% +1 shares in Southern Urals Nickel
Plant and 20% shares in Moscow Coke and Gas Plant, as well as by
guarantees from Mechel Finance and Oriel Resources. The
aggregate value of the pledged assets and equipment of Yakutugol
and Southern Kuzbass Coal Company must be not less than
3 billion rubles.
The facility agreements are governed by English 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. 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.
182
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 9% 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.
The facility agreements require the borrowers to comply with
certain covenants. Starting from the second quarter of 2009 and
for the entire term of the facility agreements, the borrowers
must provide for 50% of their aggregate export currency
receivables to be transferred to their accounts with the lender.
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 facility agreements are governed by Russian law.
Credit
Facility Agreement for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant from
Gazprombank
General
On September 29, 2009 Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
entered into a credit facility agreement with Gazprombank for a
total amount of 6.0 billion rubles. In accordance with its
terms, the credit facility cannot be used to: (1) repay any
other borrowings from Gazprombank, (2) acquire or repay
promissory notes issued by a party other than Gazprombank,
(3) lend funds to third parties or pay for their debts, or
(4) acquire or dispose of stocks. Subject to prior written
consent from Gazprombank, the credit facility can be used to
finance the borrowers affiliates and to repay lenders
other than Gazprombank. The loan has been fully drawn.
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 15.5% to 10.6% per
annum. Gazprombank may unilaterally and at its sole discretion,
subject to the provision of five days prior notice,
increase the interest rate, if, inter alia, the
CBRs base rate increases.
Repayment
and prepayments
Each advance is extended for a period of up to 450 days.
The facility is to be repaid not later than March 23, 2011.
183
The borrower may prepay the loans issued within the credit
facilities in full or in part free from any premium or penalty,
subject to the provision of two days prior notice to the
lender.
Covenants
and other matters
The lender is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreement if, inter alia, in the
Tenders opinion, the financial situation of the borrower
deteriorates to a state jeopardizing its performance under the
facility agreement, including a situation where debtors of the
borrower default on their obligations in an aggregate amount
exceeding 9% of the borrowers balance sheet assets.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
Credit
Facility Agreement for Mechel Trading House from
Gazprombank
General
On September 30, 2009, our subsidiary Mechel Trading House
entered into a credit facility agreement with Gazprombank for a
total amount of 3.0 billion rubles. In accordance with its
terms, the credit facility cannot be used to: (1) repay any
other borrowings from Gazprombank, (2) acquire or repay
promissory notes issued by a party other than Gazprombank,
(3) lend funds to third parties or pay for their debts, or
(4) acquire or dispose of stocks. Subject to the receipt of
prior written consent from Gazprombank, the credit facility can
be used to finance the borrowers affiliates and repay
lenders other than Gazprombank. The loan has been fully drawn.
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 14.5% to 9.8% per
annum. Gazprombank may unilaterally at its sole discretion,
subject to the provision of five days prior notice to the
borrowers, increase the interest rate, if, inter alia,
the CBRs base rate increases.
Repayment
and prepayments
Each advance is extended for a period of up to 180 days.
The facility is to be repaid not later than March 24, 2011.
The borrower may prepay the loans issued within the credit
facility in full, or in part free from any premium or penalty,
subject to the provision of two days prior notice to the
lender.
Covenants
and other matters
The facility agreement requires the borrower to comply with
certain covenants. Starting from November 2009 and for the
entire term of the facility agreement the borrower must provide
for 80% of its aggregate sales proceeds to be transferred to its
accounts with the lender.
The borrowers obligations are secured by a guarantee from
Mechel.
The creditor is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreement if, inter alia, in the
creditors opinion, the financial situation of the borrower
deteriorates to a state jeopardizing its performance under the
facility agreement, including a situation where debtors of the
borrower default on their obligations in an aggregate amount
exceeding 10% of the borrowers balance sheet assets.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
184
Credit
Facility Agreements for Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant from
Sberbank
Facility Agreement for 3.3 billion rubles
General
On August 19, 2009, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant entered
into a credit facility agreement with Sberbank for the total
amount of 3.3 billion rubles as an extension of a previous
credit facility agreement executed on November 11, 2008,
which became due on August 21, 2009. In accordance with its
terms, the credit facility can be used for finance and operating
activities. The loan has been fully drawn.
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 15.25%-15.75% to
10.5%-11.5% per annum. Starting from April 19, 2010, the
rate will depend on the amount of receivables credited at
accounts of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant with Sberbank: the
rate will amount to 11.5% if such receivables are up to
1.95 billion rubles or 10.5% if the receivables exceed
1.95 billion rubles. Sberbank may unilaterally, upon not
less than 30 days prior notice, increase the interest
rate upon the occurrence of certain events, if, inter
alia, the CBRs refinance rate increases.
Repayment
and prepayments
The facility is to be repaid not later than August 18, 2010.
Covenants
and other matters
The facility agreement requires that the ratio of our
consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA does not exceed 5:1 as at
January 1, 2010.
The borrowers obligations are secured by a pledge of its
equipment and fixed assets and by a guarantee provided by Mechel.
The creditor is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreement
and/or
refuse further disbursements within the outstanding amount of
the facility if, inter alia, the financial situation of
the borrower deteriorates, including where a borrower faces
third-party monetary claims which could interfere with the
performance of its obligations under the facility agreement.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
Facility Agreement for 3.5 billion rubles
General
On February 17, 2010, Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
entered into a credit facility agreement with Sberbank for the
total amount of 3.5 billion rubles. In accordance with its
terms, the credit facility can be used for finance and operating
activities. The loan has been fully drawn.
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 11.75%-12.25% to
10.5%-11.5% per annum. Starting from April 19, 2010, the
rate will depend on the amount of receivables credited at
accounts of Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant with Sberbank: the
rate will amount to 11.5% if such receivables are up to
1.95 billion rubles or 10.5% if the receivables exceed
1.95 billion rubles. Sberbank may unilaterally, upon not
less than 30 days prior notice, increase the interest
rate upon the occurrence of certain events, if, inter
alia, the CBRs refinance rate increases.
Repayment
and prepayments
The facility is to be repaid not later than February 15,
2011.
185
Covenants
and other matters
The facility agreement requires the borrower to comply with
certain covenants. Starting from March 1, 2010 and for the
entire term of the facility agreement the monthly turnover of
funds through the borrowers accounts with Sberbank must be
not less than 3.3 billion rubles. The ratio of our
consolidated net borrowings to EBITDA must not exceed 5:1 in
2010 and 3:1 as at April 1, 2011 and until the end of the
term of the agreement, the ratio of our EBITDA to consolidated
interest expenses must not fall below 2:1 in 2010 and 4:1 from
the first quarter of 2011, and the aggregate net assets of our
group must not be less than $3 billion during the term of
the facility agreement.
The borrowers obligations are secured by a pledge of its
equipment and fixed assets and by a guarantee provided by Mechel.
The creditor is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreement
and/or
refuse further disbursements within the outstanding amount of
the facility if, among other events, the financial situation of
the borrower deteriorates, including where a borrower faces
third-party monetary claims which could interfere with the
performance of its obligations under the facility agreement.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
Credit
Facility Agreement for Mechel Trading from Alfa Bank
OAO
General
On March 11, 2010, our subsidiary Mechel Trading entered
into a framework credit facility agreement with Alfa Bank
pursuant to which Alfa Bank agreed to provide U.S. dollar
denominated loans to Mechel Trading until February 29, 2012
and on terms agreed between the parties in separate addenda to
this agreement.
On March 11, 2010, the parties executed an addendum for a
$100.0 million loan to be extended to Mechel Trading to
finance its operating activity. The loan has been fully drawn.
Interest
rate and interest period
Interest is paid on a monthly basis at a fixed rate of 8% per
annum. Alfa Bank is not entitled to change the interest rate
agreed under the addendum.
Repayment
and prepayments
The loan is to be repaid on September 11, 2010. The
borrower may prepay the loan not earlier than five days before
the repayment date.
Covenants
and other matters
The borrowers obligations are secured by a guarantee
provided by Mechel.
The creditor is entitled to unilaterally demand prepayment under
the facility agreement
and/or
refuse further disbursements within the outstanding amount of
the facility if, among other events, the creditor reasonably
believes that the borrower faces a circumstance preventing it
from servicing the loan.
The facility agreement is governed by Russian law.
Russian
bonds
On June 21, 2006, we placed 5,000,000 series 02
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds with a nominal value of
1,000.0 rubles each. The bonds are registered with 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 bondholders have an option to demand
repayment of the bonds at par value starting June 21, 2010.
The bonds bear a coupon to be paid quarterly. The interest rate
for the first eight coupons was set at 8.4% per
186
annum. We set the interest rate for the following six 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. 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. We are also entitled to redeem
the bonds in three years.
On July 30, 2009, we placed 5,000,000 series 04
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds registered by FFMS
admitted to trading and listed at MICEX. The bonds have a
nominal value of 1,000.0 rubles each and are secured by a
guarantee from Yakutugol. The bonds are due on July 21,
2016. The bondholders have an option to demand repayment of the
bonds at par value commencing on July 30, 2012. 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. 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 in three years. The proceeds of the bond were used to fund
the construction of the Elga mining complex.
On October 20, 2009, we placed 5,000,000 series 05
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds with a nominal value of
1,000.0 rubles each. The bonds are registered with 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 bondholders have an option to demand
repayment of the bonds at par value commencing on
October 18, 2012. 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 buy
back the bonds before each such coupon period starts. 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 in three years. The proceeds of the bond were used to
fund the construction of the Elga mining complex.
On November 13, 2009, we placed 5,000,000 non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds, with a nominal value 1,000.0
rubles each, admitted to trading at MICEX. The exchange 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 buy back the bonds. The bondholders
have an option to demand repayment of the bonds at par value
commencing on November 11, 2011. Bondholders are also
entitled to demand early prepayment 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 can also redeem the bonds at our discretion. We are
using 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 5,000,000 non-convertible
interest-bearing exchange bonds, with a nominal value 1,000.0
rubles each, admitted to trading at MICEX. The exchange 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 prepayment 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 can also redeem the
bonds at our discretion. We intend to use the proceeds of the
bond to optimize our credit portfolio by repaying more expensive
short-term secured bank loans.
187
Contractual
Obligations and Commercial Commitments
The following table sets forth the amount of our contractual
obligations and commercial commitments as of December 31,
2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by Period
|
Contractual Obligations and
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
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)
|
|
|
1,923,049
|
|
|
|
1,923,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt Obligations, Net of Current
Portion(1)
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,595,143
|
|
|
|
960,736
|
|
|
|
518,579
|
|
Operating Lease Obligations
|
|
|
201,349
|
|
|
|
9,554
|
|
|
|
14,726
|
|
|
|
13,762
|
|
|
|
163,307
|
|
Purchase
Obligations(2)
|
|
|
84,833
|
|
|
|
84,833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructured Taxes Payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Retirement
Obligations(3)
|
|
|
59,695
|
|
|
|
5,772
|
|
|
|
9,120
|
|
|
|
9,897
|
|
|
|
34,906
|
|
Pension and Post Retirement
Benefits(4)(5)
|
|
|
183,989
|
|
|
|
31,717
|
|
|
|
27,519
|
|
|
|
31,732
|
|
|
|
93,021
|
|
Short-term Finance Lease Obligations
|
|
|
35,965
|
|
|
|
35,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term Finance Lease Obligations
|
|
|
58,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,081
|
|
|
|
10,221
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
Contingent payment for Bluestone acquisition
|
|
|
20,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual commitments to acquire plant, property and
equipment, raw materials and for delivery of goods and
services(6)
|
|
|
4,417,494
|
|
|
|
3,508,876
|
|
|
|
877,775
|
|
|
|
16,923
|
|
|
|
13,920
|
|
Estimated interest
expense(7)
|
|
|
2,072,920
|
|
|
|
506,627
|
|
|
|
1,008,626
|
|
|
|
557,667
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated average interest
rate(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
|
|
|
13,132,815
|
|
|
|
6,106,393
|
|
|
|
4,580,990
|
|
|
|
1,621,307
|
|
|
|
824,125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not include interest. Interest payable as of
December 31, 2009 amounted to $21.0 million and
$25.6 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
$35.1 million in current period figures, and in amount of
$11.5 million in non-current period figures. In the year
ended December 31, 2009, our interest expense was
$499.0 million and we paid out $383.4 million for
interest, net of amounts capitalized. |
|
(2) |
|
Accounts payable for capital expenditures. |
|
(3) |
|
See note 17 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(4) |
|
See note 18 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes $152.3 million pension and post-retirement
benefits due in more than one year. |
|
(6) |
|
See note 26 to our consolidated financial statements. |
|
(7) |
|
Interest expense is estimated for a five-year period based on
(1) estimated cashflows 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, 2009 amounted to $5,009.4 million, of
which $5,005.7 million related to guarantees given by us
for our subsidiaries.
188
Commitments for capital expenditures were $2,591 million as
of December 31, 2009. 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 are estimated to be $1,215 million, including VAT,
and are 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
2010. This estimate of $1,215 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 2009, 13.3% in
2008 and 11.9% in 2007. Inflation has generally not had a
material impact on our results of operations during the period
under review in this section, primarily because in 2009 the
effect of inflation was offset by the depreciation of the ruble
and in 2008-2007 we were able to increase selling prices in line
with increases in ruble-denominated costs due to robust demand
for our products. 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.
189
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.
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, 2009 and 2008, we reported goodwill of
$894.4 million and $910.4 million, respectively. Based
on the results of the impairment analysis of goodwill performed
by us as of December 31, 2009, 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 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 its share of losses even if that attribution
results in a deficit non-controlling interest balance.
Prior to our adoption of ASC 810 on January 1, 2009,
we 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, 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.
Reporting
and functional currencies
We have determined our reporting currency to be the
U.S. dollar. The functional currencies for our Russian,
Romanian, Kazakh and German subsidiaries are the Russian ruble,
the Romanian lei, the Kazakh tenge and Euro, 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 Russian, Romanian, Kazakh and German
subsidiaries translate Russian rubles, leis, tenge and Euros
into U.S. dollars using the current rate method as
prescribed by FASB ASC 830, Foreign Currency
Matters, (ASC 830) for all periods
presented.
190
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.
We did not engage independent mining engineers to prepare or
review the estimates of our proven and probable reserves as of
December 31, 2009. Our proven and probable reserve
estimates as of that date were made by our internal mining
engineers, who considered and relied in part on assumptions
previously reviewed and verified by independent mining
engineers. In 2008, we established a policy, according to which
we intend to engage independent mining engineers to review our
proven and probable reserves at least once every three years
unless circumstance or additional factors warrant an additional
analysis. This policy does not change our approach to the
measurement of proven and probable reserves as of their
acquisition dates as part of business combinations that continue
to involve 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,
2009 and 2008, the carrying amount of our mineral licenses
amounted to $5,133.1 million and $3,430.6 million,
respectively.
191
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.
Contributions to the Russian Pension Fund, together with other
social contributions, are included within a unified social tax
(UST), which is calculated by the application
of a regressive rate from 26% (applied to the portion of the
annual gross salary below 280,000 rubles) to 2% (applied to the
portion of annual gross salary exceeding 600,000 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% to 5.5%, respectively, depending on the annual gross
salary of each employee. Contributions to the Russian Pension
Fund for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
were $75.2 million, $102.8 million and
$71.3 million, respectively.
In 2010, some changes were introduced to the Russian tax
legislation. The UST will be replaced by direct insurance
contributions to the following national extra-budgetary funds:
contributions to the Russian Pension Fund will amount to 20% of
the annual gross salary of each employee, contributions to the
Fund of obligatory medical insurance will amount to 3.1%, and
contributions to the Social Insurance Fund will amount to 2.9%.
It is also expected that in 2011 the contribution to the Russian
Pension Fund will be further increased to 26%.
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 the year end on highly rated
long-term bonds.
Our 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 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 18 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, 2009 are disclosed in the
note 18 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
192
revenue recognition criteria have not been met as the selling
price is subject to adjustment based upon the market price when
the customer receives the product. 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 statement of income and
comprehensive income 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), we generally retain title to the goods sold to the
end-customers solely in order to ensure that the accounts
receivable are protected. In such instances, all other sales
recognition criteria are met, which allows us to recognize sales
revenue in conformity with the underlying sales contracts.
In the power segment, 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 carried out on a monthly basis, several days after each
month end.
Sales are recognized net of applicable provisions for discounts
and allowances and associated sales taxes (VAT) and export
duties.
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
193
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 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 3(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,
194
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 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
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, 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, 2009. Cash flow
forecasts used in the test were based on the assumptions as of
December 31, 2009. The forecasted period for our non-mining
subsidiaries was assumed to be eight 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.
195
Forecasted inflation rates for the period
2010-2017,
which were used in cash flow projections, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
United States
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Romania
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Bulgaria
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
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,
Kazakhstan assuming that this approach reflected market rates
for investments of a similar risk as of December 31, 2009
in these regions. These rates, estimated for each year for the
forecasted period, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
14.92
|
%
|
|
|
14.58
|
%
|
|
|
13.76
|
%
|
|
|
12.98
|
%
|
|
|
12.24
|
%
|
|
|
11.53
|
%
|
|
|
10.86
|
%
|
|
|
10.25
|
%
|
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, 2009, no impairment loss was recognized.
Based on the sensitivity analysis carried out as of
December 31, 2009, 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 2% point decrease in future planned revenues;
|
|
|
|
a 1% 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 3(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
196
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the write-down of
inventories to their net realizable value was $70.7 million
and $275.7 million, respectively. The most significant
decrease in the write-down of inventories is attributable to the
steel and ferroalloy segments in the amounts of
$117.8 million and $74.4 million, respectively, caused
by improved inventory management and lower volumes.
Income
taxes
A provision is made in the financial statements for taxation of
profits in accordance with applicable legislation currently in
force. 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.
On January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income
Taxes-an
interpretation of SFAS No. 109
(FIN No. 48), later formally
codified in ASC 740, Income Taxes. 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
197
periods, disclosure and transition. We accounted for
$75.2 million, including interest and penalties for
$19.3 million, as a cumulative adjustment of the adoption
of ASC 740, to the January 1, 2007 retained earnings.
Unrecognized income tax benefits of $17.2 million,
including interest and penalties of $7.9 million, as of
December 31, 2009 and $27.2 million, including
interest and penalties of $8.7 million, as of
December 31, 2008 were recognized by us in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets.
Taxes represent our provision for profit tax. During
2007-2008,
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% and 35% in Kazakhstan in 2008 and 2007, respectively, 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, 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 to 2012, 17.5%
in 2013 and 15% in 2014 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
198
costs totaled $689.8 million, $842.5 million and
$330.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, 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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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, 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, 2009 and 2008, 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,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cumulative currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(215.8
|
)
|
|
|
100.2
|
|
Unrealized losses on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
Pension adjustments
|
|
|
49.2
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
(172.4
|
)
|
|
|
158.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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 (coking
and steam) 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;
|
|
|
|
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, hardware and coke products;
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Power segment, comprising generation and sales of electricity
and heat power, which supplies electricity, gas and heat power
to the mining, steel and ferroalloy 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, 2009 and 2008. For long-term
borrowings, the difference between fair value and carrying value
is shown in note 16 to our consolidated financial
199
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.
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 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.
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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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, 2009. There were no foreign
currency forward and options contracts outstanding as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
200
Investments
We recognize all its 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.
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 its
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
In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued the Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
2009-01
(ASU
2009-01).
ASU 2009-01
was 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. We
adopted ASU
2009-01
effective from July 1, 2009 and changed references to
U.S. GAAP in our consolidated financial statements issued
for the year 2009. The adoption of ASU
2009-01 did
not have an impact on our consolidated financial position or
results of operations.
Non-controlling
Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements
On December 4, 2007, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
that establishes accounting and reporting standards for
non-controlling interests in partially-owned consolidated
subsidiaries and the loss of control of subsidiaries. The most
significant changes adopted by this of this guidance are the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
A non-controlling interest in a consolidated subsidiary should
be displayed in the consolidated statement of financial position
as a separate component of equity;
|
201
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings and losses attributable to non-controlling interests
are no longer reported as part of consolidated earnings. Rather,
they are disclosed on the face of the consolidated income
statement;
|
|
|
|
After control is obtained, a change in ownership interests that
does not result in a loss of control should be accounted for as
an equity transaction;
|
|
|
|
A change in ownership of a consolidated subsidiary that results
in a loss of control and deconsolidation is a significant event
that triggers gain or loss recognition, with the establishment
of a new fair value basis in any remaining ownership interests.
|
This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2008. Adoption is prospective and early
adoption is not permitted. We adopted this guidance on
January 1, 2009 and have made necessary changes to the
presentation of
non-controlling
interests in our consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2009 and for the year then ended. Comparative
disclosures and accounts for the prior periods presented herein
were also reclassified accordingly. As a result of the
implementation of this guidance, $290.8 million and
$300.5 million relating to non-controlling interests as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, have been
reclassified from Non-controlling interests as a separate
component of liabilities to Non-controlling interests within
Equity. Acquisition of non-controlling interests in subsidiaries
in the amount of $51.3 million and $2.4 million have
been reclassified from Investing activities to Financing
activities in our consolidated statement of cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 810.
Business
Combinations
On December 4, 2007, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
regarding business combinations which were subsequently amended
in April 2009. The most significant changes require the acquirer
to:
|
|
|
|
|
recognize, with certain exceptions, 100% of the fair values of
assets acquired, liabilities assumed and
non-controlling
interests in acquisitions of less than 100% controlling
interests when the acquisition constitutes a change in control
of the acquired entity;
|
|
|
|
measure acquirer shares issued in consideration for a business
combination at fair value on the acquisition date;
|
|
|
|
recognize contingent consideration arrangements at fair value at
their acquisition-date fair values, with subsequent changes in
fair value generally reflected in earnings;
|
|
|
|
with certain exceptions, recognize pre-acquisition loss and gain
contingencies at their acquisition-date fair values;
|
|
|
|
capitalize in-process research and development assets acquired;
|
|
|
|
expense, as incurred, acquisition-related transaction costs;
|
|
|
|
capitalize acquisition-related restructuring costs only if the
criteria in ASC 420 Exit or Disposal Cost
Obligations, are met as of the acquisition date;
|
|
|
|
recognize changes in income tax valuation allowances and tax
uncertainty accruals established in purchase accounting as
adjustments to income tax expense (including those related to
acquisitions before the adoption of this guidance);
|
|
|
|
push back any adjustments made to the preliminary purchase price
allocation during the measurement period to the date of the
acquisition;
|
|
|
|
determine what information to disclose to enable users of the
financial statements to evaluate the nature and financial
effects of the business combination.
|
The guidance regarding business combinations is required to be
adopted concurrently with the guidance related to
non-controlling interests in consolidated financial statements
and is effective for business combination transactions for which
the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period
202
beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Early adoption is
prohibited. We adopted the guidance regarding business
combinations on January 1, 2009 and applied it to the
acquisitions consummated during the year ended December 31,
2009.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 805.
Fair
Value Measurement
Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted authoritative
guidance regarding fair value measurements, which defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and
expands disclosures about fair value measurements. We elected
one-year deferral of the effective date of the aforementioned
guidance permitted for all non-financial assets and
non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognized
or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis (at least
annually). Following the one-year deferral, we adopted this
guidance for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities
measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis, such as assets
and liabilities measured at fair value in a business
combination; impaired property, plant and equipment; intangible
assets and goodwill; and initial recognition of asset retirement
obligations. In the year ended December 31, 2009, we did
not have any impairment of goodwill or intangible assets. We
applied the fair value measurement concept of the aforementioned
guidance to the estimate of the Bluestone purchase price
allocation to the acquired non-financial assets and liabilities
and estimation of contingent consideration.
In October 2008, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
regarding determining the fair value of a financial asset when
the market for that asset is not active, to clarify the
application of previously issued guidance in inactive markets
for financial assets. This guidance became effective upon
issuance. The adoption did not have a material effect on our
financial position and results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 820.
Recognition
and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments
In April 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
recognition and presentation of
other-than-temporary
impairments. This guidance amends the
other-than-temporary
impairment guidance for debt securities and presentation and
disclosure of
other-than-temporary
impairments on debt and equity securities in the financial
statements. Among other things this guidance replaced the
previous requirement that a holder have the positive intent and
ability to hold an impaired security to recovery in order to
conclude an impairment was temporary, with a requirement that an
entity conclude it does not intend to sell an impaired security
and it is not more likely than not it will be required to sell
the security before the recovery of its amortized cost basis.
This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption
permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The
adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 320.
Determining
Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset
or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying
Transactions That Are Not Orderly
In April 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
determining fair value when the volume and level of activity for
the asset or liability have significantly decreased and
identifying transactions that are not orderly. This is
additional guidance for estimating fair value in accordance with
the FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (ACS 820), when the
volume and level of activity for the asset or liability have
significantly decreased. This guidance also includes guidance on
identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not
orderly. It reaffirms the objective of fair value measurement to
reflect how much an asset would be sold for in an orderly
transaction (as opposed to a distressed or forced transaction)
at the date of the financial statements under current market
conditions. Specifically, it reaffirms the need to use judgment
to ascertain if a formerly active market has become inactive and
in determining fair values when markets have become inactive.
This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending after
203
June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods
ending after March 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance
did not have a material impact on our financial position and
results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 820.
Subsequent
Events
In May 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
subsequent events, which establishes general standards of
accounting for, and disclosure of events that occur after the
balance sheet date but before the financial statements are
issued or are available to be issued. This guidance is effective
for financial statements issued for the fiscal years and interim
periods ending after June 15, 2009. We adopted the
aforementioned guidance starting from the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 and
evaluated subsequent events through the date the consolidated
financial statements were issued.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 855,
Subsequent Events (ASC 855).
Variable
Interest Entities
In June 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance, which
amends the consolidation guidance that applies to variable
interest entities (VIEs). An enterprise will
need to reconsider its previous conclusions, including:
(1) whether an entity is a VIE, (2) whether the
enterprise is the VIEs primary beneficiary, and
(3) what type of financial statement disclosures are
required. The aforementioned guidance is effective as of
January 1, 2010. Early adoption is prohibited. We are
currently assessing whether the adoption of this guidance will
have a material effect on our financial position and results of
operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 810.
Measuring
Liabilities at Fair Value
In August 2009, the FASB issued ASU
2009-05,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
(ASU 2009-05).
ASU 2009-05
provided amendments to ASC Topic
820-10
Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures-Overall,
for the fair value measurement of liabilities. The purpose of
ASU 2009-05
is to clarify that in circumstances in which a quoted price in
an active market for the identical liability is not available, a
reporting entity is required to measure fair value using a
valuation technique that uses either the quoted price of the
identical liability when traded as an asset, quoted prices for
similar liabilities or similar liabilities when traded as
assets, or another valuation technique that is consistent with
the principles of ASC 820. This guidance is effective for
the first reporting period beginning after its issuance. We are
currently assessing whether the adoption of ASU
2009-05 will
have a material effect on our consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.
Improvements
to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable
Interest Entities
The FASB issued ASU
2009-17,
Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises
Involved with Variable Interest Entities (ASU
2009-17),
which formally codifies FASB SFAS No. 167,
Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)
that was issued in June 2009, into the FASBs ASC. The
objective of ASU
2009-17 is
to improve financial reporting by companies involved with
variable interest entities. ASU
2009-17 will
require companies to perform an analysis to determine whether
the companys variable interest or interests give it a
controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity.
ASU 2009-17
is effective for financial statements issued for years beginning
after November 15, 2009, and for interim periods within
those years. We are currently assessing whether the adoption of
ASU 2009-17
will have a material effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-06
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
(ASU
2010-06),
included in ASC 820. ASU
2010-6
changes the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements.
Companies are now required to disclose significant transfers in
and out of Levels 1 and 2
204
of the fair value hierarchy, whereas existing rules only require
the disclosure of transfers in and out of Level 3.
Additionally, in the rollforward of Level 3 activity,
companies should present information on purchases, sales,
issuances, and settlements on a gross basis rather than on a net
basis as is currently allowed. The update also clarifies that
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. Companies
should also provide information about the valuation techniques
and inputs used to measure fair value for both recurring and
non-recurring instruments classified as either Level 2 or
Level 3. ASU
2010-06 has
been effective since the first quarter of 2010 with prospective
application, except for the new requirement related to the
Level 3 rollforward. Gross presentation in the Level 3
rollforward is effective from the first quarter of 2011 with
prospective application. We are currently assessing whether the
adoption of ASU
2010-06 will
have a material effect on our consolidated 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 huge oversupply, and reduced the depth
and the length of the fall in market prices and buying 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 into the beginning of 2010, since many
miners and steelmakers worldwide have restarted their idled
capacities. We expect 2010 to experience 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. Nevertheless, we expect the recovery
to be gradual, rather than sharp, and it will take a few years
for levels of demand to return to pre-crisis levels in most
regions of the world.
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. Demand is
expected to return to pre-crisis levels in the medium term
particularly due to unprecedented import growth from China.
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.
Demand for internationally traded iron ore has risen in 2009
against 2008 due to the surge in imports from China by 5.6%,
according to AME.
Steel. Russia is our single largest market for
steel products. After years of strong steel demand growth,
rolled steel consumption in Russia reached 40.2 million
tonnes in 2007, according to Metal Expert. The consumption
growth continued in the first 9 month of 2008. In terms of
end-uses, growth was driven by the construction, pipe
manufacturing and machine-building industries. In the fourth
quarter of 2008 worldwide and Russian steel consumption declined
significantly. As a result, in 2008 Russian rolled steel
consumption fell by 7% to 37.3 million tonnes, according to
Metal Expert. In 2009, rolled steel consumption in Russia
reached 26.5 million tonnes, 29% less then in 2008,
according to Metal Expert.
We expect that construction and pipe manufacturing industries
will be the first to recover. We believe that our product mix
will be able to meet the demand from these industries.
The volume of steel products exports from Russia experienced a
9% rise in 2009 and amounted to 30 million tonnes,
according to Metal Expert. We believe that our Russian steel
products will retain competitiveness in the markets outside
Russia in 2010, due to a better position on the cost curve.
205
Imports of steel decreased 33% year on year in 2009 to
3.3 million tonnes, due to reduced consumption, according
to Metal Expert. Imported steel comprised only 13% of the
Russian steel market, according to Metal Expert. We expect
imports will further decrease in 2010, due to the global
economic slowdown, and the increased self-sufficiency of the
Russian steel market.
Ferroalloys. Demand for nickel and ferrochrome
fell substantially in most regions except Asia during 2009
following the decrease in world stainless steel production which
contracted by 4.4% in 2009, according to CRU. Nickel volumes
supplied to the market in excess were stocked and the volume of
nickel stocks at the London Metal Exchange (LME) doubled during
2009. In contrast, ferrochrome supplies to the market in 2009
were limited, and market stocks which seemed excessive in 2008,
decreased substantially. Asia, especially China, was the only
region where nickel and ferrochrome demand was strong during
2009. We expect that stainless steel production in other
regions, along with Asia, will gradually improve in 2010, which
will lead to an increase in demand for nickel and ferrochrome.
Ferrosilicon demand fell significantly in 2009, in line with the
general decrease in steel production. Global steel production
contracted by 8% in 2009, according to the World Steel
Association. Production fell in most regions, except for Asia
and the Middle East, according to the World Steel Association.
We expect that the ferrosilicon market will see increased demand
in 2010, since we expect a strong growth in steel production in
the most regions of the world.
Power. The global economic slowdown has
negatively affected industrial production in Russia, leading to
a reduction in demand for electricity and heat energy. In 2009,
the reduction in electricity output of our Russian generating
enterprises was 15%. Heat energy generated for sale fell by 9%.
In January 2009, the pace of economic decline accelerated, with
production of electricity by our generating enterprises falling
by 29%, and heat energy by 8%, compared to January 2008. The
reduction in power production was due to a drop in demand from
the retail sector of the economy. The drop in industrial
production in Russia in January 2009 was 16%, a
15-year
record, according to Newchemistry, a chemical industry research
database.
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 2010, 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 2010 due to an increase in demand for
steel. During 2009, Mechel-Service, our steel service and sales
subsidiary, 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 locations in 42 cities in Russia. In 2009,
Mechel-Service launched the production of welded mesh in the
Moscow region and put into operation the equipment for
straightening and cutting reinforcing bar. Cold rolled
reinforcing wire and pipe rolled products expanded our product
range and our sales of profiled rolled products and wire
products increased significantly. Mechel-Service has started to
form 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
206
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 to increase in 2010. Domestic sales are
expected to increase due to growth of consumption. In addition,
we expect an increase in exports of our ferroalloy products,
specifically ferrosilicon and ferrochrome, widening our
geographic market coverage and increasing sales volumes to
traditional export markets.
Power. In 2010, we expect a reduction in the
sales of our power segment due to reduced end-user demand from
industrial enterprises. At the same time, consumption by small
and mid-sized businesses and the public, who are also customers
of power and heat-supply companies, has not changed
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 decreased by $329.3 million, or 24%,
to $1,035.8 million as of December 31, 2009 from
$1,365.1 million as of December 31, 2008. The decrease
was mainly due to falling production volumes in 2009 as a result
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.
Costs
Mining. Within our mining segment, we expect
our iron ore cash costs per tonne to increase as a result of
increasing prices of power, explosives, automotive tyres and
tubes for open-pit equipment and land use fees, while coal cash
costs per tonne should remain relatively stable in 2010 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 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. We also
expect these technological improvements to increase our energy
efficiency on a per-tonne basis, partially reducing the impact
of potential increases in regulated electricity and natural gas
prices.
Ferroalloys. We expect electricity and natural
gas expenses to increase in 2010, which will lead to an increase
in the power cost component of our ferroalloy production cost
structure. At the same time, after switching to production of
ferrochrome sourced completely from the high grade-concentrates
of Voskhod, our chrome-mining subsidiary, the per-tonne cash
cost will be reduced. In addition to the synergies we expect
from internal sourcing, we expect to benefit from efficiencies
due to the reduction of processing costs and decreases in the
cost of chrome contained in the ore due to lower prices, which
is expected to lead to decreases in
per-unit
production costs. We believe that by implementing a number of
measures to improve technical and economic performance and
reduce expenses, the net effect will be a stabilization of our
ferroalloy production costs.
Power. We expect that in 2010, 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.
207
The increase in sales volumes and stabilization of the prices
caused by certain improvement in the market and consumption
growth, despite the potential increase in weighted average cash
expenses per product unit across our segments, may positively
affect our financial results in 2010 in comparison with those in
2009.
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.
|
|
Item 6.
|
Directors,
Senior Management and Employees
|
Directors
and Executive Officers
Board
of Directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year of Birth
|
|
Position
|
|
Alexander E.
Yevtushenko(1)(3)(4)
|
|
|
1947
|
|
|
Chairman and Director
|
Igor V. Zyuzin
|
|
|
1960
|
|
|
Director and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Management
Board
|
Vladimir A.
Polin(4)
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Director and Senior Vice President, First Deputy Chairman of
Management Board
|
Valentin V.
Proskurnya(1)(2)(3)
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
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. |
Alexander E. Yevtushenko has served as the Chairman of
our Board of Directors since July 2009. He has been a member of
our Board of Directors since June 2004. 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
208
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.
Igor V. Zyuzin has been our Chief Executive Officer since
December 2006 and Chairman of our Management Board since
September 2007. 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
23 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 1.56% of the common shares of Mechel Mining.
Vladimir A. Polin has served as our Senior Vice President
and First Deputy Chairman of our Management Board since December
2008 and as a member of our Board of Directors since June 2007.
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 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
26 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 37 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.
209
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.
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, a company 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, 2009,
and their terms expire on the date of our next annual
shareholders meeting, which will take place not later than
June 30, 2010. The business and mailing address for all our
directors and executive officers is Krasnoarmeyskaya Street 1,
Moscow 125993, Russian Federation.
210
Executive
Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Year of Birth
|
|
Position
|
|
Igor V. Zyuzin
|
|
|
1960
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Management Board
|
Alexey G. Ivanushkin
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Oriel Resources Ltd., Director of
Oriel Resources Ltd.,
|
Vladimir A. Polin
|
|
|
1962
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, First Deputy Chairman of Management Board
|
Victor A. Trigubko
|
|
|
1956
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Government Relations
|
Mukhamed M. Tsikanov
|
|
|
1955
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Economics and Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Yevgeny V. Mikhel
|
|
|
1974
|
|
|
First Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chairman of
Management Board
|
Stanislav A. Ploschenko
|
|
|
1976
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Finance, Member of Management Board
|
Petr S. Syrkin
|
|
|
1943
|
|
|
Vice President for Capital Construction
|
Andrey D. Deineko
|
|
|
1953
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel-Steel Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Boris G. Nikishichev
|
|
|
1946
|
|
|
Vice President for Mining, 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
|
Viktor S. Gvozdev
|
|
|
1963
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel-Energo, Member of Management
Board
|
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
|
Aleksandr S. Starodubov
|
|
|
1946
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mecheltrans Management, Member of
Management Board
|
Alexander V. Shmokhin
|
|
|
1942
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel Mining
|
For the professional biographies of Messrs. Zyuzin and
Polin, see Board of Directors.
Alexey G. Ivanushkin has been Chief Executive Officer of
Oriel Resources Ltd. since April 2009, a Director 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.
211
Victor A. Trigubko has been our Senior Vice
PresidentGovernment 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
PresidentEconomics and Management since January 2008.
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.
Yevgeny V. Mikhel has been our First Deputy Chief
Executive Officer since April 2009. From September 2007 to April
2009, he was our Vice PresidentLegal 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.
Stanislav A. Ploschenko has been our Senior Vice
PresidentFinance since April 2009. From January 2008 to
April 2009, he was our Chief Financial Officer. Previously he
held the position of Acting Chief Financial Officer from June
2007 to January 2008. He was our Deputy Chief Financial Officer
and Deputy Treasurer for Corporate Lending from June 2006 to
June 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. Ploschenko worked as an auditor
for Banks Audit Service OOO. Mr. Ploschenko 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.
Petr S. Syrkin has been our Vice President for Capital
Construction since April 2009. From October 2007 to April 2009
he was Deputy Chief Executive Officer for Capital Construction
and Director of the Capital Construction Department of
Mechel-Steel Management. From March 2009 to March 2010 he was
Chief Executive Officer of Mechel-Customer United Directorate
OOO. From December 2007 to June 2009 he was Chief Executive
Officer of Metallurgshakhtspetsstroy. From December 2004 to
October 2007 he was President and Chairman of the board of
directors of Soyuzspetsstroy United Mine Construction Company
ZAO. From 1989 to 2004, Mr. Syrkin occupied various
positions: he was Chief Executive Officer of
Rostovshakhtstroy OAO, Chairman of the Mine Construction
Department at Novocherkassk Polytechnical University and Chief
212
Executive Officer of Donugol ZAO. Mr. Syrkin graduated from
Kuzbass Polytechnical Institute as a mining engineer with a
qualification in the construction of underground facilities and
mines.
Andrey D. Deineko has been Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel-Steel Management since December 2008. 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 a member of our Management
Board since September 2009 and our Vice President for mining
since July 2009. He has served as Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel Mining Management since August 11, 2009. 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 and as a member of the
Board of Directors of Mechel Mining, a position he has held
since April 2008. 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 PresidentMining 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. 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 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. 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
213
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.
Viktor S. Gvozdev has been Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel-Energo since February 2009 and a member of our Management
Board since March 2009. From 2005 to 2007 he held the position
of Chief Executive Officer of UGK TGK-8 OAO. From 1996 to 2003,
Mr. Gvozdev was head of the boiler repair shop and chief
engineer of Novocherkasskaya GRES OAO, and from 2003 held the
position of Chief Executive Officer of Nevinnomysskaya GRES OAO.
Mr. Gvozdev graduated from Novocherkassk Polytechnical
University with the degree of electrical engineer specializing
in electric power generation. Mr. Gvozdev obtained his
post-graduate education at the Academy of National Economy in
European management and Management of company development. He
also holds the advanced academic degree of Candidate of
Technical Sciences. Mr. Gvozdev also has an MBA from
Chicago Graduate School of Business.
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 a member of our
Management Board since March 2009 and Chief Executive Officer of
Mechel Ferroalloys Management since December 2008. From July
2006 to September 2009 Mr. Ovchinnikov served as Managing
Director 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.
Aleksandr S. Starodubov has been a member of our
Management Board since March 2009 and Chief Executive Officer of
Mecheltrans Management since March, 2010. 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. Mr. Starodubov
graduated from Siberian Metallurgical Institute with a degree in
technology and complex mechanization of underground mining of
mineral resources 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 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.
214
Compensation
Our directors and executive officers were paid an aggregate of
$6.1 million for services in all capacities provided to us
during 2009. The total amount set aside for pension, retirement
and other similar benefits for our directors and executive
officers as of December 31, 2009 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 shareholders meeting and may be re-elected
an unlimited number of times. Our Board of Directors currently
consists of nine members, seven 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, Valentin V. Proskurnya, Vladimir V. 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,
Vladimir Polin and Alexander Yevtushenko. 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.
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
Vladimir Polin.
|
Committee
on Appointments and Remuneration
The members of the Committee on Appointments and Remuneration
are Roger Gale, Serafim Kolpakov, Valentin Proskurnya and
Alexander Yevtushenko. The Committee on Appointments and
Remuneration has been
215
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.
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 three management companies within the group which
provide management services to companies within the mining,
steel and ferroalloy segments.
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 relevant subsidiary.
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
and Yakutugol.
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.
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 Yaroslav A. Markov. 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. Markov is a senior lawyer
of Mechel Finance.
216
Internal
Audit Department
The Internal 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 Audit
Department are governed by the Bylaw on the Internal Audit
Function. Andrei S. Perchik is the head of the Internal 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 Audit Function;
|
|
|
|
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 Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors; and
|
|
|
|
the Code of Corporate Governance.
|
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
217
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, 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
|
%
|
218
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
|
184
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Pugachev open pit
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
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
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferroalloys
|
|
|
555
|
|
|
|
50.5
|
%
|
Zavod Ogneuporov
|
|
Russia
|
|
Refractory products
|
|
|
538
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2007, we employed approximately
85,032 people as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
20,252
|
|
|
|
65.0
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
12,157
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
%
|
Izhstal
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
8,596
|
|
|
|
92.0
|
%
|
Yakutugol
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal
|
|
|
8,532
|
|
|
|
99.0
|
%
|
Beloretsk Metallurgical Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
7,529
|
|
|
|
91.0
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
4,036
|
|
|
|
88.0
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
|
4,538
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
%
|
Korshunov Mining Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Iron ore
|
|
|
4,180
|
|
|
|
90.0
|
%
|
Urals Stampings Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
3,982
|
|
|
|
73.0
|
%
|
Mechel Campia Turzii
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
2,917
|
|
|
|
85.0
|
%
|
Mechel-Coke
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,721
|
|
|
|
64.0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke
|
|
|
1,507
|
|
|
|
63.0
|
%
|
Kuzbass Power Sales Company
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
555
|
|
|
|
90.0
|
%
|
Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Ferrosilicon
|
|
|
548
|
|
|
|
51.0
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
548
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
%
|
Mechel-Service
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
501
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Vyartsilya Metal Products Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
394
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Nemunas
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
330
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
%
|
Port Posiet
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
321
|
|
|
|
14.0
|
%
|
Mechel Trading House
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel-Steel Management
|
|
Russia
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Kambarka
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
Kaslinsky Architectural Art Casting Plant
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Metals Recycling
|
|
Russia
|
|
Scrap metal
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Port Temryuk
|
|
Russia
|
|
Shipping
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Company
|
|
Primary Location
|
|
Primary Function
|
|
Employees
|
|
|
% Unionized
|
|
|
Mecheltrans
|
|
Russia
|
|
Railway transportation
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel-Energo
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel
|
|
Russia
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Mechel Hardware
|
|
Russia
|
|
Sales and distribution
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Other
|
|
Various
|
|
Various
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85,032
|
|
|
|
75.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
and Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant are members of the Ore Mining and
Smelting Trade Union of Russia.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Urals Stampings Plant are members of Russian Trade
Union of Machinists.
|
|
|
|
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 are members of the Russian Independent
Trade Union of Coal Industry Workers.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Port Posiet are members of the Russian Independent
Stevedores Trade Union.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Port Kambarka are members of the Trade Union
Organization of Port Kambarka.
|
|
|
|
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 Mechel Targoviste and of the Metallurgists
Trade Union of Mechel Targoviste.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Mechel Campia Turzii are members of Free Trade
Union of Mechel Campia Turzii and of Trade Union Sigma.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Ductil Steel are members of the Independent Trade
Union of Ductil Steel.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Toplofikatsia Rousse are members of FE PODKREPA,
the federation of power engineers, and NFE-KNSB, the independent
federation of power engineers and the confederation of the
independent trade unions of Bulgaria, and SJYUZ NA ENERGETITSITE
V BJLGARIYA, the union of power engineers of Bulgaria.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Mechel Nemunas are members of the Trade Union
Nemunas, the confederation of the trade unions of Lithuania and
the trade union of metalworkers of Lithuania.
|
|
|
|
Employees of Bluestone companies are members of the United Mine
Workers of America and are covered by the Bituminous Coal Wage
Agreement of 2007 which expires in 2011.
|
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, 2010,
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)(4)
|
|
|
138,367,720
|
|
|
|
33.24
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Zyuzin is our Chief Executive Officer and a member 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) |
|
JPMorgan Chase & Co. reported on a Schedule 13G
that as of December 31, 2008 it owned 19,769,141 common
shares in the form of ADSs, representing 4.7% of our total
issued common shares. |
|
(3) |
|
According to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as of
March 31, 2010, 115,568,183 ADSs and 30,118,305 GDSs were
outstanding, representing 35.0% of our total issued common
shares. |
|
(4) |
|
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, 2010, there were 115,568,183 ADSs
outstanding, all of which were held by one registered holder
with an addresses in the United States. When preparing for our
annual general shareholders meeting in June, we typically
commission a report on our shareholding structure from IPERO.
According to the last such report prepared by IPREO in July
2009, approximately 18.3% of the outstanding 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 60% are held by
the James C. Justice II, James C. Justice III, James C. Justice
Companies Inc. and Jillean L. Justice (together the
Justice persons). The Justice persons
acquired these preferred shares in connection with our
acquisition of Bluestone. The Justice persons are residents of
the United States. The remaining preferred shares are held by
Skyblock Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mechel.
Related
Party Transactions
See notes 10 and 27 to our consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
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.
222
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. The investigation is
still pending. However, as far as we are aware, no criminal
conduct has been identified.
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. However, there are no assurances that the
state authorities will not claim for damages in connection with
such past mining operations. Currently, no mining activity is
conducted on the New Uregolsk license area.
Tax
On January 23, 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. If tax authorities dismiss our claim we intend to
seek the invalidation of this tax assessment in court.
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 130.8 million rubles,
including 73.3 million rubles assessed in connection with
transfer pricing. The court hearing is scheduled for
May 13, 2010.
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 421.5 million rubles.
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. We intend to appeal
this decision.
In March 2008, Mechel Trading House OOO filed a claim with the
Moscow Arbitrazh Court against the tax authorities seeking the
invalidation of a tax assessment in the amount of
454.0 million rubles relating to the
2005-2006
period. On June 19, 2008 the court of original jurisdiction
ruled in our favor. The court of appeal and court of cassation
supported the decision of the court of original jurisdiction.
The ruling of the court entered into full force.
In April 2007, Southern Urals Nickel Plant filed a claim against
the tax authorities seeking the invalidation of a tax assessment
issued by the tax authorities for the
2004-2005
period in the total amount of 70.9 million rubles,
including fines and penalties. As a result of a number of court
proceedings, the assessment was reduced to 1.2 million
rubles. The final court decision was issued on January 21,
2009 and has entered into force.
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, 2009. See
26(d) to our consolidated financial statements.
223
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 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 in the Russian Federation. During the course of
the investigation no violations were found on the part of
Yakutugol and the case was closed.
Environmental
and safety
In February 2008, the Department of Natural Resources and
Ecology of Kemerovo region filed a claim in the Kemerovo Region
Arbitrazh Court against Southern Kuzbass Coal Company seeking
the recovery of damages caused to water resources as a result of
non-compliance with water legislation in the total amount of
372.1 million rubles. On May 19, 2008, the court of
original jurisdiction rendered a decision to deny the claim and
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company was not held liable for any
damages. There was no appeal against the ruling and it entered
into full force.
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. Most of the identified violations were
eliminated, and the remaining prescribed measures are being
implemented within the time limits established 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 has stated its order of April 6,
2009, that the identified violations must be eliminated by
implementing a number of measures. Most of the identified
violations were eliminated and certain prescribed measures were
implemented within the time limits established by Rostekhnadzor.
The
224
remaining measures are being implemented in accordance with an
agreed schedule. In addition, the cladding and thermal
insulation of the most problematic boilers have been repaired.
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 restrict our discharge of pollutants into the
atmosphere to 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 have
submitted an application and the court has allowed us to stay
execution of this mandate for two years, until July 1,
2010. Before this date, we intend to apply for a further stay of
execution.
In March 2009, Bashkiria Environmental Prosecutors Office
filed a claim in the Beloretsk City Court to compel Beloretsk
Metallurgical Plant to install an effluent treatment system by
December 31, 2009. The court of first instance initially
dismissed the claim. On Prosecutors appeal, the court of
cassation reversed the judgment and on March 25, 2010 the
court ruled that we must install the required effluent treatment
system by December 31, 2016. We did not appeal the decision
and it entered into full force.
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. We
have full indemnity on this claim from the previous owner of
Bluestone in accordance with the terms of the acquisition
agreement.
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. Suncoke has not taken any further legal actions
against us since that time. We are defending this claim on the
grounds 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. The maximum
amount of this claim is $67.0 million. We have full
indemnity on this claim from the previous owner of Bluestone in
accordance with the terms of the acquisition agreement.
On November 27, 2008, Mechel Trading House filed a claim in
the Chelyabinsk Region Arbitrazh Court to collect debt for
supplies to MMK in the amount of 962.0 million rubles, plus
interest in the amount of 39.0 million rubles. As MMK fully
paid the debt, the proceedings with respect to this part of the
debt were terminated. On February 27, 2009, the court ruled
to collect only the outstanding interest in the amount of
36.0 million rubles. On March 24, 2009, MMK appealed
the decision. On April 29, 2009 the court of appeal upheld
the decision and dismissed the appeal. The enforcement order was
submitted to the bailiff. On the same date, the decision of the
court of appeal entered into force. MMK did not appeal the
decision before the court of cassation. Mechel Trading House
commenced enforcement proceedings and on June 19, 2009, MMK
fully paid the outstanding interest.
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
225
appealed this decision both in the court of appeal and in the
court of cassation, however, MMKs appeal was dismissed.
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.
Bluestone 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 breaches of contract, implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing against Bluestone. Mountain State is
claiming damages of $4.5 million. We have full indemnity on
this claim from the previous owner of Bluestone in accordance
with the terms of the acquisition agreement.
BNP
Paribas litigation
On December 7, 2004, Mechel International Holdings and
Mechel Metal Supply Limited entered into a credit facility
agreement with BNP Paribas for the total amount of approximately
$250.0 million to support supply operations of our
subsidiaries Mechel International Holdings, Mechel Trading and
its Baar Schaan Branch, Mechel Metal Supply Limited and Monte
Shipping Limited. The facility was guaranteed by Mechel OAO. In
late 2008-early 2009, BNP Paribas requested additional security
under the facility agreement which we could not provide due to
existing negative pledge obligations under our other facility
agreements. In February 2009, BNP Paribas blocked approximately
$52.0 million on the accounts of our subsidiaries Mechel
International Holdings, Mechel Trading, Mechel Trading Baar
Schaan Branch, Mechel Metal Supply Limited and Monte Shipping
Limited to create additional security under the facility
agreement which, we believed, was not permitted by the terms of
credit facility agreement. On June 30, 2009, we filed a
claim with the Geneva tribunal against BNP Paribas. On
February 23, 2010, the dispute was settled by way of an
amicable agreement; BNP Paribas released the blocked accounts
and we withdrew our claim from the Geneva tribunal.
Currently, BNP Paribas has the right to retain on any of our
accounts the amount totaling $3.4 million which is
equivalent to BNP Paribass exposure under two bank
guarantees it has issued in favor of our subsidiaries. Mechel
International Holdings has undertaken to pay an amount of
$75.1 million to a cash collateral account with BNP Paribas
in seven equal monthly installments starting from June 1,
2010.
U.S.
securities litigation
On April 8, 2009 a person who had been a holder of our 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, our chief executive
officer, our senior vice president and our senior vice president
for finance as defendants. The case, Frederick v. Mechel
OAO, No. 09 CV 3617, states claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs 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 amended complaint, filed on
February 10, 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. Certain filings have been exchanged between the
parties to the proceedings and on April 2, 2010, we moved
the court to dismiss all the claims. The court will consider the
case after it has been fully briefed. 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
226
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, 2009, Mechel declared a dividend of
2.3 billion rubles for common shares and 4.21 billion
rubles for preferred shares, which was paid in full as of
December 31, 2009. On June 29, 2008, Mechel declared a
dividend of 10.98 billion rubles for common shares, which
was paid in full as of December 31, 2008. On June 29,
2007, Mechel declared a dividend of 8.2 billion rubles for
common shares, which was paid in full as of December 31,
2007. In each case we could not pay dividends to those
shareholders who did not provide us with their bank account
details.
We anticipate that any dividends we may pay in the future on the
common shares represented by the 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, 2009.
|
|
Item 9.
|
The
Offer and Listing
|
Our 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) 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).
227
The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices
per 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 ADSs from 3:1 to 1:1 by issuing two new ADSs for each
ADS of record as of May 16, 2008. The ADS prices below have
been recalculated to reflect the new
ADS-to-common
share ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADSs
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
|
(In U.S. dollars)
|
|
March 2010
|
|
|
28.75
|
|
|
|
23.70
|
|
|
|
28.31
|
|
|
|
22.60
|
|
February 2010
|
|
|
24.62
|
|
|
|
19.72
|
|
|
|
22.91
|
|
|
|
18.73
|
|
January 2010
|
|
|
26.43
|
|
|
|
19.79
|
|
|
|
21.16
|
|
|
|
17.64
|
|
December 2009
|
|
|
20.23
|
|
|
|
17.57
|
|
|
|
16.49
|
|
|
|
16.10
|
|
November 2009
|
|
|
21.82
|
|
|
|
17.66
|
|
|
|
17.41
|
|
|
|
14.97
|
|
October 2009
|
|
|
21.70
|
|
|
|
16.23
|
|
|
|
17.81
|
|
|
|
14.99
|
|
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
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2008
|
|
|
17.19
|
|
|
|
3.66
|
|
|
|
17.75
|
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
Third Quarter 2008
|
|
|
48.72
|
|
|
|
16.92
|
|
|
|
39.00
|
|
|
|
15.75
|
|
Second Quarter 2008
|
|
|
57.62
|
|
|
|
40.34
|
|
|
|
45.50
|
|
|
|
33.00
|
|
First Quarter 2008
|
|
|
46.82
|
|
|
|
27.62
|
|
|
|
43.00
|
|
|
|
20.00
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
228
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 to be treasury shares for the purposes
of our U.S. GAAP consolidated 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 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:
|
229
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
230
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.
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 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
231
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.
|
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
232
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;
|
|
|
|
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.
233
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.
Registration
and transfer of shares
Russian legislation requires that a joint-stock company maintain
a register of its shareholders. Ownership of our registered
common 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 OAO (Registrar NIKoil)
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 the transfer in the shareholder
register, or the registration of the 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. 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.
234
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 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 the FFMS, 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
|
|
|
|
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;
|
235
|
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
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 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.
236
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
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
237
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 generally 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;
|
|
|
|
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.
|
238
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). The management board created by this
bylaw engages in discussions regarding important corporate
issues and makes recommendations to our board of directors. The
management board is regulated under our charter and the relevant
bylaws. 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;
|
|
|
|
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;
|
239
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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
240
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.
|
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.
241
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;
|
|
|
|
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 simple 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.
242
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 shares of the same class.
|
|
|
|
A person that has acquired 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, but excluding shares that were
acquired pursuant to previous voluntary or mandatory offers,
provided, however, that such previous voluntary offer was made
in compliance with certain requirements of the Joint Stock
Companies Law applicable to mandatory offers) will generally 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 for the previous six months, 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 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 with 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 rules.
|
|
|
|
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
|
243
|
|
|
|
|
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 Regulation 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 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 Russian Regulation 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.
244
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 common
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 common 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 common 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 common shares and the ADSs and to the purchase,
ownership and disposition of the common 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 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 common 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 common
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 common 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 common shares or ADSs which is
not qualified to be a Russian resident holder as defined in the
previous paragraph.
245
Taxation
of acquisition of the common shares and ADSs
No Russian tax implications should arise for holders of the
common shares and ADSs upon purchase of the common shares and
ADSs. However, under the certain conditions a taxable material
gain may arise for individuals if the common 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
Common shares
Dividends paid to a Russian resident holder of the common 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% providing the following
conditions have been met: (i) 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, and (ii) the acquisition cost of
participation or depositary receipts is not less than
500 million rubles. 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 (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 common
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.
246
Non-resident
holders
Common shares
Dividends paid to a non-resident holder of common 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 common shares.
ADSs
Comments provided in the previous section (see
Taxation of dividends
non-resident holders Common 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 GDR holders, it is
unclear how the Russian tax authorities and courts would
ultimately treat the GDR holders in this regard. Moreover, from
a practical perspective, it may not be possible for the
Depositary to collect residence confirmations from all GDR
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.
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
247
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 common 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 common 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 common 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.
Individuals
Capital gains arising from the sale, exchange or other
disposition of the common 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 common 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 common 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 common 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 common 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 common shares and ADSs or 20% withholding tax on the
difference
248
between the sales, exchange or other disposition price and the
acquisition costs of the common 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 common
shares and ADSs by non-residents. Certain international double
tax treaties may provide for protection from the Russian
taxation in such instances.
Where the common 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 common 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 common 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 common 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 common 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 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 common 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 common 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 common 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
249
benefit of the United States-Russia Tax Treaty in relation to
capital gains resulting from the sale, exchange or other
disposition of the common 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 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 Taxation in the Russian
Federation 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
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
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 common 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 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 common 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
common 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 ADSs or common shares 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.
251
If a partnership (including any entity treated as a partnership
for U.S. federal income tax purposes) is a beneficial owner
of ADSs or common shares, 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 common 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 common 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 the voting stock of
the Issuer; (x) investors that hold common 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 common 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 common shares or ADSs in the
offering, and it assumes that investors will hold their common
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 common 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 common 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 agreement are true and that the obligations in
the deposit agreement and any related agreement have been and
will be complied with in accordance with the terms.
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 common shares
and ADSs.
Taxation
of dividends on common shares or ADSs
For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the gross amount of a
distribution, including any Russian withholding taxes, with
respect to common 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, 2011, 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 common 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). We
will be a qualified foreign corporation if we are eligible for
the benefits of the United States-Russia 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 ADSs or common
shares. 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 common 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 common shares or ADSs. We
do not intend to calculate our earnings and profits for
252
U.S. federal income tax purposes and, unless we make such
calculations, U.S. Holders should expect that any
distributions with respect to common 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 common 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 common shares or
ADSs
The sale or other disposition of common 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 adjusted basis in such common
shares or ADSs. Such gain or loss generally will be treated as
long-term capital gain or loss if the common 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 common 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 common
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
common shares or ADSs.
If a U.S. Holder receives any foreign currency on the sale
or other disposition of common 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 common 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
253
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 common 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 is attributable to assets (based on an average of
the quarterly values of the 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 2009, 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
Non-corporate 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, common 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 amounts
withheld under the backup withholding rules by timely filing the
appropriate claim for refund with the IRS and furnishing all
required information.
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.
254
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
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 into a mold,
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
thin 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.
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
licenses and permits or fail to comply with the terms of our
licenses and 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.
255
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.
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: Soft-alloy 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 speed steel).
Tailings: Material rejected from a mine
after the valuable minerals have been recovered.
Welded mesh: Rolled plates welded into
tubes of various shapes, gauges and diameters from different
types of material.
Wire rod: Round, thin, semi-finished
steel length that is rolled from a billet and coiled for further
processing. Wire rod is commonly drawn into wire products or
used to make bolts and nails. Wire rod trains (rolling
facilities) can run as fast as 6,000 meters per minute.
256
|
|
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, 2009,
we did not have any forward transactions.
257
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, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
U.S. Dollar
|
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
Lei
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Current Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
168,175
|
|
|
|
222,106
|
|
|
|
19,644
|
|
|
|
2,597
|
|
|
|
2,174
|
|
|
|
414,696
|
|
Accounts receivables, net
|
|
|
98,859
|
|
|
|
185,294
|
|
|
|
46,840
|
|
|
|
12,680
|
|
|
|
4,650
|
|
|
|
348,323
|
|
Due from related parties
|
|
|
47,373
|
|
|
|
50,879
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,824
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105,076
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
3,643
|
|
|
|
14,980
|
|
|
|
1,431
|
|
|
|
647
|
|
|
|
1,111
|
|
|
|
21,812
|
|
Short-term investments in related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,855
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
137,384
|
|
|
|
348,043
|
|
|
|
19,881
|
|
|
|
10,224
|
|
|
|
36,203
|
|
|
|
551,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
assets(1)
|
|
|
455,434
|
|
|
|
827,157
|
|
|
|
87,796
|
|
|
|
32,972
|
|
|
|
44,138
|
|
|
|
1,447,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings and current portion of
long-term
debt
|
|
|
(1,170,304
|
)
|
|
|
(605,901
|
)
|
|
|
(116,361
|
)
|
|
|
(29,785
|
)
|
|
|
(698
|
)
|
|
|
(1,923,049
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances received
|
|
|
(78,816
|
)
|
|
|
(72,985
|
)
|
|
|
(304
|
)
|
|
|
(971
|
)
|
|
|
(3,050
|
)
|
|
|
(156,126
|
)
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
(18,418
|
)
|
|
|
(143,808
|
)
|
|
|
(3,810
|
)
|
|
|
(2,635
|
)
|
|
|
(946
|
)
|
|
|
(169,617
|
)
|
Taxes and social charges payable
|
|
|
(11,344
|
)
|
|
|
(132,275
|
)
|
|
|
(2,214
|
)
|
|
|
(14,758
|
)
|
|
|
(9,104
|
)
|
|
|
(169,695
|
)
|
Unrecognized income tax benefit
|
|
|
(8,190
|
)
|
|
|
(7,935
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,047
|
)
|
|
|
(17,172
|
)
|
Trade payables to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
(66,520
|
)
|
|
|
(304,483
|
)
|
|
|
(49,336
|
)
|
|
|
(43,079
|
)
|
|
|
(10,485
|
)
|
|
|
(473,903
|
)
|
Pension obligations, current portion
|
|
|
(1,107
|
)
|
|
|
(30,006
|
)
|
|
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
(361
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,717
|
)
|
Due to related parties
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
(13,487
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,500
|
)
|
Asset retirement obligation, current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,363
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,409
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,772
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(3,256
|
)
|
|
|
(15,273
|
)
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,550
|
)
|
Finance lease liabilities, current portion
|
|
|
(15,014
|
)
|
|
|
(17,070
|
)
|
|
|
(938
|
)
|
|
|
(2,518
|
)
|
|
|
(425
|
)
|
|
|
(35,965
|
)
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(379
|
)
|
|
|
(60
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(439
|
)
|
Dividends payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,919
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,919
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
(1,373,361
|
)
|
|
|
(1,350,565
|
)
|
|
|
(173,227
|
)
|
|
|
(97,516
|
)
|
|
|
(25,755
|
)
|
|
|
(3,020,424
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current
portion
|
|
|
(2,760,817
|
)
|
|
|
(1,149,157
|
)
|
|
|
(162,738
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,746
|
)
|
|
|
(4,074,458
|
)
|
Pension obligations, net of current portion
|
|
|
(26,003
|
)
|
|
|
(116,898
|
)
|
|
|
(5,672
|
)
|
|
|
(3,699
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(152,272
|
)
|
Asset retirement obligation, net of
current portion
|
|
|
(3,483
|
)
|
|
|
(47,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,341
|
)
|
|
|
(1,730
|
)
|
|
|
(53,923
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(704,267
|
)
|
|
|
(513,253
|
)
|
|
|
(4,012
|
)
|
|
|
(13,219
|
)
|
|
|
(218,729
|
)
|
|
|
(1,453,480
|
)
|
Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
|
|
(2,615
|
)
|
|
|
(50,448
|
)
|
|
|
(2,931
|
)
|
|
|
(2,345
|
)
|
|
|
(355
|
)
|
|
|
(58,694
|
)
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
(18,938
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(39,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(3,517,554
|
)
|
|
|
(1,896,063
|
)
|
|
|
(175,353
|
)
|
|
|
(20,652
|
)
|
|
|
(222,576
|
)
|
|
|
(5,832,198
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net monetary assets (liabilities)
|
|
|
(4,435,481
|
)
|
|
|
(2,419,471
|
)
|
|
|
(260,784
|
)
|
|
|
(85,196
|
)
|
|
|
(204,193
|
)
|
|
|
(7,405,125
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not include inventories and deferred costs of inventory in
transit. |
258
The table below summarizes our debt position by currency and
rate method as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
Ruble
|
|
Euro
|
|
Ron
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
Fixed-rate debt
|
|
|
1,211,898
|
|
|
|
1,320,746
|
|
|
|
99,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,631,762
|
|
Variable-rate debt
|
|
|
2,519,769
|
|
|
|
604,586
|
|
|
|
211,516
|
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
3,365,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
3,731,667
|
|
|
|
1,925,332
|
|
|
|
310,634
|
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
5,997,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
Rate risk
Our interest rate exposure results mainly from debt obligations.
As of December 31, 2009, we had $2,631.8 million in
fixed-rate borrowings and $3,365,7 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, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Actual at
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Maturity Date as of December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2009)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate U.S. dollar debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375,000
|
|
|
|
625,000
|
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
8.5-14.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
73,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,000
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ING
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
1,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,818
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nomos-Bank
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
2,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,083
|
|
|
|
11.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
39,524
|
|
|
|
6,029
|
|
|
|
7,700
|
|
|
|
133
|
|
|
|
46,611
|
|
|
|
99,997
|
|
|
|
2.0-12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
151,425
|
|
|
|
6,029
|
|
|
|
7,700
|
|
|
|
375,133
|
|
|
|
671,611
|
|
|
|
1,211,898
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate euro debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
71,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,730
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UniCredit (formerly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayerische Hypo-und-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vereinsbank)
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,063
|
|
|
|
2,063
|
|
|
|
2,063
|
|
|
|
1,032
|
|
|
|
7,221
|
|
|
|
4.32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
|
|
1,374
|
|
|
|
5,498
|
|
|
|
10,994
|
|
|
|
5.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortis
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
494
|
|
|
|
988
|
|
|
|
988
|
|
|
|
988
|
|
|
|
4,941
|
|
|
|
8,399
|
|
|
|
5.34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
416
|
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
774
|
|
|
|
6.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
74,014
|
|
|
|
4,783
|
|
|
|
4,425
|
|
|
|
4,425
|
|
|
|
11,471
|
|
|
|
99,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate ruble debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
165,321
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
330,642
|
|
|
|
652,586
|
|
|
|
8.4-19.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.48-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VTB
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
495,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
495,963
|
|
|
|
14.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
99,193
|
|
|
|
62,822
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162,015
|
|
|
|
11.9-13.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UniCredit (formerly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayerische Hypo-und-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vereinsbank)
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
6,864
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,864
|
|
|
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
2,642
|
|
|
|
479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
3,318
|
|
|
|
0-13.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
274,020
|
|
|
|
63,301
|
|
|
|
652,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
330,839
|
|
|
|
1,320,746
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt:
|
|
|
|
|
499,459
|
|
|
|
74,113
|
|
|
|
664,711
|
|
|
|
379,558
|
|
|
|
1,013,921
|
|
|
|
2,631,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
259
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, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate (Actual at
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Maturity Date as of December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2009)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Variable-rate U.S. dollar debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syndicated Loan
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
649,666
|
|
|
|
849,665
|
|
|
|
849,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,348,996
|
|
|
|
7.23-8.24
|
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
68,453
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,453
|
|
|
|
2.5-4.11
|
|
ING
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
34,651
|
|
|
|
16,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,814
|
|
|
|
2.13-4.21
|
|
BCV
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
27,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,696
|
|
|
|
1.56
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
4.36
|
|
Other
|
|
U.S. dollar
|
|
|
11,810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,810
|
|
|
|
3.25-8.88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
804,276
|
|
|
|
865,828
|
|
|
|
849,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,519,769
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate euro debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortis
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
9,949
|
|
|
|
8,634
|
|
|
|
8,634
|
|
|
|
7,542
|
|
|
|
24,103
|
|
|
|
58,862
|
|
|
|
1.68-2.33
|
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
9,825
|
|
|
|
7,677
|
|
|
|
6,633
|
|
|
|
4,064
|
|
|
|
9,370
|
|
|
|
37,569
|
|
|
|
2.23-5.08
|
|
VTB
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
12,041
|
|
|
|
17,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,256
|
|
|
|
7.24-8.36
|
|
ING
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
8,667
|
|
|
|
2,350
|
|
|
|
2,350
|
|
|
|
2,350
|
|
|
|
10,574
|
|
|
|
26,291
|
|
|
|
1.25-4.21
|
|
Commerzbank
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
21,518
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
2,167
|
|
|
|
24,615
|
|
|
|
2.39-6.49
|
|
Banca Comerciala Roma
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
12,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,689
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
1,314
|
|
|
|
1,314
|
|
|
|
1,314
|
|
|
|
1,314
|
|
|
|
5,915
|
|
|
|
11,171
|
|
|
|
5.21
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
956
|
|
|
|
1,477
|
|
|
|
1,998
|
|
|
|
1,041
|
|
|
|
2,603
|
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
1.35-2.89
|
|
Other
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
976
|
|
|
|
1,148
|
|
|
|
864
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,988
|
|
|
|
1.73-5.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
77,935
|
|
|
|
40,125
|
|
|
|
22,103
|
|
|
|
16,621
|
|
|
|
54,732
|
|
|
|
211,516
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate ruble debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sberbank
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
241,568
|
|
|
|
7,014
|
|
|
|
22,814
|
|
|
|
7,024
|
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
|
|
281,746
|
|
|
|
12.5-18.22
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
198,385
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198,385
|
|
|
|
13.0-14.5
|
|
Bank of Moscow
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
49,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,480
|
|
|
|
4,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,209
|
|
|
|
10.55-12.0
|
|
Moscow Credit Bank
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,290
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,290
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
18,979
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,979
|
|
|
|
14.54
|
|
UniCredit (formerly Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
Ruble
|
|
|
2,977
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,977
|
|
|
|
14.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
511,505
|
|
|
|
53,304
|
|
|
|
25,294
|
|
|
|
11,157
|
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
|
|
604,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate LEI debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
Lei
|
|
|
20,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,943
|
|
|
|
5.45-12.79
|
|
Other
|
|
Lei
|
|
|
8,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,931
|
|
|
|
12.43-15.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt:
|
|
|
|
|
1,423,590
|
|
|
|
959,257
|
|
|
|
897,062
|
|
|
|
27,778
|
|
|
|
58,058
|
|
|
|
3,365,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260
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,
2009 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 have determined 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 quantitative
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 American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, each representing one
common share, are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol MTL. The ADSs are evidenced by American
Depositary Receipts, or 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 ADSs, as amended on May 21, 2007 and May 19, 2008.
ADS holders are required to pay the following service fees to
DBTCA:
|
|
|
Service
|
|
Fees (in U.S. dollars)
|
|
Issuance of ADSs
|
|
Up to $0.05 per ADS
|
Cancellation of ADSs
|
|
Up to $0.05 per ADS
|
Distribution of cash dividends or other cash distributions
|
|
Up to $0.02 per ADS
|
Distribution of ADSs pursuant to (1) stock dividends, free
stock distributions or (2) exercises of rights to purchase
additional ADSs or distribution of proceeds thereof
|
|
Up to $0.05 per ADS
|
Distribution of securities other than ADSs or rights to purchase
additional ADSs or the distribution of proceeds thereof
|
|
Up to $0.05 per ADS
|
ADR transfer, combination or
split-up fee
|
|
$1.50 per transfer
|
Share register inspection annual fee
|
|
$0.01 per ADS
|
Operation and maintenance annual fee
|
|
$0.02 per ADS*
|
|
|
|
* |
|
This fee, when combined with the fees for cash distributions,
shall not exceed $0.02 per ADS per year. |
261
In addition, ADS holders 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.
ADS holders 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
In consideration for its appointment as depositary, DBTCA agreed
to reimburse us for costs of the maintenance of our ADR program
and of ADR-program related investor relations activities. For
the year ended December 31, 2008, DBTCA paid us
$2.1 million in this regard. We have not yet determined the
total reimbursement for the year ended December 31, 2009,
but we do not expect it to differ significantly from the total
amount for 2008.
In addition, for the year ended December 31, 2009, DBTCA
made the following payments on our behalf in relation to our ADR
program:
|
|
|
|
|
Category
|
|
Payment (in U.S. dollars)
|
|
New York Stock Exchange listing fees
|
|
|
132,029
|
|
Proxy solicitation expenses
|
|
|
20,300
|
|
ADS holder identification expenses
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
162,329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, DBTCA waived the cost of various ADR
program-related support services that it provided to us in 2009.
DBTCA had valued these services at $237,500 per annum when DBTCA
was re-appointed in 2008. 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
|
On April 2, 2009, we placed all 138,756,915 of our
preferred shares authorized for issuance, constituting 25% of
our outstanding share capital. For a description of how the
issuance of our preferred shares affects the rights of holders
of our common shares and ADSs representing our common shares,
see Item 10. Additional Information
Description of Capital Stock.
|
|
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
262
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, five 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 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,
2009, 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. As a result 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, 2009
using the framework set forth in the report of the Treadway
Commissions Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO),
Internal Control Integrated Framework.
The scope of managements evaluation excluded Bluestone
Coal Group Companies acquired in May 2009, as permitted in SEC
Staff
263
Guidance, Frequently Asked Question No. 3
(September 24, 2007) regarding Release No. 34
47986, Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange
Act Periodic Reports (June 5, 2003).
Accordingly, managements assessment of our internal
control over financial reporting does not include the internal
controls of those companies, acquired in May 2009, included in
the 2009 consolidated financial statements of the group that
constituted $2,358 million and $916 million of total
and net assets of $13,183 million and $4,050 million,
respectively, as of December 31, 2009 and contributed
$140 million to consolidated revenues of
$5,754 million and a loss of $45 million to the
consolidated net income of $74 million for the year then
ended.
As a result of managements evaluation of our internal
control over financial reporting, management identified five
material weaknesses in our internal control. These material
weaknesses are described below:
|
|
|
|
|
We did not have an adequate system of internal controls over
period end financial reporting to ensure that the reporting
packages received by the subsidiaries are properly reviewed at
the subsidiary and group level, and that the U.S. GAAP
transformation schedules and relatively complex and non-routine
transactions are properly completed and reviewed;
|
|
|
|
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
accounting and reporting for business combinations;
|
|
|
|
We did not properly design and operate effective controls over
the completeness of our commitments and contingencies
disclosures;
|
|
|
|
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
classification and reporting for transportation costs incurred
by our subsidiaries; and
|
|
|
|
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
identification and determination of 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, 2009.
Additional information regarding these material weaknesses
follows:
(1) We did not have an adequate system of internal
controls over period end financial reporting to ensure that the
reporting packages received by the subsidiaries were properly
reviewed at the subsidiary and group level, and that the U.S.
GAAP transformation schedules, and analysis of relatively
complex and non-routine transactions are properly completed and
reviewed.
The inadequate system of internal controls over period-end
financial reporting was aggravated by the lack of a unified
automated consolidation accounting and reporting system. In
addition, the group does not have sufficient expertise and
experience in researching complex accounting issues under
U.S. GAAP. 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 areas that 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 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.
(2) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the accounting and reporting for business combinations.
Design and operating deficiencies of controls related to
accounting for acquisitions, including a lack of a comprehensive
procedure to address potential complicated issues and failure to
adequately document assumptions and techniques used in the
valuation of the components of the acquisitions, resulted in
264
material adjustments to the consolidated financial statements
related to the carrying values of mineral licenses, contingent
liabilities and resulting goodwill arising from business
combinations.
(3) We did not properly design and operate effective
controls over the completeness of our commitments and
contingencies disclosures.
We failed to implement effective controls over the completeness
and correctness of the information management reviewed and 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. This material weakness affects our
commitments and contingencies disclosures.
(4) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the classification and reporting for transportation costs
incurred by our subsidiaries.
We did not establish 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. This material weakness affects cost of
sales, selling and distribution expenses and related financial
statement disclosures.
(5) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the identification and determination of related parties.
We did not design and operate effective controls over the
identification and determination of related parties. As a
result, material adjustments were made to the footnote
disclosures related to operations with related parties. 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, 2009, which contains an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial
reporting.
|
|
(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, 2009, 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
265
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.
As indicated in the accompanying Managements Annual Report
on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting did not include the internal controls of the
Bluestone Group of Companies, acquired in May 2009, which is
included in the 2009 consolidated financial statements of the
Group and constituted $2,358 million and $916 million
of total and net assets, respectively, as of December 31,
2009 and contributed $140 million to consolidated revenues
and $45 million of net loss to the Groups
consolidated net income for the year then ended. Our audit of
internal control over financial reporting of the Group also did
not include an evaluation of the internal control over financial
reporting of this entity.
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 has been identified and
included in managements assessment.
1) The Group does not have adequate controls over period
end financial reporting to ensure that the reporting packages
received from the subsidiaries are properly reviewed at the
subsidiary and Group level, and that the US GAAP transformation
schedules, and analysis of relatively complex and non-routine
transactions are properly completed and reviewed. The situation
was aggravated by the lack of a unified automated consolidation
accounting and reporting system, and the Groups lack of
effective controls over the completeness, accuracy, validity and
restricted access over accounting software applications and
spreadsheets prepared by the Group and used to support
significant financial statement line items. In addition, the
Group does not have sufficient expertise and experience in
researching complex accounting issues under US GAAP. 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
areas that resulted, or could have resulted, in material errors
to the financial statements have been identified as separate
material weaknesses in this opinion. Recorded adjustments were
not material individually or in the aggregate, nevertheless,
there is a reasonable possibility that, due to the design and
operating control deficiencies identified over the period end
financial reporting and the US GAAP transformation processes, a
material misstatement of the Groups consolidated financial
statements related to any of its significant accounts may not be
prevented or detected on a timely basis. These designs and
operating deficiencies impact all significant accounts and
disclosures.
2) Design and operating deficiencies in controls related to
accounting and financial reporting for acquisitions, including a
lack of a comprehensive plan to address potential issues and
failure to adequately document assumptions and techniques used
in the valuation of the components of the acquisitions, resulted
in material adjustments to the consolidated financial statements
related to the carrying values of mineral licenses, contingent
liabilities and resulting goodwill arising from business
combinations. This material weakness affects all significant
accounts.
3) The Group did not properly design and operate effective
controls over the completeness of its commitments and
contingencies disclosures. The Group did not establish effective
controls over the completeness of the contract information used
to prepare the Groups commitments and contingencies
disclosure. As a result, material adjustments were made to its
financial statements related to the disclosure of commitments
and contingencies, including sales and purchase commitments, and
guarantees. This material weakness affects the Groups
commitments and contingencies disclosure.
266
4) The Group did not design and operate effective controls
over the classification of transportation costs incurred by
Group subsidiaries. As a result, material adjustments were made
to its financial statements related to the classification of
transportation expenses. This material weakness affects cost of
sales, selling and distribution expenses and related financial
statement disclosures.
5) The Group did not design and operate effective controls
over the identification and determination of related parties. As
a result, material adjustments were made to the footnote
disclosures related to operations with related parties. This
material weakness affects related parties footnote disclosure.
The material weaknesses above were considered in determining the
nature, timing and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of
the 2009 financial statements and this report does not affect
our report dated April 21, 2010 on those consolidated
financial statements.
In our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness
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, 2009, based on the COSO criteria.
Moscow, Russia
April 21, 2010
|
|
(d)
|
Remediation
Activities and Changes in Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
|
Remediation Activities
(1) We did not have an adequate system of internal
controls over period-end financial reporting to ensure that the
reporting packages received from the subsidiaries were properly
reviewed at the subsidiary and group level, and that the
U.S. GAAP transformation schedules and relatively complex
and non-routine transactions were properly completed and
reviewed.
We plan to formalize the U.S. GAAP transformation process
in order to address the areas where adjustments were proposed in
the prior year and develop a detailed checklist to facilitate
the review of controls over various aspects of financial
statements 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 detect in a timely manner 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. We plan to prepare our
U.S. GAAP consolidated financial statements for the first
quarter of 2010 using an automated consolidation accounting and
reporting system.
(2) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the accounting and reporting for business combinations.
In order to remedy this material weakness, we intend to:
(a) design and establish a comprehensive procedure to
address potential complicated issues and to adequately document
assumptions and techniques used in the valuation of the
components of the acquisitions; and
(b) develop an accounting checklist to ensure that we
properly identify the effective date of a business combination,
the purchase price consideration and the relevant assets
acquired and liabilities assumed in a manner consistent with the
requirement of ASC 805, Business Combinations.
(3) We did not properly design and operate effective
controls over the completeness of our commitments and
contingencies disclosures.
267
In order to remedy this material weakness, we intend to redesign
the process of collection of the information concerning
commitments and contingencies. We plan to analyze the process
and to change the professionals responsible for the collection
of information. We also intend to implement verification
procedures for the amount of commitments for contracts.
(4) We did not design and operate effective controls
over classification and reporting for transportation costs
incurred by our subsidiaries.
In order to remedy this material weakness, we plan to:
(a) analyze our group transportation streams and clarify
internal policies regarding the nature of transportation costs
that should be reported in a specific line item;
(b) enhance communication of the nature of transportation
related costs in subsidiary reporting packages; and
(c) provide oversight designed to enhance the consistency
of application of the groups transportation cost policies
among all of the group subsidiaries.
(5) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the identification and determination of related parties.
We intend to design and establish comprehensive procedures to
support the timely identification of related parties through
review of existing and new relationships, significant
agreements, and participation of our executives in Board of
Directors and management of other entities. We also plan to
develop a method of systematic documentation concerning the
identification and determination of related parties.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
Owing to the remediation activities we performed in 2009 we
undertook the following efforts to address the material
weaknesses, identified by us in 2008:
(1) We did not design and operate effective controls
over the calculation of the lower of cost or market
valuation adjustment for inventories.
We have developed detailed guidance for our subsidiaries
accounting personnel to calculate lower of cost or
market valuation adjustment for inventories and to
implement the procedure of inventory valuation on a regular
basis. We have also designed and implemented necessary control
procedures to ensure that the calculation is correct.
(2) We did not have sufficient personnel with technical
accounting and financial reporting expertise to address
relatively complex transactions
and/or
accounting and financial reporting issues that arise from time
to time in the course of our operations, as well as meet
periodic reporting requirements.
We have increased staffing in our International Reporting
Department with qualified personnel to address more effectively
our complex accounting and financial reporting requirements:
(a) we have appointed a deputy chief of International
Reporting Department to perform controllers duties;
(b) we have appointed a person to deal with complex
accounting issues; and
(c) we have hired 4 additional persons who are involved in
the transformation of local books to U.S. GAAP.
Notwithstanding the steps we have taken and continue to take
that are designed to remedy each material weakness identified
above, we may not be successful in remediating these material
weaknesses in the near or long term and we may not be able to
prevent other material weaknesses in the future. 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
268
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 matters described above, there have not been any
changes in our internal control over financial reporting
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, 2009, 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 2009 and 2008, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, net of VAT)
|
|
|
Audit Fees
|
|
|
10,817.7
|
|
|
|
12,915.0
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
Tax Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Fees
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
10,820.7
|
|
|
|
12,993.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
269
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 fees.
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 2009 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 common shares, GDSs or ADSs in
2009.
|
|
Item 16F.
|
Change
in Registrants Certifying Accountant
|
Not applicable.
270
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
272
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.
|
|
|
Index to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
F-3
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008
|
|
F-5
|
Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
|
F-6
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
|
F-7
|
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders Equity
for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
|
|
F-9
|
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
F-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
1
|
.1
|
|
Charter of Mechel OAO registered on February 20, 2007
|
|
1
|
.2
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on August 27,
2007
|
|
1
|
.3
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on May 7, 2008
|
|
1
|
.4
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on May 29,
2008
|
|
1
|
.5
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on May 7, 2009
|
|
1
|
.6
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on July 17,
2009
|
|
1
|
.7
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on August 24,
2009
|
|
1
|
.8
|
|
Amendment to Charter of Mechel OAO registered on
January 27, 2010
|
|
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
|
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.
273
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.
Name: Igor V. Zyuzin
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
Date: April 26, 2010
274
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
F-1
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, 2009 and 2008, 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, 2009. 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 3(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, 2009 and
2008, and the consolidated results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2009, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States.
As discussed in Note 3(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, 2009, 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 21, 2010 expressed an adverse opinion
thereon.
Moscow, Russia
April 21, 2010
F-3
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except share amounts)
|
|
|
Assets
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
5
|
|
$
|
414,696
|
|
|
$
|
254,839
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of
$66,764 in 2009 and $110,613 in 2008
|
|
6
|
|
|
348,323
|
|
|
|
406,749
|
|
Due from related parties
|
|
10
|
|
|
105,076
|
|
|
|
22,171
|
|
Inventories
|
|
7
|
|
|
1,035,786
|
|
|
|
1,365,109
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
21
|
|
|
21,812
|
|
|
|
22,047
|
|
Short-term investments in related parties
|
|
10
|
|
|
5,855
|
|
|
|
67,907
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
8
|
|
|
551,735
|
|
|
|
606,354
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
|
|
2,483,283
|
|
|
|
2,745,176
|
|
Long-term investments in related parties
|
|
9
|
|
|
86,144
|
|
|
|
80,408
|
|
Other long-term investments
|
|
9
|
|
|
23,563
|
|
|
|
472,772
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
11
|
|
|
10,870
|
|
|
|
6,956
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
12
|
|
|
4,460,505
|
|
|
|
4,277,841
|
|
Mineral licenses, net
|
|
13
|
|
|
5,133,105
|
|
|
|
3,430,642
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
14
|
|
|
67,294
|
|
|
|
57,844
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
21
|
|
|
24,173
|
|
|
|
27,551
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
4(m)
|
|
|
894,374
|
|
|
|
910,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
$
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and
Equity
|
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt
(including debt $4,233,751 with loan covenant violations as of
December 31, 2008)
|
|
15
|
|
$
|
1,923,049
|
|
|
$
|
5,149,415
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade payable to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
|
|
473,903
|
|
|
|
688,702
|
|
Advances received
|
|
|
|
|
156,126
|
|
|
|
125,042
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
169,617
|
|
|
|
143,587
|
|
Taxes and social charges payable
|
|
|
|
|
169,695
|
|
|
|
131,241
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits
|
|
21
|
|
|
17,172
|
|
|
|
27,176
|
|
Due to related parties
|
|
10
|
|
|
13,500
|
|
|
|
1,588
|
|
Asset retirement obligation, current portion
|
|
17
|
|
|
5,772
|
|
|
|
6,387
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
21
|
|
|
18,550
|
|
|
|
17,785
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
439
|
|
|
|
1,776
|
|
Pension obligations, current portion
|
|
18
|
|
|
31,717
|
|
|
|
28,960
|
|
Dividends payable
|
|
|
|
|
4,919
|
|
|
|
4,919
|
|
Finance lease liabilities, current portion
|
|
19
|
|
|
35,965
|
|
|
|
14,891
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
3,020,424
|
|
|
|
6,341,469
|
|
Long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
15
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
219,816
|
|
Asset retirement obligations, net of current portion
|
|
17
|
|
|
53,923
|
|
|
|
65,217
|
|
Pension obligations, net of current portion
|
|
18
|
|
|
152,272
|
|
|
|
158,070
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
21
|
|
|
1,453,480
|
|
|
|
841,214
|
|
Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
|
19
|
|
|
58,694
|
|
|
|
54,161
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
39,371
|
|
|
|
8,026
|
|
Equity
|
Common shares (10 Russian rubles par value;
497,969,086 shares authorized, 416,270,745 shares
issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2009 and 2008)
|
|
20
|
|
|
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, 2009)
|
|
20
|
|
|
25,314
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
|
|
874,327
|
|
|
|
415,070
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
|
|
(172,400
|
)
|
|
|
158,937
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
|
|
3,188,973
|
|
|
|
3,323,298
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
4,049,721
|
|
|
|
4,030,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interests
|
|
4(n)
|
|
|
280,968
|
|
|
|
290,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity
|
|
|
|
|
4,330,689
|
|
|
|
4,321,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
$
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-4
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except share and per
share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenue, net (including related party amounts of $107,104,
$68,328 and $110,056 during 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively)
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
$
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
$
|
6,683,842
|
|
Cost of goods sold (including related party amounts of $123,443,
$12,213 and $157,427 during 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively)
|
|
|
|
|
(3,960,693
|
)
|
|
|
(5,260,108
|
)
|
|
|
(4,166,864
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
2,516,978
|
|
Selling, distribution and operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and distribution expenses
|
|
|
|
|
(1,062,810
|
)
|
|
|
(1,348,989
|
)
|
|
|
(621,811
|
)
|
Taxes other than income tax
|
|
22
|
|
|
(105,203
|
)
|
|
|
(116,590
|
)
|
|
|
(83,994
|
)
|
Accretion expense
|
|
17
|
|
|
(7,398
|
)
|
|
|
(6,078
|
)
|
|
|
(3,101
|
)
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
12
|
|
|
(20,940
|
)
|
|
|
(4,323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Recovery of allowance (allowance) for doubtful accounts
|
|
6
|
|
|
38,019
|
|
|
|
(103,632
|
)
|
|
|
(1,411
|
)
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
23
|
|
|
(389,477
|
)
|
|
|
(554,716
|
)
|
|
|
(409,068
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total selling, distribution and operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
(1,547,809
|
)
|
|
|
(2,134,328
|
)
|
|
|
(1,119,385
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
Other income and (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from equity investments
|
|
9
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
|
|
12,278
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
(498,986
|
)
|
|
|
(324,083
|
)
|
|
|
(98,976
|
)
|
Other income (expenses), net
|
|
24
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
19,844
|
|
Foreign exchange (loss) gain
|
|
|
|
|
(174,336
|
)
|
|
|
(877,428
|
)
|
|
|
54,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income and (expense), net
|
|
|
|
|
(150,420
|
)
|
|
|
(1,208,001
|
)
|
|
|
(12,146
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations, before income tax
|
|
21
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
1,385,447
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
21
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(356,320
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operation, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,127
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
Less: Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
4(n)
|
|
|
(2,590
|
)
|
|
|
(88,837
|
)
|
|
|
(116,234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Dividends on preferred shares
|
|
|
|
|
(134,498
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
$
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
$
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
$
|
76,331
|
|
|
$
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
$
|
1,029,285
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
|
|
157,288
|
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
(14,365
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
(5,059
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
|
|
(264,355
|
)
|
|
|
1,020,836
|
|
|
|
1,167,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to non-controlling
interests
|
|
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
(26,822
|
)
|
|
|
(136,849
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to shareholders of
Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
$
|
(257,596
|
)
|
|
$
|
994,014
|
|
|
$
|
1,030,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted (loss) earnings per share:
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) earnings per share from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
$
|
2.19
|
|
Income per share effect of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income per share
|
|
|
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
$
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-5
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to shareholders of Mechel OAO
|
|
|
|
$
|
73,741
|
|
|
$
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
$
|
913,051
|
|
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
|
|
116,234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
12
|
|
|
321,117
|
|
|
|
360,587
|
|
|
|
250,333
|
|
Depletion and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
85,558
|
|
|
|
102,710
|
|
|
|
39,982
|
|
Foreign exchange loss (gain)
|
|
|
|
|
174,336
|
|
|
|
877,428
|
|
|
|
(54,700
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
21
|
|
|
(31,665
|
)
|
|
|
(403,816
|
)
|
|
|
(18,320
|
)
|
(Recovery of allowance) allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
6
|
|
|
(38,019
|
)
|
|
|
103,632
|
|
|
|
1,411
|
|
Change in inventory reserves
|
|
|
|
|
(186,263
|
)
|
|
|
278,176
|
|
|
|
1,227
|
|
Accretion expense
|
|
17
|
|
|
7,398
|
|
|
|
6,078
|
|
|
|
3,101
|
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
12
|
|
|
20,940
|
|
|
|
4,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in undistributed earnings of equity investments
|
|
9
|
|
|
(1,200
|
)
|
|
|
(717
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Non-cash interest on long-term tax and pension liabilities
|
|
18
|
|
|
15,954
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
|
|
6,942
|
|
Loss on sale of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
2,789
|
|
|
|
15,641
|
|
|
|
10,581
|
|
Gain (loss) on sale of investments
|
|
24
|
|
|
(155
|
)
|
|
|
(4,568
|
)
|
|
|
13,426
|
|
Gain on discharged asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
(9,595
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,430
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(158
|
)
|
Gain on accounts payable with expired legal term
|
|
24
|
|
|
(2,571
|
)
|
|
|
(2,370
|
)
|
|
|
(12,158
|
)
|
Gain on forgiveness of fines and penalties
|
|
24
|
|
|
(1,241
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,311
|
)
|
Amortization of loan origination fee
|
|
|
|
|
42,561
|
|
|
|
28,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain resulting from remeasurement of contingent obligation
|
|
4(a)
|
|
|
(494,238
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefit plan curtailment gain
|
|
18
|
|
|
(37,717
|
)
|
|
|
(23,421
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for short-term investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,124
|
|
Pension service cost, amortization of prior service cost and
actuarial (gain) loss, other expenses
|
|
|
|
|
7,032
|
|
|
|
9,745
|
|
|
|
2,681
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change before changes in working capital
|
|
|
|
|
(48,648
|
)
|
|
|
2,599,337
|
|
|
|
1,255,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in working capital items, net of effects from
acquisition of new subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
257,185
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
|
|
97,272
|
|
|
|
(140,545
|
)
|
|
|
(118,101
|
)
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
481,307
|
|
|
|
(658,930
|
)
|
|
|
(254,342
|
)
|
Trade payable to vendors of goods and services
|
|
|
|
|
(100,069
|
)
|
|
|
594,639
|
|
|
|
(19,909
|
)
|
Advances received
|
|
|
|
|
30,516
|
|
|
|
(6,230
|
)
|
|
|
(56,697
|
)
|
Accrued taxes and other liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
38,450
|
|
|
|
(8,353
|
)
|
|
|
(67,155
|
)
|
Settlements with related parties
|
|
|
|
|
(77,380
|
)
|
|
|
(9,308
|
)
|
|
|
(3,237
|
)
|
Current assets and liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(234
|
)
|
Deferred revenue and cost of inventory in transit, net
|
|
|
|
|
10,548
|
|
|
|
(16,591
|
)
|
|
|
14,700
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
131,273
|
|
|
|
(79,196
|
)
|
|
|
(49,686
|
)
|
Advanced payments to non-state pension funds
|
|
|
|
|
7,545
|
|
|
|
4,254
|
|
|
|
(38,981
|
)
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits
|
|
|
|
|
(9,145
|
)
|
|
|
(49,136
|
)
|
|
|
(13,582
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
561,669
|
|
|
|
2,229,941
|
|
|
|
904,969
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Oriel, less cash acquired
|
|
4(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,439,600
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Ductil Steel S.A., less cash acquired
|
|
4(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(197,621
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of HBL, less cash acquired
|
|
4(b)
|
|
|
(8,387
|
)
|
|
|
(14,593
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Advances paid for the BCG Companies
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(438,623
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of the BCG Companies, less cash acquired
|
|
4(a)
|
|
|
4,908
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Yakutugol, less cash acquired
|
|
4(k)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,580,004
|
)
|
Acquisition of Elgaugol, less cash acquired
|
|
4(k)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(345,861
|
)
|
Acquisition of SKPP, less cash acquired
|
|
4(j)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(280,853
|
)
|
Acquisition of BFP, less cash acquired
|
|
4(h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(186,665
|
)
|
Acquisition of KPSC, less cash acquired
|
|
4(i)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78,304
|
)
|
Acquisition of other subsidiaries, less cash acquired
|
|
|
|
|
(8,022
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,454
|
)
|
Investment in TPP Rousse
|
|
4(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(73,539
|
)
|
Investments in other marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,289
|
)
|
Investments in asset trust management
|
|
|
|
|
(45,592
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from asset trust management
|
|
|
|
|
38,720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of investments in affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
2,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-6
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of non-marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
6,913
|
|
|
|
7,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term loans issued and other investments
|
|
|
|
|
(137,276
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,743
|
)
|
Proceeds from short-term loans issued
|
|
|
|
|
46,803
|
|
|
|
930
|
|
|
|
18,709
|
|
Proceeds from disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
2,403
|
|
|
|
3,644
|
|
|
|
456
|
|
Purchases of mineral licenses
|
|
|
|
|
(2,299
|
)
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
(3,517
|
)
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
(610,445
|
)
|
|
|
(1,166,987
|
)
|
|
|
(830,024
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
(709,931
|
)
|
|
|
(3,249,737
|
)
|
|
|
(3,408,088
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from short-term borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
1,412,000
|
|
|
|
5,593,547
|
|
|
|
4,047,426
|
|
Repayment of short-term borrowings
|
|
|
|
|
(3,704,128
|
)
|
|
|
(3,856,110
|
)
|
|
|
(3,156,412
|
)
|
Dividends paid
|
|
20
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
|
|
(467,916
|
)
|
|
|
(317,893
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
3,022,998
|
|
|
|
99,377
|
|
|
|
2,004,780
|
|
Repayment of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
(99,225
|
)
|
|
|
(21,388
|
)
|
|
|
(6,586
|
)
|
Acquisition of non-controlling interest in subsidiaries
|
|
4(n)
|
|
|
(14,631
|
)
|
|
|
(51,346
|
)
|
|
|
(2,378
|
)
|
Repayment of obligations under finance lease
|
|
|
|
|
(33,514
|
)
|
|
|
(48,541
|
)
|
|
|
(21,434
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
375,434
|
|
|
|
1,247,623
|
|
|
|
2,547,503
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
(67,315
|
)
|
|
|
(209,767
|
)
|
|
|
19,781
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
159,857
|
|
|
|
18,060
|
|
|
|
64,165
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
5
|
|
|
254,839
|
|
|
|
236,779
|
|
|
|
172,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
5
|
|
$
|
414,696
|
|
|
$
|
254,839
|
|
|
$
|
236,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplementary Cash Flow Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of amount capitalized
|
|
|
|
$
|
(383,385
|
)
|
|
$
|
(266,010
|
)
|
|
$
|
(85,819
|
)
|
Income taxes paid, net
|
|
|
|
$
|
27,233
|
|
|
$
|
(750,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
(471,004
|
)
|
Non-cash Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of equipment under finance lease
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,741
|
|
|
$
|
10,637
|
|
|
$
|
33,228
|
|
Issuance of preferred shares for the acquisition of the BCG
Companies
|
|
4(a)
|
|
$
|
496,159
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Contingent consideration recognized upon the acquisition of the
BCG Companies
|
|
4(a)
|
|
$
|
514,607
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-7
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attributable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Non-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Paid-In-
|
|
|
Common Shares
|
|
|
Preferred Shares
|
|
|
Controlling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
(Loss) Income
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interests
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except share amounts)
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
2,130,911
|
|
|
$
|
188,218
|
|
|
$
|
412,327
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
163,036
|
|
|
$
|
3,027,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116,234
|
|
|
|
1,029,285
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(317,893
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(317,893
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,615
|
|
|
|
157,288
|
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,059
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,059
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,365
|
)
|
Additional capital due to restructuring at subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
|
638
|
|
Effect of change in accounting principle (ASC 740, previously
codified as FIN 48)
|
|
|
(75,180
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(75,180
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
2,650,889
|
|
|
$
|
305,467
|
|
|
$
|
415,070
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
300,523
|
|
|
$
|
3,805,456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88,837
|
|
|
|
1,229,381
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(468,135
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(468,135
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(227,618
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(62,015
|
)
|
|
|
(289,633
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,571
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,659
|
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
3,323,298
|
|
|
$
|
158,937
|
|
|
$
|
415,070
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
290,849
|
|
|
$
|
4,321,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
73,741
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,590
|
|
|
|
76,331
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(208,066
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316,004
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,349
|
)
|
|
|
(325,353
|
)
|
Adjustment of
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,178
|
)
|
Change in pension benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,155
|
)
|
Acquisitions of non-controlling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,588
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,122
|
)
|
|
|
(14,710
|
)
|
Issuance of preferred shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
470,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,254,149
|
|
|
|
25,314
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
496,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
3,188,973
|
|
|
$
|
(172,400
|
)
|
|
$
|
874,327
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
$
|
133,507
|
|
|
|
83,254,149
|
|
|
$
|
25,314
|
|
|
$
|
280,968
|
|
|
$
|
4,330,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-8
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and for each of the
three years in the period ended
December 31, 2009
(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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date Control
|
|
Interest in Voting Stock Held by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired/ Date of
|
|
the Group at December 31,
|
Name of Subsidiary
|
|
Registered in
|
|
Core Business
|
|
Incorporation (*)
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Mechel International Holdings GmBH (MIH)(1)
|
|
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), including its most
significant subsidiaries:
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
Jan 21, 1999
|
|
|
95.8
|
%
|
|
|
95.4
|
%
|
|
|
93.5
|
%
|
Tomusinsk Open Pit Mine (TOPM)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
Jan 21, 1999
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
|
|
74.5
|
%
|
|
|
74.4
|
%
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Dec 27, 2001
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
|
|
93.8
|
%
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant (SUNP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Nickel
|
|
Dec 27, 2001
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
|
|
79.9
|
%
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
90.4
|
%
|
Mechel Targoviste S.A.
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
Aug 28, 2002
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
Mechel Zeljezara (MZ)**
|
|
Croatia
|
|
Steel products
|
|
March 17, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Urals 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
|
%
|
|
|
88.2
|
%
|
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
|
%
|
Mechel Hardware ****
|
|
Russia
|
|
Trading
|
|
March 21, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Moscow Coke and Gas Plant (Moskoks)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Coke production
|
|
Oct 4, 2006
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
|
97.1
|
%
|
Southern Kuzbass Power Plant (SKPP)
|
|
Russia
|
|
Power generation
|
|
April 19, 2007
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
|
|
98.3
|
%
|
|
|
98.0
|
%
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
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
|
%
|
Ductil Steel S.A. (Ductil Steel)
|
|
Romania
|
|
Steel products
|
|
April 8, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Oriel Resources Plc. (Oriel)
|
|
Great Britain
|
|
Chrome and nickel
|
|
Apr 17, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
HBL Holding GmbH (HBL)
|
|
Germany
|
|
Trading
|
|
Sept 26, 2008
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
The BCG Companies
|
|
USA
|
|
Coal mining
|
|
May 7, 2009
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-9
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
* |
|
Date, when a control interest was acquired or a new company
established by either the Group or Controlling Shareholders. |
|
** |
|
Mechel Zeljezara (MZ) was liquidated on February 21, 2008. |
|
*** |
|
On March 10, 2009, a new subsidiary of Mechel OAO, Mechel
Service Global B.V., was incorporated. |
|
**** |
|
Merged with MTH in July 2008. |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Formerly Mechel Trading AG (MT). Renamed on
December 20, 2005. |
|
|
(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.
|
|
(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 and iron
ore), ferroalloy (comprising nickel, chrome and ferrosilicon)
and power (comprising electricity and heat power), and conducts
operations in Russia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, USA and Central and
Eastern 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.
F-10
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
These consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a
going concern basis, which presumes that the Group will be able
to realize its assets and satisfy its liabilities in the normal
course of business for the foreseeable future. The Groups
activities in all of its operating segments have been adversely
affected by uncertainty and instability in international
financial, currency and commodity markets resulting from the
global financial crisis. As of December 31, 2009, the Group
had a working capital deficiency of $537,141 and 2009 operating
income significantly decreased from the prior year. In addition,
as of that date the Group breached a number of financial and
non-financial covenants in various borrowing arrangements (see
Note 15) for all of which it has received waivers
and/or
amended covenants through 2010. Based on the Groups
forecasts management believes the Group will be able to meet all
such covenants through 2010.
Managements 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 the Group has continued to secure
additional borrowing facilities and renew or refinance existing
facilities as described below. In addition, the Group has
experienced increasing price levels for its products in the
later part of 2009 and early 2010 compared to the first half of
2009. Although there is no certainty that such experience will
continue in the future, managements plans for 2010 are
based on a continuation of these improved price levels
accompanied by an increase in demand for its products. On this
basis management expects operating cash flows to provide an
increased source of funds in 2010 to be available for capital
expenditures and debt servicing.
To refinance debt falling due in 2010, the Group has initiated
actions with various banks and other lenders to obtain new
long-term borrowing facilities as well as renewing or
refinancing existing arrangements, the most significant of which
are presented in the analysis below.
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, the Group had unutilized committed
credit facilities from financial institutions expiring after
2010 in the total amount of $328,508.
|
|
|
|
As disclosed in Note 27, during the period from
January 1, 2010 through the date of authorization of issue
of these consolidated financial statements, the Group received
additional financing as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 billion Russian rubles from the placement of its secured
non-convertible interest-bearing bonds maturing in 2013
($170,443 as of the placement date);
|
|
|
|
$266,979 in the form of loans from Urals Reconstruction and
Development Bank, Sberbank, UniCredit Bank, SKB Bank and Uralsib
Bank repayable in
2011-2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of April 21, 2010, the Group had registered, but not yet
issued, ruble-denominated bonds in an aggregate principal amount
of 40 billion Russian rubles ($1,372,773) with the Moscow
Interbank Currency Exchange (MICEX). Under this program, in
April 2010, the Group is placing a bond issue in the amount of
10 billion rubles ($343,193) of such registered bonds
providing the Group with additional financing flexibility during
2010.
|
Management expects to continue to issue additional ruble bonds
during 2010 and bank borrowings to provide specific financing
for capital projects.
Management has concluded that cash generated from operations,
current cash and short-term investments on hand, and borrowings
under the credit facilities described above will be sufficient
to meet the Groups working capital requirements,
anticipated capital expenditures and scheduled debt payments in
2010. Furthermore management believes that the Group has
sufficient flexibility in deferring its non-critical capital
expenditures in case specific project financing is not obtained
and in managing its working capital to provide further financial
flexibility as needed.
F-11
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
3.
|
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 2009. The adoption of
ASU 2009-01
did not have an impact on the Groups consolidated
financial position or results of operations.
|
|
(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.
|
|
(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
F-12
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
|
|
(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 (loss) income, 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 and German subsidiaries of the Group are the
Russian ruble, the Romanian lei, the Kazakh tenge and Euro,
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
and German subsidiaries translate Russian rubles, leis, tenge
and Euros 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
F-13
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
|
|
(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
F-14
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 3(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.
|
|
(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
(loss) income.
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
F-15
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
The Group did not use the work of independent mining engineers
to estimate the Groups proven and probable reserves as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, 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. 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 that continue to involve 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
and 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 with maturity dates that coincide with the
expected timing of when the asset retirement activities will be
performed, adjusted for the effect of the Groups credit
standing. For the U.S. subsidiaries, the credit-adjusted
risk-free rate is calculated as a weighted average of risk-free
interest rates for the 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 the Groups credit standing.
F-16
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(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 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 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
F-17
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
charge in the consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive (loss) income, 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, 2009. Cash
flow forecasts used in the test were based on the assumptions as
of December 31, 2009. The forecasted period for non-mining
subsidiaries of the Group was assumed to be eight 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
2010-2017,
which were used in cash flow projections, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
USA
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Romania
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Bulgaria
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
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 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, 2009 in these regions. These rates,
estimated for each year for the forecasted period, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015
|
|
2016
|
|
2017
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
14.92
|
%
|
|
|
14.58
|
%
|
|
|
13.76
|
%
|
|
|
12.98
|
%
|
|
|
12.24
|
%
|
|
|
11.53
|
%
|
|
|
10.86
|
%
|
|
|
10.25
|
%
|
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, 2009, no impairment loss was recognized.
Based on the sensitivity analysis carried out as of
December 31, 2009, 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):
|
|
|
|
|
2% decrease in future planned revenues;
|
|
|
|
1% point increase in discount rates for each year within the
forecasted period;
|
|
|
|
1% 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 3(n). Capital lease
liabilities are divided into long-term and current portions
based on
F-18
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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 (loss)
income.
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. 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).
|
|
(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
F-19
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
Contribution to the Russian pension fund together with other
social contributions are included within a unified social tax
(UST), which is 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 translated at the exchange rate of the Russian rubles to the
U.S. dollar at December 31, 2009) to 2% (applied
to the part of the annual gross salary above 600 thousand
Russian rubles or approximately $20 translated at the exchange
rate of the Russian ruble to the U.S. dollar at
December 31, 2009) 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% to 5.5%, respectively,
depending on the annual gross salary of each employee.
Contributions to the Russian pension fund for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were $75,164, 102,827 and
$71,329, respectively.
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 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 4(a)). 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 18).
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.
F-20
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In the Power segment (refer to Note 25), 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.
Sales are recognized net of applicable provisions for discounts
and allowances and associated sales taxes (VAT) and export
duties.
Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. During the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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 $689,777,
$842,475 and $330,290 for the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007, 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.
On January 1, 2007, the Group adopted the provisions of
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes an interpretation of
SFAS No. 109 (FIN No. 48),
later formally codified in ASC 740. This authoritative
guidance 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. The Group accounted for
$75,180, including interest and penalties for $19,253, as a
cumulative adjustment of the adoption of the aforementioned
authoritative guidance to the January 1, 2007 retained
earnings. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Group
included accruals for unrecognized income tax benefits totaling
$17,172 and $27,176, including interest and penalties for $7,928
and $8,665 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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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
F-21
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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, 2009 and 2008, 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,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Cumulative currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(215,814
|
)
|
|
|
100,190
|
|
Unrealized losses on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(5,774
|
)
|
|
|
(596
|
)
|
Pension adjustments
|
|
|
49,188
|
|
|
|
59,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
|
(172,400
|
)
|
|
|
158,937
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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, hardware and coke products;
|
|
|
|
Mining segment, comprising production and sales of coal (coking
and steam) 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.
|
|
|
(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,
2009 and 2008. For long-term borrowings, the difference between
fair value and carrying value is shown in Note 16. 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
F-22
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 9).
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.
|
|
(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,
2009, 2008 and 2007, 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 (loss) income for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2009. There were no foreign
currency forward and options contracts outstanding as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
F-23
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
(loss) income.
Recoverability
of equity method and other investments
Management periodically assesses the recoverability of its
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.
|
|
(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.
F-24
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 21,
|
|
at December 31,
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
Currency
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Russian ruble
|
|
|
29.14
|
|
|
|
30.24
|
|
|
|
29.38
|
|
|
|
24.55
|
|
|
|
31.72
|
|
|
|
24.86
|
|
|
|
25.58
|
|
Swiss franc
|
|
|
0.93
|
|
|
|
0.97
|
|
|
|
1.06
|
|
|
|
1.12
|
|
|
|
0.92
|
|
|
|
1.08
|
|
|
|
1.20
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
0.74
|
|
|
|
0.70
|
|
|
|
0.71
|
|
|
|
0.68
|
|
|
|
0.72
|
|
|
|
0.68
|
|
|
|
0.73
|
|
Romanian lei
|
|
|
3.08
|
|
|
|
2.94
|
|
|
|
2.83
|
|
|
|
2.46
|
|
|
|
3.04
|
|
|
|
2.52
|
|
|
|
2.44
|
|
Lithuania lit
|
|
|
2.56
|
|
|
|
2.41
|
|
|
|
2.45
|
|
|
|
2.36
|
|
|
|
2.48
|
|
|
|
2.36
|
|
|
|
2.52
|
|
Kazakh tenge
|
|
|
146.68
|
|
|
|
148.36
|
|
|
|
120.77
|
|
|
|
120.3
|
|
|
|
147.51
|
|
|
|
120.33
|
|
|
|
122.55
|
|
|
|
|
(*) |
|
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, Romanian lei, Swiss franc, Kazakh tenge and Euro.
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
|
Non-controlling
Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements
On December 4, 2007, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
that establishes accounting and reporting standards for
non-controlling interests in partially-owned consolidated
subsidiaries and the loss of control of subsidiaries. The most
significant changes adopted by this of this guidance are the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
A non-controlling interest in a consolidated subsidiary should
be displayed in the consolidated statement of financial position
as a separate component of equity;
|
|
|
|
Earnings and losses attributable to non-controlling interests
are no longer reported as part of consolidated earnings. Rather,
they are disclosed on the face of the consolidated income
statement;
|
|
|
|
After control is obtained, a change in ownership interests that
does not result in a loss of control should be accounted for as
an equity transaction;
|
|
|
|
A change in ownership of a consolidated subsidiary that results
in a loss of control and deconsolidation is a significant event
that triggers gain or loss recognition, with the establishment
of a new fair value basis in any remaining ownership interests.
|
This guidance is effective for the fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2008. Adoption is prospective and early
adoption is not permitted. The Group adopted this guidance on
January 1, 2009 and made necessary changes to the
presentation of non-controlling interests in its consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2009 and for the
year then ended. Comparative disclosures and accounts for the
prior periods presented herein were also reclassified
accordingly. As a result of the implementation of this guidance,
$290,849 relating to non-controlling interests as of
December 31, 2008 have been reclassified from
Non-controlling interest as a separate component of liabilities
to Non-controlling interests within Equity. In addition, the
amounts related to the acquisition of non-controlling interest
in subsidiaries of $51,346 and $2,378 have been reclassified
from Investing activities to Financing activities in the
consolidated statement of cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
F-25
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 810.
Business
Combinations
On December 4, 2007, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
regarding business combinations, which was subsequently amended
in April 2009. The most significant changes require the acquirer
to:
|
|
|
|
|
Recognize, with certain exceptions, 100% of the fair values of
assets acquired, liabilities assumed and non-controlling
interests in acquisitions of less than 100% controlling interest
when the acquisition constitutes a change in control of the
acquired entity;
|
|
|
|
Measure acquirer shares issued in consideration for a business
combination at fair value on the acquisition date;
|
|
|
|
Recognize contingent consideration arrangements at fair value at
their acquisition-date fair values, with subsequent changes in
fair value generally reflected in earnings;
|
|
|
|
With certain exceptions, recognize pre-acquisition loss and gain
contingencies at their acquisition-date fair values;
|
|
|
|
Capitalize in-process research and development assets acquired;
|
|
|
|
Expense, as incurred, acquisition-related transaction costs;
|
|
|
|
Capitalize acquisition-related restructuring costs only if the
criteria in FASB ASC 420, Exit or Disposal Cost
Obligations (ASC 420), are met as of the
acquisition date;
|
|
|
|
Recognize changes in income tax valuation allowances and tax
uncertainty accruals established in purchase accounting as
adjustments to income tax expense (including those related to
acquisitions before the adoption of this guidance);
|
|
|
|
Push back any adjustments made to the preliminary purchase price
allocation during the measurement period to the date of the
acquisition;
|
|
|
|
Determine what information to disclose to enable users of the
financial statements to evaluate the nature and financial
effects of the business combination.
|
The guidance regarding business combinations is required to be
adopted concurrently with the guidance related to
non-controlling interests in consolidated financial statements
and is effective for business combination transactions for which
the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first
annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15,
2008. Early adoption is prohibited. The Group adopted the
guidance regarding business combinations on January 1, 2009
and applied it to the acquisitions consummated during the year
ended December 31, 2009.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 805.
Fair
Value Measurement
Effective January 1, 2008, the Group adopted authoritative
guidance regarding fair value measurements, which defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and
expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The Group
elected a one-year deferral of the effective date of the
aforementioned guidance permitted for all non-financial assets
and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis (at
least annually). Following the one-year deferral, the Group
adopted this guidance for non-financial assets and non-financial
liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, such
as assets and liabilities measured at fair value in a business
combination; impaired property, plant and equipment; intangible
assets and goodwill; initial recognition of asset retirement
F-26
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
obligations. In 2009, the Group did not have impairment of
goodwill or intangible assets. The Group applied the fair value
measurement concept of this guidance to its estimates of fair
value for goodwill, indefinite lived intangibles, and the
acquired non-financial assets and liabilities of the BCG
Companies and estimation of contingent consideration included in
the purchase price.
In October 2008, the FASB issued authoritative guidance
regarding determining the fair value of a financial asset when
the market for that asset is not active, to clarify the
application of previously issued guidance in inactive markets
for financial assets. This guidance became effective upon
issuance and included in ASC 820. The adoption of
ASC 820 did not have a material effect on Groups
financial position and results of operations.
Recognition
and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments
In April 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
recognition and presentation of
other-than-temporary
impairments. This guidance amends the
other-than-temporary
impairment guidance for debt securities and presentation and
disclosure of
other-than-temporary
impairments on debt and equity securities in the financial
statements. Among other things this guidance replaced the
current requirement that a holder have the positive intent and
ability to hold an impaired security to recovery in order to
conclude an impairment was temporary with a requirement that an
entity conclude it does not intend to sell an impaired security
and it is not more likely than not it will be required to sell
the security before the recovery of its amortized cost basis.
This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption
permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The
adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the
Groups financial position and results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 320.
Determining
Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset
or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying
Transactions That Are Not Orderly
In April 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
determining fair value when the volume and level of activity for
the asset or liability have significantly decreased and
identifying transactions that are not orderly. This is
additional guidance for estimating fair value in accordance with
FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (ASC 820), when the volume and
level of activity for the asset or liability have significantly
decreased. This guidance also includes guidance on identifying
circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly. It
reaffirms the objective of fair value measurement to
reflect how much an asset would be sold for in an orderly
transaction (as opposed to a distressed or forced transaction)
at the date of the financial statements under current market
conditions. Specifically, it reaffirms the need to use judgment
to ascertain if a formerly active market has become inactive and
in determining fair values when markets have become inactive.
This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption
permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The
adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the
Groups financial position and results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 820.
Subsequent
Events
In May 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance regarding
subsequent events, which establishes general standards of
accounting for, and disclosure of events that occur after the
balance sheet date but before the financial statements are
issued or are available to be issued. This guidance is effective
for financial statements issued for the fiscal years and interim
periods ending after June 15, 2009. The Group adopted the
aforementioned guidance starting from the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 and
evaluated subsequent events through the date these financial
statements were issued, April 21, 2009.
F-27
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The aforementioned guidance is included in FASB ASC 855,
Subsequent Events (ASC 855).
Variable
Interest Entities
In June 2009, the FASB issued authoritative guidance, which
amends the consolidation guidance that applies to variable
interest entities (VIEs). An enterprise will need to
reconsider its previous conclusions, including (1) whether
an entity is a VIE, (2) whether the enterprise is the
VIEs primary beneficiary, and (3) what type of
financial statement disclosures are required. The aforementioned
guidance is effective as of the beginning of January 1,
2010 for the Group. Early adoption is prohibited. The Group is
currently assessing whether the adoption of this guidance will
have a material effect on the Groups financial position
and results of operations.
The aforementioned guidance is included in ASC 810.
Measuring
Liabilities at Fair Value
In August 2009, the FASB issued ASU
2009-05,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASU
2009-05).
ASU 2009-05
provided amendments to ASC Topic
820-10
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
Overall, for the fair value measurement of liabilities.
The purpose of ASU
2009-05 is
to clarify that in circumstances in which a quoted price in an
active market for the identical liability is not available, a
reporting entity is required to measure fair value using a
valuation technique that uses either the quoted price of the
identical liability when traded as an asset, quoted prices for
similar liabilities or similar liabilities when traded as
assets, or another valuation technique that is consistent with
the principles of ASC 820. This guidance is effective for
the first reporting period beginning January 1, 2010 for
the Group. The Group is currently assessing whether the adoption
of ASU
2009-05 will
have a material effect on the Groups consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Improvements
to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable
Interest Entities
The FASB issued ASU
2009-17,
Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises
Involved with Variable Interest Entities (ASU
2009-17),
which formally codifies FASB SFAS No. 167,
Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)
that was issued in June 2009, into the FASBs ASC. The
objective of ASU
2009-17 is
to improve financial reporting by companies involved with
variable interest entities. ASU
2009-17 will
require companies to perform an analysis to determine whether
the companies variable interest or interests give it a
controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity.
ASU 2009-17
is effective for financial statements issued for years beginning
after November 15, 2009, and for interim periods within
those years. The Group is currently assessing whether the
adoption of ASU
2009-17 will
have a material effect on the Companys consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Improving
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-06
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
(ASU
2010-06),
included to ASC 820. ASU
2010-6
changes the disclosure requirements for fair value measurements.
Companies are now required to disclose significant transfers in
and out of Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy,
whereas existing rules only require the disclosure of transfers
in and out of Level 3. Additionally, in the rollforward of
Level 3 activity, companies should present information on
purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis
rather than on a net basis as is currently allowed. The update
also clarifies that 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. Companies should also 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 since the first quarter of 2010 with prospective
application, except for the new requirement related to the
Level 3
F-28
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
rollforward. Gross presentation in the Level 3 rollforward
is effective since the first quarter of 2011 with prospective
application. The Group is currently assessing whether the
adoption of ASU
2010-06 will
have a material effect on the Groups consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
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 balances under transactions with related parties
and have no impact on net income or shareholders 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.
|
|
4.
|
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, 2007 and
December 31, 2009.
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
F-29
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
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 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 are not marketable (refer to
Note 20), 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
F-30
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
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
|
|
|
43,437
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
138,396
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
2,171,633
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
3,453
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(111,286
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(93,164
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(710,197
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
F-31
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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 CVR contingent payment is closely linked
to the fair value of the Mechel OAO preferred shares that are
not marketable, success of the Sellers drilling efforts,
dividend payments, passage of time and other factors, of which
some are beyond the Groups control. The changes in these
factors or underlying assumptions could significantly impact the
fair value of the CVR contingent payment in the future through
the date of its ultimate settlement or extinguishment.
The BCG Companies are included in the Mining 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
F-32
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
property, plant 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 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 results of operations of Oriel are included in
the consolidated financial statements from the date of
acquisition
F-33
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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, 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.
F-34
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 in cash.
Following the approval by the Post-Privatization Control Agency
of Bulgaria and Antimonopoly Committee of Bulgaria, Mechel
International Holdings GmbH, acquired 49% of the shares from the
TPP Rousses 100% owner, Holding Slovenske elektrarne
d.o.o. (HSE) of Slovenia.
The power plant potential capacity is 400 MW and it has
total heat capacity of 554 Gcal/h and a staff of more than
700 employees. As of the date of acquisition, only some of
the plants generators produced electric power, thus the
plants capacity was under-utilized.
The investment is in line with the Groups strategy to
develop power segment. Management has an intention, but not a
commitment, to increase its interest to a controlling stake in
the future.
The purchase of TPP Rousse shares was accounted for using the
equity method of accounting and is included within long-term
investments in related parties as of December 31, 2007.
Property, plant and equipment of TPP Rousse were valued by
independent appraisers as of the date of acquisition of its
shares. The Groups share in results of operations of TPP
Rousse is included in the consolidated financial statements from
the date of acquisition of shares, December 17, 2007. The
individual assets and liabilities of TPP Rousse are not included
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the
Group as the Group accounts for TPP Rousse as its equity-method
investment. The following table summarizes the fair values of
net assets of TPP Rousse at the date of acquisition of shares:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 17,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
1,924
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
9,161
|
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
277
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
73,056
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(31,908
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(8,871
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(2,561
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
41,078
|
|
Share of controlling shareholders in net assets of TPP Rousse
|
|
|
(20,950
|
)
|
Excess of investment over fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
53,411
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
73,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The excess of investment over fair value of net assets of TPP
Rousse acquired of $53,411 represents expected benefits from the
synergies related to vertical integration of the Groups
business and expansion into additional markets for steam coal
used to fuel power plants in the European Union.
On July 2, 2007, the Group acquired a 100% interest in
Temryuk-Sotra, including Souztranzit and Tekhnoprodintorg,
seaport for $6,254 in cash. The acquisition is in line with
Mechels further developing of its own transport
infrastructure. Temryuk-Sotra seaport is located at the Taman
shore of the Sea of Azov and is expected to be utilized for
primarily coal transportation by small tonnage river-sea type
vessels. The competitive advantage of the port of Temryuk is
determined by its geographical location, proximity to sea
communications, year-round navigation, and available railroad
and highway access.
F-35
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The acquisition of Temryuk-Sotra was accounted for using the
purchase method of accounting. The results of operations of
Temryuk-Sotra are included in the consolidated financial
statements from the date of acquisition of acquisition of
control, July 2, 2007. The following table summarizes the
fair values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
147
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
1,651
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
9,167
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(5,127
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(916
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(1,379
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
3,543
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
2,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
6,254
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $2,711 arising from the Groups acquisition of
Temryuk-Sotra represents expected benefits from the synergies
related to the reduction in transportation costs. Temryuk-Sotra
is included in the Mining segment.
On May 29, 2007, the Group acquired a 100% interest in
Transkol OOO, a company with local railway access to a railway
junction located near Southern Kuzbass Coal Company
(SKCC), for $7,173 in cash. The acquisition of
Transkol is in line with the Groups intention to develop
coal production at Erunakovskaya mine, owned by SKCC. The
premium paid resulted in a goodwill, none of which will be
deductible for income tax purposes. The company is included in
the Mining segment.
The acquisition of Transkol was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting. The results of operations of Transkol are
included in the consolidated financial statements from the date
of control, May 29, 2007. The following table summarizes
the fair values of net assets acquired at the date of
acquisition of control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 29,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
8
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
277
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
1,711
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(217
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(119
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
1,660
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
5,513
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
7,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $5,513 arising from the Groups acquisition of
Transkol represents expected benefits from the synergies related
to the reduction in costs from the use of local railway access
to a railway junction located near SKCC.
F-36
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(h)
|
Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant
|
On August 6, 2007, the Group acquired 100% of Bratsk
Ferroalloy Plant (BFP) for $186,862. BFP is a high
grade ferrosilicon producer, located in the Irkutsk Region and
has advantageous geographical position. The acquisition is in
line with the Group strategy of developing its steel and
ferroalloys segments, as Mechels steel subsidiaries
consume ferroalloys in its melting operations. An acquisition of
ferroalloy plant, in which energy costs are dominant, will
enable the Group to gain synergetic effect both due to the
plants consumption of Mechels own coal and its
supplies of ferroalloys for subsequent processing within the
Group. BFP is included in the Ferroalloy segment.
The acquisition of BFP was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting. The results of operations of BFP are
included in the consolidated financial statements from the date
of acquisition of control, August 6, 2007. The following
table summarizes the fair values of net assets acquired at the
date of acquisition of control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 6,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
197
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
20,747
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
75,395
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(1,611
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(9,102
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(13,415
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
72,211
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
114,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
186,862
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $114,651 arising from the Groups acquisition
of BFP represents expected benefits from the synergies related
to the reduction in production costs through using own
ferroalloys in the Groups subsidiaries melting operations.
|
|
(i)
|
Kuzbass
Power Sales Company
|
On June 30, 2007, the Group acquired 49% of the common
shares of Kuzbass Power Sales Company (KPSC) at a
public auction in addition to 1.2% of the shares acquired by the
Group previously for the total $46,401. KPSC is a power
distribution company in Siberia, located in the city of
Kemerovo. The primary reason for the acquisition of KPSC was the
Groups intention to expand the Power segment of
Mechels business by obtaining additional market and
established client base for high value added products, such as
electric and heat energy, produced by the KPSC power generating
facilities.
The acquisition of KPSC was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting. The results of operations of KPSC are
included in the consolidated financial statements from the date
of acquisition of
F-37
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
control, June 30, 2007. The following table summarizes the
fair values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
8,988
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
12,714
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
230
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
25,631
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(28,470
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(2,706
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(2,955
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
13,432
|
|
Non-controlling interest share in net assets
|
|
|
(6,682
|
)
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
39,651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
46,401
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In October and November 2007, the Group acquired an additional
21.83% interest for $40,891. The following table summarizes the
fair value of net assets at the date the major block of shares
was acquired. KPSC is included in the Power segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 26,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
3,725
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
37,166
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
40,891
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $37,166 arising from the Groups acquisition of
KPSC represents expected benefits from the synergies related to
the reduction in production costs through generating the
Groups own electric power, as well as synergies from using
its own coal mined in the vicinity of KPSC.
|
|
(j)
|
Southern
Kuzbass Power Plant
|
On April 19, 2007, the Group acquired 94.33% of the common
shares of Southern Kuzbass Power Plant (SKPP), a
power generating plant located in the town of Kaltan, Kemerovo
Region, at a public auction for $270,809 in cash. The objective
of acquiring SKPP is to increase Mechels performance
through producing high value-added electric power using the
Groups own steam coal. The acquisition of the new power
generating assets is also aimed at developing the power segment
of Mechels business.
The acquisition of SKPP was accounted for using the purchase
method of accounting. The results of operations of SKPP are
included in the consolidated financial statements from the date
of acquisition of
F-38
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
control, April 19, 2007. The following table summarizes the
fair values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 19,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
791
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
10,008
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
325
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
160,833
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(4,106
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(7,290
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(24,744
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
135,817
|
|
Non-controlling interest share in net assets
|
|
|
(7,704
|
)
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
142,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
270,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the acquisition date and prior to December 31, 2007,
the Group acquired additional 3.71% interest for $10,835. The
following table summarizes the fair value of net assets at the
date the major block of shares was acquired. SKPP is included in
the Power segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 16,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets acquired
|
|
|
4,884
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
5,951
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
10,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $148,647 arising from the Groups acquisition
of SKPP represents expected benefits from the synergies related
to the reduction in production costs through generating the
Groups own electric power, as well as synergies from using
its own coal mined in the vicinity of SKPP. In addition, the
acquisition of SKPP enables the Group to improve
self-sufficiency of the mining and steel segments and produce
higher value-added products, such as electricity and heat energy.
|
|
(k)
|
Yakutugol
and Elgaugol
|
On January 24, 2005, the Group acquired 25% plus one share
of Yakutugol, a leading coal producer in the northeast of
Russia, for $411,182 in cash at the auction conducted by the
Government of Republic Sakha (Yakutia). Yakutugol extracts
predominantly coking coal, as well as steam coal in open and
underground mines. The company sells most of the output to the
Asian Pacific region, primarily Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
On October 5, 2007, the Group won the auction conducted by
the Russian Federal Fund acting on behalf of the Republic of
Sakha, and Russian Railways (RZD) (collectively, the
Sellers), and acquired 75% less one share of
Yakutugol, 71.21% of Elgaugol (68.86% of the shares was acquired
in the auction and 2.35% had been owned by Yakutugol), and the
railway real estate complex for a total of $2,337,089 under the
Sales and Purchase Agreement. These acquisitions are in line
with Mechels strategy to further develop its mining
segment.
The total purchase price of $2,337,089 was allocated based on
the underlying Purchase and Sales Agreement fair values of the
items purchased as follows: $1,600,279 for 75% less one share of
Yakutugol and
F-39
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
$736,810 for 68.86% of Elgaugol and the railway real estate
complex. Such allocation generally reflects the fair values of
the components.
Pursuant to the Purchase and Sales Agreement, the winner was to
acquire the ownership of the shares upon 100% payment of the
tendered amount. The Group fulfilled its obligations through the
payment made of a combination of own cash and borrowed funds,
most of which were provided by VTB Bank. Upon completion of the
transferring of the ownership and making a respective record in
the securities register, Mechel became the legitimate owner of
the controlling stakes in the two companies and the railway real
estate complex.
The acquisition of 75% less one share of Yakutugol was accounted
for using the purchase method of accounting. The results of
operations of Yakutugol are included in the consolidated
financial statements from the date of acquisition of control,
October 19, 2007. The following table summarizes the fair
values of net assets acquired at the date of acquisition of
control:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 19,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
20,275
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
174,967
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
704,838
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
1,348,861
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
25,007
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(140,287
|
)
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(198,701
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(388,032
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of net assets of Yakutugol
|
|
|
1,546,928
|
|
Share in net assets acquired
|
|
|
1,160,196
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
440,083
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
1,600,279
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill of $440,083 arising from the Groups acquisition
of Yakutugol represents expected benefits from the synergies
related to coal trading as the Group becomes a stronger player
in Russia and abroad while building a reliable foundation for
the long-term development of the Groups coal mining.
At date of the 75% less one share acquisition of Yakutugol
shares, the initial equity investment amounted to $431,825, of
which $53,970 represented goodwill embedded in the investment
(refer to Note 9).
As further disclosed in Note 21, in 2008, Yakutugol
derecognized deferred tax assets of $44,568 arising on the
pension liabilities incurred in the prior years through
goodwill. The deferred tax assets related to payments made by
Yakutugol to the non-state pension fund Almaznaya
Osen and one-time payments made as post-retirement support
to its employees, which the Group concluded in 2008 to be
non-deductible for tax purposes.
Current mineral licenses of Yakutugol expire in 2014, but based
on the provisions of the Russian Subsoil Law their extension
through the end of the estimated proven and probable reserve
depletion period is considered by management to be reasonably
assured. Consequently, the value assigned to mineral licenses
includes such reasonably assured license extensions.
Yakutugols mineral licenses are amortized using the
units-of-production
method through the end of the estimated proven and probable
reserve depletion period (2029).
F-40
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Elgaugol holds the license for the development of the Elga coal
deposit, located in the Far Eastern part of the Russian
Federation. The objective of acquiring Elgaugol is to obtain
access to deposits of high quality coking coal, which lays a
solid foundation for long term development of the Mining
segment. The acquired railway real estate complex includes the
unfinished 60 km section of the railway spur track from Zeisk
station of the Far Eastern Railway to the Elga coal deposit with
related access roadway. 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.
As part of the auction conditions, Mechel has committed to
complete the railway by September 2010. In addition to the
construction of the railway, Mechel has to meet certain
operating related milestones as follows: (a) complete legal
permits for the minefield development by June 2009 (currently
pending the final approval by the state authorities);
(b) commence construction of the mining plant by November
2009, (approved for extension by the state authorities);
(c) complete construction of the mining plant, with the
required water-supply system, and commence coal production by
October 2010, (d) reach estimated annual coal production of
9 million tonnes by July 2013, and (e) reach estimated
annual coal production of 18 million tonnes by July 2018.
There are risks that Mechel will not be able to comply with all
requirements, particularly with the timely construction of the
railway, which will be built over more than one hundred bridges,
in the isolated area of the Elgaugol minefield. Failure to meet
these requirements could result in the suspension or termination
of the license for the development of the Elga coal deposit. In
order to avoid incompliance with the license deadlines, the
Group has filed an application with the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Ecology for amending the terms of the license and
extending the deadlines. The Group has significant commitments
for the construction of the railway (refer to Note 26).
Management believes that as of April 21, 2010, the Group is
in compliance with the requirements and commitments set by the
license.
In June 2008, Mechel completed the allocation of the purchase
price between Elgaugol and the railway property, which was based
on the Groups internal expert estimation of fair values of
the underlying assets. As a result of the allocation, the Group
assigned $346,532 to Elgaugol and the remaining $390,278 to the
railway property.
Elgaugol OAO is a Development Stage Entity, which does not meet
the definition of a business for accounting purposes, as defined
in ASC 805, due to the fact that acquired set of assets is
not able, on a standalone basis, to perform normal operations
and generate revenue stream. Mechel has accounted for this
transaction as an asset acquisition. The following table
summarizes the allocation of acquisition costs of $355,408
(which includes $346,532 paid in cash for 68.86% of the shares
acquired in the auction and $8,876 related to 2.35% in Elgaugol
owned by Yakutugol) to net assets acquired:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 24,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
640
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
420
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
474,620
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
(5,974
|
)
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(1,334
|
)
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(112,964
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs allocated
|
|
|
355,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment
|
|
|
355,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol, Elgaugol and the railway real estate complex are
included in the Mining segment.
F-41
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In 2008, the license for the development of the Elga coal
deposit, which had been held by Elgaugol, and the railway real
estate complex were transferred to Yakutugol, followed by a
subsequent liquidation of Elgaugol.
At the same auction, and as part of the Purchase and Sales
Agreement, Mechel acquired additional railway assets for a total
of $50,104, of which title over assets valued at $10,032 was
disputed in courts between RZD and a third party. As of
December 31, 2008, the court proceedings were finalized
resulting in the release of the disputable property and its
subsequent transfer to the Group. In accordance with the
amendment to the Purchase and Sales Agreement dated
March 19, 2009, the total amount of additionally acquired
assets was decreased to $29,769 based on the results of physical
inspection undertaken by Mechel. The title was transferred in
2009.
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) (1.70% of total shares).
It was accounted for as a transaction between entities under
common control and recorded at historical cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
45,914
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Yakutugol (Note 4(k)), Mining segment
|
|
|
494,053
|
|
Acquisition of Southern Kuzbass Power Plant (Note 4(j)),
Power segment
|
|
|
148,647
|
|
Acquisition of Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant (Note 4(h)),
Ferroalloy segment
|
|
|
114,651
|
|
Acquisition of Kuzbass Power Sales Company (Note 4(i)),
Power segment
|
|
|
76,817
|
|
Acquisition of Transkol (Note 4(g)), Mining segment
|
|
|
5,513
|
|
Acquisition of Temryuk-Sotra (Note 4(f)), Mining segment
|
|
|
2,711
|
|
Acquisition of Prommet, Steel segment
|
|
|
1,857
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
24,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
914,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Ductil Steel (Note 4(d)), 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 21)
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill arising on the above acquisitions is not deductible for
tax purposes.
F-42
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(n)
|
Non-controlling
interests
|
The following table summarizes changes in non-controlling
interests for the three years ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
163,036
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New acquisitions
|
|
|
5,777
|
|
Purchase of the non-controlling interest in existing
subsidiaries by the Group
|
|
|
(5,139
|
)
|
Non-controlling share in subsidiaries income from
continuing operations
|
|
|
116,234
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
20,615
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
300,523
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of the non-controlling interest in existing
subsidiaries by the Group
|
|
|
(36,496
|
)
|
Non-controlling 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At various dates during 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Group purchased
non-controlling interest in the following subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Controlling Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2007:
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
January-September
|
|
|
0.05
|
%
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
1,269
|
|
Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant (CMP)
|
|
February-April
|
|
|
0.09
|
%
|
|
|
629
|
|
|
|
635
|
|
Izhstal
|
|
January-June
|
|
|
0.27
|
%
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
328
|
|
Tomusinsk Energo Management (TEM)
|
|
March-May
|
|
|
2.08
|
%
|
|
|
327
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
Korshunov Mining Plant (KMP)
|
|
January-October
|
|
|
0.02
|
%
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
Port Posiet
|
|
February-July
|
|
|
0.16
|
%
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,484
|
|
|
|
2,378
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-43
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Controlling Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
Southern Urals Nickel Plant (SUNP)
|
|
May-July
|
|
|
4.15
|
%
|
|
|
18,936
|
|
|
|
31,780
|
|
Southern Kuzbass Coal Company (SKCC)
|
|
March-October
|
|
|
1.96
|
%
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Controlling Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
Date of Acquisition
|
|
%
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Cash Paid
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delizia Finance Ltd.
|
|
January
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
Luckstone Corporation
|
|
January
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
Nerungri bank
|
|
January
|
|
|
4.89
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morcenter TECK
|
|
March
|
|
|
0.83
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,368
|
|
|
|
14,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On September 11, 2007, Moskoks transferred the 100%
interest in its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, holding 19.39%
and 19.59% of shares in Moskoks, respectively, to Mechel-Coke,
another Groups subsidiary. Due to the dilution of the
Groups interest in Moskoks from 98.94% to 97.11%, the
non-controlling interest increased by $6,624.
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 March through October 2008, the Group
acquired 1.96% 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.
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 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 using the
F-44
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
purchase method of accounting and was recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
In January 2009, the Groups subsidiary Oriel Resources
Plc. acquired the remaining 10.00% of Delizia 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 Delizia Finance
Ltd. and Luckstone Corporation was accounted for using the
purchase method of accounting and recorded in the consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
(o)
|
Pro
forma condensed consolidated income statement data
(unaudited)
|
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 combinations 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.
The following unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated income
statement information for (i) 12 months ended
December 31, 2008, gives effect to the business
combinations that occurred in 2008, as if they had occurred at
the beginning of 2008 and (ii) 12 months ended
December 31, 2007, gives effect to the business
combinations that occurred in 2008 and 2007, as if they had
occurred at the beginning of 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
10,237,572
|
|
|
|
7,977,688
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
1,175,444
|
|
|
|
851,553
|
|
Net income per share
|
|
|
2.82
|
|
|
|
2.05
|
|
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.
The business combinations that occurred in 2008 contributed
$297,255 to consolidated revenues and $119,758 of net income to
the Groups consolidated net income for the year ended
December 31, 2008 from the dates of such acquisitions.
F-45
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
5.
|
CASH AND
CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
Cash and cash equivalents are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Russian ruble bank accounts
|
|
|
38,847
|
|
|
|
72,648
|
|
USD bank accounts
|
|
|
172,782
|
|
|
|
71,581
|
|
Euro bank accounts
|
|
|
18,509
|
|
|
|
47,776
|
|
Bank accounts in other currencies
|
|
|
3,923
|
|
|
|
5,066
|
|
Other
|
|
|
180,635
|
|
|
|
57,768
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
414,696
|
|
|
|
254,839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, $55,984 included in USD bank
accounts were restricted for use in accordance with various
guarantees provided by BNP Paribas to the Groups
subsidiaries (refer to Note 26), and $359 was restricted
for use in accordance with the guarantees provided by the
Groups subsidiaries and VTB bank. As of December 31,
2008, $363 included in Russian ruble bank accounts and $76
included in Bank accounts in other currencies were restricted
for use in accordance with guarantees provided by VEB and EBRD.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, Other cash and cash
equivalents included $3,029 and $1,954, respectively, letters of
credit entered into by the Groups subsidiaries for the
plant, property and equipment acquisition.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, short-term
ruble-denominated deposits of $174,275 and $25,376,
respectively, with an original maturity of less than
90 days were included in Other cash and cash equivalents.
As of December 31, 2008, a promissory note of $27,230 with
an original maturity of less than 90 days was included in
Other cash and cash equivalents. There was no promissory note as
of December 31, 2009.
|
|
6.
|
ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE, NET
|
Accounts receivable, net are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Domestic customers
|
|
|
273,537
|
|
|
|
334,377
|
|
Foreign customers
|
|
|
141,550
|
|
|
|
182,985
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts receivable
|
|
|
415,087
|
|
|
|
517,362
|
|
Less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(66,764
|
)
|
|
|
(110,613
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
348,323
|
|
|
|
406,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-46
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following summarizes the changes in the allowance for
doubtful accounts for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
(110,613
|
)
|
|
|
(26,781
|
)
|
|
|
(19,592
|
)
|
Recovery of allowance (allowance) for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
38,019
|
|
|
|
(103,632
|
)
|
|
|
(1,411
|
)
|
Accounts receivable written off, net
|
|
|
(954
|
)
|
|
|
385
|
|
|
|
(1,180
|
)
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts of acquired entities
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
|
(1,470
|
)
|
|
|
(9,325
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
6,845
|
|
|
|
20,885
|
|
|
|
4,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(66,764
|
)
|
|
|
(110,613
|
)
|
|
|
(26,781
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The significant decrease in allowance for doubtful accounts in
2009 is due to an improvement of the collectibility of accounts
receivable and increase in sales made on prepayment basis.
The significant increase in allowance for doubtful accounts in
2008 was due to the increased exposure of the Group to 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 2009, most of such
customers repaid their debts.
Inventories are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
575,462
|
|
|
|
778,219
|
|
Raw materials and purchased parts
|
|
|
327,214
|
|
|
|
411,865
|
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
133,110
|
|
|
|
175,025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventories
|
|
|
1,035,786
|
|
|
|
1,365,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the write-down of
inventories to their net realizable value was $70,714 and
$275,736, respectively. The most significant decrease in the
write-down of inventories is attributable to the Steel and
Ferroalloy segments in the amounts of $117,847 and $74,417,
respectively, caused by improved inventory management and lower
volumes.
|
|
8.
|
PREPAYMENTS
AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS
|
Prepayments and other current assets are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
VAT and other taxes recoverable
|
|
|
247,795
|
|
|
|
483,872
|
|
Prepayments and advances for materials
|
|
|
55,849
|
|
|
|
48,238
|
|
Bank deposits with original maturities over 90 days
|
|
|
89,805
|
|
|
|
241
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
28,472
|
|
|
|
28,796
|
|
Short-term loans issued
|
|
|
55,223
|
|
|
|
593
|
|
Promissory notes received
|
|
|
4,204
|
|
|
|
870
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
70,387
|
|
|
|
43,744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
551,735
|
|
|
|
606,354
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-47
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 $30,165 and $21,715 were included in Other current
assets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and
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 Uglemetbank under the
asset management agreement that guarantees a rate of return of
10.5% p.a. Uglemetbank used these funds to acquire one-year
promissory notes issued by Calridge Ltd., a related party (refer
to Note 10). Interest receivable related to this loan in
the amount of $4,720 is included in Other current assets.
As of December 31, 2009, Other current assets included
$9,451 of prepaid royalties by the BCG Companies, which are
recoupable in 2010.
Long-term investments are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Equity method investments
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
Other related parties
|
|
|
3,194
|
|
|
|
1,021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in related parties
|
|
|
86,144
|
|
|
|
80,408
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
Cost method investments
|
|
|
8,972
|
|
|
|
10,174
|
|
Prepayment for the BCG Companies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
438,623
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,473
|
|
|
|
8,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other long-term investments
|
|
|
23,563
|
|
|
|
472,772
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term investments
|
|
|
109,707
|
|
|
|
553,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-48
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(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
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
TPP Rousse (Power segment)
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
|
|
71,364
|
|
|
|
68,869
|
|
Mechel Energy AG (Conares Eagle) (Mining segment)
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
TPTU (Mining segment)
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
4,541
|
|
|
|
4,274
|
|
TRMZ (Mining segment)
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
2,187
|
|
|
|
1,855
|
|
RIKT (Mining segment)
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
2,197
|
|
|
|
2,055
|
|
Other (Mining segment)
|
|
|
20-44
|
%
|
|
|
20-39
|
%
|
|
|
2,647
|
|
|
|
2,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity method investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPP Rousse (Toplofikatsia Rousse) shares are owned by MIH. The
core business is generation of electricity and heat for sales in
Europe (refer to Note 4(e)).
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 is currently a dormant company.
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.
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, 2009 and 2008 and for the
years then ended is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income data
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Revenues and other income
|
|
|
98,547
|
|
|
|
135,807
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
7,824
|
|
|
|
6,967
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
3,572
|
|
|
|
3,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At
|
|
At
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
Balance sheet data
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
72,831
|
|
|
|
72,986
|
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
84,579
|
|
|
|
84,969
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
81,199
|
|
|
|
79,542
|
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
6,303
|
|
|
|
12,134
|
|
F-49
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table shows movements in the equity method
investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share in Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) Since
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
Acquisition
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
420,273
|
|
|
|
8,572
|
|
|
|
428,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of full consolidation of Yakutugol
|
|
|
(428,835
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(428,835
|
)
|
Investment in TPP Rousse
|
|
|
73,539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,539
|
|
Other investments
|
|
|
2,161
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,161
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
20,248
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,248
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(4,618
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,618
|
)
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
82,768
|
|
|
|
8,580
|
|
|
|
91,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(6,316
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,316
|
)
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(6,569
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,569
|
)
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
70,090
|
|
|
|
9,297
|
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
2,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,374
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Share in net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
72,453
|
|
|
|
10,497
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
the Group received cash dividends of $11, $6,569 and $4,618,
respectively.
|
|
(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, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
14,892
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,774
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
14,892
|
|
|
|
9,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,774
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-50
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Investments in
available-for-sale
securities were as follows as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
16,534
|
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
|
|
2,560
|
|
|
|
(3,156
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
16,534
|
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
|
|
2,560
|
|
|
|
(3,156
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
available-for-sale
securities represented investments into equity securities of
well-established Russian energy companies.
|
|
(d)
|
Prepayment
for the BCG Companies
|
As of December 31, 2008, the amount of $438,623 represented
total advance payments made by the Group to acquire the BCG
Companies of which $279,058 was not refundable as of that date.
In 2009, the amount of $436,414 was included in the total amount
of consideration paid as disclosed in Note 4(a) and
transaction costs of $2,209 were expensed.
During the three years ended December 31, 2009, the Group
had the following transactions and current balances in
settlement with related parties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(Received),
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/Loss
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
From
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Calridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
822
|
|
|
|
16,449
|
|
|
|
5,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,043
|
|
Estar Group
|
|
|
126,645
|
|
|
|
66,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
668
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
(1,664
|
)
|
|
|
(1,323
|
)
|
TPP Rousse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,542
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,542
|
|
Uglemetbank
|
|
|
766
|
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
9,506
|
|
|
|
113,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,002
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
137,373
|
|
|
|
116,262
|
|
|
|
10,475
|
|
|
|
130,143
|
|
|
|
110,931
|
|
|
|
(13,500
|
)
|
|
|
97,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-51
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(Received),
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/Loss
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
(1,364
|
)
|
|
|
(1,348
|
)
|
Uglemetbank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,130
|
|
|
|
67,907
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,907
|
|
Other
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
22,942
|
|
|
|
71,691
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,720
|
)
|
|
|
90,078
|
|
|
|
(1,588
|
)
|
|
|
88,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(Received),
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Payable
|
|
|
Outstanding,
|
|
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
Gain/Loss
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
From
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
GPU
|
|
|
4,752
|
|
|
|
3,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
(1,757
|
)
|
|
|
(1,156
|
)
|
Mechel Energy AG
|
|
|
301
|
|
|
|
102,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,881
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,881
|
|
RIKT
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
TPP Rousse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
TPTU
|
|
|
4,570
|
|
|
|
169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
(483
|
)
|
|
|
(462
|
)
|
TRMZ
|
|
|
6,072
|
|
|
|
917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
(1,189
|
)
|
|
|
(1,017
|
)
|
Yakutugol
|
|
|
141,319
|
|
|
|
1,859
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(137
|
)
|
|
|
(137
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
157,228
|
|
|
|
110,056
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,988
|
|
|
|
(3,596
|
)
|
|
|
1,392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mechel Energy AG, in which the Group owns 50% of its ordinary
shares, purchased coal from the Group during the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007 in the amount of $2,988 and
$102,619, respectively. Sales to Mechel Energy AG were made on
market terms with average margin attributable to coal sales. In
2008, Mechel Energy AG ceased to perform active trading
operations, distributed all its net assets as dividends to its
shareholders and is currently a dormant company, refer to the
Note 9(a).
|
|
(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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Group purchased
transportation services in the amount of $1,977, $4,346 and
$4,570, respectively.
F-52
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group 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, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Group purchased
repair services in the amount of $6,114, $8,490 and $6,072,
respectively.
For the period from January 24, 2005 through
October 19, 2007, the Group owned 25% plus one share of the
ordinary shares of Yakutugol, which provides the Group with
coal. Since October 19, 2007, the Group has owned 100% in
Yakutugol. During the period from January 1, 2007 through
October 19, 2007 purchases from Yakutugol amounted to
$141,319. The Groups sales of services and auxiliary
materials to Yakutugol amounted to $1,859.
(e) Calridge
Ltd.
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 Bluestone Industries Inc. 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.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Group issued
loans to Calridge Ltd. in the amount of $16,449, which was fully
repaid as of December 31, 2009. Interest income received
from these loans issued comprised $822 in 2009.
During 2009 and 2008, the Group transferred cash under the asset
management agreement in the amount $54,807 and $52,756,
respectively, to Uglemetbank. Uglemetbank further used these
funds to acquire promissory notes issued by Calridge Ltd.
bearing interest at 8.6-14.5% p.a., held by the Group or under
the asset management agreement with Uglemetbank.
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 10(i),
Uglemetbank 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
Uglemetbank trust accounts was included in the short-term loans
issued to related 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 Note 8 and
Note 9). As of December 31, 2008, the promissory notes
were included in the short-term investments in related parties
in the whole amount.
In January and February 2010, Calridge Ltd. has settled the
whole amount of its outstanding promissory notes as of
December 31, 2009 to Uglemetbank, and Uglemetbank has paid
the total amount of $59,030 to the Group.
During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and 2007,
the Groups sales to TPP Rousse amounted to $43,782,
$64,783 and $1,276, respectively, and were made on market terms
with average margin
F-53
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
attributable to coal sales. As of December 31, 2009, 2008
and 2007, the Group had accounts receivables from TPP Rousse in
the amount of $5,542, $19,755 and $1,303, respectively.
|
|
(g)
|
Mining
and Engineering Management Company
|
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 years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, the
Group purchased services on mine construction for $8,342 and
$4,752, respectively, $5,418 and $490 of which were capitalized.
The Groups sales of construction materials to GPU amounted
to $2,925 and $3,206, respectively.
In the period from June 30, 2008 through November 28,
2009, the Group participated in the board of directors of
Uglemetbank. In addition, together with its related party (see
Note 10(j) below), the Group held a significant ownership
interest therein from November 19, 2008 through
September 18, 2009. The Groups ownership interest in
Uglemetbank was 0% and 18.98% as of December 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively. Uglemetbank is a middle size regional bank,
which provides mostly cash settlement services for the Group.
Cash held in Uglemetbank 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
Uglemetbank in the amount of $5,888, placed cash on deposit at
Uglemetbank 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
Uglemetbank 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 Uglemetbank in the amount of $54,807
(refer to Note 10(e)). The total amount of income received
under the asset management agreement was $9,506 in 2009.
Mechel Fund (earlier 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 18.
In 2008, the Groups subsidiaries made founder
contributions to Mechel Fund in the total amount of $17,501
(refer to Note 24).
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
Uglemetbank to Mechel Fund for $2,343 paid in cash, and Mechel
Fund increased its share in Uglemetbank up to 97.87%.
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 4(l), on June 30, 2008, Mechel
OAO acquired 613,624 ordinary shares of SKCC (1.70%) from
Mr. Igor V. Zyuzin in exchange for 190,985,726 ordinary
shares, or 1.56%, of Mechel Mining
F-54
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 Estar Group Companies
|
In the second half of 2009, the Group received an opportunity
granted by Estar Group management to influence sales and
operating policies through the representation in the board of
directors, management and other arrangements. The companies
involved into the transactions with the Group included: Volga
Fest, Rostov Electrometallurgical Plant (REP), Vostochnaya Mine,
Experimental TES (ETES), Zlatoust Metallurgical Plant (ZMP),
Guryevsk Metallurgical Plant (GMP), Volgograd Small Diameter
Pipe Plant (VSDPP), and Engels Pipe Plant (EPP).
All these companies were under the bankruptcy proceedings since
the second half of 2009, which were ceased through the amicable
agreements among the parties concerned either at the end of 2009
(Vostochnaya Mine, VSDPP) or in the first quarter of 2010 (Volga
Fest, REP, ETES, GMP). ZMP and EPP have not terminated their
bankruptcy proceedings as of April 21, 2010.
During the second half of 2009, Estar Group sales and purchases
to the Group amounted to $66,209 and $126,645, respectively, and
were made on the market terms with the average margin
attributable to the respective products sales. As of
December 31, 2009, the Group had advances paid to Estar
Group in the amount of $42,997, accounts receivable from Estar
Group in the amount of $49,181, accounts payable to Estar Group
in the amount of $11,749. Inventories purchased from Estar Group
amounted to $66,078 as of December 31, 2009.
In October 2009, the Group obtained an opportunity to influence
sales and operating policies of Laminorul S.A., a steel company
located in Romania, by appointment of its representatives to 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, and were made on the market
terms with the average margin attributable to the processing
services sales. As of December 31, 2009, the balances of
accounts receivable from Laminorul S.A. equaled to $6,824. The
Group acquired a 90.9% ownership interest in Laminorul S.A. in
February 2010 (refer to Note 27).
|
|
11.
|
INTANGIBLE
ASSETS, NET
|
Identifiable intangible assets, net are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Intangible assets with determinable lives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy license
|
|
|
1,925
|
|
|
|
1,894
|
|
Software
|
|
|
6,761
|
|
|
|
3,868
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,184
|
|
|
|
1,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total intangible assets
|
|
|
10,870
|
|
|
|
6,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-55
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
12.
|
PROPERTY,
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT, NET
|
Property, plant and equipment, net are comprised of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
112,240
|
|
|
|
105,658
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
1,221,736
|
|
|
|
1,152,271
|
|
Transfer devices
|
|
|
131,871
|
|
|
|
106,154
|
|
Operating machinery and equipment
|
|
|
1,957,548
|
|
|
|
1,894,359
|
|
Transportation equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
333,013
|
|
|
|
329,933
|
|
Tools, furniture, fixtures and other
|
|
|
189,227
|
|
|
|
152,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,945,635
|
|
|
|
3,741,301
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(1,274,734
|
)
|
|
|
(1,025,325
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
2,670,901
|
|
|
|
2,715,976
|
|
Mining plant and equipment
|
|
|
502,156
|
|
|
|
385,799
|
|
Less accumulated depletion
|
|
|
(59,615
|
)
|
|
|
(48,443
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
442,541
|
|
|
|
337,356
|
|
Construction-in-progress
|
|
|
1,347,063
|
|
|
|
1,224,509
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
4,460,505
|
|
|
|
4,277,841
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included within
construction-in-progress
are advances to suppliers of equipment of $174,511 and $200,318
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. During the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Group incurred
interest expenses of $582,346 and $348,915, respectively, of
which interest capitalized in the cost of property, plant and
equipment was $87,252 and $34,745, respectively. The
depreciation charge amounted to $321,117 and $360,586 for the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Mining plant and equipment, net included mining construction in
progress in the amount of $79,342 and $162,011 as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
In 2009, the Group decided to abandon and dispose of certain
production equipment as a result of changes in its production
strategy. As of December 31, 2009, the carrying value of
such equipment amounted to $20,940 and was written off in full,
out of which $3,496, $1,669 and $15,775 related to the Mining,
Steel and Ferroalloy segments, respectively.
F-56
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
13.
|
MINERAL
LICENSES, NET
|
Mineral licenses, net are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Coal deposits
|
|
|
3,909,010
|
|
|
|
1,786,675
|
|
Chrome deposits
|
|
|
1,389,233
|
|
|
|
1,717,991
|
|
Iron ore deposits
|
|
|
72,836
|
|
|
|
75,311
|
|
Nickel deposits
|
|
|
37,137
|
|
|
|
39,390
|
|
Limestone deposits
|
|
|
2,863
|
|
|
|
2,947
|
|
Quartzite deposits
|
|
|
1,779
|
|
|
|
1,007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral licenses before depletion
|
|
|
5,412,858
|
|
|
|
3,623,321
|
|
Accumulated depletion
|
|
|
(279,753
|
)
|
|
|
(192,679
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral licenses, net
|
|
|
5,133,105
|
|
|
|
3,430,642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 4(a) 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 $2,171,633.
As described in Note 4(c) 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, 2009, 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 2010 to 2018,
and they generally contain extension clauses.
F-57
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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. During 2009, 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 to revoke these licenses is remote.
|
|
14.
|
OTHER
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
|
Other non-current assets are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Advanced payments to non-state pension funds
|
|
|
19,259
|
|
|
|
28,313
|
|
Capitalized loan origination fees
|
|
|
40,844
|
|
|
|
23,273
|
|
Other
|
|
|
7,191
|
|
|
|
6,258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other non-current assets
|
|
|
67,294
|
|
|
|
57,844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, advanced payments of
$19,259 and $28,313 were made by Yakutugol in terms of agreed
pension benefit program to Almaznaya Osen and Mechel Fund
non-state pension funds (refer to Note 18).
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the amounts of $40,844
and $23,273, 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 15). The capitalized
origination fees are classified between short-term and long-term
assets in a manner consistent with the related debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion of Long-Term
Debt
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Including Debt with Loan Covenant Violations:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
493,271
|
|
|
|
9.0-16.5
|
|
|
|
1,071,269
|
|
|
|
8.0-20.2
|
|
Bonds issue
|
|
|
165,321
|
|
|
|
8.40
|
|
|
|
4,016
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
2,279
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
9,689
|
|
|
|
0-12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
660,871
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,084,974
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
211,277
|
|
|
|
0.0-9.5
|
|
|
|
1,742,783
|
|
|
|
1.8-17.5
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
450
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
211,727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,742,783
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
85,584
|
|
|
|
1.73-8.4
|
|
|
|
99,895
|
|
|
|
3.5-14.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
85,584
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99,895
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-58
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion of Long-Term
Debt
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Including Debt with Loan Covenant Violations:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
5,750
|
|
|
|
5.5-12.4
|
|
|
|
13,616
|
|
|
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term borrowings
|
|
|
963,932
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,941,268
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt including debt of $2,158,891
with loan covenant violations in 2008
|
|
|
959,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,208,147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term
debt including debt with loan covenant violations
|
|
|
1,923,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,149,415
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted average interest rate of the ruble-denominated
short-term borrowings as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was
14.11% and 8.56% p.a., respectively. The weighted average
interest rate of the U.S. dollar-denominated short-term
borrowings as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was 4.04% and
4.68% p.a., respectively. The weighted average interest rate of
the Euro-denominated short-term borrowings as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 was 5.18% and 5.50% p.a.,
respectively. The weighted average interest rate of the Romanian
lei-denominated short-term borrowings as of December 31,
2009 and 2008 was 8.11% and 16.85% p.a., respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Long-Term Debt, Net of Current Portion:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Rate p.a., %
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
776,885
|
|
|
|
10.6-18.2
|
|
|
|
35,304
|
|
|
|
9.8-10.4
|
|
Bonds issue
|
|
|
487,265
|
|
|
|
12.5-19.0
|
|
|
|
169,512
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,264,460
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syndicated loan
|
|
|
2,348,996
|
|
|
|
7.23-8.24
|
|
|
|
1,915,750
|
|
|
|
5.1-7.3
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
1,170,945
|
|
|
|
3.25-14.0
|
|
|
|
141,689
|
|
|
|
5.0-9.1
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,519,941
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,057,442
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
224,692
|
|
|
|
1.25-8.2
|
|
|
|
165,573
|
|
|
|
3.5-7.2
|
|
Corporate lenders
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
225,050
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
165,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banks and financial institutions
|
|
|
24,124
|
|
|
|
12.8-15.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
24,124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term obligations
|
|
|
5,033,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,427,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: current portion
|
|
|
(959,117
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,208,147
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt, net of current portion
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
219,816
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-59
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The weighted average interest rate of the ruble-denominated
long-term borrowings as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was
13.91% and 10.21% p.a., respectively. The weighted average
interest rate of the U.S. dollar-denominated long-term
borrowings as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was 8.03% and
5.11% p.a., respectively. The weighted average interest rate of
the Euro-denominated long-term borrowings as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 was 4.94% and 5.59% p.a.,
respectively. The weighted average interest rate of the Romanian
lei-denominated long-term borrowings as of December 31,
2009 was 13.54%.
Aggregate scheduled maturities of the debt outstanding as of
December 31, 2009, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Payable by:
|
|
|
|
|
2010 (current portion)
|
|
|
1,923,049
|
|
2011
|
|
|
1,033,370
|
|
2012
|
|
|
1,561,773
|
|
2013
|
|
|
407,336
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,071,979
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,997,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol
credit facility
In December 2007, the Group executed a $2,000,000 syndicated
loan arrangement for refinancing the acquisition of its
subsidiaries, Yakutugol and Elgaugol (Yakutugol
credit facility). The Acquisition Refinancing Package was
comprised of Secured
5-year
Pre-Export Finance Facility totaling $1,700,000 (85%) and
3-year Term
Loan Facility totaling $300,000 (15%), jointly arranged by BNP
Paribas, ABN AMRO, Calyon, Natixis, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation Europe Limited, Société Générale
Corporate & Investment Banking and Commerzbank AG.
Loan funds were credited to the accounts of CMP, SKCC and SUNP
for the amounts of $1,340,000, $500,000 and $160,000,
respectively.
In accordance with the provisions of the syndicated loan
agreement the borrowing was provided in the form of two
facilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Facility A of $1,700,000 bearing interest at LIBOR plus 1.5%
p.a.;
|
|
|
|
Facility B of $300,000 bearing interest at LIBOR plus 2.25% p.a.
|
In July 2009, the Group signed an agreement with the syndicate
of banks to refinance its Yakutugol credit facility
in the amount of $1,600,000 at LIBOR plus 6% p.a., which
provides for equal monthly installments from September 2009
through December 2012. Under the agreement the syndicate of
banks changed the Facility Agreement Agent from BNP Paribas to
Commerzbank.
The syndicated long-term Yakutugol credit facility
in the amount of $1,348,996 as of December 31, 2009,
includes a current portion of $449,665, which is due before
December 31, 2010, and $899,331 payable in subsequent years.
Guarantees under the Yakutugol credit facility are
jointly issued by Mechel Finance, Mechel OAO, Yakutugol, MTH and
Mechel Trading Ltd., Mechel Mining OAO, Mechel-Coke and Oriel
for the total amount of $1,348,996. In addition, the loan is
secured by 2,020,992 pledged common shares of Yakutugol (50%
less one share of common shares); 7,727,942 pledged common
shares of SKCC (21.4% of common shares); 676,711 pledged common
shares of CMP (21.4% of common shares).
Oriel
facility agreement
In March 2008, OAO Mechel executed a $1,500,000 credit facility
agreement with the Royal Bank of Scotland for financing the
acquisition of Oriel (Oriel credit facility). The
loan bore a variable interest at the
F-60
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
rate of LIBOR plus 2.6% p.a. (during the first six months after
the date of agreement) and 2.9% p.a. (thereafter) and was due on
July 15, 2009.
Guarantees under the facility agreement were jointly issued by
Mechel Finance, Yakutugol, MTH and Mechel Trading Ltd. for the
total amount of $1,500,000.
In July 2009, the Group signed an agreement with the syndicate
of banks with Commerzbank as facility Agreement Agent to
refinance its short-term Oriel credit facility in
the amount of $1,000,000 at LIBOR plus 7% p.a., which provides
for equal monthly installments from July 2010 through December
2012. The remainder of Oriel credit facility of
$500,000 was repaid through the funds raised through the
Gazprombank three-year loan facility described below.
Oriel credit facility in the amount of $1,000,000,
includes a current portion of $200,000, which is due before
December 31, 2010, and $800,000 payable in subsequent years.
Guarantees under the Oriel credit facility are
jointly issued by Mechel Finance, Mechel OAO, Yakutugol, MTH and
Mechel Trading Ltd., Mechel Mining OAO, Mechel-Coke and Oriel
for the total amount of $1,000,000. 4,910,283 pledged common
shares of SKCC (13.6% of common shares); 429,977 pledged common
shares of CMP (13.6% of common shares); 483,785,849 pledged
common shares of Oriel (50% less one share of common shares).
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% p.a. The loan is repayable
in quarterly installments in
2010-2012.
The indebtedness under the credit facility is secured by the
pledge of 1,414,696 common shares of Yakutugol (35% of total
common shares) and 12,638,226 common shares of SKCC (35% of
total common shares).
In February 2010, the Group signed a prolongation agreement with
Gazprombank. According to this prolongation 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 is reduced from 14% to 9% p.a.
Consequently, the whole amount of the Gazprombank debt
outstanding as of December 31, 2009 was classified as
long-term.
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 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 8.4% p.a. The interest rate for the second to the
eighth coupon periods is set as equal to that of the first
period. The interest rate for the ninth to the fourteenth coupon
periods is set by the Group and made public 10 days before
the respective coupon period starts. The bondholders have an
option to demand repayment of the bonds at par value starting
June 21, 2010. 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 ($165,321). 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, 2009 was $165,321
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
twelve 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
F-61
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
bondholders have an option to demand repayment of the bonds at
par value starting July 30, 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 billion Russian rubles ($165,321). 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, 2009
was $165,321 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 18, 2012. The obligatory redemption date is
October 9, 2018. Bonds are secured by a guarantee issued by
Yakutugol. The aggregate amount of the guarantee issued is
5 billion Russian rubles ($165,321). 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, 2009 was $165,321
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 11, 2011. The obligatory redemption date is
November 09, 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, 2009 was $156,623 and is
classified as long-term debt. The decrease in the balance of
bonds as of December 31, 2009 is due to acquisition of
bonds in the total amount of $8,698 by Groups subsidiaries.
Other
loans
Other significant debt provided by bank financing included
credit line facilities from BNP Paribas, Gazprombank, VTB,
UniCredit Bank, Commerzbank, ING Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, ABN
AMRO, Fortis Bank, Sberbank, Promsvyazbank, Uralsib and other
institutions. The unused portion under all credit facilities as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $491,369 and $684,940,
respectively. As of December 31, 2009, the Groups
credit facilities provided aggregated borrowing capacity of
$6,488,876, of which $1,983,247 expires within a year.
F-62
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The outstanding balances of short-term and long-term debt by
denominated currencies as of December 31, 2009 and 2008
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Short-Term and Long-Term Debt:
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
652,586
|
|
|
|
169,512
|
|
VTB
|
|
|
495,963
|
|
|
|
510,544
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
360,400
|
|
|
|
272,007
|
|
Sberbank
|
|
|
281,746
|
|
|
|
112,320
|
|
Bank of Moscow
|
|
|
56,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moscow Credit Bank
|
|
|
46,290
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
18,979
|
|
|
|
19,537
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
9,841
|
|
|
|
10,130
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,157
|
|
Alfa-bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104,321
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3,318
|
|
|
|
19,394
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,925,332
|
|
|
|
1,289,922
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol credit facility
|
|
|
1,348,996
|
|
|
|
1,915,750
|
|
Oriel credit facility
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
1,035,000
|
|
|
|
57,800
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
73,000
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
ING
|
|
|
52,632
|
|
|
|
7,281
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
68,453
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDB, HBV, WestLB AG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,750
|
|
Alfa-bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
BNP Paribas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,351
|
|
Other
|
|
|
141,586
|
|
|
|
80,293
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,731,667
|
|
|
|
3,800,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uralsib
|
|
|
71,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortis Bank
|
|
|
67,262
|
|
|
|
35,347
|
|
VTB
|
|
|
29,256
|
|
|
|
7,719
|
|
ING
|
|
|
26,291
|
|
|
|
18,421
|
|
Commerzbank
|
|
|
24,615
|
|
|
|
35,263
|
|
ABN AMRO
|
|
|
22,167
|
|
|
|
|
|
UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische Hypo-und-Vereinsbank)
|
|
|
44,790
|
|
|
|
23,408
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
8,075
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gazprombank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,520
|
|
BNP Paribas
|
|
|
378
|
|
|
|
39,834
|
|
Other
|
|
|
16,070
|
|
|
|
70,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
310,634
|
|
|
|
265,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Romanian lei-denominated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raiffeisenbank
|
|
|
20,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
8,931
|
|
|
|
13,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
29,874
|
|
|
|
13,616
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term and long-term debt
|
|
|
5,997,507
|
|
|
|
5,369,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-63
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In 2009 and 2008, Gazprombank provided long-term and short-term
ruble and U.S. dollar-denominated loans to CMP, MTH, Mechel
Service bearing interest at 8.5-19.0% p.a. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $395,400 and
$364,327, respectively.
During 2008, VTB provided a short-term ruble-denominated loan to
the Group 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 SKCC and Yakutugol and up to 14% for
CMP. According to additional agreement the loan should be repaid
in November 2012. In 2009, VTB provided Euro-denominated long-
term and short-term loans to HBL bearing interest 8.22-8.36%.
The outstanding balances as of December 31, 2009 and 2008
were $525,219 and $518,263, respectively.
In 2009 and 2008, Sberbank provided long-term and short-term
ruble and U.S. dollar-denominated loans to CMP, Moskoks and
Izhstal bearing interest at 12.5-18.22% p.a. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $281,746 and
$112,320, respectively.
During 2009, Bank of Moscow provided long-term and short-term
ruble-denominated loans to Yakutugol bearing interest at
10.6-12.0% p.a. The outstanding balance as of December 31,
2009 was $56,209.
During 2009, Moscow Credit Bank provided long-term
ruble-denominated loans to Yakutugol and SUNP bearing interest
at 12.0% p.a. The outstanding balance as of December 31,
2009 was $46,290.
During 2009 and 2008, Raiffeisenbank provided to the
Groups subsidiaries long-term multi-currency-denominated
loans bearing interest at 1.35-14.54% p.a. The outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $59,997 and
$19,537, respectively.
During 2009 and 2008, UniCredit Bank provided to the
Groups subsidiaries short-term and long-term
multi-currency-denominated loans bearing interest at 1.10-14.64%
p.a. The outstanding balances as of December 31, 2009 and
2008 were $123,084 and $73,538, respectively.
During 2009 and 2008, Uralsib Bank provided BMP, KMP and Izhstal
with short-term U.S. dollar-denominated loans bearing
interest at 7.5-20.0% p.a. The outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $144,730 and $97,157,
respectively.
In 2008, Alfa-bank provided several short-term ruble-denominated
loans to CMP bearing interest at 16.85-20.15% p.a. The loans
were fully repaid in March 2009.
During 2009 and 2008, Fortis Bank provided the Groups
subsidiaries with short-term and long-term
U.S. dollar-denominated and Euro-denominated loans bearing
interest at 1.68-5.34% p.a. The outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $67,262 and $37,434,
respectively.
During 2008 and 2009, ING Bank provided Group subsidiaries with
short-term and long-term U.S. dollar-denominated and
Euro-denominated loans bearing interest at 1.25-4.21% p.a. The
outstanding balances as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 were
$78,923 and $25,702, respectively.
During 2008, upon the acquisition of Oriel, the Group included
in its debt portfolio long-term U.S. dollar-denominated
loans from EDB, HVB and WestLB AG in the total amount of $90,000
bearing interest at 7.14-9.12% p.a. The loans were fully repaid
by December 31, 2009.
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 & Leasing and other banks in the total amount
of $100,719 bearing interest at
3.25-11.00%
p.a.
F-64
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Pledges
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the carrying value of
property, plant and equipment pledged under loan agreements
amounted to $693,051 and $326,261, respectively. Carrying value
of inventories pledged under loan agreements amounted to
$116,234 and $109,080 as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Accounts receivable pledged as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008 amounted to $143,433 and
$38,557, respectively. Cash pledged under loan agreements
amounted to $25,913 and $nil as of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively.
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, 2008, the Group breached a number of
financial and non-financial covenants in various loan
agreements, including Shareholders Equity to Net
Borrowings, Financial Indebtedness to Tangible Net
Worth, cash turnover ratio, pledges and overdue payable
limits, limits on tax claims, etc. and failed to obtain waivers
from the banks before the issuance of the financial statements.
As of December 31, 2009, the Group also 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. In contrast with December 31, 2008, no
reclassifications of long-term debt to short-term liabilities
due to covenant violations were made as of December 31,
2009.
Specifically, 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 as of December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Group breached the Net Borrowings level under
the Yakutugol and Oriel credit
facilities. The outstanding amount of debt under the
arrangements as of December 31, 2009 was $2,348,996;
|
|
|
|
SKCC breached the Net Borrowings level under the
long-term ruble-denominated loan provided by VTB. The
outstanding amount of debt under this loan agreements as of
December 31, 2009 was $284,352;
|
|
|
|
Yakutugol breached the Net Borrowings level under
the long-term ruble-denominated loan provided by VTB. The
outstanding amount of debt under this loan agreement as of
December 31, 2009 was $165,321;
|
|
|
|
Izhstal was not in compliance with the level of Net
Borrowings under the long-term Euro-denominated loan
agreements with Fortis Bank,
ABN-AMRO
Bank and UniCredit Bank (former Bayerische
Hypo-und-Vereinsbank), that had outstanding balances of $37,614,
$11,172 and $13,501 as of December 31, 2009, respectively;
|
F-65
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
MIH was not in compliance with the level of Net
Borrowings under the long-term Euro-denominated loan
agreement signed with Fortis Bank. The outstanding amount under
the loan agreement was $16,650 as of December 31, 2009;
|
|
|
|
CMP was not in compliance with the level of Net
Borrowings under the long-term Euro-and ruble-denominated
loan agreements with ABN Amro, ING, Fortis, UniCredit (former
Bayerische
Hypo-und-Vereinsbank),
VTB, Commerzbank and Raiffeisenbank. The outstanding amount
under these loans was $121,667 as of December 31, 2009;
|
|
|
|
Mechel-Materialy breached the Net Borrowings level
under the long-term ruble-denominated loan provided by UniCredit
Bank. The outstanding amount of debt under the loan agreement as
of December 31, 2009 was $7,369.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
|
|
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 the financial
statements, a new repayment schedule was under discussion
between counterparties.
|
|
16.
|
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;
|
F-66
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
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, 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
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Measurements
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,398
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,938
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 presented by
the Drilling Program contingent liability (refer to
Note 4(a)), 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.
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, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingent
|
|
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
Beginning balance as of the acquisition date
|
|
|
(514,607
|
)
|
Gain resulting from remeasurement of contingent liability
(Note 24)
|
|
|
494,238
|
|
Transfers in and out of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(20,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-67
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of December 31, 2009, 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 as of
|
|
|
Fair Value as of
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
Russian ruble-denominated debt
|
|
|
1,139,795
|
|
|
|
1,094,052
|
|
U.S. dollar-denominated debt
|
|
|
2,759,826
|
|
|
|
2,825,463
|
|
Euro-denominated debt
|
|
|
174,837
|
|
|
|
170,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
4,074,458
|
|
|
|
4,089,858
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of short-term borrowings, bank financing,
equipment financing contracts and other financial instruments
not included in the table above approximates carrying value.
|
|
17.
|
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.
The following table presents the movements in asset retirement
obligations for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation at beginning of year
|
|
|
71,604
|
|
|
|
71,294
|
|
|
|
92,358
|
|
Liabilities incurred in the current year
|
|
|
3,359
|
|
|
|
6,066
|
|
|
|
10,908
|
|
Liabilities settled in the current year
|
|
|
(6,706
|
)
|
|
|
(5,300
|
)
|
|
|
(521
|
)
|
Accretion expense
|
|
|
7,398
|
|
|
|
6,078
|
|
|
|
3,101
|
|
Revision in estimated cash flow
|
|
|
(13,262
|
)
|
|
|
7,155
|
|
|
|
(40,078
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(2,698
|
)
|
|
|
(13,689
|
)
|
|
|
5,526
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation at end of year
|
|
|
59,695
|
|
|
|
71,604
|
|
|
|
71,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Liabilities incurred in 2007 are
represented primarily by the obligations arising on the
acquisition of Yakutugol in the amount of $8,400.
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 Izhstal during the year
ended December 31, 2009 and at CMP and KMP during the year
ended December 31, 2007 as assessed by the Group with the
help of independent environmental engineers.
|
|
18.
|
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.
F-68
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 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.
Yakutugol acquired by the Group on October 19, 2007
provides the following benefits: (a) lump-sum upon
retirement, (b) financial support for resettlement upon
retirement (after attainment of statutory retirement age) from
Yakutia to Central Russia, (c) occupational pension program
(subject to attainment of statutory retirement age, completion
of 15 years of service for Yakutugol and only from
January 1, 2008) life semi annual pension via
Almaznaya Osen, (d) death in service and in
retirement benefit, and (e) occupational accident
disability benefits. Prepayments made to Almaznaya Osen
and Mechel Fund, are included in other non-current assets (refer
to Note 14). The increase in projected benefit obligation
of $216,154 as of December 31, 2007 was due to the business
combination and related to the Yakutugol pension benefit
obligations, consolidated upon the acquisition of Yakutugol in
October 2007.
As of December 31, 2009, there were approximately 70,056
active participants under the defined benefit pension plans and
27,228 pensioners receiving monthly pensions or other regular
financial support from these plans. As of December 31,
2008, the related figures were 73,375 and 21,385, respectively.
The majority of employees at the Groups major subsidiaries
belong to trade unions.
Actuarial valuation of pension and other post employment and
postretirement benefits was performed in March 2010, with the
measurement date of December 31, 2009. 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 (loss) income ratably over
employees working service with the Group.
As of December 31, 2009 projected benefit obligation and
other postretirement benefit obligations amounted to $183,989.
F-69
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Projected
benefit obligation
The movements in the projected benefit obligation
(PBO) were as follows during the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at beginning of year
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
|
|
330,366
|
|
|
|
70,214
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
7,680
|
|
|
|
9,245
|
|
|
|
4,523
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
14,917
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
Obligations arising from acquisitions and other
|
|
|
1,665
|
|
|
|
6,901
|
|
|
|
220,216
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(15,000
|
)
|
|
|
(11,895
|
)
|
|
|
(4,808
|
)
|
Actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
(74,889
|
)
|
|
|
13,046
|
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
(1,750
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailment (gain) loss
|
|
|
(38,573
|
)
|
|
|
(52,156
|
)
|
|
|
5,368
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(6,345
|
)
|
|
|
(37,218
|
)
|
|
|
14,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
|
|
330,366
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Pension obligation, current portion
|
|
|
30,610
|
|
|
|
28,960
|
|
Pension obligation, net of current portion
|
|
|
126,270
|
|
|
|
158,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pension obligation
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-70
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of net periodic benefit cost were as follows for
the year ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
7,680
|
|
|
|
9,245
|
|
|
|
4,535
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
469
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
14,917
|
|
|
|
18,426
|
|
|
|
6,998
|
|
Amortization of actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
(3,187
|
)
|
|
|
(89
|
)
|
|
|
586
|
|
Curtailment gain
|
|
|
(37,717
|
)
|
|
|
(23,421
|
)
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
Termination benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,524
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
Other benefits
|
|
|
1,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
(16,329
|
)
|
|
|
9,185
|
|
|
|
12,314
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of the PBO, the accumulated benefit obligation, fair
value of plan assets and funded status were as follows as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
|
156,880
|
|
|
|
187,030
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
115,843
|
|
|
|
137,143
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status
|
|
|
(156,880
|
)
|
|
|
(187,030
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income
(AOCI) were as follows for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Net (gain) loss
|
|
|
(57,079
|
)
|
|
|
(60,952
|
)
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
3,015
|
|
|
|
1,609
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognised in AOCI
|
|
|
(54,064
|
)
|
|
|
(59,343
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The change in the PBO recognized in Other Comprehensive Income
was as follows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008
and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Additional loss (gain) arising during the year
|
|
|
3,650
|
|
|
|
(74,889
|
)
|
|
|
13,046
|
|
Less re-classified (gain) loss amortization
|
|
|
(2,490
|
)
|
|
|
20,276
|
|
|
|
584
|
|
Additional prior service cost (credit) from plan amendment
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
(1,750
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Less re-classified prior service cost amortization
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
479
|
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
245
|
|
|
|
821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognised in other comprehensive income for the
year
|
|
|
7,769
|
|
|
|
(96,594
|
)
|
|
|
11,983
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-71
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The key actuarial assumptions used were as follows as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
8.70
|
%
|
|
|
9.00
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
13.00
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian entities
|
|
|
7.80
|
%
|
|
|
8.60
|
%
|
Romanian entities
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
|
|
6.10
|
%
|
German entities
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
Rate of pension entitlement increase (before benefit
commencement)
|
|
|
7.80
|
%
|
|
|
8.60
|
%
|
Rate of monthly financial support increase
|
|
|
6.20
|
%
|
|
|
7.00
|
%
|
Rate used for calculation of purchased annuity value
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
|
|
5.00
|
%
|
The results of sensitivity analysis of PBO as of
December 31, 2009 are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in PBO
|
|
|
as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
% from the Base Case PBO
|
|
Discount rate of 1% p.a. lower than base case
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
Salary growth of 1% p.a. higher than base case
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
Staff turnover rate increased by 5% p.a. for all ages
|
|
|
(11
|
)%
|
The amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected
to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost
during the year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Transition obligation (asset)
|
|
|
|
|
Net gain
|
|
|
(2,589
|
)
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amounts expected to be recognized during 2010
|
|
|
(1,756
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015-2019
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Pensions (including monthly financial support)
|
|
|
16,178
|
|
|
|
7,664
|
|
|
|
7,480
|
|
|
|
8,243
|
|
|
|
9,702
|
|
|
|
51,626
|
|
|
|
100,893
|
|
Other benefits
|
|
|
14,432
|
|
|
|
5,053
|
|
|
|
4,830
|
|
|
|
5,175
|
|
|
|
5,862
|
|
|
|
34,104
|
|
|
|
69,456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expected benefits to be paid
|
|
|
30,610
|
|
|
|
12,717
|
|
|
|
12,310
|
|
|
|
13,418
|
|
|
|
15,564
|
|
|
|
85,730
|
|
|
|
170,349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-72
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group 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 4 (a)), the Group
recognized the healthcare postretirement benefit obligations,
which consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at May 7,
2009
|
|
|
21,420
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
515
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,037
|
|
Actuarial loss
|
|
|
4,875
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(738
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation at end of the
period
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets were as
follows as of December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Postretirement obligation, current portion
|
|
|
1,107
|
|
Postretirement obligation, net of current portion
|
|
|
26,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total postretirement obligation
|
|
|
27,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of net periodic benefit cost were as follows for
the year ended December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
515
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
1,037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
|
1,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in AOCI were as follows for the year ended
December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
|
4,876
|
|
The key actuarial assumptions used were as follows as of
December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Weighted average discount rate at the end of the year
|
|
|
6.28
|
%
|
Weighted average discount rate for the period May 7, 2009
to December 31, 2009
|
|
|
7.40
|
%
|
Healthcare cost trend assumed for 2010
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
F-73
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The results of sensitivity analysis of postretirement benefit
obligations as of December 31, 2009 are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Postretirement
|
|
|
Benefit Obligations
|
|
|
as of December 31, 2009
|
|
Annual effect of 1% point increase in healthcare cost trend
on:
|
|
|
|
|
Service and interest cost components
|
|
|
725
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
4,543
|
|
Annual effect of 1% point decrease in healthcare cost trend
on:
|
|
|
|
|
Service and interest cost components
|
|
|
(539
|
)
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
(3,622
|
)
|
The amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected
to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost
during the year ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Transition obligation (asset)
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
120
|
|
Prior service cost (credit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amounts expected to be recognized during 2010
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future
service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
2015-2019
|
|
Total
|
|
Estimated future benefit payments reflecting expected future
service
|
|
|
1,107
|
|
|
|
1,202
|
|
|
|
1,290
|
|
|
|
1,365
|
|
|
|
1,385
|
|
|
|
7,335
|
|
|
|
13,684
|
|
In 2009 and 2008, 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 the FASB ASC 840,
Leases, as they contain a bargain purchase option
and the title to the leased equipment generally transfers to the
lessee at the end of the lease term.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the net book value of the
leased assets was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Transportation equipment and vehicles
|
|
|
105,981
|
|
|
|
85,985
|
|
Operating machinery and equipment
|
|
|
39,455
|
|
|
|
6,820
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(19,495
|
)
|
|
|
(10,340
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net value of property, plant and equipment, obtained under
capital lease agreements
|
|
|
125,941
|
|
|
|
82,465
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-74
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The carrying amount and maturities of capital lease liabilities
as of December 31, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payable
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Net Payable
|
|
|
Payable in 2010
|
|
|
49,725
|
|
|
|
(13,760
|
)
|
|
|
35,965
|
|
Payable in 2011
|
|
|
35,449
|
|
|
|
(8,913
|
)
|
|
|
26,536
|
|
Payable in 2012
|
|
|
24,916
|
|
|
|
(3,371
|
)
|
|
|
21,545
|
|
Payable in 2013
|
|
|
8,603
|
|
|
|
(876
|
)
|
|
|
7,727
|
|
Payable in 2014
|
|
|
2,647
|
|
|
|
(153
|
)
|
|
|
2,494
|
|
Payable thereafter
|
|
|
420
|
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital lease liabilities
|
|
|
121,760
|
|
|
|
(27,101
|
)
|
|
|
94,659
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, transportation equipment and
vehicles under the finance lease agreement between Mechel Trans
and Brunswick Rail Leasing Limited in the amount of $19,641 were
pledged under the operating assignment agreement with Banque
Societe Generale Vostok.
The discount rate used for the calculation of the present value
of minimum lease payments equals the implicit rate for the
lessor and varies from 2.73% to 20.53% on different groups of
equipment in U.S. dollar and from 7.88% to 22.85% in
Euro-denominated contracts. Interest expense charged to the
accompanying Groups income statements in 2009 and 2008
amounts to $12,916 and $14,390, 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, 2009 and 2008.
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 4(a)). An excess of the appraised value of the
preferred shares over their par value was accounted for as an
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-75
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group 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 $9,372,302 and $9,929,170 of statutory
undistributed earnings were available for dividends as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Approximately
$265,512 of undistributed retained earnings of the Groups
subsidiaries was restricted for distribution in accordance with
a covenant provided in a loan agreement with BNP Paribas as of
December 31, 2009.
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.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net (loss) income available to common shareholders
|
|
|
(60,757
|
)
|
|
|
1,140,544
|
|
|
|
913,051
|
|
Total weighted average number of shares outstanding during the
period
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
416,270,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) earnings per common share
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
2.74
|
|
|
|
2.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common shareholders of Mechel OAO for
the year ended December 31, 2009, has been computed by
deducting the dividends on preferred shares for the year ended
December 31, 2008, declared on June 30, 2009, in the
amount of $134,498, 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
|
|
|
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were no dilutive securities issued as of December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007.
F-76
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock
issued to minority shareholders
On February 1, 2007, Olzherassk Mine merged with SKCC. The
non-controlling interests outstanding as of the merger date were
converted into the SKCC shares. The non-monetary exchange was
accounted for using the purchase method of accounting and,
accordingly, the fair value of SKCC stock issued in excess of
the value assigned to the non-controlling interests therein of
$2,743 was credited to additional paid-in capital.
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 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 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.
Income before income tax, non-controlling interests,
discontinued operation and extraordinary gain attributable to
different jurisdictions was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
(390,020
|
)
|
|
|
1,291,336
|
|
|
|
1,242,197
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
(45,254
|
)
|
|
|
(4,988
|
)
|
|
|
72,987
|
|
British Virgin Islands
|
|
|
39,631
|
|
|
|
(22,402
|
)
|
|
|
76,920
|
|
Romania
|
|
|
(99,069
|
)
|
|
|
70,122
|
|
|
|
(6,499
|
)
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
(3,477
|
)
|
|
|
(645
|
)
|
|
|
(208
|
)
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
34,009
|
|
|
|
15,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA
|
|
|
428,703
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
130,701
|
|
|
|
(592
|
)
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
95,224
|
|
|
|
1,348,268
|
|
|
|
1,385,447
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-77
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Current income tax expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
41,940
|
|
|
|
513,632
|
|
|
|
371,522
|
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
3,911
|
|
|
|
2,843
|
|
|
|
3,022
|
|
Romania
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
6,002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,651
|
|
|
|
154
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,558
|
|
|
|
522,703
|
|
|
|
374,640
|
|
Deferred income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
(10,829
|
)
|
|
|
(138,442
|
)
|
|
|
(14,837
|
)
|
Switzerland
|
|
|
3,073
|
|
|
|
(3,409
|
)
|
|
|
(2,553
|
)
|
Romania
|
|
|
(2,680
|
)
|
|
|
(1,039
|
)
|
|
|
(900
|
)
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
230
|
|
|
|
(126
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Kazakhstan
|
|
|
(3,251
|
)
|
|
|
(260,838
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
USA
|
|
|
(20,200
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,992
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,665
|
)
|
|
|
(403,816
|
)
|
|
|
(18,320
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
356,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes represent the Groups provision for profit tax.
During
2007-2008,
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% and 35% in Kazakhstan in 2008 and 2007, respectively, 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,
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. The
changes in income tax rates are effective from January 1 in each
of the respective years. As of December 31, 2008, the
effect of these changes in the total amount of $341,056 was
recognized as a reduction in the income tax expense for the year
then ended in the Groups statement of income and
comprehensive (loss) income.
F-78
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group 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
(benefit) expense reported in the financial statements is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Theoretical income tax expense computed on income before taxes
at Russian statutory rate (20% in 2009 and 24% in 2008 and 2007)
|
|
|
19,045
|
|
|
|
323,584
|
|
|
|
332,507
|
|
Effects of other jurisdictions and permanent differences:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remeasurement of contingent liability, non-taxable
|
|
|
(95,771
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-deductible expenses and non-taxable income, net
|
|
|
7,244
|
|
|
|
35,427
|
|
|
|
48,859
|
|
Social expenditures
|
|
|
3,975
|
|
|
|
2,164
|
|
|
|
12,274
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
106,019
|
|
|
|
136,443
|
|
|
|
29,648
|
|
Change in unrecognized tax benefits under
ASC 740-10
|
|
|
(7,345
|
)
|
|
|
(35,376
|
)
|
|
|
(13,582
|
)
|
Different tax rates in foreign jurisdictions
|
|
|
(9,657
|
)
|
|
|
8,803
|
|
|
|
(39,056
|
)
|
Fines and penalties related to taxes
|
|
|
(1,296
|
)
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
|
|
(5,202
|
)
|
Change in tax rate and tax legislation
|
|
|
(3,010
|
)
|
|
|
(341,056
|
)
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
Other permanent differences
|
|
|
(311
|
)
|
|
|
(14,428
|
)
|
|
|
(2,128
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense, as reported
|
|
|
18,893
|
|
|
|
118,887
|
|
|
|
356,320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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-79
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets, current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
8,758
|
|
|
|
21,059
|
|
Net operating loss carry-forward
|
|
|
13,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bad debt allowance
|
|
|
5,633
|
|
|
|
13,647
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
4,669
|
|
|
|
880
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
10,231
|
|
|
|
3,995
|
|
Vacation provision
|
|
|
3,814
|
|
|
|
10,422
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,498
|
|
|
|
8,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset, current
|
|
|
48,217
|
|
|
|
58,033
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, current
|
|
|
(10,956
|
)
|
|
|
(22,206
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset net of valuation allowance, current
|
|
|
37,261
|
|
|
|
35,827
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets, non-current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry-forward
|
|
|
329,570
|
|
|
|
150,735
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
|
|
|
6,729
|
|
|
|
6,821
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
10,757
|
|
|
|
9,555
|
|
Pension obligations
|
|
|
10,095
|
|
|
|
499
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,607
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets, non-current
|
|
|
358,758
|
|
|
|
167,768
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets, non-current
|
|
|
(258,047
|
)
|
|
|
(133,251
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset net of valuation allowance, non-current
|
|
|
100,711
|
|
|
|
34,517
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset, net
|
|
|
137,972
|
|
|
|
70,344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-80
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities, current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timing difference in revenue recognition
|
|
|
11,002
|
|
|
|
11,280
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
4,582
|
|
|
|
6,270
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
11,320
|
|
|
|
8,171
|
|
Bad debt allowance
|
|
|
3,720
|
|
|
|
5,966
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,794
|
|
|
|
3,082
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities, current
|
|
|
35,418
|
|
|
|
34,769
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities, non-current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
351,822
|
|
|
|
315,333
|
|
Mineral licenses
|
|
|
1,157,423
|
|
|
|
507,826
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
2,072
|
|
|
|
3,437
|
|
Timing difference in cost recognition
|
|
|
1,864
|
|
|
|
773
|
|
Other
|
|
|
15,418
|
|
|
|
17,607
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities, non-current
|
|
|
1,528,599
|
|
|
|
844,976
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liability
|
|
|
1,564,017
|
|
|
|
879,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A deferred tax liability of approximately $298,956 and $109,863
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, 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 $328,188 and $638,112 as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008, 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 (refer to Note 4(k)). 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.
F-81
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
2007-2009,
which may be carried forward for use against their future income
within 10 years in the full amounts.
As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, deferred tax assets on
net operating loss carryforwards for statutory income tax
purposes amounted to $343,184 and $150,735, respectively. As
management concluded that the utilization of a substantial
portion of such losses is not probable, the valuation allowances
in the amount of $256,919 and $130,540 were recorded against net
operating loss carryforwards by the Group. The significant
increase in tax losses subject to carryforward in 2009 was
caused by interest payments on borrowings, which were taken to
finance the 2008 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 $17,172, including interest
and penalties of $7,928, as of December 31, 2009 and
$27,176, including interest and penalties of $8,665, as of
December 31, 2008 were recorded by the Group in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
The reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of
unrecognized income tax benefits, net of interest and penalties,
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits at the beginning of year
|
|
|
18,511
|
|
|
|
50,300
|
|
Increases as a result of tax positions taken during a prior
period (including additions related to the acquisition of Oriel
of $1,398 in 2008)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,398
|
|
Decreases as a result of tax positions taken during a prior
period
|
|
|
(8,745
|
)
|
|
|
(18,349
|
)
|
Increases as a result of tax positions taken during the current
period
|
|
|
1,586
|
|
|
|
5,870
|
|
Decreases relating to settlements with tax authorities
|
|
|
(1,248
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions as a result of a lapse of the applicable statute of
limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,388
|
)
|
Translation difference
|
|
|
(860
|
)
|
|
|
(4,320
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized income tax benefits at the end of year
|
|
|
9,244
|
|
|
|
18,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction in unrecognized income tax benefits in 2009 was
largely a result of decreases in tax position taken previously
based on the results of recent tax audits or changes in the
related tax legislation or its interpretations. 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
$1,270 and $12,605 in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
As of December 31, 2009, the tax years ended
December 31,
2007-2009
remained subject to examination by Russian tax authorities. As
of December 31, 2009, the tax years ended December 31,
2005-2009
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 believed that probability of the
repetitive review is less than 10%. Based on the underlying
purchase agreement, any tax
F-82
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
|
|
22.
|
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,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Property and land tax
|
|
|
79,253
|
|
|
|
85,415
|
|
|
|
73,849
|
|
VAT
|
|
|
8,600
|
|
|
|
1,618
|
|
|
|
9,964
|
|
Fines and penalties related to taxes
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
|
35,280
|
|
|
|
12,575
|
|
Other taxes and penalties
|
|
|
16,971
|
|
|
|
(5,723
|
)
|
|
|
(12,394
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total taxes other than income tax
|
|
|
105,203
|
|
|
|
116,590
|
|
|
|
83,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and land tax includes payments for land tax, which
amounted to $31,931, $34,300 and $33,719 for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, 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, which
will be decided by the Group during 2010.
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 $10,323, $9,394 and $7,745 for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
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
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
9,554
|
|
2011
|
|
|
7,504
|
|
2012
|
|
|
7,222
|
|
2013
|
|
|
7,139
|
|
2014
|
|
|
6,623
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
163,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total land operating lease payments
|
|
|
201,349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in Fines and penalties related to taxes in 2008 are
penalties to the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS)
amounted to $32,111.
Included in Other taxes and penalties in 2009 are $5,091
relating to fees for 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.
F-83
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Included in Other taxes and penalties in 2007 is the gain of
$25,701 relating to resubmitted mineral extraction tax returns
at KMP owing to the change in the tax arbitration practice.
|
|
23.
|
GENERAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES
|
General, administrative and other operating expenses are
comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Personnel and social contributions
|
|
|
221,976
|
|
|
|
263,446
|
|
|
|
201,919
|
|
Social expenses
|
|
|
22,743
|
|
|
|
56,303
|
|
|
|
53,636
|
|
Office expenses
|
|
|
37,400
|
|
|
|
48,143
|
|
|
|
32,924
|
|
Audit and consulting services
|
|
|
35,990
|
|
|
|
31,262
|
|
|
|
25,030
|
|
Consumables
|
|
|
12,397
|
|
|
|
23,903
|
|
|
|
11,923
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
22,789
|
|
|
|
23,314
|
|
|
|
14,307
|
|
Disposals of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,865
|
|
|
|
11,318
|
|
|
|
10,581
|
|
Banking charges and services
|
|
|
10,843
|
|
|
|
11,314
|
|
|
|
10,703
|
|
Business trips
|
|
|
5,518
|
|
|
|
11,094
|
|
|
|
7,417
|
|
Rent
|
|
|
5,169
|
|
|
|
6,681
|
|
|
|
5,535
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11,787
|
|
|
|
67,938
|
|
|
|
35,093
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total general, administrative and other operating expenses
|
|
|
389,477
|
|
|
|
554,716
|
|
|
|
409,068
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 22.
|
|
24.
|
OTHER
INCOME (EXPENSES), NET
|
Other income, net is comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Gain resulting from remeasurement of contingent liability (refer
to Note 4(a))
|
|
|
494,238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions to Mechel Fund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,501
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) on sale of investments
|
|
|
155
|
|
|
|
4,568
|
|
|
|
(13,426
|
)
|
Gain on forgiveness of fines and penalties
|
|
|
1,241
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,311
|
|
Gain on accounts payable with expired legal term
|
|
|
2,571
|
|
|
|
2,370
|
|
|
|
12,158
|
|
Gain on raw materials sales
|
|
|
14,978
|
|
|
|
8,475
|
|
|
|
10,729
|
|
Loss on currency operations
|
|
|
(3,653
|
)
|
|
|
(4,464
|
)
|
|
|
(319
|
)
|
Other taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(811
|
)
|
|
|
4,345
|
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
(9,273
|
)
|
|
|
(11,458
|
)
|
|
|
(1,954
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expenses), net
|
|
|
500,257
|
|
|
|
(18,821
|
)
|
|
|
19,844
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions to Mechel Fund included founder contributions to
the pension fund Mechel Fund made by a number of
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.
F-84
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Gain on forgiveness of fines and penalties of $8,311 in 2007
includes forgiveness of specified portion of restructured fines
and penalties of the Groups Russian subsidiaries in
accordance with the terms of restructuring agreements, upon the
full and timely payment of current taxes.
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.
|
|
25.
|
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.
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-85
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Segmental information for 2009, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
Eliminations**
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
Eliminations**
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Mining
|
|
|
Steel
|
|
|
Ferroalloy
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
Eliminations**
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
|
1,548,902
|
|
|
|
3,307,624
|
|
|
|
363,652
|
|
|
|
533,968
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
3,333,406
|
|
|
|
5,495,139
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
|
|
688,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
1,372,508
|
|
|
|
4,306,875
|
|
|
|
501,143
|
|
|
|
503,316
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
277,278
|
|
|
|
196,426
|
|
|
|
67,157
|
|
|
|
338,816
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
879,677
|
|
|
|
698,561
|
|
|
|
278,580
|
|
|
|
150,614
|
|
|
|
339,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,467,722
|
|
|
|
598,461
|
|
|
|
107,617
|
|
|
|
135,513
|
|
|
|
95,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
936,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
836,734
|
|
|
|
627,839
|
|
|
|
38,381
|
|
|
|
230,268
|
|
|
|
60,231
|
|
|
|
1,793,453
|
|
|
|
2,802,336
|
|
|
|
1,554,375
|
|
|
|
13,469
|
|
|
|
314,016
|
|
|
|
6,401
|
|
|
|
4,690,597
|
|
|
|
962,484
|
|
|
|
1,040,072
|
|
|
|
382,931
|
|
|
|
205,362
|
|
|
|
(73,871
|
)
|
|
|
2,516,978
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin*, %
|
|
|
45.8
|
%
|
|
|
17.9
|
%
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
26.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
%
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47.1
|
%
|
|
|
48.8
|
%
|
|
|
23.6
|
%
|
|
|
60.1
|
%
|
|
|
34.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
225,078
|
|
|
|
116,800
|
|
|
|
48,727
|
|
|
|
16,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,675
|
|
|
|
280,276
|
|
|
|
137,492
|
|
|
|
22,738
|
|
|
|
22,791
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463,297
|
|
|
|
136,479
|
|
|
|
124,156
|
|
|
|
13,366
|
|
|
|
16,314
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
290,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on write-off of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
1,669
|
|
|
|
15,775
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,940
|
|
|
|
796
|
|
|
|
3,527
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
226,317
|
|
|
|
(54,020
|
)
|
|
|
(27,586
|
)
|
|
|
40,702
|
|
|
|
60,231
|
|
|
|
245,644
|
|
|
|
1,800,540
|
|
|
|
770,439
|
|
|
|
(50,517
|
)
|
|
|
29,406
|
|
|
|
6,401
|
|
|
|
2,556,269
|
|
|
|
571,469
|
|
|
|
537,261
|
|
|
|
350,107
|
|
|
|
12,627
|
|
|
|
(73,871
|
)
|
|
|
1,397,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from equity investees
|
|
|
1,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(318
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
|
|
572
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(144
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
9,606
|
|
|
|
10,973
|
|
|
|
809
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,445
|
|
|
|
2,512
|
|
|
|
4,892
|
|
|
|
4,210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,614
|
|
|
|
1,692
|
|
|
|
4,745
|
|
|
|
5,685
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment interest income
|
|
|
92,112
|
|
|
|
38,337
|
|
|
|
9,233
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,682
|
|
|
|
16,707
|
|
|
|
75,342
|
|
|
|
10,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,243
|
|
|
|
6,264
|
|
|
|
29,953
|
|
|
|
4,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense****
|
|
|
243,796
|
|
|
|
204,045
|
|
|
|
50,495
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
498,986
|
|
|
|
70,439
|
|
|
|
163,853
|
|
|
|
89,466
|
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
324,083
|
|
|
|
26,658
|
|
|
|
70,742
|
|
|
|
1,344
|
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98,976
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intersegment interest expense
|
|
|
10,365
|
|
|
|
29,045
|
|
|
|
73,094
|
|
|
|
27,178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
139,682
|
|
|
|
50,155
|
|
|
|
17,683
|
|
|
|
3,145
|
|
|
|
31,260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,243
|
|
|
|
13,388
|
|
|
|
6,892
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment assets*****
|
|
|
7,126,686
|
|
|
|
3,395,838
|
|
|
|
2,196,254
|
|
|
|
464,533
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,183,311
|
|
|
|
5,245,933
|
|
|
|
3,599,847
|
|
|
|
2,652,177
|
|
|
|
511,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,009,634
|
|
|
|
4,743,361
|
|
|
|
3,285,658
|
|
|
|
702,860
|
|
|
|
495,762
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,227,641
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in equity investees***
|
|
|
11,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,950
|
|
|
|
10,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,869
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,387
|
|
|
|
18,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
366,933
|
|
|
|
208,671
|
|
|
|
32,774
|
|
|
|
4,366
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
612,744
|
|
|
|
712,400
|
|
|
|
336,520
|
|
|
|
101,287
|
|
|
|
21,124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,171,331
|
|
|
|
542,695
|
|
|
|
261,349
|
|
|
|
22,882
|
|
|
|
6,615
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
833,541
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax (expense)/benefit
|
|
|
(6,214
|
)
|
|
|
(4,885
|
)
|
|
|
(2,236
|
)
|
|
|
(5,558
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,893
|
)
|
|
|
(295,697
|
)
|
|
|
(81,022
|
)
|
|
|
252,188
|
|
|
|
5,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118,887
|
)
|
|
|
(133,574
|
)
|
|
|
(132,557
|
)
|
|
|
(87,026
|
)
|
|
|
(3,163
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(356,320
|
)
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Gross margin percentage is calculated as a function of total
revenues for the segment, including both from external customers
and intersegment. |
|
** |
|
Eliminations represent adjustments for the elimination of
intersegment unrealized profit (loss). |
|
*** |
|
Included in total segment assets. |
|
**** |
|
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. |
The amount of electricity transmission costs, included in the
selling and distribution expenses of power segment, for 2009,
2008 and 2007 is $154,980, $223,253 and $151,831,
respectively.
F-86
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Domestic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
2,714,246
|
|
|
|
5,337,695
|
|
|
|
3,873,044
|
|
Other
|
|
|
478,553
|
|
|
|
863,008
|
|
|
|
430,041
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,192,799
|
|
|
|
6,200,703
|
|
|
|
4,303,085
|
|
Export
|
|
|
2,561,347
|
|
|
|
3,750,002
|
|
|
|
2,380,757
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue, net
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Russia
|
|
|
2,739,417
|
|
|
|
5,341,256
|
|
|
|
3,892,579
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
1,139,608
|
|
|
|
2,157,868
|
|
|
|
1,466,078
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
869,156
|
|
|
|
1,195,508
|
|
|
|
219,380
|
|
CIS
|
|
|
277,781
|
|
|
|
620,278
|
|
|
|
439,134
|
|
Middle East
|
|
|
585,446
|
|
|
|
391,377
|
|
|
|
609,592
|
|
USA
|
|
|
48,076
|
|
|
|
53,231
|
|
|
|
27,024
|
|
Other regions
|
|
|
94,662
|
|
|
|
191,187
|
|
|
|
30,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,754,146
|
|
|
|
9,950,705
|
|
|
|
6,683,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2009 and 2008 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
USA
|
|
|
2,285,155
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIS
|
|
|
1,645,828
|
|
|
|
1,985,194
|
|
Romania
|
|
|
212,926
|
|
|
|
215,778
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
34,866
|
|
|
|
33,844
|
|
Lithuania
|
|
|
10,039
|
|
|
|
10,795
|
|
Switzerland/Liechtenstein
|
|
|
749
|
|
|
|
868
|
|
Other
|
|
|
813
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
26.
|
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
F-87
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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, 2009, total Groups contract
commitments amounted to $4,417,494, which consisted of the
following: commitment to acquire property, plant and equipment
of $2,590,879, commitment to acquire raw materials of $632,460,
commitment for delivery of goods and services of $1,087,423 and
other commitments of $106,732. These commitments extend for
9 years, with $3,508,876 to be fulfilled before
December 31, 2010 (of which $2,060,826 related to property,
plant and equipment, $313,609 related to raw materials,
$1,087,423 related to goods and services and other commitments
of $47,018) and $908,618 (of which $530,053 related to property,
plant and equipment, $318,852 related to raw materials, other
commitments of $59,713) to be fulfilled thereafter.
Included in the commitments related to acquisition of property,
plant and equipment are amounts arising from the Purchase and
Sale Agreement in respect of railway construction for the
Elgaugol project. The total amount of remaining commitments
under the construction contract as of December 31, 2009 is
equal to $1,214,788. In February 2010, this agreement was
cancelled by the parties and replaced by short-term contracts
linked to separate construction stages completion and concluded
with different contractors.
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 $4,060 annually for the
period from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2014 and
$6,600 in the aggregate for the period thereafter.
Contingencies
As of December 31, 2009, the Group guaranteed the
fulfillment of obligations to third parties under various debt
and lease agreements for the total amount of $5,009,367. The
guarantees given under the various agreements of the Group to
third parties for its own subsidiaries amounted to $5,005,714
and $3,653 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 $2,600,000 Yakutugol
and Oriel credit facilities (refer to Note 15),
that is jointly guaranteed by Mechel Mining OAO, Mechel OAO,
Yakutugol, MTH and Mechel Trading Ltd. for a total of $2,348,996;
|
|
|
|
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 4(a));
|
|
|
|
the guarantees issued by Mechel OAO under the Gazprombank, VTB
and Sberbank credit facilities amounted to $198,583, $501,097
and $129,132, respectively;
|
|
|
|
the guarantees issued by MTH in the amount of $165,892 under the
National Deposit Center loan to Mechel OAO; and $49,955 under
the UniCredit Bank loan to SKCC;
|
|
|
|
the guarantee issued by Mechel OAO in the amount of $32,939
under Brunswick Rail Leasing Limited lease agreement to Mechel
Trans;
|
|
|
|
the remaining guarantees were issued by other Groups
subsidiaries under various loan agreements described in
Note 15.
|
F-88
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
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). The Group is vigorously defending the
matter and has asserted issues of comparative fault by the
plaintiff and the Groups engineering company at the time
of the incident (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 $50,000. The Group has
full indemnity from the BCG Companies previous owner in
accordance with terms of acquisition agreement.
The Group estimated the total amount of capital investments to
address environmental concerns at its various subsidiaries at
$39,724 as of December 31, 2009. 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.
|
|
(c)
|
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., Mechel Campia Turzii S.A. and
Ductil Steel 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 all entities.
Implementation of these plans and achievement of the targets
should to be provided by investors in accordance with their
contractual obligations under privatization contracts. Viability
plans of Mechel Targoviste S.A., Mechel Campia Turzii S.A. and
Ductil Steel S.A. include additional investments into technology
development and ecology improvement. After restructuring
completion, key business performance indicators of both
companies are to be in line with effectiveness requirements of
the EU.
F-89
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 $11,856 and $6,343 of other tax
claims that management believes are probable, as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In addition,
income tax accrual was made under ASC 740 (refer to
Note 21).
As of December 31, 2009, 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 not significant.
|
|
(e)
|
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 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 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 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
F-90
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
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 Group has full indemnity from the BCG
Companies previous owner in accordance with terms of
acquisition agreement, which shall offset negative influence of
the outcome of this claim on its financial position, if any.
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. The Group has full indemnity from the BCG
Companies previous owner in accordance with terms of the
acquisition agreement, which shall offset negative influence of
this claim outcome on its financial position, if any.
In April 2009, Chelyabenergosbyt OAO filed a court suit against
CMP, claiming payments for services provided on energy
transmission. The total claim amount equals to $6,890 as of
April 21, 2010. While the initial court decisions were
unfavorable to CMP, in March 2010, the execution of these
decisions was temporary suspended. The risk that CMP will be
forced to pay the claimed amount is estimated as possible.
As of December 31, 2009, $55,984 included in Cash (refer to
Note 5) 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. Further BNP Paribas is
entitled to retain on any of the Group accounts the amount
equivalent to the BNP Paribass exposure in principal and
interests under two bank guarantees issued by BNP Paribas in
favor of the Groups subsidiaries totaling to $3,388. MIH
shall pay an amount of $75,124 to the cash collateral account in
BNP Paribas in seven equal monthly installments starting from
June 1, 2010.
|
|
(f)
|
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.
F-91
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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.
New
acquisitions
Laminorul
SA
On February 25, 2010, the Group acquired 100% of the shares
of Donau Commodities SRL, which holds 90.9% of interest in
ownership of Laminorul SA, a steel plant located in Braila,
Romania, for a consideration of 9,409 Euros subject to a final
price adjustment. The final price adjustment is expected to be
agreed by the end of April 2010. 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 of Romania. The acquisition will be
accounted for using the purchase method of accounting from the
date of acquisition of control.
Ramateks
On March 24, 2010, the Group signed a selling and purchase
agreement with the Ramateks shareholders for the acquisition of
Ramateks Group of companies for $3,000 paid in cash. Ramateks
Group includes two trading entities selling primarily steel
products in Turkey. The control over the company will be
obtained at the losing date, which is pending upon certain
closing conditions from both the seller and the Group, and the
Group expects that the closing date will be June 1, 2010.
The acquisition is consistent with the Groups program to
expand its sales network and enlarge its client base. The
acquisition will be accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting from the date of acquisition of control.
Related
parties
DEMP
In the first quarter of 2010, the Group received an opportunity
granted by owners and management of Donetsk Electrometallurgical
Plant (DEMP) to influence sales and operating
policies through the representation in the board of directors,
management and other arrangements. In March 2010, the Group
entered into steel products purchase contract with DEMP on
market terms applicable for relevant steel products. The Group
intends to disclose DEMP as a related party since March 2010.
Placement
of bonds
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 as of the placement
date). The bonds were issued at 100% of their 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 six coupon periods is
set as equal to that of the first period. The obligatory
redemption date is March 12, 2013.
On April 12, 2010, the Group obtained an admission to place
a bond issue in the amount of 13 billion rubles ($443,335),
of which 10 billion rubles ($343,193) will be placed in
April 2010.
New
borrowings
In January 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of 1 billion Russian rubles ($33,615 as of the
date of the agreement) from Urals Reconstruction and Development
Bank repayable in 2011 bearing interest rate at 9% p.a.
F-92
MECHEL
OAO (formerly Mechel Steel Group OAO)
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In January 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of 273 million Russian rubles ($9,178 as of the
date of the agreement) from Sberbank repayable in 2011 bearing
interest rate at 12 13% p.a. secured by the pledge
of equipment and assets.
In February 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans
in the amount of 3.5 billion Russian rubles ($116,211 as of
the date of the agreement) from Sberbank repayable in 2011
bearing interest rate at 11.75 12.25% p.a. and
secured by the pledge of equipment and assets.
In March 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of $29,000 from UniCredit Bank repayable in 2015
bearing interest rate at LIBOR plus 5.6% p.a. secured by the
pledge of inventory and equipment.
In March 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of $100,000 from Alfa-bank repayable in September
2010 bearing interest rate at 8% p.a.
In April 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of 25 million Euros ($34,003 as of the date of
the agreement) from Uralsib Bank repayable in 2011 bearing
interest rate at 6.5 7.5% p.a.
In April 2010, the Groups subsidiaries obtained loans in
the amount of 1.3 billion Russian rubles ($44,972 as of the
date of the agreement) from SKB Bank repayable in 2015 bearing
interest rate at 15% p.a. and secured by the pledge of equipment.
Changes
in tax legislation
In 2010, some changes were introduced to the Russian tax
legislation. The UST will be replaced by direct insurance
contributions to the following national extra-budgetary funds:
contributions to the Russian Pension Fund will amount to 20% of
the annual gross salary of each employee, contributions to the
Fund of obligatory medical insurance will amount to 3.1%, and
contributions to the Social Insurance Fund will amount to 2.9%.
It is also expected that in 2011 the contribution to the Russian
Pension Fund will be further increased to 26%.
F-93