3949925 Indian Coal Sector

www.agco.com | login request

INDIAN COAL SECTOR COAL BLOCK: COULD WEIGH ON GROWTH

• Domestic coal production is unlikely to meet expected demand growth over the next five years. PSU companies, who account for four-fifths of the country’s coal production, are finding it difficult to accelerate production growth. Environment clearance and rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) issues are creating serious roadblocks for private companies as well. Hence, the demand-supply gap has to be met by raising imports. As imports cost almost thrice as much as domestic coal, economics of a number of projects based on domestic prices would have to be reworked. In a pessimistic scenario, commencement schedules of planned utilities would be delayed. In the more immediate term, other large users of coal would face significant increase in coal costs.

• Coal India is struggling to meet production targets: Over the last four years,

Coal India Ltd (CIL) has slipped from overachieving production targets to missing them. Against 5.2% production CAGR achieved over FY03-07, target of 7.5% CAGR in production has been set for FY08-12. The growth in the last five years was mainly contributed by existing mines and ongoing projects. Going forward, almost the entire incremental capacity has to be contributed by new projects. This increases risk of shortfall in targets. Commencing production in a new project is significantly more difficult, owing to delays associated with a plethora of clearances required and prickly R&R issues.

• Performance of captive units does not inspire confidence: There has been a

sharp acceleration in captive coal block awards over the last three years, raising expectations of sharp increases in coal production. Past history and our interactions with industry sources suggest that there could be significant disappointments. Of the 39 captive coal blocks allocated during FY93-03, only 14 had commenced operations by end-FY08. Land acquisition and forest clearance have proved to be intractable problems in most instances.

• Large coal users could face shortages: In the event of shortfall in domestic

production, supplies to large non-utility coal consumers like metals and cement companies would be cut before the utilities and SMEs are affected. The government plans to lower the threshold that triggers penalties for non-performance of supply contracts for such players from 90% of the assured quantity to 60%. Replacement of cheap linkage coal with costly imports would have a significant impact on margins of these companies. For example, cement companies could witness 5.2% decrease in EBITDA per tonne if 15% of domestic linkage coal has to be replaced by imported coal.

July 14, 2008

India

Industry Report

Asian Sales

Head of Sales John Burge

[email protected] 212-453-3528

Richard Kim


Anshuman Ray [email protected] 212-453-3546

Perry Jung


January Yen


Trading 212-557-4444

Duncan Sherrer Asian Trading

[email protected]

Geoffrey Gimber Asian Trading

[email protected]

David Sweet Asian Trading

[email protected]

Anthony Santostefano South Asian Trading

[email protected]

John Geron U.S. Trading

[email protected]

Also view Auerbach Grayson Research on Reuters, Bloomberg and FirstCall. This report has been prepared by our correspondent named above on the date set forth above. This report was not prepared by Auerbach Grayson & Company and the correspondent named above is not an associated person of Auerbach Grayson & Company. The correspondent named above and its research analysts are not members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and are not subject to the FINRA Rules on Research Analysts and Research Reports and the attendant restrictions and required disclosures required by that rule.[If the report is to be distributed to more than major U. S. Institutional Investors Auerbach Grayson & Company accepts responsibility for the contents of this report as provided for in SEC Releases and SEC staff no-action letters.] All persons receiving this report and wishing to buy or sell any of the securities discussed herein should do so through a representative of Auerbach Grayson & Company. Auerbach Grayson & Company and its affiliates do not own one per cent (1%) or more of any class of equity securities issued by any of the companies discussed in this report. Auerbach Grayson & Company and its affiliates have not received any investment banking compensation from any of the issuers discussed in this report in the past twelve months, and does not intend to seek or expect to receive investment banking compensation from any of the issuers discussed in this report in the next three (3) months. Auerbach Grayson & Company has not acted as manager or co-manager of any public offering of securities issued by any of the companies discussed in this report in the past three (3) years. Neither Auerbach Grayson & Company nor any of its officers own options, rights or warrants to purchase any of the securities of the issuers whose securities are discussed in this report. Auerbach Grayson & Company does not make a market in any of the securities discussed in this report, and it and its associated persons do not stand ready to buy from or sell to any customers, as principal, any of the securities discussed in this report.

Imports have outpaced domestic supply

-30%

0%

30%

60%

90%

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08P

Domestic production grow thCoal import grow th

…as domestic PSUs are slipping

3.1%

0.1%

-0.6%-1.3%-2%

0%

2%

4%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

CIL actual vs target

Future targets could prove more difficult to achieve

156.7149.7

62.9-55.9

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Existingmines

Ongoingprojects

Newprojects

Additionalsupply

(m tonnes)

Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research Gopal Ritolia

[email protected] (91 22) 6620 6651

Anupam Gupta [email protected]

(91 22) 6620 6641

India Coal Coal block: could weigh on growth 14 July 2008

Domestic coal production is unlikely to meet expected demand growth over the next five years. PSU companies, who account for four-fifths of the country’s coal production, are finding it difficult to accelerate production growth. Environment clearance and rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) issues are creating serious roadblocks for private companies as well. Hence, the demand-supply gap has to be met by raising imports. As imports cost almost thrice as much as domestic coal, economics of a number of projects based on domestic prices would have to be reworked. In a pessimistic scenario, commencement schedules of planned utilities would be delayed. In the more immediate term, other large users of coal would face significant increase in coal costs. Coal India is struggling to meet production targets: Over the last four years, Coal India Ltd (CIL) has slipped from overachieving production targets to missing them. Against 5.2% production CAGR achieved over FY03-07, target of 7.5% CAGR in production has been set for FY08-12. The growth in the last five years was mainly contributed by existing mines and ongoing projects. Going forward, almost the entire incremental capacity has to be contributed by new projects. This increases risk of shortfall in targets. Commencing production in a new project is significantly more difficult, owing to delays associated with a plethora of clearances required and prickly R&R issues.

Performance of captive units does not inspire confidence: There has been a sharp acceleration in captive coal block awards over the last three years, raising expectations of sharp increases in coal production. Past history and our interactions with industry sources suggest that there could be significant disappointments. Of the 39 captive coal blocks allocated during FY93-03, only 14 had commenced operations by end-FY08. Land acquisition and forest clearance have proved to be intractable problems in most instances.

Large coal users could face shortages: In the event of shortfall in domestic production, supplies to large non-utility coal consumers like metals and cement companies would be cut before the utilities and SMEs are affected. The government plans to lower the threshold that triggers penalties for non-performance of supply contracts for such players from 90% of the assured quantity to 60%. Replacement of cheap linkage coal with costly imports would have a significant impact on margins of these companies. For example, cement companies could witness 5.2% decrease in EBITDA per tonne if 15% of domestic linkage coal has to be replaced by imported coal.

FY08 (P) Indian coal demand-and-supply balance Sectors Raw Coal Lignite Imports TotalPower 350.2 21.7 10.0 381.8 Steel & Washery 17.1 21.5 38.6 Cement 15.3 0.1 4.0 19.4 Sponge Iron 21.1 21.1 Others 48.6 12.9 14.5 76.0 Total demand 452.2 34.7 50.0 536.9

Total supply 456.4 34.0 48.6 539.0

Statistical error (0.7)

Change in stock 3.4 (0.7) 2.8Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Coal production in IndiaCompany FY07 FY08 CIL 360.9 379.5 SCCL 36.1 40.6 Others 33.8 36.3 Total 430.8 456.4 Key states Chattisgarh 83.2 90.2 Jharkhand 88.8 90.9 Orissa 81.2 89.5 Madhya Pradesh 59.7 67.8 Maharashtra 36.2 36.4 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

2 gopal.ritol ia@iif lcap.com

India Coal

Coal demand should increase by 60% over FY07-12 Utilities, the largest coal consumers in India, accounted for 71% of the country’s coal demand in FY08. As per government plans, India is likely to add 78.7GW power capacity during the 11th Plan period (FY08-12) and projects based on domestic coal account for 49.7GW of this proposed capacity. Equipment ordering for the planned capacities is substantially complete, with 45 months still left in the current Five-Year Plan period (FY08-12). This has raised expectations that there should be a quantum improvement in achievement vis-à-vis targets as compared to the last Plan period, when less than 50% of the targeted generation capacity addition was attained. Figure 1: Domestic coal accounts for 63% of proposed power capacity addition in FY08-12 Proposed source of fuel Capacity addition (MW)Domestic coal 49,654Coastal projects (Imported coal) 4,300Gas 4,289Lignite 1,450Total thermal 59,693Hydro 15,627Nuclear 3,380Total addition in 11th Plan 78,700Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Based on our calculations, the proposed increase in power generation capacity would require an additional 216m tonnes of coal supply per year. Figure 2: Coal requirement for additional power capacity

Unit ValueStation heat rate kcal per kwh 2,400 Calorific value of coal kcal per kg 4,100 PLF % 85 Coal requirement per MW ('000 tonnes / year) 4.4 Incremental coal requirement by FY12 million tonnes/year 216.4 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Coal consumption in captive power units has registered a CAGR of 10.6% during the 10th Plan period (FY03-07). Government plans continue to lay emphasis on captive power capacity addition. Planning Commission estimates that coal consumption in captive power plants will grow at an annualised rate of 14% over FY08-12. Our estimate is more modest, a CAGR of 10.7% over the period, in line with our expectation of utilities' coal consumption. This would translate into incremental demand of 19.2m tonnes by FY12, representing ~4,000MW capacity addition during the period, as compared to coal-based captive power capacity of 9,081MW as at end FY06.

The steel sector’s total coal requirement works out to 68.5m tonnes/year by FY12, based on hot-metal production plan of 70.3m tonnes by FY12 as arrived at various policy documents. That translates to incremental demand of 33.5m tonnes of coal by FY12. A large part of the coal requirement would be met through imports.

The cement sector is another important consumer of coal. As per Plan documents, annual cement production during the 11th Plan period should increase 61%, from 156m tonnes during FY07 to 251m tonnes during FY12. Driven by substantial technological improvements, average specific consumption of coal in cement plants has decreased from 0.154 in FY02 to 0.127 in FY07. We estimate coal requirement for incremental cement production at 11.9m tonnes by FY12. Figure 3: Coal requirement for additional cement capacity

Cement production in FY07 156 Cement production in FY12 251 Incremental production 95 Production CAGR 10.0% Specific consumption of coal 0.125 Coal requirement 11.9 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Based on 7.5% GDP growth and coal elasticity of 0.6 to GDP, we estimate other coal-consuming industries to drive incremental demand of 20.2m tonnes by FY12 as compared to 102.6m tonnes consumed in FY07.


India Coal

Our bottom-up analysis for major consumers and top-down estimate for smaller consumers, gives an estimate of 9.6% CAGR in demand for thermal coal and 9.8% CAGR in overall coal and coke demand. Figure 4: We estimate 9.6% CAGR in coal demand over FY07-12 (m tonnes) FY07 Incremental demand by FY12 FY12 (%) increase Power (Utility) 326.5 216.4 542.9 66.3Power (Captive) 29.0 19.2 48.2 66.2Cement 20.4 11.9 32.3 58.3Others 82.2 20.2 102.4 24.6Total non-coking 458.1 267.7 725.8 58.4Steel (including imported coke) 38.8 29.7 68.5 76.5Total 496.9 297.4 794.3 59.9Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research Our demand estimates are higher than those in Plan documents but are in line with demand indicated by the user industries The Planning Commission Working Committee on Coal (PCWG) for the 11th Plan period has estimated that annual thermal coal demand will increase to 662.6m tonnes by the end of the Plan period, against our estimates of 725.8m tonnes. Aggregate demand computed from demand assessed by user industries—794.2m tonnes—is in line with our estimate. Our estimates differ from Plan estimates mainly with respect to demand from utilities; PCWG’s demand estimates factor in past underachievement of targets by the power sector, whereas ours do not. Figure 5: Our demand estimates are higher than Plan documents

Incremental demand estimate over FY08-12 m tonnes IIFL PCWG Aggregate user industry forecasts

Power (Utility) 216.4 173 230Power (Captive) 19.2 25.6 18.2Cement 11.9 6.9 20.4Others 20.2 40.1 40.1Total non-coking 267.7 245.6 308.7Steel (including imported coke)

29.7 25.5 25.5

Total 297.4 271.1 334.2 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Though our estimate of total incremental thermal coal demand by FY12 is only 26.3m tonnes higher than PCWG’s estimate, our FY12 demand estimate is 63.2m tonnes higher, as Planning Commission documents were based on a lower estimate of demand for FY07 (460m tonnes, against actual demand of 496.9m tonnes). Domestic coal supply unlikely to meet coal demand Based on demand projections made by the Planning Commission and estimates on commencement of new projects, the Planning Commission expects domestic coal production to increase from 430.8m tonnes in FY07 to 680m tonnes in FY12. Figure 6: Supply projections by FY12

FY02 FY07 % increase FY12E % increase CIL 279.65 360.9 29.1% 520.5 44.2% SCCL 30.81 36.1 17.2% 40.8 13.0% Others 17.33 33.8 95.0% 118.7 251.2% Total 327.79 430.8 31.4% 680 57.8% Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

When compared to our demand estimates, the PCWG’s projection of supplies by FY12 implies a shortfall of 114.2m tonnes, which would have to be met through imports. Metallurgical coking coal would contribute 40.9m tonnes of the imports, with non-metallurgical coal imports estimated at 73.4m tonnes. This is at variance to the Planning Commission documents, which suggest that the demand-supply gap for non-coking coal would be a relatively modest 10.3m tonnes. Figure 7: Coal demand-supply balance in FY12

Domestic production Demand Imports Imports as % of demand Metallurgical coking 27.7 68.5 40.9 59.6% Non-coking + non-metallurgical 652.4 725.7 73.4 10.1% Total 680.0 794.2 114.2 14.4% Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Contribution of imports to increase over FY08-12 We estimate contribution of imports in meeting non-coking coal demand will increase from 5.2% in FY07 to 10.1% by FY12.


India Coal

Figure 8: Imports as proportion of domestic production to increase

2.43.1 3.3 2.8 2.9

2.23.1

5.36.0 6.4

11.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08P FY12E

(%)

Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Actual shortfall could be higher than estimated The actual demand-supply gap could be wider than our estimates, as we are not sanguine about domestic production projections arrived at in the Plan documents. Government projections rely on: i) significant acceleration in production growth from CIL (contributing

almost four-fifths of domestic production) ii) jump-start in production from captive mines

We have concerns on both assumptions as detailed in following sections.

Coal India is struggling to meet production targets The 10th Plan period initially set a production target of 405m tonnes for the terminal year of the 10th Plan period (FY07). This target was subsequently revised to 432.5m tonnes as operational efficiency gains in existing mines enabled CIL to accelerate production growth in the earlier half of the Plan period. Actual production in FY07, however, was marginally below this target, at 430.8m tonnes, as it became tougher to extract further efficiency gains in the second half of the Plan period. This slippage is evident in the downtrend in achievement vis-à-vis the target over the last four years.

The key point to note is not the quantum of slippage in FY08, which is small (1.3%), but the fact that the target could not be achieved even after constant monitoring from the highest echelons of policy-making (the Prime Minister holds the Coal portfolio). Figure 9: CIL’s performance has slipped in recent years

3.1%

0.1%

-0.6%

-1.3%-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

CIL actual vs target

Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Given the downtrend in actual production vis-à-vis targets, prospects of acceleration in growth look dim. Plan documents factor in 7.6% CAGR in production in CIL over the 11th Plan period as compared to 5.2% CAGR achieved in the 10th Plan period. In the first year of the 11th Plan period, CIL’s production increased by 5.1% YoY.

The fact that new projects are to contribute almost all of the incremental production over FY08-12 make these targets particularly onerous. Our interactions with industry experts and analysis of government documents suggest that pre-production stages of relief and rehabilitation (R&R) and forest clearances are increasingly tougher problems to solve.


India Coal

Figure 10: 11th Plan incremental supply leveraged to new mines CIL FY07 FY12E IncrementalExisting mines and completed projects 241.8 186.0 -55.9Ongoing projects 102.4 165.3 62.9New projects 19.6 169.2 149.7Total 363.8 520.5 156.7Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Environment clearance is a huge challenge According to industry sources, the key constraints in opening new mines are forest clearance and R&R issues. There have been cases where new mine clearances have been pending with the Ministry of Environment & Forests for 3-4 years. Environment clearances at multiple levels—central, state and local—only delay the process. Even if a project is vetted by the Central Environment Ministry, the District Forest Officer has the final say. The Ministry of Coal and PSUs have made multiple representations to the Environment Ministry to clearly demarcate “no-go” zones so that plans are developed only for mines with visibility for receiving requisite proposals. For the allowed zones, coal officials have proposed a plan for standard compensation to be paid for afforestation initiatives. However, the environment ministry insists on a case-by-case approval. As such approvals are typically tardy, commissioning of new mines can be delayed by 2-3 years.

Tribals becoming more aware of their rights Most of India’s coal reserves are situated in the tribal belt. Historically, there was no significant scrutiny of R&R policies of the coal companies by the locals. Also, the compensation paid was not linked to the economic potential of the land acquired. Now, there is increasing political mobilisation among locals striving to link R&R compensation to economic potential of the mine. Better compensation received by tribals in Meghalaya coal mines have had a demonstration impact. This could result in significant increase in start-up costs. A more vexatious issue is that locals want employment in the mines in addition to monetary compensation. Companies are ill-equipped to accommodate a large number of local population, especially with suspect job fit. Protracted negotiations over employment guarantee translate into further delays. Successful agitation against global majors like POSCO in Orissa has provided a fillip to grassroot political mobilisation in neighbouring states

of Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. The three states are the topmost coal producers in India.

Multiplicity of R&R policies only add to the delay India does not have an unified R&R policy; each state formulates its own policy. Delay in formulating R&R policy acts as another roadblock. For example, Jharkhand (the state with the largest coal deposits in India) is yet to finalise its R&R policy. Policy-making in the state has been paralysed in the absence of a stable government over the past couple of years. New mines in the state have to wait for the state government to finalise its rehabilitation policies. Also, most PSUs and railways have their own internal guidelines on rehabilitation packages. Any incompatibility between these policies would need to be resolved before the R&R package is actually rolled out. The state governments might not share the Central government’s urgency in accelerating growth in coal production. There are cases where delays have not been resolved even after direct intervention by the highest authorities.

Area-wise analysis of production plans adds to concerns Further area-wise analysis of incremental coal production in the 11th Plan period suggests significant challenges. Six areas under the PSUs would contribute almost half of the incremental capacity over the 11th Plan period. Of the six areas, the two in Orissa could face significant R&R issues, given higher population density and recent tribal mobilisation in the state against land alienation. The two areas in Jharkhand could see significant law & order problems, as both areas are in the epicentre of Maoist insurgency currently affecting large parts of eastern, south-eastern and central India.

Figure 11: Incremental supply to be contributed by areas with significant local issues Area State Incremental production

in 11th planRemarks

Singrauli Madhya Pradesh 36.71 North Karanpura Jharkhand 23.8 Law & order problems Talcher Orissa 20 R&R can be an issue Korba Chattisgarh 18 IB Valley Orissa 11.42 R&R can be an issue Rajmahal Jharkhand 8.5 Law & order problems Total 118.43 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research


India Coal

Figure 12: India’s coal resources located within Leftist insurgents’ strongholds

Source: IIFL Research

Performance of captive units does not inspire confidence Plan documents envisage 86.5m tonnes (35% of incremental capacity) to be contributed by new captive coal mines. Due to environment clearance and R&R issues outlined in preceding sections, captive coal mines are also finding it difficult to commence production. Of the 39 captive coal blocks allocated over FY93-03, only 14 had commenced operations by end-FY08.

Figure 13: Captive mines have been slow off the block Coal blocks awarded during FY93-03 No. of companies 27 Coal blocks allocated 39 Production commencement till FY08 14 Opening permission granted 9 Commissioning expected by FY09-10 16 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

There has been a significant acceleration in coal block awards in the last three years, increasing expectations that private initiative could infuse more vibrancy in the sector. Performance on the ground is at odds with the expectation. The results should not come as a surprise to policy planners; no regulatory changes have been enacted to solve the teething troubles faced by new mines. The same set of R&R and environment-clearance issues plague private coal blocks as well. Figure 14: Recent spate in award of coal mines

No of companies Coal blocks allocated FY05 14 12 FY06 68 56 FY07 58 58 FY08 31 15 FY09 NA 23 Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Higher proportion of imports to translate into cost pressures In India, coal is only partially privatised. Commercial coal production is carried out by PSUs. Private companies can be allocated mines only for captive use. As per law, coal companies have been free to price coal according to market conditions since 2000. However, given the government ownership of commercial mines, prices are effectively controlled by the government. In order to improve realisations, coal companies sell a small proportion of their production in the spot market through auctions. Prices discovered through auctions are generally 20-85% higher than notified prices. Currently, international prices are almost thrice as high as domestic notified prices.

Areas affected by Leftist insurgency

Major coal-bearing areas

Note: Map not to scale; locations approximate and not accurate


India Coal

As contribution of imports in overall demand increases, companies would face higher input costs. In an illustrative example below, we estimate that replacement of 15% of domestic linkage coal with imported coal could decrease EBITDA per tonne by 5.2%. Figure 15: Increased contribution from imports to impact margins (Rs/tonne)Coal India average prices 1,505Imported coal average price 4,300Specific consumption of coal (x) 0.125EBITDA per tonne 1,000Incremental cost if 15% domestic coal replaced by imported coal 52.41% decline in EBITDA per tonne 5.2%Source: Ministry of Coal, IIFL Research

Large players would be affected first In the event of a shortfall in domestic production, supplies to large coal consumers like metals and cement plants would be cut before supplies to SMEs are affected. The policy is based on the rationale that domestic production shortfall has to be met through imports and large players would have the wherewithal to procure foreign coal in economic quantities, unlike SMEs, who might not be able to manage the logistics of coal import. Supplies to large utilities would also be affected, but major non-utilities would be the first ones to bear the brunt.

The government plans to lower the threshold for penalty payment by PSU coal companies to cement companies from 90% of assured supply earlier to 60% now. With the government keen on maintaining price levels, large coal users except utilities might not have sufficient headroom to pass on the input price increase. This could potentially translate into margin headwinds for cement and metal companies.

Auerbach Grayson & Company Incorporated 25West 45th Street New York, NY 10036

Telephone: (212) 557-4444 800 31-WORLD facsimile (212) 557-9066 www.agco.com

[email protected]

Trading: (212) 557-4444

Operations: (212) 557-4478

Jonathan L. Auerbach (212) 453-3535

David S. Grayson (212) 453-3553

Sales:

Charlie Gushee, Director of Western European [email protected] (212) 453-3511

John Burge, Director of Emerging Markets Sales.............…….........…[email protected] (212) 453-3528

Alexander Doncov, EMEA Sales............................................................adoncov@agco.com (212)453-3509

Anshuman Ray, Asian Ex-Japan Sales........................................................aray@agco.com (212) 453-3546

Can Yazgan, EMEA Sales......................................................................cyazgan@agco.com (212) 453-3586

Catherine Rotchford, Western European [email protected] (212) 453-3538

Clive Cook, EMEA Sales...........................................................................ccook@agco.com (212)453-3510

January Yen, Asian Ex-Japan Sales.............................................................jyen@agco.com (212) 453-3541

Kristian Persson, Western European Sales...........................................kpersson@agco.com (212) 453-3540

Leonid Kouperschmidt, Russian Sales.......................................lkouperschmidt@agco.com (212) 453-3562

Melissa Winter, LATAM Sales...............................................................mwinter@agco.com (212) 453-3507

Pavel Pribylovsky, Russian Sales.................................................ppribylovsky@agco.com (212) 453-3523

Perry Jung, Asian Ex-Japan Sales..............................................................pjung@agco.com (212)453-3561

Reitze Oenema, Western European Sales..............................................roenema@agco.com (212) 453-3574

Richard Kim, Asian Ex-Japan Sales............................................................rkim@agco.com (212) 453-3543

Thomas Furda, Russian Sales....................................................................tfurda@agco.com (212) 453-3585

Thomas Metzger, Western European Sales...........................................tmetzger@agco.com (212) 453-3531

Zoran Milojevic, EMEA Sales...........................................................zmilojevic@agco.com (212) 453-3563

Trading:

Anthony Santostefano, Asian Trading...........................................ssantostefano@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Danielle Simon, European Trading.........................................................dsimon@agco.com (212) 557-4444

David Sweet, Global Trading..................................................................dsweet@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Duncan Sherrer, Asian Trading..............................................................dsherrer@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Garth Ballantyne, European Trading...............................................gballantyne@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Geoffrey Gimber, Asian Trading...........................................................ggimber@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Greg Murphy, EMEA Fixed Income.....................…..……......…[email protected] (212) 557-4444

Harold Warren, Russian Trading..........................................................hwarren@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Humberto Cruz, LATAM Trading...............................................................hcruz@agco.com (212) 557-4444

John Geron, U.S. Equities.........................................................................jgeron@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Julien Libaire, EMEA Trading.................................................................jlibaire@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Sarkis Iliozer, EMEA Trading ..........................…..…………….…[email protected] (212) 557-4444

Selim Sari, EMEA Trading..........................................................................ssari@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Todd Hathaway, European Trading....................................................thathaway@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Michael Panzner, European Trading...................................................mpanzner@agco.com (212) 557-4444

Information Systems & Research Services:

Ismael Sadek, Information Technology.....................................................isadek@agco.com (212) 453-3512

Alexandre Barma, Research Coordinator...............................................abarma@agco.com (212) 453-3549

Operations:

Frank Muller, Head of Operations..........................................................fmuller@agco.com (212) 453-3518

3949925 Indian Coal Sector

Documents

Transcript of 3949925 Indian Coal Sector