ci_mar_2013

Coal Insights, March 2013 3

Dear Readers,

The writing on the wall should be clear by now. That the government was mulling to invite competition for Coal India Ltd (CIL) has been doing the rounds for sometime now. The coal ministry has on several occasions sent veiled signals, but the Planning Commission has been more brazen. Yet, the market didn’t take it at face value.

In contrast, the budget announcement of private-public partnership (PPP) in coal sector, though apparently harmless and to some extent already prevalent, has become the talking point. Not immediately, but commercial mining may not be a distant possibility, the market conjures.

The pressure is mounting on the coal monolith. With the fate of the restructuring drive hanging low, CIL is finding the present scenario a little challenging. However, the management’s decision to introduce a new performance measurement programme for employees bodes well for the future.

The bad news is that CIL is going to fall short of expectations in achieving the yearly production target for 2012-13. Blame it on the industrial strike or the rainy season, the fact remains that this time too the company will miss the target, despite raising high hopes in the first half of the year. As it stands now, the miner may end up with a shortfall of 12-14 million tons of coal production this year. Even offtake is likely to miss the yearly target, although marginally.

Meanwhile, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) has raised the coal prices twice this year, the latest increase coming in early March. This time it was the consumers’ demand for the right-quality coal (in other words, no grade slippage) that has allegedly prompted the miner to go for another round of hike. This perhaps does not look convincing. The link between ‘right quality’ and ‘price increase’ is not readily understood.

Fortunately, CIL hasn’t signaled any desire to follow suit. Instead, there were speculations that CIL could be going for a reduction in the price of top grade coals. The company has also announced massive investments in India and abroad. Finally, it seems, the world’s largest coal miner is getting serious about foreign acquisitions.

On the home front, however, the debate over the new Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill of 2011 is sending mixed signals to the industry. Will it be able to ease land acquisition hurdles? Will the industry be able to absorb the exorbitant costs? There is no denying that increased land prices would result in a price spiral for the masses that are already grappling with high food inflation and fuel prices. Coal Insights has brought out a cover story on this extremely contentious issue.

Another topic of interest could be a thin layer of carbon called graphin that is taking the scientific community by storm. This issue has come out with a detailed status report of this almost magical particle. We only hope India takes advantage of such technological breakthroughs and in fact, takes a lead in such innovations. It is only through innovation and technology that the country can maintain a high economic growth and achieve its much publicised goal of becoming a developed economy by 2020.

Happy reading,

(Rakesh Dubey)

EDITORIAL

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of Steel Insights can be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without the prior permission of mjunction services limited. Please inform us if any copyright has been inadvertently infringed.

Disclaimer: This document is for information purpose only. Certain information herein has been acquired from various external sources believed to be reliable. While we have taken reasonable care to compile this report, we in no way assume any responsibility for any error or discrepancy in regards to information contained herein. Readers are requested to make appropriate judgment without any prejudice or compulsion.

Registered Officemjunction services limited, Tata Centre, 43 J L Nehru Rd, Kolkata 700 071

Website: www.mjunction.inCorporate Head Quarters: Godrej Waterside, 3rd Floor, Tower 1, Plot V, Block DP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700091, Tel: +91 33 6610 6100, Fax: +91 33 6610 6187 Bhilai: Room 321, 3rd Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai 490001, Tel: +91 788 6451066, Tele/Fax: +91 788 2221071 Bokaro: Room 19, Old Admin Bldg., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro 827001, Tel/Fax: +91 654 2226132 Burnpur: SAIL - IISCO Steel Plant, Materials Building, Order Department, Ground Floor, Burnpur 713325, Telfax: +91 341 2240107 Chennai: Basement, Begum Ispahani Complex, New No 91, Old No 44, Armenian Street, Chennai 600 001, Tel: +91 44 64624733-35, Fax: +91 44 25216536 Durgapur: Room 618, Ispat Bhavan, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur 713203, Tel: +91 343 6510185, Tele/Fax: +91 343 2586946 Jamshedpur: Kashi Kunj, Ground Floor, Road No. 02, Contractors Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur 831001, Tel: +91 657 6519985/86/90/91, Fax: +91 657 2230040 Mumbai: Jolly Bhavan II, 403, 4th Floor, 7 New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020, Tel: +91 22 66510663, Tele/Fax: +91 22 66510662 New Delhi: C127, 2nd Floor, A One Plaza, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110028, Tel: +91 11 65661774/65413288, Tele/Fax: +91 11 25897000 Noamundi: C/o TATA Steel Limited, Mines Purchase Cell, PO: Noamundi, Singbhum (West), Jharkhand 833 217, Tel: +91 9204791638/9234368606 Rourkela: Administrative Bldg., Room 624, 6th Flr, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela 769011, Tel: +91 661 6514142/6511412

Chief EditorRakesh Dubey, Tel: +91 91633 48159, Email: [email protected]

Executive EditorArindam Bandyopadhyay, Tel: +91 91633 48016Email: [email protected]

Editorial BoardAlok Srivastava, General Manager, MMTC LtdAmitabh Panda, Group Director (Shipping & Logistics Operations), Tata Steel GroupAnirudha Gupta, Director, P&H JoyMining Equipment India LtdAshok Jain, Managing Director, Saumya Mining LtdDeepak Bhattacharyya, Chief – coaljunction, mjunction services ltdGanesan Natarajan, WT Director, President & CEO, Ennore Coke LtdLawrence Metzroth, Vice President – Analysis & Strategy, Arch Coal IncM K Palanivel, President – All India Bulk, Samsara GroupP S Bhattacharyya, Executive Director, Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation LtdS N Choubey, Head – Commercial, ABG Cement LtdSandeep Kumar, EIC (Secondary Products), Tata Steel LtdShyamji Agrawal, AVP-Central Procurement Cell, Ultratech Cement LtdSuresh Thawani, Managing Director, Tata Sponge Iron LtdAdvertisingSoumitra Bose, Tel: +91 92310 00232, Email: [email protected] Jalan, Tel: +91 91633 48243, Email: [email protected] Das, Tel: +91 91633 48045, Email: [email protected] Free No.: 1800 4192 000 1. Press 8 for publicationEmail: [email protected] Ray, Sobhan JasFor suggestions, feedback and queries, please write to [email protected]

mjunction believes that all junctionites, customers, suppliers, partners, etc should practice the highest ethical standards in their daily operations.

Report a concern to [email protected]

4 Coal Insights, March 2013

COnTEnTs

18 Industry can bear land cost, not acquisition hassles

26 Steam coal prices move in narrow range in March

28 Seaborne coking coal prices ease in March

34 Will PPP policy lead to privatisation of coal industry in India?

36 CIL likely to see 3.5% growth in production, miss target in FY13

37 CIL may cut trigger level in next FSA renewals

38 SCCL likely to increase coal prices by 10% from April

40 Government faces fresh setback in coal mine allocation case

42 Will coal regulator be a routine affair? 43 Delayed power projects lead to huge cost

overrun 44 Cement sector may revive in next two

years: Credit Suisse 45 Rail freight hike to impact coal consuming

sectors 46 Graphene: The particle of God 52 China takes a clean up drive, will India

follow suit? 53 Budget clears duty related confusion in

coal import 53 Customs start collecting arrear from

importers 54 US coal production expected to rise by 1%

in 2013: EIA 55 Indonesia may not stop export of low

grade coal soon 56 CIL needs to implement coal vision 2025 60 Traffic handling by major ports down 2.5%

in Apr-Feb 61 Railways coal handling falls 10.3% in

February 62 Annexure: List of power projects under

construction 70 E-auction data 72 Port data

58 | ExpERt SpEAkDDG: Ideal mode for rural electrificationAnil Sardana, MD, Tata Power presents a case for off-grid solutions for power supply in India.

30 | OpInIOnCoke price to move between $295-315/ton in FY14: natarajanDon’t expect any immediate impact of China’s duty withdrawal on met coke prices, he says.

6 | COvER StORYLand MineWill the new Land Bill open the land gridlock in India?

Publisher’s Statement

Statement about ownership and other particulars about Coal Insights required to be published under Rule 8 of the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rule, 1956.

FORM IV(See Rule 8)

1. Place of publication : Kolkata2. Periodicity of publication : Monthly3. Printer’s Name : CDC Printers Whether citizen of India : Yes4. Publisher’s Name : Rajarshi Chattopadhyay Whether citizen of India : Yes Address : Tata Centre, 43 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Kolkata 7000715. Editor’s Name : Rakesh Dubey Whether citizen of India : Yes Address : Tata Centre, 43 Jawaharlal Nehru Road Kolkata 7000716. Names and addresses of individuals : mjunction services ltd, who own the newspaper and partners Tata Centre, 43 Jawaharlal Nehru Road or shareholders holding more than Kolkata 700071 one per cent of the total capital

I, Rajarshi Chattopadhyay, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sd/- Rajarshi ChattopadhyayDated: March 2013 Publisher

www.kctcoalsales.com


COvER sTORy

Arindam Bandyopadhyay

Land MineWill the new Land Bill open the gridlock?

In India, it takes a lone man carrying a red flag to stall a million dollar project, it is said. Till fifteen years ago, that was

the case with a communist (West) Bengal. Today, the entire eastern belt, northeastern sisters, and even an investor-friendly Gujarat has gone the Bengal way. A rough estimate reveals that hundreds of projects worth investments of more than `150,000 crore are locked up due to land acquisition hassles. The worst affected is perhaps the mining and mineral extraction sector.

Against this backdrop, the Union government is all set to legislate the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011 (LARR or Land Bill) to replace the century-old Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The new Bill was moved in the Winter Session of Parliament with 154 amendments

but was deferred to the Budget session. However, the amended Bill continues to have several unresolved issues. While the government banks on the new Bill to open the land gridlock, the industry has serious doubts, and economists fear it may create more problems than it may redress. Coal Insights takes a ringside view of the most contentious issue afflicting the India Inc. today.

A land-starved nation

The seventh largest nation in terms of land area, India is also one of the most populated countries in the world, with a population density of 382 per sq km, compared to China’s 140 and the global average of 238. The total area is estimated at 328.73 million hectare, of which more than 182.50 million

hectare is agricultural land. Of the total area, cultivable land occupies around 58 percent and forest area comprises another 22 percent. This implies the country’s 5,000 plus urban agglomerations, nearly 6 lakh villages and 1.2 billion people are to be stuffed in 20 percent of its land area.

Among the various uses of land, the share of forest area is almost static and is most fiercely conserved under environmental protection initiatives and international obligations.

The agricultural land, which accounts for the majority part, has witnessed a decline over the past decade. While the government lacks any official estimate for the diversion of agricultural land for industry, infrastructure or residence purpose, World Bank data shows there has been a loss of at least 25,000

mailto:[email protected]

www.elektromag-joest.com







COvER sTORy

hectares of such land during 2000-08. In contrast, foodgrain demand and production has increased at steady rate. According to the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, India’s cereal demand would grow by around 12 percent or 30 million tons (mt) by 2021.

Meanwhile, much of the cultivable land is facing fast degradation due to excessive and unscientific use of fertilizers and pesticides, which is changing the chemical composition of top soil, and wind and water erosion. It is feared that there could be dramatic changes in soil character over the next three decades. A report by Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) suggests that about 100 million hectares or more than half of the current agricultural land area may become unfit for farming in future.

In view of the persistent food inflation and degradation of quality of land, the economic planners fear that further reduction in cultivable land may lead to serious food crisis in coming days.

That leaves only a minor part of the land area available for expansion of industrial activities and infrastructure development. The scope is further reduced due to the occupation of radical elements in a vast corridor, much of which overlaps with the mineral bearing areas. Whatever little space

was still available has further been blocked by the recent spree of local agitation and land protection movements, which sometimes get political sanctions, almost at every nook and cranny of this land-starved country.

Between freedom & poverty

Today, any major industrial expansion in the country can take place only in relatively far flung areas which had remained neglected so far. The mushrooming growth of real estate has exhausted almost all surplus land in and around the large metropolises and also the tier-II cities. The increasing pressure on land in prime locations is pushing new industrial projects to the fringe areas. The improvement and

expansion of highways has been a facilitator to this locational shift.

However, it is these fringe areas and remote places that are suddenly showing extreme resilience to the industry’s “land grabbing”. While some of the land movements get the support of political outfits, in most cases, it is the local populace or villagers that spearhead and spontaneously raise objection to such moves.

In 2007, Nandigram in West Bengal hit the news headlines following violent protests by local villagers against the desperate industrialisation drive of the previous Left Front government and subsequent police firing on protesting activists. The incident resulted in the scrapping of the special economic zone (SEZ) project and also prompted the governments elsewhere to put on hold 230 other SEZ projects across the country.

The land acquisition hassles are affecting infrastructure sector in a big way. According to official data, 233 of 555 central sector infrastructure projects (each costing above `150 crore) were running behind schedule till last year. Of the delayed projects, 78 were from the road transport and highways sector, 47 from the power sector, 31 from the petroleum sector and 27 from railways, among others. The major factors affecting implementation of the programmes include land acquisition, law and order problems and forest clearances.

More recent reports say that 58 national highway projects are currently facing land acquisition hurdles. Of these, 18 are in Assam, 17 in Jammu & Kashmir and five each in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

The opposition to land acquisition mostly comes from the farming community. Over the last five years, there have been several occasions where local farmers engaged in protest marches and non-cooperation with the implementing agencies. In one case, a large swathe of farmers from across India announced a march to Delhi to protest the lop-sided economic development and called for a redesign of the growth model after the concept of self-sufficient villages proposed by Mahatma Gandhi.

At the ground level, however, the fact remains that the local people that resisted big time investments continue to remain on the sidelines. In many cases such as Nandigram and Singur (the initial choice for Tata Motor’s ‘Nano’ project), the champions of self-sufficiency often found themselves in a quandary later on.

The plight of miners

Although almost all the sectors are likely to be affected due to land acquisition hurdles, the worst hit could be the mining and mineral extraction sector. Unlike other industries, mining activity is absolutely location specific. A miner needs to dig the site where the

Source: Census data

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

India's population density (per sq km)

5822

20

Agricultural

Forest

Others

India’s land use (in %)

Of the total area, cultivable land occupies around 58 percent and forest area comprises another 22 percent. This implies the country’s 5,000 plus urban agglomerations, nearly 6 lakh villages and 1.2 billion people are to be stuffed in 20 percent of its land area.

Corporate Office:

Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. Volvo Construction Equipment #65/1, Parin Building, Bagmane Tech Park, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093 Tel: +91 80 6691 2000 Fax: +91 80 6691 2287

Authorized Dealers:

• Infra Equip Pvt. Ltd., Dhanbad

• Pollutech Engineering, Bhubaneshwar

• Suchita Earthmoving Solutions, Guwahati

• Suchita Millenium Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

For details contact:

[email protected]

Best Fuel Efficient Loaders in the Industry

The new G-Series L180G and L220G wheel loader with 20% more lifting power and 10% better breakout force, are the latest workhorses of Volvo’s wheel loader range. New engines and drivelines offer improved productivity, lower emissions, greater smoothness, serviceability and operator comfort. The improvements ensure full buckets, faster cycle times - all day, every day.

Volvo’s G Series wheel loaders: more lift, more shift.

volvo construction equipment


www.volvoce.com


COvER sTORy

mineral deposit is actually found. This makes mining the most vulnerable to land related obstacles.

“Unlike other industries, we cannot pick and choose the site. For us, it is either there or nowhere. Unfortunately, the government often fails to appreciate the peculiar nature of this business,” said a top official of a private mining firm, requesting anonymity.

Also, land hassles faced by miners often do not get noticed, but the number of such cases is a little too many. Coal India Ltd (CIL) and its eight subsidiaries were fighting more than 3,000 legal cases on land acquisition at the time of its initial public offering (IPO). Only two subsidiaries, namely Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd (MCL) and Western Coalfields Ltd (WCL) had around 1,500 land disputes and legal cases pending in late 2010.

The situation is all the more precarious for the private sector miners, i.e. contract miners, captive miners and mine developer and operators (MDOs). Kolkata based Emta

Coal, which formed joint ventures with several state sector power utilities to mine captive blocks, has been subjected to local resistance on several occasions. In November 2012, the company faced a tough time convincing the local people in Dubrajpur block (West Bengal) to release its mining equipment that villagers had taken into their custody to resist land acquisition. While the state administration swung into action to thwart a major flare-up, mining activity was virtually stalled.

The same was the case with Vedanta Resources’ bauxite mining at Niyamgiri Hills in Odisha where local tribal people formed a human chain to stop mining in the area. Subsequently, the union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF)

made it mandatory for all industrial and mining projects to obtain the consent of local gram sabhas (village councils) before any diversion of forest land.

Apart from local resistance against land acquisition, the fierce opposition from the green brigade has also made life difficult for the miners.

“In most cases, we see the green warriors joining forces with local inhabitants to make

Project name Project details Estimated investment Land requirement

Posco’s integrated steel plantA 12 mtpa integrated steelworks to be set up at Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

$12 billion (around `60,000 crore)*

4,004 acres

Delhi-Mumbai Industrial corridorA state-Sponsored industrial development project of Government of India; aims at developing an Industrial Zone spanning across six states

$10 billion (`54,000 crore)Project will include six mega investment regions of 200 square kilometers each

Steel project of Sterlite Iron and Steel Company, a Vedanta group firm

5 mtpa capacity plant planned to be set up at Keonjhar, Odisha `12,500 crore 1,872 acres

Special Economic Zone (SEZ) project of salim Group (Indonesia) at Nandigram, West Bengal

The SEZ project which included a chemical hub was scrapped after violent protest by locals `12,500 crore 10,000 acres

Navi Mumbai airport

New airport will cater to 10 million passengers a year in its initial phase (end-2014), 25 million by 2020, 45 million by 2025, and 60 million by 2030, according to CIDCO

`9,000 crore (US$1.7 billion)

1,160 hectares (sea – shore land required is about 11.4 km² plus two parallel runways each 3700 metres long)

Mumbai metro rail projectmetro phase-I linking Versova to Ghatkopar; project was awarded to Reliance Infrastructure in 2006.

`5,156 croremetro rail network of 146 km in Mumbai region

Mithivirdi Nuclear power project, Gujarat

Project to have six nuclear reactors and capacity of 6,000 MWe; project aims to supply power not only to Gujarat but also to Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh.

NA 777 hectares

Odisha UMPP A 4000 MW plant being implemented by OIPL `16,000-crore 2732.56 acres

Lanco Babandh power plant in Dhenkanal district by about a year.

Project initial capacity 1,320 MW; later doubled to 2,640 MW `10,000 crore 1,100 acres

Adani power plant in Chhindwara, Maharashtra

1,320 mw (2x660) power plant `7,390 crore 750 acres

New plant of Mahindra & Mahindra near Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Plan includes setting up of an auto plant and full-fledged testing unit at Cheyyar near Chennai `4,000 crore 400 acres

*at current exchange rate

List of major projects facing land hurdles

1,107

332771

111

58

711

CCL

ECL

MCL

NCL

SECL

WCL

Number of land cases against CIL subsidiaries*

Source: RHP, CIL*As of September, 2010

www.solarexplosives.com


COvER sTORy

their case strong. As a result, the mining companies, in many parts, are now being seen as a social pariah, sort of a villain,” said the official.

An uncomfortable truth

It is commonly held that the current crisis has its roots in the past missteps taken by the governments and casual handling of rehabilitation issues. Past projects displaced a large number of people without reasonable compensation. According to an estimate, more than 2.2 crore people had been displaced due to various projects during the period 1951-1990. These projects include large infrastructure projects, thermal plants, dams, canals as well as forest sanctuaries.

According to official data, around 51 percent of the displaced people (since 1951) are still awaiting rehabilitation. However, the figures are rather conservative in the sense that the numbers refer to only the directly displaced people and do not take into account those who lost their livelihood and were therefore forced to shift base later on in search of new means of support. Overall, it is claimed that one in every ten tribal in India could be a displaced person.

Among various types of projects, dams and hydel power projects have affected the tribal populace in a major way. For instance,

the Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat, which was part of the Narmada Valley Project, is said to have had displaced around 200,000 people.

Along with displacement, the extreme poverty of the tribal areas is also a major cause of the present outburst. It cannot be a mere coincidence that out of the 50 major mining districts in India, 60 percent figure among the 150 most backward districts of the country. This overlapping of poverty and mineral resources has caused increased resistance from local populace in many prospective zones.

As per 2001 census, around 80 percent of the 86 million tribals live in the middle India belt of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Northern Maharashtra and southern Gujarat. Around 12 percent or about 10 million live in the northeastern states and the rest are spread over the remaining states.

At the same time, around 90 percent of all coal and 50 percent of the remaining minerals are found in the regions inhabited by the tribal communities. Among the various mineral producing states in India, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat account for the highest number of mines in the country with 377 and 372 mines, respectively. Mineral production in India is primarily concentrated in six states,

namely Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Orissa. In fact, these states together contributed around 50 percent of the national mineral production in 2010-11. This overlapping of mineral deposits and tribal habitations may continue to pose a problem both for the tribals and the miners, for a long time to come.

Whose land is it anyway?

Since the entire population and the industry have to be accommodated in one-fifth of the country’s land area, there is a case for giving serious thought over the future of land use. This is all the more crucial as neither the population growth is expected to come to the replacement level, nor the demand for commodities (both agricultural and industrial) is going to see any moderation in coming years.

Commenting on the emerging scenario, an economist at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said, “In the long run, among all the factors of production, only land would remain fixed. From an economic point of

Displaced tribals

Project State Displaced Population Tribal Percentage

Karjan Gujarat 11,600 100

Sardar Sarovar Gujarat 2,00,000 57.6

Maheshwar Madhya Pradesh 20,000 60

Bodhghat Madhya Pradesh 12,700 73.91

Icha Bihar 30,800 80

Chandil Bihar 37,600 87.92

Koel Karo Bihar 66,000 88

Mahi Bajaj Sajar Rajasthan 38,400 76.28

Polavaram Andhra Pradesh 1,50,000 52.90

Maithon & Panchet Bihar 93,874 56.46

Upper Indravati Orisa 18,500 89.20

Pong Himachal Pradesh 80,000 56.25

Ichampalli Andhra Pradesh 38,100 76.28

Tultuti Maharashtra 13,600 51.61

Daman Ganga Gujarat 8,700 48.70

Bhakra Himachal Pradesh 36,000 34.76

Masan Reservoir Bihar 3,700 31

Ukai Reservoir Gujarat 52,000 18.92

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

India Chhattisgarh Odisha Jharkhand

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Australia Western Australia

41600

41800

42000

42200

42400

42600

US Texas

GDP per capita in mineral producing states, 2009 (in $)

Source: Mospi, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US


www.elecon.com

mailto:emtici.co.in


COvER sTORy

view, the inelastic supply of land would result in serious cost escalation; from a societal point of view, this may further intensify law and order problems.”

Over the years, there has been a prominent shift from the fundamental concept that all land holdings in the country ultimately belong to the government and can be taken away, against compensation, for public good. The government has realised this changing scenario and in most of the cases, yielding to the public pressure.

Experts said that before things go out of control, the government should immediately take stock of the available land resources, compulsorily create land banks at district levels, take measures to make arid and waste land suitable for use by the industry and promote cooperative use of land for industrialisation. Just like the land reforms in agriculture, a land reform could be thought out for the industry as well.

“This could be akin to the concept of carpooling which became common in the US during the World War II and also during the oil crisis of 1973. Something similar could be evolved to encourage joint use of land by the industry to ease pressure on land, ensure its optimal use and also to sustain the high economic growth.”

Government’s response: The LARR Bill

As the realisation of the “ground” reality started to dawn, the government in 2011 proposed a new Bill to replace the archaic Land Acquisition Bill of 1894.

The century-old Act had often been subject to controversies and debate. The 1894 Act was amended several times, the latest being in 1984, but was still found to

be inadequate in addressing the various issues cropping up from faster industrialisation and increased land acquisition, especially for non-agricultural use. There were hardly any package for rehabilitation and resettlement in the original Act.

Also, there were raging debates over the definition of “public purpose” and alleged misuse of “urgency clause” as provisioned in the Act. Additionally, the 1894 Act did not have any provision for return of the unutilised land.

As expected, the proposed Bill 2011 has introduced a number of changes over and above the existing 1894 law on land acquisition. The government has combined acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement into one single Bill.

It has also mandated a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of the proposed acquisition by an independent body for all acquisitions. A major feature of the new Bill is that it makes mandatory for a private company to obtain the consent of at least 80 percent of the project affected people (PAP) before land acquisition.

The Bill also guarantees higher compensation to the land losers and adopts the market value method to compute

compensation. The possibility of abuse of the “urgency clause” has been considerably reduced by limiting its application.

Notwithstanding these improvements, the LARR Bill has been debated fiercely and has already been amended extensively before its enactment. The Bill was expected to be tabled in the winter session of Parliament, but was deferred to the Budget session*.

Mining gets a raw dealThe government has allegedly neglected the mining sector while considering the various provisions of the Bill. This has happened despite the mining experts seeking a review and pointing out the problems the new Bill may pose to this sector.

As noted by a former director of CIL, the coal mining industry has not been given any special exemption in the Bill despite its unique nature.

Priorities and relaxations granted to some core sectors are denied to the mining and therefore the coal industry. “How can the coal industry be excluded? It is coal without which the wheel of industry and economic growth will come to a grinding halt.

Such exclusion means that any acquisition for coal mining will be treated as being for “private purpose” only,” said the expert.

Secondly, the restriction on acquisition of any “multi-crop irrigated” land will result in denial of the government to acquire the land lying above coal or mineral beds.

Thirdly, the provision of return of land to the original owner if not used within a specified time does not bear any logic with regard to the mining industry.

Mining lease is generally granted for 30 years and the land is acquired for a much longer period. Such a provision is non-implementable for any kind of mining activity.

Timetable for the LARR Bill 5 September 2011: The government introduced the LARR Bill, 2011 in Lok Sabha

5 September 2011: The LARR Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Rural Development by the Speaker

5 August 2012: Union cabinet referred LARR Bill to a Group of Ministers (GoM)

5 September 2012: Rural Development minister Jairam Ramesh unveiled LARR Bill

5 October 2012: Overcoming sharp differences, a Group of Ministers (GoM) cleared the Bill

5 December 2012: The LARR Bill was cleared by Union cabinet

5 December 2012: The LARR Bill was deferred till Budget session

5 March 2013: Government convened an all-party meeting to iron out differences on the LARR Bill

* Till the time this report is going to press, the government is yet to table the new Bill in Parliament for enactment.

At the same time, around 90 percent of all coal and 50 percent of the remaining minerals are found in the regions inhabited by the tribal communities. This overlapping of mineral deposits and tribal habitations may continue to pose a problem both for the tribals and the miners, for a long time to come.



www.somiconveyor.com


COvER sTORy

Since the coal industry is not covered either under “infrastructure project” or under “public purpose”, 80 percent of the PAP families, covering both land and livelihood losers alike, will be required to give their consent to the proposed acquisition. The coal companies will have no alternative but to agree to the unreasonable demands of the PAPs. Coal companies cannot change the site of mining as it has to mine where coal exists.

Price increase at what cost?

The biggest concern, however, crops up from the exorbitant hike in land prices. The compensation of land, fixed at six times the

market value, and the provisions under R&R are a bare minimum, as per provisions under the Bill. Moreover, the state government or the “land requiring body” is at liberty to add to these benefits, the Bill says.

“Now, this will lead to frequent disputes. The PAPs may extend their demand to any extent. Such a provision will adversely affect the coal and mineral industries, whose sites are fixed,” said a mining veteran.

He said the government, while banking on the LARR Bill to act as a trouble shooter, is perhaps losing sight of its excessive reliance on solving the issues through only one tool, i.e. increase in compensation or land price.

The spiral effect that increased land cost would have on the industry and hence the consuming sector is summarily being overlooked.

Already, the land price across the country has shot up dramatically over the last few years. According to an estimate, on an average land acquisition cost has gone up to `1.2 million per acre from an average of 5,000-10,000 per acre in the 1980s. The prevailing rates, it is estimated, is often much higher than the farmland value in European countries and the US. It is anybody’s guess how the land price would behave once the new Bill is enacted.

“Apparently, the industry is also not much opposed to the idea of avoiding hassles at some extra costs,” said the mining veteran, “perhaps they think they can always pass it on to the intermediaries or to the end consumers. Now, how the consumers would cope with the elevated prices – of almost everything under the sun – is to be watched. If consumption is compromised, the industry will go down the hill and the whole idea may fall flat. If it is not, well, there could be another set of protests, another group of victims, and…perhaps another new set of legislations!”

This could be akin to the concept of carpooling which became common in the US during the World War II and also during the oil crisis of 1973. Something similar could be evolved to encourage joint use of land by the industry to ease pressure on land, ensure its optimal use and also to sustain the high economic growth.

www.valuejunction.in



Over the last five years, land availability and its acquisition have emerged

as one of the biggest roadblocks facing the Indian industry. In a traditionally agricultural economy like India, the issue has large humanitarian ramifications and afflicts almost all sectors cutting across the segments. Although the government has been trying hard to strike a balance, maybe the real beneficiaries are getting a short shrift. Balancing the human issue along with economic development has been difficult, but perhaps a more harmonious approach will help.

In an exclusive interview, V. K. Arora, the Chairman of Indian Mining Federation and President of Indian Coal Merchants’ Association, speaks to Coal Insights on the various facets and developments on this largely contentious issue. A mining engineer from the Indian School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad, he is working as President - Coal Services in Karam Chand Thapar & Bros (Coal Sales) Ltd., taking care of acquisition of coal mines in Indonesia /Coal Sales/Imported Coal Sales in India. He is presently the Chairman, Mining Construction & Equipment Division of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

‘Industry can bear higher land cost, not acquisition hassles’

Excerpts:

How severe is the land crisis facing the India Inc.?

At the ground level the situation is pretty grim. If you look around, you will find that industrial projects are getting stranded everywhere due to lack of availability of land or acquisition related hassles. The intensity of the problem may vary from state to state, but overall the scenario is more or less the same. Also, this is a common issue across the sectors. Let us not single out only the mega steel projects as suffering inordinate delays. The same crisis is affecting infrastructure, road, cement, power, engineering, logistics, automobiles, even healthcare, education and IT, and of course mining.

While everybody is talking about project

affected people (PAP), it is high time we talked also about the land-affected projects. This is all the more crucial at a time when the economy badly needs an impetus in fresh investments. How can you return to high GDP growth if new projects do not come up and expansions are stalled? Of course, land is not the only hurdle, but is surely a major one, perhaps the most important hurdle as of today.

On one hand there is land shortage for the industry. On the other hand, there is a food crisis building up, resulting in high food inflation. How can these two situations be dealt with?

It is true that land is becoming an issue for both industry and agriculture. India has traditionally been an agricultural economy

InTERvIEW


www.nkcpl.com


and industrialisation has happened only in phases. Post 1990, however, the opening up of the economy resulted in faster growth in industry and services which translated into higher growth in GDP. Also, foreign investments started flowing in and this further increased the pressure on land. At the same time, with the steady increase in population, demand for farm products soared.

One may say that food inflation today is as much a problem as the stagnated growth in the industrial sector. I cannot but agree. To my mind, some changes in the supply chain help ease the situation to some extent. But in the long run, you cannot cope without an increase in total land put under use, both for the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Standing at this juncture, the least we can do is to ensure optimal utilisation of whatever land mass we as an economy have inherited.

Of course then the big question comes of how this can be achieved.

You must understand the economic value of any input of production. Land as an input has its own price. With the increase in demand, this price is bound to go up. One way of ensuring optimal utilisation is to put the land to that use which fetches it maximum returns.

In fact, industry today is ready to pay higher price for land. But the government must ensure that the acquisition is made hassle free. This can be done through formulation of uniform policies and proper implementation. Only with a sound, well-thought out policy and its strict implementation can these complexities be addressed.

Do you think the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill 2011 qualifies for a sound policy?

CII had studied the Bill in great detail and made certain observations. The new Bill which was first unveiled last year proposed some changes over the earlier law which was framed very long ago. Some of the provisions appear to be progressive and may be suitable for the current situation.

The government later on made some amendments to the new Bill in the winter session of Parliament.

However, I think there remain some provisions which need a re-look. These include a number of issues, starting from the consent of project affected people to the compensation package and R&R entitlements. I feel the industry’s suggestions, if incorporated, would benefit the economy as a whole and would also help redress the problems facing the project affected people.

Can you elaborate on these suggestions?

Let us start with the consent for land acquisition. The original Bill stated that “provision of land in the public interest for private companies for the production of goods for public or provision of public services” is subject to consent of at least 80 percent of project affected people.

CII proposed that there should be no distinction between private and public sectors as they both are equal partners in creating wealth and employment for the country. However, if at all the provision of consent is to be accommodated, it should be reduced to 60 percent of project affected families and not 80 percent. Also, consent should be obtained only from the land owners and not others dwelling in the same locality.

However, the government in the proposed amendments stated that for private companies defined under public purpose, prior consent of at least 80 percent of affected families is mandatory. For public private partnership (PPP) projects, where ownership of the land continues with the government for ‘public purpose’, prior consent of at least 70 percent of affected families is mandatory. It further stated that consent should be obtained through a process as may be prescribed by

the appropriate government and shall be carried out along with the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study.

What are your views on the compensation package proposed in the Bill?

As per the original Bill, the compensation package is the land value determined as per the provisions of the Act X 2 (multiplier) + 100 percent Solatium for rural areas.

CII had proposed that there be no Solatium over and above the multiplier. If at all Solatium is to be retained, it should be reduced to 30 percent and the multiplier be reduced to 1.5 instead of 2. It further proposed that for determining the market value (based on average sale price of land in vicinity) the term “nearest vicinity area” should be made more definitive.

Now, the amendment states that the Collector will adopt some criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely: the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area where the land is situated, or the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area, or consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under Sub Section (2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher.

The market value compensation, as per the amendment, is to be two times the market rate (including Solatium) in urban areas, and two to three times the market rate (including Solatium) in rural areas (based on sliding scale reflecting the distance of the project from urban areas). Sliding scale is to be determined by state government or state land pricing commission/authority.

InTERvIEW

One significant point in the amendment is that land compensation calculated will not be taken as base for circle rate for subsequent acquisitions to ensure there is no speculative price spiral.

www.lhp.co.in



InTERvIEW

In addition to the market value of the land provided under Section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 percent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification of the SIA, in respect of such land, till the date of award of the Collector or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

One significant point in the amendment is that land compensation calculated will not be taken as base for circle rate for subsequent acquisitions to ensure there is no speculative price spiral.

Identification of affected people for rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) entitlement is often a grey area. What is your suggestion on this?

The Bill has defined them as families owning the land or whose livelihood is affected as a result of land acquisition. Only these people are entitled for R&R packages.

I think that instead of using the broad term “affected families”, the government should clearly define the category of families according to their losses. R&R provisions need to be justifiably different for each category depending on what they lose as a result of land acquisition. The identified families should be able to lead a much better life after getting the package than prior to land acquisition.

One provision in the amendment says that the concerned government may, by notification increase the rate of R&R amount payable to the affected families, taking into account the rise in price index.

There is a separate case for land provisioning for urbanisation. Here, the

amendment proposes that 20 percent of developed land will be reserved and made available to project affected families, in proportion to the area of their land acquired. This should be done at a price equal to the cost of acquisition and cost of development. In case of the land owning project affected family wishes to avail of this offer, an equivalent amount will be deducted from the land acquisition compensation package payable to it.

Now there could be a debate on which cases the affected people would receive R&R packages. The original Bill said that R&R provisions are to be made applicable for procurement of land more than 100 acres in rural areas and more than 50 acres in urban areas, in cases where private parties directly buy the land from owners.

CII proposed that provision of R&R should not be applicable to land owners in such cases as sellers would have received the premium on land value. However, a suitable R&R entitlement could be laid down for affected families who lose their livelihood as a result of such acquisition.

What is the industry’s stand on acquisition of multi-crop land which has faced strong opposition in some recent projects?

With reference to special provisions to safeguard food security, certain restrictions have been imposed on acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land. However, the Bill states such restrictions or thresholds will not apply for linear projects including railways, highways, major district roads, power lines and irrigation canals.

We appreciate the concerns of the government and the farm sector. Our only demand is that the government should

include the mineral extraction or mining projects in this list of exempted projects. Mining is just as crucial for the economy as these listed projects are.

What has been the government’s response to your stance?

Under this head, I haven’t seen any mention in the amendment about any consideration for granting exemption to the mining and mineral extraction sector. The amendment only proposes that limits on acquisition of multi-cropped land may be notified by the appropriate government considering the relevant state specific factors and circumstances.

It further says that whenever multi-crop irrigated land is acquired as per the provisions, an equivalent area of cultivable wasteland shall be developed for agricultural purposes, or an amount equivalent to the value of the land acquired shall be deposited with the appropriate government for investment in agriculture for enhancing food security.

However, there has been an inclusion of large infrastructure projects under the definition of ‘public purpose’. Although there was no provision in the original bill, the amendment stated that projects for industrial corridors, national investment and manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy, will be included under this definition.

Return of unutilised land, especially in urban areas, has been another controversial issue. What is your take on that?

While the original Bill stipulated return of the acquired land if not utilised for a period of 10 years, my view was that the industry should be asked to submit a ‘land use plan’ before acquisition and the return of unutilised land should be aligned to that plan. I think this issue should be dealt with by a committee under the chairmanship of the chief secretary of the concerned state on a case to case basis.

The government, however, brought down this period of 10 years to five years. The amendment says that the unutilised land should be returned to the original

I think that instead of using the broad term “affected families”, the government should clearly define the category of families according to their losses. The identified families should be able to lead a much better life after getting the package than prior to land acquisition.


www.adhunikgroup.com


owner or owners or their legal heirs or may be to the land bank of the concerned state government by reversion.

Along with unutilisation of land comes the issue of delay in award of land despite declaration. In this case, my suggestion is that the government may offer an alternative location identified by the requiring body.

The government, in the amendment, stated that the Collector shall make award within a period of 12 months from the date of public declaration (under Section 19) and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall lapse, provided that appropriate government shall have the power to extend the period of 12 months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same and such decision shall be recorded and notified/uploaded on the website of concerned authority.

What is your view on the urgency clause in the Bill?

In cases of urgency, the Bill says that whenever the appropriate government so directs, the Collector will take possession of any land needed for a public purpose and such land shall vest absolutely in the government, free from all encumbrances.

But this should also be applicable in the case where after the award has been made, people do not come forward to accept. Adverse possession should be taken over and encumbrance free land to be handed over to the requiring body.

The amendment states that the power of the appropriate government under this shall be restricted to the minimum area required for the defense of India or national security or for any emergencies arising out of natural

calamities or any other emergency with the approval of Parliament.

It further states that an additional compensation of 75 percent of the total compensation as determined under Section 27 shall be paid by the Collector in respect of land and property for acquisition of which proceedings have been initiated under this section.

Are there any other Bill provisions on which you differ with the government’s stance?

There are some other issues too. For instance, the Bill stipulated public hearings for SIA and environment clearance (EC). My view was that combining the two would help reduce the overall project implementation schedule. On this, the amendment stated that EC, if any, shall be carried out simultaneously along with SIA and shall not be contingent upon the completion of SIA.

As for stamp duty and registration fee, the Bill stated that stamp duty and other fees payable for registration of land or house allotted to the affected families shall be borne by the requiring body. I feel that stamp duty and other fees on registration of land/house allotted to the affected families should be waived off. Similarly, capital gains tax under IT Act should not be applicable for compensation amount received by project affected families. The amendment retained the provision as per the original Bill.

There was another provision on possession of acquired land. The Bill proposed that Collector will take the possession of acquired land only after the entire compensation and R&R entitlements are disbursed. Our view was that the

Collector should be empowered to take the possession of the land after 80 percent of the affected families have accepted and received the compensation (as per the Land Acquisition Act 1984). However, this provision has also been retained as per the original Bill.

Do you think the new legislation would help ease the law and order problems and agitations especially in tribal areas?

I think the local agitation and law and order problem, as it stands now, is more political in nature than otherwise. It is time we understood that industrial growth is not meant to harm the local populace. On the contrary, industry stands for development and a better life. In the process, there may be some changes, but the industry wants minimum dislocation. There are also no two opinions about making adequate compensation to the land oustees. At this point, let me reiterate that industry can bear higher land costs and higher compensation than earlier. But it cannot afford continued hassles relating to acquisition.

What is important is that the benefits (of compensation and R&R packages) must reach the actual land owners. If this much could be ensured, most of the problems will be sorted out. Unfortunately, currently, in many cases, the benefits are filtered out.

Don’t you think that separate handling of project clearance land issues by the Centre and state governments are making things complicated?

All I can say is that this is not a harmonious approach. Sometimes, even the public goods projects of the Centre get stuck due to the lack of will or motivation of the concerned implementing agencies. However, it is up to the authorities to decide how they can streamline the process.

I hope to see improvements in coming days. One thing that must be kept in mind is that no matter however good a legislation may be, unless the implementation is good, nothing worthwhile can come out of it. So once the new law is in place, the next task would be to ensure its seamless implementation across the country.

InTERvIEW

What is important is that the benefits (of compensation and R&R packages) must reach the actual land owners. If this much could be ensured, most of the problems will be sorted out. Unfortunately, currently, in many cases, the benefits are filtered out.


www.mining.sandvik.com


COAL mARkET funDAmEnTALs

Coal Insights Bureau

Imported steam coal prices moved in a narrow range in March with prices of South African and Australian coal easing

marginally, while that Indonesian coal prices rising a little amid scant buying interest.

South African coal (6000 kcal/kg NAR) prices eased to $83.5 per ton fob on March 15 compared to $84.75 per ton fob on February 28. Australian coal (6300 kcal/kg GAR) prices eased marginally to $93 per ton fob on March 15 compared to $93.5 per ton fob on February 28.

Indonesian coal (5900 kcal GAR) prices remained firm at $76.4 per ton fob on March 15 compared to $76 per ton fob on February 28. Prices of Indonesian coal (5000 kcal/GAR) also rose slightly to $60.9 per ton fob on March 15 compared to $60.1 per ton fob on February 28.

Chinese buyers remained on the sidelines as they continued to scout for thermal coal cargoes at cheaper prices with no rush to conclude deals amid huge stockpiles at ports and power companies, market sources said.

Despite the lack of demand, some Indonesian miners have raised their offer

prices since as supply got cramped due to rains in East Kalimantan and the crackdown on illegal mining in South Kalimantan, sources said. The continued crackdown by Indonesian authorities on illegal mining activity is starting to affect the export. Nearly 70 percent of jetties in South Kalimantan have been closed due to the current crackdown on illegal mines, leading to disruptions in vessel loading, the sources said.

Traders said after the recent federal budget session in India, buyers in the country were ready to pay a bit higher prices compared with the Chinese buyers for various grades of thermal coal.

China’s domestic thermal coal market has yet to see any solid recovery despite the recent rebound in offer prices of overseas coal, the sources noted.

“We now hope for a recovery in the second quarter of 2013. We have not booked any cargoes on the spot market since early February,” they said.

Meanwhile, due to the recent rise in ocean freights, offer prices of 5,500 kcal/kg NAR Australian coal have remained high for April-May deliveries. Deducting the ocean freight cost of about $12 per ton for mini-

Steam coal prices move in narrow range in March

Capesize vessels, the FOB prices of 5,500 kcal/kg NAR Australian coal have been stable since early February.

Will CIL revise prices?

There is no doubt that global coal prices have softened over the last year. But it is very difficult to predict whether this will prompt Coal India Ltd (CIL), which supplies about 80 percent of the coal requirement in the country, to revise the prices of domestic coal. The company had last revised prices in January 2012 following its decision to switch to GCV based pricing system from earlier system of UHV based pricing.

In an interaction with Coal Insights in February 2013, the company’s Chairman and Managing Director, S Narsing Rao, said there is no proposal to increase coal prices despite around `12 per liter hike in bulk diesel prices with effect from January 2013.

“Obviously our cost of production has gone up following increase in diesel prices for bulk consumers, but at the moment there is no proposal to increase coal prices,” Rao had said.

The current pithead run of mine price of CIL’s coal for power utilities, which was revised in January 2012, for GCV exceeding 6100 Kcal/kg but not exceeding 6400 Kcal/kg is ̀ 3,970 per ton while that for 6700 Kcal/kg to 7000 Kcal/kg is `4,870 per ton.

It is assumed that with the significant decline in prices of coal in the international market between January 2012 and January 2013, CIL too may lower the basic prices of at least some of the higher grades of coal. This is so because it was found that some consumers of higher grade domestic coal such as cement and sponge iron plants are preferring imported coal over CIL’s coal.

Even though CIL officials are tight-lipped on pricing issues, media reports suggest that CIL may consider reducing prices of at least four top grades, G1 to G4, to match with ruling global average prices.

Meanwhile, another government owned coal company, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL), has increased prices by about `120 per ton during the past nearly nine months beginning June 2012 by levying fuel surcharge. The company has once again on March 7 increased the fuel surcharge by `18 per ton to `169 per ton. The fuel surcharge was `48 per ton in June 2012.

Steam coal FOB ($/ton)

Dates SOUTH AFRICA (6000 NAR)

AUSTRALIA (6300 GAR)

INDONESIA 5900 GAR

INDONESIA 5000 GAR

INDONESIA 4200 GAR

INDONESIA 3800 Kcal GAR

1 March 84.75 93.75 76 60.1 41.3 35.1

4 March 84.25 94.1 76 60.1 41.3 35.1

5 March 84 93.75 76 60 41.2 35

6 March 83.5 93.5 76 60 41.4 35.1

7 March 83.5 92.25 76.2 60.4 41.6 35.2

8 March 83.6 91 76.3 60.8 41.8 35.4

11 March 83.75 90.75 76.4 60.9 41.8 35.4

12 March 83.25 90.25 76.4 60.9 41.8 35.4

13 March 83.1 90.2 76.3 60.8 41.7 35.3

14 March 83.4 91.75 76.3 60.8 41.9 35.4

15 March 83.5 93 76.4 60.9 42.5 36

18 March 83.75 93.3 76.5 60.9 42.6 36.1

19 March 83.4 93 76.2 60.6 42 35.8


www.irclgroup.com


COAL mARkET funDAmEnTALs


The seaborne metallurgical coal market saw a significant drop in March as Chinese participants backed away

from procurement due to talks of sharp declines in steel, iron ore and met coke prices.

According to information available with Coal Insights, the premium variety was quoted at $161 per ton fob Australia on March 15, down $7 per ton from $168 per ton on February 28. Peak downs prices fell to around $160.50 per ton on March 15, down from $168 per ton on February 28. The semi-soft variety was quoted at $115 per ton on March 15 compared to $119 per ton on February 28.

Continued uncertainty in the near-term steel market created some fears in China, with participants refusing to talk about any spot prices and buyers withholding any purchasing decisions. Liquidity appeared thin, as a result of uncertainty with no spot transaction heard.

Traders said price is not the issue as there is no real demand. There are no bids at all. With current faltering steel prices, raw materials procurement such as coking coal would understandably have to wait, sources said.

A wide gap continued to divide buyers and sellers with the former bidding at $170 per ton CFR and sellers still insisting at above $180 per ton CFR levels.

Seaborne coking coal prices ease in March

Quarterly contracts

Quarterly contract negotiations were at a deadlock – the Japanese were heard to be looking at $168 - 169 per ton FOB Australia levels for premium coking coals while suppliers were not budging, remaining at $172 per ton FOB.

The Atlantic market also fell on low activity, as many market participants were either in negotiations for second quarter (Q2) contracts or holding off from making spot deals while waiting for the impending benchmark agreement which is expected very soon.

Offers for low-vol hard coking coal fell to $147 per ton FOB US East Coast on March 15. US high-vol A dropped to $139.50 per ton FOB USEC.

Met Coke

On metallurgical coke, China marked a re-entry into the seaborne market with at least two spot deals heard done recently. One was done in India at $302 per ton CFR and another to South America at $315 per ton CFR.

Both deals were said to be competitive prices according to buyers and sellers. Poorer steel market fundamentals and declining domestic Chinese prices were said to reasons why Chinese coke has finally made a comeback to the international market.

Offers for metallurgical coke from Chinese traders have started coming in from the middle of January after the government in that country decided to withdraw 40 percent export duty on the material, an official of an Indian coke manufacturer said.

“The offers from China has started coming or at least people are now offering Chinese coke,” the official said.

“But I don’t think China will export too much of met coke and even if it exports in large quantities, the seaborne prices would not fall below $290 a ton,” the official added.

The seaborne met coke prices for the material from Australia in March remained marginally lower at $296 per ton CFR India, down from $298 per ton CFR on February 28.

In India also coke prices eased by around `600 per ton to `17,400 per ton (basic) on low demand conditions prevailing in the market.

The prices are likely to be around ̀ 17,400 levels in rest of March, sources said.

Coking coal FOB Australia ($/ton)

Dates

Peaks Down (CSR 74%, VM-20.7%,

Ash-9.7%, S-0.6%, P-0.03%, TM-9.5%)

Prem Low Vol (CSR-71%, VM-

21.5%, Ash-9.3%, S-0.50%, P-0.045%,

TM-9.7%)

HCC 64 Mid Vol (CSR-64%, VM-

25.5%, Ash-9.0%, S-0.6%, P-0.050%,

TM-9.5%)

Semi Soft Coking Coal Met Coke

21 February 172.5 172.75 155 121.5 296.00

22 February 170 170.5 154.75 120.75 296.00

25 February 169.5 170 154.25 120 296.00

26 February 168 168.5 153.5 119 298.00

27 February 167.5 168 118.5 298.00

28 February 168 168.5 153 119 298.00

1 March 167.5 168 153 119.5 300.00

4 March 167 167.5 152.5 117 300.00

5 March 167 167.5 152.5 117 300.00

6 March 165 165.5 151 116.5 300.00

7 March 164 164.5 150 116 301.00

8 March 164 164.5 150 115.5 301.00

11 March 164 164.5 150 115 302.00

12 March 163.5 164 114.5 302.00

13 March 163.5 164 114.5 302.00

14 March 162 162.5 146 115 298.00

15 March 160.5 161 146 115.5 296.00

18 March 160.5 161 115.5 296.00

19 March 159 159.5 115.5 296.00


trading business did not export because of the export tax. Now that the tax has been abolished, they will be encouraged to export. However, that may not be enough to affect the coke prices in a major way.

How do you feel met coke prices will move in 2013-14, considering the fact that steel makers are yet to show signs of recovery?

In 2013-14, coke price will remain in the

levels between $295 to $315 per ton, unless there is a drastic change in coking coal prices. As of now, the situation remains neutral. Coking coal prices are likely to move up a little from its current level and may reach a level of $175 to $180 per ton this year. This is mainly due to increase in spot prices owing to Chinese buyers.

How do you feel coking coal prices will

Coke price to move between $295-315/ton in FY14: Natarajan

Rakesh Dubey

Kolkata-based Ennore Coke, one of the leading merchant coke makers in India,

manufactures high quality low ash metallurgical coke. With China abolishing its export tax on met coke, it remains to be seen yet how it affects the domestic as well as global prices.

At this juncture, Ennore Coke’s wholetime director and president Ganesan Natarajan, spoke to Coal Insights on not only his outlook on met coke prices but also how he feels about coking coal price movements, met coke capacity in India and the major challenges facing coke makers in India.

Excerpts:

What will be the impact on domestic and global metallurgical coke prices in the wake of China’s withdrawal of export tax with effect from January this year?

There will be no immediate impact on met coke prices both in international as well as Indian marketa due to withdrawal of export tax by China. This is because the production of coke in China has dropped in the last few months mostly due to environmental issues. Therefore, the internal demand in China is still very much there. Therefore, it is unlikely that just the export tax will have any effect on prices in the near future.

Will there be a sharp increase in coke exports from China in coming months?

Yes of course exports will move up from the current position. Most Chinese companies involved in the coal and coke

OpInIOn


www.allmineral.com


OpInIOn

move in 2013-14, considering that current spot prices have firmed up and January Marchch contract price was fixed at $165 per ton?

I feel that coking coal prices in 2013-14 Q2 will be in the range of $170 to $175 per ton and may not go beyond $180 per ton in the course of the year.

There are reports that coking coal supplies from Mongolia to China has been hampered to a great extent. What will be the impact of this on international coking coal prices?

Yes of course. There will be an impact on international coking coal prices due to short supply of coking coal from Mongolia to China which is already seen in the market in Q1 2013. This was a prime reason for increase in the spot prices in this Q1 2013 compared to prices prevailing in Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2012.

What are the major challenges facing the coke makers in India? How can this be overcome?

The major challenges for Indian coke manufacturers will be inventory of coking coal and both rail and road logistics. In India, most of the indigenous coke producers are not using multiple number of coal blends to bring down the cost of coke making whereas in China, Japan, USA and Korea most of the coke producers use 14 to 15 different kinds of coal blend and bring down the coal cost by 30 to 40 percent. This is possible only for coke producers having a bigger capacity in order to have multiple coal inventories and still cope with market fluctuations.

With regard to logistics, the rail freight has been drastically increased in the budget

and the truck freight is also very high to transport coal and coke within India due to hike in price of diesel. In my opinion, scaling of sizes and conglomeration of multiple coke plant are the only solution for survival of coke industry in India. Also dedicated coke production units linked to steel plants like the ones in China and the US will be a long term solution for survival of the Indian coke industry.

What is India’s current coke making capacity? What is the merchant and captive break-up?

Currently India’s coke making capacity is around 22.5 million tons (mt) against the installed capacity of around close to 28 mt. Out of this, the merchant coke production is close to 2 mt against a installed capacity of 7.5 mt. The captive met coke production is around 20.5 mt.

What would be India’s estimated merchant coke production in 2011-12 and 2012-13?

India’s estimated merchant coke production in 2011-12 was around 1.9 mt and around 2 mt in 2012-13.

According to you what would be India’s merchant and captive coke making capacity by 2016-17? Why?

India’s merchant coke production capacity will be in the range of 8.5 mt, that is there will be additional capacity of 1 mt, and captive coke production capacity will be in the range of 23 mt by 2016-17. This is mainly because of growth in steel production.

Where do you see coking coal and coke demand in India to reach by 2016-17 when steel production capacity is estimated to be

150 mt?

India’s coking coal requirement will be in the range of 36 mt and coke demand will be close to 38 mt by 2016-17. I also feel that steel production capacity may not even cross 100 mt by 2016-17 in the current scenario.

How are merchant coke makers doing at present considering the fact that the economy is in a slowdown mode?

The merchant coke makers in eastern India are slowly recovering and producers from western India are yet to recover due to the economic slowdown mode.

There had been attempts by Indian steel makers to jointly negotiate coking coal prices with Australian miners in order to fetch a good bargain. Who are all involved in formation of this association? What progress has been made so far in this direction?

Yes, there is a progress in formation of ISM (Indian Steel Mills) like JSM in Japan. Tata Steel, SAIL and JSW have made a joint group to negotiate coking coal prices with Australian miners. They were able to fix a price of $163 per ton compared to the contract price fixed by JSM of $165 per ton. Though the difference is very small, the result is very encouraging and the association might get strengthened by addition of other Indian steel producers also. I have also emphasized the formation of ISM in the India-Australia CEOs’ Forum joint meetings.

Tata Steel and Adhunik Steel have recently set up a coke plants. What kind of impact will these have on the merchant coke makers?

The new coke plants set up by Tata Steel and Adhunik will not make any impact on the merchant coke makers because there is demand for coke from other companies including SAIL plants in eastern India.

In 2012, as per data available with us, there was sharp increase in India’s met coke imports to around 3.04 mt from a low of around 1.21 mt in 2011 and around 1.61 mt in 2010. What do you feel could be some of the possible reasons for the spurt in 2012 imports?

The spurt in imports in the year happened primarily due to local demand for met coke created by SAIL. Most SAIL plants have a demand for coke either due to expansion or maintenance in their coke oven.


www.clear-edge.com


fEATuRE

While saying so, the finance minister, more or less gave a message that country will soon have to live with pooled pricing mechanism wherein high cost of imported coal would be subsidised by charging higher price for domestic coal.

“In the medium to long term, we must reduce our dependence on imported coal. One of the ways forward is to devise a PPP policy framework in order to increase the production of coal for supply to power producers and other consumers,” Chidambaram.

Taking a cue from the suggestions of the finance minister, the Ministry of Coal on March 18 said a nine member committee led by Secretary (Coal) will evaluate the suggestion and will submit a report within one month. The members of the committee include CIL’s Director (Technical), Joint Secretary (Coal), Advisor (Coal) and representatives from CMPDIL, Ministry of Steel, Planning Commission and Finance Ministry among others.

Commenting on the move, former CIL Chairman P S Bhattacharyya said in an interaction that demand-supply gap was staring the country as back as 1989-1990 itself and that is why the government then had decided not exactly, the commercial mining, but to give coal blocks for captive mining because it was very much clear that CIL alone cannot be expected to meet the country’s coal demand.

“But that experiment, according to me, has not succeeded, as neither the production from captive blocks have gone up significantly nor their production is of any significance at this point in time,” Bhattacharyya feels.

He, however, feels that with next general election due within next one year any big bang change in government policy to privatise the industry cannot be expected, but certain processes may be initiated so that major changes can happen after the new government comes to power.

While not directly commenting on the talks of privatisation of coal industry, Bhattacharyya preferred to highlight the reasons for setting up of CIL, which came into existence as a completely government dependent company and there were historical reasons for government interventions like safety, profits etc. And from that level it was transformed into a highly profit making and low cost producer of coal.

“Today, it is because of CIL that prices


The suggestion by Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram for formation of a public private

partnership (PPP) policy framework, with Coal India Ltd (CIL) as one of the partners, is being received by a section of the media with a pinch of salt and is being viewed by some as a precursor to privatisation of coal industry in India. However, senior people associated with the industry feel that it is too early to come out with any definite conclusion on the topic.

Though the privatisation of the coal industry was proposed by the government way back in 2000 during the regime of erstwhile National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), no progress has been seen over the past more than 12 years.

It is now being perceived by a few as the latest attempt by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by the Congress to revive the proposals that had been put on back burner in view of severe opposition by the Left parties and trade unions.

The argument given by Chidambaram for

the need to devise a PPP policy framework was based on the realisation that despite abundant coal reserves, India continues to import large volumes of coal.

This, according to those who are in favour of privatisation of the coal industry by allowing entry of foreign players’, in a way amount to acceptance that CIL, which supplies nearly 80 percent of the country’s coal requirement, has failed to live up to expectations.

According to them, CIL has not only failed to deliver but has also led to sharp increase in India’s coal imports to meet its demand and in turn led to outgo of huge foreign exchange leading to widening foreign trade and fiscal deficit.

According to Chidambaram, coal imports during the period April-December 2012 have crossed 100 million tons (mt) and it is estimated that imports will rise to 185 mt in 2016-17.

“If the coal requirements of the existing power plants and power plants that will come into operation by March 31, 2015 are taken into account, there is no alternative except to import coal and adopt a policy of blending and pooled pricing,” he said.

Will PPP policy lead to privatisation of coal industry in India?


fEATuRE

of coal are low in Indian and even after selling coal at low prices, the company is making profit. It is one of the least cost producers of coal and if its cost of production is low, the factor productivity has to be high,” Bhattacharyya said.

He pointed that CIL has been meeting 40 percent of the country’s coal total commercial energy demand at half the world prices and that too without any subsidisation. “There is definitely scope for improvement for CIL, but to say that it is inefficient is not correct,” Bhattacharyya added.

Former Secretary (Coal) P C Parakh said, in a televised programme, that instead of PPP model, the time has come for complete privatisation of coal industry in the country.

“My view is that the government is already too late and they should move as quickly as possible to privatise the industry. They should move as quickly as possible and I am quite optimistic that if the government is serious it can get consensus because today we are in a very critical situation so far coal supplies are concerned and every political party, in my opinion, would accept the required change,” Parakh said.

“Instead of waiting for this PPP thing

to be started, government should straight away open up the coal sector for commercial mining. Unless there is long term interest, the foreign companies would not really get interested to come in to take up the challenge of meeting the coal supply of India,” he added.

According to the former Secretary (Coal), the government should identify four or five large coal mining projects in the country which can produce 50 to 100 million tons of coal a year, complete all environment related issues and then offer them for open bidding so that large coal miners of the world can come and participate in those projects.

He also feels that there would be no opposition from leading political parties of the country so far as privatisation is concerned.

“So far political consensus is concerned, when the 2000 bill was sent to parliament standing committee, it was recommended by the committee by an overwhelming majority. Only small objection came from the left parties. So I don’t think there is political opposition in the whole political spectrum for opening up or privatisation of coal sector,” Parakh said.

The others, however, feel that if not

complete privatisation, the PPP model may definitely bring in competition within the industry and that in turn might lead to increase in domestic production.

The Director General of Association of Power Producers, Ashok Khurana, while echoing the sentiments of Parakh, said the suggestion of the finance minister is not enough to bring in competition within the industry and without competition CIL cannot be charged up to improve its efficiency.

“To my mind, the right word to use is the competition in the coal sector and that can come only with privatisation. We need to find all the means to augment domestic production and of course one is competition so that with competition, CIL brings in technology, modern techniques, transparency in pricing etc,” Khurana said.

He, however, agreed with Bhattacharyya that any major development on policy side can happen before the general election. “My idea is that government should keep the bill (for privatisation of coal industry) ready, get coal regulator appointed so that when the new government comes up by April-May 2014, they can seek consensus and go full fledged on the competition,” Khurana said.

www.indouniqueflame.com




After a brilliant start to the year, Coal India Ltd (CIL) lost steam in the second half of 2012-13 and

may end up with a 3.5 percent growth in production, which is significantly below the 6 percent growth forecast earlier. While a 3.5 percent increase in production would still be an improvement after years of flat growth, the company would widely miss the annual production target set by the coal ministry (MoC). Moreover, CIL is also likely to miss the offtake target, albeit marginally.

As per the production trend seen in the first 11 months (April-February), CIL’s annual production is likely to reach anywhere between 448 and 452 million tons (mt) while total offtake may hover around 462-465 mt. The company had a production target of 464.10 mt and offtake target of 470.00 mt for the fiscal year.

During the first 11 months of 2012-13, the company’s coal production stood at 397.95 mt whereas offtake stood at 419.21 mt. The production and offtake during the 11 months of 2012-13 was 4.26 percent and 7.33 percent higher than the actual production and despatches of 381.69 mt and 390.58 mt respectively during the corresponding period of 2011-12.

“The company will have to produce as much as 66.15 mt of coal in March to achieve the yearly production target of 464.10 mt. This looks next to impossible considering the fact that CIL’s best ever monthly

production record is 54.14 mt which was achieved in March 2010,” an official said.

CIL’s production in February was affected to a certain extent by a two-day industrial strike called by trade unions on February 20 and 21 and stood at 42.64 mt during the month as compared to 46.42 mt produced in January.

In comparison, the company’s offtake, which includes its own coal consumption, stood at 419.21 mt between April 2012 and February 2013. The offtake is estimated to have fallen to 40.01 mt in February 2013 from 42.14 mt in January 2013.

“This means, if the offtake target of 470.00 mt for the year 2012-13 is to be achieved, the company will have to achieve an offtake of slightly more than 50.00 mt of coal in March 2013,” the official added.

“Achieving the offtake target for the year, based on performance till February, looks a bit difficult,” the official said.

The company’s best performance, as far as offtake is concerned, is 42.24 mt and this was achieved way back in March 2009.

“However, in recent months, the availability of rakes from the Railways was quite good and thus the offtake in 31 days of January 2013 stood at 42.14 mt, which is almost near to the record. Even if we get

fEATuRE

an adequate number of rakes in March, I don’t think we would be able to increase our offtake to 50.00 mt during the month,” the official added.

“At best, we may increase our offtake to 44.00 mt in March, but that would mean we will miss the yearly target of 470.00 mt by a small margin,” the official said.

CIL to invest `25,400 cr in XII Plan

CIL has proposed an investment of `25,400 crore for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-13 to 2016-17) on its Indian operations, the majority of which would be on mining projects, including ongoing projects, Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal has said.

Of the total planned investment, `11,385.05 crore is proposed to be invested on ongoing projects, `4,484.62 crore on existing mines and completed projects and `2,490.94 crore on new projects, Jaiswal said.

“The company will invest another around `7,039.38 crore on non-mining and others,” he said.

Overseas investments

The company has also made a provision to invest `10,000 crore on the development of two coal blocks in Mozambique during the current Five Year Plan even as it plans to invest a total of `35,000 crore for acquisition and development of coal assets abroad, said Jaiswal.

CIL has proposed an ad-hoc provision of `35,000 crore for acquisition and development of coal assets abroad during the current five year plant. This excludes an investment of `25,400 crore on domestic operations, the minister said.

“Out of the total ad-hoc provision of `35,000 crore, `10,000 crore has been allotted for exploration and development

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CIL* MCL SECL WCL NCL CCL BCCL ECL

Apr-Feb 2012 Apr-Feb, 2013

Coal offtake from CIL subsidiaries (in mt)

*including NEC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

ECL BCCL CCL NCL WCL SECL MCL CIL*

Apr-Feb 2012 Apr-Feb, 2013

Coal prodcution by CIL subsidiaries (in mt)

*including NEC

CIL likely to see 3.5% growth in production, miss target in FY13


fEATuRE

of two allotted coal blocks and creation of logistic infrastructure in Mozambique and the balance `25,000 crore has been kept for acquisition and development of coal blocks in other countries like South Africa, Indonesia, Australia, USA, Colombia etc,” Jaiswal said.

The exploration activities are in progress in the allotted two coal blocks in Mozambique, he added. The minister said that CIL has issued a notice on February 27, 2013 inviting proposals from investment bankers, owners/ representatives for acquisition of coal assets abroad.

To a question, Jaiswal said the annual production expected from coal assets acquired/to be acquired abroad would depend upon the specific production potential of each of such coal block or mine. At this stage it will not be possible to estimate the quantity of additional annual coal production arising out of investment of `35,000 crore.

To another question, he said the decision regarding use of additional production envisaged and the companies to whom such coal will be sold would depend upon the type/quality of saleable coal available from CIL & mines in Mozambique and other coal assets expected to be acquired in other countries.

Coal India Ltd (CIL), which supplies coal to linkage holder consumers through Fuel Supply

Agreements (FSAs), is believed to be working on reducing the trigger level for implementation of penalty clause to 50 percent of the agreed quantity from the existing 60 percent for its non-power sector consumers, industry sources said.

“We had some informal meetings with CIL officials recently and it was indicated to us that the trigger level for non-power sector consumers may be reduced to 50 percent of the agreed quantity which means we will get even lesser coal from the company from 2013-14,” sources told Coal Insights.

CIL had signed FSAs with all its consumers, including non-power sector consumers, in 2008 for a period of five years and the agreements will have to renewed from 2013-14 for non-power sector consumers. For power sector consumers,

the FSAs have a validity of 20 years with provision for review every five years.

“We are already getting much less coal from CIL than our requirement as the FSAs are signed based on 80 percent of our normative requirement. This normative requirement is fixed by CIL based on some formula. But actual supplies of coal are only up to the extent of 60 percent of the FSAs, which means we get only about 50 percent of our actual requirement of coal supplies,” they said.

“Once the trigger level is reduced to 50 percent of the FSA, we will get only around 40 percent of our total requirement of coal from CIL,” they added.

However, Coal Insights learnt that CIL may be willing to supply the entire quantity of coal to non-power sector consumers, if they agree to take imported coal at pooled prices. CIL officials were not available for their comments on the development.

CIL may cut trigger level in next FSA renewals


www.eurotire.net/euroview


fEATuRE

Rakesh Dubey

Close on the heels of raising fuel surcharge on coal, the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) is

considering increasing prices of all grades of coal by around 10 percent with effect from April 2013, a top company official told Coal Insights. This increase, he said, would be aimed at offsetting the impact of under-recovery following shift to GCV based pricing system.

“We are seriously evaluating and will most probably increase the prices by around 10 percent with effect from April 2013 to offset the impact of under-recovery,” the official said.

He said that under-recovery is largely because of the narrowing down of bandwidth to 300 Kcal/kg for each grade of coal after shifting to the gross calorific value (GCV) based system in January 2012 from around 600-900 Kcal/kg bandwidth under useful heat value (UHV) system.

“After the shift to GCV based pricing system from UHV system, it has been found that consumers like NTPC have become very strict and they are not willing to pay for any grade slippage. Because of this, our revenue plan has been affected to great extent and there is no option other than to increase the prices,” the official added.

However, Coal Insights understands that it may be difficult for SCCL to increase the prices with effect from April 2013.

The company may have to take approval from the Ministry of Coal (MoC) to increase the prices and it may not be easy to get the permission under the current political situation in the country when there is threat to survival of the present UPA2 government at the Centre following the decision of a leading ally, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), to withdraw its support to the government.

However, if somehow SCCL manages to get the government’s approval to go ahead with the price hike, Coal India Ltd (CIL),

SCCL likely to increase coal prices by 10% from April

which supplies around 80 percent of the total coal requirement of the country, too may be encouraged to increase its prices.

Incidentally, in June 2012, one of CIL’s subsidiaries – Western Coalfields Ltd (WCL) – had managed to increase prices of some of the grades of coal citing the reasons that their realisations had fallen sharply after shifting to GCV based pricing system.

“The actual classification of some higher grade coals from some of the mines of WCL was done in a wrong manner and a government appointed committee to review the impact of switch to GCV based pricing system in June-July 2012 had accepted the arguments of WCL,” an official of Ministry of Coal had earlier said.

Another CIL subsidiary, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL) has also demanded around 10 percent increase in price of its coking coal supplied to the steel manufacturers.

The company, which supplies to Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd (RINL), has asked the steel majors to increase the price of its coking coal “as we have brought a significant improvement in quality of our material,” a top official recently said.

Re-revision in fuel surcharge

Meanwhile, barely a month after raising the fuel surcharge in January 2013, SCCL has again increased the fuel surcharge levied on all grades of coal by `18 per ton with effect from March 7. This increase in turn will result in a rise in coal prices by a similar margin, an industry source said.

The company, which is owned jointly by Andhra Pradesh Government and Government of India, had been gradually increasing the fuel surcharge since June 2012, the source added.

Confirming the development, the official said that with effect from March 7, the company will levy a fuel surcharge at `169 per ton.

SCCL had last increased the fuel surcharge by `65 per ton to `151 per ton with effect from January 18, 2013 immediately after the oil companies decided to increase diesel prices by `12 per ton for bulk consumers.

The latest increase in prices will be applicable to all grades of coal and for all kinds of sale orders including e-auction and


fEATuRE

cost plus. Also, the price difference for all pending orders (date of delivery on or after March 7) will be duly adjusted.

Earlier, SCCL had increased the fuel surcharge from `48/ton to `86/ton with effect from September 14, 2012.

SCCL likely to miss revised targets

Meanwhile, the company is likely to end

the current financial year ( 2 0 1 2 - 1 3 ) with a total production of around 53.3 million tons (mt), slightly lower than the revised target of 54.00 mt for the year, said the official.

“ O u r production is going on well and we will

hopefully end the year with total production of around 53.30 mt, which would be slightly more than original target of 53.10 mt,” he said.

The company had planned to produce 54.00 mt coal during the current financial year.

“As of date (March 19), our production is 51.03 mt against the target of 52.26 mt,” the

official said, adding the production between April 2012 and February 2013 was 47.35 mt against the target of 49.16 mt.

Coal production during the first half of the year had trailed behind the monthly targets. In fact, the first month’s production missed the target by a wide margin. While the performance had improved in the following months, it never reached the target in the first six months.

The second half performance was also not satisfactory until the company crossed the production target for December. This was followed by a better-than-expected production in January. However, in February again, there was a slight shortfall versus target.

Of the total production between April 1, 2012 and March 19, 2013, underground mines had produced 11.197 mt while 39.831 mt came from opencast mines, the official added.

The company’s coal production in 2011-12 stood at 52.21 mt, which was higher as compared to the target of 51.00 mt for the year.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Apr May Jun Jul Aus Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Target Actual

Targeted and actual production by SCCL in FY13 (in mt)


www.klhl.com


fEATuRE

circumstances 950 were not found to be eligible.” The court further inquired if a “well-defined and well-structured policy was there on the basis of which applications were scrutinised.”

“Even in small selections there are guidelines, short listing and the scrutiny of the application before a decision is made,” the court said inquiring if the same were followed by the government in the allocation of coal blocks. The court pointed out that the CBI report said there was no system to verify the credentials of the companies that had applied for coal blocks including their financial standing.

The apex court said it will first examine the legality of the allocation of coal blocks and the CBI will look into the criminality, if any, in the allocation. Subsequently, the court directed the CBI director that the agency will not share information of its probe into the scam with the political executive (central government). It said that all the status reports

submitted to the court would be vetted by the CBI director.

AG hits back

Defending the allocation of the coal blocks and holding them legal, Attorney General (AG) G.E. Vahanvati said all norms were followed and the government did not want any large-scale cancellation. He stressed that every allocation was examined by the screening committee. The statement by the attorney general assumes significance in the back-drop of the apex court cancelling 122 2G licences that jolted the telecom sector.

Vahanvati told the court that private players were brought in because power sector was in a pathetic state and government was short of resources to support new projects. The AG took strong exception to the allegation of criminal conspiracy levelled by Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Common Cause.

Justice Lodha however cautioned him

Government faces fresh setback in coal mine allocation case


Just when the public memory seemed to condone the alleged coal scam, the government faced a fresh setback as

the Supreme Court recently stated that the allocation of coal blocks prima facie seems to be arbitrary and the procedure adopted by the government does not appear to be legal. The court also warned of cancelling the blocks if procedures were not followed.

If that struck a blow, the real shocker came from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which pointed out irregularities in coal block allocation during the UPA-I tenure. Amid vehement opposition from the government to such accusation, the court directed the CBI not to share information of its probe into the scam with the “political executive” (central government).

“If even among them (applicants for the coal blocks) they (government) have not followed any guidelines or procedures and a, b, c was allocated and d, e, f, was excluded then the whole allocation has to go,” said an apex court bench of Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Madan B. Lokur.

The court stated this while hearing a public interest litigation by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma and NGO Common Cause, seeking cancellation of all the coal blocks which have been negatively commented upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The CAG had estimated a loss of `186,000 crore to the exchequer in the controversial allocation of coal blocks by the government.

“The procedure the government is talking about prima facie does not seem to be proper and legal,” said Justice Lodha.

Pointing out that from 2006-09 the government received 2,100 applications out of which 160 applicants were allocated 368 coal blocks, the court asked “in what

Pointing out that from 2006-09 the government received 2,100 applications out of which 160 applicants were allocated 368 coal blocks, the court asked "in what circumstances 950 were not found to be eligible.”


fEATuRE

saying, “Any of your comment must not prejudice the ongoing inquiry by the CBI. If you are challenging the criminal conspiracy charge that is begin examined by the CBI then that would directly or indirectly influence the investigation.”

He further said, “I just want to know how you were dealing with applications which you were getting pursuant to your advertisement?”

Prashant Bhushan told the court that the allocation of coal blocks was contrary to what the apex court said in the 2G verdict and while answering the presidential reference on the methods of allocating natural resources. He said that when scarce resources are allocated to private players for commercial exploitation, the criterion of allocation must be maximisation of revenue.

The Supreme Court also asked the top investigating agency CBI to file an affidavit for giving assurance that coal scam probe report is not shared with ‘political executive’. This has come after the CBI informed the Apex Court that no verification of credentials of companies was done for coal block allocation during 2006-09. The CBI in its probe report also stated that no rationale was given for allocating coal blocks to companies. The Centre objected to CBI’s findings.

The court asked the Centre to explain why a small group of companies were “picked and chosen” out of large number of companies who applied for coal block allocation.

The three-judge bench headed by Justice Lodha, which went through the report filed in a sealed cover, said that the report prima facie alleges irregularities, but the Attorney

General aggressively hit back on the finding saying, “CBI is not the final word on this”.

Vahanvati, however, clarified that the government has no problem with CBI probe and pleaded the court to provide him some part of the probe report on which he would respond. “I am not trying to pre-empt the inquiry. I have no problem with it,” he said.

The bench said the government should make a statement cautiously as it might affect the ongoing CBI probe in the case. “Any of your comments must not prejudice CBI inquiry in the case. If you are challenging the very conspiracy angle of the controversy, then it would affect the probe,” the apex court said.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by various members of civil society including former CEC N Gopalaswami, ex-Navy chief L Ramdas and former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian and advocate ML Sharma seeking a SIT probe into the coal block allocation scam.

The states’ job?

Earlier, on January 24, the apex court had questioned the Centre's power to allocate coal blocks to companies, saying it has a lot of “legal explanation” to do as the statutory Act empowers only the states to undertake

this task. The court had said that the Centre cannot undermine the Mines and Minerals Act which has given no power to it to allocate coal block to companies. The court's remarks came after the CBI informed that investigations into block allocations have established irregularities by government authorities in allocation of the natural resources and that around 300 companies are under its scanner.

In an affidavit filed before the court, the CBI had said that it is taking up the probe against each and every company which has been allocated coal block since 1993 and in particular during the period 2006 to 2008”. The agency had also placed before the apex court a list of companies and their directors against whom FIR have so far been lodged.

The agency had said that it is not revealing all information of its probe in order to “preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the inquiry”.

MoC provides files

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Coal (MoC) has handed over to the CBI more than 700 files/folders/applications forms/agenda booklets etc, in original since the preliminary enquiry (PE) cases were registered by the investigation agency, an official said.

The CBI after registering the PEs has since requisitioned these documents in original, the official said.

“Further about 30 files are kept ready for handing over to the CBI. Some of the old files/documents primarily pertaining to the applications received prior to 2004 are not readily available in the Ministry,” the official added.

However, efforts are being made to make them available by writing to Coal India Limited, Central Mine Planning & Design Institute (CMPDI) and Ministry of Steel, he said, adding, a team from Ministry of Coal also visited to CMPDI recently and has collected old applications in respect of about 10 companies which are also kept ready for handing over to CBI.

The CBI had said that it is taking up the probe against each and every company which has been allocated coal block since 1993 and in particular during the period 2006 to 2008.


independent body, as different ministries now appear to be unwilling to surrender control over the pricing of the resource or the power to authorise mining.

Government sources said most of the members of GoM on the regulator have raised objections and opposed the transfer of most executive powers to the regulator.

Currently, Coal India decides price of the fuel without any formal directive from the coal ministry, but the government has a say because it holds majority equity.

Sources said the ministers argued on giving the right of giving mining authorisations to coal regulator. However, the coal ministry would press on giving away the pricing and authorisation granting powers to the regulator.

The GoM has met several times since last year but seems to have little headway so far. Apart from the coal minister, the GoM comprises environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan, Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, power minister Sushilkumar Shinde, mines minister Dinsha Patel, corporate affairs minister M Veerappa Moily, labour minister Mallikarjun Kharge and law minister Salman Khurshid.

Government working afresh on policy

As per the latest information available, the government is now working afresh on forming the proposed independent coal regulatory authority.

Earlier, the coal ministry had proposed a four-member authority to price coal, grant and cancel mining authorisations, set performance standards, monitor coal quality, ensure adherence and advise government on policies.

The coal ministry, accepting the demands from the power ministry, has agreed to redraft the Bill for a regulator for the coal sector by seeking to empower the watchdog to fix prices of coal and including a member from the power sector as a member in the regulatory mechanism.

As it stands now, the Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2012 being redrafted will now be equipped to fix prices of various grades of coal apart from determining the methodologies and policies for finalising prices of both raw and washed coal in line with their calorific values.

Will coal regulator be a routine affair?


In 2012, India’s government took into consideration a proposal to set up a coal regulator in the lines of the

regulatory authorities for insurance and telecommunications. The proposal came as a clear winner for the consuming industries including power. The industry which was peeved at the hefty increase in prices post transition to gross calorific value (GCV) based pricing, insisted on an early installation of the statutory body. The coal ministry too assured of speedy action, around this time last year. But then, nothing worthwhile came up in the last 12 months. The slow progress, if any, has started casting doubt in a section of the industry on the government’s intentions and the fate of this much-awaited body.

A long story

The proposal to set up a regulator was first mooted in the general budget of 2007-08. It was later referred to the Union Cabinet and then to the Group of Ministers (GoM) for consideration. The GoM was asked to make recommendations on its powers and functions.

It was expected that the constitution of an independent regulatory body for coal sector would result in more optimal development and conservation of coal resources, more effective regulation on mine working conditions, adoption of best mining practices and redressal of complaints among others.

It was said that private sector is not engaged in commercial mining of coal, but coal mines allotted to private companies for captive use would also come under the purview of the proposed regulator.

The setting up of an independent regulator for the coal sector was considered crucial also for improving competitiveness in e-auctions, fixing guidelines for price revision in supply pacts, setting trading margins and increasing transparency in the allocation of reserves. The constitution of the coal

regulator was recommended in the country’s Integrated Energy Policy as well as by the T L Shankar Committee on coal sector reforms. A few states like West Bengal and other stakeholders have also been demanding setting-up of a coal regulator.

Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal went on record on several occasions that the coal regulator would be in place soon. “We discussed the matter and we are hopeful that it is likely to be finalised soon,” the minister had said every time he was asked about a time line.

The proposal, meanwhile, got a go ahead from both the industry and state governments. Arup Roy Choudhury, chairman and managing director of NTPC, the country’s largest power producer and also the biggest consumer of coal, pitched for an early setting up of Coal Regulatory Authority, saying it would augment private participation in the sector.

“If a private sector comes in the coal sector, unless there is a regulator, it is not too sure about what kind of returns it will get,” Roy Choudhury said adding the regulator has helped in attracting investments in the power sector. “We have a regulator and private sector has come in abundance in the (power) sector,” he added.

Choudhury further noted that if something on these lines are initiated now, the results will start showing in the next 4-5 years.

Manish Gupta, Power Minister of West Bengal government, supported the idea of a coal regulator as mooted by the Centre.

“If there can be a regulatory authority for various sectors like insurance or telecom, why can we not have one for the coal sector? CIL has been arbitrarily hiking prices now and then,” Gupta said.

Routine approving authority

However, it needs to be seen whether the long-awaited coal regulator turns out to be a routine approving authority, not an

fEATuRE


It is also being empowered to determine the prices of the fuel mined from captive blocks along with the royalty to be paid by allottees and also fix price of surplus coal from these mines. The ministry wants the proposed regulator to decide the method for fixing prices to check abuse of monopoly by any producer.

The ministerial panel, in its first meeting in July last year, had said the autonomy of

CIL board needed to be kept in mind but the regulator should have the power to counter the methods and practices of a monopolistic player. It also suggested the core functions of the ministry need to be preserved.

Independent regulation of the sector is aimed at ensuring competitiveness of market sales, fixing guidelines for price revision and increasing transparency in allocation of reserves.

Private power producers have raised objections to the provisions in the Bill related to cost-plus pricing, which ensures a minimum margin for a developer over the cost incurred.

The draft Bill says the pricing principles to be evolved by the regulator would be guided by safeguarding of consumer interest and, at the same time, recovery of the cost of coal, including a reasonable return to the developer.

Delayed power projects lead to huge cost overrun

Sanjukta Ganguly

After the huge losses of power distribution companies (discoms), India’s power sector is facing yet

another major hurdle in terms of project delays and substantial cost overrun. As of date, official figures show the total cost overrun in power projects has crossed `45,000 crore. This implies additional cost burden on the generating companies and may lead to higher tariffs once these projects come to fruition.

Such delays in implementation would also lead to lower-than-expected achievement in capacity addition during the Twelfth Plan (2012-17). In the Eleventh Plan period (2007-12), the government had initially set a target of adding 78,700 MW. During the Mid-term Appraisal (MTA) carried out by the Planning Commission, the capacity addition target was revised to 62,374 MW taking into account the stage and pace of construction of power projects and their likelihood of commissioning.

According to a report by the Planning Commission, the Eleventh Plan added only 55,000 MW of generation capacity which was significantly short of the initial target. Setting the target higher, the Twelfth Plan aims to add 88,000 MW capacity over the next five years.

275 GW @ 2017

In the present scenario, there is a huge demand supply mismatch with regard to the

inputs required to these power generating stations. In order to bridge the existing gap between demand and supply and meet future requirements, the installed capacity is needed to be enhanced to about 275 GW by 2017. However, in view of the delay already faced in constructing and commissioning of a number of such power projects, how far this target will be achieved poses a big question.

Additionally, the huge cost overrun incurred in public sector power projects – primarily thermal and hydel projects – will put a strain on the exchequer. This is of concern for the government which is struggling to control its ballooning fiscal deficit.

According to official sources, India, the world's second-fastest growing major economy, desperately needs to improve its electricity infrastructure to reduce peak hour power shortages and provide electricity to millions of rural households, as well as keeping its resource-hungry industry on the move. This requires an investment of about $400 billion in the five years to March 2017.

Data available with Coal Insights shows, as on March 7, 2013, a total of 107 thermal power projects with a total capacity of 96,651.3 MW are in the constructional stage and 50 hydro-electric projects with a capacity of total 13,254 MW are under implementation. However, a large number of these projects are running behind schedule due to various reasons including delay in land acquisition, getting statutory clearances and award of contracts.

As of March 7, 2013, the total amount of cost overrun stood at `26,761.71 crore for thermal power projects, whereas for hydel power projects, the amount stood at `19,993.45 crore.*

As mentioned, this additional cost is bound to put pressure on the national exchequer. To avoid such skyrocketing of costs, and ensure timely construction and commissioning of the projects, the government needs to take proactive measures on an urgent basis.

* See annexure on pg 62

fEATuRE


research report Credit Suisse said that they expect the cement up-cycle to continue at least for the next two years with accretive price increases leading to margin expansion. Capacity additions should peak out in 2013-14 (FY14) and production discipline should imply a recovering FY14 and a stronger FY15.

Cost to go up

According to Credit Suisse’s analysis over the past two decades, the increase in cement prices has generally been lower than the rate of inflation, barring occasions where the cost increase was more than inflation and the manufacturers could pass on that increased cost to consumers due to good demand conditions.

However, Credit Suisse expects cost to increase by about 8 percent over the next two years against inflation of 7-8 percent.

“As per the feedback from the industry, there are two factors leading to cost increase. One is the increase in cost of linkage coal as Coal India Limited (CIL) starts importing coal and implements the pooling process to average coal costs. We expect cost of linkage coal to increase at a 10 percent CAGR over the next two years. The other is the diesel price deregulation for bulk purchasers such as Railways and periodical increase in diesel price which impacts road freight,” the report said.

Govt support

As per the report, Credit Suisse feels one of the key drivers for the expected outperformance of these cement companies is the higher outlay announced in the recent Union Budget for rural infrastructure development vis-a-vis Prime Minister’s Rural Roads Programme (PMGSY) and rural housing (Indira Awas Yojna) as well as a pickup in general demand.

Credit Suisse expects ACC and Grasim to outperform in the next 12 months while it is neutral on UltraTech Cement and Ambuja Cement. None of the south-based cement companies were covered though. However, the leading financial service provider said that one of the key risks to the recovery is the implementation of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order against cartelisation that could see an outflow of as much as $1.2 billion, which will severely impact future capacity expansions.

Cement sector may revive in next two years: Credit Suisse


The cement industry in India, which has been passing through a rough patch for the last few years, may see a

revival soon as demand conditions are likely to improve over the next couple of years, an analyst report by one of the leading global financial service providers, Credit Suisse, said.

Due to the real estate and infrastructural boom between 2000 and 2009, most of the cement companies went on to add excess capacities to step up their production, having anticipated huge demand. However, that move backfired when infrastructure

development slowed down considerably due to faulty economic policies by the government and corruption, coupled with global economic meltdown.

All this had an adverse impact on the cement sector as the manufacturers started facing overcapacity and eventually had to cut down prices. This, in turn, put pressure on their margins leading to poor performance, especially over the past few years. Most of the companies could feel a crunch of profitability due to this supply-demand mismatch.

Current scenario

The cement sector is currently facing a problem of low demand, resulting in a fall in cement prices. The industry is also facing cost pressures due to hike in diesel prices. The hike in diesel prices has pushed up both the rail and road freight charges. This has further affected the profitability of the cement manufacturers.

However, in its

Margins to expand with demand improving and supply presure easing

Source: CMA, Credit Suisse estimates

fEATuRE


ton to `937.60 per ton and that on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by 5.79 percent to `937.60 per ton.

The rates exclude development charge and busy season charges which essentially means that actual hike for oil companies would be higher.

According to an estimate, oil companies transport about 32-33 percent of diesel, LPG and kerosene through the Railways and the hike in freight will either have to be passed on to consumers or have to be accounted as under-recoveries which the government would compensate from the general Budget.

It is unlikely that the government, which is hard pressed for finances, would agree to taking on additional burden and therefore, the freight increase is likely to be passed on to consumers.

The increase in retail rates of diesel, LPG and kerosene that is needed because of the freight increase is yet to be calculated.

Freight hike

Besides power tariff, the 5.8 percent increase in rail freight charges on the movement of iron ore as well as finished steel is likely to push up steel prices by 5-8 percent, industry experts said.

In the Railway Budget 2013-14, Bansal proposed to hike freight rates for 12 commodities, including steel, iron ore and

coal, in the range of 5.78-5.81 percent from April. He also said that freight rates will be reviewed twice a year and be linked to changes in fuel cost.

“Not only inflationary, it is also a double blow to us. Freight rates on both, domestic movement of iron ore and on finished steel, have been raised. So, we will be left with no other option but to raise prices,” a senior official of a leading Indian steel company said.

Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), the country’s largest steel producer would have a negative impact of about `300 crore on revenues due to this, company’s chairman C.S. Verma said in a statement.

“For SAIL, this is estimated to have a negative implication of ̀ 200 crore per annum on inward traffic and around `100 crore per annum on outbound finished goods traffic,” he said.

According to many, the budget would prove to be inflationary as ultimately it is the masses who are likely to be hit by the indirect impact of freight hikes proposed. At this juncture, when both the domestic and global economies are witnessing slowdown, such hikes would add further burden on consumers. If the economic condition of the country does not show any improvement, the freight hike will impose more and more burden on consumers in future, experts said.

Rail freight hike to impact coal consuming sectors

Sanjukta Ganguly

Although the proposed increase in coal freight rate by 5.79 percent by the Railways Minister Pawan Kumar

Bansal is unlikely to have any direct impact on the coal producing sector, it may lead to a marginal increase in electricity tariffs and affect other coal consuming sectors including cement and steel. Coal freight was hiked from `685.10 per ton to `724.80 per ton in the Railway Budget 2013-14. Depending on the demand conditions, the coal consumers may pass on the increased cost of freight to the end consumers, industry sources said.

Power cost

Asked to comment on the issue, Coal India Ltd (CIL) officials said there would be no direct impact on the coal sector, including the company. However, the increase will impact the power generating sector and may result in increased electricity charges.

Power generating stations which depend on the Railways as the primary mode of coal transportation would be affected more and the increase may lead to higher landing cost for generating companies by up to 3 percent.

According to industry analysts, the hike in coal freight charges will be neutral to the coal sector but will hit downstream sectors using coal such as power, cement and steel.

“The increase in freight charges would increase electricity tariff by less than one per cent as freight is very small component of overall cost of electricity,” Kuljit Singh, partner of Ernst & Young said.

Freight for moving diesel

The Indian Railways also hiked the freight rates for moving diesel and cooking fuels by almost 8 percent, a move that may result in marginal hike in retail fuel prices as well.

Freight on diesel was increased by 5.79 percent to `1,041.80 per ton from `984.80 per ton currently. The same on kerosene went up by 5.79 percent from `886.30 per

fEATuRE


GrapheneThe Particle of God

TEChnOLOgy

After the ‘God particle’, here is graphene! A super thin layer of carbon that weighs nothing, but is stronger than steel, more conductive than copper and yet more flexible than rubber! Its applications are just as incredible as its characteristics. From soaking up nuclear waste to facilitating treatment of Alzheimer’s, graphene has an amazing range of potential uses. The

material is being touted as a possible replacement for silicon in electronics. Solar cell, high frequency transistors, mobile devices, fuel-cell powered cars, detection of explosives – you name it and graphene probably has got a role to play. Besides, graphene could help explain the ‘God particle’ too…!

Little wonder then, that this teeny material has created a huge ripple in the world scientific community. In less than a decade, there have been 7,000 patents, with the largest number being held by China. Even in times of austerity, governments in Europe and elsewhere are pouring huge funds for further research.

While that sounds all very nice, some argue the process may not be that simple. There remain numerous hurdles to start commercial exploitation, the biggest of them being the prohibitive costs of production. Coal Insights takes a sneak peek into this wonder material and also presents a claim made by a Hungarian researcher to bring down the costs dramatically.

Arindam Bandyopadhyay


TEChnOLOgy

The wonder stuff

Graphene is composed of a single layer of carbon atoms extracted from graphite. These atoms are densely packed in a honeycomb crystal lattice. The substance is very light and thin. A 1-square-meter sheet weighs only around 0.77 milligrams and the carbon-carbon bond length in graphene is about 0.142 nanometers.

The discovery of this material dates back to 1962 when Hanns-Peter Boehm, a German chemist, described the single-layer carbon foils and coined the term graphene, combining graphite and the suffix –ene. However, the earliest laboratory images were still older. In 1948, G Ruess and F Vogt used transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to publish images of few-layer graphene. But it was Boehm and Ulrich Hofmann who identified some of the reduced graphite oxide as monolayers.

The research on graphene didn’t attract much interest until the middle of the last decade. In 2004, physicists at the University of Manchester and the Institute for Microelectronics Technology, Chernogolovka, Russia, first isolated

individual graphene planes by using adhesive tape. The next year, the same research group along with the Philip Kim group from Columbia University demonstrated that quasiparticles in graphene were massless Dirac fermions. These discoveries led to renewed interest in graphene.

Five years later, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov at the University of Manchester were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics “for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene”.

Graphene’s properties

Graphene has some unique properties that make it different from most conventional three-dimensional materials. Various research works have established that intrinsic graphene is a semi-metal or zero-gap semiconductor. Understanding the electronic structure of graphene is the starting point for finding the band structure of graphite.

Experimental results also show that

graphene has very high electron mobility at room temperature. Recent experiments have probed the influence of chemical dopants on the carrier mobility in graphene. It was found that potassium ions can reduce the mobility significantly. The mobility reduction is reversible on heating the graphene to remove the potassium.

Graphene also has unique optical properties. For an atomic monolayer, it produces an unexpectedly high opacity. This carbon monolayer is thought to be an ideal material for spintronics due to small spin-orbit interaction and near absence of nuclear magnetic moments in carbon. Graphene also shows interesting behaviour in the presence of a magnetic field.

The near-room temperature thermal conductivity of graphene, which was measured by using a non-contact optical

It is claimed that a 1 square meter graphene hammock would support a 4 kg cat but would weigh only as much as one of the cat’s whiskers.



technique, was found to be in excess of those measured for carbon nanotubes or diamond.

The mechanical properties of graphene prove it as one of the strongest materials ever tested. According to research reports, graphene has a breaking strength over 100 times greater than a hypothetical steel film of the same thickness. Despite this strength, the material is very light, weighing only about 0.77 milligrams per square metre. It was said in the Nobel announcement that a 1 square meter graphene hammock would support a 4 kg cat but would weigh only as much as one of the cat’s whiskers.

Potential applications

The unique properties of graphene have stirred up the imagination of researchers and also enterprises, prompting them to explore its uses across the segments. The potential applications could be as diverse as building high frequency transistors to detecting explosives. Some of the possible uses are as follows:

Integrated circuitsAccording to various studies conducted by researchers, graphene has the ideal properties

to be an excellent component of integrated circuits. It has high carrier mobility, as well as low noise, allowing it to be used as the channel in a field-effect transistor. The only problem is that single sheets of graphene are difficult to produce, and even more difficult to make on top of an appropriate substrate. Researchers are looking into methods of transferring single graphene sheets from their source of origin (mechanical exfoliation on SiO2/Si or thermal graphitisation of a SiC surface) onto a target substrate of interest.

In June 2011, IBM researchers announced that they had succeeded in creating the first graphene-based integrated circuit, a broadband radio mixer. The circuit handled frequencies up to 10 GHz, and its performance was unaffected by temperatures up to 127 degrees Celsius.

Electrochromic devicesIt is possible to reversibly reduce and oxidise graphene oxide by using electrical stimulus. Controlled reduction and oxidation in two-terminal devices containing multilayer graphene oxide films are shown to result in switching between partially reduced graphene oxide and graphene, a process that modifies the electronic and optical properties. Oxidation and reduction are also shown to be related to resistive switching.

Transparent conducting electrodesGraphene’s high electrical conductivity and high optical transparency make it a perfect material for transparent conducting electrodes, required for applications such as touchscreens, liquid crystal displays, organic photovoltaic cells, and organic light-emitting

diodes. In particular, graphene’s mechanical strength and flexibility are advantageous compared to indium tin oxide, which is brittle, and graphene films may be deposited from solution over large areas.

Room temperature distillation of ethanol Graphene oxide membranes allow water vapour to pass through, but have been shown to be impermeable to all other liquids and gases including helium. This phenomenon has been used for further distilling of vodka to higher alcohol concentrations, in a room-temperature laboratory, without the application of heat or vacuum normally used in traditional distillation methods. Further development and commercialisation of such membranes could revolutionise the economics of biofuel production and the alcoholic beverage industry.

DesalinationResearch suggests that graphene filters could outperform other techniques of desalination by a significant margin.

Solar cellsIn 2008, the USC Viterbi School of Engineering laboratory reported the large

TEChnOLOgy

Potential applications ♦ Aircraft components ♦ Super-fast computers ♦ High frequency

transistors ♦ Low cost

solar cells and windmill blades

♦ Low-cost

display screens in mobile devices ♦ Lithium-ion batteries

that recharge faster ♦ Sensors to diagnose

diseases ♦ Storing hydrogen for

fuel-cell cars ♦ Treatment of Alzheimer’s and some

terminal diseases ♦ Separation of gases ♦ Detecting

explosives

♦ Facilitate study on Higgs Boson

Graphene integrated circuit developed by IBM researchers

Photo credit: MIT Technology Review


TEChnOLOgy

scale production of highly transparent graphene films by chemical vapour deposition. In this process, researchers create ultra-thin graphene sheets by first depositing carbon atoms in the form of graphene films on a nickel plate from methane gas. Then they lay down a protective layer of thermoplastic over the graphene layer and dissolved the nickel underneath in an acid bath. In the final step they attached the plastic-protected graphene to a very flexible polymer sheet, which could then be incorporated into an OPV cell (graphene photovoltaics). Graphene/polymer sheets have been produced that range in size up to 150 square centimeters and can be used to create dense arrays of flexible OPV cells. It may eventually be possible to run printing presses laying extensive areas covered with inexpensive solar cells, much like newspaper presses print newspapers (roll-to-roll).

Single-molecule gas detectionGraphene, due to its 2D structure, makes an excellent sensor. The fact that its entire volume is exposed to its surrounding makes it very efficient to detect adsorbed molecules. However, similar to carbon nanotubes, graphene has no dangling bonds on its surface. Gaseous molecules cannot be readily adsorbed onto graphene surface. So intrinsically graphene is insensitive.

The sensitivity of graphene chemical gas sensors can be dramatically enhanced by functionalising graphene, for example, coating with a thin layer of certain polymers. The thin polymer layer acts like a concentrator that absorbs gaseous molecules. The molecule absorption introduces a local change in electrical resistance of graphene sensors. While this effect occurs in other

materials, graphene is superior due to its high electrical conductivity (even when few carriers are present) and low noise, which makes this change in resistance detectable.

Graphene nanoribbonsGraphene nanoribbons (GNRs) are essentially single layers of graphene that are cut in a particular

pattern to give them certain electrical properties. Depending on how the un-bonded edges are configured, they can either be in a zigzag or armchair configuration. Calculations based on tight binding predict that zigzag GNRs are always metallic while armchairs can be either metallic or semiconducting, depending on their width.

However, recent density functional theory calculations show that armchair nanoribbons are semiconducting with an energy gap scaling with the inverse of the GNR width.

Zigzag nanoribbons are also semiconducting and present spin-polarised edges. Their 2D structure, high electrical and thermal conductivity, and low noise also make GNRs a possible alternative to copper for integrated circuit interconnects. Some research is also being done to create quantum dots by changing the width of GNRs at select points along the ribbon, creating quantum confinement.

Graphene quantum dotsGraphene quantum dots (GQDs) are single atom thick sheets of

graphene with all dimensions less than 100 nm. Their size and edge crystallography govern their electrical, magnetic, optical and chemical properties. GQDs can be produced via graphite nanotomy as shown by Berry group or via bottom-up, solution-based routes (Diels-Alder, cyclotrimerisation and/or cyclodehydrogenation reactions) shown by Mullen group. Several studies have indicated that GQDs with controlled structure can be incorporated into a wide variety of applications in electronics, optoelectronics and electromagnetics.

Graphene transistorsThe high electronic quality of graphene has attracted the interest of technologists who find it a way of constructing ballistic transistors. Graphene exhibits a pronounced response to perpendicular external electric fields, allowing one to build FETs (field-

effect transistors). Facing the fact that current graphene transistors show a very poor on–off ratio, researchers are trying to find ways for improvement. In 2008, researchers of AMICA and University of Manchester demonstrated a new switching effect in graphene field-effect devices. This switching effect is based on a reversible chemical modification of the graphene layer and gives an on–off ratio of greater than six orders of magnitude. These reversible switches could potentially be applied to nonvolatile memories.In 2009, researchers at the Politecnico

di Milano demonstrated four different types of logic gates, each composed of a single graphene transistor. In the same year, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers built an experimental graphene chip known as a frequency multiplier.

Armchair Zigzag

Photo credit: physicsworld.com


Later on, in February 2010, researchers at IBM claimed to have created graphene transistors with an on and off rate of 100 gigahertz, far exceeding the rates of previous attempts, and exceeding the speed of silicon transistors with an equal gate length. The 240 nm graphene transistors made at IBM were made using extant silicon-manufacturing equipment, meaning that for the first time graphene transistors are a conceivable—though still fanciful—replacement for silicon

Furthermore, in November 2011, researchers at Cambridge University demonstrated the feasibility of ink-jet printing as a method for fabricating graphene devices.

Graphene optical modulatorsWhen the Fermi level of graphene is tuned, the optical absorption of graphene can be changed. In 2011, researchers at UC Berkeley reported the first graphene-based optical modulator. Operating at 1.2 GHz without any temperature controller, this modulator has a broad bandwidth (from 1.3 to 1.6 μm) and small footprint (~25 μm2).

Thermal management materialsAccording to a study by the researchers of Georgia Institute of Technology in 2011, a three-dimensional vertically aligned functionalised multilayer graphene architecture can be an approach for graphene-based thermal interfacial materials (TIMs) with superior equivalent thermal conductivity and ultra-low interfacial thermal resistance between graphene and metal.

UltracapacitorsGraphene’s extremely high surface area to mass ratio makes it suitable for application

in the conductive plates of ultracapacitors. It is believed that graphene could be used to produce ultracapacitors with a greater energy storage density than is currently available.

Engineered piezoelectricityDensity functional theory simulations predict that depositing certain adatoms on graphene can render it piezoelectrically responsive to an electric field applied in the vertical (i.e. out-of-plane) direction. This type of locally engineered piezoelectricity is similar in magnitude to that of bulk piezoelectric materials and makes graphene a candidate tool for control and sensing in nanoscale devices.

Graphene biodevices

Antibody-functionalised graphene sheets are excellent candidates for mammalian and microbial detection and diagnosis devices. This is possible due to graphene’s modifiable chemistry, large surface area, atomic thickness and molecularly gatable structure.

It can also have potential biological application in rapid, inexpensive electronic DNA sequencing. Integration of graphene (thickness of 0.34 nm) layers as nanoelectrodes into a nanopore can solve one of the bottleneck issues of nanopore-based single-molecule DNA sequencing.

Current roadblocks

So what stands between graphene’s unique properties and its potential uses and industrial applications? According to industry sources, it is the exorbitant cost of production and low scalability that pose as the major roadblocks.

Currently, a significant number of vendors are offering the material as graphene oxide or graphene dispersion and graphene nanoplatelets in the international market. Most of these vendors are to be found in Asia, North America and Europe, with Chinese suppliers dominating the market. In India, only a handful of suppliers are to be found to date. As of now, the procurement of the material is primarily for research purpose rather than any commercial use.

The price of graphene oxide powder varies widely depending on the quality, quantity and markets. Generally, the price of high grade materials ranges from $50 to $200 per gram FOB. The price increases manifold for lower volume of purchases and are negotiated for large orders of say, 500 grams or more. At the current prices, imported graphene would cost about the same as gold in India. The price of graphene nanoplatelets is a little lower but is still very expensive to be put to commercial use.

As a result, the supply capacity of the vendors is also very limited. A source said it is currently being produced and supplied only in kilograms per month. The number of manufacturers is also pretty less; so is the number of vendors trading in the product. However, given the enormous potential of this product, supply could easily be scaled up to tons once the prices come down.

The search is on

The immense commercial opportunities and extraordinary range of applications have attracted scores of researchers to this field. The leading institutions in Europe and the US are continuously striving to develop new production methods that could address the problems of scalability and pricing. As a result, news of potential new breakthroughs and new findings keep on appearing in leading science publications and also in

Graphene ultracapacitors developed by the University of California

The unique properties of graphene have stirred up the imagination of researchers and also enterprises, prompting them to explore its uses across the segments. The potential applications could be as diverse as building high frequency transistors to detecting explosives.

TEChnOLOgy


mainstream media. According to a report, there are already more than 7,000 patents on graphene. Of this, the Chinese alone hold more than 2,000 patents.

Recently, two ground-breaking studies claimed that the scientists have discovered graphene’s potential use in the removal of nuclear waste from water and the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The new method is explained in the Physical Chemistry Physics Journal. According to the reports, US and Russian researchers have discovered that microscopic, atom-thick flakes of graphene oxide can bind quickly to natural and human-made radionuclides and condense them into solids for easy removal from contaminated water.

Yet another novel method was reported in the Journals of Materials Chemistry, which claimed the discovery of a process for conversion of carbon dioxide to a few-layer graphene.

“Burning magnesium metal in dry ice resulted in few-layer nanosheets of graphene in high yields. These carbon nanomaterials were characterised by Raman spectroscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, X-ray powder diffraction and transmission electron microscopy. This work provides an innovative route for producing one of the most promising carbon nanostructures by capturing carbon dioxide that is popularly known as the greenhouse gas,” the paper written by a seven-member scientific team said.

Meanwhile, Polish scientists from the Institute of Electronic Materials Technology have announced to have discovered mass-production technology for graphene.

But the latest claim comes from a Hungarian researcher, Dr. Endre Simonyi, who has claimed to have come up with a method that would address both the constraints of high prices and low scale of production. “Currently, graphene is not

yet being produced at industrial measures; it is produced only in laboratories. There are already a few attempts on industrial production. The interest is very large. Well, this is understandable, because graphene promises to be a usable material in a wider range, than only silicium based semiconductor manufacturing,” Dr Simonyi told Coal Insights.

”Currently the retail price of even the lowest quality graphene is around $240 per kg. Because of this, the world production is only in kg magnitude. There is a high competition to develop better methods,” he added.

Elaborating on his findings, the researcher said, “My method is not an extraction method but is a combination of a few chemical reactions. One of the feedstock of these is mined coal and the end product is graphene. This method can drastically reduce the cost of the production and it can make in large industrial form.”

Funds & fears

While new methods are being explored for commercial viability, getting investments for research is posing a problem for many researchers. The current global economic slowdown and uncertainty has compelled many corporations as well as governments to cut down on R&D spend. Investments in both fundamental research and pilot projects are being affected due to the paucity of funds in many cases. However, in Europe and particularly in the UK, significant funds have been sanctioned by the government. Reportedly, the UK government granted more than £60 million into this area of research in recent past. Another estimate puts the global expenditure on graphene at around $1 billion a year. A more recent report says that European Union (EU) has planned to invest $1.35 billion to find practical applications for graphene.

However, such generous grants are being questioned by many who doubt the success of the projects. Some argue that the most exciting applications could be achieved only with the highest-grade graphene and that industrial-scale techniques for making the same were yet to be confirmed. The ongoing lab projects therefore could be a total “waste of money”. It is also alleged that many of the amazing applications of graphene would take at least 10-20 years to be developed. For instance, some of the potential uses in medicine may not come before 2030.

Taking the plunge

Notwithstanding the distractors’ arguments, the scientific community at large keeps faith in the almost magical qualities of this material. It is somewhat coincidental that graphene came to the limelight at a time when probe into Higgs Boson (or ‘God particle’) has intensified like never before. What could be even more intriguing is that graphene may actually help physicists probe into Higgs Boson secrets.

Unfortunately, there is not much interest being shown in India about this material. While India is being touted as the next big thing in world economics, little attention is given to the most important tools needed to gain economic supremacy, i.e. R&D. In some cases, even the overseas researchers holding patents for new processes in energy and other core sectors found the India Inc. unresponsive for investments into pilot projects. While some of these claims could be insincere, there could be others that may provide the country a decisive edge in technology as well as in economics. Graphene could be one such possibility that deserves attention.

My method is not an extraction method but is a combination of a few chemical reactions. One of the feedstock of these is mined coal and the end product is graphene. This method can drastically reduce the cost of the production and it can make in large industrial form. References: Graphene News, Journal of Materials

Chemistry, Nature, Science, Datacenter Journal, Wikipedia

TEChnOLOgy


China takes a clean up drive, will India follow suit?


With China making great advancements in the industrial arena in the recent decades,

the pollution level of the country was seen to assume an appalling level exposing the citizens to serious ailments particularly in the developing urban areas.

The country has been the world’s largest producer of CO2 as coal is used as the primary source of power generation and 70 percent of the country’s energy supply is based on this fossil fuel. Smog became a common occurrence in the cities, with lung disease affecting a large section of the denizens. By 2011, 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities were located in China. Besides these, several rivers and water bodies of the country also assumed endangered status.

Cleaning up dirty air

As a major step towards rectifying this scenario, the Chinese Government in 2011 began an ambitious Five Year Plan to stem the flow of pollutants and clean up the damage that has been done. A tax was imposed on the heavy polluters, based on the output of hazardous chemicals and sewage. It was aimed at fixing the situation caused by the previously unregulated industrial growth, which allegedly attracted polluting industries to the country.

The revenue mopped up from this tax primarily went towards restoring the already damaged environment. Many non-profit groups also came forward and helped in the cleanup during this time. New regulations were also introduced, putting a cap on energy use. Targets were set to lower carbon emissions significantly. This move went along with China’s long term goal of green energy dominance.

While some progress was made in the following years towards cleaning up the environment, the entrenchment of dirty industry and the explosive growth of the country has toughened up the cleaning process. Experts feel it will take decades of further work before China enters into the category of a truly green economy.

Can India join a green drive?

Although the authorities in China have pulled up their socks and initiated actions to clean up the environment, the scenario in the neighbouring India is far from satisfactory.

“The government is bent on expediting the power generation in the country leaving the issue of environmental pollution almost unattended. However, it is high time they paused to think of its serious public health effects,” said a leading environmentalist.

There has been much talks about ‘clean coal initiatives’, increasing the use of washed coal and promoting green energy, but at the

EnvIROnmEnT

ground level hardly any progress could be seen over the last decade, he noted.

A study has revealed that pollution caused by coal-fired plants in the country has resulted in an estimated 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths and more than 20 million asthma cases in 2011-12. It cost the public and the government an estimated `16,000-23,000 crore of healthcare expenses.

Recently, an assessment of death and disease caused by India’s dirtiest energy sources was conducted by NGOs Conservation Action Trust (CAT), Mumbai, Urban Emissions, Delhi, and Greenpeace, Bangalore. The study revealed that at least 10,000 kids (under 5 years) died during the last year with millions taking impact on respiratory system, chronic bronchitis, chest discomforts, asthma attacks etc. Studies in the US and Europe have already established that emissions from coal-fired power are responsible for significant levels of illness and premature death. However, such data are hard to come by in India. The study was carried for the first time to address this deficiency, the NGOs who released the findings said.

As per the data, the largest impact of these emissions is felt over the states of Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Indo-Gangetic Plain, and most of the Central-East India, the media reports added.

Impact of pollution can be observed more than 50-100 km from the source region, increasing not only ambient concentrations at these receptor points, but also the mortality risk. Additional effects include deposition of heavy metals and sulphur dioxides on farmlands.

Such effects are likely to increase significantly in the future if Indian policymakers do not act. At approximately 210 GW, India has the fifth largest electricity generation sector in the world of which 66 percent comes from coal, as per the report.

The report also states that 40 percent of the total premature deaths due to power plants pollution are reported in Maharashtra, Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. Hence, taking lessons from the neighbouring country China, if India does not start walking towards cleaning up its own environment right now, severe environmental hazards are in store for us in the future.


gOvERnmEnT

Customs starts collecting arrear from importers

The customs department has recently started collecting what it calls arrear customs duty and countervailing duty (CVD) from companies that had imported steam coal through Paradip port, an industry source said. Confirming this, a customs department source said, “We have already collected `10-12 crore from Tata Sponge, which generally imports high calorific value steam coal.”

“Even NTPC is likely to be asked to cough up arrear duties for importing high calorific value steam coal which was classified as bituminous coal,” the source said. The source from customs department said besides NTPC, other companies like MMTC, Adani Enterprises, Agarwal Coal etc., which had imported steam coal through Haldia and Paradip ports are already on their radar and they may be asked to cough up the arrear duties. According to information available, customs department has assessed that around 1.72 million tons of high calorific value coal was imported through Haldia port between March 17, 2012 and February 28, 2013 on which arrear customs duty of 5 percent and CVD of 6 percent has to be paid besides other taxes.

“Around 1.72 mt of high calorific value coal was imported through Haldia port since March 2012 and this includes imports by Agarwal Coal, MMTC, Adani Enterprises, but it has been found that duty on around 40,000 tons of material has already been paid. So the recovery on balance quantity is to be done,” the customs source said. He, however, indicated that some under-invoicing of cargo has been noted by them. “It has been found that a few consignment of Indonesian coal has been brought by Agarwal Coal via Haldia Port at $28 per ton fob, which seems ridiculous.”

Budget clears duty related confusion in coal import


The Union Budget 2013-14, apart from increasing the Central Plan outlay for the Ministry of Coal/

Mines, also equalised duties on steam and bituminous coal in the form of 2 percent customs duty and 2 percent countervailing duty. Although the impact of the duty is yet to be felt, it will certainly increase the cost of power generation to a considerable extent, feel industry experts.

Earlier steam coal attracted 1 percent countervailing duty and no customs tax, while bituminous coal had 5 percent customs tax and 6 percent countervailing duty. This created confusion among the stakeholders. Custom officials were charging the rate of tax of bituminous coal to the steam coal claiming there were no clear cut definitions between the two. The provisions were also misused by some players who were importing bituminous coal in veil of steam coal. In the recent budget speech, the finance minister of India, P. Chidambaram, has cleared the confusion by attracting 2 percent custom duty and 2 percent CVD for both the types of coal.

According to an analyst, this will increase the cost of imported steam coal and raise the power tariff marginally. It will hit hard if the international price soars in short to medium term but it would prompt the coal consumers to import higher quality coal.

“It is good news for the green brigade who are advocating against the import of low grade dirty coal to India from Indonesia. However, it is not a good signal to the

proposed mechanism of price pooling of Coal India Limited (CIL) as states would increase their resistance and oppose to it as it the extra burden that would be passed on to them which in turn will reflect in the power cost,” the analyst said.

Arrear customs duty

The Budget proposals for 2012-13 had waived customs duty on steam coal for power and there was a concessional CVD of 1 percent, but there was no exemption on duties for coal which was classified as ‘bituminous coal’ or coal with VM of above 14 percent and calorific value of above 5,833 Kcal/kg.

“But the Budget proposals were slightly misunderstood and neither the customs officials were charging the duties not the customers were paying it. However, since January, as per DRI’s directive, some coal importers are paying current as well as arrear duty under protest,” said a senior official of a cement company, which has received DRI notice for purchasing around 30,000 tons of South African coal through an Indian trader and took delivery at Mundra port.

The cement maker has received the notice as the import was routed the trader directly in its name, he said, adding, had it been not so the entire liability would have to be borne by the trader.

“Almost all the Indian traders of imported coal, including Adani, Agarwal, Gupta Coal, Maheswari Bros., that had sold the material to consumers in Indian currency will immensely suffer as consumers may not agree to pay back the arrear duty,” the official added.


US coal production expected to rise by 1% in 2013: EIA

Chandrika Mitra

US coal consumption fell by 11.3 percent to 889.3 million short tons (MMst) in 2012 but is estimated to

increase to 940.6 MMst in 2013, according to the latest report by US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Coal consumption may further rise to 954.6 MMst in 2014.

EIA projected coal consumption in the electric power sector at 824.8 MMst in 2012, an 11.6 percent decline. The agency further expects consumption in the electric power sector to increase over the forecast period as a result of higher electricity demand and higher natural gas prices, but remain below 900 MMst. Coal consumption in the electric power sector in 2013 and 2014 is expected to be 876.9 MMst and 886.1 MMst respectively.

Coal production in the US declined by 6.9 percent in 2012 to 1,020.5 MMst, due to a fall in domestic consumption. Coal production is expected to increase by 1.0 percent in 2013 to 1,030.3 MMst as primary and secondary inventory draws, combined with an increase in coal imports, meet most of the growth in consumption during the year. Coal production is forecast to grow by 1.3 percent in 2014 to 1,044.0 MMst.

Coal trade

Coal exports totaled a record 125.7 MMst in 2012 surpassing the previous peak of

113 MMst exported in 1981 by nearly 12 percent. EIA expects coal exports to decline to 110.5 MMst in 2013 and 109.8 MMst in 2014 with continuing economic weakness in Europe (the largest regional importer of US coal), falling international coal prices, and increasing production in other coal-exporting countries are the primary reasons for the expected decline in US coal exports.

US coal imports totaled 9.2 MMst in 2012. Imports may increase to 10.1 MMst in 2013 and to 10.8 MMst in 2014, as per the agency’s latest report.

Coal prices

D e l i v e r e d coal prices to the electric power industry i n c r e a s e d steadily over an 11-year period through 2011, when the delivered coal price averaged $2.39 per MMBtu. EIA estimates that the delivered coal price averaged $2.40 per MMBtu in 2012, and forecasts that average delivered prices would hover around $2.42 per MMBtu in 2013 and $2.45 per MMBtu in 2014.

EIA in its March report expects US coal market to receive a small boost from recent coal supply d i s r u p t i o n s in Colombia, which include a strike at its largest exporter. Force majeure, a contract clause that allows a company to suspend

contractual obligations in the face of unexpected events, was declared on several coal shipments destined for markets in Europe and the US. This may appreciate coal prices in the near term.

Electricity

The EIA’s preliminary data from Electric Power Monthly indicate that 7.9 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired generation capacity was retired in the electric industry during 2012. This represents 2.5 percent of installed coal capacity at the beginning of the year.

The US electric industry retired 2.6 GW of coal capacity in 2011, much lower than that recorded in 2012. However, coal-fired capacity retired during 2012 was offset somewhat by the addition of five new coal-fired generating units with a combined capacity of 3.6 GW.

US residential electricity sales might decline by 0.6 percent during 2013 but are projected to grow by 1.0 percent in 2014. After an increase of 1.4 percent during 2012, EIA expects US retail residential electricity prices will grow by 1.9 percent in 2013 and by 1.8 percent in 2014.

US retail electricity sales to the commercial sector may increase by 0.5 percent in 2013 and by 1.1 percent in 2014. Industrial electricity sales are likely to increase by 1.6 percent and 1.0 percent in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

EIA expects generators to increase their utilisation of existing coal capacity, leading to a 6.2 percent increase in US coal generation during 2013. This increase, which results from the increasing cost of natural gas relative to coal, raises the share of total generation fueled by coal from 37.4 percent 2012 to 39.5 percent in 2013, still below coal’s 42.3 percent fuel share in 2011.

InTERnATIOnAL



Amid concerns that Indonesia may stop export of lower grade thermal coal in future, some leading Indian traders

said such blanket ban on exports is unlikely to happen in at least the next three years.

“We don’t see this happening any time soon. This is so because until now, they do not have any use of that coal in their country. Total stoppage of exports of low grade thermal coal will affect their miners and forex earnings,” a Kolkata-based trader said.

“We are not worried by such statements which keep on coming from time to time. The country needs to first set up adequate number of thermal power plants to use that

coal which is currently exported. That will take at least three years. Meanwhile, the country will lose the foreign exchange over the period,” he added.

In Indonesia, mining in the forest areas is posing problems and the government is trying to reconcile the competing interests of mining companies with concessions in designated Forest Areas and the interests of other parties opposed to any use of forest areas for mining purposes.

In what may be seen as a modest win for the mining industry, the government has recently introduced a new regulation, in late 2012, which seeks to remove some uncertainties surrounding the implications of a change in the designated use (or

function) of particular forest areas. This will undoubtedly enhance production to a considerable extent, the trader noted.

Prices to remain firm

The prices of low grade Indonesian coal, particularly those preferred by a vast section of Indian consumers, are likely to remain firm during the coming few days on lack of availability, industry sources in India said.

Indonesia may not stop export of low grade coal soon

InTERnATIOnAL

The Indonesian producers appear to be determined not to reduce prices of low grade material as their margins are already at the rock bottom, they said.

“In view of this (i.e. margins remaining under pressure), they have decided not to cut prices even though not many deals are taking place. They know that those looking at low grade coal will ultimately have to go them. So they are sitting on their cargo instead of selling at low prices,” a Delhi-based trader said.

“Further, supplies have been restricted to a great extent because of closure of some mines of big producers as these mines were allegedly found doing illegal mining. Because of the closure of a number of such mines in Indonesia, availability has fallen significantly prompting the remaining producers to quote higher rates,” an industry source informed.

“Some good miners have now started quoting a price of $37 per ton FOB for 3800 Kcal/kg GAR material and $43.50 per ton FOB for 4200 Kcal/kg GAR material even as normal miners who are otherwise not known for their quality are quoting a price of around $42.00 FOB per ton for 4200 Kcal/kg material,” another coal trader from Kolkata said.

“Hardly any deals are happening at new prices of $37.00 and $43.50 per ton FOB for 3800 Kcal/kg GAR and 4200 Kcal/kg GAR material respectively being quoted by Indonesian miners, but unconfirmed reports suggest that Farlin Energy & Coal Pte Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Farlin Timbers Pte Ltd, has managed to sell around 1 million tons of coal at new rates,” the trader from Delhi said.

India’s import up 17%

Meanwhile, India’s import of coal from Indonesia has witnessed steady increase in the first 10 months of 2012-13 over the same period a year ago.

According to a compilation by Coal Insights, India imported around 33.12 million tons (mt) of coal from Indonesia during April-January 2012-13. This shows a 17 percent rise over 28.27 mt of coal imported during the same period last year. In the entire 2011-12, the country imported 32.58 mt from Indonesia.

With two more months to go before the current financial year ends, further increase in import is widely anticipated.

0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0005,000,000

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

2011-12 2012-13

India’s import from Indonesia (in mt)


EXpERT spEAk

CIL needs to implement Coal Vision 2025

J.P. Panda

‘The Coal Vision 2025’ further states: what are the thrust areas of CIL? As a biggest coal producer, it should have a say on the government to modify some of the stipulations by MoEF which causes unnecessary delay. But before that it has to keep its house in order by implementing the following thrust areas:

♦ Strengthening of environmental engineering cadre;

♦ Capacity building of the personnel working in environmental discipline including exposure to best environmental management practice;

♦ Preparation of Regional Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports for six major coalfields;

♦ Preparation of EIA/EMP document for new projects;

♦ Quantification of environmental impacts for preparation of EIA reports;

♦ GIS based environmental planning in the mining complexes;

♦ Water and energy conservation; ♦ Installation of effluent and sewage

treatment facilities in projects.

Change of stipulations by MoEF

The MoEF ensures that coal producers take into account adequate environmental safeguards. The coal industry is subject to regulations on land use; mine permits and licensing; risks of exploration activities; reclamation and restoration, storage of coal, disposal of wastes etc. Mining plans including mine closure plan stipulate extraction limits and leases are typically granted for a period of 20 to 30 years. Suggestions for change are as follows:

As per the current practice, all the new coal projects and expansion of the existing ones require environmental clearance. The following measures are suggested to streamline the environmental clearance process:

♦ The capacity of the coal projects should be defined as total excavation and coal and overburden (OB) based on the geological condition, the extraction of coal keep on varying. As such, fresh environmental clearance should not be insisted upon for increase in say 15 percent of the planned capacity of the projects.

♦ Fresh environmental clearance for expansion and/or modernisation of

The Coal India Ltd (CIL) chairman, S. Narsing Rao, has identified three major constraints for the company in

their objective of achieving the planned production targets.They are:• Restrictions imposed by regulators related to forest

clearance and environmental safeguards;• Land acquisition; and• Logistical constraints including rail transport bottlenecks.

In this article, we will examine the first point, viz. forest and environmental clearances. If Coal India follows its own vision document, ‘The Coal Vision 2025’, a lot of problems it is facing could have been solved.

Coal India’s vision document ‘The Coal Vision 2025’ specifies what needs to be done for environmental

management. I quote from the Coal Vision 2025 which is as follows:

Environment management policy

♦ As coal has to continue as a major energy resource, the demand must be met through safe and clean technologies for environmental sustainability.

♦ Implementation of Jharia and Raniganj Action Plan for mitigating adverse impacts of fire and subsidence problems caused due to unscientific mining activities by erstwhile owners before nationalization needs to be expedited. In the bargain if the action plan is implemented the whole of Jharia coal basin up to a depth of 500-600 metres can be worked by opencast method. Thereby meeting the shortage of both coking and non-coking coal.

♦ Capacity building in environment related areas in coal companies including training of manpower, creating laboratory facilities and infrastructure need to be developed.

♦ Introduction of green credit system to encourage afforestation through social forestry for evolving land acquisition in coal companies.

♦ Concerted efforts for addressing the issues related to decommissioning of mines/mine closure after exhaustion of reserves are required to be made.

♦ Development of coalfield wise master plans for EMP to take stock of natural resource base of the area and assess the environmental and social impact due to all mining and developmental activities projected in the area.

♦ Eco-zoning should be carried out to facilitate identification and assessment of coal reserves occurring over the restricted areas and which cannot be mined.

♦ Strengthening of environmental management organization with qualified executives in environmental science and engineering.

♦ It is suggested that project report should be formulated considering the 15 percent increased capacity of the mine and EIA/EMP should be prepared accordingly. The above will take into account the marginal increase in production and fresh environmental clearance may not be required in such cases.

♦ Emphasis should be given on the reclamation of old workings. Builders may be encouraged to develop townships on such reclaimed lands.


projects should be called for only if the pollution load is likely to cross beyond the acceptable limits, the assessment of which would be drawn on the basis of the regional EIA.

♦ As per the Draft Final EIA Notification, TOR for preparation of EIA/EMP document should be finalised by EAC/SEAC. To save time, a committee may be constituted to finalise the TOR for OC and UG projects.

♦ For inter-state or inter-district projects, public hearing should be conducted in the state or district wherein larger portion of the project lies.

♦ For UG mines, a rational criterion may be fixed as 1,000 Ha for seeking environmental clearance as it does not affect surface land usage. For EC, the environmental entities within 10 km radius should be considered as per current practice.

These are sensible suggestions envisaged in the Vision 2025 document of Coal India. Why are these suggestions not vigorously followed up by the coal ministry? In conclusion is the document ‘The Coal Vision 2025’ meant to be kept in the shelf for gathering dust or is it meant for implementation?

The future approach

The coal industry is committed to ensuring supply of coal in required quantity and of desired quality with minimum short and long-term impact on environmental and socio-economic profile of the area. The coal industry envisages taking various steps for achieving the desired goal that include the following:

Change in approach to planningThe current practice lays stress on environmental planning of individual mines. This approach is associated with a limitation of neglecting the cumulative impact of other industrial and mining activities in the vicinity. This results into high environmental degradation in coalfields that are not anticipated at project planning stage.

To avoid this situation in future, coal industry will take up an environmental planning at macro level i.e. coalfield level which will take stock of natural resource base of the area, and assess the environmental and social impact due to all mining and developmental activities projected in the area. Based on such

impact assessment, an optimal developmental plan will be evolved that will ensure balanced growth in all sectors of economy and also maintain environmental quality.

This regional plan will lay down series of recommendations and action plan for environmental protection that have to be rigorously implemented. Coal industry will prepare such regional environmental plan, for all coalfields in phases.

Capacity buildingEnvironmental planning of mines and implementation of environmental conservation measures would require capacity building in terms of highly skilled, dedicated, experienced and qualified manpower, environmental laboratories and remote sense mapping facilities. The coal industry has already established network of its own environmental labs, employed and trained the manpower at various level competent to plan and operate the mines in environmentally safe manner. In future, laboratory facilities will be modernised and continuously upgraded to take up growing requirements and training shall be provided to the concerned personnel on advances in analytical techniques.

Employment of environmental engineers in coal companies is to be taken up for capacity creation. Similarly the manpower is being continuously exposed to new environmental technology through organizing trainings, workshops and seminars. The manpower will also be exposed to best practices of environmental management in coal mines in some of the advanced countries of the world.

The coal industry will sign MoUs with major scientific and research organisations in India and abroad to seek continuously technical innovations in the area of environmental mitigation measures appropriate to coal mining in India. The coal industry will also develop best mining practices appropriate to coal mining industry.

Research supportThe environmental and ecological implications of coal mining activities in the Indian context are being studied through a number of R&D projects undertaken by established research institutions and universities in the country & CMPDI. This helps in understanding the effect of mining on ecology and other environmental attributes and also evolving new technology

and mitigation measures to assess the impact and to prevent and control environmental pollution, restore hydrological balance and land productivity, restore the faunal habitats etc. These efforts are to be continued and encouraged to cover emerging areas that are relevant to Indian coal mines.

Reclamation of old worked out areas & control of mine fireThe coal mining activities in India has a history of about 200 years. The early phase of coal mining (up to early 1970s) witnessed an unscientific mining that led to fires in coal seams. Land subsidence, degradation of land, air and water pollution mostly in Jharia & Raniganj coalfield required utmost attention. The CIL has drawn a master plan for control of mine fires and land subsidence, reclamation of degraded land, prevention of pollution and relocation and rehabilitation of people in endangered areas. These measures will release coal reserve for mining that is otherwise locked.

Eco zoningCoal reserves in India are located over forest land, national parks, bio-reserve and other eco-sensitive zones. Current regulations restrict coal mining in such identified areas. This coal reserves occurring in such areas are not available for mining. In order that a realistic assessment of coal reserve is available for mining, there is a need to identify and assess such coal reserves located in eco-sensitive areas. The coal industry will take up an exercise to prepare a comprehensive plan showing the eco-sensitive areas and superimpose it over the coal reserve map. This will facilitate in identification and assessment of coal reserves occurring over the restricted areas that will attract amendment of the existing Forest Conservation Act for coal mining in these areas.

Mine closure planDuring the course of coal mining, a number of facilities are created to facilitate coal mining, coal processing, dispatch etc. A number of such facilities also generate environmental pollution and disturb hydrological pattern of the area and they may also pose safety hazards. Appropriate measures have to be taken so that once the mine operators complete the mining operation and withdraw from the site, such facilities, do not pose safety hazards and are non-polluting. The

EXpERT spEAk


land disturbed by mining are to be properly reclaimed. For this purpose appropriate mine specific Mine Closure Plans will be prepared for all coal mines to address the above issue.

Greenhouse gas abatementMethane gas emission takes place due to burning of coal and generation of CO2. Also change in land use pattern and degradation of forest cover reduces the natural carbon sink and thereby affects the CO2 balance. Coal industries will take up different projects that would aim at reduction of CO2 emissions and also creating carbon sink for capturing atmospheric CO2.

In this context, the coal industry would explore possibilities for taking up projects for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and promote clean coal technology. The environmental measures that are envisaged to be integrated with mining operations are likely to achieve the goal for eco-friendly mining of coal coupled with optimal utilisation of natural resource and harmony with people living in the vicinity sharing the fruits of development.

Emphasis should be laid on the reclamation of old workings. Builders may be encouraged to develop townships on such reclaimed lands. Some other methods may be development of Conservation Plan for floral and faunal species in the mining complexes, quantification of environmental impact of the mining projects, GIS-based environmental planning in the mining complexes, eco-restoration study in the mining areas and promoting technologies for carbondioxide capture and storage to ensure that development and security benefits of coal are delivered with near zero emissions.

Note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not of Coal Insights. The publication does not take any responsibility for the article in part or in full.

The author is managing director of Priya Mining Consultancy and Services Ltd, which provides consultancy on both underground and opencast coal mines, including EMP-EIA, forest clearance etc. The company has also produced CDs on a wide variety of subjects including all DGMS circulars from 1957 till December 2010, a history of disasters in coal mines for the last 100 years and safety and productivity improvement in both opencast and underground mining. He is presently senior advisor at the Rampia Coal Mine project of Rampia Coal Mines and Energy Pvt Ltd. The author can be contacted at [email protected]

EXpERT spEAk

Decentralised distributed generation: An ideal mode for rural electrification

Anil Sardana

With a r a p i d l y g r o w i n g

economy and the world’s second largest population, India is currently faced with heavy energy demand. In spite of the massive

addition in generation, transmission and distribution capacity over the last 60 years, demand for power has always grown faster than the increase in generation capacity. Although the country has achieved a capacity addition of about 181,500 MW over the last six decades, peak and energy shortages of varying magnitude have been experienced from time to time.

Rural electrification in India has long been regarded as a pre-requisite for socio-economic development. It is essential to accelerate economic growth, generation of employment, elimination of poverty and human development. Grid connectivity is the normal way of electrification of villages. Grid connectivity is considered the most common method of rural electrification and according to the report of the Working Group Report on Power for the Twelfth Plan, 54,625 villages are yet to be electrified, despite the fact that 70 percent of the Indian population resides in these villages.

In a large and diverse country like India, with its unique geography and the current state of economy and village habitations, grid connectivity is neither feasible nor cost effective. Therefore off-grid solutions like Decentralised Distributed Generation (DDG) facilities stand as an ideal mode for supply of electricity.

Distributed Generation Resource Systems are where the installation and operation of small modular power generating

technologies are combined with energy management and storage systems. They are used to enhance the traditional power generation system. A distributed generation system can employ a range of technological options from renewable to non-renewable sources and can operate either in a connected grid or an off-grid mode. The capacity of a distributed generation system typically ranges from less than a kilowatt to a few megawatts.

Distributed generation in India can be ideally utilised for stand-alone off-grid systems or mini-grids for electrification of rural and remote areas where grid connectivity is either not feasible or very costly. DDG also helps to avoid the impact of massive grid failure. This was the prime reason for the United States’ focus in developing decentralised generation units. Germany is another country that has focused highly on distributed energy generation under its Energiewende programme by utilizing renewable sources.

A significant amount of indigenously produced wind energy, especially from Tamil Nadu, is going waste due to the lack of grid connectivity. At present the incentives are only in setting up the wind generation unit and not on infrastructure supporting the supply of that power. DDG could be an appropriate solution for such problems. However, the present incentives and finances offered to the existing wind energy plants have been processed differently making it difficult to convert the system to DDG.

Distributable energy grids have their own advantages and disadvantages as compared to the present grid system based on large conventional power plants.

The distributable energy technology projects, based on resource availability and located near the points of energy consumption, are emerging as the popular choice to meet captive energy demand in


many countries across the world. In case of many of the new technologies, such as mini and micro-hydro, the environmental issues are minimal and can be easily controlled. A number of industries are users of distributable energy to improve their bottomline by controlling their own electricity supply and costs by captive power units.

However, industries prefer captive power units running on fossil fuel as they provide complete flexibility to match energy needs, meet future growth requirements, and offer the quality and reliability of electricity which is much sought after in many developing countries where industries are starting to compete globally. Bagasse (waste material in a sugar industry) co-generation is one of the finest examples of successful implementation of co-generation technology wherein the waste product of the sugar processing is used in power generation for the mill.

However, distributable generation continues to face challenges due to an unfavourable policy environment; administered prices of fossil fuels; and fixed electricity tariffs. A bigger challenge is to develop a lucrative or even viable business model around distributable generation especially in rural areas. Limited rural income generally can only cover operating costs and some equity, leaving the majority of the initial capital expenditures to be supported in the form of grants from local government or development agencies.

There is also an issue of sizing the project to meet the needs of the local people with very little spare capacity to meet any other additional demand for electricity. For a project to run successfully, the capacity calculations should take into account load growth over a five-year period as the factors that can trigger sudden increase in demand of electricity are unpredictable.

Presently, the gap between government subsidies and the true cost of a project is too wide to be bridged by local consumers. The low and unsteady revenue stream and low loan amounts have kept the project off the radar of traditional financial bodies and banks. The involvement of banks can be facilitated by bundling several such projects, which help to reduce transaction costs especially for banks already working in the rural sectors, and can relatively easily include distributable energy

projects in their portfolio.

One proposal is to issue renewable energy certificates to developers of off-grid generation for any supply project to ensure recovery of costs. In addition, the generator should be allowed to have access to a rural network without any cost so that power to villages is available at an affordable cost. Additionally, there is a need to develop models to ensure that the consumers of decentralised renewable energy are charged a tariff equivalent to their grid-connected counterparts.

An example of such a model could be one wherein the developer would supply power and recover rates fixed by the state electricity regulatory commission. The developer can act as a franchisee of the distribution company, and the agreement between the distribution licensee and the developer would guarantee recovery to the extent of feed in tariff. Such generation and consumption of power from off-grid projects would relax renewable purchase obligation of the distribution licensee.

In 2005, the Government of India launched an initiative called Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY), a comprehensive scheme of Rural Electricity Infrastructure and Household Electrification, to enable access to electricity to all rural households. In this scheme, DDG was introduced in the Eleventh Plan, and was provisioned a subsidy of `540 crore.

There has been a shortfall in achieving the allocated amount for the scheme because of reasons like low operational revenue, consideration of grid connected electricity as an optimal choice, lack of awareness among stakeholders and inadequate returns. Other barriers include high initial costs of DG, permitting and siting, absence of interconnection standards and net-metering

at all levels along with access to finance. All issues need to be addressed collectively at the technical, financial, policy and regulatory levels for the effective generation of distributed energy.

Tata Power is actively evaluating and pursuing demonstration projects for solar, wind, ocean and biomass-based power plants with focus on small (< 1 MW) - or distributed power plants. Tata Power has set up demonstration projects like rooftop solar (60.48 KWp), Micro-wind turbines (2 KW), solar wind hybrid systems (3.02 KWp) and is also in the process of developing demonstration projects like biomass gasification based power plant (250 KW), floating solar (13 KWp), among others. The company is also working on industrial captive plant for supporting its own power requirement.

Some of the projects demonstrated earlier are now being pursued for commercialisation purposes. These initiatives will further Tata Power’s efforts towards embracing renewable energy efforts, promoting a culture of energy conservation and fostering dialogue with the community. The ultimate objective is to reduce its own carbon footprint and move towards a more sustainable future for the business, community and the country.

EXpERT spEAk

Note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not of Coal Insights. The publication does not take any responsibility for the article in part or in full.

Anil Sardana is the managing director of Tata Power Ltd.


LOgIsTICs


The 12 major Indian ports have handled 497.97 million tons (mt) of traffic during the first 11 months

(April-February) of 2012-13, about 2.52 percent lower than 510.82 mt recorded during the same period last year.

According to data released by the Indian Ports Association (IPA), the country’s major ports handled a total of 25.97 mt of coking coal in April-February period, similar as compared with the same period last year.

However, the movement of thermal coal through the major ports was up 15.95 percent to 53.06 mt during April-February, compared to 45.76 mt achieved in the same period last year.

Traffic handled at major ports(During Apr-Feb, 2013* vis-a-vis Apr-Feb, 2012)

(*) Tentative (in '000 tons)

PortsApril to February traffic % variation against

prev. year traffic2013* 2012

Kolkata

Kolkata Dock System 10645 11142 -4.46

Haldia Dock Complex 25122 28623 -12.23

Total: Kolkata 35767 39765 -10.05

Paradip 51415 49844 3.15

Visakhapatnam 53944 62184 -13.25

Ennore 16155 13580 18.96

Chennai 48658 51300 -5.15

V.O. Chidambaranar 25635 25148 1.94

Cochin 18160 18165 -0.03

New Mangalore 33615 29765 12.93

Mormugao 16714 35239 -52.57

Mumbai 53001 50223 5.53

Jnpt 58824 60225 -2.33

Kandla 86082 75390 14.18

Total 497970 510828 -2.52

Source: IPA

Movement of iron ore through the major ports showed a significant drop of 54.75 percent in April-February due to restrictions imposed on mining and a hike in export

duty on iron ore. The major ports together handled 25.44 mt of iron ore in the April-February period, compared to 56.22 mt handled in the same period last year.

Vishakhapatnam port handled the highest volume of 11.13 mt of iron ore in April-February. This volume, however, was about 13.25 percent lower than the iron ore traffic moved through the port in the same period last year.

Movement of container traffic in terms of tonnage fell in the April-February period, while that of TEUs also dropped during the period. The major ports handled 109.17 mt

of tonnage and 7.03 million TEUs in April-February period compared to 109.51 mt of tonnage and 7.11 million TEUs in the same period last year.

Among the major ports, Paradip port had the distinction of handling the highest volume of thermal coal of around 19.12 mt in April-February period. Visakhapatnam port handled the highest quantity of 6.25 mt of coking coal during the period.

Movement of coking coal through Paradip, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam and Chennai ports declined during the period when compared to the corresponding period last year.

Six major ports showed negative growth in traffic handling during the April-February period of the current fiscal, while the remaining six showed positive growth on a year-on-year basis.

In terms of growth, Ennore port topped the list with 18.96 percent increase in cargo throughput. V.O. Chidambaranar port’s growth was lowest at about 2.35 percent during the period. In terms of traffic volume, Kandla port clinched the top rank with a cargo volume of 86.08 mt recorded for the period.

The Mormugao port registered the highest decline of 52.57 percent in traffic handling during the period due to a fall in iron ore export.

Traffic handling by major ports down 2.5% in Apr-Feb


LOgIsTICs

29 working days in 2012. Compared to only 1.14 mt increase in transportation of coal, the railways revenue surged by a staggering 21.45 percent to ` 3,041.45 crore in February 2013 compared with ` 2,504.34 crore in February 2012.

Overall, the Indian Railways’ revenue earnings from commodity-wise freight traffic fell month-on-month in February, mainly due to lower transportation of coal and iron ore, but surged year-on-year largely due to increase in freight. Revenue earnings from commodity-wise freight traffic during February 2013 stood at ` 7,113.09 crore, down 9.99 percent compared with ̀ 7,903.35 crore earned in January.

Revenue from transportation of iron ore for exports, steel plants and for other domestic user in February fell to ` 616.12 crore, down 8.16 percent from ` 670.85 crore in January. The quantity of iron ore transported also fell to 8.98 mt as compared to 10.02 mt in the previous month.

Revenue from transportation of cement in February stood at ` 715.83 (8.86 mt) as compared to ` 745.23 (9.64 mt) in January, while that from food grains transportation fell to ` 651.34 (4.54 mt) in February from ` 660.77 (4.65 mt) in January. The Railways revenue from transportation of fertilizers in February plunged to ` 304.17 crore (3.08 mt) from ` 485.74 crore (4.45 mt) in January.

Revenue from transportation of petroleum oil and lubricant (POL) in February stood at ` 363.7 (3.16 mt), while the same from pig iron and finished steel from steel plants and other points was ` 432.76 crore (2.98 mt). Revenue from container services was ` 354.51 crore (3.4 mt) and from transportation of other goods was ` 517.72 crore (5.89 mt).


The Indian Railways transported 41.35 million tons (mt) of coal in February 2013, down by 10.34 percent from

46.12 mt of coal in January 2013, according to information available with Coal Insights.

Railways’ revenue earnings from transportation of coal also fell to ` 3,041.45 crore in February from ` 3,457.96 crore in January.

The transportation in February was lower due to the fact that it had only 28 working days compared to 31 days in January and also because production as well as loading was affected to some extent on February 21-22 due to an all India general strike called by central trade unions, industry sources said.

However, the transportation of coal in February this year was up more than 1.14 mt compared with 40.21 mt transported in February 2012 despite the fact that it had

Commodity-wise revenue

CommodityQuantity (in mt) Earning (in ` cr)

Feb’12 Feb’13 Feb’12 Feb’13

Coal

i) for steel plants 3.8 4.04 177.43 217.54

ii) for washeries 0.12 0.12 0.98 1.61

iii) for thermal power houses 27.13 26.05 1,758.83 2,078.29

iv) for public use 9.16 11.14 567.1 744.01

v) Total 40.21 41.35 2,504.34 3,041.45

Raw material for steel plants except iron ore 1.21 1.36 94.54 115.49

Pig iron and finished steel

i) from steel plants 2.23 2.22 298.46 356.98

ii) from other points 0.71 0.76 52.47 75.78

iii) Total 2.94 2.98 350.93 432.76

Iron ore

i) for export 0.05 0.51 12.65 128.57

ii) for steel plants 5.12 4.4 214.84 202.67

iii) for other domestic users 2.94 4.07 191.23 284.88

iv) Total 8.11 8.98 418.72 616.12

Cement 9.29 8.86 587.4 715.83

Foodgrains 4.26 4.54 451.06 651.34

Fertilizers 4.74 3.08 382.84 304.17

Mineral oil (POL) 3.29 3.16 304.78 363.7

Container service

i) Domestic containers 0.85 0.78 76.94 88.54

ii) EXIM containers 2.4 2.62 213.19 265.97

iii) Total 3.25 3.4 290.13 354.51

Balance other goods 6.46 5.89 447.95 517.72

Total revenue earning traffic 83.76 83.6 5,832.69 7,113.09

Railways coal handling falls 10.3% in February


AnnEXuRE

CENTRAL SECTOR

1 Assam Bongaigaon TPP

U-1 250 Jun-14

U-2 250 May-15

U-3 250 Oct-15

2 Bihar Barh STPP- I

U-1 660 Jun-15

U-2 660 Apr-16

U-3 660 Feb-17

3 Bihar Barh STPP-IIU-4 660 Oct-13

U-5 660 Sep-14

4 BiharMuzaffarpur TPP Exp

U-3 195 Jun-14

U-4 195 Sep-14

5 Bihar Nabi Nagar TPP

U-1 250 Jul-14

U-2 250 Jan-15

U-3 250 Jul-15

U-4 250 Jan-16

6 JharkhandBokaro TPS "A" Exp.

U-1 500 Aug-14

7 Karnataka Kudgi STPP Ph-I

U-1 800 Aug-16

U-2 800 Oct-16

U-3 800 Mar-17

8 Maharashtra Mouda STPP-IIU-3 660 Jul-16

U-4 660 Jan-17

9 Maharashtra Mouda TPP U-2 500 Mar-13

10 Maharashtra Solapur STPPU-1 660 Jul-16

U-2 660 Jan-17

11 MPVindhyachal TPP-IV

U-12 500 Mar-13

12 MPVindhyachal TPP-V

U-13 500 May-14

13 TNNeyveli TPS-II Exp.

U-2 250 Mar-14

14 TN Tuticorin JVU-1 500 Dec-13

U-2 500 Mar-14

15 TN Vallur TPP-II U-3 500 Sep-13

16 Tripura Monarchak CCPP GT+ST 101 May-14

17 Tripura Tripura Gas Module- 363.3 Jul-13

18 UP Meja STPPU-1 660 Aug-16

U-2 660 Feb-17

19 UP Rihand TPP- III U-6 500 Nov-13

20 WBRaghunathpur TPP, Ph-I

U-1 600 Jul-13

U-2 600 Mar-14

STATE SECTOR

21 APDamodaram Sanjeevaiah TPS

U-1 800 May-14

U-2 800 Nov-14

22 AP Kakatiya TPP Extn U-1 600 May-14

23 APRayalseema St-III U-6

U-6 600 Dec-15

24 Assam Namrup CCGTGT 70 Sep-13

ST 30 Dec-13

25 Chhattisgarh Korba West St-III. U-5 500 Mar-13

26 Chhattisgarh Marwa TPPU-1 500 Jun-13

U-2 500 Oct-13

27 Delhi Pragati CCGT - III GT-4 250 Apr-13

28 Delhi Pragati CCGT - III ST-2 250 Jul-13

29 GujaratBhavnagar CFBC TPP

U-1 250 Oct-14

U-2 250 Feb-15

30 Gujarat Pipavav CCPPBlock-1 351 Jul-13

Block-2 351 Mar-13

31 Gujarat Sikka TPP Extn.U-3 250 Nov-13

U-4 250 Feb-14

32 Maharashtra Chandrapur TPSU-8 500 Sep-13

U-9 500 Dec-13

33 Maharashtra Koradi TPP Expn.

U-10 660 Mar-15

U-8 660 May-14

U-9 660 Oct-14

34 Maharashtra Parli TPP Expn. U-8 250 Dec-13

35 MPMalwa TPP (Shree Singaji TPP)

U-1 600 Jun-13

U-2 600 Dec-13

36 MP Satpura TPP ExtnU-10 250 Mar-13

U-11 250 Jul-13

37 RajasthanChhabra TPP Extn.

U-3 250 May-13

U-4 250 Sep-13

38 Rajasthan Kalisindh TPSU-1 600 Aug-13

U-2 600 Dec-13

39 RajasthanRamgarh CCPP Extn. -III

GT 110 Mar-13

ST 50 Aug-13

40 TNNorth Chennai Extn, U-1

U-1 600 Jul-13

41 TNNorth Chennai Extn, U-2

U-2 600 Mar-13

42 UP Anpara-DU- 6 500 Feb-14

U-7 500 Jun-14

43 UP Parichha Extn U-6 250 Mar-13

44 WBDurgapur TPS Extn

U-8 250 Dec-13

List of thermal projects under construction in the country as on 7 March 2013

Sl. No.

Sector/State Project Name Unit Capacity

(MW)Anticipated Comm. Date

Sl. No.




AnnEXuRE

45 WB Sagardighi TPP-IIU-3 500 Jul-14

U-4 500 Oct-14

PRIVATE SECTOR

46 AP Bhavanpadu TPPU-1 660 Oct-15

U-2 660 Mar-16

47 AP

NCC TPPU-1 660 Mar-16

U-2 660 Sep-16

48 APPainampuram TPP Cc

U-1 660 Sep-14

U-2 660 Dec-14

49 APSimhapuri Energy Pvt Ltd Ph.II

U-3 150 Jun-13

U-4 150 Sep-13

50 APThamminapatnam TPP-I

U-2 150 Mar-13

51 APThamminapatnam TPP-II

U-3 350 Oct-14

U-4 350 Jan-15

52 AP Vizag TPPU-1 525 Feb-14

U-2 525 Jun-14

53 ChhattisgarhAkaltara (Naiyara) TPP

U-1 600 Jun-13

U-2 600 Oct-13

U-3 600 Jun-14

U-4 600 Aug-14

54 ChhattisgarhAvantha Bhandar TPS, U-1

U-1 600 Sep-13

55 Chhattisgarh Balco TPPU-1 300 Mar-14

U-2 300 Jan-14

56 ChhattisgarhBandakhar TPP Ltd

U-1 300 Aug-14

57 Chhattisgarh Baradarha TPPU-1 600 Aug-13

U-2 600 Feb-14

58 Chhattisgarh Binjkote TPP

U-1 300 Sep-14

U-2 300 Dec-14

U-3 300 Sep-15

U-4 300 Jan-16

59 Chhattisgarh Chakabura TPP U-1 30 Sep-13

60 ChhattisgarhLanco Amarkantak TPS-II

U-3 660 May-14

U-4 660 Sep-14

61 ChhattisgarhRaigarh TPP (Visa)

U-1 600 Mar-14

62 Chhattisgarh Raikheda TPPU-1 685 May-14

U-2 685 Nov-14

63 Chhattisgarh Singhitarai TPPU-1 600 Feb-15

U-2 600 May-15

64 Chhattisgarh Swastic TPP U-1 25 May-13

65 ChhattisgarhTamnar TPP (Raigarh)

U-1 600 Feb-14

U-2 600 Jun-14

U-3 600 Mar-15

U-4 600 Aug-15

66 Chhattisgarh TRN Energy TPPU-1 300 Aug-14

U-2 300 Dec-14

67 Chhattisgarh Uchpinda TPP

U-1 360 Oct-13

U-2 360 Jan-14

U-3 360 Apr-14

U-4 360 Jul-14

68 ChhattisgarhVandana Vidyut TPP

U-1 135 Mar-13

U-2 135 Aug-13

69 Gujarat Mundra UMTPP U-5 800 Mar-13

70 JharkhandMahadevPrasas STPP Ph-

U-2 270 Jul-13

71 JharkhandMaitrishi Usha TPP-Ph-I

U-1 270 Dec-13

U-2 270 Mar-14

72 JharkhandMaitrishi Usha TPP-Ph-II

U-3 270 Aug-14

U-4 270 Dec-14

73 Jharkhand Tori TPPU-1 600 Apr-15

U-2 600 Aug-15

74 Maharashtra Amravati TPP Ph-I

U-1 270 Mar-13

U-2 270 Jun-13

U-3 270 Sep-13

U-4 270 Dec-13

U-5 270 May-14

75 MaharashtraAmravati TPP Ph-II

U-1 270 $

U-2 270 $

U-3 270 $

U-4 270 $

U-5 270 $

76 Maharashtra Bela TPP-I U-1 270 Mar-13

77 MaharashtraDhariwal Infracture TPP

U-1 300 Apr-13

U-2 300 Aug-13

78 MaharashtraEMCO Warora TPP

U-2 300 Jun-13

79 MaharashtraLanco Vidarbha TPP

U-1 660 Dec-14

U-2 660 Mar-15

80 Maharashtra Nasik TPP Ph-I

U-1 270 May-13

U-2 270 Aug-13

U-3 270 Nov-14

U-4 270 Jan-15

U-5 270 Mar-15

Sl. No.



Sl. No.




81 Maharashtra Nasik TPP Ph-II

U-1 270 $

U-2 270 $

U-3 270 $

U-4 270 $

U-5 270 $

82 Maharashtra Tirora TPP Ph-I U-2 660 Mar-13

83 Maharashtra Tirora TPP Ph-II

U-1 660 May-13

U-2 660 Aug-13

U-3 660 Nov-13

84 MP Anuppur TPP Ph-IU-1 600 Jul-14

U-2 600 Feb-15

85 MP Bina TPP U-2 250 Mar-13

86 MP Gorgi TPP U-1 660 Jun-16

87 MP Mahan TPP U-2 600 Jul-13

88 MP Nigri TPPU-1 660 Mar-14

U-2 660 Sep-14

89 MP Sasan UMPP

U-1 660 Mar-14

U-2 660 Sep-13

U-3 660 Apr-13

U-4 660 Jul-14

U-5 660 Dec-14

U-6 660 May-15

90 MP Seioni TPP Ph-I U-1 600 Jan-14

91 Orissa Derang TPPU-1 600 Nov-13

U-2 600 Feb-14

92 OrissaInd Bharat TPP (Orissa)

U-1 350 Sep-13

U-2 350 Dec-13

93 Orissa Kamalanga TPP

U-1 350 Mar-13

U-2 350 Jun-13

U-3 350 Sep-13

94 OrissaKVK Nilanchal TPP

U-1 350 Jan-14

U-2 350 Aug-15

U-3 350 Dec-15

95 OrissaLanco Babandh TPP

U-1 660 Jul-14

U-2 660 Dec-14

96 Orissa Malibrahmani TPP U-1 525 May-14

97 Punjab Goindwal SahibU-1 270 Jun-13

U-2 270 Oct-13

98 PunjabRajpura TPP (Nabha)

U-1 700 Jan-14

U-2 700 Mar-14

99 PunjabTalwandi Sabo TPP

U-1 660 Dec-13

U-2 660 Apr-14

U-3 660 Jul-14

100 RajasthanJallipa-Kapurdi TPP

U-6 135 #

U-7 135 #

U-8 135 #

101 Rajasthan Kawai TPP 660 Apr-13

102 Rajasthan Kawai TPP U-2 660 Jul-13

103

TNMelamaruthur TPP

U-1 600 Jul-13

U-2 600 Nov-13

104 TNTuticorin TPP (Ind- Barath TPP)

U-1 660 Mar-16

105 UP Lalitpur TPP

U-1 660 Oct-14

U-2 660 Feb-15

U-3 660 Jun-15

106 UPPrayagraj (Bara) TPP

U-1 660 Jul-14

U-2 660 Nov-14

U-3 660 Mar-15

107 WB Haldia TPP-IU-1 300 Aug-14

U-2 300 Nov-14

$ Work is at stand still. Commissioning schedule shall be worked out after restart of work.# Commissioning schedule shall be work out after getting permission to enhance production from existing mines or development of Jallipa mines.

Central Sector

1 Uri-II Jammu & Kashmir 240

2 Nimoo Bazgo Jammu & Kashmir 45

3 Kishanganga Jammu & Kashmir 330

4 Parbati St. II Himachal Pradesh 800

5 Parabati-III Himachal Pradesh 520

6 Kol Dam Himachal Pradesh 800

7 Rampur Himachal Pradesh 412

8 Tapovan Vishnugad Uttarakhand 520

9 Tehri PSS Uttarakhand 1000

10 Lata Tapovan Uttarakhand 171

11 Teesta Low Dam-III West Bengal 33

12 Teesta Low Dam-IV West Bengal 160

13 Subansiri Lower Arunachal Pradesh 2000

14 Kameng Arunachal Pradesh 600

15 Pare Arunachal Pradesh 110

List of hydro-electric projects under execution(Excluding projects under Ministry of New & Renewable Energy) as on 28.02.2013

Sl. No. Sector/Name of Project State Capacity (MW) Sl. No. Sector/Name of Project State Capacity (MW)

AnnEXuRE

Sl. No.



Sl. No.




16 Tuirial Mizoram 60

State Sector

17 Baglihar-II J&K/ 450

18 Uhl-III Himachal Pradesh 100

19 Kashang-I Himachal Pradesh 65

20 Kashang-II & III Himachal Pradesh 130

21 Sainj Himachal Pradesh 100

22 Swara Kuddu Himachal Pradesh 111

23 Shongtong Karcham Himachal Pradesh 450

24 Koyna Left Bank PSS Maharashtra 80

25 Nagarujana Sagar TR Andhra Pradesh 50

26 Lower Jurala Andhra Pradesh 240

27 Pulichintala Andhra Pradesh 120

28 Pallivasal Kerala 60

29 Thottiyar Kerala 40

30 Bhawani Barrage II Tamil Nadu 15

31 Bhawani Barrage III Tamil Nadu 30

32 Myntdu Unit-3 Meghalaya 42

33 New Umtru Meghalaya 40

Private Sector

34 Sorang Himachal Pradesh 100

35 Tangnu Romai- I Himachal Pradesh 44

36 Shrinagar Uttarakhand 330

37 Phata Byung Uttarakhand 76

38 Singoli Bhatwari Uttarakhand 99

39 Maheshwar Madhya Pradesh 400

40 Chujachen Sikkim 99

41 Teesta- III Sikkim 1200

42 Tidong-I Himachal Pradesh 100

43 Teesta- VI Sikkim 500

44 Rangit-IV Sikkim 120

45 Jorethang Loop Sikkim 96

46 Bhasmey Sikkim 51

47 Tashiding Sikkim 97

48 Dikchu Sikkim 96

49 Rangit-II Sikkim 66

50 Rongnichu Sikkim 96

State Project Name Unit No Capacity (MW)

Original Comm. Sched.

Anticipated Comm. Sched.

Org. Cost(Rs. Crs)

Latest Cost(Rs. Crs)

Cost Overrun(Rs. Crs.)

CENTRAL SECTOR

Assam Bongaigaon TPP

U-1 250 Jan-11 Jun-14

4375.35 4375.35 0U-2 250 May-11 May-15

U-3 250 Sep-11 Oct-15

Bihar Barh STPP- I

U-1 660 Oct-13 Jun-15

8693 8693 0U-2 660 Apr-14 Apr-16

U-3 660 Oct-14 Feb-17

Bihar Barh STPP-IIU-4 660 Dec-12 Oct-13

7341.04 7341.04 0U-5 660 Oct-13 Sep-14

BiharMuzaffarpur TPP Exp (Kanti TPP St-II)

U-3 195 Oct-12 Jun-143154.33 3154.33 0

U-4 195 Jan-13 Sep-14

Bihar Nabi Nagar TPP

U-1 250 May-13 Jul-14

5352.51 5352.51 0U-2 250 Sep-13 Jan-15

U-3 250 Jan-14 Jul-15

U-4 250 May-14 Jan-16

Jharkhand BokaroTPS "A"Exp. U-1 500 Dec-11 Aug-14 2313 3552.18 1239.18

Maharashtra Mouda TPP U-2 500 Oct-12 Mar-13 5459.28 (2 Units) 6010.89 (2 Units) 551.61

MP Vindhyachal TPP-IV U-12 500 Dec-12 Mar-13 5915 (2 Units) 5915 (2 Units) 0

TN Neyveli TPS-II Exp. U-2 250 Jun-09 Mar-14 2030.78 (2 Units) 3027.59 ( 2 Units) 996.81

TN Tuticorin JV TPPU-1 500 Mar-12 Dec-13

4909.54 6478.92 0U-2 500 Aug-12 Mar-14

TN Vallur TPP Ph-II U-3 500 Dec-12 Sep-13 3086.78 3086.78 0

Details of under construction thermal power projects lagging behind schedule time of commissioning

AnnEXuRE

Sl. No. Sector/Name of Project State Capacity (MW) Sl. No. Sector/Name of Project State Capacity (MW)


Tripura Monarchak CCPP GT+ST 101 Jul-13 May-14 623.44 623.44 0

Tripura Tripura GasModule-1 363.3 Dec-11 03.01.13 (A)

3429 3429 0Module-2 363.3 Mar-12 Jul-13

UP Rihand TPS- III U-6 500 Dec-12 Nov-13 6230.81 (2 Units) 6230.81 (2 Units) 0

WBRaghunathpur TPP, Ph-I

U-1 600 Feb-11 Jul-134122 6745 2623

U-2 600 May-11 Apr-14

STATE SECTOR

AP

Damodaram Sanjeevaiah TPP

U-1 800 Jul-12 May-148432 8654 222

U-2 800 Jan-13 Nov-14

AP Kakatiya TPP Extn U-1 600 Jul-12 May-14 2968.64 3466 497.36

AP Rayalseema Stage-III U-6 600 Jul-14 Dec-15 3028.86 3525 496.14

Assam Namrup CCGTGT 70 Sep-11 Sep-13

411 693.73 282.73ST 30 Jan-12 Dec-13

Chhattisgarh Korba West St-III. U-5 500 May-12 Mar-13 2309.34 3156 846.66

Chhattisgarh Marwa TPPU-1 500 May-12 Jun-13

4735 6318 1583U-2 500 Jul-12 Oct-13

Delhi Pragati CCGT - IIIGT-4 250 Sep-10 Apr-13 5195.81

(for 4 GT + 2 ST)5195.81

(for 4 GT + 2 ST)0

ST-2 250 Nov-10 Jul-13

Gujarat Pipavav CCPPBlock-1 351 Sep-10 Jul-13

2354.29 4296 1941.71Block-2 351 Nov-10 Mar-13

Gujarat

Sikka TPP Extn.

U-3 250 Oct-13 Nov-132004 2356 352

U-4 250 Jan-14 Feb-14

Gujarat Ukai TPP Extn. U-6 500 Jan-11 Mar-13 1950 2135 185

GujaratBhavnagar CFBC TPP

U-1 250 Oct-13 Oct-143742.08 3742.08 0

U-2 250 Dec-13 Feb-15

Maharashtra Chandrapur TPSU-8 500 Jun-12 Sep-13

5500 5500 0U-9 500 Sep-12 Dec-13

Maharashtra Koradi TPP Exp

U-8 660 Dec-13 May-14

11880 11880 0U-9 660 Jun-14 Oct-14

U-10 660 Dec-14 Mar-15

Maharashtra Parli TPP Expn. U-8 250 Jan-12 Dec-13 1375 1696.24 321.24

MPMalwa TPP (Shree Singaji TPP)

U-1 600 Jun-12 Jun-134053 6750 2697

U-2 600 Oct-12 Dec-13

MP Satpura TPP ExtnU-10 250 Feb-12 Mar-13

2350 3032.34 682.34U-11 250 Apr-12 Jul-13

Rajasthan Chhabra TPP Extn.U-3 250 May-11 May-13 2200 2200 0

U-4 250 Jul-11 Sep-13

Rajasthan Kalisindh TPS U-1 600 Aug-11 Aug-13 4600 5500 900

Rajasthan Kalisindh TPS U-2 600 Mar-12 Dec-13

RajasthanRamgarh CCPP Extn.-III

GT 110 May-11 Mar-13640 640 0

ST 50 Oct-11 Aug-13

TNNorth Chennai TPP Extn,

U-1 600 Apr-11 Jul-13 3398 3552 154

U-2 600 Nov-11 Mar-13 2718.75 2813.58 94.83




Org. Cost(Rs. Crs)



AnnEXuRE


UP Anpara-DU- 6 500 Mar-11 Feb-14

5358.79 5358.79 0U-7 500 Jun-11 Jun-14

UP Parichha Extn U-6 250 Nov-09 Mar-13 1900 (2 Units) 2356 (2 Units) 456

PRIVATE SECTOR

AP Bhavanpadu TPPU-1 660 Oct-13 Oct-15

6571.94 6571.94 0U-2 660 Mar-14 Mar-16

AP NCC TPPU-1 660 Mar-15 Mar-16

7046 7046 0U-2 660 Jun-15 Sep-16

AP Painampuram TPPU-1 660 May-14 Sep-14

6869 6869 0U-2 660 Aug-14 Dec-14

APSimhapuri Energy Pvt Ltd Ph-II

U-3 150 Dec-11 Jun-131605.9 1605.9 0

U-4 150 Feb-12 Sep-15

APThamminapatnam TPP-I

U-2 150 Nov-11 Mar-131420

(2 Units)1428

(2units)8

APThamminapatnam TPP-II

U-3 350 May-12 Oct-143120 3700 580

U-4 350 Aug-12 Jan-14

APVizag TPP

U-1 520 Jun-13 Feb-145545 5545 0

U-2 520 Sep-13 Jun-14

Chhattisgarh Akaltara (Naiyara) TPP

U-1 600 Apr-12 Jun-13

16190(6 units)

16190(6 units)

0U-2 600 Aug-12 Oct-13

U-3 600 Dec-12 Jun-14

U-4 600 Apr-13 Aug-14

ChhattisgarhAvantha Bhandar TPS, U-1

U-1 600 Jul-12 Sep-13 2872 3850 978

ChhattisgarhBaradarha TPP (DB Power TPP)

U-1 600 Mar-13 Aug-136533 6640 107

U-2 600 Jul-13 Jan-14

Chhattisgarh Balco TPPU-1 300 Feb-11 Mar-14 4650

(4 units)4650

(4 units)0

U-2 300 Nov-10 Jan-14

Chhattisgarh Bandakhar TPP U-1 300 Dec-12 Aug-14 1456 1456 0

Chhattisgarh Binjkote TPP

U-1 300 Aug-14 Sep-14

5058 6848.1 1790.1U-2 300 Nov-14 Dec-14

U-3 300 Feb-14 Mar-15

U-4 300 May-14 Jun-15

ChhattisgarhLanco Amarkantak TPS-II

U-3 660 Jan-13 May-146886 7700 814

U-4 660 Mar-13 Sep-14

Chhattisgarh Raikheda TPPU-1 685 Sep-13 May-14

8290 8290 0U-2 685 Jan-14 Nov-14

Chhattisgarh Singhitarai TPPU-1 600 Jun-14 Feb-15

4650 6200 1550U-2 600 Sep-14 May-15

Chhattisgarh Swastic TPP U-1 25 Jun-12 May-13 136 142 6

ChhattisgarhTamnar TPP (O.P.Jindal)

U-1 600 Jan-14 Feb-14

12800(4 Units)

12800(4 Units)

0U-2 600 Apr-14 Jun-14

U-3 600 Sep-14 Mar-15

U-4 600 Nov-14 Oct-15

AnnEXuRE




Org. Cost(Rs. Crs)




Chhattisgarh TRN Energy TPPU-1 300 Dec-13 Aug-14

2844 2844 0U-2 300 Apr-14 Dec-14

Chhattisgarh Uchpinda TPP

U-1 360 May-12 Oct-13

6653.61 6653.61 0U-2 360 Nov-12 Jan-14

U-3 360 Feb-13 Apr-14

U-4 360 Jul-13 Jul-14

ChhattisgarhVandana Vidyut TPP- Chhattisgarh

U-1 135 Jun-11 Mar-131458.44 1458.44 0

U-2 135 Sep-11 Aug-13

JharkhandMahadev Prasad STPP Ph.I

U-2 270 Mar-12 Jul-133151

(2 Units)3151

(2 Units)0

JharkhandMaitrishi Usha TPP-Ph-I

U-1 270 May-12 Jul-132900 2900 0

U-2 270 Jun-12 Nov-13

JharkhandMaitrishi Usha TPP-Ph-II

U-3 270 Feb-13 Jan-143182 3182

U-4 270 Mar-13 Mar-14

Jharkhand Tori TPPU-1 600 Jun-13 Apr-15

5700 5700 0U-2 600 Jan-14 Aug-15

Maharashtra Amravati TPP Ph-I

U-1 270 Dec-11 Mar-13

6889 6889 0

U-2 270 Dec-11 Jun-13

U-3 270 Jan-12 Sep-13

U-4 270 Feb-12 Dec-13

U-5 270 Mar-12 Mar-14

Maharashtra Amravati TPP Ph-II

U-1 270 Jul-14 *

6646 6646 0

U-2 270 Sep-14 *

U-3 270 Nov-14 *

U-4 270 Jan-15 *

U-5 270 Mar-15 *

Maharashtra Bela TPP-I U-1 270 Dec-11 Mar-13 1477 1768 291

MaharashtraDhariwal infracture TPP

U-1 300 Feb-12 Apr-132850 2878 28

U-2 300 May-12 Aug-13

Maharashtra EMCO Warora TPP U-2 300 Feb-12 Jun-13 3480 (2 Units) 3480 (2 Units) 0

Maharashtra

Lanco Vidarbha TPP

U-1 660 Jan-14 Sep-146936 6936 0

U-2 660 May-14 Jan-15

Maharashtra Nasik TPP Ph-I

U-1 270 Feb-12 May-13

6789 6789 0

U-2 270 Apr-12 Aug-13

U-3 270 Jun-12 Nov-14

U-4 270 Aug-12 Jan-15

U-5 270 Oct-12 Mar-15

Maharashtra Nasik TPP Ph-II

U-1 270 Apr-13 *

6789 6789 0

U-2 270 Jun-13 *

U-3 270 Aug-13 *

U-4 270 Oct-13 *

U-5 270 Dec-13 *

AnnEXuRE




Org. Cost(Rs. Crs)




Maharashtra Tirora TPP Ph-I U-2 660 Jul-11 Mar-136560

(2units)7309

(2 Units)749

Maharashtra Tirora TPP Ph-II

U-1 660 Oct-11 Apr-13

8993 9635 642U-2 660 Jul-12 Aug-13

U-3 660 Oct-12 Nov-13

MP

Anuppur TPP Ph-I

U-1 600 Apr-13 Jul-136240 6240 0

U-2 600 Aug-13 Feb-15

MP Bina TPP U-2 250 Nov-11 Mar-132750

(2 Units)2750

(2 Units)0

MP Gorgi TPP (DB Power) U-1 660 Jun-13 Jun-166640

(for 2 units)6640

(for 2 units)0

MP Mahan TPP U-2 600 Sep-11 May-13 4860 (2 Units) 4860 (2 Units) 0

MP Nigri TPPU-1 660 Jun-13 Mar-14

8100 8100 0U-2 660 Dec-13 Jun-14

MP Seioni TPP Ph-I U-1 600 Mar-13 Jan-14 2910 2910 0

Orissa Derang TPPU-1 600 Mar-12 Nov-13

5961 5961 0U-2 600 Jun-12 Feb-14

OrissaInd Bharat TPP (Orissa)

U-1 350 Sep-11 Sep-133185 3185 0

U-2 350 Dec-11 Dec-13

Orissa Kamalanga TPP

U-1 350 Nov-11 Mar-13

4540 5268 728U-2 350 Dec-11 Jun-13

U-3 350 Feb-12 Sep-13

Orissa KVK Nilanchal TPP

U-1 350 Dec-11 Jan-14

4990 4990 0U-2 350 Jan-12 Aug-15

U-3 350 Mar-12 Oct-15

Orissa Lanco Babandh TPPU-1 660 Apr-13 Mar-14

6930 6930 0U-2 660 Aug-13 Jul-14

OrissaMalibrahmani TPP (Monnet Ispat)

U-1 525 Dec-12 May-145093

(2 units)5093

(2 units)0

Punjab Talwandi Sabo TPP

U-1 660 Oct-12 Dec-13

10250 10250 0U-2 660 Jan-13 Apr-14

U-3 660 May-13 Jul-14

Rajasthan Jallipa-Kapurdi TPP

U-6 135 Aug-10 **5075

(8 Units)6085

(8 Units)1010U-7 135 Sep-10 **

U-8 135 Mar-11 **

Rajasthan Kawai TPPU-1 660 Dec-12 Mar-13

7020 7020 0U-2 660 Mar-13 Jun-13

UP Prayagraj TPP

U-1 660 Feb-14 Jul-14

11622.3 11622.3 0U-2 660 Jul-14 Nov-14

U-3 660 Dec-14 Mar-15

TN

Melamaruthur TPP

U-1 600 Feb-12 Jul-134800 5158 358

U-2 600 Mar-12 Sep-13

TNTuticorin TPP (Ind- Barath TPP)

U-1 660 May-12 Mar-16 3595 3595 0

* No Work is going on a t site. Date of commissioning would be assessed after restart of work at site.**Due to delay in development of Jalipa Mines. Date of commissioning would be assessed after development of Jalipa mines or after getting permission to enhance production from existing mines.

AnnEXuRE




Org. Cost(Rs. Crs)




E-AuCTIOn

Monthwise quantity offered & sold through coaljunction & MSTC E-Auction Qty. In Tons

MONTH OFFERED QTY (in tons) SOLD QTY (in tons) Variation (In Percent)

July’11 2,512,015 2,255,313 -10.22%

Aug’11 2,183,370 1,764,911 -19.17%

Sept’11 2,578,082 2,203,438 -14.53%

Oct’11 591,910 385,904 -34.80%

Nov’11 3,309,434 2,891,019 -12.64%

Dec’11 2,926,557 2,632,049 -10.06%

Jan’12 4,771,008 3,758,496 -21.22%

Feb’12 4,129,350 3,576,946 -13.38%

Mar’12 7,568,706 6,584,608 -13.00%

Apr’12 5,882,172 5,183,850 -11.87%

May’12 5,254,880 4,456,357 -15.20%

June’12 4,058,198 3,605,700 -11.15%

July’12 3,639,567 2,979,323 -18.14%

Aug’12 3,705,563 2,924,489 -21.08%

Sep’12 3,451,848 3,091,583 -10.44%

Oct’12 3,550,650 3,177,658 -10.50%

Nov’12 5,571,163 4,871,200 -12.56%

Dec’12 6,066,394 4,069,700 -32.91%

Jan’13 6,712,458 5,243,866 -21.88%

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Jan'1

2

Feb'1

2

Mar'12

Apr'12

May'1

2

June'12

July'12

Aug'1

2

Sept'12

Oct'12

Nov'1

2

Dec'1

2

Jan'1

3

Qty O

ffere

d In T

ons

OFFERED BY ROAD OFFERED BY RAIL

Monthly data of offered quantitythrough coaljunction & MSTC (road & rail)

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Jan'12

Feb'12

Mar'12

Apr'12

May'12

June'12

July'12

Aug'12

Sep'12

Oct'12

Nov'12

Dec'12

Jan'13

Quan

tity

in T

ons

OFFERED QTY (in tons) SOLD QTY (in tons)

Quantity offered & sold throughcoaljunction & MSTC

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

BC

CL

RO

AD

BC

CL

RA

IL

MC

L R

OA

D

MC

L R

AIL

NC

L R

OA

D

NC

L R

AIL

NE

C R

OA

D

NE

C R

AIL

SE

CL

RO

AD

SE

CL

RA

IL

EC

L R

OA

D

EC

L R

AIL

WC

L R

OA

D

WC

L R

AIL

SC

CL

RO

AD

SC

CL

RA

IL

CC

L R

OA

D

CC

L R

AIL

Companies

Qua

ntity

In T

ons

Jan'13 QTY OFFERED Jan'13 QTY SOLD Dec'12 QTY OFFERED Dec'12 QTY SOLD

Companywise quantity offered & sold through coaljunction & MSTC

in Jan ’13 vs Dec ’12

Monthly data of offered quantity through coaljunction and MSTC (road & rail) Qty. In Tons

MONTH OFFERED BY ROAD OFFERED BY RAIL

July'11 2,236,945 275,070

Aug'11 2,091,330 92,040

Sept'11 2,262,732 315,350

Oct'11 512,850 79,060

Nov'11 3,083,582 225,852

Dec'11 2,706,157 220,400

Jan'12 4,518,196 252,812

Feb'12 3,698,200 431,150

Mar'12 5,874,230 1,675,226

Apr'12 5,014,680 867,492

May'12 4,927,850 327,030

June'12 3,818,650 239,548

July'12 3,444,100 195,467

Aug'12 3,541,130 164,433

Sept'12 3,226,580 225,268

Oct'12 3,313,820 236,830

Nov'12 5,329,723 241,440

Dec'12 5,787,610 278,784

Jan'13 5,895,470 816,988

Jan'13 Dec'12 Variation (In Percent)QTY

OFFERED QTY SOLD QTY OFFERED QTY SOLD OFFERED

QTY SOLD QTY

BCCL ROAD 331,650 245,100 1,234,950 260,450 -73.14% -5.89%BCCL RAIL 79,060 79,060 - - NA NAMCL ROAD 1,320,000 1,231,600 1,790,000 1,328,080 -26.26% -7.26%MCL RAIL - - - - NA NANCL ROAD 281,000 281,000 208,000 208,000 35.10% 35.10%NCL RAIL - - - - NA NANEC ROAD 20,000 20,000 18,000 18,000 11.11% 11.11%NEC RAIL 41,250 41,250 41,250 41,250 0.00% 0.00%SECL ROAD 1,357,700 1,005,050 1,431,750 1,115,150 -5.17% -9.87%SECL RAIL - - - - NA NAECL ROAD 76,500 76,353 138,660 131,349 -44.83% -41.87%ECL RAIL 533,478 420,552 237,534 237,534 124.59% 77.05%WCL ROAD 989,020 529,830 716,250 543,400 38.08% -2.50%WCL RAIL - - - - NA NASCCL ROAD 328,000 189,651 250,000 186,487 31.20% 1.70%SCCL RAIL 49,200 32,800 - - NA NACCL ROAD 1,191,600 1,019,420 - - NA NACCL RAIL 114,000 72,200 - - NA NATOTAL 6,712,458 5,243,866 6,066,394 4,069,700 10.65% 28.85%

Companywise quantity offered & sold through coaljunction & MSTC in Jan ’13 vs Dec ’12 via rail & road Qty. In Tons

Note: Data for the period January 2011 - December 2011 and February 2012 is for e-auction through coaljuntion only, while data for January 2012, and March 2012 - January 2013 includes data of MSTC

http://mjunction.in/downlaods/ICMW/pdf

mailto:pranab.chattaraj/ICMW.pdf


MUNDRA 4,529,448NEW MANGALORE 2,057,523GANGAVARAM 1,890,684PARADIP 1,839,348VIZAG 1,251,486KANDLA 1,050,833

ENNORE 950,141

MUMBAI 928,452

KOLKATA 429,339

MORMUGAO 54,116

Grand Total 14,981,370

pORT DATA

Port Qty (in Tons) Port Qty (in Tons)

VIZAG 1,528,024

MORMUGAO 1,292,584

PARADIP 1,196,803

GANGAVARAM 977,410

KOLKATA 520,343

MUNDRA 330,181

NEW MANGALORE 197,104

KANDLA 82,120

CHENNAI 104


Major coking coal supplier countries to India (through mentioned ports) Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

Country of Origin Qty (in Tons)

AUSTRALIA 4,882,583

UNITED STATES 569,188

SOUTH AFRICA 244,590

NEW ZEALAND 186,350

OTHERS 241,961


Major ports through which coking coal arrived in India Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

24.9%

21.1%19.5%

16.0%

8.5%5.4%

3.2%1.3%

0.0%

VIZAG MORMUGAO PARADIPGANGAVARAM KOLKATA MUNDRANEW MANGALORE KANDLA CHENNAI

Major ports through which coking coal arrivedin India – Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

4%3%

4%

9%

80%

AUSTRALIA UNITED STATES SOUTH AFRICANEW ZEALAND OTHERS

Major coking coal supplier countries to India(through mentioned ports)

Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

Major steam coal supplier countries to India(through mentioned ports) Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

Country of Origin Qty (in Tons)INDONESIA 12,779,502SOUTH AFRICA 1,667,459UNITED STATES 410,759AUSTRALIA 83,626PHILIPPINES 25,000MOZAMBIQUE 15,025Grand Total 14,981,370

Major ports through which steam coalarrived in India Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

Port Qty (in Tons) Port Qty (in Tons)

0.4%2.9%

6.2%6.3%

7.0%

8.4%

12.3%

12.6%

13.7%

30.2%

MUNDRA NEW MANGALORE GANGAVARAMPARADIP VIZAG KANDLAENNORE MUMBAI KOLKATAMORMUGAO

Major ports through which steam coal arrivedin India Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

85.3%

11.1%

2.7%0.6% 0.2%

0.1%

INDONESIA SOUTH AFRICA UNITED STATESAUSTRALIA PHILIPPINES MOZAMBIQUE

Major steam coal supplier countries to India (through mentioned ports)

Nov ’12 - Jan ’13

Note: Figures are based on consignment lifted from these ports for which price details/break-up is available with Coal Insights teamNote: Data for Kolkata & Chennai are not available in this edition




www.cpsi.org.in


www.tafcon.con

Tear

alo

ng th

e do

tted

line

Tear

alo

ng th

e do

tted

line




ci_mar_2013

Documents

coal prices

coal india

coal insights

coal sector

coal ministry

coal monolith

rightquality coal

tons of coal production