The Mineral Industry of Belarus in 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews Regarding Belarus’ Status As a Non-Market Economy Country
A-822-804, A-822-806 CCR – NME Graduation Public Document E&C/OII: AKM October 16, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Jeffrey I. Kessler Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance THROUGH: James Maeder Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations Joseph A. Laroski Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & Negotiations Alexander B. Hammer Director and Senior Economist Economic Analysis Unit, Office of Policy FROM: Christopher Loopesko Economist Economic Analysis Unit, Office of Policy SUBJECT: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews Regarding Belarus’ Status as a Non-Market Economy Country I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Commerce (Commerce) concludes that Belarus is a non-market economy (NME) country, based on the fact that its economy does not primarily operate on market principles. The Belarusian government’s role in the economy and its relationship with markets and the private sector not only lead to fundamental distortions and allocative efficiency problems, but also affect Belarusian costs or pricing structures that are necessary for Commerce’s antidumping analyses. Commerce’s overall conclusion is based upon its analysis of six factors established in U.S. law. In determining whether a country is an NME under section 771(18)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), section 771(18)(B) requires that Commerce take into account: (1) the extent to which the currency of the foreign country is convertible into the currency of other countries; (2) the extent to which wage rates in the foreign country are determined by free bargaining between labor and management; (3) the extent to which joint ventures or other investments by firms of other foreign countries are permitted in the foreign country; (4) the extent of government ownership or control of the means of production; (5) the extent of government control over the allocation of resources and over the price and output decisions of enterprises; and (6) such other factors as the administering authority (i.e., Commerce) considers appropriate. -
Acting Through the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus) U.S.$750,000,000 6.378 Per Cent
REPUBLIC OF BELARUS (acting through the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus) U.S.$750,000,000 6.378 per cent. Notes due 24 February 2031 (the “USD A Notes ”) USD A Notes Issue Price: 100.00 per cent. AND U.S.$500,000,000 5.875 per cent. Notes due 24 February 2026 (the “USD B Notes ”) USD B Notes Issue Price: 98.799 per cent. The U.S.$750,000,000 6.378 per cent. Notes due 24 February 2031 (the “ USD A Notes ”) and the U.S.$500,000,000 5.875 per cent. Notes due 24 February 2026 (the “USD B Notes ” and together with the USD A Notes, the “ Notes ” and each a “Series ” of Notes) are issued by the Republic of Belarus, acting through the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus (the “Issuer ”’, “ Republic of Belarus ” or “Belarus ”). Unless previously redeemed or cancelled, the USD A Notes will be redeemed at their principal amount on 24 February 2031 and the USD B Notes will be redeemed at their principal amount on 24 February 2026. The USD A Notes will bear interest from, and including, 24 June 2020 at the rate of 6.378 per cent. per annum payable semi-annually in arrear on 24 February and 24 August of each year, commencing on 24 February 2021. A payment in respect of the USD A Notes made on 24 February 2021 would be in respect of the period from (and including) 24 June 2020 to (but excluding) 24 February 2021 (and thus a long first interest period).The USD B Notes will bear interest from, and including, 24 June 2020 at the rate of 5.875 per cent. -
The Mineral Industry of Belarus in 2015
2015 Minerals Yearbook BELARUS [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. Department of the Interior July 2019 U.S. Geological Survey The Mineral Industry of Belarus By Elena Safirova Belarus’s mineral production enterprises included a potash Russia, which supplied 56.6% of the imported goods, by value. mining company, three metallurgical steel plants, a nitrogen Other significant import partners were China (7.9%), Germany production enterprise, and two crude petroleum refineries. (4.6%), Poland (3.6%), and Ukraine (3.1%) (National Statistical Belarus was the third-ranked country among the world’s potash Committee of the Republic of Belarus, 2016). producers following Canada and Russia and accounted for 16% of world production in 2015 (Jasinski, 2017). The country’s only Production mineral production enterprise that played a major role in world In 2015, peat production for horticultural use increased by 14% markets was its potash mining firm OAO Belaruskali. Although to 245,000 t; salt production increased by 13% to about 2.1 Mt, Belarus does not have significant sources of fuel minerals on its and production of metallic cord, which is used in tires, increased territory, it had a number of energy infrastructure establishments by 9% to 88,000 t. At the same time, Belarus sharply reduced its (oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and two large petroleum refineries) gypsum output and peat production for fuel use—gypsum output that positioned the country as an important player in the decreased by 33% to 43,000 t and the output of peat for fuel use transportation of oil and natural gas to Europe from Russia. -
The Mineral Industry of Belarus in 2010
2010 Minerals Yearbook BELARUS U.S. Department of the Interior October 2012 U.S. Geological Survey THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF BELARUS By Elena Safirova Belarus’ mineral production enterprises included two of Klaipeda (in Lithuania), Muuga (in Estonia), and Odessa metalworks plants, a nitrogen production enterprise, two crude (in Ukraine), and with further transportation by either rail or oil refineries, and a potash mining company. The country’s only pipeline (the Odessa-Brody pipeline in reverse regime). In 2010, mineral production enterprise that played a major role in world Belarus imported 1.8 Mt of crude oil from Venezuela whereas markets was its potash mining firm OAO Belaruskali. Although imports from Russia dwindled to 13 Mt from 21.5 Mt in 2009 Belarus does not have significant sources of fuel minerals on its (National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus, territory, it had a number of energy infrastructure establishments 2011e; PO Khimmash, 2011). (oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and two large oil refineries) that Belarus also set up a contract with Azerbaijan to import positioned the country as an important player in the export of oil “Azeri Light” crude oil. The transportation channel for this and gas to Europe from Russia. oil was by tanker to the Port of Yuzhnyi in Ukraine and then through the Druzhba and the Odessa-Brody pipelines to the Minerals in the National Economy Mozyr oil refinery in Belarus. Although the negotiations with the Azerbaijani side were completed in 2010, the first In 2010, the industrial production of Belarus contributed oil from Azerbaijan was not delivered to Belarus until 2011 26.8% to the Republic’s gross domestic product (GDP). -
Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies
WEBSITE OF THE EXPERT COMMUNITY OF BELARUS NASHE MNENIE (OUR OPINION1) AGENCY FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EXPERT APPRAISAL BELARUSIAN INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES BELARUSIAN YEARBOOK 2012 A survey and analysis of developments in the Republic of Belarus in 2012 Minsk, 2013 2 BELARUSIAN YEARBOOK 2012 Compiled and edited by: Anatoly Pankovsky and Valeria Kostyugova English version translated by Mark Bence, Volha Hapeyeva, Andrey Kuznetsov, Vladimir Kuznetsov, Taciana Tulu-Aleksandroviè English version edited by Mark Bence, Max Nuijens, Taciana Tulu- Aleksandroviè Scientific reviewers and consultants: Aleksandr Feduta (Associate Professor of the European Humanitarian university); Oleg Manaev (Independent Institute of Socio-Economic and Political Studies); Andrei Vardomatski (Laboratory of Axiometrical Re- search NOVAK); Vladimir Dounaev (Agency for Social and Political Ex- pert Appraisal); Olga Shparaga (European Humanitarian University, web- site Novaja Europa (New Europe)); Andrei Kazakevich (Institute for Poli- tical Studies Palityènaja Sfiera); Pavel Daneiko (Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center BEROC); Viktor Chernov (indepen- dent expert, political scientist); Miroslav Kollar (Institute for Public Af- fairs, Program Director of the Slovak annual Global Report). Prepress by Taciana Tulu-Aleksandroviè The yearbook is published with support of The German Marshall Fund of the United States The ideas expressed are solely the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. ISSN 18224091