Peabody Energy (BTU) 10-K2020 FY Annual report

This report includes statements of our expectations, intentions, plans and beliefs that constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection provided by those sections. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance, including, without limitation, the section captioned “Outlook” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. We use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “may,” “forecast,” “project,” “should,” “estimate,” “plan,” “outlook,” “target,” “likely,” “will,” “to be” or other similar words to identify forward-looking statements.

Without limiting the foregoing, all statements relating to our future operating results, anticipated capital expenditures, future cash flows and borrowings, and sources of funding are forward-looking statements and speak only as of the date of this report. These forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions that we believe are reasonable, but are subject to a wide range of uncertainties and business risks, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in these statements. These factors are difficult to accurately predict and may be beyond our control. Factors that could affect our results or an investment in our securities include, but are not limited to:

When considering these forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the cautionary statements in this document and in our other Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements were made, and we undertake no obligation to update these statements except as required by federal securities laws.

Overview

We are a leading coal producer. At December 31, 2020, we owned interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States (U.S.) and Australia. Included in that count is our 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. (Middlemount), which owns the Middlemount Mine in Queensland, Australia. In addition to our mining operations, we market and broker coal from other coal producers, both as principal and agent, and trade coal and freight-related contracts through trading and business offices in the U.S., Australia, China and the United Kingdom.

Throughout the year ended December 31, 2020, we idled nine individual mines for periods ranging from one week to multiple months. Included in the count was our Shoal Creek Mine in Alabama, which was idled in October 2020 to reset the cost structure of the mine amid weak pricing and demand, and our Metropolitan Mine in New South Wales, Australia, which was idled in late December 2020.

As more fully described within “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” during the fourth quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021, we entered into a series of interrelated agreements with our surety bond providers, the revolving lenders under our credit agreement and certain holders of our senior secured notes to extend a significant portion of our near-term debt maturities to December 2024 and to stabilize collateral requirements for our existing surety bond portfolio.

In December 2019, after receiving the requisite regulatory and permitting approvals, we formed an unincorporated joint venture with Glencore plc (Glencore), in which we hold a 50% interest, to combine the existing operations of our Wambo Open-Cut Mine in Australia with the adjacent coal reserves of Glencore’s United Mine. Both parties contributed mining tenements upon formation of the joint venture (United Wambo Joint Venture), and the combined operations commenced in December 2020. As per the joint venture agreement, we fully owned and operated the Wambo Open-Cut Mine through the date combined operations commenced. At that date, the parties contributed mining equipment and other assets, and certain additional construction and development activities are ongoing. We proportionally consolidate the entity based upon our economic interest.

As of December 31, 2020, we report our results of operations primarily through the following reportable segments: Seaborne Thermal Mining, Seaborne Metallurgical Mining, Powder River Basin Mining, Other U.S. Thermal Mining and Corporate and Other. Refer to Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information regarding our segments. Note 25. “Segment and Geographic Information” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements is incorporated herein by reference and also contains segment and geographic financial information.

The maps that follow display our active mine locations as of December 31, 2020. Also shown are the primary ports that we use for our coal exports and our corporate headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri.

Refer to the “Summary of Coal Production and Sulfur Content of Assigned Reserves” table within Part I, Item 2. “Properties,” which is incorporated by reference herein, for additional information regarding coal reserves, product characteristics and production volume associated with each mine.

Coal Supply Agreements

For the year ended December 31, 2020, we derived 32% of our revenues from coal supply agreements from our five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 28 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 2021 to 2026. Our largest customer in 2020 contributed revenue of approximately $264 million, or approximately 9% of our total revenues from coal supply agreements, and has contracts expiring at various times from 2021 to 2023.

Transportation

We believe we have good relationships with U.S. and Australian rail carriers and port and barge companies due, in part, to our modern coal-loading facilities and the experience of our transportation coordinators. Refer to the table in the foregoing “Mining Locations” section for a summary of transportation methods by mine.

Our U.S. thermal mining operations exported less than 1% and approximately 1% of its annual tons sold during the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. No tons were exported during the year ended December 31, 2020. The primary ports used for U.S. thermal exports are the United Bulk Terminal near New Orleans, Louisiana, the St. James Stevedoring Anchorages terminal in Convent, Louisiana and the Kinder Morgan terminal near Houston, Texas.

Suppliers

In situations where we have elected to concentrate a large portion of our purchases with one supplier, it has been to take advantage of cost savings from larger volumes of purchases, benefit from long-term pricing for parts and ensure security of supply. Supplier concentration related to our mining equipment also allows us to benefit from fleet standardization, which in turn improves asset utilization by facilitating the development of common maintenance practices across our global platform, enhancing our flexibility to move equipment between mines and reduce working capital through inventory optimization.

Surface and underground mining equipment demand and lead times have remained steady in recent periods. We consistently use our global leverage with major suppliers to ensure security of supply to meet the requirements of our active mines.

Competition

Demand for coal and the prices that we will be able to obtain for our coal are highly competitive and influenced by factors beyond our control, including but not limited to global economic conditions; the demand for electricity and steel; the cost of alternative sources; the impact of weather on heating and cooling demand; taxes and environmental regulations imposed by the U.S. and foreign governments.

Demand for our thermal coal products is impacted by economic conditions; demand for electricity, which is impacted by energy efficient products; and the cost of electricity generation from coal and alternative forms of generation. Our products compete with producers of other forms of electricity generation, including natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass, that provide an alternative to coal use. The use and price of thermal coal is heavily influenced by the availability and relative cost of alternative fuel sources and the generation of electricity utilizing alternative fuels, with customers focused on securing the lowest cost fuel supply in order to coordinate the most efficient utilization of generating resources in the economic dispatch of the power grid at the most competitive price. Regulatory policies and environmental, social and governance considerations can also have an impact on generation choices and coal consumption.

In the U.S., natural gas is highly competitive (along with other alternative fuel sources) with thermal coal for electricity generation. The competitiveness of natural gas has been strengthened by accelerated growth in domestic natural gas production and new natural gas combined cycle generation capacity, as well as comparatively low natural gas prices (versus historic levels). The Henry Hub Natural Gas Prompt Price averaged $2.13 per mmBtu in 2020, versus $2.53 and $3.07 per mmBtu in 2019 and 2018, respectively. The growth in domestic natural gas production and logistical constraints has led to discounts for regional gas prices versus the Henry Hub price, further driving lower natural gas price trends. In addition, the competitiveness of other alternative fuel sources for electricity generation has been strengthened by the growth of low-cost and government subsidized generation fueled by other alternative fuel sources. These pressures, coupled with increasing regulatory burdens, have contributed to a significant number of coal plant retirements. During 2020, approximately 11 gigawatts of U.S. coal power capacity was retired, and since 2010, U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by more than thirty percent.

Internationally, thermal coal also competes with alternative forms of electricity generation. The competitiveness and availability of natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass varies by country and region. Seaborne thermal coal consumption is also impacted by the competitiveness of delivered seaborne thermal coal supply from key exporting countries such as Indonesia, Australia, Russia, Colombia, the U.S. and South Africa, among others. In addition, seaborne thermal coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in the two leading coal import countries, China and India, among others.

In addition to our alternative fuel source competitors, our principal U.S. direct coal supply competitors (listed alphabetically) are other large coal producers, including Alliance Resource Partners, American Consolidated Natural Resources, Inc., Arch Resources, Inc., CONSOL Energy, Eagle Specialty Materials LLC, Foresight Energy, Hallador Energy, Kiewit, and Navajo Transitional Energy Company LLC, among others. Major international direct coal supply competitors (listed alphabetically) include Adaro Energy, Anglo American plc, BHP, Bumi Resources, China Shenhua Energy, Coal India Limited, Drummond Company, Glencore, South32, SUEK, Whitehaven Coal Limited and Yancoal Australia Ltd, among others.

Demand for our metallurgical coal products is impacted by economic conditions; government policies; demand for steel; and competing technologies used to make steel, some of which do not use coal as a manufacturing input, such as electric arc furnaces. We compete on the basis of coal quality and characteristics, delivered energy cost (including transportation costs), customer service and support and reliability of supply.

Seaborne metallurgical coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in leading metallurgical coal import countries such as China, among others, and the competitiveness of seaborne metallurgical coal supply from leading metallurgical coal exporting countries of Australia, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Mongolia and Mozambique, among others.

Major international direct competitors (listed alphabetically) include Anglo American, Arch Resources, Inc., BHP, Glencore, Jellinbah, KRU, Shanxi Coking Coal Group, Teck Resources, Warrior Met Coal, Whitehaven Coal Limited and Yancoal Australia Ltd, among others.

Cybersecurity Risk Management

We use digital technology to conduct our business operations and engage with our customers, vendors and partners. As we implement newer technologies such as cloud, analytics, automation and “internet of things,” the threats to our business operations from cyber intrusions, denial of service attacks, manipulation and other cyber misconduct increase. To address the risk, we continue to evolve our risk management approach in an effort to continually assess and improve our cybersecurity risk detection, deterrence and recovery capabilities. Our cybersecurity strategy emphasizes reduction of cyber risk exposure and continuous improvement of our cyber defense and resilience capabilities. These include: (i) proactive management of cyber risk to ensure compliance with contractual, legal and regulatory requirements, (ii) performing due diligence on third parties to ensure they have sound cybersecurity practices in place, (iii) ensuring essential business services remain available during a business disruption, (iv) implementing data policies and standards to protect sensitive company information and (v) exercising cyber incident response plans and risk mitigation strategies to address potential incidents should they occur. For more information regarding the risks associated with these matters, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Human Capital

We had approximately 4,600 employees as of December 31, 2020, including approximately 3,500 hourly employees. Additional information on our employees and related labor relations matters is contained in Note 22. “Management — Labor Relations” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements, which information is incorporated herein by reference. During the year ended December 31, 2020, we reduced our global headcount by nearly 2,000 employees, in both operational and non-operational positions, representing approximately 30% of our workforce. The reductions were made in connection with our cost repositioning efforts to appropriately align our cost structure and optimize our coal production relative to prevailing market conditions.

As of December 31, 2020, approximately 2,900 of our employees are located in the U.S., with the remainder primarily located in Australia. About 92% of our team members work for mine operations in the U.S. and Australia, while the remaining are employed at our global headquarters in St. Louis or other business offices.

We strive to create a strong, united workforce with a commitment to safety as a way of life. In 2020, we achieved a global safety incidence rate of 1.67 incidents per 200,000 hours worked, which was 43% better than the 2019 U.S. industry average incidence rate of 2.93 incidents per 200,000 hours worked per the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

We offer an inclusive work environment and engage, recognize and develop employees. We seek a workforce that is comprised of diverse backgrounds, thoughts and experiences. Our company strives to attract and retain the best people, develop their potential and align their skills to important initiatives and activities. We believe in fostering an inclusive work environment built on mutual trust, respect and engagement. We invest in our employees through health and wellness programs, competitive total rewards and development opportunities.

The typical Peabody employee has approximately nine years of experience with the company, and more than 60% of all Peabody employees remain employed with the company for more than five years. We offer a variety of learning events, including mentoring and development programs to aid our employees in their career growth. During the past five years, approximately 36% of open positions and 70% of director and above positions have been filled by internal candidates through promotions and lateral career development opportunities.

Regulatory Matters — U.S.

Federal, state and local authorities regulate the U.S. coal mining industry with respect to matters such as employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air quality standards, water pollution, plant and wildlife protection, the reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining has been completed, the discharge of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining and the effects of mining on groundwater quality and availability. In addition, the industry is affected by significant requirements mandating certain benefits for current and retired coal miners. Numerous federal, state and local governmental permits and approvals are required for mining operations. We believe that we have obtained all permits currently required to conduct our present mining operations.

We endeavor to conduct our mining operations in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. However, because of extensive and comprehensive regulatory requirements, violations during mining operations occur from time to time in the industry.

We are subject to health and safety standards both at the federal and state level. The regulations are comprehensive and affect numerous aspects of mining operations, including training of mine personnel, mining procedures, blasting, the equipment used in mining operations and other matters.

The MSHA is the entity responsible for monitoring compliance with the federal mine health and safety standards. MSHA employs various enforcement measures for noncompliance, including the issuance of monetary penalties and orders of withdrawal from a mine or part of a mine.

In Part I, Item 4. “Mine Safety Disclosures” and in Exhibit 95 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we provide additional details on MSHA compliance.

Under the U.S. Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 and the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, as amended in 1981, each U.S. coal mine operator who was the last to employ a claimant for a cumulative year of employment, with the last day worked for the operator after July 1, 1973, must pay federal black lung benefits and medical expenses to claimants whose claims for benefits are allowed. Coal mine operators must also make payments to a trust fund for the payment of benefits and medical expenses to claimants who last worked in the coal industry prior to July 1, 1973. Historically, very few of the miners who sought federal black lung benefits were awarded these benefits; however, the approval rate has increased following implementation of black lung provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act. The trust fund has been funded by an excise tax on U.S. production. In 2008, the excise tax rates were set through December 31, 2018 at $1.10 per ton for deep-mined coal and up to $0.55 per ton for surface-mined coal, neither amount to exceed 4.4% of the gross sales price. On January 1, 2019 the rate reverted back to $0.50 per ton of underground coal and $0.25 per ton of surface coal, not to exceed 2% of the gross sales price. In December of 2019, legislation was passed that increased the rate for the year ending December 31, 2020. The enacted legislation mandates the previous rates of $1.10 per ton for deep-mined coal and up to $0.55 per ton for surface-mined coal, neither amount to exceed 4.4% of the gross sales price.

We recognized expense related to the tax of $53.3 million, $31.4 million and $78.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The Affordable Care Act includes significant changes to the federal black lung program including an automatic survivor benefit paid upon the death of a miner with an awarded black lung claim and establishes a rebuttable presumption with regard to pneumoconiosis among miners with 15 or more years of coal mine employment that are totally disabled by a respiratory condition. These changes could have a material impact on our costs expended in association with the federal black lung program.

We are subject to various federal, state, local and tribal environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations place substantial requirements on our coal mining operations, and require regular inspection and monitoring of our mines and other facilities to ensure compliance. We are also affected by various other federal, state, local and tribal environmental laws and regulations that impact our customers.

SMCRA provides for three categories of bonds: surety bonds, collateral bonds and self-bonds. A surety bond is an indemnity agreement in a sum certain payable to the regulatory authority, executed by the permittee as principal and which is supported by the performance guarantee of a surety corporation. A collateral bond can take several forms, including cash, letters of credit, first lien security interest in property or other qualifying investment securities. A self-bond is an indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed by the permittee or by the permittee and any corporate guarantor made payable to the regulatory authority.

Our total reclamation bonding requirements in the U.S. were $1,139.3 million as of December 31, 2020. The bond requirements for a mine represent the calculated cost to reclaim the current operations of a mine if it ceased to operate in the current period. The cost calculation for each bond must be completed according to the regulatory authority of each state or OSMRE. Our asset retirement obligations calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for our U.S. operations were $502.8 million as of December 31, 2020. The bond requirement amount for our U.S. operations significantly exceeds the financial liability for final mine reclamation because the asset retirement obligation liability is discounted from the end of the mine’s economic life to the balance sheet date in recognition that the final reclamation cash outlay is projected to be a number of years away. The bond amount, in contrast with the asset retirement obligation, presumes reclamation begins immediately, as well as different assumptions related to the cost of equipment and services utilized in the reclamation process.

After a permit application is prepared and submitted to the regulatory agency, it goes through a completeness and technical review. Public notice of the proposed permit is given for a comment period before a permit can be issued. Regulatory authorities have considerable discretion in the timing of the permit issuance and the public has the right to comment on and otherwise engage in the permitting process, including public hearings and through intervention in the courts. Before a SMCRA permit is issued, a mine operator must submit a bond or other form of financial security to guarantee the performance of reclamation bonding requirements.

In situations where our coal resources are federally owned, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management oversees a substantive exploration and leasing process. If surface land is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, that agency serves as the cooperating agency during the federal coal leasing process. Federal coal leases also require an approved federal mining permit under the signature of the Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

The SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Fund requires a fee on all coal produced in the U.S. The proceeds are used to rehabilitate lands mined and left unreclaimed prior to August 3, 1977 and to pay health care benefit costs of orphan beneficiaries of the Combined Fund created by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992. The fee amount can change periodically based on changes in federal legislation. Pursuant to the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2021, the fee is $0.28 and $0.12 per ton of surface-mined and underground-mined coal, respectively. We recognized expense related to the fees of $28.4 million, $36.5 million and $40.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review NAAQS every five years to determine whether revision to current standards are appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §7409(d). As part of this recurring review process, the EPA proposed to retain the ozone standards promulgated in 2015, including current secondary standards. 85 Fed. Reg. 49,830 (Aug. 14, 2020).

In addition, since 2011, the EPA has required underground coal mines to report on their greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations regarding reporting requirements for underground coal mines were updated in 2016 and now include the ability to cease reporting if mines are abandoned and sealed. At present, however, the EPA does not directly regulate such emissions.

Numerous legal challenges to the final rule were filed in the D.C. Circuit. Sixteen separate petitions for review were filed, and the challengers include 25 states, utilities, mining companies (including Peabody), labor unions, trade organizations and other groups. The cases were consolidated under the case filed by North Dakota (D.C. Cir. No. 15-1381). Four additional cases were filed seeking review of the EPA’s denial of reconsideration petitions in a final action published in the May 6, 2016 Federal Register entitled “Reconsideration of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units; Notice of final action denying petitions for reconsideration.” Pursuant to an order of the court, these cases remain in abeyance, subject to requirements for the EPA to file 90-day status reports.

Following Federal Register publication, 39 separate petitions for review of the CPP by approximately 157 entities were filed in the D.C. Circuit. The petitions reflected challenges by 27 states and governmental entities, as well as by utilities, industry groups, trade associations, coal companies and other entities. The lawsuits were consolidated with the case filed by West Virginia and Texas (in which other states also joined) (D.C. Cir. No. 15-1363). On October 29, 2015, we filed a motion to intervene in the case filed by West Virginia and Texas, in support of the petitioning states. The motion was granted on January 11, 2016. Numerous states and other entities also intervened in support of the EPA.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a motion to stay implementation of the CPP until the legal challenges were resolved. Thereafter, oral arguments in the case were heard in the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. On April 28, 2017, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s motion to hold the case in abeyance while the agency reconsidered the rule.

In October 2017, the EPA proposed to repeal the CPP. (82 Fed. Reg. 48,035 (Oct. 16, 2017)). In August 2018, the EPA issued a proposed rule to replace the CPP, with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. (83 Fed. Reg. 44,746 (August 31, 2018)). On June 19, 2019, the EPA issued a combined package that finalized the CPP repeal rule as well as the replacement rule, ACE. (Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations, 84 Fed. Reg. 32,520 (July 8, 2019)). The ACE rule sets emissions guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from existing EGUs based on a determination that efficiency heat rate improvements constitute the BSER. The EPA’s final rule also revises the CAA Section 111(d) regulations to give the states greater flexibility on the content and timing of their state plans.

Based on the EPA’s final rules repealing and replacing the CPP, petitioners in the D.C. Circuit matter seeking review of CPP, including Peabody, filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in September 2019.

Following issuance of the final rule, numerous petitions for review were filed. The D.C. Circuit upheld the NSPS portion of the rulemaking in a unanimous decision on March 11, 2014, and upheld the limits on HAPs against all challenges on April 15, 2014, in a two-to-one decision. Industry groups and a number of states filed and were granted review of the D.C. Circuit decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA interpreted the CAA unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate HAPs from power plants. The court reversed the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. On December 1, 2015, in response to the court’s decision the EPA published a proposed supplemental finding in the Federal Register that consideration of costs does not alter the EPA’s previous determination regarding the control of HAPs in the MATS rule. On December 15, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an order providing that the rule will remain in effect while the EPA responds to the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

On April 14, 2016, the EPA issued a final supplemental finding that largely tracked its proposed finding. Several states, companies and industry groups challenged that supplemental finding in the D.C. Circuit in separate petitions for review, which were subsequently consolidated (D.C. Cir. No. 116-1127). Several states and environmental groups also filed as intervenors for the respondent EPA. Although briefing in this litigation has concluded, the case remains in abeyance.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates certain activities affecting navigable waters and waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA requires mining companies to obtain permits from the Corps to place material in or mine through jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

States are empowered to develop and apply water quality standards. These standards are subject to change and must be approved by the EPA. Discharges must either meet state water quality standards or be authorized through available regulatory processes such as alternate standards or variances. Standards vary from state to state. Additionally, through the CWA Section 401 certification program, state and tribal regulators have approval authority over federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to their waters. State and tribal regulators consider whether the activity will comply with their water quality standards and other applicable requirements in deciding whether or not to certify the activity. On June 1, 2020, the EPA issued a final rule intended to clarify the scope of the state or tribal regulators’ authority that could in effect limit state and tribal regulators’ authority by allowing the EPA to certify projects over state or tribal regulator objections in some circumstances.

The EPA has also taken action on a number of different rules and guidance affecting the interpretation and application of NSR. In a final rule (83 Fed. Reg. 57,324 (Nov. 15, 2018)), the EPA completed reconsideration of a 2009 petition to clarify when certain actions must be “aggregated” for purposes of determining whether these actions are part of a single project to which NSR applies. The EPA has additionally published guidance on the definition of “ambient air” (Revised Policy on Exclusions from “Ambient Air,” Dec. 2, 2019) and guidance concerning when multiple air pollution-emitting activities may be considered to be “adjacent” so that they should be considered to be a single source (Interpreting “Adjacent” for New Source Review and Title V Source Determinations in All Industries Other Than Oil and Gas, Nov. 26, 2019). Additional memorandum and applicability determinations have also been made that address other NSR issues. These rules, guidance and memorandum may therefore affect the construction, reconstruction and modification of sources and the level of pollution control requirements that will be necessary on a case-by-case basis.

Subtitle C of RCRA exempted fossil fuel combustion wastes from hazardous waste regulation until the EPA completed a report to Congress and made a determination on whether the wastes should be regulated as hazardous. On December 19, 2014, the EPA announced the final rule on coal combustion residuals (CCR or coal ash). As finalized, the rule continues the exemption of CCR from regulation as a hazardous waste, but does impose new requirements at existing CCR surface impoundments and landfills that will need to be implemented over a number of different time-frames in the coming months and years, as well as at new surface impoundments and landfills. Generally, EPA-imposed requirements will increase the cost of CCR management, but not as much as if the rule had regulated CCR as hazardous.

Regulatory Matters — Australia

The Australian mining industry is regulated by Australian federal, state and local governments with respect to environmental issues such as land reclamation, water quality, air quality, dust control, noise, planning issues (such as approvals to expand existing mines or to develop new mines) and health and safety issues. The Australian federal government retains control over the level of foreign investment and export approvals. Industrial relations are regulated under both federal and state laws. Australian state governments also require coal companies to post deposits or give other security against land which is being used for mining, with those deposits being returned or security released after satisfactory reclamation is completed.

Following the May 2020 destruction of caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia by an iron ore mining operation, the Federal Government established a Senate Inquiry. The Inquiry’s terms of reference include reviewing the effectiveness and adequacy of state and federal laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in each of the Australian jurisdictions; and how these cultural heritage laws might be improved to guarantee the protection of culturally and historically significant sites. The Inquiry was due to finalize its report by December 9, 2020. The reporting deadline for the final report has been extended to October 2021 and instead the Joint Standing Committee released its interim report in December 2020. The interim report focused specifically on Western Australia but the next phase of the Inquiry will be expanded to encompass other Australian states and territories, both with a view to address particular issues and to develop a nationally consistent response to heritage protection. The Inquiry’s findings and resultant legislation, if any, could potentially impact the Company’s mining permits or existing mine plans in an effort to mitigate against adverse impacts to such sites.

In Queensland, laws and regulations related to mining include, but are not limited to, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act), Environmental Protection Regulation 2008, Planning Act 2016, Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, Minerals and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014, Explosives Act 1999, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, Water Act 2000, State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, Queensland Heritage Act 1992, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Nature Conservation Act 1992, Vegetation Management Act 1999, Biosecurity Act 2014, Land Act 1994, Regional Planning Interests Act 2014, Fisheries Act 1994 and Forestry Act 1959. Under the EP Act, policies have been developed to achieve the objectives of the law and provide guidance on specific areas of the environment, including air, noise, water and waste management. State planning policies address matters of Queensland state interest, and must be adhered to during mining project approvals. The Mineral Resources Act 1989 was amended effective September 27, 2016 to include significant changes to the management of overlapping coal and coal seam gas tenements, and the coordination of activities and access to private and public land. In November 2016, amendments to the EP Act and the Water Act 2000 became effective that facilitate regulatory scrutiny of the environmental impacts of underground water extraction during the operational phase of resource projects for all tenements yet to commence mineral extraction. The ‘chain of responsibility’ provisions of the EP Act, which became effective in April 2016, allow the regulator to issue an environmental protection order (EPO) to a related person of a company in two circumstances: (a) if an EPO has been issued to the company, an EPO can also be issued to a related person of the company (at the same time or later); or (b) if the company is a high risk company (as defined in the EP Act), an EPO can be issued to a related person of the company (whether or not an EPO has also been issued to the company). A guideline has been issued that provides more certainty to the industry on the circumstances in which an EPO may be issued.

In New South Wales, laws and regulations related to mining include, but are not limited to, the Mining Act 1992, Work Health and Safety (Mines) Act 2013, Coal Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 2017, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000, Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, Explosives Act 2003, Water Management Act 2000, Water Act 1912, Radiation Control Act 1990, Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), Heritage Act 1977, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, Crown Land Management Act 2016, Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2008, Fisheries Management Act 1994, Forestry Act 2012, Native Title (New South Wales) Act 1994, Biosecurity Act 2015, Roads Act 1993 and National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974.

Under the EPA Act, environmental planning instruments must be considered when approving a mining project development application. Decision makers review the significance of a resource and the state and regional economic benefits of a proposed coal mine when considering a development application on the basis that it is an element of the “public interest” consideration contained in the relevant legislation. Effective from March 1, 2018, the EPA Act was amended to introduce a number of changes to planning laws in New South Wales. The EPA Act was further amended in June 2018 to revoke a process for modifying development approvals under the former Section 75W of the EPA Act. As a result, new development approvals will need to be obtained unless the proposed project will be substantially the same development as it was when the development approval was last modified under Section 75W, in which case the existing development approval can be modified. If a new development approval is required then this could take additional time to achieve.

On August 25, 2017, the BC Act commenced in New South Wales and imposes a revised framework for the assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity that may be caused by a development, such as a proposed mining project. The BC Act requires these potential impacts on biodiversity to be offset in perpetuity, by one or more of the following means: securing land based offsets and retiring biodiversity credits, making a payment into a biodiversity conservation fund or in some cases through mine site ecological rehabilitation. The data collected from the biodiversity impact assessment process is inputted into a new offsets payment calculator in order to determine the amount payable by the proponent to offset the impacts. The proposed development can only proceed once the biodiversity offset obligations have been satisfied.

Our reclamation bonding requirements in Australia were $312.6 million as of December 31, 2020. The bond requirements represent the calculated cost to reclaim the current operations of a mine if it ceases to operate in the current period less any discounts agreed with the state. The cost calculation for each bond must be completed according to the regulatory authority of each state. The costs associated with our Australian asset retirement obligations are calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and were $225.4 million as of December 31, 2020. The total bonding requirements for our Australian operations differ from the calculated costs associated with the asset retirement obligations because the costs associated with asset retirement obligations are discounted from the end of the mine’s economic life to the balance sheet date in recognition of the economic reality that reclamation is conducted progressively and final reclamation is projected to be a number of years away, whereas the bonding amount represents the cost of reclamation if a mine ceases to operate immediately as well as different costs assumptions.

Through the Mining Act, environmental protection and reclamation are regulated by conditions in all mining leases including requirements for the submission of a mining operations plan (MOP) prior to the commencement of operations. All mining operations must be carried out in accordance with the MOP which describes site activities and the progress toward environmental and reclamation outcomes and are updated on a regular basis or if mine plans change. The mines publicly report their reclamation performance on an annual basis.

In support of the MOP process, a reclamation cost estimate is calculated periodically to determine the amount of bond support required to cover the cost of reclamation based on the extent of disturbance during the MOP period.

Under significant reforms proposed by the NSW Resources Regulator in October 2020, all new and existing mines in NSW will be regulated by new standard rehabilitation conditions. The conditions will apply to all new and existing mining leases and focus on transparently requiring progressive mine site rehabilitation throughout the life of the mine. The draft Mining Amendment (Standard Conditions of Mining Leases - Rehabilitation) Regulation 2020 has been released for consultation. The new conditions would apply to all new mining leases and would be introduced into existing mining leases over a 12 to 24 month transition period. The conditions require (amongst other things) that the leaseholder must rehabilitate land and water in the mining area that is disturbed by activities under the mining lease as soon as reasonably practicable after the disturbance occurs. The proposed rehabilitation management plan for the mining area which must be prepared for large mines is intended to replace the current approach of preparing a mining operation plan.

In November 2018, the Queensland government passed the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018 providing for a new financial assurance (FA) framework and new progressive rehabilitation requirements. The new FA framework creates a pooled fund covering most mines and most of the total industry liability, plus other options for providing FA if not part of the pooled fund (for example, allowing insurance bonds or cash). The percentage rate of the total rehabilitation cost payable into the pooled fund will take into account the financial strength of the holder of the EA for the mine and the project strength of the mine. The total rehabilitation cost is determined using an updated rehabilitation cost calculator, which no longer provides for discounting. The commencement date for the new FA framework was April 1, 2019 and there is a transitional period during which we will move each of our mines in Queensland into the new FA framework.

The new progressive rehabilitation requirements commenced on November 1, 2019 and require each mine, within a three-year transitional period, to establish a schedule of rehabilitation milestones covering the life of the mine, and any significant changes to the timing of rehabilitation will require regulatory approval. If there is to remain an area within the mine that does not have a post-mining land use (referred to as a non-use management area or NUMA) then each such NUMA will need to pass a public interest evaluation test as part of the approval process. An example of a NUMA is the void that remains after open-cut mining activities have been completed. Under the legislation, each current mine is exempt from the requirement to justify its NUMAs to the extent that its current approvals provide for such areas. We are of the view that there will not be a need to seek any further regulatory approvals for any of the NUMAs at any of our Queensland mines.

On May 20, 2020, the Queensland Parliament passed a bill into law that introduces the criminal offense of ‘industrial manslaughter’ for executive officers, individuals who are “senior officers” and companies in the mining industry. Individuals now face a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and companies could be fined up to approximately $13 million Australian dollars. This new law became effective July 1, 2020. The bill also introduced the requirement for statutory role holders to be employees of the coal mine operator entity with an 18-month transition period ending November 25, 2021.

On July 1, 2016, amendments to the NGER Act implemented the Emissions Reduction Fund Safeguard Mechanism. From that date, large designated facilities such as coal mines were issued with a baseline for their covered emissions and must take steps to keep their emissions at or below the baseline or face penalties.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Rule 2015 outlines key elements of a responsible emitter’s duty to avoid an excess emissions situation and provides detail on how it can meet that requirement. The rule was amended in March 2019 with the effect that all current reported covered emissions baselines will expire on June 30, 2020, and there will be alternatives for setting new baselines, including by reference to default emissions intensity values.

The DPIE considered the recommendations in the Panel’s final report and in April 2020 announced that it had accepted all 50 recommendations in the Panel’s report, and that it has established an interagency taskforce to implement a detailed action plan during 2020. The action plan includes: ensuring there is a net gain for the metropolitan water supply by requiring more offsetting from mining companies; establishing a new independent expert panel to advise on future mining applications in the catchment; strengthening surface and groundwater monitoring; improving access to and transparency of environmental data; adopting a more stringent approach to the assessment and conditioning of future mining proposals to minimize subsidence impacts; reviewing and updating current and potential future water losses from mining in line with the best available science; introducing a licensing regime to properly account for any water losses; and undertaking further research into mine closure planning to reduce potential long-term impacts.

Global Climate

At the same time, a number of states in the U.S. have adopted programs to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. For example, 10 northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) entered into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in 2005, which is a mandatory cap-and-trade program to cap regional carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In 2011, New Jersey announced its withdrawal from RGGI effective January 1, 2012. Six mid-western states (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin) and one Canadian province have entered into the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA) to establish voluntary regional greenhouse gas reduction targets and develop a voluntary multi-sector cap-and-trade system to help meet the targets. It has been reported that, while the MGGRA has not been formally suspended, the participating states are no longer pursuing it. Seven western states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington) and four Canadian provinces entered into the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) in 2008 to establish a voluntary regional greenhouse gas reduction goal and develop market-based strategies to achieve emissions reductions. However, in November 2011, the WCI announced that six states had withdrawn from the WCI, leaving California and four Canadian provinces as the remaining members. Of those five jurisdictions, only California and Quebec have adopted greenhouse gas cap-and-trade regulations to date and both programs have begun operating. Many of the states and provinces that left WCI, RGGI and MGGRA, along with many that continue to participate, have joined the new North America 2050 initiative, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create economic opportunities in ways not limited to cap-and-trade programs.

Several other U.S. states have enacted legislation establishing greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals or requirements. In addition, several states have enacted legislation or have in effect regulations requiring electricity suppliers to use renewable energy sources to generate a certain percentage of power or that provide financial incentives to electricity suppliers for using renewable energy sources. Some states have initiated public utility proceedings that may establish values for carbon emissions.

Increasingly, both foreign and domestic banks, insurance companies and large investors are curtailing or ending their financial relationships with fossil fuel-related companies. This has had adverse impacts on the liquidity and operations of coal producers.

We participated in the Department of Energy’s Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program until its suspension in May 2011, and we regularly disclose in our annual Environmental, Social and Governance Report the quantity of emissions per ton of coal produced by us in the U.S. The vast majority of our emissions are generated by the operation of heavy machinery to extract and transport material at our mines and fugitive emissions from the extraction of coal.

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997 by the signatories to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established a binding set of greenhouse gas emission targets for developed nations. The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol but it has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate. Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007 and became a full member in March 2008. There were discussions to develop a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol after the expiration of its commitment period in 2012, including at the UNFCCC conferences in Cancun (2010), Durban (2011), Doha (2012) and Paris (2015). At the Durban conference, an ad hoc working group was established to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC, applicable to all parties. At the Doha meeting, an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, which included new commitments for certain parties in a second commitment period, from 2013 to 2020. In December 2012, Australia signed on to the second commitment period. During the UNFCCC conference in Paris, France in late 2015, an agreement was adopted calling for voluntary emissions reductions contributions after the second commitment period ends in 2020 (the Paris Agreement). The agreement was entered into force on November 4, 2016 after ratification and execution by more than 55 countries, including Australia, that account for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. On January 20, 2021, the U.S. reentered the Paris Agreement by accepting the agreement and all of its articles and clauses, after having announced its withdrawal from the agreement in November 2019.

In October 2017, the Australian Federal Government released a plan aimed at delivering an affordable and reliable energy system that meets Australia’s international commitments to emissions reduction. The plan was referred to as the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) and was aimed at changing the National Electricity Market and associated legislative framework. The NEG was abandoned by the Australian government in September 2018. Following the outcome of the federal election in May 2019, the federal government confirmed it will not revive the former NEG policy. Instead, the government will pursue a new energy and climate change policy, which includes a $2 billion Australian dollars investment in projects to bring down Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Solutions Fund is an extension of the former Emissions Reduction Fund. The government has confirmed that it remains committed to meeting Australia’s Paris Agreement targets but that the focus of energy policy will be on driving down electricity prices.

The enactment of future laws or the passage of regulations regarding emissions from the use of coal by the U.S., some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources. Further, policies limiting available financing for the development of new coal-fueled power stations could adversely impact the global demand for coal in the future. The potential financial impact on us of such future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws or regulations force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the specific requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of development and deployment of CCUS technologies as well as acceptance of CCUS technologies to meet regulations and the alternative uses for coal. Higher-efficiency coal-fired power plants may also be an option for meeting laws or regulations related to emissions from coal use. Several countries, including major coal users such as China, India and Japan, included using higher-efficiency coal-fueled power plants in their plans under the Paris Agreement. From time to time, we attempt to analyze the potential impact on the Company of as-yet-unadopted, potential laws, regulations and policies. Such analyses require that we make significant assumptions as to the specific provisions of such potential laws, regulations and policies which sometimes show that if implemented in the manner assumed by the analyses, the potential laws, regulations and policies could result in material adverse impacts on our operations, financial condition or cash flow. We do not believe that such analyses reasonably predict the quantitative impact that future laws, regulations or other policies may have on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Available Information

We file or furnish annual, quarterly and current reports (including any exhibits or amendments to those reports), proxy statements and other information with the SEC. These materials are available free of charge through our website (www.peabodyenergy.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Information included on our website does not constitute part of this document. These materials may also be accessed through the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).

In addition, copies of our filings will be made available, free of charge, upon request by telephone at (314) 342-7900 or by mail at: Peabody Energy Corporation, Peabody Plaza, 701 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826, attention: Investor Relations.

We operate in a rapidly changing environment that involves a number of risks. The following discussion highlights some of these risks and others are discussed elsewhere in this report. These and other risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, prospects, operating results or cash flows. The following risk factors are not an exhaustive list of the risks associated with our business. New factors may emerge or changes to these risks could occur that could materially affect our business.

Risks Associated with Our Operations

We operate in a competitive and highly regulated industry that has experienced strong headwinds. Depressed coal prices have reduced our revenues, and sustained prices at current levels or further declines in coal prices will adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. Further declines in coal prices will adversely affect the value of our coal reserves.

Thermal coal accounted for the majority of our coal sales by volume during 2020 and 2019. The vast majority of our sales of thermal coal were to electric power generators. The demand for coal consumed for electric power generation is affected by many of the factors described above, but primarily by (i) the overall demand for electricity; (ii) the availability, quality and price of competing fuels, such as natural gas, nuclear fuel, oil and alternative energy sources; (iii) utilization of all electricity generating units (whether using coal or not), including the relative cost of producing electricity from multiple fuels, including coal; (iv) stringent environmental and other governmental regulations; and (v) the coal inventories of utilities. Gas-fueled generation has displaced and is expected to continue to displace coal-fueled generation (particularly from older, less efficient coal-fueled generation units) as current and potentially increasing regulatory costs and other factors impact the operating decisions of electric power generators. In addition, some electric power generators have made decisions to close coal-fueled generation units given ongoing pressure to shift away from coal generation. Many of the new power plants in the U.S. may be fueled by natural gas because gas-fired plants have been less expensive to construct, permits to construct these plants are easier to obtain based on emissions profiles, and electric power generators may face public and governmental pressure to generate a larger portion of their electricity from natural gas-fueled units and alternative energy sources. Increasingly stringent regulations along with stagnant electricity demand have also reduced the number of new power plants being built. These trends have reduced demand for our coal and the related prices. Any further reduction in the amount of coal consumed by electric power generators could reduce the volume and price of coal that we mine and sell.

We produce metallurgical coal that is used in the global steel industry. Metallurgical coal accounted for approximately 17% and 22% of our revenues in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Changes in governmental policies and regulations and changes in the steel industry, including the demand for steel, could reduce the demand for our metallurgical coal. Lower demand for metallurgical coal in international markets could reduce the amount of metallurgical coal that we sell and the prices that we receive for it, thereby reducing our revenues and adversely impacting our earnings and the value of our coal reserves.

The balance between coal demand and supply, factoring in demand and supply of closely related and competing segments such as natural gas, both domestically and internationally, could materially reduce coal prices and therefore materially reduce our revenues and profitability. We compete with other fuel sources used for electricity generation, such as natural gas and renewables. Our seaborne products compete with other producers as well as other fuel sources. Declines in the price of natural gas could cause demand for coal to decrease and adversely affect the price of coal. Sustained periods of low natural gas prices or low prices for other fuels may also cause utilities to phase out or close existing coal-fueled power plants or reduce construction of new coal-fueled power plants. In the U.S., no new coal-fueled power plants are being constructed or reopened after closure. These closures could have a material adverse effect on demand and prices for our coal, thereby reducing our revenues and materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations.

Most of our sales are made under coal supply agreements, which are important to the stability and profitability of our operations. The execution of a satisfactory coal supply agreement is frequently the basis on which we undertake the development of coal reserves required to be supplied under the contract, particularly in the U.S. For the year ended December 31, 2020, we derived 32% of our revenues from coal supply agreements from our five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 28 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 2021 to 2026.

Many of our coal supply agreements contain provisions that permit the parties to adjust the contract price upward or downward at specified times. We may adjust these contract prices based on inflation or deflation, price indices and/or changes in the factors affecting the cost of producing coal, such as taxes, fees, royalties and changes in the laws regulating the mining, production, sale or use of coal. In a limited number of contracts, failure of the parties to agree on a price under those provisions may allow either party to terminate the contract. We may experience reductions in coal prices in new long-term coal supply agreements replacing some of our expiring contracts. Coal supply agreements also typically contain force majeure provisions allowing temporary suspension of performance by us or the customer during the duration of specified events beyond the control of the affected party. Some coal supply agreements allow customers to vary the volumes of coal that they are required to purchase during a particular period, and where coal supply agreements do not explicitly allow such variation, customers sometimes request that we amend the agreements to allow for such variation. Most of our coal supply agreements contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal meeting quality thresholds for certain characteristics such as Btu, sulfur content, ash content, volatile matter, coking properties, grindability and ash fusion temperature. Failure to meet these specifications could result in economic penalties, including price adjustments, the rejection of deliveries or termination of the contracts. Moreover, some of these agreements allow our customers to terminate their contracts in the event of changes in regulations affecting our industry that restrict the use or type of coal permissible at the customer’s plant or increase the price of coal beyond specified limits.

On an ongoing basis, we discuss the extension of existing agreements or entering into new long-term agreements with various customers, but these negotiations may not be successful and these customers may not continue to purchase coal from us under long-term supply agreements.

The operating profits we realize from coal sold under supply agreements depend on a variety of factors. In addition, price adjustment and other contract provisions may increase our exposure to short-term coal price volatility. If a substantial portion of our coal supply agreements were modified or terminated, we could be materially adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to find alternate buyers for our coal at the same level of profitability. Prices for coal vary by mining region and country. As a result, we cannot predict the future strength of the coal industry overall or by mining region and cannot provide assurance that we will be able to replace existing long-term coal supply agreements at the same prices or with similar profit margins when they expire. In addition, our revenue could be adversely affected by a decline in customer purchases (including contractually obligated purchases) due to lack of demand and oversupply, cost of competing fuels and environmental and other governmental regulations.

We maintain insurance policies that provide limited coverage for some of the risks referenced above, which may lessen the impact associated with these risks. However, there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing of recovery under our insurance policies in connection with losses associated with these risks.

We have substantial take-or-pay arrangements, predominately in Australia, totaling $1.2 billion, with terms ranging up to 22 years, that commit us to pay a minimum amount for rail and port commitments for the delivery of coal even if those commitments go unused. The take-or-pay provisions in these contracts sometimes allow us to apply amounts paid for subsequent deliveries, but these provisions have limitations and we may not be able to apply all such amounts so paid in all cases. Also, we may not be able to utilize the amount of capacity for which we have previously paid. Additionally, we may continue to deliver coal during times when it might otherwise be optimal to suspend operations because these take-or-pay provisions effectively convert a variable cost of selling coal to a fixed operating cost.

The value of our assets have from time to time been adversely affected by numerous uncertain factors, some of which are beyond our control, including unfavorable changes in the economic environments in which we operate; declining coal-fired electricity generation; lower-than-expected coal pricing; technical and geological operating difficulties; an inability to economically extract our coal reserves; and unanticipated increases in operating costs. During the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company recorded $1,487.4 million and $270.2 million of impairment charges related to such factors, as further described in Note 3. “Asset Impairment” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. These factors may trigger the recognition of additional impairment charges in the future, which could have a substantial impact on our results of operations.

Because of the volatile and cyclical nature of coal markets, it is reasonably possible that our current estimates of projected future cash flows from our mining assets may change in the near term, which may result in the need for adjustments to the carrying value of our assets.

As of December 31, 2020, we had approximately 4,600 employees (excluding employees that were employed at operations classified as discontinued), which included approximately 3,500 hourly employees. We are party to labor agreements with various labor unions that represent certain of our employees. Such labor agreements are negotiated periodically, and, therefore, we are subject to the risk that these agreements may not be able to be renewed on reasonably satisfactory terms. Approximately 29% of our hourly employees were represented by organized labor unions and generated approximately 18% of our coal production for the year ended December 31, 2020. Relations with our employees and, where applicable, organized labor are important to our success. If some or all of our current non-union operations were to become unionized, we could incur an increased risk of work stoppages, reduced productivity and higher labor costs. Also, if we fail to maintain good relations or successfully negotiate contracts with our employees who are represented by unions, we could potentially experience labor disputes, strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns or other disruptions in production that could negatively impact our profitability.

U.S. federal and state laws and Australian laws require us to provide financial assurances related to requirements to reclaim lands used for mining, to pay federal and state workers’ compensation, to provide financial assurances for coal lease obligations and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. The primary methods we use to meet those obligations are to provide a third-party surety bond or provide a letter of credit. As of December 31, 2020, we had $1,633.6 million of outstanding surety bonds and $437.6 million of letters of credit with third parties in order to provide required financial assurances for post-mining reclamation, workers’ compensation and other insurance obligations, coal lease-related and other obligations and performance guarantees.

As further described in “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the Company reached a surety transaction support agreement with the providers of 99% of its surety bond portfolio to resolve approximately $800 million in additional collateral demands made by the sureties. The sureties have agreed to a standstill through December 31, 2024, during which time, the sureties will not demand any additional collateral, draw on letters of credit posted for the benefit of themselves, or cancel any existing surety bond. Our failure to provide adequate collateral, or abide by other terms in the agreement, could invalidate the agreement and materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our failure to maintain adequate bonding would invalidate our mining permits and prevent mining operations from continuing, which could result in our inability to continue as a going concern.

Regulatory agencies have the authority under certain circumstances following significant health and safety incidents to order a mine to be temporarily or permanently closed. In the event that such agencies ordered the closing of one of our mines, our production and sale of coal would be disrupted and we may be required to incur cash outlays to re-open the mine. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

New legislation, regulations or orders related to the environment or employee health and safety may be adopted and may materially adversely affect our mining operations, our cost structure or our customers’ ability to use coal. New legislation or administrative regulations (or new interpretations by the relevant government of existing laws, regulations and approvals), including proposals related to the protection of the environment or the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that would further regulate and tax the coal industry, may also require us or our customers to change operations significantly or incur increased costs. Some of our coal supply agreements contain provisions that allow a purchaser to terminate its contract if legislation is passed that either restricts the use or type of coal permissible at the purchaser’s plant or results in specified increases in the cost of coal or its use. These factors and legislation, if enacted, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations currently use hazardous materials and generate limited quantities of hazardous wastes from time to time. A number of laws, including in the U.S., CERCLA and RCRA, impose liability relating to contamination by hazardous substances. Such liability may involve the costs of investigating or remediating contamination and damages to natural resources, as well as claims seeking to recover for property damage or personal injury caused by hazardous substances. Such liability may arise from conditions at formerly, as well as currently, owned or operated properties, and at properties to which hazardous substances have been sent for treatment, disposal or other handling. Liability under RCRA, CERCLA and similar state statutes is without regard to fault, and typically is joint and several, meaning that a person may be held responsible for more than its share, or even all, of the liability involved.

Numerous governmental and tribal permits and approvals are required for mining operations. The permitting rules, and the interpretations of these rules, are complex, change frequently and are often subject to discretionary interpretations by regulators, all of which may make compliance more difficult or impractical. As part of this permitting process, when we apply for permits and approvals, we are required to prepare and present to governmental authorities data pertaining to the potential impact or effect that any proposed exploration for or production of coal may have upon the environment. The public, including non-governmental organizations, opposition groups and individuals, have statutory rights to comment upon and submit objections to requested permits and approvals (including modifications and renewals of certain permits and approvals) and otherwise engage in the permitting process, including bringing citizens’ lawsuits to challenge the issuance of permits, the validity of environmental impact statements or the performance of mining activities. In recent years, the permitting required for coal mining has been the subject of increasingly stringent regulatory and administrative requirements and extensive litigation by environmental groups.

Additionally, our operations may be affected by sites within or near mining areas deemed to have cultural heritage significance to indigenous peoples, and our mining permits may be rescinded or modified, or our mining plans may be voluntarily adjusted, to mitigate against adverse impacts to such sites.

The costs, liabilities and requirements associated with these permitting requirements and any related opposition may be extensive and time-consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of exploration or production which would adversely affect our coal production, cash flows and profitability. Further, required permits may not be issued or renewed in a timely fashion or at all, or permits issued or renewed may be conditioned in a manner that may restrict our ability to efficiently and economically conduct our mining activities, any of which would materially reduce our production, cash flows and profitability.

Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Numerous reports, such as the Fourth and the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have also engendered concern about the impacts of human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, on global climate issues. In turn, increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to emissions of greenhouse gases, including emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion by power plants.

The enactment of future laws, the passage of regulations, or other executive orders regarding emissions from the use of coal by the U.S., some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources. Further, policies limiting available financing for the development of new coal mines or coal-fueled power stations could adversely impact the global supply and demand for coal. The potential financial impact on us of such future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws or regulations force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the specific requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of development and deployment of CCUS technologies as well as acceptance of CCUS technologies to meet regulations and the alternative uses for coal. Similarly, higher-efficiency coal-fired power plants may also be an option for meeting laws or regulations related to emissions from coal use. Several countries, including some major coal users such as China, India and Japan, included using higher-efficiency coal-fueled power plants in their plans under the Paris Agreement. From time to time, we attempt to analyze the potential impact on the Company of as-yet-unadopted, potential laws, regulations and policies. Such analyses require that we make significant assumptions as to the specific provisions of such potential laws, regulations and policies, which sometimes show that if implemented in the manner assumed by the analyses, the potential laws, regulations and policies could result in material adverse impacts on our operations, financial condition or cash flows. We do not believe that such analyses reasonably predict the quantitative impact that future laws, regulations or other policies may have on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Several non-governmental organizations have undertaken campaigns to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation in the U.S. and across the globe. In an effort to stop or delay coal mining activities, activist groups have brought lawsuits challenging the issuance of individual coal leases, and challenging the federal coal leasing program more broadly. Other lawsuits challenge historical and pending regulatory approvals, permits and processes that are necessary to conduct coal mining operations or to operate coal-fueled power plants, including so-called “sue and settle” lawsuits where regulatory authorities in the past have reached private agreements with environmental activists that often involve additional regulatory restrictions or processes being implemented without formal rulemaking.

The effect of these and other similar developments has made it more costly and difficult to maintain our business. These cost increases and/or substantial or extended declines in the prices we receive for our coal due to these or other factors could reduce our revenue and profitability, cash flows, liquidity, and value of our coal reserves and could result in material losses.

In addition to coal price volatility, we are currently subject to price volatility on diesel fuel utilized in our mining operations and the Australian dollar. We may in the future enter into hedging arrangements to manage these risks, or other exposures.

Some of these hedging instruments may require us to post margin based on the value of those instruments and other credit factors. If the fair value of our hedge portfolio moves significantly, or if laws or regulations are passed requiring all hedge arrangements to be exchange-traded or exchange-cleared, we could be required to post additional margin, which could negatively impact our liquidity.

As more fully described within “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” during the fourth quarter of 2020, we entered into transaction support agreements with our surety bond providers which prohibit the payment of dividends on our stock or repurchases of our stock through December 31, 2024, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties to the agreements. Restrictive covenants in our credit facility and in the indentures governing our senior secured notes also limit our ability to pay cash dividends and repurchase shares. Such restrictions may negatively impact the trading price of the Common Stock. The payment of future cash dividends and future repurchases will depend upon these restrictions, as well as our earnings, economic conditions, liquidity and capital requirements, and other factors, including our leverage and other financial ratios. Accordingly, we cannot make any assurance that future dividends will be paid or future repurchases will be made.

The Company’s ability to use its NOL carryforwards may be limited if it experiences an “ownership change” as defined in Section 382 (Section 382) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. An ownership change generally occurs if certain stockholders increase their aggregate percentage ownership of a corporation’s stock by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest percentage ownership at any time during the testing period, which is generally the three-year period preceding any potential ownership change.

None.

Coal Reserves

We controlled an estimated 3.0 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves as of December 31, 2020. An estimated 2.6 billion tons of our attributable proven and probable coal reserves are in the U.S., with the remainder in Australia. Approximately 2% of our U.S. proven and probable coal reserves, or 52 million tons, are metallurgical coking coal. The remainder of our U.S. coal reserves consists of thermal coal. Approximately 56% of our Australian proven and probable coal reserves, or 243 million tons, are metallurgical coal, comprised of approximately 121 million and 122 million tons of coking coal and low-volatile pulverized coal injection (LV PCI) coals, respectively. The remainder of our Australian coal reserves consists of thermal coal. We own approximately 6% of these reserves and leased property comprises the remaining 94%. Approximately 88% of our reserves, or 2.7 billion tons, are compliance coal and 12% are non-compliance coal (assuming application of the U.S. industry standard definition of compliance coal to all of our reserves). Compliance coal is defined by Phase II of the CAA as coal having sulfur dioxide content of 1.2 pounds or less per million Btu. Electricity generators are able to use coal that exceeds these specifications by using emissions reduction technology, using emission allowance credits or blending higher sulfur coal with lower sulfur coal.

Our estimates of proven and probable coal reserves are established within these guidelines. Estimates within the proven category have the highest degree of assurance, while estimates within the probable category have only a moderate degree of geologic assurance. Further exploration is necessary to place probable reserves into the proven reserve category. Our active properties generally have a much higher degree of reliability because of increased drilling density.

Our guidelines for geologic assurance surrounding estimated proven and probable U.S. and Australian coal reserves generally follow the respective industry-accepted practices of those countries. In the U.S., our estimated proven coal reserves lie within one-quarter mile of a valid point of measure or point of observation, such as exploratory drill holes or previously mined areas, while our estimated probable coal reserves may lie more than one-quarter mile, but less than three-quarters of a mile, from a point of thickness measurement. In Australia, our estimated proven coal reserves generally lie within 250 meters of a point of observation, while our estimated probable coal reserves may lie more than 250 meters, but less than 500 meters, from a point of observation. For some of our Australian coal reserves, the distance between points of observation is determined by a geostatistical study.

The preparation of our coal reserve estimates is completed in accordance with our prescribed internal control procedures, which include verification of input data into a coal reserve forecasting and economic evaluation software system, as well as multi-functional management review. Our reserve estimates are prepared by our staff of experienced geologists and engineers. Our corporate Technical Services group is responsible for tracking changes in reserve estimates, supervising our other geologists and coordinating periodic third-party reviews of our reserve estimates by qualified mining consultants.

Our coal reserve estimates are predicated on information obtained from an extensive historical database of drill holes and information obtained from our ongoing drilling program. We compile data from individual drill holes in a computerized drill-hole database from which the depth, thickness and, where core drilling is used, the quality of the coal is determined. The density of a drill pattern determines whether the related coal reserves will be classified as proven or probable. Our coal reserve estimates are then input into our computerized land management system, which overlays that geological data with data on ownership or control of the mineral and surface interests to determine the extent of our attributable coal reserves in a given area. Our land management system contains reserve information, including the quantity and quality (where available) of reserves, as well as production data, surface and coal ownership, lease payments and other information relating to our coal reserves and land holdings. We periodically update our coal reserve estimates to reflect production of coal from those reserves and new drilling or other data received. Accordingly, our coal reserve estimates will change from time to time to reflect the effects of our mining activities, analysis of new engineering and geological data, changes in coal reserve holdings, modification of mining methods and other factors.

Our estimate of the economic recoverability of our coal reserves is generally based upon a comparison of unassigned reserves to assigned reserves currently in production in the same geologic setting to determine an estimated mining cost. These estimated mining costs are compared to expected market prices for the quality of coal expected to be mined and take into consideration typical contractual sales agreements for the region and product. Where possible, we also review coal production by competitors in similar mining areas. Only coal reserves expected to be mined economically are included in our reserve estimates. Finally, our coal reserve estimates consider dilutions and losses during mining and processing for recoverability factors to estimate a saleable product. Factors impacting our assessment include geological conditions, production expectations for certain areas, the effects of regulation and taxes by governmental agencies, future price and operating cost assumptions and adverse changes in market conditions and mine closure activities. The estimates are also impacted by decreases resulting from current year production and increases resulting from information obtained from additional drilling. Our estimation as of December 31, 2020 reflected a net reduction compared to the prior year of 1.0 billion tons of coal reserves. The decrease was driven by production, changes to our estimates of economic recoverability to reflect market conditions, mine plan changes and new drilling.

We periodically engage independent mining and geological consultants and consider their input regarding the procedures used by us to prepare our internal estimates of coal reserves, selected property reserve estimates and tabulation of reserve groups according to standard classifications of reliability. Our December 31, 2020 reserve estimates for the Gateway North Mine and El Segundo Mine in the U.S. were audited by Weir International, Inc., independent mining and geological consulting firm, which included a review of the data, procedures and parameters employed by us in developing our reserve estimates. The audits found that the reserve estimates for the areas were (1) well documented, clearly and concisely reported and (2) prepared consistent with standard industry and geological practice, and in accordance with United States Geological Survey Circular 891 requirements and SEC Industry Guide 7 guidelines. We plan to complete additional audits of our reserve estimates on a cyclical basis for each of our major operating regions.

With respect to the accuracy of our coal reserve estimates, our experience is that recovered reserves are within plus or minus 10% of our proven and probable estimates, on average, and our probable estimates are generally within the same statistical degree of accuracy when the necessary drilling is completed to move reserves from the probable to the proven classification.

For each mine or future mine, we employ a market-driven, risk adjusted capital allocation process to guide long-term mine planning of active operations and development projects for economically mineable coal. We refer to this process as Life-of-Mine (LOM) planning. The LOM plan projects, among other things, annual quantities and qualities for each coal product. The saleable product mix for a mine may include multiple thermal and metallurgical products with different targeted qualities. The expected volumes for each mine and product, as well as annual pricing forecasts for each product, developed as described below, and related cost forecasts, developed as described below, are then evaluated to determine the economically recoverable coal in the LOM plan.

The pricing information used to establish our reserves includes internal, proprietary price forecasts and existing contract economics, in each case on a mine-by-mine and product-by-product basis. In general, our price forecasts are based on a thorough analytical process utilizing detailed supply and demand models, global economic indicators, projected foreign exchange rates, analyses of price relationships among various commodities, competing fuels analyses, projected steel demand, analyses of supplier costs and other variables. Price forecasts, supply and demand models and other key assumptions and analyses are stress tested against independent third-party research not commissioned by us to confirm the conclusions reached through our analytical processes, and our price forecasts fall within the ranges of the projections included in this third-party research. The development of the analyses, price forecasts, supply and demand models and related assumptions are subject to multiple levels of management review.

Below is a description of some of the specific factors that we evaluate in developing our price forecasts for thermal and metallurgical coal products on a mine-by-mine and product-by-product basis. Differences between the assumptions and analyses included in our price forecasts and realized factors could cause actual pricing to differ from our forecasts.

In the United States, natural gas is the most significant substitute for thermal coal for electricity generation and can be one of the largest drivers of shifts in supply and demand and pricing. The competitiveness of natural gas as a generation fuel source has been strengthened by accelerated growth in domestic natural gas production, new natural gas combined cycle generation capacity and comparatively low natural gas prices versus historic levels. The build out of renewable generation and subsidized power can also be a key driver of power market pricing and hence coal prices.

Internationally, thermal coal-fueled generation also competes with alternative forms of electricity generation. The competitiveness and availability of generation fueled by natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass vary by country and region and can have a meaningful impact on coal pricing. Policy and regulations, which vary from country to country, can also influence prices. In addition, seaborne thermal coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in the two leading coal import countries, China and India, and the competitiveness of seaborne supply from leading thermal coal exporting countries, including Indonesia, Australia, Russia, Colombia, the U.S. and South Africa, among others.

Seaborne metallurgical coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in leading metallurgical coal import countries such as China, among others, as well as country-specific policies restricting or promoting domestic supply. The competitiveness of seaborne metallurgical coal supply from leading metallurgical coal exporting countries of Australia, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Mongolia and Mozambique, among others, is also an important price consideration.

In addition to the factors noted above, the prices which may be obtained at each individual mine or future mine can be impacted by factors such as (i) the mine’s location, which impacts the total delivered energy costs to its customers, (ii) quality characteristics, particularly if they are unique relative to competing mines, (iii) assumed transportation costs and (iv) other mine costs that are contractually passed on to customers in certain commercial relationships.

Based on our mine-by-mine and product-by-product evaluations of the estimated prices for our coal, and the costs and expenses of mining and selling our coal, we have concluded our reserves were economically recoverable as of December 31, 2020.

On October 31, 2018, the SEC voted to adopt amendments to modernize the property disclosure requirements for mining registrants and related guidance under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The final rules provide a three-year transition period, thus, we will be required to begin to comply with the new rules for the fiscal year beginning on January 1, 2021 (reported in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021). We are in the process of assessing the impact the new rules will have on our disclosures.

We have numerous U.S. federal coal leases that are administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior under the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. These leases cover our principal reserves in the Powder River Basin and other reserves in Alabama, Colorado and New Mexico. Each of these leases continues indefinitely, provided there is diligent development of the property and continued operation of the related mine or mines. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has asserted the right to adjust the terms and conditions of these leases, including rent and royalties, after the first 20 years of their term and at 10-year intervals thereafter. Annual rents on surface land under our federal coal leases are now set at $3.00 per acre. Production royalties on federal leases are set by statute at 12.5% of the gross proceeds of coal mined and sold for surface-mined coal and 8% for underground-mined coal. The U.S. federal government limits by statute the amount of federal land that may be leased by any company and its affiliates at any time to 75,000 acres in any one state and 150,000 acres nationwide. As of December 31, 2020, we leased 1,610 acres of federal land in Alabama, 3,480 acres in Colorado, 640 acres in New Mexico and 38,915 acres in Wyoming, for a total of 44,645 acres nationwide subject to those limitations.

Similar provisions govern three coal leases with the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes. These leases cover coal contained in 64,783 acres of land in northern Arizona lying within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Indian reservations. We also lease coal-mining properties from various state governments in the U.S.

Private U.S. coal leases normally have terms of between 10 and 20 years and usually give us the right to renew the lease for a stated period or to maintain the lease in force until the exhaustion of mineable and merchantable coal contained on the relevant site. These private U.S. leases provide for royalties to be paid to the lessor either as a fixed amount per ton or as a percentage of the sales price. Many U.S. leases also require payment of a lease bonus or minimum royalty, payable either at the time of execution of the lease or in periodic installments. The terms of our private U.S. leases are normally extended by active production at or near the end of the lease term. U.S. leases containing undeveloped reserves may expire or these leases may be renewed periodically.

Mining and exploration in Australia is generally carried out under leases or licenses granted by state governments. Mining leases are typically for an initial term of up to 21 years (but which may be renewed) and contain conditions relating to such matters as minimum annual expenditures, restoration and rehabilitation. Royalties are paid to the state government as a percentage of the sales price. Generally, landowners do not own the mineral rights or have the ability to grant rights to mine those minerals. These rights are retained by state governments. Compensation is payable to landowners for loss of access to the land, and the amount of compensation can be determined by agreement or court process. Surface rights are typically acquired directly from landowners through agreement or court determination, subject to some exceptions.

Consistent with industry practice, we conduct only limited investigation of title to our coal properties prior to leasing. Title to lands and reserves of the lessors or grantors and the boundaries of our leased properties are not completely verified until we prepare to mine those reserves.