CONSOL Energy (CEIX) 10-K2019 FY Annual report

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 __________________________________________________

  __________________________________________________

 __________________________________________________ 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

__________________________________________________

A map showing the location of our significant properties is below:

The following table sets forth additional information regarding the recoverable coal reserves at the Pennsylvania Mining Complex.

The following table sets forth additional information regarding the recoverable coal reserves at the Itmann Mine.

_______________

_______________

Laws and Regulations

Overview

Our coal mining operations are subject to various federal, state and local environmental, health and safety regulations. Regulations relating to our operations require us to obtain permits and other licenses; reclaim and restore our properties after mining operations have been completed; store, transport and dispose of materials used or generated by our operations; manage surface subsidence from underground mining; control water and air emissions; protect wetlands and endangered plant and wildlife; and to ensure employee health and safety. Furthermore, the electric power generation industry and other industrial users of our coal are subject to extensive regulation regarding the environmental impact of its power generation activities, which could affect demand for our coal.

Compliance with these laws has substantially increased the cost of coal mining, and the possibility exists that new legislation or regulations may be adopted which would have a significant impact on our coal mining operations or our customers’ ability to use our coal and may require us or our customers to change their operations significantly or incur substantial costs. Additionally, these laws are subject to revision and may become increasingly stringent. The ultimate effect of implementation may not be predictable, as associated regulations may still be in development or subject to public notice, extensive comment or judicial review.

The following is a summary of the more significant existing environmental and worker health and safety laws and regulations to which we and our customers’ business operations are subject and for which compliance may have a material adverse impact on our capital expenditures, results of operations and financial position.

Coal impurities are released into the air when coal is burned and the CAA regulates specific emissions, such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury and other substances. In addition to those statutes discussed herein, CAA programs such as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) emission limits for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Regional Haze Program, and permitting requirements under New Source Review may directly or indirectly affect our operations. Such regulations restricting emissions from coal-fired electric generating plants or other industrial facilities could increase the costs to operate and affect demand for coal as a fuel source, therefore potentially affecting the volume of our sales. Moreover, additional environmental regulations increase the likelihood that existing coal-fired electric generating plants will be decommissioned or replaced with alternative sources of fuel and reduce the likelihood that new coal-fired plants will be built in the future. In recent years, repeal or revision to multiple regulations under the CAA has been proposed; however, the extent to which these regulations will take effect or survive future Administrations is uncertain.

Since 2011, the EPA has required underground coal mines and certain support facilities exceeding a minimum GHG emission threshold to report emissions annually under the Mandatory Reporting Rule. These emissions are currently classified as fugitive emissions associated with coal extraction and are not currently regulated by the EPA. Previous petitions and judicial challenges seeking to compel the EPA to classify coal mines as stationary sources appropriate for regulation have been unsuccessful to date. If the EPA were to regulate coal mine methane emissions in the future, we would likely be required to install additional pollution control devices, pay fees or taxes for our emissions, or incur expenses associated with the purchase of emissions credits, in order to continue operation. Alternatively, we may need to curtail coal production. The magnitude of impact on our operations, capital expenditures, financial condition or cash flows would be dependent on the structure of any proposed regulation and the degree of emission reduction prescribed.

In order to obtain a permit for certain coal mining activities, including the construction of coal refuse areas and slurry impoundments that may result in impacts to waters of the United States, an operator may need to obtain a permit for the discharge of fill material from the Army Corps of Engineers (“ACOE”) under Section 404, as well as a corresponding permit from the state regulatory authority under Section 401 of the CWA. Alternatively, for specific categories of activities determined to have minimal effects, the Company may be required to obtain Nationwide Permits from the ACOE. All permits associated with the placement of dredge or fill material subject to minimum thresholds require appropriate mitigation. Permit holders must receive explicit authorization from the ACOE before proceeding with mining activities, which could result in time or cost burdens to our operations.

Additionally, the Company must obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits from the appropriate state or federal permitting authority under Section 402 of the CWA. These permits establish effluent limitations for discharges to streams that are protective of water quality standards. For wastewater discharges to receiving waters that are classified as either high-quality or impaired, stringent restrictions are established to ensure anti-degradation and compliance with water quality standards. Permitting such discharges under NPDES could increase the cost, time and difficulty of complying with permit requirements, and may warrant costly treatment that could affect our operations.

Under the CWA, citizens may sue permit holders for alleged discharges of pollutants not explicitly limited by NPDES permits, or, citizens may sue to enforce NPDES permit requirements. Beginning in 2012, multiple citizen suits have been filed, alleging violations of numeric and narrative water quality standards that broadly prohibit effects to aquatic life. The suits seek penalties and injunctive relief that could limit future discharges or impose expensive treatment technologies. While the outcome of these suits cannot be predicted, court rulings could result in additional treatment expenses that could affect our operations. See Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” regarding certain actions pertaining to our operations.

In June 2015, the EPA issued a rule to clarify which waterways are subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, known as the Clean Water Rule. This rule was quickly challenged and nationwide implementation was blocked by a federal appeals court. The Clean Water Rule would impose additional permitting obligations on the Company's operations by increasing the number of waterbodies subject to CWA permitting and other regulations. On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order prompting the EPA and ACOE to consider replacing the blocked Clean Water Rule. On December 11, 2018, the EPA and the ACOE proposed a new regulation to determine which waterbodies are subject to federal jurisdiction. A final rule repealing the 2015 definition of “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) became effective on December 23, 2019. The repeal resets a consistent, nationwide regulatory standard to the previous pre-2015 regulations. A replacement rule that redefines WOTUS to comport with the text of the CWA is expected to be finalized in 2020.

On November 3, 2015, the EPA published the final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (“ELG”) rule, revising the regulations for the Steam Electric Power Generating category, which became effective on January 4, 2016. The rule sets the first federal limits on the levels of toxic metals in wastewater that can be discharged from power plants. On September 13, 2017, the EPA finalized a rule postponing for two years certain applicability dates for specific waste streams subject to the effluent limitations. On November 22, 2019, the EPA published its proposed revisions to the stringent limitations and standards included in the 2015 final ELG rule, while establishing a voluntary incentive program which provides power plants until December 31, 2028 to implement changes.

Under federal and state laws, including SMCRA, we are required to obtain surety bonds or other acceptable security to secure payment of our long-term obligations, including mine closure and reclamation, mine water treatment, federal and state workers’ compensation costs, coal leases, or other miscellaneous obligations. Surety bonds are typically renewable on a yearly basis and it is possible that surety bond issuers may refuse to renew bonds or may demand additional collateral therefor. In recent years, surety bond costs have increased, the market terms of surety bonds have generally become less favorable, and the number of companies willing to issue surety bonds has decreased. Any failure to maintain, or our inability to acquire, surety bonds required by state and federal laws or the related collateral required by bond issuers, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to produce coal, adversely affecting our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and cash flows. As of December 31, 2019, we posted an aggregated $527 million in surety bonds for reclamation purposes, as well as approximately $202 million in surety bonds, cash, and letters of credit to secure other obligations including workers compensation, coal lease and other obligations.

In addition, SMCRA imposes a reclamation fee on all current mining operations, the proceeds of which are deposited in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, which is used to restore mine lands mined, closed or abandoned before SMCRA’s adoption in 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 current fee is $0.12 per ton for underground mined coal. This fee is currently scheduled to be in effect until September 30, 2021. We recognized expense related to Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund fees of $3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019.

Health and Safety Laws

On September 2, 2015, MSHA published proposed rules for underground coal mining operations concerning proximity detection systems for coal hauling machines and scoops. The rulemaking record for this proposed rule was closed on December 15, 2016, but on January 9, 2017, MSHA published a notice reopening the record and extending the comment period for this proposed rule for 30 days. MSHA has not issued a final rule regarding these proposed rules.

On January 15, 2015, MSHA published a final rule requiring underground coal mine operations to equip continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining machines) with proximity detection systems. The proximity detection system strengthens protection for miners by reducing the potential of pinning, crushing and striking hazards that result in life-threatening injuries and death. The final rule became effective March 15, 2015 and included a phased in schedule for newly manufactured and in-service equipment.

Deterioration in the global economic conditions in any of the industries in which our customers operate, or a worldwide financial downturn, or negative credit market conditions may have a materially adverse effect on our liquidity, results of operations, cash flows, business and financial condition that we cannot predict.

We depend on several major pieces of mining equipment to produce and transport our coal, including, but not limited to, longwall mining systems, continuous mining units, our preparation plant and related facilities, conveyors and transloading facilities. If any of these pieces of equipment or facilities suffered major damage or were destroyed by fire, abnormal wear, flooding, incorrect operation or otherwise, we may be unable to replace or repair them in a timely manner or at a reasonable cost, which would impact our ability to produce and transport coal and materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We procure this equipment from a concentrated group of suppliers, and obtaining this equipment often involves long lead times. Occasionally, demand for such equipment by mining companies can be high and some types of equipment may be in short supply. Delays in receiving or shortages of this equipment or the cancellation of our supply contracts under which we obtain equipment could limit our ability to obtain these supplies or equipment.

All of the coal from our mines is processed at a single preparation plant and loaded on to rail cars using a single train loadout facility. If either of our preparation plant or train loadout facility suffers extended downtime, including from major damage, or is destroyed, our ability to process and deliver coal to our customers would be materially impacted, which would materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Additionally, coal mining consumes large quantities of commodities including steel, copper, rubber products and liquid fuels and requires the use of capital equipment. Some commodities, such as steel, are needed to comply with roof control plans required by regulation. The prices we pay for commodities and capital equipment are strongly impacted by the global market. A rapid or significant increase in the costs of commodities or capital equipment we use in our operations could impact our mining operations costs because we may have a limited ability to negotiate lower prices, and, in some cases, may not have a ready substitute. In addition, if any of our suppliers experiences an adverse event, or decides to no longer do business with us, we may be unable to obtain sufficient equipment and raw materials in a timely manner or at a reasonable price to allow us to meet our production goals and our revenues may be adversely impacted. We use considerable quantities of steel in the mining process. If the price of steel or other materials increases substantially or if the value of the U.S. dollar declines relative to foreign currencies with respect to certain imported supplies or other products, our operating expenses could increase. Any of the foregoing events could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, approximately 88% of the coal the Company produced was sold under multi-year sales contracts. If a substantial portion of our multi-year sales contracts are modified or terminated, if force majeure is exercised, or if we are unable to replace or extend the contracts or new contracts are priced at lower levels, our profitability would be adversely affected. In addition, if customers refuse to accept shipments of our coal for which they have existing contractual obligations, our revenues will decrease and we may have to reduce production at our mines until such customers honor their contractual obligations and begin accepting shipments of our coal again.

The profitability of our multi-year sales coal supply contracts depends on a variety of factors, which vary from contract to contract and fluctuate during the contract term, including our production costs and other factors. Price changes, if any, provided in long-term supply contracts may not reflect our cost increases, and therefore, increases in our costs may reduce our profit margins. In addition, during periods of declining market prices, provisions in our long-term coal contracts for adjustment or renegotiation of prices and other provisions may increase our exposure to short-term coal price and electric power price volatility. As a result, we may not be able to obtain long-term agreements at favorable prices compared to either market conditions, as they may change from time to time, or our cost structure, which may reduce our profitability.

We are exposed to risks associated with an increasingly concentrated customer base both domestically and globally. We derive a significant portion of our revenues from three domestic customers, each of which accounted for over 10% of our total coal sales revenue and aggregated approximately 70% of our coal sales in fiscal year 2019. Domestic customer concentration has increased from fiscal year 2018. While the majority of our production is directed toward our established base of domestic power plant customers, many of which are secured through annual or multi-year sales contracts, we also have continued to diversify our portfolio by placing a growing portion of our production in the thermal and crossover metallurgical markets. We have a multi-year contract for the sale of coal to an exporter that began in the second quarter of 2018 and will extend through the second quarter of 2020.

There are inherent risks whenever a significant percentage of total revenues are concentrated with a limited number of customers. Revenues from our largest customers may fluctuate from time to time based on numerous factors, including market conditions, which may be outside of our control. If any of our largest customers experience declining revenues due to market, economic or competitive conditions, we could be pressured to reduce the prices that we charge for our coal, which could have an adverse effect on our margins, profitability, cash flows and financial position. If any customers were to significantly reduce their purchases of coal from us, including by failing to buy and pay for coal they committed to purchase in sales contracts, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Our ability to collect payments from our customers for coal sold and delivered could be impaired if their creditworthiness declines or if they fail to honor their contracts. Because our sales are concentrated to a few material customers, if the creditworthiness of a significant customer declines or the customer significantly delays payments to us, our business, cash flow and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. Furthermore, if customers refuse to accept shipments of our coal for which they have an existing contractual obligation or if we terminate a relationship with a significant customer due to credit risks, our revenue could decrease materially and we may have to reduce production at our mines until our customers’ contractual obligations are honored or we are able to replace a significant customer. In addition, our borrowing capacity under our receivables financing arrangement could be reduced if we experience prolonged and significant delays in payments by one or more material customer.

Our profitability depends substantially on our ability to mine, in a cost-effective manner, coal reserves that possess the quality characteristics that our customers desire. Because our reserves decline as we mine our coal, our future profitability depends upon our ability to acquire additional coal reserves and surface land needed to ensure the reserves are economically recoverable to replace the reserves we produce. If we fail to acquire, gain access to or develop sufficient additional reserves over the long term to replace the reserves depleted by our production, our existing reserves will eventually be depleted, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Our business is closely linked to demand for electricity, and any changes in coal consumption by U.S. or international electric power generators would likely impact our business over the long term. According to the EIA, in 2019, the domestic electric power sector accounted for approximately 91% of total U.S. coal consumption. In 2019, the Pennsylvania Mining Complex sold approximately 66% of its coal to U.S. electric power generators, and we have annual or multi-year contracts in place with many of these electric power generators for a significant portion of our future production. The amount of coal consumed by the electric power generation industry is affected by, among other things:

Changes in the coal industry that affect our customers, such as those caused by decreased electricity demand and increased competition, could also adversely affect our business. Indirect competition from natural gas-fired plants that are relatively more efficient, less expensive to construct and less difficult to permit than coal-fired plants has the most potential to displace a significant amount of coal-fired electric power generation in the near term, particularly from older, less efficient coal-fired powered generators. Federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could affect demand for our coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources, such as tax credits, could make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal. A decrease in coal consumption by the electric power generation industry could adversely affect the price of coal, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Other factors, such as efficiency improvements associated with new appliance standards in the buildings sectors and overall improvement in the efficiency of technologies powered by electricity, have slowed electricity demand growth and may contribute to slower growth in the future. Further decreases in the demand for electricity, such as decreases that could be caused by a worsening of current economic conditions, a prolonged economic recession or other similar events, could have a material adverse effect on the demand for coal and on our business over the long term.

Transportation logistics play an important role in allowing us to supply coal to our customers. Any significant delays, interruptions or other limitations on the ability to transport our coal could negatively affect our operations. Our coal is transported from the Pennsylvania Mining Complex by rail, truck or a combination of these methods. To reach markets and end customers, our coal may also be transported by barge or by ocean vessels loaded at terminals, including our CONSOL Marine Terminal. Disruption of transportation services because of weather-related problems, strikes, lock-outs, terrorism, governmental regulation, third-party action or other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal to customers and adversely affect our profitability. In addition, transportation costs represent a significant portion of the delivered cost of coal and, as a result, the cost of delivery is a critical factor in a customer’s purchasing decision. Increases in transportation costs, including increases resulting from emission control requirements and fluctuation in the price of diesel fuel and demurrage, could make our coal less competitive. Any disruption of the transportation services we use or increase in transportation costs could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Disruption in shipment levels over longer periods of time at the CONSOL Marine Terminal could cause our customers to look to other sources for their coal needs, negatively affecting our revenues and results of operations.

We compete with other producers primarily on the basis of price, coal quality, transportation costs and reliability of delivery. We compete with coal producers in various regions of the United States and with some foreign coal producers for domestic sales primarily to electric power generators. We also compete with both domestic and foreign coal producers for sales in international markets. Demand for our coal by our principal customers is affected by the delivered price of competing coals, other fuel supplies and alternative generating sources, including nuclear, natural gas, oil and renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar power.

We sell coal to foreign electricity generators and to the more specialized metallurgical coal market, both of which are significantly affected by international demand and competition. The coal industry has experienced consolidation in recent years, including consolidation among some of our major competitors. As a result, a substantial portion of coal production is from companies that have significantly greater resources than we do. Current or further consolidation in the coal industry or current or future bankruptcy proceedings of coal competitors may adversely affect us. In addition, increases in coal prices could encourage existing producers to expand capacity or could encourage new producers to enter the market. If overcapacity results, the prices of and demand for our coal could significantly decline, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition, we face competition from foreign producers that sell their coal in the export market. Potential changes to international trade agreements, trade concessions or other political and economic arrangements may benefit coal producers operating in countries other than the United States. We may be adversely impacted on the basis of price or other factors with companies that in the future may benefit from favorable foreign trade policies or other arrangements. In addition, coal is sold internationally in U.S. dollars and, as a result, general economic conditions in foreign markets and changes in foreign currency exchange rates may provide our foreign competitors with a competitive advantage. If our competitors’ currencies decline against the U.S. dollar or against our foreign customers’ local currencies, those competitors may be able to offer lower prices for coal to our customers. Furthermore, if the currencies of our overseas customers were to significantly decline in value in comparison to the U.S. dollar, those customers may seek decreased prices for the coal we sell to them. Consequently, currency fluctuations could adversely affect the competitiveness of our coal in international markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, approximately 35%, 29% and 31%, respectively, of our annual coal revenue was derived from customers who exported our coal outside of the United States. Exports to Asia represent the majority of those sales. We believe that international markets will continue to account for a significant percentage of our revenue as we seek international expansion opportunities. The international markets are subject to a number of material risks, including, but not limited to:

Our sales are also affected by general economic conditions in our international markets. A prolonged economic downturn in international markets could have a material adverse effect on our business. Negative developments in one or more countries or regions in which our coal is exported could result in a reduction in demand for our coal, the cancellation or delay of orders already placed, difficulties in producing and delivering our products, difficulty in collecting receivables or a higher cost of doing business, any of which could negatively impact our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. In addition, we may be exposed to legal risks under the laws of the countries outside the U.S. in which we do business, as well as the laws of the U.S. governing our business activities in those other countries, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The Company intends, if possible, to offset any potential adverse impact from various international risks (for example, tariffs) that may be imposed by governments in the countries in which one or more of the Company's end users are located by reallocating its customer base to other countries or to the domestic U.S. markets.

Coal contains impurities, including sulfur, mercury, chlorine and other elements or compounds, many of which are released into the air along with fine particulate matter and carbon dioxide when it is burned. Complying with regulations on these emissions can be costly for electric power generators. For example, in order to meet the federal Clean Air Act limits for sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power plants, coal users needed to install scrubbers, use sulfur dioxide emission allowances (some of which they may purchase) or switch to other fuels, each of which has limitations. Because higher sulfur coal currently accounts for a significant portion of our sales, the extent to which electric power generators switch to alternative fuel could materially affect us. Rulemaking proceedings requiring additional reductions in permissible emission levels of impurities by coal-fired plants will likely make it more costly to operate coal-fired electric power plants and may make coal a less attractive fuel alternative for electric power generation in the future. Examples are (i) implementation of the CSAPR to require reductions of seasonal nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants in the eastern United States to address ozone pollution; and (ii) the MATS Rule, better known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard rule, which included more stringent new source performance standards for particulate matter, mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides for new coal-fired power plants. The rule was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2015 and sent back to the D.C. Circuit Court to determine whether to remand and allow the EPA to address the rule’s deficiencies or to vacate and nullify the rule; nevertheless, most coal-fired electric power generators have already taken steps to comply with the rule. On April 18, 2017, the EPA asked the Court to delay arguments over MATS to allow the Trump Administration time to fully review the findings. On April 21, 2017, the Court granted the requested stay. On December 28, 2018, the EPA proposed to revise the 2016 supplemental cost finding for the MATS Rule, as well as the related risk and technology review required by the CAA. Under the proposal, the emissions standards and other requirements of the MATS Rule would remain in place while the EPA's methodology for assessing the costs and benefits of the rule were being modified.

The issue of global climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention with widespread concern about the impacts of human activity (especially the emissions of GHGs such as carbon dioxide and methane). Combustion of fossil fuels, such as the coal we produce, results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by coal end-users, such as coal-fired electric power generation plants. Numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government that are intended to limit emissions of GHGs. Several states have already adopted measures requiring reduction of GHGs within state boundaries. Other states have elected to participate in voluntary regional cap-and-trade programs like the RGGI in the northeastern U.S. Any significant legislative changes at the international, national, state or local levels could significantly affect our ability to produce and sell our coal and develop our reserves, could increase the cost of the production and sale of coal and could materially reduce the value of our coal and coal reserves.

Apart from governmental regulation, investment banks based both domestically and internationally have announced that they have adopted climate change guidelines for lenders. The guidelines require the evaluation of carbon risks in the financing of electric power generation plants which may make it more difficult for utilities to obtain financing for coal-fired plants. In addition, there have also been efforts in recent years affecting the investment community, including investment advisers, sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, universities and other groups, promoting the divestment of fossil fuel equities, encouraging the consideration of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices of companies in a manner that negatively affects coal companies, and also pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. The impact of such efforts may adversely affect the demand for and price of securities issued by us, and impact our access to the capital and financial markets. These efforts, as well as concerted conservation and efficiency efforts that result in reduced electricity consumption, and consumer and corporate preferences for non-coal fuel sources, including natural gas and/or alternative energy sources, could cause coal prices and sales of our coal to materially decline and could cause our costs to increase. Further, climate change itself may cause more extreme weather conditions such as more intense hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and snow or ice storms, as well as rising sea levels and increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. Extreme weather conditions can interfere with our services and increase our costs, and damage resulting from extreme weather may not be fully insured. However, at this time, we are unable to determine the extent to which climate change may lead to increased storm or weather hazards affecting our operations.

Furthermore, adoption of comprehensive legislation or regulation focusing on climate change or GHG emission reductions for the United States or other countries where we sell coal, or the inability of utilities to obtain financing in connection with coal-fired plants, may make it more costly to operate coal-fired electric power generation plants and make coal less attractive for electric utility power plants in the future. Depending on the nature of the regulation or legislation, natural gas-fueled power generation could become more economically attractive than coal-fueled power generation, especially if such regulation or legislation makes our coal more expensive as a result of increased compliance, operating and maintenance costs. Apart from actual regulation, uncertainty over the extent of regulation of GHG emissions may inhibit utilities from investing in the building of new coal-fired plants to replace older plants or investing in the upgrading of existing coal-fired plants. Any reduction in the amount of coal consumed by electric power generators as a result of actual or potential regulation of greenhouse gas emissions could decrease demand for our fossil fuels, thereby reducing our revenues and materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations. Our customers may also have to invest in carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies in order to burn coal and comply with future GHG emission standards. Although we cannot predict the ultimate impact of any legislation or regulation, it is likely that any future laws, regulations or other policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions will negatively impact demand for our coal and could also negatively affect the value of our reserves and other assets.

Increasing attention to climate change risk has also resulted in a recent trend of governmental investigations and private litigation by local and state governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, oil and gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. For instance, we have been named as a defendant in litigation brought by the City of Baltimore seeking to hold us and other energy companies liable for the effects of climate change caused by the release of GHGs. The outcome of this litigation is uncertain, and we could incur substantial legal costs associated with defending this and similar lawsuits in the future. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels or for other grounds related to climate change, such as improper disclosure of climate change risks. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. We have not been made a party to these other suits, but it is possible that we could be included in similar future lawsuits initiated by state and local governments as well as private claimants.

We are subject to laws, regulations and other legal requirements enacted or adopted by federal, state and local authorities, as well as foreign authorities, relating to protection of the environment. These include those legal requirements that govern discharges of substances into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of contaminated sites, groundwater quality and availability, threatened and endangered plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the installation of various safety equipment in our mines, remediation of impacts of surface subsidence from underground mining, and work practices related to employee health and safety. Complying with these requirements, including the terms of our permits, has had, and will continue to have, a significant effect on our costs of operations and competitive position.

In addition, there is the possibility that we could incur substantial costs as a result of violations under environmental laws. Any additional laws, regulations and other legal requirements enacted or adopted by federal, state and local authorities, as well as foreign authorities, or new interpretations of existing legal requirements by regulatory bodies relating to the protection of the environment could further affect our costs of operations and competitive position. At CONSOL Energy's subsidiary Fola Coal Company, LLC (“Fola”), nine citizen suits have been filed challenging water discharge permits. Fola retained liability for six of these suits, and was indemnified from the remaining three suits in accordance with the 2016 sale of Fola's assets to Southeastern Land, LLC. Of the six suits retained by Fola, one was dismissed, and the remaining suits were settled.

Our coal mining operations are underground mines. Underground mining and related processing activities present inherent risks of injury or death to persons, damage to property and equipment and other potential legal or other liabilities. Our mines are subject to a number of operating risks that could disrupt operations, decrease production and increase the cost of mining at particular mines for varying lengths of time, thereby adversely affecting our operating results. In addition, if an operating risk occurs in our mining operations, we may not be able to produce sufficient amounts of coal to deliver under our multi-year coal contracts. Our inability to satisfy contractual obligations could result in our customers initiating claims against us or canceling their contracts. The operating risks that may have a significant impact on our coal operations include:

The occurrence of any of these risks at our coal mining operations could adversely affect our ability to conduct our operations or result in substantial loss to us, either of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, the occurrence of any of these events in our coal mining operations which prevents our delivery of coal to a customer and which is not excusable as a force majeure event under our coal sales agreement could result in economic penalties, suspension or cancellation of shipments or ultimately termination of the coal sales agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Although we maintain insurance for a number of risks and hazards, we may not be insured or fully insured against the losses or liabilities that could arise from a significant accident in our coal operations. We may elect not to obtain insurance for any or all of these risks if we believe that the cost of available insurance is excessive relative to the risks presented. In addition, pollution and environmental risks generally are not fully insurable. Moreover, a significant mine accident could potentially cause a mine shutdown. The occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Federal and state laws require us to obtain surety bonds or post letters of credit to secure performance or payment of certain long-term obligations, such as mine closure or reclamation costs, federal and state workers' compensation costs, coal leases and other obligations. The costs of surety bonds have fluctuated in recent years while the market terms of such bonds have generally become less favorable to mine operators. These changes in the terms of the bonds have been accompanied at times by a decrease in the number of companies willing to issue surety bonds. In addition, federal and state regulators are considering making financial assurance requirements with respect to mine closure and reclamation more stringent. Because we are required by federal and state law to have these bonds in place before mining can commence or continue, our failure to maintain surety bonds, letters of credit or other guarantees or security arrangements would materially and adversely affect our ability to mine or lease coal. Additionally, coal and other mining companies are increasingly struggling to obtain adequate insurance coverage for their business and operations. Our failure to obtain adequate insurance coverages could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

 

All of our mining operations are conducted at a single mining complex located in the NAPP in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. The geographic concentration of our operations at the Pennsylvania Mining Complex may disproportionately expose us to disruptions in our operations if the region experiences adverse conditions or events, including severe weather, transportation capacity constraints, constraints on the availability of required equipment, facilities, personnel or services, significant governmental regulation or natural disasters. If any of these factors were to impact the NAPP more than other coal producing regions, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows will be adversely affected relative to other mining companies that have a more geographically diversified asset portfolio.

Substantially all of our coal reserves are in areas containing shale oil and natural gas plays, including the Marcellus Shale, which are currently the subject of substantial exploration for oil and natural gas, particularly by horizontal drilling. If we have received a permit for our mining activities, then while we may have to coordinate our mining with such oil and natural gas drillers and transporters, our mining activities will have priority over any oil and natural gas drillers and transporters with respect to the land covered by our permit. Oil and natural gas drillers and transporters may be subject to law and regulations that are enforced by regulators that do not have jurisdiction over our activities. Any conflict between our rights and the enforcement actions by any regulator of oil or natural gas-specific rights that conflict with our rights to mine could result in additional costs and possible delays to mining.

For reserves outside of our permits, we engage in discussions with drilling and transport companies on potential areas on which they can drill that may have a minimal effect on our mine plan. If a well is in the path of our mining for coal on land that has not yet been permitted for our mining activities, we may not be able to mine through the well unless we purchase it. Although in the past we have purchased vertical wells, the cost of purchasing a producing horizontal well could be substantially greater than that of a vertical well. Horizontal wells with multiple laterals extending from the well pad may access larger oil and natural gas reserves than a vertical well, which would typically result in a higher cost to acquire. The cost associated with purchasing oil and natural gas wells that are in the path of our coal mining activities could likewise make mining through those wells uneconomical, thereby effectively causing a loss of significant portions of our coal reserves, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In order to maintain and grow our business, we will need to make substantial capital expenditures to fund our share of capital expenditures associated with our mines. Maintaining and expanding mines and infrastructure is capital intensive. Specifically, the exploration, permitting and development of coal reserves, mining costs, the maintenance of machinery and equipment and compliance with applicable laws and regulations requires substantial capital expenditures. While a significant amount of the capital expenditures required to build out our mining infrastructure has been spent, we must continue to invest capital to maintain or to increase our production. Decisions to increase our production levels could also affect our capital needs. Our production levels may decrease or may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow, or we may not have access to sufficient financing to continue our production, exploration, permitting and development activities at or above our present levels, and we may be required to defer all or a portion of our capital expenditures. If we do not make sufficient or effective capital expenditures, we will be unable to maintain and grow our business. To fund our capital expenditures, we will be required to use cash from our operations, incur debt or sell additional equity securities. Our ability to obtain bank financing or our ability to access the capital markets for future equity or debt offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering and the covenants in our existing debt agreements, as well as by general economic conditions, contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control, such as financial institutions abandoning the thermal coal sector. In addition, incurring additional debt may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage, and issuing additional equity securities may result in significant stockholder dilution.

Certain organizations that provide corporate governance and other corporate risk information to investors and stockholders have developed scores and ratings to evaluate companies and investment funds based upon ESG or “sustainability” metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but the importance of sustainability evaluations is becoming more broadly accepted by investors and stockholders. Indeed, many investment funds focus on positive ESG business practices and sustainability scores when making investments. In addition, investors, particularly institutional investors, use these scores to benchmark companies against their peers and if a company is perceived as lagging, these investors may engage with companies to require improved ESG disclosure or performance. Moreover, certain members of the broader investment community may consider a company's sustainability score as a reputational or other factor in making an investment decision. Companies in the energy industry, and in particular those focused on coal, natural gas or petroleum extraction and refining, often perform less well under ESG assessments compared to companies in other industries. Consequently, a low ESG or sustainability score could result in our securities, both debt and equity, being excluded from the portfolios of certain investment funds and investors. As such, this could restrict our access to capital to fund our continuing operations and growth opportunities.

New or existing tariffs and other trade measures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows, either directly or indirectly through various adverse impacts on our significant customers. During the last several years, the Trump Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum and a broad range of other products imported into the U.S. In response to the tariffs imposed by the U.S., the European Union, Canada, Mexico and China have announced tariffs on U.S. goods and services. Although some of these tariffs have been rescinded or suspended, these tariffs, along with any additional tariffs or trade restrictions that may be implemented by the U.S. or retaliatory trade measures or tariffs implemented by other countries, could result in reduced economic activity, increased costs in operating our business, reduced demand and changes in purchasing behaviors for thermal and metallurgical coal, limits on trade with the United States or other potentially adverse economic outcomes. Additionally, we sell coal into the export thermal market and the export metallurgical market. Accordingly, our international sales may also be impacted by the tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the U.S. and other countries. While tariffs and other retaliatory trade measures imposed by other countries on U.S. goods have not yet had a significant impact on our business or results of operations, we cannot predict further developments, and such existing or future tariffs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

From time to time, we may evaluate and acquire assets and businesses that we believe complement our existing assets and business. However, our ability to grow our business through acquisitions may be limited by both our ability to identify appropriate acquisition candidates and our financial resources, including our available cash and borrowing capacity. Additionally, the assets and businesses we acquire may be dissimilar from our existing lines of business. Acquisitions may require substantial capital or the incurrence of substantial indebtedness. Our capitalization and results of operations may change significantly as a result of future acquisitions. Acquisitions and business expansions involve numerous risks, including the following:

Further, unexpected costs and challenges may arise whenever businesses with different operations or management are combined, and we may experience unanticipated delays in realizing the benefits of an acquisition. Entry into certain lines of business may subject us to new laws and regulations with which we are not familiar, and may lead to increased litigation and regulatory risk. Also, following an acquisition, we may discover previously unknown liabilities associated with the acquired business or assets for which we have no recourse under applicable indemnification provisions. If a new business generates insufficient revenue or if we are unable to efficiently manage our expanded operations, our results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our coal production is dependent on our ability to obtain various federal and state permits and approvals to mine our coal reserves. The permitting rules, and the interpretations of these rules, are complex, change frequently and are often subject to discretionary interpretations by regulators. The EPA also has the authority to veto permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act’s Section 404 program that prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into regulated waters without a permit. In addition, the public, including non-governmental organizations and individuals, has certain statutory rights to comment upon and otherwise impact the permitting process, including through court intervention. The slow pace with which the government issues permits needed for new operations and/or for on-going operations to continue mining continues to have significant negative effects and could materially and adversely affect our business.

The Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act and Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act impose stringent health and safety standards on mining operations. Regulations that have been adopted are comprehensive and affect numerous aspects of mining operations, including training of mine personnel, mining procedures, the equipment used in mine emergency procedures and other matters. States in which we operate have programs for mine safety and health regulation and enforcement. The various requirements mandated by law or regulation can place restrictions on our methods of operations, and potentially lead to penalties for the violation of such requirements, creating a significant effect on operating costs and productivity. In addition, government inspectors, under certain circumstances, have the ability to order our operation to be shutdown based on safety considerations. If an incident were to occur at one of our coal mines, it could be shut down for an extended period of time and our reputation with our customers could be materially damaged.

Our operations currently use hazardous materials and generate limited quantities of hazardous wastes from time to time. Drainage flowing from or caused by mining activities can be acidic with elevated levels of dissolved metals, a condition referred to as “acid mine drainage.” We could become subject to claims for toxic torts, natural resource damages and other damages, as well as for the investigation and clean-up of soil, surface water, groundwater and other media. Such claims may arise, for example, out of conditions at sites that we currently own or operate, as well as at sites that we previously owned or operated, or may acquire. Our liability for such claims may be joint and several, so that we may be held responsible for more than our share of the contamination or other damages, or for the entire share.

We maintain coal refuse areas and slurry impoundments at the Pennsylvania Mining Complex. Such areas and impoundments are subject to extensive regulation. Structural failure of a slurry impoundment or coal refuse area could result in extensive damage to the environment and natural resources, such as bodies of water that the coal slurry reaches, as well as liability for related personal injuries and property damages, and injuries to wildlife. Some of our impoundments overlie mined out areas, which can pose a heightened risk of failure and of damages arising out of failure. If one of our impoundments were to fail, we could be subject to claims for the resulting environmental contamination and associated liability, as well as for fines and penalties. Our coal refuse areas and slurry impoundments are designed, constructed, and inspected by our company and by regulatory authorities according to stringent environmental and safety standards.

These and other similar unforeseen impacts that our operations may have on the environment, as well as exposures to hazardous substances or wastes associated with our operations, could result in costs and liabilities that could adversely affect us.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”) and various state laws establish operational, reclamation and closure standards for all our coal mining operations and require us, under certain circumstances, to plug natural gas wells. We accrue for the costs of current mine disturbance, gas well plugging and of final mine closure, including the cost of treating mine water discharge where necessary. Estimates of our total asset retirement obligations, which are based upon permit requirements and our experience, were approximately $272 million at December 31, 2019. The amounts recorded are dependent upon a number of variables, including the estimated future expenditures, estimated mine lives, assumptions involving profit margins, inflation rates, and the assumed credit-adjusted risk-free interest rates. If these accruals are insufficient, our future operating results could be adversely affected.

Under SMCRA, we are required to obtain surety bonds or other acceptable security to secure payment of our asset retirement obligations. In most states where we have operating and/or non-operating mines, including Pennsylvania, we are required to post bonds for the full cost of coal mine reclamation. Other states, such as West Virginia, maintain an alternative bond system for coal mine reclamation which consists of (i) individual site bonds posted by the permittee that are less than the full estimated reclamation cost plus (ii) a bond pool (“Special Reclamation Fund”) funded by a per ton fee on coal mined in the State which is used to supplement the site specific bonds if needed in the event of bond forfeiture. If these states were to move to full cost bonding in the future, individual mining companies and/or surety companies could exceed bonding capacity, resulting in the need to post cash bonds or letters or credit, which reduces operating capital.

To date, we have been able to post surety bonds to secure our reclamation obligations. However, the costs of surety bonds have fluctuated in recent years and the market terms of such bonds have generally become more unfavorable to mine operators. These changes in the terms of the bonds have been accompanied at times by a decrease in the number of companies willing to issue surety bonds. In addition, federal and state regulators are considering making financial assurance requirements with respect to mine closure and reclamation more stringent. If our creditworthiness declines, states may seek to require us to post letters of credit or cash collateral to secure those obligations, or we may be unable to obtain surety bonds, in which case we would be required to post letters of credit. Additionally, the sureties that post bonds on our behalf may require us to post security in order to secure the obligations underlying these bonds. Posting letters of credit in place of surety bonds or posting security to support these surety bonds would have an adverse effect on our liquidity. Furthermore, because we are required by state and federal law to have these bonds in place before mining can commence or continue, our failure to maintain surety bonds, letters of credit or other guarantees or security arrangements would materially and adversely affect our ability to mine coal. That failure could result from a variety of factors, including lack of availability, higher expense or unfavorable market terms, the exercise by third-party surety bond issuers of their right to refuse to renew the surety, and restrictions on availability of collateral for current and future third-party surety bond issuers under the terms of our financing arrangements.

Coal reserves are economically recoverable when the price at which they are expected to be sold exceeds their expected cost of production and selling. Forecasts of our future performance are based on, among other things, estimates of our recoverable coal reserves. We base our coal reserve information on geologic data, coal ownership information and current and proposed mine plans. These estimates are periodically updated to reflect past coal production, new drilling information and other geologic or mining data. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of economically recoverable coal reserves, including many factors beyond our control. As a result, estimates of economically recoverable coal reserves are by their nature uncertain. Information about our reserves consists of estimates based on engineering, economic and geological data assembled and analyzed by our staff. Some of the factors and assumptions which impact economically recoverable coal reserve estimates include:

In addition, we hold substantial coal reserves in areas containing Marcellus Shale and other shales. These areas are currently the subject of substantial exploration for oil and natural gas, particularly by horizontal drilling. If a natural gas well is in the path of our mining for coal, we may not be able to mine through the well unless we purchase it. Although in the past we have purchased vertical wells, the cost of purchasing a producing horizontal well could be substantially greater. Horizontal wells with multiple laterals extending from the well pad may access larger natural gas reserves than a vertical well which could result in higher costs. In future years, the cost associated with purchasing natural gas wells which are in the path of our coal mining may make mining through those wells uneconomical, thereby effectively causing a loss of significant portions of our coal reserves.

Each of the factors which impacts reserve estimation may vary considerably from the assumptions used in estimating the reserves. For these reasons, estimates of coal reserves may vary substantially. Actual production, revenues and expenditures with respect to our coal reserves will likely vary from estimates, and these variances may be material. As a result, our estimates may not accurately reflect our actual coal reserves. Additionally, our estimates of coal reserves may be adversely affected in future fiscal periods by the SEC's recent rule amendments revising property disclosure requirements for publicly-traded mining companies. We will be required to comply with these new rules in 2021.

Title to most of our owned or leased properties and mineral rights is not usually verified until we make a commitment to mine a property, which may not occur until after we have obtained necessary permits and completed exploration of the property. In some cases, we rely on title information or representations and warranties provided by our lessors or grantors. Our right to mine certain of our reserves has in the past been, and may again in the future be, adversely affected if defects in title, boundaries or other rights necessary for mining exist or if a lease expires. Any challenge to our title or leasehold interests could delay the mining of the property and could ultimately result in the loss of some or all of our interest in the property. From time to time, we also may be in default with respect to leases for properties on which we have mining operations. In such events, we may have to close down or significantly alter the sequence of such mining operations which may adversely affect our future coal production and future revenues. If we mine on property that we do not own or lease, we could incur liability for such mining and be subject to regulatory sanction and penalties.

In order to obtain, maintain or renew leases or mining contracts to conduct our mining operations on property where these defects exist, we may in the future have to incur unanticipated costs. In addition, we may not be able to successfully negotiate new leases or mining contracts for properties containing additional reserves, or maintain our leasehold interests in properties where we have not commenced mining operations during the term of the lease. As a result, our results of operations, business and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

We provide various long-term employee benefits to inactive and retired employees. We accrue amounts for these obligations. At December 31, 2019, the current and non-current portions of these obligations included:

 

However, if our assumptions are inaccurate, we could be required to expend greater amounts than anticipated. Salary retirement benefits are funded in accordance with Employer Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) regulations. The other obligations are unfunded. In addition, the federal government and several states in which we operate consider changes in workers’ compensation and black lung laws from time to time. Such changes, if enacted, could increase our benefit expense and our collateral requirements. Additionally, former miners and their family members asserting claims for pneumoconiosis benefits have generally been more successful asserting such claims in recent years as a result of the presumption within the PPACA of 2010 that a coal miner with 15 or more years of underground coal mining experience (or the equivalent) who develops a respiratory condition and meets the requirements for total disability under the Federal Act is presumed to be disabled due to coal dust exposure, thereby shifting the burden of proof from the employee to the employer/insurer to establish that this disability is not due to coal dust. The increasing success rate of such claims based upon the PPACA changed presumption and, as a result, the increasing expense incurred by us to insure against such claims could increase our expenses for long-term employee benefit obligations.

As of December 31, 2019, our total long-term indebtedness was approximately $725 million, of which approximately $222 million was under our 11.00% senior secured notes due November 2025, $103 million was under our Maryland Economic Development Corporation Port Facilities Refunding Revenue Bonds (“MEDCO”) 5.75% revenue bonds due September 2025, $89 million was under our Term Loan A Facility, $272 million was under our Term Loan B Facility, $27 million was associated with finance leases due through 2024, and $12 million was miscellaneous debt. At December 31, 2019, no borrowings were outstanding under our $400 million revolving credit facility or our $100 million accounts receivable securitization facility. The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences, including, but not limited to:

Our senior secured credit agreement and the indenture governing our 11.00% senior secured notes limit the incurrence of additional indebtedness unless specified tests or exceptions are met. In addition, our senior secured credit agreement and the indenture governing our 11.00% senior secured notes subject us to financial and/or other restrictive covenants. Under our senior secured credit agreement, we must comply with certain financial covenants on a quarterly basis including a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, as defined therein. Our senior secured credit agreement and the indenture governing our 11.00% senior secured notes impose a number of restrictions upon us, such as restrictions on granting liens on our assets, making investments, paying dividends, stock repurchases, selling assets and engaging in acquisitions. Failure by us to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default that, if not cured or waived, could have a material adverse effect on us.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to sell assets, seek additional capital or seek to restructure or refinance our indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. In the absence of such operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to sell material assets or operations to attempt to meet our debt service and other obligations. Our senior secured credit agreement and the indenture governing our 11.00% senior secured notes restrict our ability to sell assets and use the proceeds from the sales. We may not be able to consummate those sales or to obtain the proceeds which we could realize from them and these proceeds may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

We have exposure to increases in interest rates. Based on our current variable debt level of $361 million as of December 31, 2019, primarily comprised of funds drawn on our Term Loan A and Term Loan B Facilities, an increase of one percentage point in the interest rate will result in an increase in annual interest expense of $4 million. As a result, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially adversely affected by significant increases in interest rates. In addition, our Term Loan A, Term Loan B, revolving credit and securitization facilities, as well as other short-term financing arrangements, utilize LIBOR as a basis for calculating interest. Those facilities allow for an alternative base rate in calculating interest. In the event that LIBOR would no longer be a published rate index, the allowable alternative base rate may increase our interest costs associated with those facilities.

We enter into hedging arrangements in an effort to limit our exposure to interest rate volatility. These hedging arrangements may reduce, but will not eliminate, the potential effects of changing interest rates on our cash flow from operations for the periods covered by these arrangements. Furthermore, while intended to help reduce the effects of volatile interest rates, such transactions, depending on the hedging instrument used, may limit our potential gains if interest rates were to fall substantially over the price established by the hedge. In addition, these arrangements expose us to risks of financial loss in a variety of circumstances, including when:

However, it is not always possible for us to engage in a derivative transaction that completely mitigates our exposure to interest rates. Furthermore, our price hedging strategy and future hedging transactions will be determined at the discretion of management. Our financial statements may reflect a gain or loss arising from an exposure to interest rates for which we are unable to enter into a completely effective hedge transaction.

Currently, our hedging arrangements partially mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in LIBOR interest rates through December 2022. In the event that LIBOR would no longer be a published rate index, we would have to modify, settle, or exchange the existing hedging arrangements. This could result in a loss of money and could adversely affect our results of operations, business and financial condition.

We have entered into an affiliated company credit agreement with CONSOL Coal Resources LP (the “Affiliated Company Credit Agreement”) pursuant to which we, as lender, will provide for CCR a revolving credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $275 million. In funding the Affiliated Company Credit Agreement, we have less cash flow available to support our operations and other activities. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flows in the future to support our operations and service our debt as a result of funding the Affiliated Company Credit Agreement, we may be required to refinance all or a portion of our existing debt or to obtain additional financing. There can be no assurance that any refinancing will be possible or that any additional financing could be obtained on acceptable terms. The inability to service or refinance our existing debt or to obtain additional financing would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity and results of operations. Furthermore, because we finance CCR’s operations through the Affiliated Company Credit Agreement and because that credit agreement contains covenants that may prevent CCR from acquiring additional indebtedness, CCR may be unable to finance the acquisition of any assets we wish to drop down to it which could materially impact our financial condition and cash flows.

Prior to the separation, our former parent entered into arrangements with one or more third parties pursuant to which such third parties acquired certain of its liabilities in connection with the sale of certain assets to such third parties. Such liabilities include certain postemployment benefits and payment obligations, performance guarantees, and obligations under certain equipment leases and subleases. Such third parties are primarily liable for these obligations; however, our former parent agreed to be secondarily liable for these obligations. As part of the separation, we agreed to indemnify our former parent for these obligations. If such third parties fail to satisfy such assumed liabilities, we could be forced to indemnify our former parent for such liabilities, and such indemnification obligations could be substantial.

We have become increasingly dependent upon digital technologies, including information systems, infrastructure and cloud applications and services, to operate our businesses, to process and record financial and operating data, communicate with our employees and business partners, estimate quantities of coal reserves, as well as other activities related to our businesses. Strategic targets, such as energy-related assets, may be at greater risk of future terrorist or cyber attacks than other targets in the United States. Deliberate attacks on our assets, or security breaches in our systems or infrastructure, or cloud-based applications could lead to corruption or loss of our proprietary data and potentially sensitive data, delays in production or delivery, difficulty in completing and settling transactions, challenges in maintaining our books and records, environmental damage, communication interruptions, other operational disruptions and third-party liability. Similarly, our vendors or service providers could be the subject of such attacks or breaches that result in the risks of corruption or loss of our proprietary and sensitive data and/or the other disruptions as described above. In addition to the existing risks, the adoption of new technologies may also increase our exposure to data breaches or our ability to detect and remediate effects of a breach. Our insurance may not protect us against such occurrences. Consequently, it is possible that any of these occurrences, or a combination of them, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Further, as cyber incidents continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any vulnerability to cyber incidents.

Price adjustment, “price reopener” and other similar provisions in our multi-year coal sales contracts may reduce the protection from coal price volatility traditionally provided by coal supply contracts. Price reopener provisions are present in several of our multi-year coal sales contracts. These price reopener provisions may automatically set a new price based on prevailing market price or, in some instances, require the parties to agree on a new price, sometimes within a specified range of prices. In a limited number of agreements, failure of the parties to agree on a price under a price reopener provision can lead to termination of the contract. Any adjustment or renegotiations leading to a significantly lower contract price could adversely affect our profitability.

Most of our coal sales agreements contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal within certain ranges for specific coal quality characteristics such as heat content, sulfur, ash, moisture, volatile matter, grindability, ash fusion temperature and size consistency. Failure to meet these conditions could result in penalties or rejection of the coal at the election of the customer. Our coal sales contracts also typically contain force majeure provisions allowing for the suspension of performance by either party for the duration of specified events. Force majeure events include, but are not limited to, floods, earthquakes, storms, fire, faults in the coal seam or other geologic conditions, other natural catastrophes, wars, terrorist acts, civil disturbances or disobedience, strikes, railroad transportation delays caused by a force majeure event and actions or restraints by court order and governmental authority or arbitration award. Depending on the language of the contract, some contracts may terminate upon continuance of an event of force majeure that extends for a period greater than three to twelve months and some contracts may obligate us to perform notwithstanding what would typically be a force majeure event.

Our ability to operate our business and implement our strategies depends, in part, on our continued ability to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary to conduct our business. Efficient coal mining using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled employees in multiple disciplines such as electricians, equipment operators, mechanics, engineers and welders, among others. Although we have not historically encountered shortages for these types of skilled employees, competition in the future may increase for such positions, especially as it relates to needs of other industries with respect to these positions, including oil and gas. If we experience shortages of skilled employees in the future, our labor and overall productivity or costs could be materially adversely affected. In the future, we may utilize a greater number of external contractors for portions of our operations. The costs of these contractors have historically been higher than that of our employees. If our labor and contractor prices increase, or if we experience materially increased health and benefit costs with respect to our employees, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Except for 37 of our employees at the CONSOL Marine Terminal who unionized in 2018, none of our employees are currently represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement, although many employers in our industry have employees who belong to a union. It is possible that our employees who conduct mining operations at the Pennsylvania Mining Complex may join or seek recognition to form a labor union, or we may be required to become a labor agreement signatory. 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 with our employees at the CONSOL Marine Terminal, we could potentially experience labor disputes, work stoppages or other disruptions in the business of the CONSOL Marine Terminal, which could negatively impact the profitability of the CONSOL Marine Terminal.

In August 2019, all CCR subordinated units we held were converted to CCR common units. As a result, as of December 31, 2019, we held approximately 16.8 million common units (representing, collectively, a 59.8% limited partnership interest) in CCR. The balance of our economic interest in CCR is in the form of incentive distribution rights, which represent a right to receive increasing percentages of quarterly distributions in excess of specified amounts. Since CCR's initial public offering, CCR made minimum distributions per subordinated unit equal to the distribution per common unit for all quarters during which such subordinated units were outstanding as of the end of such quarter except for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2016, during which CCR did not meet the requirement for a subordinated unit distribution. We cannot assure you that CCR will continue to be able to make or will make the required minimum quarterly distribution on its common units.

During the course of the preparation of our financial statements, we evaluate our internal controls to identify and correct deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting. If we fail to maintain an effective system of disclosure controls or internal control over financial reporting, including satisfaction of the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we may not be able to accurately or timely report on our financial results or adequately identify and reduce fraud. As a result, the financial condition of our business could be adversely affected, current and potential future stockholders could lose confidence in us and/or our reported financial results, which may cause a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock, and we could be exposed to litigation or regulatory proceedings, which may be costly or divert management attention.

Although we separated from our former parent more than two years ago, there are certain risks related to the separation that could materially impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. These risks include:

It was a condition to the distribution that our former parent receive a private letter ruling from the IRS, which was received on October 16, 2017, and one or more opinions of its tax advisors, in each case satisfactory to the Board of Directors of our former parent, regarding certain U.S. federal income tax matters relating to the separation and the distribution, including the opinion of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz that the separation and distribution will be a transaction described in Section 355(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The IRS private letter ruling and the opinion(s) of tax advisors were based upon and rely on, among other things, various facts and assumptions, as well as certain representations, statements and undertakings of our former parent and the Company, including those relating to the past and future conduct of our former parent and the Company. If any of these representations, statements or undertakings is, or becomes, inaccurate or incomplete, or if our former parent or the Company breaches any of its representations or covenants contained in any of the separation-related agreements and documents or in any documents relating to the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion(s) of tax advisors, the IRS private letter ruling and/or opinion(s) of tax advisors may be invalid and the conclusions reached therein could be jeopardized.

Notwithstanding receipt of the IRS private letter ruling and the opinion(s) of tax advisors, the IRS could determine that the distribution and/or certain related transactions should be treated as taxable transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes if it determines that any of the representations, assumptions or undertakings upon which the IRS private letter ruling or the opinion(s) of tax advisors were based are false or have been violated. In addition, neither the IRS private letter ruling nor the opinion(s) of tax advisors addressed all of the issues that are relevant to determining whether the distribution, together with certain related transactions, qualifies as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and the opinion(s) of tax advisors represent the judgment of such tax advisors and are not binding on the IRS or any court, and the IRS or a court may disagree with the conclusions in the opinion(s) of tax advisors. Accordingly, notwithstanding receipt by our former parent of the IRS private letter ruling and the opinion(s) of tax advisors, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not assert that the distribution and/or certain related transactions do not qualify for tax-free treatment for U.S. federal income tax purposes or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. In the event the IRS were to prevail with such challenge, our former parent, the Company and the Company’s stockholders could be subject to significant U.S. federal income tax liability.

If the distribution, together with related transactions, fails to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Section 355 of the Code, in general, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, our former parent would recognize taxable gain as if it had sold the Company's common stock in a taxable sale for its fair market value, unless our former parent and the Company jointly make an election under Section 336(e) of the Code with respect to the distribution, in which case, in general, (i) our former parent would recognize taxable gain as if the Company had sold all of its assets in a taxable sale in exchange for an amount equal to the fair market value of the Company's common stock and the assumption of all the Company’s liabilities and (ii) the Company would obtain a related step up in the basis of its assets and, if the distribution fails to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 355 of the Code, in general, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, our former parent's stockholders who received Company shares in the distribution would be subject to tax as if they had received a taxable distribution equal to the fair market value of such shares.

Even if the distribution, together with certain related transactions, qualifies as a tax-free transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes, taxable gain to our former parent under Section 355(e) of the Code may result if the distribution was later deemed to be part of a plan (or series of related transactions) pursuant to which one or more persons acquire, directly or indirectly, shares representing a 50% or greater interest (by vote or value) in the Company. As a result, for a two-year period following the separation, we were restricted, except in specific circumstances, from (i) entering into any transaction pursuant to which all or a portion of the shares of the Company's common stock would be acquired, whether by merger or otherwise; (ii) issuing equity securities beyond certain thresholds; (iii) repurchasing shares of the Company's capital stock other than in certain open-market transactions; and (iv) ceasing to actively conduct certain of our businesses.

Under the tax matters agreement that we entered into with our former parent, we may be required to indemnify our former parent against any additional taxes and related amounts that arise as a result of (i) an acquisition of all or a portion of the equity securities or assets of the Company, whether by merger or otherwise (and regardless of whether the Company participated in or otherwise facilitated the acquisition), (ii) our taking or failing to take, as the case may be, certain actions that would prevent the distribution, together with certain related transactions, from qualifying as a transaction that is generally tax-free for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 355 of the Code, or (iii) any of the Company’s representations, covenants or undertakings contained in any of the separation-related agreements and documents or in any documents relating to the IRS private letter ruling and/or the opinion(s) of tax advisors being incorrect or violated. Any such indemnity obligations could be material.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly due to a number of factors, some of which may be beyond our control, including:

Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. As a result of these factors, holders of our common stock may not be able to resell their shares at or above the initial market price or may not be able to resell them at all. In addition, price volatility with our common stock may be greater if trading volume is low.

Furthermore, shares of our common stock are freely tradeable without restriction or further registration under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), unless the shares are owned by one of our “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 405 under the Securities Act. As a result, a sale of a substantial amount of our common stock, or the perception that such a sale may take place, could cause our stock price to decline.

The trading market for our shares depends in part on the research and reports that third-party securities analysts publish about our Company and our industry. Because our ordinary shares were initially distributed to the public through the separation and distribution, there was not a marketing effort relating to the initial distribution of our shares of the type that would typically be part of an initial public offering of shares. We may be unable or slow to attract research coverage and if one or more analysts cease coverage of our Company, we could lose visibility in the market. The impact of the revised EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID”), which requires that investment managers and investment advisors located in the EU “unbundle” research costs from commissions, may result in fewer securities analysts covering our Company. This is because investment firms subject to MiFID are no longer permitted to pay for research using client commissions or “soft dollars” and instead must pay such costs directly or through a research payment account funded by clients and governed by a budget that is agreed by the client, thereby raising their costs of providing research coverage. In addition, one or more analysts providing research coverage of our Company could use estimation or valuation methods that we do not agree with, downgrade our shares or issue other negative commentary about our company or our industry. As a result of one or more of these factors, the trading price of our shares could decline.

 

The payment and amount of any future dividend will be subject to the sole discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon many factors, including our financial condition and prospects, our capital requirements and access to capital markets, covenants associated with certain of our debt obligations, legal requirements and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant, and there can be no assurance that we will pay a dividend in the future.

Your percentage of ownership in us may be diluted because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise, including, without limitation, equity awards that we may be granting to our directors, officers and employees. Such issuances may have a dilutive effect on our earnings per share, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

It is anticipated that the compensation committee of the board of directors of the Company will grant additional equity awards to Company employees and directors, from time to time, under the Company’s compensation and employee benefit plans. These additional awards will have a dilutive effect on the Company’s earnings per share, which could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock.

In addition, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional and other special rights, including preferences over our common stock with respect to dividends and distributions, as our board of directors generally may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of preferred stock could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock. For example, we could grant the holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of our directors in all events or on the happening of specified events or to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we could assign to holders of preferred stock could affect the residual value of our common stock.

In December 2017, CONSOL Energy's Board of Directors approved a program to repurchase, from time to time, the Company's outstanding shares of common stock or its 11.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2025, in an aggregate amount of up to$50 million through the period ending June 30, 2019. The program was subsequently amended by CONSOL Energy's Board of Directors on three separate occasions, the most recent of which occurred in July 2019. As a result of such amendments, CONSOL may now repurchase up to $200 million of the Company's common stock or its 11.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2025 through the period ending June 30, 2020, and up to $50 million of the $200 million can be used to purchase CCR's outstanding common units, in each case subject to certain limitations in the Company's credit agreement and the tax matters agreement. Our share repurchase program does not obligate us to repurchase any specific number of debt securities or common shares and may be suspended from time to time or terminated at any time prior to its expiration. There can be no assurance that we will repurchase shares or debt securities under the repurchase program in the future in any particular amounts or at all. A reduction in, or elimination of, share repurchases could have a negative effect on our share price.

The Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the bidder and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with the Company’s board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”). Section 203 provides that, subject to limited exceptions, persons that (without prior board approval) acquire, or are affiliated with a person that acquires, more than 15% of the outstanding voting stock of a Delaware corporation shall not engage in any business combination with that corporation, including by merger, consolidation or acquisitions of additional shares, for a three-year period following the date on which that person or its affiliate becomes the holder of more than 15% of the corporation’s outstanding voting stock.

We believe these provisions will protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make us immune from takeovers. However, these provisions could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control or the removal of the existing board of directors and/or management, of deterring potential acquirers from making an offer to our stockholders and of limiting any opportunity to realize premiums over prevailing market prices for our common stock in connection therewith. This could be the case notwithstanding that a majority of our stockholders might benefit from such a change in control or offer.

In addition, an acquisition or further issuance of the Company’s stock could trigger the application of Section 355(e) of the Code, causing the distribution to be taxable to our former parent. Under the tax matters agreement, the Company would be required to indemnify our former parent for the resulting tax, and this indemnity obligation might discourage, delay or prevent a change of control that could be considered favorable.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, a state court sitting in the State of Delaware (or, if no state court located within the State of Delaware has jurisdiction, the federal court for the District of Delaware) will, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be the sole and exclusive forum for:

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise holding any interest in shares of our capital stock will be deemed to have notice of, and consented to, the provisions of our certificate of incorporation described in the preceding sentence. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and such persons. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions.

The above information is being furnished pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 201 (e) (Performance Graph).

Repurchases of Equity Securities

The following table sets forth repurchases of the Company's common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2019:

Dividends

The declaration and payment of dividends by CONSOL Energy is subject to the discretion of CONSOL Energy's Board of Directors, and no assurance can be given that CONSOL Energy will pay dividends in the future. The determination to pay dividends in the future will depend upon, among other things, general business conditions, CONSOL Energy's financial results, contractual and legal restrictions regarding the payment of dividends by CONSOL Energy, planned investments by CONSOL Energy and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems relevant. The Company's senior secured credit facilities limit CONSOL Energy's ability to pay dividends up to $25 million annually, which increases to $50 million annually when the Company's total net leverage ratio is less than 1.50 to 1.00 and subject to an aggregate amount up to a cumulative credit calculation set forth in the facilities. The total net leverage ratio was 1.93 to 1.00 and the cumulative credit was approximately $35 million at December 31, 2019. The cumulative credit starts with $50 million and builds with excess cash flow commencing in 2018. The calculation of the total net leverage ratio excludes the Partnership. The credit facilities do not permit dividend payments in the event of default. The indenture to the 11.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes limits dividends when the Company's total net leverage ratio exceeds 2.00 to 1.00 and subject to an amount not to exceed an annual rate of 4.0% of the quoted public market value per share of such common stock at the time of the declaration. The indenture does not permit dividend payments in the event of default.

See Part III, Item 12. “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” for information relating to CONSOL Energy's equity compensation plans.

(1) Prior to 2017, the earnings per share was calculated based on the 27,967,509 shares of CONSOL Energy common stock distributed in conjunction with the completion of the separation and distribution, and is considered pro forma in nature. Prior to November 28, 2017, CONSOL Energy did not have any issued or outstanding common stock.

Outlook for 2020 and 2021

How We Evaluate Our Operations