The process of burning coal can cause many compounds and impurities in the coal to be released into the air, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ("NOx"), mercury, particulates and other matter. The CAA and the corresponding state laws that extensively regulate the emissions of materials into the air affect coal mining operations both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts on coal mining operations occur through CAA permitting requirements and/or emission control requirements relating to air contaminants, especially particulate matter. Indirect impacts on coal mining operations occur through regulation of the air emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, particulate matter and other compounds emitted by coal-fired power plants. The EPA has promulgated or proposed regulations that impose tighter emission restrictions in a number of areas, some of which are currently subject to litigation. The general effect of tighter restrictions is to reduce demand for coal. Ongoing reduction in coal’s share of the capacity for power generation could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In mid-2011,2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR") to address interstate transport of pollutants. ThisWhile the CSAPR affects states in the eastern half of the U.S. and Texas.Texas, it does not affect EGUs in North Dakota. This rule imposes

additional emission restrictions on coal-fired power plants to attain ozone and fine particulate NAAQS. The EPA began

implementation of the rule in 2015, when Phase I emission reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide became effective. Phase II reductions became effective in 2017.

In 2016,2019, certain states submitted SIPs to the EPA mandated additional reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions. response to the 2015 ozone standard reduction. On February 13, 2023, the EPA rejected the SIPs. The U.S.EPA’s action to deny the SIPs was challenged in various courts, including the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Fifth Circuit”). The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the SIP rejection in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi which prevents the federal implementation plan ("FIP") from going into effect pending the outcome of the litigation challenges.

On July 31, 2023, the EPA promulgated an interim rule (“Interim FIP”) that addresses the various judicial orders where the SIP rejection has been stayed. The Interim FIP requires these states to return to the previously approved NOx trading program and emission caps. The Interim FIP maintains the state emissions budgets, unit level allowance allocation provisions, and banked allowance holdings reflecting the status quo for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") remandedpower plants in these states under the CSAPR UpdateGroup 2 trading program.

In December 2023, the SCOTUS agreed to hear a challenge to the EPAFIP. The case was heard in February 2024 and will be decided later in the year. Should the FIP be fully implemented in states where a stay has been issued, the rule could influence the closure of some coal-fired EGUs that have not installed selective catalytic reduction technologies, potentially including the EGU supplied by MLMC. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the legal challenges to the: (i) various state challenges; (ii) the FIP promulgated on June 5, 2023; and (iii) the interim final rule promulgated on July 31, 2023 that seeks to address the court’s holding thatjudicial orders. If the rule unlawfully allows significant contribution to continue beyond downwind attainment deadlines.original FIP withstands legal challenge, it would increase the cost of operating the customer facility serviced by MLMC.

Under the CAA, the EPA finalized all remaining ozone designationsalso adopts national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. In December 2011, the EPA

adopted a final rule called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (“MATS”), which applies to comply withnew and existing coal-fired

On March 6, 2023, the 2015 ozone air quality standards. The U.S. Court of Appeals forEPA concluded that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury-containing particulate matter. In April 2023, the D.C. Circuit issued a per curium opinion rejecting various industry challenges to the EPA’s 2015EPA drafted proposed revisions to MATS. These revisions would remove the ozone NAAQS,mercury emission limit for lignite-fired EGUs and require particulate emission reductions for all coal-fired EGUs. If enacted as proposed, this rule could influence the closure of additional coal-fired EGUs, potentially including that the EPA was required to consider certain adverse effects and background ozone when setting the standards. Noneall of the power plantsEGUs supplied by the Company are within non-attainment areas for ozone. In March 2021, EPA finalized the “Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” to address the remand of the CSAPR update. The final rule requires no further obligations in states where the Company’s customers operate a power plant.Company.

State implementation of the core conclusions madeEPA’s Regional Haze Rule could require Coyote Creek’s customers to incur significant new costs at the Coyote Station power plant, which could result in the 2019 guidance,premature closure of the power plant and the Coyote Creek mine. The North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (“NDDEQ”) finalized its state implementation plan and submitted it was released after the air analyses to develop individual SIPs had been completed and just prior to the SIP submittal deadline to the EPA, which was July 31, 2021. Many SIP submittals were delayed due to emissions modeling and continue to be developed and scrutinized. SIPs will be sent to the EPA for approval following both review by federal land managersin August 2022. The NDDEQ determined that visibility progress was being made and did not require significant emissions controls at Coyote Station power plant. Notwithstanding NDDEQ’s determination, the EPA may require additional costly emission controls and it may not be economically feasible for Coyote Creek's customers to invest in such equipment, which could result in early retirement of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and

Under the CAA, new and modified sources of air pollution must meet certain new source standards (the “New Source Review Program”“NSR program”). In the late 1990s, the EPA filed lawsuits against owners of many coal-fired power plants in the eastern U.S. alleging that the owners performed non-routine maintenance, causing increased emissions that should have triggered the application of these new source standards. Some of these lawsuits have been settled with the owners agreeing to install additional emission control devices in their coal-fired power plants. The EPA has clarified the process for evaluating whether the New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting program would apply to proposed projects at existing air pollution sources. Under the NSR program, before constructing a new stationary emission source or a modification of an existing major source, the source owner or operator must determine whether the new source will emit or the modification will increase air emissions above certain thresholds. The rule makes it clear that bothBoth emissions increases and decreases from a major modification at an existing source are to be considered during Step 1 of the two-step NSR applicability test which is designed to determine if there is a “significant

emission increase”. In October 2021, the EPA denied a petition for reconsideration and administrative stay of the final rule; however, the remaining litigation and the uncertaintyUncertainty around the NSR program rules could adversely impact demand for coal. Any additional new controls may have an adverse impact on the demand for coal, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

requirements, including the requirements under MATS and the EPA's regional haze program. These costs raise the price of

coal-generated electricity, making coal-fired power less competitive with other sources of electricity, thereby reducing demand

for coal. If the Company's customers cannot offset the cost to control certain regulated pollutant emissions by lowering costs or

if the Company's customers elect to close coal-fired units, the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations

could be materially adversely affected.

Global climate change continues to attract considerable attention in the United States. The U.S. Congress has considered climate change legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”)GHG emissions, particularly from coal combustion by power plants. Enactment of laws and passage of regulations regarding GHG emissions by the U.S. or additional states,States, or other actions to limit carbon dioxide emissions, such as opposition by environmental groups to expansion or modification of coal-fired power plants, could result in electric generators switching from coal to other fuel sources.

The U.S. Congress continues to consider a variety of proposals to reduce GHG emissions from the combustion of coal and other fuels. These proposals include emission taxes, emission reductions, including carbon tax and “cap-and-trade” programs, and mandates or incentives to generate electricity by using renewable resources,energy sources, such as wind or solar power. Some states have established programs to reduce GHG emissions. Further, governmental agencies have been providing grants or other financial incentives to entities developing or selling alternative energy sources with lower levels of GHG emissions, which may lead to more competition from those entities.

The U.S. has not implemented the 1992 Framework Convention on Global Climate Change (“Kyoto Protocol”), which became effective for many countries on February 16, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol was intended to limit or reduce emissions of GHGs. The U.S. has not ratified the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol or any other GHG agreement. Though the U.S. has not accepted these international GHG limiting treaties, numerous lawsuits and regulatory actions have been undertaken by states and environmental groups to try to force controls on the emission of carbon dioxide; or to prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

The Company believes it has obtained all necessary permits under the CAA at all of its coal mining operations where it is responsible for permitting and is in compliance with such permits.

The Clean Water Act ("CWA")CWA affects coal mining operations by establishing in-stream water quality standards and treatment standards for waste water discharge. Permits requiring regular monitoring, reporting and performance standards govern the wastewater

discharge, of pollutants into water. Waters dischargedincluding from coal mines are required to meet these standards.mines. These federal and state requirements could require more costly water treatment and could

materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company believes it has obtained all permits required under the CWA and corresponding state laws and is in compliance

with such permits. In many instances, mining operations require securing CWA authorization or a permit from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers for operations in waters of the United States.States ("WOTUS.") The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers andSCOTUS heard the Sackett vs. EPA jointly revisedcase in October 2022, which considered whether certain wetlands constitute WOTUS. Prior to the definition ofSCOTUS issuing a water ofdecision, in January 2023, the United States ("WOTUS") in the June 2020 Navigable Water Protection Rule ("NWPR").EPA published a new rule that redefines WOTUS using an expansive significant nexus test. The new definition was challenged in courtexpanded the scope of federal jurisdiction over land and two court cases resulted in vacatur of the NWPR. In December 2021, the EPA and COE released a draft “Step One” rule to redefine WOTUS by formally rescinding the NWPR and replacing it with a new definition. If the new definition is promulgated as drafted,water features which could cause some of the Company's operations couldto incur additional costs to mitigate streams and wetlands. The new WOTUS definition was ultimately stayed in 24 states, including Louisiana, Mississippi and North Dakota. On May 25, 2023, the SCOTUS issued its Sackett vs. EPA ruling that defines WOTUS as “a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters” with a “continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.” The SCOTUS decision rejected the “significant nexus” test used by the EPA in its 2023 WOTUS rule.

Bellaire is treating mine water drainage from coal refuse piles associated with two former underground coal mines in Ohio and one former underground coal mine in Pennsylvania and is treating mine water from a former underground coal mine in Pennsylvania. Bellaire anticipates that it will need to continue these activities indefinitely. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K for further discussion of the Company's asset retirement obligations.

hazardous wastes. Coal mine wastes, such as overburden and coal cleaning wastes, currently are exempted from hazardous

waste management. In December 2014, the EPA finalized a rule specifying management standards for coal combustion residuals or coal ash ("CCRs") as a non-hazardous waste. In 2018, the EPA finalized revisions to the 2014 regulations in response to litigation of the 2014 rule.One revision allows a state director (in a state with an approved CCR permit program) or the EPA (where EPA is the permitting authority) to suspend groundwater monitoring requirements if there is evidence that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unit and post closure care. The second revision allows issuance of technical certifications in lieu of a professional engineer. In addition, the EPA revised the groundwater protection standards and extended the deadline for some facilities that must close CCR units. In 2020, the EPA finalized additional changes to the CCRcoal combustion residual ("CCR") rule that classified all clay-lined surface impoundments that receive CCR as unlined, which triggered a pond closure date of April 2021 for impoundments that failed the aquifer location restriction.unlined. The EPA also established alternative deadlines to cease receipt of waste to include new site-specific alternatives due to lack of disposal capacity with a deadline to initiate closure no later than October 15, 2023 and a new site-specific alternative due to permanent cessation of coal-fired boilers with two deadlines to complete closure: (a) no later than October 17, 2023 for surface impoundments 40 acres or smaller; and (b) October 17, 2028 for surface impoundments larger than 40 acres. This new ruleclosure. These rules may raise the cost for CCR disposal at coal-fired power plants, making them less competitive, and/or result in early closure which could have an adverse impact on demand for coal.coal and ultimately result in the early closure of the mines servicing these plants, including closure of the Company's mines. Any such closure of the Company's mines could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The EPA rule exempts CCRs beneficially used at mine sites and reserves any regulation thereof to the OSMRE. The OSMRE suspended all rulemaking actions on CCRs, but could re-initiate them in the future. The outcome of these rulemakings, and any subsequent actions by the EPA and OSMRE, could impact those Company operations that beneficially use CCRs.If the Company were unable to beneficially use CCRs, its revenues for handling CCRs from its customers may decrease and its costs may increase due to the purchase of alternative materials for beneficial uses.

assessment or an environmental impact statement. There are certain actions associated with surface coal mining that may trigger

these types of assessments by federal agencies. When a NEPA action is required, the Company provides the required

information to the appropriate federal agency so that they mayto enable it to complete the environmental assessment.required study. Historically, this process has been

lengthy and may take several years to complete. In July 2020,January 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ")

issued interim guidance that instructs federal agencies to quantify GHG emissions and use the social cost of greenhouse gases to calculate a final rule updatingmonetary metric associated with the originalproposed actions’ climate effects. The NEPA regulations; however, it was immediately challenged by states and non-governmental organizations. In October 2021, the CEQ issued a new draft rule rescinding many of the revisions from 2020 update. If finalized as drafted, the revised NEPA regulationsinterim guidance could adversely affect the Company’s ability to secure necessary permits.

The oil and natural gas industry is extensively regulated by numerous federal, state and local authorities. Legislation affecting the oil and natural gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion, frequently increasing the regulatory burden. Also, numerous departments and agencies, both federal and state, are authorized by statute to issue rules and regulations that are binding on the oil and natural gas industry and its individual members, some of which carry substantial penalties for failure to comply. Although the regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases the cost of doing business, these burdens generally do not affect the Company any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than they affect other companies in the industry with similar types, quantities and locations of production.assets.

The availability, terms and cost of transportation significantly affect sales of oil and natural gas. The interstate transportation of oil and natural gas and the sale foror resale of natural gas is subject to federal regulation, including regulation of the terms, conditions and rates for interstate transportation, storage and various other matters, primarily by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Federal and state regulations govern the price and terms for access to oil and natural gas pipeline transportation. FERC’s regulations for interstate oil and natural gas transmission in some circumstances may also affect the intrastate transportation of oil and natural gas.

Although oil and natural gas prices are currently unregulated, Congress historically has been active in the area of oil and natural gas regulation. The Company cannot predict whether new legislation to regulate oil and natural gas might be proposed, what proposals, if any, might be enacted by Congress or the various state legislatures, and what effect, if any, the proposals might have on the Minerals Management segment. Sales of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") are not currently regulated and are made at market prices.

Oil and natural gas exploration, development and production operations are subject to stringent laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to protection of the environment or occupational health and safety. These laws and regulations have the potential to impact production on the Company’s mineral interests, which could materially adversely affect the Minerals Management segment. Numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies, such as the EPA, issue regulations that often require difficult and costly compliance measures that carry substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties and may result in injunctive obligations for non-compliance. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of a permit before drilling commences, restrict the types, quantities and concentrations of various substances that can be released into the environment in connection with drilling and production activities, limit or prohibit construction or drilling activities on certain lands lying within wilderness, wetlands, ecologically sensitive and other protected areas, require action to prevent or remediate pollution from current or former operations, such as plugging abandoned wells or closing earthen pits, result in the suspension or revocation of necessary permits, licenses and authorizations, require that additional pollution controls be installed and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from operations. The strict, joint and several liability nature of such laws and regulations could impose liability upon the operators on the Company’s mineral interests, regardless of fault. Moreover, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or other waste products into the environment.

In December 2023, EPA finalized a rule that will require oil and gas producers to reduce methane and other air pollutants from existing sources. Oil and gas companies will be required to phase out routine flaring of natural gas and install methane leak detection equipment. Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and any changes that result in more stringent and costly pollution control or waste handling, storage, transport, disposal or cleanup requirements could materially adversely affect the Minerals Management segment.

The operations of the Company’s third-party lessees are subject to various types of regulation at the federal, state and local level. These types of regulation include requiring permits for the drilling of wells, drilling bonds and generating reports concerning operations. The states, and some counties and municipalities, in which the Company has mineral interests also regulate one or more of the following:

State laws regulate the size and shape of drilling and spacing units or proration units governing the pooling of oil and natural gas properties. Some states allow forced pooling or integration of tracts to facilitate exploration while other states rely on voluntary pooling of lands and leases. In some instances, forced pooling or unitization may be implemented by third parties and may reduce the Company’s interest in the unitized properties. In addition, state conservation laws establish maximum rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose requirements regarding the ratability of production. These laws and regulations may limit the amount of oil and natural gas that the lessees of the Company’s mineral interests can produce from existing wells or limit the number of wells or the locations at which operators can drill. Moreover, each state generally imposes a production or severance tax with respect to the production and sale of oil, natural gas and NGLs within its jurisdiction. States do not regulate wellhead prices or engage in other similar direct regulation, but the effect of any future regulations could have a material effect on the Minerals Management segment. The effect of such future regulations may be to limit the amounts of oil and natural gas that may be produced from the Company’s mineral interests, negatively affect the economics of production from these wells or to limit the number of locations operators can drill.

Federal, state and local regulations provide detailed requirements for the abandonment of wells, closure or decommissioning of production facilities and pipelines and for site restoration in areas where the operators of the acreage underlying the Company's mineral and royalty interests operate. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and many other state and local authorities also have regulations for plugging and abandonment, decommissioning and site restoration. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not require bonds or other financial assurances, some state agencies and municipalities do have such requirements.

Hydraulic fracturing is an important common practice that is used to stimulate production of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, from tight formations, including shales. The process involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. The CWA regulates the underground injection of substances through the Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program. Hydraulic fracturing generally is exempt from regulation under the UIC program, and the hydraulic fracturing process is typically regulated by state oil and gas commissions.

In addition, severalSeveral states, including Texas, have adopted, or are considering adopting, regulations that could restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing in certain circumstances and/or require the disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Texas Legislature previously adopted legislation requiring oil and gas operators to publicly disclose the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process, effective as of September 1, 2011. The Texas Railroad Commission subsequently adopted rules and regulations implementing this legislation that apply to all wells for which the Railroad Commission issues an initial drilling permit. This law requires that the well operator disclose the list of chemical ingredients subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for disclosure on an internet website and also file the list of chemicals with the Texas Railroad Commission with the well completion report. The total volume of water used to hydraulically fracture a well must also be disclosed to the public and filed with the Texas Railroad Commission. Further, in May 2013, the Texas Railroad Commission issued a “well integrity rule,” which updates the requirements for drilling, putting pipe down, and cementing wells. The rule also includes new testing and reporting requirements, such as: (i) the requirement to submit cementing reports after well completion or after cessation of drilling, whichever is later; and (ii) the imposition of additional testing on wells less than 1,000 feet below usable groundwater. The well integrity rule took effect in January 2014. Local governments also may seek to adopt ordinances within their jurisdictions regulating the time, place and manner of drilling activities in general or hydraulic fracturing activities in particular or prohibit the performance of well drilling in general or hydraulic fracturing in particular.

There has been increasing public controversy regarding hydraulic fracturing with regard to the use of fracturing fluids, impacts on drinking water supplies, use of water and the potential for impacts to surface water, groundwater and the environment generally. A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions have been initiated across the country implicating hydraulic fracturing practices. If new laws or regulations that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such laws could make it more difficult or costly to perform fracturing to stimulate production from tight formations as well as make it easier for third parties opposing the hydraulic fracturing process to initiate legal proceedings based on allegations that specific chemicals used in the fracturing process could adversely affect groundwater. In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal or state level, fracturing activities could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. Such legislative or regulatory changes could cause operators of the operation on the acreage underlying the Company’s mineral interests to incur substantial compliance costs, and compliance or the consequences of any failure to comply by operators could have a material adverse effect on the Minerals Management segment.

In addition, hydraulic fracturing operations require the use of a significant amount of water, and the inability of the operators of the acreage underlying the Company’s mineral interests to locate sufficient amounts of water or dispose of or recycle water used in their drilling and production operations could adversely impact their operations. Moreover, new environmental initiatives and regulations could include restrictions on the ability to conduct certain operations such as hydraulic fracturing or disposal of waste, including, but not limited to, produced water, drilling fluids and other wastes associated with the development or production of natural gas.

In some instances, the operation of underground injection wells has been alleged to cause earthquakes. Such issues have sometimes led to orders prohibiting continued injection or the suspension of drilling in certain wells identified as possible sources of seismic activity. Such concerns also have resulted in stricter regulatory requirements in some jurisdictions relating to the location and operation of underground injection wells. Future orders or regulations addressing concerns about seismic activity from well injection could affect operations on the acreage underlying the Company’s mineral interests.

The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and analogous state laws restrict activities that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Pursuant to a settlement with environmental groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) was required to determine whether over 250 species required listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. USFWS has not yet completed its review, but the potential remains for new species to be listed under the ESA. Some of the Company’s properties or mineral interests may be located in areas that are or may be designated as habitats for endangered or threatened

species, and previously unprotected species may later be designated as threatened or endangered in areas where the Company holds interests. For example, recently, there have been renewed calls to review protections currently in place for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, whose habitat includes portions of the Permian Basin, and to reconsider listing the species under the ESA. Likewise, there have been calls to review protections in place for the Greater Sage Grouse, which can be found across a large swath of the northwestern United States in oil and gas producing states. The listing of either of these species, or any others, in areas where the Company holds mineralsmineral interests could cause lessees to incur increased costs arising from species protection

Historically, federal legislation and regulatory controls have affected the price and marketing of natural gas. FERC has jurisdiction over the transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce by natural gas companies under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (“NGA”) and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. Since 1978, various federal laws have been enacted which have resulted in the complete removal of all price and non-price controls for sales of domestic natural gas sold in “first sales.” Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FERC has substantial enforcement authority to prohibit the manipulation of natural gas markets and enforce its rules and orders, including the ability to assess substantial civil penalties.

FERC also regulates interstate natural gas transportation rates and service conditions and establishes the terms under which operators may use interstate natural gas pipeline capacity, which affects the marketing of natural gas that operators produce, as well as the revenues operators receive for sales of natural gas and release of natural gas pipeline capacity. Commencing in 1985, FERC promulgated a series of orders, regulations and rule makings that significantly fostered competition in the business of transporting and marketing gas. Today, interstate pipeline companies are required to provide nondiscriminatory transportation services to producers, marketers and other shippers, regardless of whether such shippers are affiliated with an interstate pipeline company. FERC’s initiatives have led to the development of a competitive, open access market for natural gas purchases and sales that permits all purchasers of natural gas to buy gas directly from third-party sellers other than pipelines. However, the natural gas industry historically has been very heavily regulated; therefore, the Company cannot guarantee that the less stringent regulatory approach currently pursued by FERC and Congress will continue indefinitely into the future nor can the Company determine what effect, if any, future regulatory changes might have on natural gas-related activities.

Under FERC’s current regulatory regime, transmission services must be provided on an open-access, nondiscriminatory basis at cost-based rates or at market-based rates if the transportation market at issue is sufficiently competitive. Gathering service, which occurs upstream of jurisdictional transmission services, is regulated by the states onshore and in-state waters. Section 1(b) of the NGA exempts natural gas gathering facilities from regulation by FERC as a natural gas company under the NGA. Although its policy is still in flux, FERC has in the past reclassified certain jurisdictional transmission facilities as non-jurisdictional gathering facilities, which has the tendency to increase operators’ costs of transporting gas to point-of-sale locations.

Sales of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids are not currently regulated and are made at negotiated prices. Nevertheless, Congress could reenact price controls in the future.

Crude oil sales are affected by the availability, terms and cost of transportation. The transportation of oil in common carrier pipelines is also subject to rate regulation. FERC regulates interstate oil pipeline transportation rates under the Interstate Commerce Act and intrastate oil pipeline transportation rates are subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. The basis for intrastate oil pipeline regulation, and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate oil pipeline rates, varies from state to state. Insofar as effective interstate and intrastate rates are equally applicable to all comparable shippers, the Company believes that the regulation of oil transportation rates will not affect its operations in any materially different way than such regulation will affect the operations of competitors.

Further, interstate and intrastate common carrier oil pipelines must provide service on a non-discriminatory basis. Under this open access standard, common carriers must offer service to all shippers requesting service on the same terms and under the same rates. When oil pipelines operate at full capacity, access is governed by portioning provisions set forth in the pipelines’ published tariffs. Accordingly, the Company believes that access to oil pipeline transportation services generally will be available to its operators to the same extent as to the Company or its competitors.

Texas regulatesStates regulate the drilling for, and the production, gathering and sale of, oil and natural gas, including imposing severance taxes and requirements for obtaining drilling permits. For example, Texas currently imposes a 4.6% severance tax on the

market value of oil production and a 7.5% severance tax on the market value of natural gas production. States also regulate the method of developing new fields, the spacing and operation of wells and the prevention of waste of oil and natural gas resources. States may regulate rates of production and may establish maximum daily production allowable from oil and natural gas wells based on market demand or resource conservation, or both. States do not regulate wellhead prices or engage in other similar direct economic regulation, but the Company cannot be certain that they will not do so in the future. The effect of these regulations may be to limit the amount of oil and natural gas that may be produced from wells drilled by third-party lessee's and to limit the number of wells or locations the Company's third-party lessee operators can drill.

The petroleum industry is also subject to compliance with various other federal, state and local regulations and laws. Some of those laws relate to resource conservation and equal employment opportunity. The Company does not believe that compliance with these laws will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA")CERCLA and similar state laws create liabilities for the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances into the environment and for damages to natural resources. The Company must also comply with reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

From time to time, the Company has been the subject of administrative proceedings, litigation and investigations relating to environmental matters.

The extent of the liability and the cost of complying with environmental laws cannot be predicted with certainty due to many factors, including the lack of specific information available with respect to many sites, the potential for new or changed laws and regulations, the development of new remediation technologies and the uncertainty regarding the timing of work with respect to particular sites. As a result, the Company may incur material liabilities or costs related to environmental matters in the future, and such environmental liabilities or costs could materially and adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. In addition, there can be no assurance that changes in laws or regulations would not affect the manner in which the Company is required to conduct its operations.

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

Substantially all of the Coal Mining segment's profits are derived from long-term mining contracts. Although the Company has long-term contracts, numerous regulatory authorities, along with well-funded political and environmental activist groups, are devoting substantial resources to anti-coal activities to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation. Any customer's premature facility closure including as discussed in “Item 1. Business — Business Developments" on page 2 or a result of GRE’s failure to complete the sale of Coal Creek Station and the adjacent high-voltage direct current transmission line to Rainbow Energy and its affiliates currently anticipated to close in the second quarter of 2022, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) has a comprehensive regulatory program to manage the disposal of coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) from coal-fired power plants as non-hazardous material under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). Individual states administer some or all of the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (“RHR”) could require Coyote Creek’s customers to incur significant new costs at the Coyote Station power plant, which could, dependent on determinations by state regulatory commissions regarding approval to recover such costs from the customers of Coyote Creek’s customer, negatively impact Coyote Creek’s customers’ net income, financial position and cash flows.RCRA provisions. The Company understands that the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (“NDDEQ”)approved Falkirk’s customer's plan for an alternate disposal liner to store coal ash at the Coal Creek Station power plant. In the first quarter of 2023, the EPA proposed to deny the application. If denied, a new liner or new waste management unit(s) may need to be installed, which could require sources subjectresult in the temporary suspension of operations at Coal

Creek Station. To minimize any impact to RHR Round 2 reasonable progress determinations, including Coyoteoperations, Coal Creek Station is moving forward with plans to undertake emissions control measures. The emissions modeling conducted for the combined western state agencies affecteddry CCR materials produced by the RHR was delayed and has subsequently delayedplant, reducing the NDDEQ state implementation plan process. Therefore,need to utilize the NDDEQ's state implementation plan, which was duelined area in question. Falkirk is the sole supplier of lignite coal to Coal Creek Station. Any suspension of operations at Coal Creek Station would eliminate the EPA by July 2021, is anticipated to be submitted to EPA early in 2022. If NDDEQ requires significant emissions controlsneed for lignite coal during the suspension period. Any such suspension of operations at CoyoteCoal Creek Station power plant by December 31, 2028, it may not be economically feasible for Coyote Creek's customers to invest in such equipment and an early retirement of Coyote Station and the Coyote Creek mine could be necessary.

The coal mining industry and the electric generation industry are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local authorities on matters concerning the health and safety of employees, land use, stream and wetland protection, permit and licensing requirements, air and water quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining, the discharge of GHGs and other materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Legislation mandating certain benefits for current and retired coal miners also affects the industry. Mining operations financial positionrequire numerous governmental and cash flows.regulatory permits and approvals. The Company is required to prepare and present to federal, state or local authorities data pertaining to the impact the production and combustion of coal may have upon the environment. The public, including non-governmental organizations, opposition groups and individuals, have statutory rights to comment upon and submit objections to requested permits and approvals and to legally challenge certain permits subsequent to their issuance. Compliance with these requirements is costly and time-consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of development or production. New legislation and/or regulations and orders may materially adversely affect the Company's mining operations or its cost structure, or its customers. All of these factors could significantly reduce the Company's profitability.

For the year ended December 31, 2021, the Coal Mining segment derived approximately 68% of earnings of unconsolidated operations from two customers, Basin Electric and GRE. There are inherent risks whenever a significant percentage of total earnings are concentrated with a limited number of customers. Earnings from the Coal Mining segment's customers may fluctuate from time to time based on numerous factors, including market conditions and the realignment of customers' power generation portfolios that reduce the electric power generated from coal, which may be outside of the Company's control. Future environmental regulation of GHG emissions, CCRs and/or new federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could accelerate the use by utilities of fuels other than coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources, such as tax credits, could accelerate the realignment of customers' power generation portfolios to reduce the electric power generated from coal.

If any of the Coal Mining segment's customers experience declining demand due to market, economic, regulatory or competitive conditions, it could have an adverse effect on the Company's profitability, cash flows and financial position. In addition, if any customers were to significantly reduce or eliminate their purchases of coal from us or if the Company is unable to renew expiring long-term sales agreements with existing customers or enter into new supply agreements, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected. See “Item 1. Business — Business

The profitability of MLMC is subject to the risk of loss of investment in this operation, increases in the cost of mining, changes in customer demand, growing competition from alternative power generation that competes with coal-fired generation and the emergence of adverse mining conditions. At MLMC, the costs of mining operations are not reimbursed by MLMC's customer. As such, increased costs at MLMC or decreased revenues could materially reduce the Company's profitability. Any reduction in customer demand at MLMC, including reductions related to reduced mechanical availability of the customer’s power plant, would adversely affect the Company's operating results and could result in significant impairments. MLMC has approximately $136 million of long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment and a coal supply agreement intangible asset, which are subject to periodic impairment analysis and review. Identifying and assessing whether impairment indicators exist, or if events or changes in circumstances have occurred, including assumptions about future power plant dispatch levels, changes in operating costs and other factors that impact anticipated revenue and customer demand, requires significant judgment. Actual future operating results could differ significantly from these estimates, which may result in an impairment charge in a future period, which could have a substantial impact on the Company’s results of operations.

Similar to the Company's unconsolidated mines, all production costs at MLMC are capitalized into inventory and recognized in cost of sales as tons are delivered. In periods of limited or no deliveries, MLMC may be required to reduce its inventory carrying value using the lower of cost and net realizable value approach, which could adversely affect MLMC’s results of operations.

Any reduction in customer demand for any reason,at MLMC, including, but not limited to, reduced mechanical availability of the customer’s power plant, dispatch of power generated by other energy sources ahead of coal, fluctuations in demand due to unanticipated weather conditions, regulations or comparable policies which may promote planned and unplanned outages at the Red Hills Power Plant, economic conditions, including an economic slowdown and a corresponding decline in the use of electricity, governmental regulations and inflationary adjustments could have a material adverse effect on MLMC's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The contracts with the Unconsolidated Subsidiaries' customers are primarily based on a "management fee" approach, whereby compensation includes reimbursement of all operating costs, plus a fee based on the amount of coal delivered. The fees earned adjust over time in line with various indices which reflect general U.S. inflation rates.  During the production stage, the

The amount of coal consumed by the electric power generation industry is affected by general economic conditions; overall demand for electricity; availability of transmission; competition from alternative fuel sources for power generation, such as natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar power, and the location, availability, quality and price of those alternative fuel sources; environmental and other governmental regulations, including those impacting coal-fired power plants; and energy conservation efforts and related governmental policies.

Changes in the utility industry that affect NACCO's customers could also adversely affect the Company. The increased availability of renewable energy sources has contributed to a reduction in demand for coal-fired electric power generation. 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 continue to displace a significant amount of coal-fired electric power generation in the near term. Federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources

have also adversely affected demand for coal-fired electric power generation. Such mandates make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal-fired electric power generation.

Changes in federal and state mandates that would include an acceleration in the use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could result in a decrease in coal consumption by the electric power generation industry and the Company’s customers.

Federal and state statutes require the Company to restore mine property in accordance with specified standards and an approved reclamation plan, and require that the Company obtain and periodically renew permits for mining operations. Regulations require the Company to incur the cost of reclaiming current mine disturbance at operations where the Company holds the mining permit. Estimates of the Company's total reclamation and mine closing liabilities are based upon permit requirements and the Company's engineering expertise related to these requirements. While management regularly reviews the estimated reclamation liabilities and believes that appropriate accruals have been recorded for all expected reclamation and other costs associated with closed mines, the estimate can change significantly if actual costs vary from assumptions or if governmental regulations change significantly. Such changes could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and could significantly reduce its profitability.

Maintaining and installing environmental controls on power plants requires significant capital expenditures. Any delay or reduction in making capital expenditures to maintain or upgrade coal-fired power plants by the Coal Segment's customers, principally electric utilities, could result in an increase in outage days and a corresponding decrease in coal consumption. A decrease in coal consumption could have a material adverse effect on the Coal Mining segment's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Many conditions beyond the Company's control can decrease the delivery, and therefore the use, of coal to the Company's customers. These conditions include weather, pandemics, adverse mining conditions, unexpected maintenance problems and shortages of replacement parts, any of which could significantly reduce the Company's profitability.

Information concerning the Company's mining operations in "Item 2 - PropertiesProperties" on page 31"31 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, which first became applicable to us for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.S-K. A mineral is economically recoverable when the price at which it can be sold exceeds the costs and expenses of mining, processing and selling the mineral. Forecasts of NACCO's future performance are based on, among other things, estimates of mineral reserves and resources. Mineral reserve and resource estimates of the remaining tons of coal in the Company's operational mines and other mining propertiesat MLMC are based on many factors, including engineering, economic and geological data assembled and analyzed by internal staff, and third parties, which includes various engineers and geologists, the area and volume covered by mining rights, assumptions regarding extraction rates and duration of mining operations, and the quality of in-place reserves and resources. The reserve and resource estimates as to both quantity and quality are updated from time to time to reflect, among other matters, production of minerals, from the Company's mining properties and new mining or other data received.

There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of minerals and costs to mine recoverable reserves and resources, including many factors beyond the Company's control. While the Company believes that its mineral reserve and resource estimates are developed using well-established practices and with appropriate controls, mineral reserve and mineral resource estimation is an imprecise and subjective process. Estimates of mineral reserves and resources necessarily depend upon a number of variable factors and assumptions, any one of which may, if incorrect, result in an estimate that varies considerably from actual results. These factors and assumptions include:

As a result, actual tonnage recovered, from identified mining properties and estimated revenues, expenditures and cash flows with respect to reserves and resources may vary materially from estimates. Thus, these estimates may not accurately reflect the Company’s actual reserves and resources. Any material inaccuracy in estimates related to the Company's reserves or resources could result in lower than expected revenues, higher than expected costs or decreased profitability and changes in future cash flow, which could materially and adversely affect the Company business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Additionally, reserve and resource estimates may be adversely affected in the future by interpretations of, or changes to, the SEC’s property disclosure requirements for mining companies.

The Company conducts a significant part of its coal mining operations on leased properties. A title defect or the loss of a lease could adversely affect the ability to mine the associated coal reserves. The Company may not verify title to leased properties or associated coal reserves until the Company has committed to developing those properties or coal reserves. The Company may not commit to develop property or coal reserves until the Company has obtained necessary permits and completed exploration. As such, the title to property that the Company intends to lease or mine may contain defects prohibiting the ability to conduct mining operations. Similarly, leasehold interests may be subject to superior property rights of third parties. In order to conduct mining operations on properties where these defects exist, the Company may incur unanticipated costs. In addition, some leases require the Company to produce a minimum quantity of coal and/or pay minimum production royalties. The Company's inability to satisfy those requirements may cause the leasehold interest to terminate.

The Company has expanded its overall NAMining business, operations and headcount in recent periods. NAMining’s operating expenses may continue to increase as the Company scales the NAMining business, including growth outside of Florida, and provides general and administrative resources to support NAMining’s growth.business. As NACCO continues to grow the NAMining business, the Company must effectively integrate, develop and motivate new employees, as well as existing employees who are promoted or moved into new roles, while maintaining the effectiveness of its business execution. In part, NAMining’s success depends on its ability to integrate new customers in an efficient and effective manner. The Company anticipates that it will continue to incur costs and capital expenditures associated with future growth prior to realizing the full measure of anticipated long-term benefits, and the return on these investments may be lower, may develop more slowly than expected or may never be realized. If the Company is unable to manage this growth and the associated expenses effectively, the Company may not be able to take advantage of market opportunities or remain competitive. The Company may also fail to execute on its business plan or respond to competitive pressures, any of which could adversely affect the NAMining business, operating results and financial condition.

From time to time, the Company seeks to develop new mining projects, including the Thacker Pass project. The risks associated with such projects can be substantial. New mining projects can take up to several years to complete, are complex and require significant capital expenditures. These projects are subject to significant risks, including delays or reductions in making capital expenditures by NAMining's customers, extreme weather events, unexpected increases in the cost of required materials, and disputes with third party providers of materials, equipment or services, and a completed project may not yield the anticipated operational or financial benefit, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company owns mineral and royalty interests in the continental United States. The Company does not develop oil and gas reserves and is not a natural gas and oil producer. The Company primarily derives income from royalty-based leases under which lessees make payments to the Company based on their sale of natural gas, oil and coal. As discussed in “Item 1. Business — Business Developments" on page 2, the Company acquired additional mineral and royalty interests during 2021 and 2020 and plans to continue to pursue acquisitions of additional mineral and royalty interests. Future royalty-based income is dependent on the number of oil and gas wells being developed and operated on the Company’s mineral acreage. The decision to pursue development and operation of oil and gas wells is made by third-party operators, not by the Company, and depends on a number of factors outside of the Company's control, including fluctuations in commodity prices (primarily natural gas), regulatory risk, the Company's lessees' willingness and ability to incur well-development and other operating costs, the rate of production of the reserves and changes in the availability and continuing development of infrastructure. Lower commodity prices may reduce the amount of oil and natural gas that third-party operators can produce economically. In the event that new federal or state restrictions related to the hydraulic fracturing process are adopted in areas where the Company owns mineral and royalty interests, the Company’s lessees may incur additional costs or permitting requirements to comply with such requirements that may be significant and could result in added restrictions, delays or curtailments in the pursuit of exploration, development, or production activities. In addition, if a lessee were to experience financial difficulty, the lessee might not be able to pay its royalty payments or continue operations. A failure on the part of the lessee to make royalty payments givesmay give the Company the right to terminate the lease, repossess the property and enforce payment obligations under the lease. If the Company repossessed any of its properties, it would seek a replacement lessee. However, the Company may not be able to find a replacement lessee and, if it did, the Company might not be able to enter into a new lease on favorable terms within a reasonable period of time. In addition, if the Company is able to enter into a new lease with a new lessee, the replacement lessee may not achieve the same levels of production or sales prices as the lessee it replaced. Any of these risks could materially reduce the Company’s expected royalty income and the Company’s profitability.

Producing oil and natural gas reservoirs are generally characterized by declining production rates that vary depending upon reservoir characteristics and other factors. Unless the Company’s third-party lessees conduct successful ongoing well development activities or the Company continually acquires mineral and royalty interests, production and income related to the Company’s mineral and royalty interests will decline as those reserves are depleted. The future cash flow and results of operations of the Minerals Management segment are highly dependent on third-party operators’ success in developing the

factors like well depth, well length, formation pressure, and facility design. Any of these risks could materially reduce the Company’s expected royalty income and the Company’s profitability.

The Minerals Management segment’s revenues and operating results depend significantly upon the prevailing prices for oil and natural gas. Historically, oil and natural gas prices have been volatile and are subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply and demand, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond the Company's control; market expectations about future prices of oil and natural gas; the level of global oil and natural gas exploration and production; the cost of exploring for, developing, producing and delivering oil and natural gas; the price and quantity of foreign imports and U.S. exports of oil and natural gas; the level of U.S. domestic production; political and economic conditions in oil producing regions; the ability of members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to agree to and maintain oil price and production controls; trading in oil and natural gas derivative contracts; the level of consumer product demand; weather conditions and natural disasters; technological advances affecting energy consumption, energy storage and energy supply; domestic and foreign governmental regulations and taxes; the continued threat of terrorism and the impact of military and other action, including the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and associated oil and natural gas import bans as well as U.S. military operations in the Middle East and economic sanctions such as those imposed by the U.S. on oil and gas exports from Iran; the proximity, cost, availability and capacity of oil and natural gas pipelines and other transportation facilities; the price and availability of alternative fuels; and overall domestic and global economic conditions. A substantial or extended decline in commodity prices may adversely affect the Minerals Management segment’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company’s Board of Directors has authorized a stock repurchase program. The timing and amount of any repurchases under the stock repurchase program are determined at the discretion of the Company's management based on a number of factors, including the availability of capital, other capital allocation alternatives, market conditions for the Company's Class A common stock and other legal and contractual restrictions. The stock repurchase program does not require the Company to acquire any specific number of shares and may be modified, suspended, extended or terminated without prior notice and may be executed through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise.

Repurchases under the stock repurchase program could affect the price of the Company's Class A common stock. The existence of a stock repurchase program could cause the price of the Company's Class A common stock to be higher than it would be in the absence of such a program and could potentially reduce the market liquidity for the Company’s Class A common stock. There can be no assurance that any stock repurchases will enhance shareholder value because the market price of the Company’s Class A common stock may decline below the levels at which the Company repurchased the shares. Although the stock repurchase program is intended to enhance long-term shareholder value, there is no assurance that it will do so and short-term price fluctuations in the Class A common stock could reduce the program’s effectiveness. Furthermore, the stock repurchase program does not obligate the Company to repurchase any dollar amount or number of shares of the Company's Class A common stock, and it may be suspended or discontinued at any time and any suspension or discontinuation could cause the market price of the Company's Class A common stock to decline.

The Company is currently a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thus allowed to provide simplified executive compensation disclosures and other decreased disclosure in SEC filings. The reduced disclosures may make it more difficult to compare the Company's performance with other public companies.

NACCO cannot predict whether investors will find the Company's common stock less attractive because of these exemptions. If some investors find NACCO's common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the Company's common stock and the stock price may be more volatile.

The Company has two classes of common stock: Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Holders of Class A common stock are entitled to cast one vote per share and, as of December 31, 2021,2023, accounted for approximately 2627 percent of the voting power of the Company. Holders of Class B common stock are entitled to cast ten votes per share and, as of December 31, 2021,2023, accounted for the remaining voting power of the Company. As of December 31, 2021,2023, certain members of the Company's extended founding family held approximately 34 percent of the Company's outstanding Class A common stock and approximately 9899 percent of the Company's outstanding Class B common stock. On the basis of this common stock ownership, certain members of the Company's extended founding family could have exercised approximately 81 percent of the Company's total voting power. Although there is no voting agreement among such extended family members, in writing or otherwise, if they were to act in concert, they could control the outcome of director elections and other stockholder votes on significant corporate actions, such as certain amendments to the Company's certificate of incorporation and sales of the Company or substantially all of its assets. Because certain members of the Company's extended founding family could prevent

other stockholders from exercising significant influence over significant corporate actions, the Company may be a less attractive takeover target, which could adversely affect the market price of its common stock.

Federal and state laws require the Company to provide financial assurance or financial security to secure performance or payment of certain long-term obligations, such as mine closure or reclamation costs, federal and state workers’ compensation and black lung benefitsbenefit costs, leases, transmission interconnection construction costs, power purchase agreement delivery obligations and other obligations. Future federal and state laws and regulations, regional transmission organizations and power purchase agreement customers may require higher amounts of financial security, including as a result of changes to certain factors used to calculate the bonding or security amounts. Bond issuers may demand higher fees or additional collateral, including cash or letters of credit or other terms less favorable upon renewals. As the Company is required by state and federal law to have bonds or other acceptable security in place before mining can commence or continue,for certain projects to move forward, the failure to maintain surety bonds, letters of credit or other guarantees or security arrangements would materially and adversely affect NACCO's ability to mine. 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 the Company's financing arrangements. In addition, as a result of increasing credit pressures on the coal industry, it is possible that surety bond providers could demand cashother forms of collateral as a condition to providing or maintaining surety bonds. Any such demands, could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s liquidity and financial position. If the Company is unable to meet collateral requirements and cannot otherwise obtain or retain required surety bonds, it may be unable to satisfy legal requirements necessary to conduct mining operations. Difficulty in acquiring surety bonds, or additional collateral requirements, would increase the Company’s costs and likely require greater use of alternative sources of funding for this purpose, which would reduce the Company’s liquidity.

The Company holds a number of insurance policies, including director and officers’ liability and property and casualty insurance coverages. Because the Company is involved in coal mining, costs of insurance may increase substantially or insurance carriers may limit or decide not to insure the Company in the future. In addition, if the Company makes significant insurance claims under the Company’s insurance policies, such claims may have a material adverse effect on its ability to obtain future insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates. Limited, or an inability to obtain, insurance coverage, significant increases in the premiums or deductibles of insurance, or losses in excess of its liability insurance coverage limits, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results and financial condition.

Expectations relating to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) matters have been rapidly evolving and increasing. Government organizations, including the SEC, are enhancing or advancing legal, regulatory and regulatorydisclosure requirements specific to ESG matters. The heightened focus on ESG issues requires the continuous monitoring of various and evolving laws, regulations, standards and expectations and the associated reporting requirements. Investor advocacy groups, certain institutional investors, investment funds and other influential investors are also increasingly focused on ESG practices. The Company could face pressures from investors, who are increasingly focused on climate change, to prioritize sustainable energy practices, reduce the Company’s carbon footprint and promote sustainability. Investors may request the Company implement ESG procedures or standards as a condition to maintain their investment or to make further investments. Lenders and insurers may also limit lending to and insuring of companies that do not meet certain ESG measures endorsed by them. Additionally, the Company may face reputational challenges in the event its ESG practices are inconsistent with the third partythird-party views of acceptable ESG practices. Companies which do not adapt to or comply with regulatory, investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, which are evolving, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately, may suffer from reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and/or stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected.

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 any federal common law had been displaced by the CAA and thus dismissed the public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. We could incur substantial legal costs associated with defending such lawsuits in the future. Government entities in certain states 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 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.

Like many other companies, the Company is the target of malicious cyber attack attempts in the normal course of business. Cybersecurity incidents involving businesses and other institutions are on the rise. Cyber threats are rapidly evolving and those threats and the means for obtaining access to information in digital and other storage media are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Cyber threats and cyber attackers can be sponsored by nation states or sophisticated criminal organizations or be the work of independent hackers.

As cyber threats evolve and become more difficult to detect and successfully defend against, one or more cyber attacks might defeat the Company's or a third-party service provider's security measures in the future. Employee error or other irregularities may also result in a failure of security measures and a breach of information systems. Moreover, hardware, software or applications the Company may use have inherent defects of design, manufacture or operations or could be inadvertently or intentionally implemented or used in a manner that could compromise information security.

A security breach and loss of information may not be discovered for a significant period of time after it occurs. Any compromise of data security could result in a violation of applicable privacy and other laws or standards, the loss of valuable business data, or a disruption of the Company's business. A security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or confidential information could give rise to unwanted media attention, materially damage customer relationships and the Company's reputation, and result in fines, fees, or liabilities, which may not be covered by insurance policies.

The Company relies on information technology systems to operate its business and to record and process transactions; respond to customer inquiries; purchase supplies; provide services; deliver inventory on a timely basis; and maintain cost-efficient

Through the Company’s business operations, the Company collects and stores confidential information from its customers and vendors and personal information and other confidential information from its employees. Although the Company has taken steps designed to safeguard such information, there can be no assurance that such information will be protected against unauthorized access, use or disclosure. Unauthorized parties may penetrate the Company’s or its vendors’ network security and, if successful, misappropriate such information. Additionally, methods to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information change frequently and may be difficult to detect, which can impact the Company’s ability to respond appropriately.

The Company could be subject to liability for failure to comply with privacy and information security laws, for failing to protect personal information or for failing to respond appropriately. Loss, unauthorized access to, or misuse of confidential or personal information could disrupt the Company’s operations, damage the Company’s reputation, and expose the Company to claims from customers, financial institutions, regulators, employees and other persons, any of which could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Security breaches, cyber incidents or cyber attacks could include, among other things, computer viruses, malicious or destructive code, ransomware, social engineering attacks (including phishing and impersonation), hacking, denial of service attacks and other attacks. Cybersecurity threats to, and incidents involving, vendors and other third-parties who support the Company's activities could impact us. For example, although the Company has not experienced any material impacts from the SolarWinds Orion cybersecurity breach that was widely publicized in December 2020, similar future events could have a material impact on the Company.business. The Company is continuously installing new and upgrading existing information technology systems. The Company uses employee awareness training around phishing, malware, and other cyber risks. The Company believes these incidents are likely to continue and is unable to predict the direct or indirect impact of future attacks or breaches to business operations.

The Company’s operations are subject to disruption from natural or human causes beyond its control, including physical risks from hurricanes, severe storms, floods and other forms of severe weather, accidents, fires, earthquakes, terrorist acts and epidemic or pandemic diseases such as the coronavirus, any of which could result in suspension of operations or harm to people or the environment. While all of the Company’s operations are located in the United States, the Company participates in a global supply chain, and if a disease spreads sufficiently to cause a pandemic (or to cause the fear of a pandemic to rise) or governments regulate or restrict the flow of labor or products or impede the travel of Company personnel, the Company’s ability to conduct normal business operations could be impacted which could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and liquidity.

Information concerning the Company’s mining properties in this Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, which first became applicable to the Company for the year ended December 31, 2021. These requirements differ significantly from the previously applicable disclosure requirements of SEC Industry Guide 7. Among other differences, subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K requires the Company to disclose its mineral resources, in addition to its mineral reserves, both in the aggregate and for each of the Company’s individually material mining properties.

Readers are cautioned that, except for that portion of mineral resources classified as mineral reserves, mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic value. Inferred mineral resources are estimates based on limited geological evidence and sampling and have a too high of a degree of uncertainty as to their existence to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Estimates of inferred mineral resources may not be converted to a mineral reserve. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. A significant amount of exploration must be completed in order to determine whether an inferred mineral resource may be upgraded to a higher category. Therefore, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, that it can be the basis of an economically viable project, or that it will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Likewise, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted to mineral reserves. See "Item 1A - “Risk Factors” on page 20.19.

The information that follows is derived, for the most part, from, and in some instances is an extract from, the technical report summariessummary (“TRS’s”TRS”) prepared in compliance with the Item 601(b)(96) and subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K. The TRS was prepared by employees of the Company. Portions of the following information are based on assumptions, qualifications and procedures that are not fully described herein. Reference should be made to the full text of the TRS’s,TRS, incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Report on Form 10-K. The information regarding MLMC was reviewed by employees of the Company that are qualified persons as defined by subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K.

Locations of the properties subject to SEC Section 1300 reporting are shown in Figure 1.1 Surface Coal Mines Operational During 20212023 Subject to SEC Section 1300 reporting.Reporting.

A summary of coal production at the Mines subject to SEC Section 1300 Reporting other than for the past three years has been tabulated and is presented on Table 1.1 Production Summary.

MLMC is the Company is paid a management fee per ton of coal or heating unit (MMBtu) delivered. Each contract specifies the indicesowner and mechanics by which fees change over time, generally in line with broad measures of U.S. inflation. The customers are responsible for funding all mine operating cost, including final mine reclamation, and directly or indirectly providing alloperator of the capital requiredRed Hills Mine. The Red Hills Mine is a lignite surface mine in production. Prior to build and operateMLMC, there were no previous mining operations on the mine. This contract structure eliminates the Company's exposure to spot coal market price fluctuations.Red Hills Mine property.

The MLMC contract is the only operating coal contract in which the Company is responsible for all operating costs, capital requirements and final mine reclamation; therefore, MLMC is consolidated within NACCO’s financial statements. MLMC sells coal to its customer at a contractually agreed-upon price which adjusts monthly, primarily based on changes in the level of established indices which reflect general U.S. inflation rates. Profitability at MLMC is affected by customer demand for coal and changes in the indices that determine sales price and actual costs incurred.

A summary of coal production at the Mines subject to SEC Section 1300 ReportingMLMC for the past three years has been tabulated and is presented on Table 1.12.1 Production Summary.

The Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2023 reflect modifications from mining extraction of Mineral Reserves. No updates to Mineral Resources were made for 2023. Mineral Reserves have been exhausted in Mine Area 1 and mining extraction is occurring in Mine Area 3. Additionally, MLMC delivered 2.9 million tons during 2023.

The lignite coal tonnages at Coteau, PropertiesFalkirk and Coyote Creek have not been classified as “measured resources”, “indicated resources”, or “inferred resources” as defined in Items 1300 through 1305 of Regulation S-K, and as a result, do not have any “proven” or “probable” reserves under such definition and are therefore classified as an “Exploration Stage Property” pursuant to Items 1300 through 1305 of Regulation S-K. Coteau, Falkirk and Coyote Creek will continue to be classified as exploration stage properties until such time as proven or probable mineral reserves have been established in accordance with subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, even though they continue to deliver lignite to their respective customers.

At Coteau, Coyote Creek and Falkirk, the Company is paid a management fee per ton of coal or heating unit (MMBtu) delivered. Each contract specifies the indices and mechanics by which fees change over time, generally in line with broad measures of U.S. inflation. The customers are responsible for funding all mine operating cost, including final mine reclamation, and directly or indirectly providing all of the capital required to build and operate the mine. This contract structure eliminates the Company's exposure to spot coal market price fluctuations.

The Freedom Mine, operated by Coteau, generally produces between 12.5 million and 13.5 million tons of lignite coal annually. The mine started delivering coal in 1983. All production from the mine is delivered to Dakota Coal Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin Electric. Dakota Coal Company then sells the coal to the Synfuels Plant, Antelope Valley Station and Leland Olds Station, all of which are operated by affiliates of Basin Electric. The Synfuels Plant is a coal gasification plant that manufactures synthetic natural gas and produces fertilizers, solvents, phenol, carbon dioxide, and other chemical products for sale.

The Freedom Mine operated by Coteau, is located approximately 90 miles northwest of Bismarck, North Dakota.Dakota (Figure 2.2). The main entrance to the Freedom Mine is accessed by means of a paved road and is located on County Road 15. Coteau holds 380368 leases granting the right to mineextract approximately 34,01633,676 acres of coal interests and the right to utilize approximately 23,45523,451 acres of surface interests. In addition, Coteau owns in fee 33,80533,888 acres of surface interests and 4,107 acres of coal interests. Substantially all of the leases held by Coteau were acquired in the early 1970s and have been replaced with new leases or have lease terms for a period sufficient to meet Coteau’s contractual production requirements.

The reservestowns of Beulah, Hazen, and Stanton along with other smaller communities are within a 40-mile radius of the Freedom Mine and provide a vast supply of the employment base. Employees also come from the cities of Bismarck, Minot, and Dickinson, all of which are less than 100 miles away from the mine.

The coal tonnages are located in Mercer County, North Dakota, starting approximately two miles north of Beulah, North Dakota. The formations of sedimentary origin were deposited in the Williston Basin, the dominant structural feature of western North Dakota. The center of the basin is located near the city of Williston, North Dakota, approximately 100 miles northwest of the Freedom Mine. The economically mineable coal in the reserve occurs in the Sentinel Butte Formation, and is overlain by the Coleharbor Formation. The Coleharbor Formation unconformably overlies the Sentinel Butte Formation. It includes all of the unconsolidated sediments resulting from deposition during glacial and interglacial periods. Lithologic types include gravel, sand, silt, clay and till. The modified glacial channels are in-filled with gravels, sands, silts and clays overlain by till. The coarser gravel and sand beds are generally limited to near the bottom of the channel fill. The general stratigraphic sequence in the upland portions of the reserve area consists of till, silty sands and clayey silts.

The Freedom Mine currently has no significant encumbrances to the property. No NOVs have been issued at the Freedom Mine in the past three years. Coteau currently has all permits in place for the Freedom Mine to operate through 2031. Permit expansions required to extend the life of the mine through 2045 will be acquired as needed. No mineral processing occurs at the Freedom Mine.

The Falkirk Mine generally produces between 7 million and 8 million tons of lignite coal annually. The mine started delivering coal in 1978 primarily for the Coal Creek Station, an electric power generating stationstation. Coal Creek Station was owned by GRE.GRE until May 1, 2022 when it was purchased by Rainbow Energy. The initial production period is expected to run through May 1, 2032, but the coal sales agreement may be extended or terminated early under certain circumstances. In 2014, Falkirk began delivering coal to Spiritwood Station, another electric power generating station owned by GRE.

The following table includes the Company's estimate of developed and undeveloped acreage based on the gross acres in a basin or region and includes mineral interests, NPRIs, and ORRIs as of December 31, 2021:ORRIs: