UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

or

Commission File Number 1-16463

CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes statements of the Company’s expectations, intentions, plans and beliefs that constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection provided by those sections. These statements relate to future events or the Company’s future financial performance. The Company uses words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “may,” “forecast,” “project,” “should,” “estimate,” “plan,” “outlook,” “target,” “likely,” “will,” “to be” or other similar words to identify forward-looking statements.

Without limiting the foregoing, all statements relating to the Company’s future operating results, anticipated capital expenditures, future cash flows and borrowings, and sources of funding are forward-looking statements and speak only as of the date of this report. These forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable, but are subject to a wide range of uncertainties and business risks, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in these statements. These factors include but are not limited to those described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors.” Such factors are difficult to accurately predict and may be beyond the Company’s control.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Peabody is a leading producer of metallurgical and thermal coal. At December 31, 2022,2023, the Company owned interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United States (U.S.) and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd. (Middlemount). In addition to its mining operations, the Company markets and brokers coal from other coal producers,producers; trades coal and freight-related contracts,contracts; and, duringsince 2022, is partnered in a joint venture with the intent of developing various sites, including certain reclaimed mining land held by the Company in the U.S., for utility-scale photovoltaic solar generation and battery storage.

As of December 31, 2022,2023, Peabody reports its results of operations primarily through the following reportable segments: Seaborne Thermal, Mining, Seaborne Metallurgical, Mining, Powder River Basin, Mining, Other U.S. Thermal Mining and Corporate and Other. Refer to Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information regarding the Company’s segments. Note 22. “Segment and Geographic Information” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements is incorporated herein by reference and also contains segment and geographic financial information.

Mining Locations

The maps that follow display Peabody’s active and development mine locations as of December 31, 2022.2023. Also shown are the primary ports that the Company uses for its coal exports and the Company’s corporate headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri.

U.S. Locations

Australian Locations

The table below summarizes information regarding the operating characteristics of each of the Company’s mines in the U.S. and Australia. The mines are listed within their respective reporting segment in descending order, as determined by tons produced in 2022.2023.

Refer to the Reserves and Resources tables within Item 2. “Properties,” which is incorporated by reference herein, for additional information regarding coal reserves and resources, and product characteristics associated with each mine.

For the year ended December 31, 2022,2023, Peabody derived 28%25% of its revenue from coal supply agreements from its five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 1613 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 20232024 to 2025. Peabody’s largest customer in 20222023 contributed revenue of approximately $358$341 million, or approximately 7% of Peabody’s total revenue from coal supply agreements, and has contracts expiring at various times from 2023 toin 2024.

The Company believes it has good relationships with U.S. and Australian rail carriers and port and barge companies due, in part, to its modern coal-loading facilities and the experience of its transportation coordinators. During the year ended December 31,Beginning in 2022, rail service constraints due, in part, to labor shortages and weather conditions experienced by Peabody’s rail service providers, have negatively impacted U.S. thermal shipment volumes. The constraints began to lessen in 2023, resulting in improved rail performance compared to the prior year. Refer to the table in the foregoing “Mining Locations” section for a summary of transportation methods by mine.

Peabody’s U.S. thermal mining operations exported less than 1% of their annual tons sold during both the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021. No tons were exported during the year ended December 31, 2020.2023. The primary portsport used for U.S. thermal exports are the United Bulk Terminal near New Orleans, Louisiana, the St. James Stevedoring Anchorages terminal in Convent, Louisiana andis the Kinder Morgan terminalTerminal near Houston, Texas.

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

Surface and underground mining equipment demand and lead times for parts and components have increased in recent periods.stabilized throughout 2023. Peabody consistently uses its global leverage with major suppliers and comprehensive planning processes to ensure security of supply to meet the requirements of its active mines.

Throughout 2022 and 2023, inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints have contributed to rising costs for mining equipment, supplies and services. This trend mayWhile supply chain constraints eased and inflation somewhat moderated in 2023, future periods could continue to impact future periods.be impacted.

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

In the U.S., natural gas is highly competitive (along with other alternative fuel sources) with thermal coal for electricity generation. The competitiveness of natural gas has been strengthened by acceleratedcontinued growth in domestic natural gas production and new natural gas combined cycle generation capacity. The Henry Hub Natural Gas Prompt Price averaged $2.66 per mmBtu in 2023, versus $6.54 and $3.72 per mmBtu in 2022 versus $3.72 and $2.13 per mmBtu in 2021, and 2020, respectively. In addition, the competitiveness of other alternative fuel sources for electricity generation has been strengthened by the growth of renewable energy generation. These pressures, coupled with increasing regulatory burdens, have contributed to a significant number of coal plant retirements. During 2022,2023, approximately 1214 gigawatts of U.S. coal power capacity was retired, and since 2010, U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by approximately thirty-sixforty-one percent.

Internationally, thermal coal also competes with alternative forms of electricity generation. The competitiveness and availability of natural gas, liquefied natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass varies by country and region. Seaborne thermal coal consumption is also impacted by the competitiveness of delivered seaborne thermal coal supply from key exporting countries such as Indonesia, Australia, Colombia, the U.S., Russia and South Africa, among others. In addition, seaborne thermal coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in the two leading coal import countries, China and India, among others. China’s unofficial ban on Australian coal concluded in recent years continued until January 2023, and impededenabling the reestablishment of some traditional trade flows. Global thermal coal markets have beenwere turbulent during 2022 and 2023, due in part to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the subsequent ban of Russian coal by European countries.

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

Seaborne metallurgical coal import demand can be significantly impacted by the availability of domestic coal production, particularly in leading metallurgical coal import countries such as China, among others, and the competitiveness of seaborne metallurgical coal supply from leading metallurgical coal exporting countries of Australia, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Mongolia and Mozambique, among others. Trade flow disruptions have occurred during 2022 and 2023 related to China’s unofficial ban on Australian coal and sanctions imposed on Russian coal imports.

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

Peabody had approximately 5,5005,400 employees as of December 31, 2022,2023, including approximately 4,3004,200 hourly employees. Additional information on its employees and related labor relations matters is contained in Note 19. “Management — Labor Relations” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements, which information is incorporated herein by reference. Peabody endeavors to engage with its organized workforce and foster strong relationships with those organizations built on trust and communication.

As of December 31, 2022,2023, approximately 3,6003,500 of Peabody’s employees are located in the U.S., with the remainder primarily located in Australia. About 94% of its team members work for mine operations in the U.S. and Australia, while the remaining are based out of its global headquarters in St. Louis or its business offices in Brisbane and Beijing.

Peabody strives to create a strong, united workforce with a commitment to safety as a way of life. In 2022,2023, the Company achieved a global safety incidence rate of 1.131.18 incidents per 200,000 hours worked, which was 59%57% better than the 20222023 U.S. industry average incidence rate of 2.772.72 incidents per 200,000 hours worked per the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).

Peabody strives to offer an inclusive work environment and engages, recognizes and develops employees. Peabody seeks a workforce that is comprised of diverse backgrounds, thoughts and experiences as a means to drive innovation and excellence within its business, and has formalized inclusion programs and training in policy and practice. Such diversity may also serve to mitigate risks to the business in the current tight labor market. The Company strives to attract and retain the best people, develop their potential and align their skills to important initiatives and activities. Peabody believes in fostering an inclusive work environment built on mutual trust, respect and engagement. Peabody invests in its employees through health and wellness programs, competitive total rewards and development opportunities. Peabody actively seeks employees' feedback, including through surveys and focus groups on its employee value proposition.

The typical Peabody employee has approximately seven years of experience with the company, and more thanapproximately 47% of all Peabody employees remain employed with the company for more than five years. The Company offers a variety of learning events, including mentoring and development programs to aid its employees in their career growth. During the past five years, approximately 27%25% of open positions and 64%60% of director and above positions have been filled by internal candidates through promotions andor lateral career development opportunities.

Set forth below are the names, ages and positions of Peabody’s executive officers. Executive officers are appointed by, and hold office at the discretion of, Peabody’s Board of Directors (the Board), subject to the terms of any employment agreements.

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

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

Mine Safety and Health

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

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

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

Black Lung (Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis)

The trust fund has been funded by an excise tax on U.S. production. As a result of legislation enacted in December 2020, the excise tax rates were set at 4.4% of the gross sales price not to exceed $1.10 per ton of underground coal and $0.55 per ton of surface coal for the year ending December 31, 2021. This enacted legislation expired on December 31, 2021 and the excise tax rates reverted back to 2% of the gross sales price not to exceed $0.50 per ton of underground coal and $0.25 per ton of surface coal. Effective October 1, 2022, the excise tax rates reverted back to 4.4% of the gross sales price not to exceed $1.10 per ton of underground coal and $0.55 per ton of surface coal due to the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Peabody recognized expense related to the tax of $57.4 million, $32.4 million $51.5 million and $53.3$51.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, and 2020, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2022, Peabody recognized additional expense

A change in requirements for security posted to self-insure black lung liabilities could result in the Company being required to post additional security for its obligations. At the request of OWCP, the Company recently refiled its application for self-insurance.

Environmental Laws and Regulations

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

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

The Company’s total reclamation bonding requirements in the U.S. were $1,035.0$965.9 million as of December 31, 2022.2023. The bond requirements for a mine represent the calculated cost to reclaim the current operations of a mine if it ceased to operate in the current period. The cost calculation for each bond must be completed according to the regulatory authority of each state or OSMRE. The Company’s asset retirement obligations calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for its active and inactive U.S. operations were $533.3$483.8 million as of December 31, 2022.2023. The bond requirement amount for the Company’s U.S. operations significantly exceeds the financial liability for final mine reclamation because the asset retirement obligation liability is discounted from the end of the mine’s economic life to the balance sheet date in recognition that the final reclamation cash outlay is projected to be a number of years away. The bond amount, in contrast with the asset retirement obligation, presumes reclamation begins immediately, as well as different assumptions related to the cost of equipment and services utilized in the reclamation process.

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

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

The SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Fund requires a fee on all coal produced in the U.S. The proceeds are used to rehabilitate lands mined and left unreclaimed prior to August 3, 1977 and to pay health care benefit costs of orphan beneficiaries of the Combined Fund created by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992. The fee amount can change periodically based on changes in federal legislation. Pursuant to the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2021, the fee was $0.28 and $0.12 per ton of surface-mined and underground-mined coal, respectively. As a result of the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Amendments of 2021, which Congress enacted on November 15, 2021 as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2034, the fee is $0.224 and $0.096 per ton of surface-mined and underground-mine coal, respectively. The Company recognized expense related to the fees of $22.2 million, $21.7 million $27.0 million and $28.4$27.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 2021 and 2020,2021, respectively.

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

All requirements related to existing affected units – whether fired by coal, oil or natural gas – will be imposed through state plans that can additionally take into account the CPP repealremaining useful life of a generating unit when determining appropriate controls. The EPA, however, proposes that such plans generally be no less stringent than the emission reductions that would be obtained under the EPA’s guidelines. Under the proposed rule, existing steam generating units would need to comply with the standards by January 1, 2030 and existing stationary combustion turbines would be required to comply by either January 1, 2032 or January 1, 2035, depending on what option for compliance is chosen.

If finalized as proposed, the BSER. Numerous petitions for review challengingGHG NSPS could have substantial impacts on the ACE Rule were filed in the D.C. Circuituse of coal, oil and subsequently consolidated. In January 2021, a 3-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the ACE Rule to the EPA, including its repeal of the CPP and amendments to the implementing regulations that extended the compliance timeline.

In 2020,On March 6, 2023, the EPA issued a final rule reversing a prior finding and determined that it is not “appropriate and necessary” under the CAAwhich reaffirmed its determination to regulate HAP emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. This rule also finalized residual risk and technology review standards forEGUs under CAA section 112, including the coal- and oil-fired electricity utility generating units source category. Both actions were challenged in the D.C. Circuit but this litigation was placed in abeyance.regulation of HAPs from EGUs after considering cost. On February 9, 2022April 24, 2023, the EPA proposed ato amend the 2012 MATS rule to revokeand require an additional two-thirds reduction in the 2020 findingfilterable PM emission of non-mercury HAP metals from existing coal-fired power plants and to reaffirmreduce the agency’s 2016 finding that it remains “appropriatemercury standard for lignite plants by 70%. The EPA is also proposing to require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems, and necessary” to regulate HAP emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants under Section 112revise other requirements such as those applicable to the startup of generating units. Under the CAA. In the same proposal,proposed rule, the EPA solicited commentsestimated that approximately 500 megawatts of coal-fired capacity would retire by 2028. The public comment period on the performance and costproposals ended on June 23, 2023.

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

States are empowered to develop and apply water quality standards. These standards are subject to change and must be approved by the EPA. Discharges must either meet state water quality standards or be authorized through available regulatory processes such as alternate standards or variances. Standards vary from state to state. Additionally, through the CWA Section 401 certification program, state and tribal regulators have approval authority over federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to their waters. State and tribal regulators consider whether the activity will comply with their water quality standards and other applicable requirements in deciding whether or not to certify the activity.

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

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

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

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

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

Peabody’s reclamation bonding requirements in Australia were $215.1$332.8 million as of December 31, 2022.2023. The bond requirements represent the states’ calculated cost to reclaim the current operations of a mine if it ceases to operate in the current period less any discounts agreed with the state. The cost calculation for each bond must be completed according to the regulatory authority of each state. The Company’s asset retirement obligations calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for its active and inactive Australian operations were $216.7$219.0 million as of December 31, 2022.2023. The total bonding requirements for the Company’s Australian operations differ from the calculated costs associated with the asset retirement obligations because the costs associated with asset retirement obligations are discounted from the end of the mine’s economic life to the balance sheet date in recognition of the economic reality that reclamation is conducted progressively and final reclamation is projected to be a number of years away, whereas the bonding amount represents the states’ calculated cost of reclamation if a mine ceases to operate immediately as well as different costs assumptions.

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

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

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

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

On May 20, 2020, the Queensland Parliament passed a bill into law that introduces the criminal offense of ‘industrial manslaughter’ for executive officers, individuals who are “senior officers” and companies in the mining industry. Individuals now face a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and companies could be fined up to approximately $13 million Australian dollars. This new law became effective July 1, 2020. The bill also introduced the requirement for statutory role holders to be employees of the coal mine operator entity with an 18-month transition period endingwhich ended November 25, 2022.

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

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Rule 2015 outlines key elements of a responsible emitter’s duty to avoid an excess emissions situation and provides detail on how it can meet that requirement. The rule was amended between 2019 and 2021 to transition responsible emitters to new baseline setting arrangements. From the start of the 2020-21 compliance year, baselines must use prescribed production variables (an example being run of mine coal) and default emissions intensity values (being values set by the government to represent the industry average emissions intensity of production over five years) unless specific exemptions apply (such as a facility having site-specific values set).

On March 27, 2023, the Australian federal government aims to finalize the legislative amendments to implementannounced several additional emission reduction measures in the Safeguard Mechanism reforms(Crediting) Amendments Bill 2023 which was introduced and passed both Houses of Parliament on March 30, 2023. The legislation introduced a cap on overall net emissions from facilities covered by Aprilthe scheme through 2030. The legislation also set a cap of net zero tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent for any financial year beginning after June 30, 2049. In addition, if the Minister for Environment and Water grants an approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) to a new or expanded facility covered by the scheme, the Minister will be required to give an estimate of the facility's Scope 1 emissions to the Minister for Climate Change, the Climate Change Secretary and the Climate Change Authority for assessment against scheme targets. The legislation went into effect on July 1, 2023. The potential impact of these reforms to Peabody’s Australian operations is under review.

On and from July 1, 2022, the Queensland government introduced three new royalty tiers for coal produced and sold from the state. The new tier rates are 20% for the portion of prices above $175 Australian dollars per tonne; 30% for the portion of prices above $225 Australian dollars per tonne; and a 40% tier for the portion of prices above $300 Australian dollars per tonne. Previously, the maximum royalty rate was 15% of the value of the coal sold above $150 Australian dollars per tonne. The change follows a three-year freeze on royalty rates for coal in the state. Through December 31, 2022, the Company paid additional royalties of $69.9 million Australian dollars as a result of the new rates. The increased rate structure may impact the Company’s future decisions about its Queensland operations.

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

When requested by the DPE, the Independent Advisory Panel is available to provide informed technical advice to the DPE or the Independent Planning Commission in relation to development applications and post-approval matters relating to the assessment and management of subsidence impacts associated with underground mining across NSW, with a particular focus on risks to the quantity of water in the catchment. The Independent Advisory Panel is comprised of an independent chair and experts in the fields of mining engineering and subsidence, surface water, groundwater and swamp hydrology and ecology. Advice that may be provided by the Independent Advisory Panel may include, but is not confined to, risks to the total water quantity and holding capacity of surface and groundwater systems, including swamps and reservoirs, and the types and reliability of methodologies used to predict, monitor, assess and report on mining effects, impacts and consequences.

Peabody recognizes that climate change is occurring and that human activity, including the use of fossil fuels, contributes to GHG emissions. The Company’s largest contribution to GHG emissions occurs indirectly, through the coal used by its customers in the generation of electricity and the production of steel (Scope 3). To a lesser extent, the Company directly and indirectly contributes to GHG emissions from various aspects of its mining operations, including from the use of electrical power and combustible fuels, as well as from the fugitive methane emissions associated with coal mines and stockpiles (Scopes 1 and 2).

Peabody’s boardBoard of directorsDirectors and management believe that coal is essential to affordable, reliable energy and will continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix for the foreseeable future. Peabody views technology as vital to advancing global climate change solutions, and the Company supports advanced coal technologies to drive continuous improvement toward the ultimate goal of net-zero emissions from coal.

The board of directorsBoard has ultimate oversight for climate-related risk and opportunity assessments, and has delegated certain aspects of these assessments to subject matter committees of the board.Board. In addition, the boardBoard and its committees are provided regular updates on major risks and changes, including climate-related matters. The senior management team champions the strategic objectives set forth by the boardBoard of directorsDirectors and Peabody’s global workforce turns those objectives into meaningful actions.

Management believes that the Company’s external communications, including environmental regulatory filings and public notices, U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC filings, its annual Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report, its website and various other stakeholder-focused publications provide a comprehensive picture of the Company’s material risks and progress. All such communications are subject to oversight and review protocols established by Peabody’s board of directorsBoard and executive leadership team.

The Company faces risks from both the global transition to a net-zero emissions economy and the potential physical impacts of climate change. Such risks may involve financial, policy, legal, technological, reputational and other impacts as the Company meets various mitigation and adaptation requirements.

The transition to a net-zero emissions economy is driven by many factors, including, but not limited to, legislative and regulatory rulemaking processes, campaigns undertaken by non-governmental organizations to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation, and the ESG-related policies of financial institutions and other private companies. The Company has experienced, or may in the future experience, negative effects on its results of operations due to the following specific risks as a result of such factors:

With respect to the potential or actual physical impacts of climate change, the Company has identified the following specific risks:

While the Company faces numerous risks associated with the transition to a net-zero emissions economy and the physical impacts of climate change, certain opportunities may also emerge, such as:

Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Numerous reports, such as the Fourth and the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have also engendered concern about the impacts of human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, on global climate issues. In turn, increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to GHG emissions, including emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion by power plants. There have been significant developments in federal and state legislation and regulation and international accords regarding climate change. Such developments are described below in the section “Regulations Related to Global Climate Change” within this Item 1.

The enactment of future laws or the passage of regulations regarding emissions from the use of coal by the U.S., some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources. Further, policies limiting available financing for the development of new coal-fueled power stations could adversely impact the global demand for coal in the future. The potential financial impact on Peabody of such future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws or regulations force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the specific requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of development and deployment of CCUS technologies as well as acceptance of CCUS technologies to meet regulations and the alternative uses for coal. Higher-efficiency coal-fired power plants may also be an option for meeting laws or regulations related to emissions from coal use. Several countries, including major coal users such as China, India and Japan, included using higher-efficiency coal-fueled power plants in their plans under the Paris Agreement. The Company believes HELE and CCUS technologies should be part of the solution to achieve substantial reductions in GHG emissions and should be broadly supported and encouraged, including through eligibility for public funding from national and international sources. In addition, CCUS merits targeted deployment incentives, like those provided to other low-emission sources of energy.

In the U.S., Congress has considered legislation addressing global climate issues and GHG emissions, but to date, no new comprehensive, regulatory legislation has been signed into law. The U.S. Congress, however, has approved legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, that will provide substantial tax incentives, grants and loan guarantees for energy infrastructure, solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear and geothermal energy, hydrogen projects and carbon capture and storage. While it is possible that the U.S. will adopt additional climate legislation in the future, the timing and specific requirements of any such legislation are uncertain.

At the same time, a number of states in the U.S. have adopted programs to regulate GHG emissions. For example, 10 northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) entered into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in 2005, and Pennsylvania joined in 2022. RGGI is a mandatory cap-and-trade program to cap regional carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Six mid-western states (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, MinnesotaCalifornia and Wisconsin) and onethe Canadian province have entered into the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA) to establish voluntary regional greenhouse gas reduction targets and develop a voluntary multi-sector cap-and-trade system to help meet the targets. It has been reported that, while the MGGRA has not been formally suspended, the participating states are no longer pursuing it. Seven western states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington) and four Canadian provinces entered into the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) in 2008 to establish a voluntary regional greenhouse gas reduction goal and develop market-based strategies to achieve emissions reductions. However, in November 2011, the WCI announced that six states had withdrawn from the WCI, leaving California and four Canadian provinces as the remaining members. Of those five jurisdictions, only California andof Quebec have adopted greenhouse gas cap-and-trade regulations to date and both programs have begun operating. Many of the states and provinces that left WCI, RGGI and MGGRA, along with many that continue to participate, have joined the new North America 2050 initiative, which seeks to reduce GHG emissions and create economic opportunities in ways not limited to cap-and-trade programs.

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

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

Peabody participated in the Department of Energy’s Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program until its suspension in May 2011, and the Company regularly discloses information regarding its production-related emissions in its annual ESG Report. The vast majority of the Company’s emissions are generated by the operation of heavy machinery to extract and transport material at its mines and fugitive emissions from the extraction of coal.

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

In June 2022, the new Australian federal government announced plans to legislate for a 43% reduction in Australia’s GHG emissions by 2030 and to introduce changes by mid-2023 that will require heavy emitting companies producing more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon emissions annually to accelerate their emissions reduction activities. On September 13, 2022, the Australian government passed the Climate Change Act 2022 to set the GHG emissions reduction targets into law.

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

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

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, prospects, 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 its business.

The Company’s profitability depends upon the prices it receives for its coal.

The Company operates in a competitive and highly regulated industry that has at times experienced strong headwinds. Current pricing levels of both seaborne and domestic coal products may not be sustainable in the future. Declines in coal prices could materially and adversely affect the Company’s operating results and profitability and the value of its coal reserves and resources.

Coal prices are dependent upon factors beyond the Company’s control, including:

Thermal coal accounted for the majority of the Company’s coal sales by volume during 20222023 and 2021,2022, with the vast majority of these sales to electric power generators. The demand for coal consumed for electric power generation is affected by many of the factors described above, but primarily by (i) the overall demand for electricity; (ii) the availability, quality and price of competing fuels, such as natural gas, nuclear, fuel oil and alternative energy sources; (iii) utilization of all electricity generating units (whether using coal or not), including the relative cost of producing electricity from multiple fuels, including coal; (iv) stringent environmental and other governmental regulations; (v) other sociopolitical views on coal; and (vi) the coal inventories of utilities. Gas-fueled generation has displaced and could continue to displace coal-fueled generation (particularly from older, less efficient coal-fueled generation units) as current and potentially increasing regulatory costs and other factors impact the operating decisions of electric power generators. In addition, some electric power generators have made decisions to close coal-fueled generation units given ongoing pressure to shift away from coal generation. Many of the new power plants in the U.S. may be fueled by natural gas because gas-fired plants have been less expensive to construct, permits to construct these plants are easier to obtain based on emissions profiles and electric power generators may face public and governmental pressure to generate a larger portion of their electricity from natural gas-fueled units and alternative energy sources. Increasingly stringent regulations along with stagnant electricity demand in recent years have also reduced the number of new power plants being built. In recent years, these trends have reduced demand for the Company’s coal and the related prices. Lower demand for coal consumed by electric power generators could reduce the volume of thermal coal that the Company sells and the prices that it receives for the thermal coal, thereby reducing its revenue and adversely impacting its earnings and the value of its coal reserves and resources.

The Company produces metallurgical coal that is used in the global steel industry. Metallurgical coal accounted for approximately 32%26% and 22%32% of its revenue in 20222023 and 2021,2022, respectively. Changes in governmental policies and regulations and changes in the steel industry, including the demand for steel, could reduce the demand for the Company’s metallurgical coal. Lower demand for metallurgical coal in international markets could reduce the amount of metallurgical coal that the Company sells and the prices that it receives for the metallurgical coal, thereby reducing its revenue and adversely impacting its earnings and the value of its coal reserves and resources.

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

If a substantial number of the Company’s long-term coal supply agreements, including those with its largest customers, terminate, or if the pricing, volumes or other elements of those agreements materially adjust, its revenue and operating profits could suffer if the Company is unable to find alternate buyers willing to purchase its coal on comparable terms to those in its contracts.

Most of the Company’s sales are made under coal supply agreements, which are important to the stability and profitability of its operations. The execution of a satisfactory coal supply agreement is frequently the basis on which the Company undertakes the development of coal reserves and resources required to be supplied under the contract, particularly in the U.S. For the year ended December 31, 2022,2023, the Company derived 28%25% of its revenue from coal supply agreements from its five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 1613 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 20232024 to 2025.

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

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

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

Risks inherent to mining could increase the cost of operating the Company’s business, and events and conditions that could occur during the course of its mining operations could have a material adverse impact on the Company.

The Company’s mining operations are subject to conditions that can impact the safety of its workforce, delay coal deliveries or increase the cost of mining at particular mines for varying lengths of time. These conditions include:

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

The Company’s take-or-pay arrangements could unfavorably affect its profitability.

The Company has substantial take-or-pay arrangements with its port access and rail transportation providers, predominately in Australia, totaling $1.4$1.2 billion, with terms ranging up to 20 years, that commit the Company to pay a minimum amount for the delivery of coal even if those commitments go unused. The take-or-pay provisions in these contracts sometimes allow the Company to apply amounts paid for subsequent deliveries, but these provisions have limitations and the Company may not be able to apply all such amounts so paid in all cases. Also, the Company may not be able to utilize the amount of capacity for which it has previously paid. Additionally, the Company may continue to deliver coal during times when it might otherwise be optimal to suspend operations because these take-or-pay provisions effectively convert a variable cost of selling coal to a fixed operating cost.

The Company may not recover its investments in its mining, exploration and other assets, which may require the Company to recognize impairment charges related to those assets.

The value of the Company’s assets have from time to time been adversely affected by numerous uncertain factors, some of which are beyond its control, including unfavorable changes in the economic environments in which it operates; declining coal-fired electricity generation; lower-than-expected coal pricing; technical and geological operating difficulties; an inability to economically extract its coal reserves and resources; and unanticipated increases in operating costs. These factors may trigger the recognition of additional impairment charges in the future, which could have a substantial impact on the Company’s results of operations.

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

The Company’s ability to operate effectively could be impaired if it loses key personnel or fails to attract qualified personnel.

Peabody manages its business with a number of key personnel, the loss of whom could have a material adverse effect on the Company, absent the completion of an orderly transition. In addition, the Company believes that its future success will depend greatly on its continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel in tight labor markets, particularly personnel with mining experience. Peabody cannot provide assurance that key personnel will continue to be employed by the Company or that it will be able to attract and retain qualified personnel in the future. Failure to retain or attract key personnel could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company could be negatively affected if it fails to maintain satisfactory labor relations.

As of December 31, 2022,2023, the Company had approximately 5,5005,400 employees (excluding employees that were employed at operations classified as discontinued), which included approximately 4,3004,200 hourly employees. The Company is party to labor agreements with various labor unions that represent certain of its employees. Such labor agreements are negotiated periodically, and, therefore, the Company is subject to the risk that these agreements may not be able to be renewed on reasonably satisfactory terms. Approximately 34%38% of its hourly employees were represented by organized labor unions and generated approximately 16%18% of its coal production for the year ended December 31, 2022.2023. Relations with its employees and, where applicable, organized labor are important to the Company’s success. If some or all of its current non-union operations were to become unionized, the Company could incur an increased risk of work stoppages, reduced productivity and higher labor costs. Also, if the Company fails to maintain good relations or successfully negotiate contracts with its employees who are represented by unions, the Company could potentially experience labor disputes, strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns or other disruptions in production that could negatively impact its profitability.

The Company could be adversely affected if it fails to appropriately provide financial assurances for its obligations.

U.S. federal and state laws and Australian laws require the Company to provide financial assurances related to requirements to reclaim lands used for mining; to pay federal and state workers’ compensation, such as black lung liabilities; to provide financial assurances for coal lease obligations; and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. TheHistorically, the primary methods the Company useshas used to meet those obligations are to provide a third-party surety bond or a letter of credit. In recent years, the Company has also utilized deposits with regulatory authorities or cash backed bank guarantees. As of December 31, 2022,2023, the Company had $1,376.8$1,139.9 million of outstanding surety bonds and $569.6bonds; $276.7 million of deposits with regulatory authorities; $275.1 million of letters of credit with third partiesparties; and $64.9 million of cash backed bank guarantees in order to provide required financial assurances for post-mining reclamation, workers’ compensation and other insurance obligations, coal lease-related and other obligations and performance guarantees, in addition to collateral for sureties. Under the Company’s agreement with the providers of its surety portfolio, the Company has $444.0 million in cash held in trust accounts for the benefit of certain surety providers as of December 31, 2023.

The Company’s financial assurance obligations may increase or become more costly due to a number of factors, and surety bonds and letters of credit may not be available to the Company, particularly in light of some banks and insurance companies’ announced unwillingness to support thermal coal producers and other fossil fuel companies. Alternative forms of financial assurance such as self-bonding have been severely restricted or terminated in most of the regions where its mines reside. The Company’s failure to retain, or inability to obtain, surety bonds, bank guarantees or letters of credit, or to provide a suitable alternative, could have a material adverse effect on it. That failure could result from a variety of factors including:

As further described in “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in November 2020, the Company entered intohas a surety transaction support agreement with the providers of its surety bond portfolio. The Company’s failure to provide adequate collateral, or abide by other terms in the agreement, could invalidate the agreement and materially and adversely affect its business and results of operations.

The Company’s failure to maintain adequate bonding would invalidate its mining permits and prevent mining operations from continuing, which could result in its inability to continue as a going concern.

The Company’s mining operations are extensively regulated, which imposes significant costs on it, and future regulations and developments could increase those costs or limit its ability to produce coal.

The coal mining industry is subject to regulation by federal, state and local authorities with respect to matters such as:

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

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

The Company’s operations may impact the environment or cause exposure to hazardous substances, and its properties may have environmental contamination, which could result in material liabilities to the Company.

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

The Company may be unable to obtain, renew or maintain permits necessary for its operations, or the Company may be unable to obtain, renew or maintain such permits without conditions on the manner in which it runs its operations, which would reduce its production, cash flows and profitability.

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

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

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

Concerns about the impacts of coal combustion on global climate are increasingly leading to conditions that have affected and could continue to affect demand for the Company’s products or its securities and its ability to produce, including increased governmental regulation of coal combustion and unfavorable investment decisions by electricity generators.

The enactment of future laws or the passage of regulations regarding emissions from the use of coal by the U.S., some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources. Further, policies limiting available financing for the development of new coal-fueled power stations could adversely impact the global demand for coal in the future. The potential financial impact on Peabody of such future laws, regulations or other policies will depend upon the degree to which any such laws or regulations force electricity generators to diminish their reliance on coal as a fuel source. That, in turn, will depend on a number of factors, including the specific requirements imposed by any such laws, regulations or other policies, the time periods over which those laws, regulations or other policies would be phased in, the state of development and deployment of CCUS technologies as well as acceptance of CCUS technologies to meet regulations and the alternative uses for coal. Higher-efficiency coal-fired power plants may also be an option for meeting laws or regulations related to emissions from coal use. Several countries, including major coal users such as China, India and Japan, included using higher-efficiency coal-fueled power plants in their plans under the Paris Agreement.

From time to time, the Company’s boardBoard of directorsDirectors and management attempt to analyze the potential impact on the Company of as-yet-unadopted, potential laws, regulations and policies. Such analyses require significant assumptions as to the specific provisions of such potential laws, regulations and policies which sometimes show that if implemented in the manner assumed by the analyses, the potential laws, regulations and policies could result in material adverse impacts on the Company’s operations, financial condition or cash flows. Such analyses cannot be relied upon to reasonably predict the quantitative impact that future laws, regulations or other policies may have on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Numerous activist groups are devoting substantial resources to anti-coal activities to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation, domestically and internationally, thereby further reducing the demand and pricing for coal, and potentially materially and adversely impacting the Company’s future financial results, liquidity and growth prospects.

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

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

The Company’s trading and hedging activities do not cover certain risks and may expose it to earnings volatility and other risks.

In additionThe Company is subject to coal price volatility, the Company is currently subject to price volatility on diesel fuel utilized in its mining operations and foreign currency exchange rate risk associated with the Australian dollar. The Company has entered intohedges certain of these risks through hedging arrangements to address these risks, and may continue in the future to enter into hedging arrangements, including economic hedging arrangements, to manage these risks or other exposures. Since the Company’s existing hedging arrangements do not receive cash flow hedge accounting treatment, all changes in fair value are reflected in current earnings.

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

The Company’s recoverable reserves and resources decline as it produces coal. The Company has not yet applied for the permits required or developed the mines necessary to use all of its reserves and resources. Moreover, the amount of coal reserves and resources described in Part I, Item 2. “Properties” involves the use of certain estimates and those estimates could be inaccurate. Actual production, revenue and expenditures with respect to its coal reserves and resources may vary materially from estimates.

The Company’s planned mine development projects and acquisition activities may not result in significant additional reserves and resources, and it may not have success developing additional mines. Most of its mining operations are conducted on properties owned or leased by the Company. Its right to mine some of its coal reserves and resources may be materially adversely affected if defects in title or boundaries exist. In order to conduct its mining operations on properties where these defects exist, the Company may incur unanticipated costs. In addition, in order to develop its reserves and resources, the Company must also own the rights to the related surface property and receive various governmental permits. The Company cannot predict whether it will continue to receive the permits or appropriate land access necessary for it to operate profitably in the future. The Company may not be able to negotiate or secure new leases from the government or from private parties, obtain mining contracts for properties containing additional coal reserves and resources or maintain its leasehold interest in properties on which mining operations have not commenced or have not met minimum quantity or product royalty requirements. From time to time, the Company has experienced litigation with lessors of its coal properties and with royalty holders. In addition, from time to time, its permit applications and federal and state coal leases have been challenged, causing production delays.

To the extent that the Company’s existing sources of liquidity are not sufficient to fund its planned mine development projects or coal reserve and resource acquisition activities, it may require access to capital markets, which may not be available to it or, if available, may not be available on satisfactory terms. If the Company is unable to fund these activities, it may not be able to maintain or increase its existing production rates and could be forced to change its business strategy, which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company faces numerous uncertainties in estimating its coal reserves and resources and inaccuracies in its estimates could result in lower than expected revenue, higher than expected costs and decreased profitability.

Coal is economically recoverable when the price at which the Company’s coal can be sold exceeds the costs and expenses of mining and selling the coal. The costs and expenses of mining and selling the coal are determined on a mine-by-mine basis, and as a result, the price at which its coal is economically recoverable varies based on the mine. Forecasts of the Company’s future performance are based on, among other things, estimates of its recoverable coal reserves and resources. The Company bases its reserve and resource information on engineering, economic and geological data assembled and analyzed by its staff and third parties, which includes various engineers and geologists. The Company's estimates are also subject to SEC regulations regarding classification of reserves and resources, including subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K. The reserve and resource estimates as to both quantity and quality are updated from time to time to reflect production of coal from the reserves and resources and new drilling or other data received. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of coal and costs to mine recoverable reserves and resources, including many factors beyond the Company’s control.

Estimates of economically recoverable coal 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:

Joint ventures, partnerships or non-managed operations may not be successful and may not comply with the Company’s operating standards.

The Company participates in several joint venture and partnership arrangements and may enter into others, all of which necessarily involve risk. Whether or not the Company holds majority interests or maintains operational control in its joint ventures, its partners may, among other things, (1) have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with, or opposed to, the Company’s; (2) seek to block actions that the Company believes are in its or the joint venture’s best interests; or (3) be unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations under the joint venture or other agreements, such as contributing capital, each of which may adversely impact the Company’s results of operations and its liquidity or impair its ability to recover its investments.

Where the Company’s joint ventures are jointly controlled or not managed by it, the Company may provide expertise and advice but have limited control over compliance with its operational standards. The Company also utilizes contractors across its mining platform, and may be similarly limited in its ability to control their operational practices. Failure by non-controlled joint venture partners or contractors to adhere to operational standards that are equivalent to the Company’s could unfavorably affect safety results, operating costs and productivity and adversely impact its results of operations and reputation.

The Company’s expenditures for postretirement benefit obligations could be materially higher than it has predicted if its underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect.

The Company pays postretirement health and life insurance benefits to eligible retirees. Its total accumulated postretirement benefit obligation related to such benefits was a liability of $172.5$163.7 million as of December 31, 2022,2023, of which $16.0$15.3 million was classified as a current liability.

These liabilities are actuarially determined. The Company uses various actuarial assumptions, including the discount rate, future cost trends, mortality tables, demographic assumptions and expected rates of return on plan assets to estimate the costs and obligations for these items. Its discount rate is determined by utilizing a hypothetical bond portfolio model which approximates the future cash flows necessary to service its liabilities. A decrease in the discount rate used to determine its postretirement benefit and defined benefit pension obligations could result in an increase in the valuation of these obligations, thereby increasing the cost in subsequent fiscal years. The Company has made assumptions related to future trends for medical care costs in the estimates of retiree health care obligations. Its medical trend assumption is developed by annually examining the historical trend of its cost per claim data. If the Company’s assumptions do not materialize as expected, actual cash expenditures and costs that it incurs could differ materially from its current estimates. Moreover, regulatory changes or changes in healthcare benefits provided by the government could increase its obligation to satisfy these or additional obligations. The Company develops its actuarial determinations of liabilities using actuarial mortality tables it believes best fit its population’s actual results. In deciding which mortality tables to use, the Company periodically reviews its population’s actual mortality experience and evaluates results against its current assumptions as well as consider recent mortality tables published by the Society of Actuaries Retirement Plans Experience Committee in order to select mortality tables for use in its year end valuations. If the Company’s mortality tables do not anticipate its population’s mortality experience as accurately as expected, actual cash expenditures and costs that the Company incurs could differ materially from its current estimates. Additionally, the Company’s reported defined benefit pension funding status may be affected, and it may be required

High inflation could continue to increase employer contributions, due to increases in its defined benefit pension obligation or poor financial performance in asset markets in future years.

RecentIn recent years the Company has been adversely impacted by inflation, increasingwhich has increased the cost of materials, labor, equipment, freight, fuel and other cost categories, has adversely impacted the Company and could be a sustained trend.categories. The Company’s efforts to recover inflation-based cost increases from its customers may be hampered as a result of the structure of its contracts and the contract bidding process as well as the competitive industries, economic conditions and countries in which the Company operates. Accordingly, substantial inflation may result in a material adverse impact on the Company’s costs, profitability and financial results.

The Company’s operations are susceptible to widespread outbreaks of illness or other public health issues, such as the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.issues. Pandemic illnesses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects, including its ability to comply with restrictions and covenants under its debt and surety bonding obligations.

Pandemic or other widespread illnesses could result in governmental mandates and the Company’s efforts to act in the best interests of its employees, customers, suppliers, vendors and joint venture and other business partners, could affect its business and operations, causing the Company to modify a number of its normal business practices. Governmental mandates could require forcedrequiring shutdowns of its mines and other facilities for extended or indefinite periods and widespread outbreaks in locations significant to its operations could adversely affect its workforce, resulting inperiods; serious health issues and absenteeism. In addition, pandemic illnesses could causeabsenteeism within the workforce; and disruptions to supply chain and distribution channels to be interrupted, slowedimpacting both vendors and customers. As a result, the Company could face increased costs or rendered inoperable. If the Company’s operations were curtailed, it may need to seek alternate sources of supply for commodities, services and labor, which may be more expensive. Alternate sources may not be available or may result in delays in shipments to its customers. Further, if the Company’s customers’ businesses were similarly affected, they might delay, reduce or cancel purchases from the Company.decreased sales. Adverse changes in the general domestic and global economic conditions and disrupted domestic and international credit markets, could negatively affect its customers’ ability to pay the Company as well as its ability to access capital that could negatively affect its liquidity.

Peabody is exposed to risks associated with political or international conflicts such as the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.conflicts.

Political or international conflicts can result in worldwide geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty, as has been the case with the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas conflict and escalating tensions in the Middle East. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate impacts related to such conflicts. If a conflict continues for a significant time or expands to other countries, it could have adverse effects on macroeconomic conditions, including but not limited to, turbulent coal pricing and trade flow disruptions resulting from sanctions imposed on coal imports; supply chain disruptions; increased costs; and decreased business spending. Furthermore, political or international conflicts could give rise to disruptions to Peabody or its business partners’ global technology infrastructure, including through cybercybersecurity attack or cyber intrusion; adverse changes in international trade policies and relations; regulatory enforcement; Peabody’s ability to implement and execute its business strategy; terrorist activities; Peabody’s exposure to foreign currency fluctuations; and constraints, volatility, or disruption in the capital markets, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Peabody could be exposed to significant liability, reputational harm, loss of revenue, increased costs or other risks if it sustains cybercybersecurity attacks or other security breaches that disrupt its operations or result in the dissemination of proprietary or confidential information about the Company, its customers or other third-parties.

Peabody has implemented security protocols and systems with the intent of maintaining the physical security of its operations and protecting the Company’s and its counterparties’ confidential information and information related to identifiable individuals against unauthorized access. Despite such efforts, the Company may be subject to security breaches which could result in unauthorized access to its facilities or the information it is trying to protect. Unauthorized physical access to one of the Company’s facilities or electronic access to its information systems could result in, among other things, unfavorable publicity, litigation by affected parties, damage to sources of competitive advantage, disruptions to its operations, loss of customers, financial obligations for damages related to the theft or misuse of such information and costs to remediate such security vulnerabilities, any of which could have a substantial impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company is subject to various general operating risks which may be fully or partially outside of its control.

The Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows could be adversely impacted by various general operating risks which may be fully or partially outside of its control. Such risks stem from internal and external sources and include:

The terms of the agreements and instruments governing the Company’s debt and surety bonding obligations impose restrictions that may limit its operating and financial flexibility.

The agreements governing the Company’s unsecured debt, revolving credit facility and surety bonding obligations contain certain restrictions and covenants, which restrict its ability to incur liens and/or debt or provide guarantees in respect of obligations of any other personare described below and other restrictions, all of which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to operate its business, as well as significantly affect its liquidity, and therefore could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations.

These restrictions and covenants may limit, among other things, the Company’s ability to:

The Company’s ability to comply with these restrictions or covenants may be affected by events beyond its control and the Company may need to refinance existing debt in the future.control. A breach of any of these restrictions or covenants together with the expiration of any cure period, if applicable, could result in a default. If any such default occurs, subject to applicable grace periods, the holders of the Company’s indebtedness may elect to declare such indebtedness, together with accrued interest and other amounts payable thereunder, to be immediately due and payable. In addition, the lenders under the Company’s revolving credit facility could elect to require the cash collateralization of any outstanding letters of credit. If such obligations were to bethe Company’s indebtedness is accelerated, the Company’s financialCompany may not have sufficient cash flows and capital resources may be insufficient to repay such indebtedness or be able to restructure or refinance such indebtedness. Even if the debt and any other obligations becoming due in full as a result of certain cross default provisions.Company were able to restructure its indebtedness or obtain additional capital or new or replacement financing, it may not be on commercially reasonable terms or on terms that are acceptable to the Company.

IfIn this regard, if the Company experiences a default under the terms of its unsecured debt, revolving credit facility or surety bonding obligations for any reason, its business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, complying with such terms may make it more difficult for the Company to successfully execute its business strategy, andincluding by making it more difficult to compete against companiescompetitors who are not subject to such financial restrictions.

The number and quantity of viable financing and insurance alternatives available to the Company may be significantly impacted by unfavorable lending and investment policies by financial institutions and insurance companies associated with concerns about environmental impacts of coal combustion, and negative views around its efforts with respect to environmental and social matters and related governance considerations could harm the perception of the Company by a significant number of investors or result in the exclusion of its securities from consideration by those investors.

Certain banks, other financing sources and insurance companies have taken actions to limit available financing and insurance coverage for the development of new coal-fueled power plants and coal producers and utilities that derive a majority of their revenue from coal, and particularly from thermal coal. This may adversely impact the future global demand for coal. Increasingly, the actions of such financial institutions and insurance companies are informed by non-standardized “sustainability” scores, ratings and benchmarking studies provided by various organizations that assess environmental, social and governance matters. Further, there have been efforts in recent years by members of the general financial and investment communities, including investment advisors, sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, universities and other institutional investors, to divest themselves and to promote the divestment of securities issued by companies involved in the fossil fuel extraction market, or that have low ratings or scores in studies and assessments of the type noted above, including coal producers. These entities also have been pressuring lenders to limit financing available to such companies.

These efforts may have adverse consequences, including, but not limited to:

The price of Peabody’s securities may be volatile.

The price of Peabody’s common stock (Common Stock) may fluctuate due to a variety of market and industry factors that may materially reduce the market price of its Common Stock regardless of its operating performance, including, among others:

As a result of all of these factors, investors in Peabody’s Common Stock may not be able to resell their stock at or above the price they paid or at all. Further, Peabody could be the subject of securities class action litigation due to any such stock price volatility, which could divert management’s attention and have a material adverse effect on its results of operation.

Peabody’s Common Stock is subject to dilution and may be subject to further dilution in the future.

Peabody’s Common Stock is subject to dilution from its convertible senior debt and its long-term incentive plan. In addition, Peabody may continue issuing equity securities in connection with future investments, acquisitions or capital raising transactions. Such issuances or grants could constitute a significant portion of the then-outstanding Common Stock, which may result in significant dilution in ownership of Common Stock.

There may be circumstances in which the interests of a significant stockholder could be in conflict with other stakeholders’ interests.

Circumstances may arise in which the interests of a significant stockholder may be in conflict with the interests of the Company’s other stakeholders. A significant stockholder may exert substantial influence over the Company to cause the Company to take action that aligns with their interests, for example, to pursue or prevent acquisitions, divestitures or other transactions, including the issuance or repurchase of additional shares or debt, that, in its judgment, could enhance its investment in Peabody or another company in which it invests. Such transactions may advance the interests of the significant stockholder and not necessarily those of other stakeholders, which might adversely affect Peabody or other holders of its Common Stock or debt instruments.

The future payment of dividends on Peabody’s stock or future repurchases of its stock is dependent on a number of factors and cannot be assured.

The Company may not be able to fully utilize its deferred tax assets.

The Company is subject to income and other taxes in the U.S. and numerous foreign jurisdictions, most significantly Australia. As of December 31, 2022,2023, the Company had gross deferred income tax assets, including net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards, and liabilities of $1,587.0$1,556.1 million and $81.7$111.2 million, respectively, as described further in Note 8. “Income Taxes” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At that date, the Company also had recorded a valuation allowance of $1,451.0$1,473.5 million.

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

Although the Company may be able to utilize some or all of those deferred tax assets in the future if it has income of the appropriate character in those jurisdictions (subject to loss carryforward and tax credit expiry, in certain cases), there is no assurance that it will be able to do so. Further, the Company is presently unable to record tax benefits on future losses in the U.S. until such time as sufficient income is generated by its operations in those jurisdictions to support the realization of the related net deferred tax asset positions. The Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows may adversely be affected in future periods by these limitations.

Peabody’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws include provisions that may discourage a takeover attempt.

Provisions contained in Peabody’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire it, even if doing so might be beneficial to its stockholders. Provisions of Peabody’s by-laws and certificate of incorporation impose various procedural and other requirements that could make it more difficult for stockholders to effect certain corporate actions. These provisions could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of its Common Stock and may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control.

Diversity in interpretation and application of accounting literature in the mining industry may impact the Company’s reported financial results.

The mining industry has limited industry-specific accounting literature and, as a result, the Company understands diversity in practice exists in the interpretation and application of accounting literature to mining-specific issues. As diversity in mining industry accounting is addressed, the Company may need to restate its reported results if the resulting interpretations differ from its current accounting practices. Refer to Note 1. “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a summary of the Company’s significant accounting policies.

None.

Information concerning the Company’s mining properties in this Annual Report on Form 10-K has 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, subpartS-K. Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K requires disclosure of mineral resources, in addition to mineral reserves, both in the aggregate and for each of the Company��sCompany’s individually material mining properties. The Company’s coal reserves and resources are estimated by individuals deemed Qualified Persons (QP) according to the standards set forth in subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K.

Mineral resources and reserves are defined in subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K as follows:

Under subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, mineral resources may not be classified as mineral reserves unless the determination has been made by a QP that such mineral resources can be the basis of an economically viable project. The conversion of reported mineral resources to mineral reserves should not be assumed.

Coal resources are estimated from geological models constructed from an extensive historical database of drill holes and the Company’s ongoing drilling program. Data from individual drill holes is compiled in a computerized drill-hole database, including the depth, thickness and, where core drilling is used, the quality of the coal observed. For coal deposits, the density of a drill pattern is one of the important factors which determine whether the related coal will be classified as measured, indicated, or inferred.

Mineral resource classifications are differentiated under subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, in part, as follows:

The geological confidence surrounding resource classification is first determined by a drill hole spacing analysis performed by a QP using geostatistical techniques. A QP may also use qualitative analysis to determine the geologic confidence based on historical experience with a specific coal deposit. Resources are further evaluated using a set of structure and quality parameters to determine the reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The structure parameters include coal thickness, depth, dipping angle, and strip ratio, among others. The quality parameters include ash and sulfur content, yield, and heat value, among others. Each coal deposit is different with respect to geology, potential mining methods, logistics, and markets. The cut-off criteria of those structure and quality parameters are different for each deposit, and a QP generally forms those criteria based upon experience with the Company’s existing mining operations or adjacent operations with similar geological conditions. Other factors, such as coal control, or surface and underground obstacles are also considered in connection with resource estimates. The reclassification of reported mineral resources from lower to higher levels of geological confidence should not be assumed.

For each mine or future mine, the Company develops Life-of-Mine (LOM) plans which employ a market-driven, risk-adjusted capital allocation process to guide long-term mine planning of active operations and development projects. QPs rely on LOM planning as an integral process for coal reserve and resource estimates. The LOM plans consider dilution and losses during mining and processing as recoverability factors to estimate saleable coal. The LOM plans are developed in consideration of market demands and operational constraints. The LOM plans project, among other things, annual quantities and qualities for each coal product. The saleable product mix for a mine may include multiple thermal and metallurgical products with different targeted qualities and sales prices. The expected volumes for each mine and product, as well as annual pricing forecasts for each product, developed as described below, and related cost forecasts, developed as described below, are then evaluated to determine the economically viable coal in the LOM plans. Other factors impacting the assessment include geological conditions, production expectations for certain areas, the effects of regulation and taxes by governmental agencies, future price and operating cost assumptions and adverse changes in market conditions and mine closure activities.

The Company periodically reviews and updates coal reserve and resource estimates to reflect the production of coal, new drill hole data, the effects of mining activities, analysis of new engineering and geological data, changes in property control, modification of mining methods and other factors.

The Company controls coal rights through direct ownership and numerous lease agreements with government or private parties. The majority of the Company’s coal reserves and resources are controlled through lease agreements with the U.S. and Australian governments. In addition, surface rights are required to conduct certain mining-related activities. The Company holds the majority of the required surface rights to meet mid- to long-term production requirements. The additional surface rights to meet long-term production requirements are expected to be acquired as needed.

The Company is party to numerous U.S. federal coal leases that are administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior under the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976. These leases cover Peabody’s principal reserves in the Powder River Basin and other reserves and resources in Alabama, Colorado and New Mexico. Each of these leases continues indefinitely, provided there is diligent development of the property and continued operation of the related mine or mines. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has asserted the right to adjust the terms and conditions of these leases, including rent and royalties, after the first 20 years of their term and at 10-year intervals thereafter. Annual rents on surface land under federal coal leases are now set at $3.00 per acre. Production royalties on federal leases are set by statute at 12.5% of the gross proceeds of coal mined and sold for surface-mined coal and 8% for underground-mined coal. The U.S. federal government limits by statute the amount of federal land that may be leased by any company and its affiliates at any time to 75,000 acres in any one state and 150,000 acres nationwide. As of December 31, 2022,2023, the Company leased 1,610 acres of federal land in Alabama, 3,480 acres in Colorado, 282 acres in New Mexico and 38,915 acres in Wyoming, for a total of 44,287 acres nationwide subject to those limitations. The Company also leaseleases coal-mining properties from various state governments in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost estimates used to establish LOM plans are generally made according to internal processes that project future costs based on historical costs and expected trends. The estimated costs normally include mining, processing, transportation, royalty, add-on tax and other mining-related costs. Estimated mining and processing costs reflect projected changes in prices of consumable commodities (mainly diesel fuel, explosives and steel), labor costs, geological and mining conditions, targeted product qualities and other mining-related costs. Estimates for other sales-related costs (mainly transportation, royalty and add-on tax) are based on contractual prices or fixed rates. Specific factors that may impact the Company’s operating costs include:

Peabody controlled an estimated 2.42.1 billion tons of coal reserves and 2.42.7 billion tons of coal resources as of December 31, 2022.2023. Approximately 95%97% of the Company’s coal reserves and 98%94% of the Company’s coal resources are held under lease, and the remainder is held through fee ownership.