Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of June 30, 2016, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $13.6 million, all of which is obligated within the next 12 months. There were no other material changes to the Company’s commitments from the information provided in Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. Contingencies From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company's results of operations for the periods presented. Effect of Automatic Stay. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on the Petition Date in the Bankruptcy Court. Each of the Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, unless and until the Bankruptcy Court modifies or lifts the automatic stay as to any such claim. Notwithstanding the general application of the automatic stay described above, governmental authorities may determine to continue actions brought under their police and regulatory powers. The Debtors have filed notices of the bankruptcy filings and suggestions of stay in the applicable domestic matters involving one or more of the Debtors as discussed below and in Note 20. "Matters Related to the Bankruptcy of Patriot Coal Corporation". It is currently unclear whether or how the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases will affect the liabilities described in Note 20. Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a statement of claim was delivered to Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEA-PCI, then Macarthur Coal Limited, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee, from the minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Management Agreement. Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd is the manager of the Monto Coal Joint Venture pursuant to the Management Agreement. Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd holds a 51% interest in the Monto Coal Joint Venture. The plaintiffs are Sanrus Pty Ltd, Edge Developments Pty Ltd and H&J Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd. An additional statement of claim was delivered to PEA-PCI in November 2010 from the same minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that PEA-PCI induced Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd to breach the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and the Monto Coal Management Agreement, respectively. The plaintiffs later amended their claim to allege damages for lost opportunities to sell their joint venture interest. These actions, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages from the three defendants collectively of amounts ranging from $15.6 million Australian dollars to $1.8 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The defendants dispute the claims and are vigorously defending their positions. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Queensland Bulk Handling Pty Ltd. On June 30, 2014, QBH filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, against Peabody (Wilkie Creek) Pty Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleging breach of a CPSA between the parties. QBH originally sought damages of $113.1 million Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. However, it later altered its claim to seek a declaration that the Company subsidiary had exercised an option to renew the contract for a further term, and withdrew its claim for money damages. On February 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia ruled that QBH and the Company subsidiary were bound to enter into a new CPSA upon substantially the same terms as the 2009 CPSA between them. Under the 2009 CPSA, QBH provided services to Peabody (Wilkie Creek) Pty Limited for operations at the Wilkie Creek Mine, which was closed in 2013. The term of the potential new CPSA would commence January 1, 2015 and expire on December 31, 2026 and, assuming substantially the same contractual terms, would require annual minimum payments of approximately $11.8 million Australian dollars. The Company subsidiary appealed this ruling, which was heard by the Court of Appeal on July 30, 2015. On October 23, 2015, the appellate court upheld this ruling and dismissed the appeal. The Company subsidiary was ordered to pay QBH’s costs of the appeal. In February 2016, QBH served costs statements on the Company subsidiary for attorneys' fees for the appeal and trial and the Company subsidiary is in the process of objecting to the amount of those costs. On December 8, 2015, QBH filed a claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia seeking specific performance of the Company subsidiary’s obligation to enter into a new CPSA as described above and payment of $11.8 million Australian dollars representing amounts invoiced by QBH from January through November 2015, plus additional amounts for interest and attorney fees. On January 29, 2016, the Company subsidiary filed a defense to these claims. On February 15, 2016, QBH filed an application for summary judgment, which QBH subsequently agreed to adjourn to a date to be fixed, seeking an order requiring the Company subsidiary to execute a new CPSA and seeking additional amounts invoiced by QBH through February 2016, plus additional interest on these amounts and attorney fees. On February 29, 2016 QBH filed an amended statement of claim. The Company subsidiary filed a defense to the amended statement of claim on March 22, 2016. QBH filed an amended statement of claim in answer to the Company’s amended defense on April 12, 2016. The only change by QBH was to plead that if the Company is correct in its claim that the CSPA was repudiated by the Company and validly terminated by QBH’s acceptance of that repudiation, then QBH claims damages in the alternative. The Company filed an amended defense on May 3, 2016. On May 25, 2016, QBH filed a reply and answer to the Company subsidiary’s amended defense. While the ultimate impact of the litigation is subject to a wide range of uncertainty, the Company recognized a charge of $9.7 million to discontinued operations during 2015, of which $7.6 million was recorded in the six months ended June 30, 2015. It is possible that additional exposure may exist although the Company cannot reasonably estimate any such additional exposure. Lori J. Lynn Class Action. On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC) employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of three of the Company’s or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The lawsuit, which was brought against Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company’s and PIC’s current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans. On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of the current members and two former members of the relevant boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that included new allegations against the Company related to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended complaint also added the three committees responsible for administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and dropped several individual defendants, including current directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the individual defendants and the three named committees with the second amended complaint. CNTA Dispute. On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a complaint and a request for declaratory judgment in the Bankruptcy Court against Citibank, N.A. (in its capacity as Administrative Agent under the Company’s 2013 Credit Facility), among others, regarding the extent of certain collateral and secured claims of certain prepetition creditors. On June 13, 2016, Citibank, N.A. filed an answer and counter-claim for declaratory judgment. On June 14, 2016, two motions to intervene were filed, one from the official Unsecured Creditors Committee and another from a group of creditors holding $1.65 billion in face value of the Company's Senior Notes. The intervention motions were granted on July 7, 2016. The result of this action could impact respective recoveries for secured and unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 Cases. APS/PacifiCorp Litigation. The Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and PacifiCorp filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking authorization to allow it to terminate a coal sales agreement, which accounts for approximately half of the Company's El Segundo Mine sales volume. The Company filed a complaint for APS’s and PacifiCorp’s violation of the automatic stay applicable to the Chapter 11 Cases and breach of the coal sales agreement. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its rights under the coal sales agreement, and against APS/PacifiCorp for the violations of the automatic stay and the coal sales agreement. Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations Environmental Claims and Litigation Arising From Historical, Non-Coal Producing Operations. Gold Fields Mining, LLC (Gold Fields) is a non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson plc, the Company's predecessor owner. In a February 1997 spin-off, Hanson plc transferred ownership of Gold Fields to PEC despite the fact that Gold Fields had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields. Gold Fields is currently one of PEC's subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields also agreed to indemnify Blue Tee with respect to certain claims relating to the historical operations of a predecessor of Blue Tee, which is a former affiliate of Gold Fields. Neither PEC nor Gold Fields had any involvement with the past operations of the Blue Tee predecessor. Pursuant to the indemnity, Blue Tee has tendered its environmental claims for remediation, past cost and future costs, and/or natural resource damages (Blue Tee Liabilities) to Gold Fields. Although Gold Fields has paid remediation costs as a result of the indemnification obligations, Blue Tee has been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at six designated national priority list (NPL) sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and similar statutes. Of these sites where Blue Tee has been identified as a PRP, neither Gold Fields nor PEC is a party to any cleanup orders relating to the operations of Blue Tee’s predecessor. In addition to the NPL sites, Blue Tee has been named a PRP at a minimum of twelve other sites, where Gold Fields has either paid remediation costs or settled the environmental claims on behalf of Blue Tee. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has now stopped paying these remediation costs. Environmental claims for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages also have been asserted by the EPA and natural resources trustees against Gold Fields related to historical activities of Gold Fields’ predecessor. Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP at four NPL sites and has been conducting response actions or working with EPA to resolve past cost recovery claims at these sites pursuant to cleanup orders or other negotiations. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has ceased its response actions and other engagement with EPA at these sites. Undiscounted liabilities for environmental cleanup-related costs relating to (i) the contractual indemnification obligations owed to Blue Tee and (ii) for the sites noted above for which Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP as a result of the operations of its predecessor, are collectively estimated to be $62.9 million and $66.9 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The majority of these estimated costs relate to Blue Tee site liabilities. Significant uncertainty exists as to whether any claims relating to the above-described liabilities will be pursued, and where they are pursued, the amount and timing of the eventual costs and liabilities, which could be greater or less than the liabilities recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Changes to cost estimates associated with a particular site can occur for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the gathering of additional information at the site, the completion of the remedial design phase of the CERCLA remediation process, changes in anticipated remediation standards or labor and material costs, the outcome of natural resources assessments by trustees, or the reaching of a settlement agreement or consent order by the parties at the site. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the total amount of any future loss cannot be reasonably estimated. However, based on current information, the Company believes these claims are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

As of June 30, 2016, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $13.6 million, all of which is obligated within the next 12 months.

There were no other material changes to the Company’s commitments from the information provided in Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company's results of operations for the periods presented.

Effect of Automatic Stay. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on the Petition Date in the Bankruptcy Court. Each of the Debtors continues to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates, unless and until the Bankruptcy Court modifies or lifts the automatic stay as to any such claim. Notwithstanding the general application of the automatic stay described above, governmental authorities may determine to continue actions brought under their police and regulatory powers.

The Debtors have filed notices of the bankruptcy filings and suggestions of stay in the applicable domestic matters involving one or more of the Debtors as discussed below and in Note 20. "Matters Related to the Bankruptcy of Patriot Coal Corporation". It is currently unclear whether or how the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases will affect the liabilities described in Note 20.

Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations

Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a statement of claim was delivered to Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEA-PCI, then Macarthur Coal Limited, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee, from the minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Management Agreement. Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd is the manager of the Monto Coal Joint Venture pursuant to the Management Agreement. Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd holds a 51% interest in the Monto Coal Joint Venture. The plaintiffs are Sanrus Pty Ltd, Edge Developments Pty Ltd and H&J Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd. An additional statement of claim was delivered to PEA-PCI in November 2010 from the same minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that PEA-PCI induced Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd to breach the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and the Monto Coal Management Agreement, respectively. The plaintiffs later amended their claim to allege damages for lost opportunities to sell their joint venture interest. These actions, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages from the three defendants collectively of amounts ranging from $15.6 million Australian dollars to $1.8 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The defendants dispute the claims and are vigorously defending their positions. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

Queensland Bulk Handling Pty Ltd. On June 30, 2014, QBH filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, against Peabody (Wilkie Creek) Pty Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleging breach of a CPSA between the parties. QBH originally sought damages of $113.1 million Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. However, it later altered its claim to seek a declaration that the Company subsidiary had exercised an option to renew the contract for a further term, and withdrew its claim for money damages.

On February 27, 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia ruled that QBH and the Company subsidiary were bound to enter into a new CPSA upon substantially the same terms as the 2009 CPSA between them. Under the 2009 CPSA, QBH provided services to Peabody (Wilkie Creek) Pty Limited for operations at the Wilkie Creek Mine, which was closed in 2013. The term of the potential new CPSA would commence January 1, 2015 and expire on December 31, 2026 and, assuming substantially the same contractual terms, would require annual minimum payments of approximately $11.8 million Australian dollars. The Company subsidiary appealed this ruling, which was heard by the Court of Appeal on July 30, 2015. On October 23, 2015, the appellate court upheld this ruling and dismissed the appeal. The Company subsidiary was ordered to pay QBH’s costs of the appeal. In February 2016, QBH served costs statements on the Company subsidiary for attorneys' fees for the appeal and trial and the Company subsidiary is in the process of objecting to the amount of those costs.

On December 8, 2015, QBH filed a claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia seeking specific performance of the Company subsidiary’s obligation to enter into a new CPSA as described above and payment of $11.8 million Australian dollars representing amounts invoiced by QBH from January through November 2015, plus additional amounts for interest and attorney fees. On January 29, 2016, the Company subsidiary filed a defense to these claims. On February 15, 2016, QBH filed an application for summary judgment, which QBH subsequently agreed to adjourn to a date to be fixed, seeking an order requiring the Company subsidiary to execute a new CPSA and seeking additional amounts invoiced by QBH through February 2016, plus additional interest on these amounts and attorney fees. On February 29, 2016 QBH filed an amended statement of claim. The Company subsidiary filed a defense to the amended statement of claim on March 22, 2016. QBH filed an amended statement of claim in answer to the Company’s amended defense on April 12, 2016. The only change by QBH was to plead that if the Company is correct in its claim that the CSPA was repudiated by the Company and validly terminated by QBH’s acceptance of that repudiation, then QBH claims damages in the alternative. The Company filed an amended defense on May 3, 2016. On May 25, 2016, QBH filed a reply and answer to the Company subsidiary’s amended defense.

While the ultimate impact of the litigation is subject to a wide range of uncertainty, the Company recognized a charge of $9.7 million to discontinued operations during 2015, of which $7.6 million was recorded in the six months ended June 30, 2015. It is possible that additional exposure may exist although the Company cannot reasonably estimate any such additional exposure.

Lori J. Lynn Class Action. On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC) employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of three of the Company’s or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The lawsuit, which was brought against Peabody Energy Corporation (PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company’s and PIC’s current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of the current members and two former members of the relevant boards of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that included new allegations against the Company related to the Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended complaint also added the three committees responsible for administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and dropped several individual defendants, including current directors of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the individual defendants and the three named committees with the second amended complaint.

CNTA Dispute. On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a complaint and a request for declaratory judgment in the Bankruptcy Court against Citibank, N.A. (in its capacity as Administrative Agent under the Company’s 2013 Credit Facility), among others, regarding the extent of certain collateral and secured claims of certain prepetition creditors. On June 13, 2016, Citibank, N.A. filed an answer and counter-claim for declaratory judgment. On June 14, 2016, two motions to intervene were filed, one from the official Unsecured Creditors Committee and another from a group of creditors holding $1.65 billion in face value of the Company's Senior Notes. The intervention motions were granted on July 7, 2016. The result of this action could impact respective recoveries for secured and unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 Cases.

APS/PacifiCorp Litigation. The Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and PacifiCorp filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court seeking authorization to allow it to terminate a coal sales agreement, which accounts for approximately half of the Company's El Segundo Mine sales volume. The Company filed a complaint for APS’s and PacifiCorp’s violation of the automatic stay applicable to the Chapter 11 Cases and breach of the coal sales agreement. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its rights under the coal sales agreement, and against APS/PacifiCorp for the violations of the automatic stay and the coal sales agreement.

Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations

Environmental Claims and Litigation Arising From Historical, Non-Coal Producing Operations. Gold Fields Mining, LLC (Gold Fields) is a non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson plc, the Company's predecessor owner. In a February 1997 spin-off, Hanson plc transferred ownership of Gold Fields to PEC despite the fact that Gold Fields had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields. Gold Fields is currently one of PEC's subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields also agreed to indemnify Blue Tee with respect to certain claims relating to the historical operations of a predecessor of Blue Tee, which is a former affiliate of Gold Fields. Neither PEC nor Gold Fields had any involvement with the past operations of the Blue Tee predecessor.

Pursuant to the indemnity, Blue Tee has tendered its environmental claims for remediation, past cost and future costs, and/or natural resource damages (Blue Tee Liabilities) to Gold Fields. Although Gold Fields has paid remediation costs as a result of the indemnification obligations, Blue Tee has been identified as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at six designated national priority list (NPL) sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and similar statutes. Of these sites where Blue Tee has been identified as a PRP, neither Gold Fields nor PEC is a party to any cleanup orders relating to the operations of Blue Tee’s predecessor. In addition to the NPL sites, Blue Tee has been named a PRP at a minimum of twelve other sites, where Gold Fields has either paid remediation costs or settled the environmental claims on behalf of Blue Tee. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has now stopped paying these remediation costs.

Environmental claims for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages also have been asserted by the EPA and natural resources trustees against Gold Fields related to historical activities of Gold Fields’ predecessor. Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP at four NPL sites and has been conducting response actions or working with EPA to resolve past cost recovery claims at these sites pursuant to cleanup orders or other negotiations. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields has ceased its response actions and other engagement with EPA at these sites.

Undiscounted liabilities for environmental cleanup-related costs relating to (i) the contractual indemnification obligations owed to Blue Tee and (ii) for the sites noted above for which Gold Fields has been identified as a PRP as a result of the operations of its predecessor, are collectively estimated to be $62.9 million and $66.9 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The majority of these estimated costs relate to Blue Tee site liabilities.

Significant uncertainty exists as to whether any claims relating to the above-described liabilities will be pursued, and where they are pursued, the amount and timing of the eventual costs and liabilities, which could be greater or less than the liabilities recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Changes to cost estimates associated with a particular site can occur for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the gathering of additional information at the site, the completion of the remedial design phase of the CERCLA remediation process, changes in anticipated remediation standards or labor and material costs, the outcome of natural resources assessments by trustees, or the reaching of a settlement agreement or consent order by the parties at the site. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the total amount of any future loss cannot be reasonably estimated. However, based on current information, the Company believes these claims are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Other

At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.