Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of September 30, 2017, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $56.3 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 26 to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, as amended on July 10, 2017 and August 14, 2017. 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. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, each of the Debtors continued 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. The automatic stay was lifted when the Plan became effective on April 3, 2017 and was replaced by the injunction provisions under the Debtors’ confirmed Plan. The Plan’s injunction provisions provide that all holders of prepetition claims or interests are enjoined, or stayed, from, among other things, (a) commencing, conducting or continuing any suit, action or other proceeding against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, (b) enforcing, levying, attaching, collecting or otherwise recovering an award against the Debtors, their property or the assets or property of the reorganized Debtors, (c) creating, perfecting or otherwise enforcing a lien against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, and (d) asserting any setoff, right of subrogation or recoupment against any obligation due a Debtor or a reorganized Debtor. The Chapter 11 Cases impacted the liabilities of the Debtors described below and in Note 5. “Discontinued Operations,” as well as certain other contingent liabilities the Debtors may have. For example, if a contingent litigation liability of the Debtors is ultimately allowed as a prepetition claim under the Bankruptcy Code, that claim will be subject to the applicable treatment set forth in the Plan and be discharged pursuant to the terms of the Plan. 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, that was then known as 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. Orders have been made by the court relating to trial preparation steps, with the steps expected to be completed by the end of February 2018. A trial date is expected in the second half of 2018 (at the earliest) or in 2019. Based on the Company’s evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss currently cannot be reasonably estimated. 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), 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 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 then 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 the then 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. On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2017, the United States District Court granted the motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the March 30th order granting the motion to dismiss. On July 7, 2017 the Bankruptcy Court entered an order on the agreed stipulation of the Debtors and plaintiffs such that the claim of the plaintiffs was estimated to have no value for purposes of any distribution under the Plan, except that plaintiffs are not precluded from pursuing recovery from applicable insurance, and that plaintiffs will limit their recovery solely to applicable insurance. On September 28 2017, plaintiffs unilaterally filed a notice of dismissal of the appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. The March 30, 2017 United States District Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss is now a final judgment. Berenergy Corporation. The Company has been in a legal dispute with Berenergy Corporation (Berenergy) regarding Berenergy’s access to certain of its underground oil deposits beneath the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine and contiguous undisturbed areas. The Company believes that any claims related to this matter constitute prepetition claims. On October 13, 2016, the Sixth Judicial Court in the state of Wyoming (Wyoming Court) entered an order (Wyoming Court Decision) allowing the Company the right to mine through certain wells owned by Berenergy but required the Company to compensate Berenergy for damages of $0.9 million, which the Company recognized during 2016. Further, the Wyoming Court ruled that should Berenergy obtain approval from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the Commission) to recover certain secondary deposits beneath the mine’s contiguous undisturbed areas, the Company would be liable to Berenergy for the cost of certain special procedures and equipment required to access the secondary deposits remotely from outside the Company’s mine area, which has been estimated as $13.1 million by Berenergy. Berenergy so far has not applied to the Commission for approval and the Company believes it is not probable that the Commission would approve access to the secondary deposits if Berenergy applied based on the Company’s view of a lack of economic feasibility and certain restrictions on Berenergy’s legal claim to the deposits. Based upon these factors, the Company has not accrued a liability related to the secondary deposits as of September 30, 2017. On December 21, 2016, Berenergy filed a Notice of Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. On January 5, 2017, Peabody filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. Both parties filed appellate briefs on April 17, 2017. The matter before the Wyoming Supreme Court has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were held on August 16, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order disallowing Berenergy’s proof of claim for the amounts awarded in the Wyoming Court Decision, which the Company believes discharged its obligation to pay these amounts. County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Confirmation Order in the Bankruptcy Court because the Confirmation Order enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was heard on October 5, 2017 and granted on October 24, 2017. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company. 10th Circuit U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Appeal. On September 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court of Wyoming’s decision upholding BLM’s approval of four coal leases in the Powder River Basin. Two of the four leases relate to the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. There is no immediate impact on the Company’s leases as the Court of Appeals did not vacate the leases as part of its ruling. Rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court with directions to order BLM to revise its environmental analysis. The Company’s operations will continue in the normal course during this period since the decision has no impact on mining at this time. The Company currently believes that its operations are unlikely to be materially impacted by this case, but the timing and magnitude of any impact on the Company’s future operations is not certain. Wilpinjong Extension Project (WEP). Wollar Progress Association has applied to the Land & Environment Court for a judicial review of the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission’s (PAC) decision to approve the WEP. In the interim, the Company’s Wilpinjong Mine can continue to mine in accordance with its approvals. The Company intends to fully defend the validity of the PAC’s decision. 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 and many of its subsidiaries had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields and its subsidiaries. Prior to the Effective Date, Gold Fields was one of PEC’s subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields 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 tendered its environmental claims for remediation, past 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 various 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 multiple 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 stopped paying these remediation costs. Environmental assessments for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages were also asserted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (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 the 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 ceased its response actions and other engagements with the 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, were collectively estimated to be $62.8 million as of December 31, 2016 in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The majority of these estimated costs related to Blue Tee site liabilities. Prior to the August 19, 2016 bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, Blue Tee filed an unliquidated, general unsecured claim in the amount of $65.6 million against Gold Fields regarding the Blue Tee Liabilities, additional unliquidated claims in an unknown amount in excess of $150 million at known sites, and further contingent claims at known and unknown sites, including natural resources damages (NRDs) claims alleged, without explanation, to be in the range of $500 million. On November 17, 2016 Blue Tee amended it claim to increase the amount of the claim to $1.2 billion. Prior to the October 11, 2016 government bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, several governmental entities including the EPA, the Department of the Interior and several states filed unliquidated, secured and general unsecured claims against PEC and Gold Fields. These claims totaled in excess of $2.7 billion and alleged damages for past and future remediation costs as well as for alleged NRDs at several sites. As noted in the claims, many of the claims were duplicative as they overlapped with each other as well as with claims made by Blue Tee. On January 27, 2017, PEC filed objections to claims filed by the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA (collectively the PEC Objections). The PEC Objections dispute that PEC has liability to the claimant under applicable federal environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that PEC never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites. On February 2, 2017, Gold Fields filed objections to claims filed by the State of Oklahoma, the State of Missouri, the U.S. Department of Interior, the EPA, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (collectively the Gold Fields Objections). The Gold Fields Objections dispute that Gold Fields has liability to the claimant under applicable federal and state environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that Gold Fields never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites. On March 16, 2017, the Debtors agreed to settle the objections to the Plan filed by Blue Tee and several government entities in the Chapter 11 Cases. Under the settlements, the Debtors will (1) not seek to recover federal tax refunds owed to Debtors in the amount of approximately $11 million; (2) transfer $12 million of insurance settlement proceeds from Century and Pacific Employers Insurance Company relating to environmental liabilities to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust (as described in the Plan); and (3) pay $20 million to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust. On March 16 and 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving these settlements. On July 13, 2017, the Debtors and government entities entered into a settlement agreement to reflect the above settlement. Notice of the settlement agreement was given in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court gave final approval of the settlement agreement after the notice and comment period expired. As of the Effective Date, all Gold Fields assets and liabilities have been transferred to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust and Reorganized Debtors have no further obligations with respect to Gold Fields. 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 September 30, 2017, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $56.3 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 26 to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, as amended on July 10, 2017 and August 14, 2017.

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. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, each of the Debtors continued 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.

The automatic stay was lifted when the Plan became effective on April 3, 2017 and was replaced by the injunction provisions under the Debtors’ confirmed Plan. The Plan’s injunction provisions provide that all holders of prepetition claims or interests are enjoined, or stayed, from, among other things, (a) commencing, conducting or continuing any suit, action or other proceeding against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, (b) enforcing, levying, attaching, collecting or otherwise recovering an award against the Debtors, their property or the assets or property of the reorganized Debtors, (c) creating, perfecting or otherwise enforcing a lien against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, and (d) asserting any setoff, right of subrogation or recoupment against any obligation due a Debtor or a reorganized Debtor.

The Chapter 11 Cases impacted the liabilities of the Debtors described below and in Note 5. “Discontinued Operations,” as well as certain other contingent liabilities the Debtors may have. For example, if a contingent litigation liability of the Debtors is ultimately allowed as a prepetition claim under the Bankruptcy Code, that claim will be subject to the applicable treatment set forth in the Plan and be discharged pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

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, that was then known as 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. Orders have been made by the court relating to trial preparation steps, with the steps expected to be completed by the end of February 2018. A trial date is expected in the second half of 2018 (at the earliest) or in 2019. Based on the Company’s evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss currently cannot be reasonably estimated.

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), 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 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 then 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 the then 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. On November 17, 2016, the parties presented arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2017, the United States District Court granted the motion to dismiss. On May 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the March 30th order granting the motion to dismiss.

On July 7, 2017 the Bankruptcy Court entered an order on the agreed stipulation of the Debtors and plaintiffs such that the claim of the plaintiffs was estimated to have no value for purposes of any distribution under the Plan, except that plaintiffs are not precluded from pursuing recovery from applicable insurance, and that plaintiffs will limit their recovery solely to applicable insurance.

On September 28 2017, plaintiffs unilaterally filed a notice of dismissal of the appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. The March 30, 2017 United States District Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss is now a final judgment.

Berenergy Corporation. The Company has been in a legal dispute with Berenergy Corporation (Berenergy) regarding Berenergy’s access to certain of its underground oil deposits beneath the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine and contiguous undisturbed areas. The Company believes that any claims related to this matter constitute prepetition claims. On October 13, 2016, the Sixth Judicial Court in the state of Wyoming (Wyoming Court) entered an order (Wyoming Court Decision) allowing the Company the right to mine through certain wells owned by Berenergy but required the Company to compensate Berenergy for damages of $0.9 million, which the Company recognized during 2016. Further, the Wyoming Court ruled that should Berenergy obtain approval from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the Commission) to recover certain secondary deposits beneath the mine’s contiguous undisturbed areas, the Company would be liable to Berenergy for the cost of certain special procedures and equipment required to access the secondary deposits remotely from outside the Company’s mine area, which has been estimated as $13.1 million by Berenergy. Berenergy so far has not applied to the Commission for approval and the Company believes it is not probable that the Commission would approve access to the secondary deposits if Berenergy applied based on the Company’s view of a lack of economic feasibility and certain restrictions on Berenergy’s legal claim to the deposits. Based upon these factors, the Company has not accrued a liability related to the secondary deposits as of September 30, 2017. On December 21, 2016, Berenergy filed a Notice of Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. On January 5, 2017, Peabody filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. Both parties filed appellate briefs on April 17, 2017. The matter before the Wyoming Supreme Court has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were held on August 16, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order disallowing Berenergy’s proof of claim for the amounts awarded in the Wyoming Court Decision, which the Company believes discharged its obligation to pay these amounts.

County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Confirmation Order in the Bankruptcy Court because the Confirmation Order enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was heard on October 5, 2017 and granted on October 24, 2017. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company.

10th Circuit U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Appeal. On September 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court of Wyoming’s decision upholding BLM’s approval of four coal leases in the Powder River Basin. Two of the four leases relate to the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. There is no immediate impact on the Company’s leases as the Court of Appeals did not vacate the leases as part of its ruling. Rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court with directions to order BLM to revise its environmental analysis. The Company’s operations will continue in the normal course during this period since the decision has no impact on mining at this time. The Company currently believes that its operations are unlikely to be materially impacted by this case, but the timing and magnitude of any impact on the Company’s future operations is not certain.

Wilpinjong Extension Project (WEP). Wollar Progress Association has applied to the Land & Environment Court for a judicial review of the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission’s (PAC) decision to approve the WEP. In the interim, the Company’s Wilpinjong Mine can continue to mine in accordance with its approvals. The Company intends to fully defend the validity of the PAC’s decision.

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 and many of its subsidiaries had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields and its subsidiaries. Prior to the Effective Date, Gold Fields was one of PEC’s subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields 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 tendered its environmental claims for remediation, past 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 various 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 multiple 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 stopped paying these remediation costs.

Environmental assessments for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages were also asserted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (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 the 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 ceased its response actions and other engagements with the 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, were collectively estimated to be $62.8 million as of December 31, 2016 in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The majority of these estimated costs related to Blue Tee site liabilities.

Prior to the August 19, 2016 bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, Blue Tee filed an unliquidated, general unsecured claim in the amount of $65.6 million against Gold Fields regarding the Blue Tee Liabilities, additional unliquidated claims in an unknown amount in excess of $150 million at known sites, and further contingent claims at known and unknown sites, including natural resources damages (NRDs) claims alleged, without explanation, to be in the range of $500 million. On November 17, 2016 Blue Tee amended it claim to increase the amount of the claim to $1.2 billion.

Prior to the October 11, 2016 government bar date for filing claims in the Chapter 11 Cases, several governmental entities including the EPA, the Department of the Interior and several states filed unliquidated, secured and general unsecured claims against PEC and Gold Fields. These claims totaled in excess of $2.7 billion and alleged damages for past and future remediation costs as well as for alleged NRDs at several sites. As noted in the claims, many of the claims were duplicative as they overlapped with each other as well as with claims made by Blue Tee.

On January 27, 2017, PEC filed objections to claims filed by the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA (collectively the PEC Objections). The PEC Objections dispute that PEC has liability to the claimant under applicable federal environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that PEC never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites.

On February 2, 2017, Gold Fields filed objections to claims filed by the State of Oklahoma, the State of Missouri, the U.S. Department of Interior, the EPA, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (collectively the Gold Fields Objections). The Gold Fields Objections dispute that Gold Fields has liability to the claimant under applicable federal and state environmental statutes for the Blue Tee sites listed in the claims based on the fact that Gold Fields never owned any of the sites or disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at any of the sites.

On March 16, 2017, the Debtors agreed to settle the objections to the Plan filed by Blue Tee and several government entities in the Chapter 11 Cases. Under the settlements, the Debtors will (1) not seek to recover federal tax refunds owed to Debtors in the amount of approximately $11 million; (2) transfer $12 million of insurance settlement proceeds from Century and Pacific Employers Insurance Company relating to environmental liabilities to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust (as described in the Plan); and (3) pay $20 million to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust. On March 16 and 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving these settlements. On July 13, 2017, the Debtors and government entities entered into a settlement agreement to reflect the above settlement. Notice of the settlement agreement was given in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court gave final approval of the settlement agreement after the notice and comment period expired. As of the Effective Date, all Gold Fields assets and liabilities have been transferred to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust and Reorganized Debtors have no further obligations with respect to Gold Fields.

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.