UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________________________________________

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☑	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the Fiscal Year Ended	December 31, 2021

or

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 1-16463

____________________________________________

PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	13-4004153
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

	701 Market Street,	St. Louis,	Missouri	63101-1826
(Address of principal executive offices)				(Zip Code)

(314) 342-3400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of Each Class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share	BTU	New York Stock Exchange

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes ☐    No ☑

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes ☐    No ☑

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☑  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).  Yes ☑   No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer ☐                         Accelerated filer ☑

Non-accelerated filer ☐                          Smaller reporting company ☐

                                 Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐     

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☑     

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ☐ No ☑

Aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates (stockholders who are not directors or executive officers) of the Registrant, calculated using the closing price on June 30, 2021: Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, $645.5 million.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.  Yes ☑ No ☐

Number of shares outstanding of each of the Registrant’s classes of Common Stock, as of February 11, 2022: Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, 133,607,136 shares outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the Company’s 2022 Proxy Statement) are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof. Other documents incorporated by reference in this report are listed in the Exhibit Index of this Form 10-K.

CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes statements of Peabody’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 Peabody’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 Peabody’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 Peabody 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page
PART I.
Item 1.	Business	2
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	24
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	39
Item 2.	Properties	39
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	54
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	55
PART II.
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	55
Item 6.	Reserved	57
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	57
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	78
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	81
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	81
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	81
Item 9B.	Other Information	84
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	84
PART III.
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	84
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	84
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	84
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	85
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	85
PART IV.
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	85
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	92
Signatures		93

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 1

Table of Contents

Note:	The words “Peabody” or “the Company” as used in this report, refer to Peabody Energy Corporation or its applicable subsidiary or subsidiaries. Unless otherwise noted herein, disclosures in this Annual Report on Form 10-K relate only to the Company’s continuing operations.
	When used in this filing, the term “ton” refers to short or net tons, equal to 2,000 pounds (907.18 kilograms), while “tonne” refers to metric tons, equal to 2,204.62 pounds (1,000 kilograms).

PART I

Item 1.    Business.

Overview

Peabody is a leading producer of metallurgical and thermal coal. At December 31, 2021, 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, both as principal and agent, and trades coal and freight-related contracts.

Segment and Geographic Information

As of December 31, 2021, 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 24. “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 mine locations as of December 31, 2021. 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

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 2

Table of Contents

Australian Locations

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 3

Table of Contents

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 mining segment in descending order, as determined by tons produced in 2021.

							Production
Segment/Mining Complex	Location	Mine Type	Mining Method	Coal Type	Primary Transport Method	Processing Plants	Year Ended December 31,
							2021	2020	2019
Seaborne Thermal Mining							(Tons in millions)
Wilpinjong	New South Wales	S	D, T/S	T	R, EV	Yes	13.2	14.2	14.1
Wambo Open-Cut (1)	New South Wales	S	T/S	T	R, EV	Yes	2.4	4.0	3.4
Wambo Underground (2)	New South Wales	U	LW	T, C	R, EV	Yes	1.4	1.5	2.2
Seaborne Metallurgical Mining
Coppabella (3)	Queensland	S	DL, D, T/S	P	R, EV	Yes	2.1	2.2	2.4
Moorvale (3)	Queensland	S	D, T/S	C, P, T	R, EV	Yes	1.3	1.2	1.7
Metropolitan (4)	New South Wales	U	LW	C, P, T	R, EV	Yes	1.0	1.0	1.5
Shoal Creek (5)	Alabama	U	LW	C	B, EV	Yes	0.1	0.6	1.9
Millennium (6)	Queensland	S	HW	C, P	R, EV	No	—	0.1	0.6
Middlemount (7)	Queensland	S	D, T/S	C, P	R, EV	Yes	—	—	—
Powder River Basin Mining
North Antelope Rochelle	Wyoming	S	DL, D, T/S	T	R	No	62.8	66.1	85.3
Caballo	Wyoming	S	D, T/S	T	R	No	13.9	11.6	12.6
Rawhide	Wyoming	S	D, T/S	T	R	No	11.6	9.5	10.1
Other U.S. Thermal Mining
Bear Run	Indiana	S	DL, D, T/S	T	Tr, R	Yes	6.0	5.2	6.8
El Segundo/Lee Ranch	New Mexico	S	DL, D, T/S	T	R	No	3.7	4.6	5.5
Wild Boar	Indiana	S	D, T/S, HW	T	Tr, R, R/B, T/B	Yes	2.4	2.0	2.5
Gateway North	Illinois	U	CM	T	Tr, R, R/B, T/B	Yes	1.8	1.8	3.0
Twentymile	Colorado	U	LW	T	R, Tr	Yes	1.7	1.2	2.6
Francisco Underground	Indiana	U	CM	T	R	Yes	1.5	1.6	2.0
Somerville Central (6)	Indiana	S	DL, D, T/S	T	R, R/B, T/B, T/R	No	—	0.4	1.2
Kayenta (8)	Arizona	S	DL, T/S	T	R	No	—	—	3.8
Wildcat Hills Underground (8)	Illinois	U	CM	T	T/B	No	—	—	1.4
Cottage Grove (8)	Illinois	S	D, T/S	T	T/B	No	—	—	0.1

Legend:
S	Surface Mine	B	Barge
U	Underground Mine	Tr	Truck
HW	Highwall Miner	R/B	Rail to Barge
DL	Dragline	T/B	Truck to Barge
D	Dozer/Casting	T/R	Truck to Rail
T/S	Truck and Shovel	EV	Export Vessel
LW	Longwall	T	Thermal/Steam
CM	Continuous Miner	C	Coking
R	Rail	P	Pulverized Coal Injection

(1)In December 2020, the United Wambo Joint Venture, an unincorporated joint venture between Peabody and Glencore plc, began joint production. The tons shown reflect Peabody’s proportionate share throughout the years. The Company’s 50% joint venture interest is subject to an outside non-controlling ownership interest.

(2)Majority-owned mine in which there is an outside non-controlling ownership interest.

(3)Peabody owns a 73.3% undivided interest in an unincorporated joint venture that owns the Coppabella and Moorvale mines. The tons shown reflect its share.

(4)The mine was idled in the fourth quarter of 2020. The mine restarted production in the second quarter of 2021.

(5)The mine was idled in the fourth quarter of 2020. The mine restarted production in November 2021.

(6)The mine ceased production during 2020.

(7)Peabody owns a 50% equity interest in Middlemount, which owns the Middlemount Mine. Because Middlemount is accounted for as an unconsolidated equity affiliate, the table above excludes tons produced from that mine, which totaled 2.0 million, 1.6 million and 1.4 million tons, respectively (on a 50% basis).

(8)The mine ceased production in 2019.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 4

Table of Contents

Coal Supply Agreements

Customers. Peabody’s coal supply agreements are primarily with electricity generators, industrial facilities and steel manufacturers. Most of the Company’s sales from its mining operations are made under long-term coal supply agreements (those with initial terms of one year or longer and which often include price reopener and/or extension provisions). A smaller portion of the Company’s sales from its mining operations are made under contracts with terms of less than one year, including sales made on a spot basis. Sales under long-term coal supply agreements comprised approximately 84%, 89% and 88% of the Company’s worldwide sales from its mining operations (by volume) for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

For the year ended December 31, 2021, Peabody derived 26% of its revenues from coal supply agreements from its five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 17 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 2022 to 2026. Peabody’s largest customer in 2021 contributed revenue of approximately $258 million, or approximately 8% of Peabody’s total revenues from coal supply agreements, and has contracts expiring at various times from 2022 to 2025.

Backlog. Peabody’s sales backlog, which includes coal supply agreements subject to price reopener and/or extension provisions, was approximately 283 million and 264 million tons of coal as of January 1, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Contracts in backlog have remaining terms ranging from one to nine years and represent approximately two years of production based on the Company’s 2021 production volume of 126.9 million tons. Approximately 57% of its backlog is expected to be filled beyond 2022.

Seaborne Mining Operations. Revenues from Peabody’s Seaborne Thermal Mining and Seaborne Metallurgical Mining segments represented approximately 50%, 42% and 45% of its total revenues from coal supply agreements for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively, during which periods the coal mining activities of those segments contributed respective amounts of 18%, 19% and 17% of its sales volumes from mining operations. The Company’s production is primarily sold into the seaborne thermal and metallurgical markets, with a majority of those sales executed through annual and multi-year international coal supply agreements that contain provisions requiring both parties to renegotiate pricing periodically. Industry commercial practice, and Peabody’s typical practice, is to negotiate pricing for seaborne thermal coal contracts on an annual, spot or index basis and seaborne metallurgical coal contracts on a bi-annual, quarterly, spot or index basis. For its seaborne mining operations, the portion of sales volume under contracts with a duration of less than one year represented 45% in 2021.

U.S. Thermal Mining Operations. Revenues from Peabody’s Powder River Basin Mining and Other U.S. Thermal Mining segments, in aggregate, represented approximately 50%, 58% and 55% of its revenues from coal supply agreements for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively, during which periods the coal mining activities of those segments contributed respective aggregate amounts of approximately 82%, 81% and 83% of its sales volumes from mining operations. The Company expects to continue selling a significant portion of coal production from its U.S. thermal mining segments under existing long-term supply agreements. Certain customers utilize long-term sales agreements in recognition of the importance of reliability, service and predictable coal prices to their operations. The terms of coal supply agreements result from competitive bidding and extensive negotiations with customers. Consequently, the terms of those agreements may vary significantly in many respects, including price adjustment features, price reopener terms, coal quality requirements, quantity parameters, permitted sources of supply, treatment of environmental constraints, extension options, force majeure and termination and assignment provisions. Peabody’s approach is to selectively renew, or enter into new, long-term supply agreements when it can do so at prices and terms and conditions it believes are favorable. However, recent trends indicate that customers may be less likely to enter into long-term supply agreements prospectively, driven by the reduced utilization of plants and plant retirements, fluidity of natural gas pricing and the increased use of renewable energy sources.

Transportation

Methods of Distribution. Coal consumed in the U.S. is usually sold at the mine with transportation costs borne by the purchaser. Peabody’s U.S. mine sites are typically adjacent to a rail loop; however, in limited circumstances coal may be trucked to a barge site or directly to customers. Title predominately passes to the purchaser at the rail or barge, as applicable. Peabody’s U.S. and Australian export coal is usually sold at the loading port, with purchasers paying ocean freight. In each case, the Company usually pays transportation costs from the mine to the port, including any demurrage costs (fees paid to third-party shipping companies for loading time that exceeded the stipulated time).

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. Refer to the table in the foregoing “Mining Locations” section for a summary of transportation methods by mine.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 5

Table of Contents

Export Facilities. Peabody has generally secured its ability to transport coal in Australia through rail and port contracts and access to five east coast coal export terminals that are primarily funded through take-or-pay arrangements (refer to the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section in Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information on its take-or-pay obligations). In Queensland, seaborne thermal and metallurgical coal from the Company’s mines is exported through the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, in addition to the Abbot Point Coal Terminal used by its joint venture Middlemount Mine. In New South Wales, the Company’s primary ports for exporting thermal and metallurgical coal are at Port Kembla and Newcastle, which includes both the Port Waratah Coal Services terminal and the terminal operated by Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group. Peabody has secured its ability to transport coal from its Shoal Creek Mine under barge and port contracts; the primary port is the McDuffie Terminal in Mobile, Alabama, which the Company utilizes without a take-or-pay arrangement.

Peabody’s U.S. thermal mining operations exported less than 1% of its annual tons sold during both the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2019. No tons were exported during the year ended December 31, 2020. The primary ports used for U.S. thermal exports are the United Bulk Terminal near New Orleans, Louisiana, the St. James Stevedoring Anchorages terminal in Convent, Louisiana and the Kinder Morgan terminal near Houston, Texas.

Suppliers

Mining Supplies and Equipment. The principal goods Peabody purchases in support of its mining activities are mining equipment and replacement parts, diesel fuel, ammonium-nitrate and emulsion-based explosives, off-the-road tires, steel-related products (including roof control materials), lubricants and electricity. Peabody has many well-established, strategic relationships with its key suppliers of goods and does not believe that it is overly dependent on any of its individual suppliers.

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 have increased in recent periods. 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.

Services. Peabody also purchases services at its mine sites, including services related to maintenance for mining equipment, construction, temporary labor, use of explosives and various other requirements. Peabody does not believe that it has undue operational or financial risk associated with its dependence on any individual service providers.

Competition

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; taxes and environmental regulations imposed by the U.S. and foreign governments.

Thermal Coal. Demand for Peabody’s thermal coal products is impacted by economic conditions; demand for electricity, which is impacted by energy efficient products; and the cost of electricity generation from coal and alternative forms of generation. Regulatory policies and environmental, social and governance considerations can also have an impact on generation choices and coal consumption. The Company’s products compete with producers of other forms of electricity generation, including natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass, that provide an alternative to coal use. The use and price of thermal coal is heavily influenced by the availability and relative cost of alternative fuel sources and the generation of electricity utilizing alternative fuels, with customers focused on securing the lowest cost fuel supply in order to coordinate the most efficient utilization of generating resources in the economic dispatch of the power grid at the most competitive price.

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 accelerated growth in domestic natural gas production and new natural gas combined cycle generation capacity. The Henry Hub Natural Gas Prompt Price averaged $3.72 per mmBtu in 2021, versus $2.13 and $2.53 per mmBtu in 2020 and 2019, respectively. In addition, the competitiveness of other alternative fuel sources for electricity generation has been strengthened by the growth of government subsidized renewable energy generation. These pressures, coupled with increasing regulatory burdens, have contributed to a significant number of coal plant retirements. During 2021, approximately 8 gigawatts of U.S. coal power capacity was retired, and since 2010, U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by approximately thirty-two percent.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 6

Table of Contents

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, Russia, Colombia, the U.S. 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.

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.

Metallurgical Coal. Demand for Peabody’s metallurgical coal products is impacted by economic conditions; government policies; demand for steel; and competing technologies used to make steel, some of which do not use coal as a manufacturing input, such as electric arc furnaces. The Company competes on the basis of coal quality and characteristics, delivered energy cost (including transportation costs), customer service and support and reliability of supply.

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.

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

Cybersecurity Risk Management

Peabody uses digital technology to conduct its business operations and engage with its customers, vendors and partners. As the Company implements newer technologies such as cloud, analytics, automation and “internet of things,” the threats to its business operations from cyber intrusions, denial of service attacks, manipulation and other cyber misconduct affecting both the Company and its partners’ technologies increase. To address the risk, the Company continues to evolve its risk management approach in an effort to continually assess and improve its cybersecurity risk detection, deterrence and recovery capabilities. Peabody’s cybersecurity strategy emphasizes reduction of cyber risk exposure and continuous improvement of its cyber defense and resilience capabilities. These include: (i) proactive management of cyber risk to ensure compliance with contractual, legal and regulatory requirements, (ii) performing due diligence on third parties to ensure they have sound cybersecurity practices in place, (iii) ensuring essential business services remain available during a business disruption, (iv) implementing data policies and standards to protect sensitive company information and (v) exercising cyber incident response plans and risk mitigation strategies to address potential incidents should they occur.

During 2021, a software vendor that provides cloud services to the Company for its payroll function suffered a significant ransomware attack. The Company’s mitigation actions were adequate to avoid significant operational disruptions or material financial losses.

Human Capital

Peabody had approximately 4,900 employees as of December 31, 2021, including approximately 3,900 hourly employees. Additional information on its employees and related labor relations matters is contained in Note 21. “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, which was evidenced in 2021 by successful labor negotiations at its Shoal Creek, Wambo and Metropolitan Mines.

As of December 31, 2021, approximately 3,300 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 employed at its global headquarters in St. Louis or other business offices.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 7

Table of Contents

Peabody strives to create a strong, united workforce with a commitment to safety as a way of life. In 2021, the Company achieved a global safety incidence rate of 1.18 incidents per 200,000 hours worked, which was 56% better than the 2020 U.S. industry average incidence rate of 2.69 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. 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 eight years of experience with the company, and more than 51% 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 32% of open positions and 72% of director and above positions have been filled by internal candidates through promotions and lateral career development opportunities.

Information About Our Executive Officers

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, subject to the terms of any employment agreements.

Name	Age (1)	Position (1)
James C. Grech	60	President and Chief Executive Officer
Mark A. Spurbeck	48	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Scott T. Jarboe	48	Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary
Darren R. Yeates	61	Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Marc E. Hathhorn	51	President - U.S. Operations
Jamie Frankcombe	61	President - Australian Operations
Patrick J. Forkin III	63	Senior Vice President - Corporate Development and Strategy

(1)     As of February 11, 2022.

James C. Grech was named Peabody’s President and Chief Executive Officer in June 2021. He has over 30 years of experience in the natural resources industry. Mr. Grech served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of Wolverine Fuels, LLC, a thermal coal producer and marketer based in Sandy, Utah, from July 2018 until May 2021. Prior to joining Wolverine Fuels, LLC, Mr. Grech served as President of Nexus Gas Transmission from October 2016 to July 2018, and previously held the position of Chief Commercial Officer and Executive Vice President of Consol Energy. Mr. Grech brings a strong operational, commercial and financial background in both mining and other energy business operations and has extensive utilities and capital markets experience. He serves as a director of Blue Danube. Mr. Grech holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Lawrence Technological University and an MBA from the University of Michigan.

Mark A. Spurbeck was named Peabody’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in June 2020, after serving in an interim capacity from January 2020 through June 2020. He oversees finance, treasury, tax, internal audit, financial reporting, financial planning, risk and mine finance, corporate accounting functions, investor relations and corporate communications, information technology and shared services. Mr. Spurbeck has more than 25 years of accounting and financial experience, most recently serving as the Company’s Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer from early 2018 to January 2020. Prior to joining Peabody, Mr. Spurbeck served as Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer at Coeur Mining, Inc., a diversified precious metals producer, from March 2013 to January 2018. He also previously held multiple financial positions at Newmont Mining Corporation, a leading gold and copper producer, First Data Corporation, a financial services company, and Deloitte LLP, an international accounting, tax and advisory firm. Mr. Spurbeck is a Certified Public Accountant and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting from Hillsdale College.

Scott T. Jarboe was named Peabody’s Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary in November 2021 after serving as Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary since March 2020. He leads the Company’s global human resources, legal, government affairs, and ethics and compliance functions. Mr. Jarboe joined Peabody in 2010 and has served in a variety of legal roles. Previously, Mr. Jarboe practiced law with Husch Blackwell LLP and Bryan Cave LLP. Mr. Jarboe holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Kansas, a Master’s Degree from the University of Missouri – Kansas City and a Juris Doctor degree from Washington University School of Law.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 8

Table of Contents

Darren R. Yeates was named Peabody’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in October 2020. He has executive responsibility for operations, sales and marketing and technical services. Mr. Yeates has over 35 years of mining industry experience. From May 2018 to December 2019, Mr. Yeates served as Chief Operating Officer of MACH Energy Australia, a developer and supplier of thermal coal to both the Australian domestic and Asian export markets. From January 2014 until June 2016, Mr. Yeates served as the Chief Executive Officer of GVK Hancock Coal, a joint venture developing the vast potential of the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland. Prior to that, he spent over 22 years with Rio Tinto, a global mining group, including as Acting Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer for Coal Australia, General Manager Ports and Infrastructure for Pilbara Iron and General Manager Tarong Coal. Prior to joining Rio Tinto, Mr. Yeates worked for six years for BHP, a mining, metals and petroleum company, in coal operations and metalliferous exploration. Mr. Yeates has a Bachelor of Engineering (Mining) from the University of Queensland, a Graduate Diploma in Management from the University of Central Queensland and a Graduate Diploma of Applied Finance and Investment from the Securities Institute of Australia. He has an Executive MBA from the Monash Mt Eliza Business School and is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

Marc E. Hathhorn was named Peabody’s President - U.S. Operations in November 2021. He has executive responsibility for the Company’s U.S. operating platform, which includes overseeing the areas of health and safety, operations, product delivery and support functions. Mr. Hathhorn has more than 30 years of experience in mining engineering and operations in North and South America and in Australia. Mr. Hathhorn joined Peabody in 2011 as Senior Vice President - Midwest Operations, and subsequently served as Group Executive - Americas Operations Support from 2013 to 2016, Group Executive - Americas Operations from 2016 to 2019 and President - Australian Operations until assuming his current role. Previously, Mr. Hathhorn held various leadership positions with Drummond LTD in South America, including Mine Operations Superintendent, Port Manager, and Vice President - Mining Operations. Prior to joining Drummond LTD, Mr. Hathhorn held various engineering and supervisory positions with Newmont Gold Corporation. Mr. Hathhorn holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mining Engineering from the University of Idaho, College of Mines.

Jamie Frankcombe was named Peabody’s President - Australian Operations in November 2021. He has executive responsibility for the Company’s Australian operating platform, which includes overseeing the areas of health and safety, environment, people, operational performance and product delivery. He is a senior mining executive with 30 years of experience in developing and managing large-scale open cut and underground coal, iron ore, copper and gold mines in Australia, Indonesia, Asia and the Americas. Prior to joining Peabody, Mr. Frankcombe served as Deputy Managing Director for Phu Bia Mining in Laos managing the Phu Kham (copper & gold) and Ban Houayxai (gold & silver) operating assets from June 2021 to November 2021. Prior to that, Mr. Frankcombe served as Integration Team Lead with Aurelia Metals Ltd from November 2020 to April 2021 with the responsibility of integrating the Dargues Gold Mine project and operations into the Aurelia Metals Ltd portfolio. Prior to that, he spent seven years as Chief Operating Officer for Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd., overseeing operational and safety leadership of four open cut coal mines and one underground mine. In addition, he served as a director of Coal Services Pty Ltd. from September 2017 to July 2021. Mr. Frankcombe holds an Honours Degree in Engineering (Mining) and a Masters in Business Administration (Technology).

Patrick J. Forkin III joined Peabody in 2010 and was named Senior Vice President - Corporate Development and Strategy in November 2017. He has executive responsibility for mergers and acquisitions, portfolio management, global strategy, U.S. thermal coal sales and renewable energy development. Mr. Forkin has an extensive background in corporate finance, the energy industry, mergers and acquisitions and equity market research. Prior to joining Peabody, Mr. Forkin was in senior leadership roles at a U.S. solar development company and investment banking firms specializing in renewable and conventional energy. He spent the first nine years of his career at Deloitte LLP. Mr. Forkin holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Accountancy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is a Certified Public Accountant (inactive).

Regulatory Matters — U.S.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 9

Table of Contents

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)

Under the U.S. Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 and the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, as amended in 1981, each U.S. coal mine operator who was the last to employ a claimant for a cumulative year of employment, with the last day worked for the operator after July 1, 1973, must pay federal black lung benefits and medical expenses to claimants whose claims for benefits are allowed. Coal mine operators must also make payments to a trust fund for the payment of benefits and medical expenses to claimants who last worked in the coal industry prior to July 1, 1973. Historically, very few of the miners who sought federal black lung benefits were awarded these benefits; however, the approval rate has increased following implementation of black lung provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act included significant changes to the federal black lung program including an automatic survivor benefit paid upon the death of a miner with an awarded black lung claim and establishes a rebuttable presumption with regard to pneumoconiosis among miners with 15 or more years of coal mine employment that are totally disabled by a respiratory condition.

The trust fund has been funded by an excise tax on U.S. production. As a result of legislation enacted in December of 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. On December 2, 2021 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report titled “Black Lung Benefits Program: Continued Inaction on Coal Operator Self-Insurance Increases Financial Risk to Trust Fund.” This report notes that the Department of Labor (DOL) took some steps to improve its oversight of self-insured coal mine operators, but these efforts were complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The GAO states in the report that the DOL has not taken necessary action to prevent additional benefit liabilities from being transferred to the trust fund and recommends that the DOL act on recommendations made in 2020. Subsequently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) indicated that it plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the upcoming months to update its regulations authorizing coal producers to self-insure and for determining appropriate security amounts, and that it plans to solicit public comments for that proposal. 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. OWCP recently requested the Company to refile its application for self-insurance.

Peabody recognized expense related to the tax of $51.5 million, $53.3 million and $31.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

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.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. In the U.S., the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), established mining, environmental protection and reclamation standards for surface mining and underground mining. Mine operators must obtain SMCRA permits and permit renewals for mining operations from the OSMRE or from the respective state regulatory authority. Where state regulatory agencies have adopted federal mining programs under SMCRA, the state becomes the primary regulatory authority, with oversight from OSMRE. States in which Peabody has active mining operations have achieved primacy control of enforcement through federal authorization. In Arizona, where Peabody will be performing reclamation work on tribal lands, the Company is regulated by the OSMRE because the tribes do not have SMCRA authorization.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 10

Table of Contents

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 $1,054.5 million as of December 31, 2021. 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 U.S. operations were $518.6 million as of December 31, 2021. 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 $27.0 million, $28.4 million and $36.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA, enacted in 1970, and comparable state and tribal laws that regulate air emissions affect the Company’s U.S. coal mining operations both directly and indirectly.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review national ambient air quality standards every five years to determine whether revision to current standards are appropriate. As part of this recurring review process, the EPA in 2020 proposed to retain the ozone standards promulgated in 2015, including current secondary standards, and subsequently promulgated final standards to this effect. Fifteen states and other petitioners have filed a petition for review of the rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The litigation is currently in abeyance following a motion filed by the EPA to allow for review of the standards.

The EPA also proposed in 2020 to retain the particulate matter (PM) standards last revised in 2012. On December 18, 2020, the EPA issued a final rule to retain both the primary annual and 24-hour PM standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the primary 24-hour standard for coarse particulate matter (PM10) and secondary PM10 standards. This rule has also been challenged in the D.C. Circuit by several states and environmental organizations. The case is currently in abeyance following a motion filed by the EPA to allow for review of the standards.

More stringent PM or ozone standards would require new state implementation plans to be developed and filed with the EPA and may trigger additional control technology for mining equipment or result in additional challenges to permitting and expansion efforts. This could also be the case with respect to other NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), although these standards are not subject to a statutorily-required review until 2023 for NO2 and 2024 for SO2.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 11

Table of Contents

Final NSPS for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electricity Utility Generating Units (EGUs). The EPA promulgated a final rule to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from new, modified and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs under Section 111(b) of the CAA on August 3, 2015, and published it in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015.

This rule requires that newly-constructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units achieve an emission standard for carbon dioxide of 1,400 lb carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour gross output (CO2/MWh-gross). The standard (known as the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER)) is based on the performance of a supercritical pulverized coal boiler implementing partial carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). Modified and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units must implement the most efficient generation achievable through a combination of best operating practices and equipment upgrades, to meet an emission standard consistent with best historical performance. Reconstructed units must implement the most efficient generating technology based on the size of the unit (supercritical steam conditions for larger units, to meet a standard of 1,800 lb CO2/MWh-gross, and subcritical conditions for smaller units to meet a standard of 2,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross).

Numerous legal challenges to the final rule were filed in the 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.

On December 20, 2018, the EPA proposed to revise the 2015 NSPS to modify the minimum requirements for newly constructed coal-fired units from partial carbon capture and storage to efficiency-based standards. (83 Fed. Reg. 65,424 (Dec. 20, 2018)). In contrast to the 2015 rule, the proposed rule defined BSER as the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle in combination with the best operating practices. The EPA indicated that the primary reason for revising BSER was the high cost and limited geographic availability of carbon capture and storage technology. Status reports filed with the D.C. Circuit in North Dakota v. EPA indicate that litigation on the 2015 rule should remain in abeyance pending the EPA’s action on the 2018 proposed rule.

EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired EGUs. On October 23, 2015, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generation units (EGUs) under Section 111(d) of the CAA (80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015)). The rule (known as the Clean Power Plan or CPP) established emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The CPP required that the states individually or collectively create systems that would reduce carbon emissions from any EGU located within their borders by 28% in 2025 and 32% in 2030 (compared with a 2005 baseline).

The EPA subsequently proposed to repeal the CPP and in August 2018 issued a proposed rule to replace the CPP, with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. In June 2019, the EPA issued a combined package that finalized the CPP repeal rule as well as the replacement rule, ACE. The ACE rule sets emissions guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from existing EGUs based on a determination that efficiency heat rate improvements constitute the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER). The EPA’s final rule also revises certain regulations to give the states greater flexibility on the content and timing of their state plans.

Based on the EPA’s final rules repealing and replacing the CPP, petitioners in the D.C. Circuit matter seeking review of CPP, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in September 2019.

Numerous petitions for review challenging the ACE Rule were filed in the D.C. Circuit 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.

On October 29, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four matters seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion vacating the ACE rule and invalidating the repeal of the CPP. In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court consolidated the cases to consider the breadth of the EPA’s scope pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 7411(d) of the CAA, specifically, issues pertaining to whether the EPA is limited to issuing standards for existing sources achievable through demonstrated technology and methods applied to such sources, or whether the EPA may also issue nationwide “performance standards” that can apply to the electric generation sector (such as cap and trade) which could effectively restructure the nation’s energy system. The Company will continue to monitor the consolidated matters.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 12

Table of Contents

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Permitting Regulations for Major Emission Sources. In May 2010, the EPA published final rules requiring permitting and control technology requirements for greenhouse gases under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs that apply to stationary sources of air pollution. The EPA determined that these requirements were “triggered” by the EPA’s prior regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. These rules were subsequently upheld by the D.C. Circuit on June 26, 2012. On June 23, 2014, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not require PSD and Title V permitting for greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources if those sources were not otherwise considered to be “major sources” of conventional pollutants for purposes of PSD and Title V (known as Step 2 sources). In accordance with that decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated the federal regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule in 2015. Subsequently, the EPA removed the vacated elements from its rules to ensure that neither the PSD nor Title V rules require a source to obtain a permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit greenhouse gases above the applicable thresholds. The EPA therefore no longer has the authority to conduct PSD permitting for Step 2 sources, nor can the EPA approve provisions submitted by a state for inclusion in its state implementation plan providing this authority.

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and CSAPR Update Rule. In 2011, the EPA finalized the CSAPR, which requires the District of Columbia and 27 states from Texas eastward (not including the New England states or Delaware) to reduce power plant emissions that cross state lines and significantly contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. In 2016, the EPA published the final CSAPR Update Rule which imposed additional reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) beginning in 2017 in 22 states subject to CSAPR.

In October 2020, the EPA proposed a rule to address a previous D.C. Circuit remand of the CSAPR Update Rule and in April 2021, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register which imposed further reductions of NOx emissions in 12 states that were subject to the original 2016 rule.

In the same rule, the EPA determined that 9 states did not significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance issues and therefore did not require additional emission reductions. In order to implement reductions in the 12 identified states, the EPA issued Federal Implementation Plans to lower state ozone season NOx budgets in 2021 to 2024, although limited emission trading can be used for compliance and states have the ability to replace federal plans with revised state plans that are no less stringent. A petition for review challenging the 2021 rule has been filed in the D.C. Circuit and briefing in this litigation commenced in November 2021, but this does not stay the effectiveness of the rule.

Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS). The EPA published the final MATS rule in the Federal Register in 2012. The MATS rule revised the new source performance standards (NSPS) for NOx, SO2 and PM for new and modified coal-fueled electricity generating plants, and imposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emission limits on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from new and existing coal-fueled and oil-fueled electric generating plants. MACT standards limit emissions of mercury, acid gas HAPs, non-mercury HAP metals and organic HAPs.

In 2020, the EPA issued a final rule reversing a prior finding and determined that it is not “appropriate and necessary” under the CAA to regulate HAP emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. This rule also finalized residual risk and technology review standards for the coal- and oil-fired EGU source category. Both actions were challenged in the D.C. Circuit but this litigation was placed in abeyance. In 2021 EPA sent a draft rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review regarding reconsideration of the “appropriate and necessary” finding as well as residual risk and technology review standards for coal- and oil-fired EGUs.

Regional Haze. The Clean Air Act contains a national visibility goal for the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” The EPA promulgated comprehensive regulations in 1999 requiring all states to submit plans to address regional haze that could affect 156 national parks and wilderness areas, including requirements for certain sources to install the best available retrofit technology and for states to demonstrate “reasonable progress” towards meeting the national visibility goal. States are required to revise plans every 10 years.

Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium. The Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (EI Order), signed on March 28, 2017, lifted the Department of Interior’s federal coal leasing moratorium and rescinded guidance on the inclusion of social cost of carbon in federal rulemaking. Following the EI Order, the Interior Secretary issued Order 3349 ending the federal coal leasing moratorium. Environmental groups took the issue to court (District of Montana) and in April 2019, the Court held the lifting of the moratorium triggered National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. On May 22, 2020, the Court held that the Department of the Interior’s issuance of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) remedied the prior NEPA violations. Environmental groups have since amended their complaint to challenge the Environmental Assessment and FONSI, and the litigation remains pending.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 13

Table of Contents

Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA of 1972 directly impacts U.S. coal mining operations by requiring effluent limitations and treatment standards for wastewater discharge from mines through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Regular monitoring, reporting and performance standards are requirements of NPDES permits that govern the discharge of water from mine-related point sources into receiving waters.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates certain activities affecting navigable waters and waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA requires mining companies to obtain permits from the Corps to place material in or mine through jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

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. Although the EPA issued a final rule in 2020 that effectively could have in effect limited state and tribal regulators’ authority by allowing the EPA to certify projects over state or tribal regulator objections in some circumstances, as a result of litigation developments this year, the 1971 certification rule is currently back in effect. The EPA plans to issue another proposal in 2022 to update the 1971 rule.

New Source Review (NSR). The Clean Air Act imposes permitting requirements when a new source undergoes construction or when an existing source is reconstructed or undergoes a major modification. These requirements are contained in the Clean Air Act’s prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs, generally referred to as NSR. On August 4, 2020, the EPA released a guidance memorandum concerning implementation of plantwide applicability limitations (PALs) (Guidance on Plantwide Applicability Limitation Provisions Under the New Source Review Regulations). PALs allow sources to make physical and operational changes under a plantwide emission limit without “triggering” NSR.

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. These rules, guidance and memorandum may therefore 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.

CWA Definition of “Waters of the United States”. In January 2020 the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to revise the definition of “Waters of the United States” and thereby establish the scope of federal regulatory authority under the CWA. On August 30, 2021, a federal court in Arizona vacated the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and on September 3, 2021, the EPA and the Corps announced that they had “halted implementation” of the rule nationwide and that they are interpreting “Waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory framework. On December 7, 2021, the agencies published the first of two rulemaking proceedings to formally repeal the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, codify the pre-2015 regulatory framework, and then build upon that framework. The agencies plan to issue the second proposal in 2022, but the exact timing is unclear.

Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. On September 30, 2015, the EPA published a final rule setting new or additional requirements for various wastewater discharges from steam electric power plants. The rule set zero discharge requirements for some waste streams, as well as new, more stringent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium and nitrogen applicable to certain other waste streams. On October 13, 2020, the EPA issued a final rule revising the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category applicable to flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water. However, on August 3, 2021, the EPA announced it is undertaking a supplemental rulemaking to “strengthen certain discharge limits” applicable to steam electric power plants. As finalized, the revised effluent limitations guidelines could significantly increase costs for many coal-fired steam electric power plants.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 14

Table of Contents

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA, signed into law in 1970, requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of their decisions and issue either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Peabody must provide information to agencies when it proposes actions that will be under the authority of the federal government. The NEPA process involves public participation and can involve lengthy timeframes. The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued a final rule comprehensively updating and modernizing its longstanding NEPA regulations on July 16, 2020. That final rule sought to reduce unnecessary paperwork, burdens and delays, promote better coordination among agency decision makers, and clarify scope of NEPA reviews, among other things. States and environmental groups have filed several lawsuits challenging the final rule. On October 7, 2021, however, CEQ published a proposed rule announcing a two-phase rulemaking process to generally restore the pre-2020 NEPA regulations before more broadly revisiting the 2020 rule.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA, which was enacted in 1976, affects U.S. coal mining operations by establishing “cradle to grave” requirements for the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. Typically, the only hazardous wastes generated at a mine site are those from products used in vehicles and for machinery maintenance. Coal mine wastes, such as overburden and coal cleaning wastes, are not considered hazardous wastes under RCRA.

Subtitle C of RCRA exempted fossil fuel combustion wastes from hazardous waste regulation until the EPA completed a report to Congress and made a determination on whether the wastes should be regulated as hazardous. On December 19, 2014, the EPA announced the final rule on coal combustion residuals (CCR or coal ash). As finalized, the rule continues the exemption of CCR from regulation as a hazardous waste, but does impose new requirements at existing CCR surface impoundments and landfills that will need to be implemented over a number of different time-frames in the coming months and years, as well as at new surface impoundments and landfills. Generally, EPA-imposed requirements will increase the cost of CCR management, but not as much as if the rule had regulated CCR as hazardous.

Proposed Rule for Disposal of CCR from Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program and Revisions to Closure Requirements. On February 20, 2020, as required by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, the EPA proposed a federal permitting program for the disposal of CCR in surface impoundments and landfills. Under the proposal, the EPA would directly implement the permit program in Indian Country, and at CCR units located in states that have not submitted their own CCR permit program for approval. The proposal includes requirements for federal CCR permit applications, content and modification, as well as procedural requirements. The comment period for the EPA’s proposal ended on April 20, 2020. Although EPA had planned to finalize this rule in 2021, the EPA now expects to issue a final rule around October 2022. Separately, on August 28, 2020, the EPA finalized certain amendments to its 2015 CCR rule to partially address the D.C. Circuit’s 2018 decision holding that certain provisions of that rule were not sufficiently protective. The EPA is still deciding how to further revise the 2015 rule to address the remainder of the court decision. Initially the EPA had planned to issue a proposal in mid-2021, but the EPA now expects to issue the proposal rule in September 2022. Generally, EPA-imposed requirements will increase the cost of CCR management, but not as much as if the rule had regulated CCR as hazardous.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Although generally not a prominent environmental law in the coal mining sector, CERCLA, which was enacted in 1980, nonetheless may affect U.S. coal mining operations by creating liability for investigation and remediation in response to releases of hazardous substances into the environment and for damages to natural resources. Under CERCLA, joint and several liabilities may be imposed on waste generators, site owners or operators and others, regardless of fault.

Toxic Release Inventory. Arising out of the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act passed in 1990, the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory program requires companies to report the use, manufacture or processing of listed toxic materials that exceed established thresholds, including chemicals used in equipment maintenance, reclamation, water treatment and ash received for mine placement from power generation customers.

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA of 1973 and counterpart state legislation is intended to protect species whose populations allow for categorization as either endangered or threatened. Changes in listings or requirements under these regulations could have a material adverse effect on Peabody’s costs or its ability to mine some of its properties in accordance with its current mining plans. During the Trump Administration, the Departments of the Interior and Commerce issued finalized five rules aiming to streamline and update the ESA. But in June 2021, agencies announced their plan to revise, rescind, or reinstate the rules that were finalized (or withdrawn) during the Trump Administration that conflict with the Biden Administration’s objectives.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 15

Table of Contents

Use of Explosives. Peabody’s surface mining operations are subject to numerous regulations relating to blasting activities. Pursuant to these regulations, it incurs costs to design and implement blast schedules and to conduct pre-blast surveys and blast monitoring. The storage of explosives is subject to strict federal regulatory requirements. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulates the use of explosive blasting materials. In addition to ATF regulation, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to finalize an ammonium nitrate security program rule. On July 30, 2019, the OSMRE officially withdrew its decision to initiate rulemaking related to emissions generated from blasting at coal mining operations. The decision cited its lack of statutory authority and the sufficiency of the existing regulatory framework.

Federal Report on Climate Change. On November 23, 2018, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a working group comprised of 13 U.S. governmental departments and agencies, issued the Fourth National Climate Assessment. The report lists the observed effects of “increasing greenhouse gas concentrations on Earth’s climate” and enumerates the impacts of those observed effects. The report also discusses the alternatives for reducing the impacts of climate-related risks, including through mitigation and adaptation. While there are no explicit regulatory actions that flow from the issuance of the report, both the legislative and executive branches of government may rely on its conclusions to shape and justify policies and actions going forward. A Fifth National Climate Assessment is currently in development with an anticipated publication date in 2023.

Regulatory Matters — Australia

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.

Mining Tenements and Environmental. In Queensland and New South Wales, the development of a mine requires both the grant of a right to extract the resource and an approval which authorizes the environmental impact. These approvals are obtained under separate legislation from separate government authorities. However, the application processes run concurrently and are also concurrent with any native title or cultural heritage process that is required. The environmental impacts of mining projects are regulated by state and federal governments. Federal regulation will only apply if the particular project will significantly impact a matter of national environmental significance (for example, a water resource, an endangered species or particular protected places). Environmental approvals processes involve complex issues that, on occasion, require lengthy studies and documentation.

In February 2019, the New South Wales (NSW) Land and Environment Court (LEC) upheld the government’s denial of a planning approval for a non-Peabody coal mining project (Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning). Although the approval was refused for other reasons, the judge in that case discussed ‘Scope 3’ greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the consumption of coal to be mined under the proposed project. Such emissions are often raised as a ground of objection to Australian mining projects, including Peabody’s mining projects. For example, in a subsequent LEC decision (Australian Coal Alliance Incorporated v. Wyong Coal Pty Ltd), the approval of a coal mining project was confirmed after such emissions had been considered by the relevant authority. In August 2019, Peabody and Glencore received approval from the NSW Independent Planning Commission (IPC) for the United Wambo project, subject to conditions (Export Conditions) requiring the joint venture to prepare an Export Management Plan setting out protocols for using all reasonable and feasible measures to ensure that any coal extracted from the mine that is to be exported from Australia is only exported to countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement (as defined below) or countries that the NSW Planning Secretary considers to have similar policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The IPC subsequently approved another non-Peabody coal mining project (Rix’s Creek) without any Export Conditions. In October 2019, the NSW government introduced into Parliament proposed amendments to legislation and policy that would, if passed, have the effect of invalidating Export Conditions imposed on future NSW planning approvals, as well as no longer requiring consent authorities to consider ‘downstream emissions’ when assessing developments for the purposes of mining, petroleum production or extractive industry. The NSW government has announced changes to the IPC and planning system process which aims to improve timeframes and efficiencies for project approvals and providing more clarity on the IPC’s role in determining applications including seeking guidance on government policy. In June 2020, the NSW Government released its Strategic Statement on Coal Exploration and Mining in NSW which provides a high level framework for the government's policy approach to the future of the coal sector, as well as details of a streamlined strategic release process. The strategy identifies some potential areas for possible new coal exploration, areas that are ruled out for coal mining and areas where new coal exploration can only occur adjacent to an existing coal title via the Operational Allocation process. In December 2020, the NSW Government finalized and published the Guideline for the Competitive Allocation of Coal, which details the process for considering areas for coal exploration and allocating them by public tender.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 16

Table of Contents

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.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. On February 25, 2021 the Commonwealth Government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 into Parliament, which proposes amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) following the release of the Final Report of the Independent Review of the Act undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel (the Samuel Review) that made 38 recommendations for short and long-term reforms, and ultimately calls for a complete overhaul of the existing legislative framework by 2022, to be undertaken in several tranches, with a strong focus on the setting of National Environmental Standards, assurance and compliance, data availability and management, and indigenous engagement. The bill responds to some of the recommendations for immediate reform made in the Samuel Review, and seeks to: establish a framework for the making, varying, revoking and application of National Environmental Standards; apply the National Environmental Standards to bilateral agreements with States and Territories; and establish an Environment Assurance Commissioner to monitor and audit bilateral agreements and other processes under the EPBC Act. The bill passed the Australian Parliament’s House of Representatives in June 2021 and is now under consideration by the Australian Senate.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 17

Table of Contents

Mining Rehabilitation (Reclamation). Mine reclamation is regulated by state-specific legislation. As a condition of approval for mining operations, companies are required to progressively reclaim mined land and provide appropriate bonding, or, in certain circumstances (see below in relation to the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018), make alternative financial contributions to the relevant state government as a safeguard to cover the costs of reclamation in circumstances where mine operators are unable to do so. Self-bonding is not permitted. Peabody’s mines provide financial assurance to the relevant authorities which is calculated in accordance with current regulatory requirements. This financial assurance is in the form of cash, surety bonds or bank guarantees which are supported by a combination of cash collateral, deeds of indemnity and guarantee and letters of credit issued under the Company’s credit facility and accounts receivable securitization program. The Company operates in both the Queensland and New South Wales state jurisdictions.

Peabody’s reclamation bonding requirements in Australia were $240.2 million as of December 31, 2021. 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 costs associated with the Company’s Australian asset retirement obligations are calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and were $201.2 million as of December 31, 2021. 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.

New South Wales Reclamation. The Mining Act 1992 (Mining Act) is administered by the Department of Planning and Environment and the New South Wales Resources Regulator, and authorizes the holder of a mining tenement to extract a mineral subject to obtaining consent under the EPA Act and other auxiliary approvals and licenses.

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.

Under significant reforms proposed by the NSW Resources Regulator in October 2020, all new and existing mines in NSW will be regulated by new standard rehabilitation conditions. The conditions will apply to all new and existing mining leases and focus on transparently requiring progressive mine site rehabilitation throughout the life of the mine. The draft Mining Amendment (Standard Conditions of Mining Leases - Rehabilitation) Regulation 2020 has been released for consultation. The new conditions would apply to all new mining leases and would be introduced into existing mining leases over a 12 to 24 month transition period. The conditions require (amongst other things) that the leaseholder must rehabilitate land and water in the mining area that is disturbed by activities under the mining lease as soon as reasonably practicable after the disturbance occurs. The proposed rehabilitation management plan for the mining area which must be prepared for large mines is intended to replace the current approach of preparing a mining operation plan.

Queensland Reclamation. The EP Act is administered by the Department of Environment and Science, which authorizes environmentally relevant activities such as mining activities relating to a mining lease through an Environmental Authority (EA). Environmental protection and reclamation activities are regulated by conditions in the EA. All mining operations must be carried out in a manner so as to ensure compliance with the conditions in the EA. The mines submit an annual return reporting on their EA compliance.

In November 2018, the Queensland government passed the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial Provisioning) Act 2018 providing for a new financial assurance (FA) framework and new progressive rehabilitation requirements. The new FA framework creates 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 take 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 provides 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 18

Table of Contents

The new progressive rehabilitation requirements 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 current mine is exempt from the requirement to justify its NUMAs to the extent that its current approvals provide 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.

Residual Risks. On August 20, 2020, the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act (Queensland) 2020 (EPOLA Act) became law amending the residual risk framework that aims to ensure that any remaining risks on former resource sites are appropriately identified, costed and managed. On completion of all mining activities, the holder of the EA for the mine can apply to surrender the EA once all conditions, requirements and rehabilitation obligations have been met. When approving the surrender, the government can request a residual risk payment from the holder of the EA for the mine to cover potential rehabilitation or maintenance costs incurred after the surrender has been accepted. It contemplates two approaches for determining residual risk payments. Depending on the level of risk of a particular site, a cost calculator tool might be used or a panel of appropriately qualified experts might undertake a qualitative and quantitative risk assessment.

Federal Reclamation. In February 2017, the Australian Senate established a Committee of Inquiry into the rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities, for example, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Committee released their report in March 2019. The Committee was unable to reach unanimous agreement on a set of recommendations. It is unclear the extent to which the report will impact policy reform at a federal government level.

Native Title and Cultural Heritage. Since 1992, the Australian courts have recognized that native title to lands and water, as recognized under the laws and customs of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, may have survived the process of European settlement. These developments are supported by the federal Native Title Act which recognizes and protects native title, and under which a national register of native title claims has been established. Native title rights do not extend to minerals; however, native title rights can be affected by mining activities unless those rights have previously been extinguished, thereby requiring negotiation with the traditional owners (and potentially the payment of compensation) prior to the grant of certain mining tenements. There is also federal and state legislation to prevent damage to Aboriginal cultural heritage and archaeological sites.

Following the May 2020 destruction of caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia by an iron ore mining operation, the Federal Government established a Senate Inquiry. The Inquiry’s terms of reference included reviewing the effectiveness and adequacy of state and federal laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in each of the Australian jurisdictions; and how these cultural heritage laws might be improved to guarantee the protection of culturally and historically significant sites. Following an interim report released on December 9, 2020, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia released its final report on October 18, 2021. The final report sets out three key findings and eight recommendations, including that a new framework for cultural heritage protection be implemented at a national level by way of new legislated national minimum standards for State and Territory laws. The recommendations also include that a review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) be undertaken to address inequalities in the negotiating position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the future act regime, including the ‘right to negotiate’ process which is associated with the grant of certain mining tenements. Any legislation passed as a result of the recommendations in the final report could potentially impact the Company’s current and future mining tenements and operations.

Occupational Health and Safety. State legislation requires Peabody to provide and maintain a safe workplace by providing safe systems of work, safety equipment and appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision. In recognition of the specialized nature of mining and mining activities, specific occupational health and safety obligations have been mandated under state legislation specific to the coal mining industry. There are some differences in the application and detail of the laws, and mining operators, directors, officers and certain other employees are all subject to the obligations under this legislation.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 19

Table of Contents

In September 2020, Safe Work Australia (SWA) published its revised Workplace Exposure Standards (WES) for coal dust and silica based on toxicological information and other monitoring data. SWA have recommended exposure limits of 1.5 mg/m3 for coal dust (to apply from October 2022) and 0.05 mg/m3 for silica (to apply as soon as possible). In Queensland, a new workplace exposure standard for respirable crystalline silica (eight hour time-weighted average airborne concentration of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) took effect from July 1, 2020. In New South Wales, the new respirable crystalline silica workplace exposure standard of 0.05 mg/m3 commenced on July 1, 2020. The respirable coal dust workplace exposure standard of 2.5 mg/m3 was reduced to 1.5 mg/m3 on February 1, 2021 and mines need to report exceedances of the new exposure standard to the NSW Resources Regulator from this date. NSW is the first mining jurisdiction in Australia to implement an exposure standard for diesel particulate matter with the exposure standard of 0.1 mg/m3 which became enforceable on February 1, 2021.

In addition, as part of a broader review of workplace exposure standards, SWA is currently considering a proposal to reduce the time weighted average (TWA) Workplace Exposure Standard (WES) for carbon dioxide (CO2) in Australian coal mines from 12,500 ppm to 5,000 ppm. Currently there is a separate TWA for CO2 in coal mines however SWA proposes to remove this to align with a general industry standard. If implemented, the change has the potential to affect underground mines operating in CO2 rich coal seams, including the primary coal seam of the Company’s Metropolitan Mine. Importantly, a minimum three-year transition period applies for any change to standards.

On July 1, 2020, the Resources Safety and Health Queensland Act 2020 became effective. It establishes Resources Safety and Health Queensland (RSHQ) as a statutory body designed to ensure independence of the mining safety and health regulator. RSHQ includes inspectorates for coal mines, mineral mines and quarries, explosives and petroleum and gas. The new law seeks to enhance the role of advisory committees to identify, quantify and prioritize safety and health issues in the mining and quarrying industries. It also provides for an independent Work Health and Safety Prosecutor to prosecute serious offenses under resources safety legislation.

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 ending November 25, 2022.

Industrial Relations. A national industrial relations system, the Fair Work Act and National Employment Standards, administered by the federal government applies to all employers and employees. The matters regulated under the national system include general employment conditions, unfair dismissal, enterprise bargaining, bullying claims, industrial action and resolution of workplace disputes. Most of the hourly workers employed in the Company’s mines are also covered by the Black Coal Mining Industry Award and company specific enterprise agreements approved under the national system.

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGER Act). The NGER Act imposes requirements for corporations meeting a certain threshold to register and report greenhouse gas emissions and abatement actions, as well as energy production and consumption as part of a single, national reporting system. The Clean Energy Regulator administers the NGER Act. The federal Department of Environment and Energy is responsible for NGER Act-related policy developments and review.

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).

Queensland Royalty. As part of the Queensland Government’s 2019-20 Budget, the Government committed to freeze royalty rates on coal and minerals for three years, provided companies voluntarily contribute to a Resource Community Infrastructure Fund (the Fund) over this three-year period. The Government contributes $30 million Australian dollars towards the Fund, with companies voluntarily contributing $70 million Australian dollars. Peabody’s contribution to the Fund was approximately $522,000 Australian dollars for the 2020-21 financial year and $713,000 Australian dollars for the 2019-20 financial year. Peabody’s contribution is expected to further decrease in year three based on an expected reduction in production at its Queensland mines.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 20

Table of Contents

New South Wales Royalty. In New South Wales, the royalty applicable to coal is charged as a percentage of the value of production (total revenue less allowable deductions). This is equal to 6.2% for deep underground mines (coal extracted at depths greater than 400 meters below ground surface), 7.2% for underground mines and 8.2% for open-cut mines.

Sydney Water Catchment Areas. In November 2017, the New South Wales government established an independent expert panel (Panel) to advise the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) on the impact of underground mining activities in Sydney’s water catchment areas, including at the Company’s Metropolitan Mine. The Panel issued its final report in October 2019. The final report makes findings and recommendations concerning mining activities and effects across the catchment as a whole.

The DPIE considered the recommendations in the Panel’s final report and in April 2020 announced that it had accepted all 50 recommendations in the Panel’s report, and that it has established an interagency taskforce to implement a detailed action plan during 2020. The action plan 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 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.

Risks Related to Global Climate Change

Peabody recognizes that climate change is occurring and that human activity, including the use of fossil fuels, contributes to greenhouse gas (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 board of directors 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 directors 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. In addition, the board 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 board of directors 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 Commission filings, its annual Environmental, Social and Governance 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 directors 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 21

Table of Contents

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:

•Reduced utilization or closure of existing coal-fired electricity generating plants;

•Electricity generators switching from coal to alternative fuels, when feasible;

•Increased costs associated with regulatory compliance;

•Unfavorable impact of regulatory compliance on supply and demand fundamentals, such as limitations on financing or construction of new coal-fueled power stations;

•Uncertainty and inconsistency in rulemaking processes related to periodic governmental administrative and policy changes;

•Unfavorable costs of capital and access to financial markets and products due to the policies of financial institutions;

•Disruption to operations or markets due to anti-coal activism and litigation; and

•Reputational damage associated with involvement in GHG emissions.

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

•Disruption to water supplies vital to mining operations;

•Disruption to transportation and other supply chain activities;

•Damage to the Company’s, customers’ or suppliers’ plant and equipment, or third-party infrastructure, resulting from weather events or changes in environmental trends and conditions; and

•Electrical grid failures and power outages.

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:

•Heightened emphasis among multiple stakeholders to develop high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) technologies and carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS) technologies;

•Increased steel demand related to construction and other infrastructure projects related to climate change concerns; and

•The relative expense and reliability of renewable energy sources compared to coal may encourage support for balanced-source energy policies and regulations.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 22

Table of Contents

From time to time, the Company’s board of directors 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.

Regulations Related to Global Climate Change

In the U.S., Congress has considered legislation addressing global climate issues and greenhouse gas emissions, but to date, no such legislation has been signed into law. While it is possible that the U.S. will adopt legislation in the future, the timing and specific requirements of any such legislation are uncertain. In the absence of new U.S. federal legislation, the EPA has taken steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the CAA. In response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA commenced several rulemaking projects as described under “Regulatory Matters - U.S.” In particular, in 2015, the EPA announced final rules (known as the CPP) for regulating carbon dioxide emissions from existing and new fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Twenty-seven states and governmental entities, as well as utilities, industry groups, trade associations, coal companies (including Peabody), and other entities, challenged the CPP in federal court. Implementation of the CPP was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court pending resolution of its legal challenges. In October 2017, the EPA proposed to change its legal interpretation of section 111(d) of the CAA, the authority that the agency relied on for the original CPP. The EPA relied on the proposed reinterpretation until August 2018, when it proposed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (the ACE Rule) to replace the CPP with a system where states would develop emissions reduction plans using BSER measures (essentially efficiency heat rate improvements), and the EPA would approve the state plans if they use EPA-approved candidate technologies. Changes in the NSR program were also proposed to allow efficiency improvements to be made without triggering NSR requirements. In September 2019, the ACE Rule, which provides states with the flexibility to regulate on a plant-by-plant basis with a focus on coal-fired EGUs, became effective and the CPP was repealed. Proposed revisions to the regulations under the NSR program that were part of the ACE proposal were separated and the EPA indicated that it intends to take final action on the proposed NSR program reforms at a later date. Following the effectiveness of the ACE Rule, the case challenging the CPP in federal court was dismissed as being moot. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACE Rule and its repeal of the CPP were to be vacated and remanded to the EPA. It also vacated amendments to the implementing regulations that extended the compliance timeline.

At the same time, a number of states in the U.S. have adopted programs to regulate greenhouse gas 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 is expected to join 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, Minnesota and Wisconsin) and one 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 and 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 greenhouse gas emissions and create economic opportunities in ways not limited to cap-and-trade programs.

Several other U.S. states have enacted legislation establishing greenhouse gas 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 Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 23

Table of Contents

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 Environmental, Social and Governance 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 greenhouse gas 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 reductions 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 greenhouse gas 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 October 2017, the Australian Federal Government released a plan aimed at delivering an affordable and reliable energy system that meets Australia’s international commitments to emissions reduction. The plan was referred to as the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) and was aimed at changing the National Electricity Market and associated legislative framework. The NEG was abandoned by the Australian government in September 2018. Following the outcome of the federal election in May 2019, the federal government confirmed it will not revive the former NEG policy. Instead, the government will pursue a new energy and climate change policy, which includes a $2 billion Australian dollars investment in projects to bring down Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Solutions Fund is an extension of the former Emissions Reduction Fund. The government has confirmed that it remains committed to meeting Australia’s Paris Agreement targets but that the focus of energy policy will be on driving down electricity prices.

Available Information

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.

Item 1A.    Risk Factors.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 24

Table of Contents

Risks Associated with Peabody’s Operations

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:

•the demand for electricity and capacity utilization of electricity generating units (whether coal or non-coal);

•changes in the fuel consumption and dispatch patterns of electric power generators, whether based on economic or non-economic factors;

•the proximity, capacity and cost of transportation and terminal facilities;

•competition with and the availability, quality and price of coal and alternative fuels, including natural gas, fuel oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, biomass and solar power;

•governmental regulations and taxes, including tariffs or other trade restrictions as well as those establishing air emission standards for coal-fueled power plants or mandating or subsidizing increased use of electricity from renewable energy sources;

•the strength of the global economy;

•the global supply and production costs of thermal and metallurgical coal;

•the demand for steel, which may lead to price fluctuations in the monthly and quarterly repricing of the Company’s metallurgical coal contracts;

•weather patterns, severe weather and natural disasters;

•regulatory, administrative and judicial decisions, including those affecting future mining permits and leases;

•competing technologies used to make steel, some of which do not use coal as a manufacturing input, such as electric arc furnaces; and

•technological developments, including those related to alternative energy sources, those intended to convert coal-to-liquids or gas and those aimed at capturing, using and storing carbon dioxide.

Thermal coal accounted for the majority of the Company’s coal sales by volume during 2021 and 2020, 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 revenues 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 22% and 17% of its revenues in 2021 and 2020, 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 revenues and adversely impacting its earnings and the value of its coal reserves and resources.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 25

Table of Contents

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 revenues and profitability. The Company competes with other fuel sources used for electricity generation, such as natural gas 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 revenues 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 revenues 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, 2021, the Company derived 26% of its revenues from coal supply agreements from its five largest customers. Those five customers were supplied primarily from 17 coal supply agreements (excluding trading and brokerage transactions) expiring at various times from 2022 to 2026.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 26

Table of Contents

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:

•elevated gas levels;

•fires and explosions, including from methane gas or coal dust;

•accidental mine water discharges;

•weather, flooding and natural disasters;

•hazardous events such as roof falls and high wall or tailings dam failures;

•seismic activities, ground failures, rock bursts or structural cave-ins or slides;

•key equipment failures;

•unavailability of equipment or parts;

•variations in coal seam thickness, coal quality, the amount of rock and soil overlying coal deposits and geologic conditions impacting mine sequencing;

•delays in moving its longwall equipment;

•unexpected maintenance problems; and

•unforeseen delays in implementation of mining technologies that are new to its operations.

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 $1.2 billion, with terms ranging up to 21 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. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company recorded $1,487.4 million of impairment charges related to such factors, as further described in Note 3. “Asset Impairment” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 27

Table of Contents

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

As of December 31, 2021, the Company had approximately 4,900 employees (excluding employees that were employed at operations classified as discontinued), which included approximately 3,900 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% of its hourly employees were represented by organized labor unions and generated approximately 16% of its coal production for the year ended December 31, 2021. 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. The primary methods the Company uses to meet those obligations are to provide a third-party surety bond or a letter of credit. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had $1,463.7 million of outstanding surety bonds and $452.6 million of letters of credit with third parties 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.

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:

•lack of availability, higher expense or unfavorable market terms of new surety bonds, bank guarantees or letters of credit; and

•inability to provide or fund collateral for current and future third-party issuers of surety bonds, bank guarantees or letters of credit.

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 into 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 28

Table of Contents

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:

•workplace health and safety;

•limitations on land use;

•mine permitting and licensing requirements;

•reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed;

•the storage, treatment and disposal of wastes;

•remediation of contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater;

•air quality standards;

•water pollution;

•protection of human health, plant-life and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and habitats;

•protection of wetlands;

•the discharge of materials into the environment; and

•the effects of mining on surface water and groundwater quality and availability.

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 gas 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.

For additional information about the various regulations affecting the Company, see the sections entitled “Regulatory Matters —U.S.” and “Regulatory Matters — Australia.”

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 29

Table of Contents

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.

Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Numerous reports, including 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 emissions of greenhouse gases, including emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion by power plants.

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 board of directors 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 30

Table of Contents

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 addition to coal price volatility, the Company is currently subject to price volatility on diesel fuel utilized in its mining operations and the Australian dollar. The Company may in the future enter into hedging arrangements, including economic hedging arrangements, to manage these risks or other exposures.

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.

If the assumptions underlying the Company’s asset retirement obligations for reclamation and mine closures are materially inaccurate, its costs could be significantly greater than anticipated.

The Company’s asset retirement obligations primarily consist of spending estimates for surface land reclamation and support facilities at both surface and underground mines in accordance with federal and state reclamation laws in the U.S. and Australia as defined by each mining permit. These obligations are determined for each mine using various estimates and assumptions including, among other items, estimates of disturbed acreage as determined from engineering data, estimates of future costs to reclaim the disturbed acreage and the timing of these cash flows, which is driven by the estimated economic life of the mine and the applicable reclamation laws. These cash flows are discounted using a credit-adjusted, risk-free rate. The Company’s management and engineers periodically review these estimates. If its assumptions do not materialize as expected, actual cash expenditures and costs that the Company incurs could be materially different than currently estimated. Moreover, regulatory changes could increase the Company’s obligation to perform reclamation, mine closing and post-closure activities. The resulting estimated asset retirement obligation could change significantly if actual amounts change significantly from its assumptions, which could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations and financial condition.

The Company’s future success depends upon its ability to continue acquiring and developing coal reserves and resources that are economically recoverable.

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, revenues and expenditures with respect to its coal reserves and resources may vary materially from estimates.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 31

Table of Contents

The Company’s future success depends upon it conducting successful exploration and development activities or acquiring properties containing economically recoverable reserves and resources. The Company’s current strategy includes increasing its reserves and resources through acquisitions of government and other leases and producing properties and continuing to use its existing properties and infrastructure. In certain locations, leases for oil, natural gas and coalbed methane reserves are located on, or adjacent to, some of the Company’s reserves and resources, potentially creating conflicting interests between it and lessees of those interests. Other lessees’ rights relating to these mineral interests could prevent, delay or increase the cost of developing the Company’s coal reserves and resources. These lessees may also seek damages from the Company based on claims that its coal mining operations impair their interests. Additionally, the U.S. federal government limits the amount of federal land that may be leased by any company to 75,000 acres in any one state and 150,000 acres nationwide. As of December 31, 2021, the Company leased a total of 44,287 acres from the federal government subject to those limitations.

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 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 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 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 revenues, 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 the recently adopted 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 32

Table of Contents

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:

•geologic and mining conditions, which may not be fully identified by available exploration data and may differ from the Company’s experience in areas it currently mines;

•demand for coal;

•current and future market prices for coal, contractual arrangements, operating costs and capital expenditures;

•severance and excise taxes, royalties and development and reclamation costs;

•future mining technology improvements;

•the effects of regulation by governmental agencies;

•the ability to obtain, maintain and renew all required permits;

•employee health and safety; and

•historical production from the area compared with production from other producing areas.

The conversion of reported mineral resources to mineral reserves should not be assumed, and the reclassification of reported mineral resources from lower to higher levels of geological confidence should not be assumed. As such, actual coal tonnage recovered from identified reserve and resource areas or properties and revenues and expenditures with respect to the Company’s reserves and resources may vary materially from estimates. Thus, these estimates may not accurately reflect its actual reserves and resources. Any material inaccuracy in the Company’s estimates related to its reserves and resources could result in lower than expected revenues, higher than expected costs or decreased profitability which could materially and adversely affect its business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

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 business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected by pandemic or other widespread illnesses and the related effects on public health.

The Company’s operations are susceptible to widespread outbreaks of illness or other public health issues, such as the continuing global COVID-19 pandemic. 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 covenants under its debt agreements.

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 forced 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 in serious health issues and absenteeism. In addition, pandemic illnesses could cause supply chains and distribution channels to be interrupted, slowed 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. 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 Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 33

Table of Contents

Despite its efforts to manage these potential impacts, their ultimate impact would also depend on factors beyond the Company’s knowledge or control, including the duration and severity of the pandemic as well as third-party actions taken to contain its spread and mitigate its public health effects. The Company could also face disruption to supply chain and distribution channels, potentially increasing costs of production, storage and distribution, and potential adverse effects to its workforce, each of which could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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 $232.6 million as of December 31, 2021, of which $20.5 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 and 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 to increase employer contributions, due to increases in its defined benefit pension obligation or poor financial performance in asset markets in future years.

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:

•global economic recessions and/or credit market disruptions;

•deterioration of the creditworthiness of its customers or counterparties to financial instruments, and their ability to perform under contracts;

•inability of suppliers and other counterparties, including those related to transportation, contract mining, service provision, and coal trading and brokerage, to fulfil the terms of their contracts with the Company;

•decreases in the availability or increases in costs of key supplies, capital equipment or commodities such as diesel fuel, steel, explosives and tires;

•disruption to, or increased costs within, the transportation chain for coal, including rail, barge, trucking, overland conveyor, ports and ocean-going vessels;

•failure to attract and retain skilled and qualified personnel, or increases in the costs required to attract and retain skilled and qualified personnel, particularly as the prevalence of coal-fired electricity generation declines;

•new or increased forms of taxation imposed by federal, state, provincial or local governmental authorities, including production taxes, sales-related taxes, royalties, environmental taxes, mining profits taxes and income taxes;

•uncertainties associated with the Company’s global operating platform, including country and political risks, international regulatory requirements, and foreign currency rates; and

•cyber-attacks or other cybersecurity incidents that disrupt the operations of the Company or third-parties with which the Company does business, including cloud-based software service providers, or result in the dissemination of proprietary or confidential information about it, its employees, its customers or other third-parties.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 34

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Peabody’s Indebtedness and Capital Structure

The Company’s financial performance could be adversely affected by its funded indebtedness (Indebtedness).

As of December 31, 2021, the Company had approximately $1.1 billion of Indebtedness outstanding, excluding finance leases and debt issuance costs.

The degree to which the Company is leveraged could have important consequences, including, but not limited to:

•making it more difficult for the Company to pay interest and satisfy its debt obligations;

•increasing the cost of borrowing;

•increasing the Company’s vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry or regulatory conditions;

•requiring the dedication of a substantial portion of the Company’s cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on its Indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of its cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, business development or other general corporate requirements;

•limiting its ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital, capital expenditures, business development or other general corporate requirements;

•limiting its ability to make certain investments;

•limiting the Company’s ability to refinance or otherwise exchange existing debt at commercially acceptable rates;

•making it more difficult to obtain surety bonds, letters of credit, bank guarantees or other financing, particularly during periods in which credit markets are weak;

•limiting the Company’s flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in its business and in the coal industry;

•causing a decline in its credit ratings; and

•placing the Company at a competitive disadvantage compared to less leveraged competitors.

A downgrade in the Company’s credit ratings or other unfavorable indicators could result in, among other matters, a requirement to post additional collateral on derivative trading instruments that it may enter into, the loss of trading counterparties for corporate hedging and trading and brokerage activities or an increase in the cost of, or a limit on its access to, various forms of credit used in operating its business.

If the Company’s cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund its debt service obligations, it may be forced to sell assets, seek additional capital or seek to restructure or refinance its Indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit the Company to meet its scheduled debt service obligations. Its Indebtedness may restrict the use of the proceeds from any such sales. The Company may not be able to complete those sales and the proceeds may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

Despite the Company’s Indebtedness, it may still be able to incur more debt, which could further increase the risks associated with its Indebtedness.

The Company may be able to incur additional Indebtedness in the future. Although covenants under the indentures governing its senior secured notes and the agreements governing its other Indebtedness, including its credit facility, letter of credit facility, and finance leases, limit its ability to incur additional Indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, debt incurred in compliance with these restrictions can be material. In addition, the indenture governing the senior secured notes and the agreements governing the Company’s other Indebtedness do not limit it from incurring obligations that do not constitute Indebtedness as defined therein.

The terms of the indentures governing the Company’s senior secured notes and the agreements and instruments governing its other Indebtedness and surety bonding obligations impose restrictions that may limit its operating and financial flexibility.

The indentures governing the Company’s senior secured notes and the agreements governing its other Indebtedness 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 person 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 results of operations.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 35

Table of Contents

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

•incur additional Indebtedness;

•pay dividends on or make distributions in respect of stock or make certain other restricted payments, such as share repurchases;

•make capital or other investments;

•enter into agreements that restrict distributions from certain subsidiaries;

•sell or otherwise dispose of assets;

•use for general purposes the cash received from certain allowable asset sales or disposals;

•enter into transactions with affiliates;

•create or incur liens;

•merge, consolidate or sell all or substantially all of its assets; and

•receive dividends or other payments from subsidiaries in certain cases.

The Company’s ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond its control and the Company may need to refinance existing debt in the future. A breach of any of these covenants together with the expiration of any cure period, if applicable, could result in a default under its senior secured notes. If any such default occurs, subject to applicable grace periods, the holders of its senior secured notes may elect to declare all outstanding senior secured notes, together with accrued interest and other amounts payable thereunder, to be immediately due and payable. If the obligations under its senior secured notes were to be accelerated, the Company’s financial resources may be insufficient to repay the notes and any other Indebtedness becoming due in full. The terms of the Company’s Indebtedness provide that if it cannot meet its debt service obligations, the lenders could foreclose against the assets securing their borrowings and the Company could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation.

In addition, if the Company breaches the covenants in the indentures governing the senior secured notes and do not cure such breach within the applicable time periods specified therein, the Company would cause an event of default under the indenture governing the senior secured notes and a cross-default to certain of its other Indebtedness and the lenders or holders thereunder could accelerate their obligations. If the Company’s Indebtedness is accelerated, it may not be able to repay its Indebtedness or borrow sufficient funds to refinance it. Even if the Company is able to obtain new financing, it may not be on commercially reasonable terms or on terms that are acceptable to the Company. If the Company’s Indebtedness is in default for any reason, its business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, complying with these covenants may make it more difficult for the Company to successfully execute its business strategy and compete against companies who are not subject to such 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 36

Table of Contents

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

•restricting the Company’s ability to access capital and financial markets in the future;

•reducing the demand and price for its equity securities;

•increasing the cost of borrowing;

•causing a decline in the Company’s credit ratings;

•reducing the availability, and/or increasing the cost of, third-party insurance;

•increasing the Company’s retention of risk through self-insurance;

•making it more difficult to obtain surety bonds, letters of credit, bank guarantees or other financing; and

•limiting the Company’s flexibility in business development activities such as mergers, acquisitions and divestitures.

Risks Related to Ownership of Peabody’s Securities

The price of Peabody’s securities may be volatile and could fall below the minimum allowed by New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) listing requirements.

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:

•actual or anticipated fluctuations in Peabody’s quarterly and annual results and those of other public companies in its industry;

•industry cycles and trends;

•mergers and strategic alliances in the coal industry;

•changes in government regulation;

•potential or actual military conflicts or acts of terrorism;

•the failure of securities analysts to publish research about Peabody or to accurately predict the results it actually achieves;

•changes in accounting principles;

•announcements concerning Peabody or its competitors;

•the purchase and sale of shares of its Common Stock by significant shareholders;

•lack of or excess of trading liquidity; and

•the general volatility of securities markets.

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. In the recent past, Peabody’s closing stock price has fallen below $1.00 per share for a limited number of trading days. If Peabody’s stock were to trade below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive trading days, NYSE could commence suspension and delisting procedures. 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 long-term incentive plan. In addition, Peabody may continue issuing equity securities in connection with future investments, acquisitions, debt-for-equity exchanges 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 37

Table of Contents

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.

As more fully described within “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” restrictive covenants in the Company’s debt and surety agreements limit its ability to pay cash dividends and repurchase shares. Such restrictions may negatively impact the trading price of the Common Stock. The payment of future cash dividends and future repurchases will depend upon these restrictions, as well as Peabody’s earnings, economic conditions, liquidity and capital requirements, and other factors, including its leverage and other financial ratios. Accordingly, the Company cannot make any assurance that future dividends will be paid or future repurchases will be made.

General Business Risks

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, 2021, the Company had gross deferred income tax assets, including net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards, and liabilities of $2,176.9 million and $83.4 million, respectively, as described further in Note 9. “Income Taxes” to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At that date, the Company also had recorded a valuation allowance of $2,120.8 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. and Australia 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.

Acquisitions and divestitures are a potentially important part of the Company’s long-term strategy, subject to its investment criteria, and involve a number of risks, any of which could cause the Company not to realize the anticipated benefits.

The Company may engage in acquisition or divestiture activity based on its set of investment criteria to produce outcomes that increase shareholder value or provide potential strategic benefits. If the Company fails to accurately estimate the future results and value of an acquired or divested business or assets and the related risk associated with such a transaction, or are unable to successfully integrate the businesses or assets it acquires, its business, financial condition or results of operations could be negatively affected. Moreover, any transactions the Company pursues could materially impact its liquidity and an acquisition could increase capital resource needs and may require it to incur Indebtedness, seek equity capital or both. The Company may not be able to satisfy these liquidity and capital resource needs on acceptable terms or at all. In addition, future acquisitions could result in its assuming significant long-term liabilities, including potentially unknown liabilities, relative to the value of the acquisitions.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 38

Table of Contents

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.

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.    Properties.

Coal Reserves and Resources

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, subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K requires disclosure of mineral resources, in addition to mineral reserves, as of December 31, 2021, both in the aggregate and for each of our 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:

•Mineral resource. A concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the earth's crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, taking into account relevant factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location or continuity, that, with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.

•Mineral reserve. An estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of a QP, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.

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:

•Measured resource. That part of a mineral resource with the highest level of geological confidence; quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

•Indicated resource. That part of a mineral resource with a level of geological confidence between that of measured and inferred resources; quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

•Inferred resource. That part of a mineral resource with the lowest level of geological confidence; quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 39

Table of Contents

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.

The economically mineable part of a measured coal resource is considered a proven coal reserve and has the highest degree of assurance of economic viability. The economically mineable part of indicated, and sometimes measured, coal resources are considered probable coal reserves and have a moderate degree of assurance of economic viability.

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.

Mineral Rights

The Company controls coal rights through direct ownership and numerous lease agreements with government or private parties. The majority of our 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, 2021, 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 lease 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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 40

Table of Contents

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.

Pricing

The pricing information used in support of the Company’s 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.

Thermal. Several factors can influence thermal coal supply and demand and pricing. Demand is sensitive to total electric power generation volumes, which are determined in part by the impact of weather on heating and cooling demand, inter-fuel competition in the electric power generation mix (such as from natural gas and renewable sources), changes in capacity (additions and retirements), competition from other producers, coal stockpiles and policy and regulations. Supply considerations impacting pricing include coal reserve and resource positions, mining methods, strip ratios, production costs and capacity and the cost of new supply (greenfield developments or extensions at existing mines).

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.

Internationally, thermal coal-fueled generation also competes with alternative forms of electricity generation. The competitiveness and availability of generation fueled by natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biomass vary by country and region and can have a meaningful impact on coal pricing. Policy and regulations, which vary from country to country, can also influence prices. 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, and the competitiveness of seaborne supply from leading thermal coal exporting countries, including Indonesia, Australia, Russia, Colombia, the U.S. and South Africa, among others.

Metallurgical. Several factors can influence metallurgical coal supply and demand and pricing. Demand is impacted by economic conditions, government policies and demand for steel, and is also impacted by competing technologies used to make steel, some of which do not use coal as a manufacturing input. Competition from other types of coal is also a key price consideration and can be impacted by the coal quality and characteristics, delivered energy cost (including transportation costs), customer service and support, and reliability of supply.

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.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 41

Table of Contents

Costs

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:

•Geological settings. The geological characteristics of each mine are among the most important factors that determine the mining cost. Company geologists conduct the exploration program and provide geological models for the LOM process. Coal seam depth, thickness, dipping angle, partings and quality constrain the available mining methods and size of operations. Shallow coal is typically mined by surface mining methods by which the primary cost is overburden removal. Deep coal is typically mined by underground mining methods where the primary costs include coal extraction, conveyance and roof control.

•Scale of operations and the equipment sizes. For surface mines, dragline systems generally have a lower unit cost than truck-and-shovel systems for overburden removal. Longwall operations are generally more cost-effective than room-and-pillar operations for underground mines.

•Commodity prices. For surface mines, the costs of diesel fuel and explosives are major components of the total mining cost. For underground mines, the steel used for roof control represents a significant cost. Forecasted commodity prices are used to project those costs in the financial models used to establish reserve and resource estimates.

•Target product quality. By targeting a premium quality product, mining and processing processes may experience more coal losses. By lowering product quality the coal losses can be minimized and therefore a lower cost per ton can be achieved. In the Company’s LOM plans, product qualities are estimated to correspond to existing contracts and forecasted market demands.

•Transportation costs. Transportation costs vary by region. Most of the Company’s U.S. thermal operations sell coal at mine loadouts. Therefore, no transportation expenses are included in U.S. thermal cost estimates. The Company’s seaborne operations typically sell coal at designated ports. The estimated costs for seaborne operations include rail and barge transportation and related fees at ports.

•Royalty costs. Royalty costs are based upon contractual agreements for the coal leased from governments or private owners. The royalty rates for coal leased from governments differ by country and, in some cases, by mining method. Estimated add-on taxes and other sales-related costs are determined according to government regulations or historical costs.

•Exchange rates. Costs related to the Company’s Australian production are predominantly denominated in Australian dollars, while the Australian coal exported is sold in U.S. dollars. As a result, Australian/U.S. dollar exchange rates impact the U.S. dollar cost of Australian production.

Summary of Coal Reserves and Resources

Peabody controlled an estimated 2.5 billion tons of coal reserves and 2.4 billion tons of coal resources as of December 31, 2021. Approximately 95% of the Company’s coal reserves and 98% of the Company’s coal resources are held under lease, and the remainder is held through fee ownership.

The following tables summarize the Company’s estimated coal reserves and resources as of December 31, 2021. The quantity of the coal resources is estimated on an in situ basis as attributable to Peabody. Coal resources are reported exclusive of coal reserves. The quantity of the coal reserves is estimated on a saleable product basis as attributable to Peabody. The coal reserves and resources are reported on selected key quality parameters and on different moisture bases generally referenced by sales contracts for each mining property.

Peabody Energy Corporation 2021 Form 10-K 42

Table of Contents

SUMMARY COAL RESERVES AT END OF THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021 (1)
(Tons in millions)
																		Peabody
				Mining	Coal	Proven Coal Reserves				Probable Coal Reserves				Total Coal Reserves				Interest
Segment / Mining Complex	Country	State	Stage	Method	Type	Amount	Quality			Amount	Quality			Amount	Quality			(10)
Seaborne Thermal Mining:(2)						Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	Kcal/kg(6)	Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	Kcal/kg(6)	Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	Kcal/kg(6)
Wilpinjong	AUS	NSW	P	S	T	71	24.3	0.5	5,940	5	29.7	0.4	5,478	76	24.7	0.5	5,910	100%
Wambo Opencut (9)	AUS	NSW	P	S	T	28	10.8	0.3	7,098	2	11.3	0.3	7,055	30	10.8	0.3	7,095	50%
Wambo Underground	AUS	NSW	P	U	T	2	12.2	0.3	6,802	-	-	-	-	2	12.2	0.3	6,802	100%
South Wambo	AUS	NSW	E	U	T/C	-	-	-	-	74	9.8	0.3	7,034	74	9.8	0.3	7,034	100%
Total						101				81				182
Seaborne Metallurgical Mining:(3)						Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	VM%(7)	Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	VM%(7)	Tons	%Ash	%Sulfur	VM%(7)
Shoal Creek	USA	AL	P	U	C	16	10.2	0.7	30.4	2	10.2	0.7	30.3	18	10.2	0.7	30.3	100%
Coppabella	AUS	QLD	P	S	P	8	8.9	0.2	10.3	4	9.4	0.2	8.6	12	9.1	0.2	9.7	73.3%
Moorvale	AUS	QLD	P	S	C/P/T	2	11.8	0.3	16.2	-	-	-	-	2	11.8