ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS LP

Previous wording

We had long-term indebtedness of $490.4 million as of December 31, 2024. Our leverage may:

Current wording

We had long-term indebtedness of $463.5 million as of December 31, 2025. Our leverage may:

Previous wording

In 2024, we sold approximately 83.6% of our coal sales tonnage under contracts having a term greater than one year, which we refer to as long-term sales contracts. These contracts have historically provided a relatively secure market for the production committed under the terms of the contracts. From time to time industry conditions could make it more difficult for us to enter into long-term sales contracts with our electric utility customers, and if supply exceeds demand in the coal industry, electric utilities may become less willing to lock in price or quantity commitments for an extended period of time. Accordingly, we may not be able to continue to obtain long-term sales contracts with reliable customers as existing contracts expire, which could subject a portion of our revenue stream to the increased volatility of the spot market.

Current wording

In 2025, we sold approximately 84.6% of our coal sales tonnage under contracts having a term greater than one year, which we refer to as long-term sales contracts. These contracts have historically provided a relatively secure market for the production committed under the terms of the contracts. From time to time industry conditions could make it more difficult for us to enter into long-term sales contracts with our electric utility customers, and if supply exceeds demand in the coal industry, electric utilities may become less willing to lock in price or quantity commitments for an extended period of time. Accordingly, we may not be able to continue to obtain long-term sales contracts with reliable customers as existing contracts expire, which could subject a portion of our revenue stream to the increased volatility of the spot market.

Previous wording

In 2024, we derived more than 10% of our total revenues from each of American Electric Power Company Inc., Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Tennessee Valley Authority. If we were to lose this or any of our significant customers without finding replacement customers willing to purchase an equivalent amount of coal on similar terms, or if these customers were to decrease the amounts of coal purchased or change the terms, including pricing terms, on which they buy coal from us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current wording

In 2025, we derived more than 10% of our total revenues from each of Louisville Gas and Electric Company and American Electric Power Company, Inc. If we were to lose this or any of our significant customers without finding replacement customers willing to purchase an equivalent amount of coal on similar terms, or if these customers were to decrease the amounts of coal purchased or change the terms, including pricing terms, on which they buy coal from us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Previous wording

Deliberate attacks, natural disasters, user error, or other security breaches or failures in, on or to our systems or infrastructure, or the systems or infrastructure of third parties on whom we rely could lead to the unauthorized access to, unauthorized disclosure of, restricted access to, or corruption or loss of our proprietary data and potentially sensitive data, including data related to personal information, critical operations and financial records. For example, in 2021, we discovered that certain of our computer systems were subject to a cyber incident, although it did not materially impact our business, financial position or results of operations. Following the incident, we took what we believed to be appropriate steps in response, including providing individual notifications, implementing multi-factor authentication and other security enhancements. Cybersecurity attacks are increasingly dynamic and continuously evolving, encompassing threats such as malicious software, credential stuffing, surveillance, phishing, social engineering, the use of deepfakes (highly realistic synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence), unauthorized data access attempts, and other forms of electronic security breaches. Such incidents may also result in disruptions to critical systems, data corruption, delays in production or delivery, difficulty in completing and settling transactions, misdirected wire transfers, challenges in maintaining our books and records, environmental damage, communication interruptions, increased safety risk for personnel, other operational disruptions, and third-party liability. Additionally, we may face regulatory scrutiny or penalties resulting from data privacy or cybersecurity violations in the aftermath of such incidents. The expanding regulatory framework for data protection increases the challenges of securing our information. Adhering to these changing requirements could cause us to incur substantial costs, and any real or perceived non-compliance may lead to regulatory penalties, legal action, and damage to our reputation.

Current wording

Deliberate attacks, natural disasters, user error, or other security breaches or failures in, on or to our systems or infrastructure, or the systems or infrastructure of third parties on whom we rely could lead to the unauthorized access to, unauthorized disclosure of, restricted access to, or corruption or loss of our proprietary data and potentially sensitive data, including data related to personal information, critical operations and financial records. We have in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to cyber incidents, along with our third-party vendors, contractors and partners. Such incidents may also result in disruptions to critical systems, data corruption, delays in production or delivery, difficulty in completing and settling transactions, misdirected wire transfers, challenges in maintaining our books and records, environmental damage, communication interruptions, increased safety risk for personnel, other operational disruptions, and third-party liability. Additionally, we may face regulatory scrutiny or penalties resulting from data privacy or cybersecurity violations in the aftermath of such incidents. The expanding regulatory framework for data protection increases the challenges of securing our information. Adhering to these changing requirements could cause us to incur substantial costs, and any real or perceived non-compliance may lead to regulatory penalties, legal action, and damage to our reputation.

Previous wording

Pandemics, outbreaks or other public health events that are outside of our control could significantly disrupt our operations and adversely affect our financial condition. The global or national outbreak of an illness or other communicable disease, or any other public health crisis, such as SARS, H1N1/09 flu, avian flu, Ebola,E. Coli., measles and COVID-19, may cause disruptions to our business and operations, which may include (i) shortages of employees, (ii) unavailability of contractors or subcontractors, (iii) interruption of supplies from third parties upon which we rely, (iv) restrictions recommended or imposed by government and health authorities, including quarantines, to address an outbreak and (v) restrictions that we and our contractors, subcontractors and our customers impose, including facility shutdowns, to ensure the safety of employees.

Current wording

Pandemics, outbreaks or other public health events that are outside of our control could significantly disrupt our operations and adversely affect our financial condition. The global or national outbreak of an illness or other communicable disease or any other public health crisis may cause disruptions to our business and operations, which may include (i) shortages of employees, (ii) unavailability of contractors or subcontractors, (iii) interruption of supplies from third parties upon which we rely, (iv) restrictions recommended or imposed by government and health authorities, including

Previous wording

In addition, we face competition from foreign producers that sell their coal in the export market. Potential changes to international trade agreements, trade concessions, or other political and economic arrangements could benefit coal producers operating in countries other than the United States. We could be adversely impacted on the basis of price or other factors by foreign trade policies or other arrangements that benefit competitors. In addition, coal is sold internationally in United States dollars and, as a result, general economic conditions in foreign markets and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could provide our foreign competitors with a competitive advantage. If our competitors’ currencies decline against the United States dollar or foreign purchasers’ local currencies, those competitors could be able to offer lower prices for coal to those purchasers. Furthermore, if the currencies of overseas purchasers were to significantly decline in value in comparison to the United States dollar, those purchasers may seek decreased prices for the coal we sell. Consequently, currency fluctuations could adversely affect the competitiveness of our coal in international markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Current wording

In addition, we face competition from foreign producers that sell their coal in the export market. Potential changes to international trade agreements, trade concessions, or other political and economic arrangements could benefit coal producers operating in countries other than the United States. We could be adversely impacted on the basis of price or other factors by foreign trade policies or other arrangements that benefit competitors. In addition, we periodically sell our coal internationally in United States dollars and, as a result, general economic conditions in foreign markets and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could provide our foreign competitors with a competitive advantage. If our competitors’ currencies decline against the United States dollar or foreign purchasers’ local currencies, those competitors could be able to offer lower prices for coal to those purchasers. Furthermore, if the currencies of overseas purchasers were to significantly decline in value in comparison to the United States dollar, those purchasers may seek decreased prices for the coal we sell. Consequently, currency fluctuations could adversely affect the competitiveness of our coal in international markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Previous wording

New tariffs and other trade measures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. In response to tariffs imposed by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and China have imposed tariffs on United States goods and services, including coal. These tariffs, along with any additional tariffs or trade restrictions that may be implemented by the United States or retaliatory trade measures or tariffs implemented by other countries, could result in reduced economic activity, increased costs in operating our business, reduced demand and changes in purchasing behaviors for thermal and metallurgical coal, limits on trade with the United States or other potentially adverse economic outcomes. Additionally, we sell coal into the export thermal and metallurgical markets. Accordingly, our international sales could also be impacted by the tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the United States and other countries. We cannot predict the impact that new or changes in tariffs and other trade measures imposed by the United States or other countries on United States goods, but such new or changes in trade measures could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and could reduce our revenues and cash available for distribution. Please see risk factor titled “Unexpected increases in raw material costs could significantly impair our operating profitability.” for additional information.

Current wording

New tariffs and other trade measures could adversely affect our results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. In response to tariffs imposed by the United States, several countries have imposed tariffs on United States goods and services, including coal. These tariffs, along with any additional tariffs or trade restrictions that may be implemented by the United States or retaliatory trade measures or tariffs implemented by other countries, could result in reduced economic activity, increased costs in operating our business, reduced demand and changes in purchasing behaviors for thermal and metallurgical coal, limits on trade with the United States or other potentially adverse economic outcomes. Additionally, we sell coal into the export thermal and metallurgical markets. Accordingly, our international sales could also be impacted by the tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the United States and other countries. We cannot predict the impact that new or changes in tariffs and other trade measures imposed by the United States or other countries on United States goods, but such new or changes in trade measures could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and could reduce our revenues and cash available for distribution. Please see risk factor titled “Unexpected increases in raw material costs could significantly impair our operating profitability.” for additional information.

Previous wording

Volatility in coal and oil & gas prices has been and may continue to be heightened as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, hostilities in the Middle East and the potential impact to global shipping. Globally, various governments have banned imports from Russia including commodities such as oil & gas and coal. These events have caused volatility in the

Current wording

Volatility in coal and oil & gas prices has been and may continue to be heightened as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, hostilities in the Middle East and the potential impact to global shipping and the evolving situation in Venezuela. These events have caused volatility in the aforementioned commodity markets. Such conflicts and the resulting volatility may significantly affect prices for our coal and oil & gas or the cost of supplies and equipment, as well as the prices of competing sources of energy for our electric power plant customers.

Previous wording

Our business is closely linked to the demand for electricity, and any changes in coal consumption by domestic or international electric power generators would likely impact our business over the long term. The domestic electric power sector accounts for the vast majority of the total domestic coal consumption. The amount of coal consumed by the domestic electric utility industry is affected primarily by the overall demand for electricity, environmental and other governmental regulations, and the price and availability of competing fuels for power plants such as nuclear, natural gas, and fuel oil as well as alternative sources of energy. Competition from natural gas-fired plants that are relatively more efficient, less expensive to construct, and less difficult to permit than coal-fired plants has the most potential to displace a significant amount of coal-fired electric power generation in the near term, particularly from older, less efficient coal-fired powered generators.

Current wording

Our business is closely linked to the demand for electricity, and any changes in coal consumption by domestic or international electric power generators would likely impact our business over the long term. The domestic electric power sector accounts for the vast majority of the total domestic coal consumption. The amount of coal consumed by the domestic electric utility industry is affected primarily by the overall demand for electricity, environmental and other governmental regulations, and the price and availability of competing fuels for power plants such as nuclear, natural gas, and fuel oil as well as alternative sources of energy. Our primary competition is from natural gas-fired plants that are relatively more efficient and less difficult to permit than coal-fired plants.

Previous wording

Future environmental regulation of GHG emissions also could accelerate the use by utilities of fuels other than coal, although the short-term future is uncertain as policy changes develop and are implemented by the Trump Administration. In addition, federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could affect demand for coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources such as tax credits, could make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as CSAPR and MATS, have led to the premature retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. A decrease in coal consumption by the domestic electric utility industry could adversely affect the demand for or the price of coal, which could negatively impact our results of operations and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Current wording

Future environmental regulation of GHG emissions also could accelerate the use by utilities of fuels other than coal. In addition, federal and state mandates for increased use of electricity derived from renewable energy sources could affect demand for coal. Such mandates, combined with other incentives to use renewable energy sources such as tax credits, could make alternative fuel sources more competitive with coal. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as MATS, have in the past led to the retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. A decrease in coal consumption by the domestic electric utility industry could adversely affect the demand for or the price of coal, which could negatively impact our results of operations and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Previous wording

Increased attention to climate change risk has also resulted in a recent trend of governmental investigations and private litigation by state and local governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the alleged effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, and oil & gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. Separately, litigation has been brought against certain fossil-fuel companies alleging that they have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or consumers. In addition, in December 2024, New York adopted a law requiring companies that emitted over one billion

Current wording

Increased attention to climate change risk has also resulted in governmental investigations and private litigation by state and local governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the alleged effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, and oil & gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. Separately, litigation has been brought against certain fossil-fuel companies alleging that they have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or consumers. In addition, in December 2024, New York adopted a law requiring companies that emitted over one billion tons of GHG emissions into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2018, with sufficient connections to the state, to pay into a “climate superfund” to support climate-related adaptation and mitigation projects. We, among others, have been identified by New York as a potentially responsible party under the law but, to date, have not received any cost recovery demands. The law has been challenged by the Department of Justice pursuant to an Executive Order and the litigation remains pending at this time. It is uncertain whether we or others in our industry will ultimately be required to pay penalties as a result of the New York law, nor can we predict whether or not other states will adopt similar legislation in the future. To the extent we are required to pay such penalties, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. It is possible that we could be included in similar future lawsuits initiated by state and local governments as well as private claimants or subject to regulatory fines or penalties in the future.

Previous wording

Increased attention to ESG matters may negatively impact our business, financial results, and unit price.

Current wording

Continued attention to sustainability matters may negatively impact our business, financial results, and unit price.

Previous wording

Companies across all industries, including companies in fossil-fuel industries, are facing increased scrutiny from stakeholders related to their ESG practices. Companies that do not adapt or comply with evolving investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, or are perceived to have not responded appropriately to ESG issues, regardless of any legal requirement to do so, may suffer reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and valuation of such companies could be adversely affected. Several advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote change at public companies related to ESG matters, including through the investment and voting practices of investment advisers, public pension funds, universities, and other members of the investing community. These activities include increased attention to and demands for action related to climate change, changes in regulation relating to climate change, promoting the use of substitutes to fossil-fuel products, encouraging the divestment of fossil-fuel equities, and pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil-

Current wording

investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, or were perceived to have not responded appropriately to sustainability issues, regardless of any legal requirement to do so, might have suffered reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and valuation of such companies could have been adversely affected. Several advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote change at public companies related to sustainability matters, including through the investment and voting practices of investment advisers, public pension funds, universities, and other members of the investing community. These activities include increased attention to and demands for action related to climate change, changes in regulation relating to climate change, promoting the use of substitutes to fossil-fuel products, encouraging the divestment of fossil-fuel equities, and pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil-fuel reserves. These activities could increase costs, reduce demand for our coal and hydrocarbon products, reduce our profits, increase the potential for investigations and litigation, impair our brand, limit our choices for lenders, insurance providers and business partners, and have negative impacts on our unit price and access to capital markets.

Previous wording

In addition, certain organizations that provide ESG and other corporate risk information to investors and unitholders have developed scores and ratings to evaluate companies and investment funds based on ESG or “sustainability” metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but consideration of sustainability evaluations has become more broadly accepted by investors. Indeed, many investment funds focus on business practices perceived to have a less risky ESG profile and better sustainability scores when making investments, whereas other funds may use certain ESG criteria to “screen” certain sectors, such as coal or fossil fuels more generally, out of their investments. In addition, investors, particularly institutional investors, use these scores to benchmark companies against their peers and if a company is perceived as lagging, these investors may engage with companies to require improved ESG disclosure or performance, vote against a company’s management proposals or board nominees, or sell their interests in the Partnership, particularly if its ESG performance does not improve. Moreover, certain members of the broader investment community may consider a company’s sustainability scores as a reputational or other factor in making an investment decision. Companies in the energy industry, and in particular those focused on coal, natural gas, or oil extraction, often do not score as well under ESG assessments compared to companies in other industries. Consequently, a low ESG or sustainability score could result in our securities, both debt and equity, being excluded from the portfolios of certain investment funds and investors, restricting our access to capital to fund our continuing operations and growth opportunities. Additionally, to the extent ESG matters negatively impact our reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.

Current wording

Certain organizations that provide sustainability and other corporate risk information and ratings to investors and unitholders have developed processes to evaluate companies and investment funds based on “sustainability” metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but consideration of sustainability evaluations has become more broadly accepted by some investors in the past. Such assessments were used by some investors to inform their investment decisions. Companies in the energy industry, and in particular those focused on coal, natural gas, or oil extraction, often do not fare as well under sustainability assessments compared to companies in other industries. Consequently, a low sustainability assessment could result in our securities, both debt and equity, being excluded from the portfolios of certain investment funds and investors, restricting our access to insurance or capital to fund our continuing operations and growth opportunities. Additionally, to the extent sustainability matters negatively impact our reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.

Previous wording

Certain public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emission reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. For example, the SEC has recently taken enforcement action against companies for ESG-related misconduct, including alleged greenwashing. Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG-statements, emission reduction claims, approaches to accounting for GHG emissions reductions, or other ESG-related goals, or standards were misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive. Any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to further negative sentiment and diversion of investments. Additionally, we could face increasing costs as we attempt to comply with and navigate further ESG-related focus and scrutiny.

Current wording

Certain public statements with respect to sustainability matters have been in the past subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties, related to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential sustainability benefits. Certain regulators, such as the SEC (particularly under past presidential administrations) and various state agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain sustainability statements, emission reduction claims, approaches to accounting for GHG emissions reductions or other sustainability-related goals, or standards were misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive. Any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to further negative sentiment and diversion of investments. Additionally, we could face increasing costs as we attempt to comply with and navigate further sustainability-related focus and scrutiny.

Previous wording

Additionally, certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business. More recent political developments could mean that the Partnership faces increasing criticism or litigation risks from certain “anti-ESG” parties, including various governmental agencies. Such sentiment may focus on the Partnership’s environmental commitments (such as reducing GHG emissions) or its pursuit of certain employment practices or social initiatives that are alleged to be political or polarizing in nature or are alleged to violate laws based, in part, on changing priorities of, or interpretations by, federal agencies or state governments. Consideration of ESG-related factors in the Partnership’s decision-making could be subject to increasing scrutiny and objection from such anti-ESG parties. As a result, we may face increased litigation risks from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG-related efforts.

Current wording

Additionally, certain employment or business practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. We cannot be certain of the impact of such regulatory, legal and other developments on our business.

Previous wording

From time to time, we have disputes with our customers over the provisions of coal supply contracts relating to, among other things, coal pricing, quality, quantity, and the existence of specified conditions beyond our or our customers’ control that suspend performance obligations under the particular contract. Disputes could occur in the future and we may not be able to resolve those disputes in a satisfactory manner, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current wording

From time to time, we have disputes with our customers over the provisions of coal supply contracts relating to, among other things, coal pricing, quality, quantity, and the existence of specified conditions beyond our or our customers’ control that suspend performance obligations under the particular contract. Disputes could occur in the future and we may not be

Previous wording

Effective October 1, 2024, we renewed our property and casualty insurance program through September 30, 2025. Our property insurance was procured from our wholly owned captive insurance company, Wildcat Insurance. Wildcat Insurance charged certain of our subsidiaries for the premiums on this program and in return purchased reinsurance for the program in the standard market. The maximum limit in the commercial property program is $100.0 million per occurrence, excluding a $1.5 million deductible for property damage, a 75- or 90-day waiting period for underground business interruption depending on the mining complex and an additional $25.0 million overall aggregate deductible. We retained a 2.50% participating interest in our current commercial property insurance program. We can make no assurances that we will not experience significant insurance claims in the future that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to purchase property insurance in the future. Also, exposures exist for

Current wording

Effective October 1, 2025, we renewed our property and casualty insurance program through September 30, 2026. Our property insurance was procured from our wholly owned captive insurance company, Wildcat Insurance. Wildcat Insurance charged certain of our subsidiaries for the premiums on this program and in return purchased reinsurance for the program in the standard market. The maximum limit in the commercial property program is $100.0 million per occurrence, excluding a $1.5 million deductible for property damage, a 75- or 90-day waiting period for underground business interruption depending on the mining complex and an additional $25.0 million overall aggregate deductible. We retained a 2.50% participating interest in our current commercial property insurance program. We can make no assurances that we will not experience significant insurance claims in the future that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to purchase property insurance in the future. Also, exposures exist for which no insurance may be available and for which we have not reserved. In addition, the insurance industry has been subject to efforts by environmental activists to restrict coverages available for fossil-fuel companies.

Previous wording

Mining companies must obtain numerous governmental permits or approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to various environmental and safety matters in connection with coal mining. The permitting rules are complex and can change over time. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. The public has the right to comment on permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Accordingly, permits required to conduct our operations may not be issued, maintained, or renewed, may not be issued or renewed in a timely fashion, or may involve requirements that restrict our ability to economically conduct our mining operations. Limitations on our ability to conduct our mining operations due to the inability to obtain or renew necessary permits or similar approvals could reduce our production, cash flow, and profitability. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations—Mining Permits and Approvals.”

Current wording

Mining companies must obtain numerous governmental permits or approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to various environmental and safety matters in connection with coal mining. The permitting rules are complex and can change over time. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. The public has the right to comment on permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Accordingly, permits required to conduct our operations may not be issued, maintained, or renewed, may not be issued or renewed in a timely fashion, or may involve requirements that restrict our ability to economically conduct our mining operations. Limitations on our ability to conduct our mining operations due to the inability to obtain or renew necessary permits or similar approvals could reduce our production, cash flow, and

Previous wording

Transportation costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of coal for our customers and, as a result, the cost of transportation is a critical factor in a customer’s purchasing decision. Increases in transportation costs could make coal a less competitive source of energy or could make our coal production less competitive than coal produced from other sources. Disruption of transportation services due to weather-related problems, flooding, drought, accidents, mechanical difficulties, strikes, lockouts, bottlenecks, or other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal to our customers. Our transportation providers could face difficulties in the future that could impair our ability to supply coal to our customers, resulting in decreased revenues. If there are disruptions in the transportation services provided by our primary rail or barge carriers that transport our coal and we are unable to find alternative transportation providers to ship our coal, our business could be adversely affected.

Current wording

Transportation costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of coal for many of our customers and, as a result, the cost of transportation is a critical factor in a customer’s purchasing decision. Increases in transportation costs could make coal a less competitive source of energy or could make our coal production less competitive than coal produced from other sources. Disruption of transportation services due to weather-related problems, flooding, drought, accidents, mechanical difficulties, strikes, lockouts, bottlenecks, or other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal to our customers. Our transportation providers could face difficulties in the future that could impair our ability to supply coal to our customers, resulting in decreased revenues. If there are disruptions in the transportation services provided by our primary rail or barge carriers that transport our coal and we are unable to find alternative transportation providers to ship our coal, our business could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

States in which our coal is transported by truck may modify or increase enforcement of their laws regarding weight limits or coal trucks on public roads. Such legislation and enforcement efforts could result in shipment delays and increased

Current wording

States in which our coal is transported by truck may modify or increase enforcement of their laws regarding weight limits or coal trucks on public roads. Such legislation and enforcement efforts could result in shipment delays and increased costs. An increase in transportation costs could have an adverse effect on our ability to increase or maintain production and could adversely affect revenues.

Previous wording

Our coal mining operations are affected by commodity prices. We use significant amounts of steel, petroleum products, and other raw materials in various pieces of mining equipment, supplies, and materials, including the roof bolts required by the room-and-pillar method of mining. Steel prices and the prices of scrap steel, natural gas, and coking coal consumed in the production of iron and steel fluctuate significantly and could change unexpectedly. Inflationary pressures, including as a result of the imposition or increase of existing tariffs, have and could continue to lead to price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, and maintenance expenses. For example, the Trump Administration recently announced plans to implement or increase tariffs, and on February 10, confirmed the extension of 25 percent import tariffs on steel globally, which could result in an increase of $100 to $150 per short ton according to an analysis from Citi Bank, with such tariffs going into effect on March 12. While the ultimate impact of this tariff is unknown at this time, a portion of our coal production is used by end users to produce steel, and we use a significant amount of steel in our own operations. To the extent that such tariffs depress demand for steel globally or increase the cost to purchase steel, our results of operations, financial position and cash flows may be materially and adversely effected. There could be acts of nature or terrorist attacks or threats that could also impact the future costs of raw materials. Future volatility in the price of steel, petroleum products, or other raw materials will impact our operational expenses and could result in significant fluctuations in our profitability.

Current wording

Our coal mining operations are affected by commodity prices. We use significant amounts of steel, petroleum products, and other raw materials in various pieces of mining equipment, supplies, and materials, including the roof bolts required by the room-and-pillar method of mining. Steel prices and the prices of scrap steel, natural gas, and coking coal consumed in the production of iron and steel fluctuate significantly and could change unexpectedly. Inflationary pressures, including as a result of the imposition or increase of existing tariffs, have and could continue to lead to price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, and maintenance expenses. For example, on March 12, 2025, the U.S. government imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports, which was increased to 50% on June 4, 2025, and on April 2, 2025, the U.S. government announced a 10% tariff on product imports from almost all foreign countries and individualized higher tariffs on certain other countries. The U.S. government announced on February 20, 2026, that it would maintain the near global tariff under another statutory authority but will increase the tariff to 15%. Several tariff announcements have been followed by announcements of limited exemptions and temporary pauses. These actions have caused uncertainty and volatility in financial markets and may result in retaliatory measures on U.S. goods. While the ultimate impact of these tariffs is unknown at this time, a portion of our coal production is used by end users to produce steel, and we use a significant amount of steel in our own operations. To the extent that such tariffs depress demand for steel globally or increase the cost to purchase steel, our results of operations, financial position and cash flows may be materially and adversely effected. There could be acts of nature or terrorist attacks or threats that could also impact the future costs of raw materials. Future volatility in the price of steel, petroleum products, or other raw materials will impact our operational expenses and could result in significant fluctuations in our profitability.

Previous wording

Certain countries have experienced and could in the future experience substantial, and in some periods extremely high, rates of inflation. Inflation and rapid fluctuations in inflation rates have had and may continue to have negative effects on the economies of certain countries, including the United States. Inflation rates may continue to increase in the future, and government measures to control inflation, adopted presently or in the future, remain uncertain. Measures taken by the governments to control inflation potentially include maintaining a tight monetary policy with high interest rates, thereby restricting the availability of credit and hindering economic growth. Inflation, measures to combat inflation and public speculation about possible additional actions have contributed materially to economic uncertainty in many countries. Any

Current wording

Certain countries have experienced and could in the future experience substantial, and in some periods extremely high, rates of inflation. Inflation and rapid fluctuations in inflation rates have had and may continue to have negative effects on the economies of certain countries, including the United States. Inflation rates may continue to increase in the future, and government measures to control inflation, adopted presently or in the future, remain uncertain. Measures taken by the governments to control inflation potentially include maintaining a tight monetary policy with high interest rates, thereby restricting the availability of credit and hindering economic growth. Inflation, measures to combat inflation and public speculation about possible additional actions have contributed materially to economic uncertainty in many countries. Any future inflationary or deflationary pressures could adversely affect the results of our operations. For example, at times our results have been significantly impacted by price increases affecting many of the components of our operating expenses such as fuel, steel, maintenance expenses and labor. In addition to potential cost increases, inflation could cause a decline in global or regional economic conditions that reduces demand for our coal or oil & gas and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Previous wording

operations are more costly and time-consuming to satisfy. Subsidence issues are particularly important to our operations engaged in longwall mining. Failure to timely and economically secure subsidence rights or any associated mitigation agreements could materially affect our results by causing delays or changes in our mining plan. These factors could materially adversely affect the mining operations and cost structures of, and our customers’ ability to use coal produced by, our mines.

Current wording

The geological characteristics of some of our coal mineral reserves, such as depth of overburden and coal seam thickness, make them difficult and costly to mine. As mines become depleted, replacement reserves may not be available when required or, if available, may not be mineable at costs comparable to those of the depleting mines. In addition, permitting, licensing, and other environmental and regulatory requirements associated with certain of our mining operations are more costly and time-consuming to satisfy. Subsidence issues are particularly important to our operations engaged in longwall mining. Failure to timely and economically secure subsidence rights or any associated mitigation agreements could materially affect our results by causing delays or changes in our mining plan. These factors could materially adversely affect the mining operations and cost structures of, and our customers’ ability to use coal produced by, our mines.

Previous wording

Federal, state, and local laws and regulations extensively regulate the amount of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other compounds emitted into the air from coal-fired electric power plants, which are the ultimate consumers of much of our coal. These laws and regulations can require significant emission control expenditures for many coal-fired power plants, and various new and proposed laws and regulations could require further emission reductions and associated emission control expenditures. These laws and regulations could affect demand and prices for coal. There is also continuing pressure on federal and state regulators to impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants, particularly coal-fired power plants. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as CSAPR and MATS, have led to the premature retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations—Air Emissions,” “—GHG Emissions” and “—Hazardous Substances and Wastes.”

Current wording

Federal, state, and local laws and regulations extensively regulate the amount of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other compounds emitted into the air from coal-fired electric power plants, which are the ultimate consumers of much of our coal. These laws and regulations can require significant emission control expenditures for many coal-fired power plants, and various new and proposed laws and regulations could require further emission reductions and associated emission control expenditures. These laws and regulations could affect demand and prices for coal. There is also continuing pressure on federal and state regulators to impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants, particularly coal-fired power plants. Further, far-reaching federal regulations promulgated by the EPA in the last several years, such as MATS, have led to the retirement of coal-fired generating units and a significant reduction in the amount of coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations—Air Emissions,” “—GHG Emissions” and “—Hazardous Substances and Wastes.”

Previous wording

The industries we participate in—coal mining and oil & gas production—are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Although we cannot predict what actions the Trump Administration may take with respect to regulation of those industries, the possibility exists that new laws or regulations may be adopted, or that judicial interpretations or more stringent enforcement of existing laws and regulations may occur, which could materially affect our mining operations, cash flow, and profitability. Furthermore, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions affecting judicial review of federal agency-related actions that increase judicial scrutiny of agency authority, shift greater responsibility for statutory interpretation to courts, and expand the timeline in which a plaintiff can sue regulators. In particular, inLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its prior ruling inChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which held that when a statute is ambiguous or silent, courts should not substitute their own judgments regarding the actions of those agencies so long as the federal agencies’ interpretation of the enabling federal statute was reasonable (this was commonly known as “Chevron deference”). InLoper Bright, the U.S. Supreme Court, held that courts must instead exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine is likely to result in challenges to numerous agency interpretations in various areas of law including energy, environment, taxation, and labor, among others. If these challenges are upheld, they could have both favorable and unfavorable impacts on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, depending on whether the interpretations that are overturned were more favorable toward the Partnership’s business and operations than subsequent revised agency interpretations. The likely increase of challenges to agency actions may also increase legal costs, create delays in permitting and project development, and create less certainty around agency actions, at least in the near term.

Current wording

The industries we participate in—coal mining and the third-party operations related to our oil & gas mineral interests—are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The possibility exists that new laws or regulations may be adopted, or that judicial interpretations or more stringent enforcement of existing laws and regulations may occur, which could materially affect our mining operations, cash flow, and profitability. Furthermore, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions affecting judicial review of federal agency-related actions that increase judicial scrutiny of agency authority, shift greater responsibility for statutory interpretation to courts, and expand the timeline in which a plaintiff can sue regulators. In particular, inLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its prior ruling inChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which held that when a statute is ambiguous or silent, courts should not substitute their own judgments regarding the actions of those agencies so long as the federal agencies’ interpretation of the enabling federal statute was reasonable (this was commonly known as “Chevron deference”). InLoper Bright, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts must instead exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation simply because a statute is ambiguous. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine is likely to result in challenges to numerous agency interpretations in various areas of law including energy, environment, taxation, and labor, among others. If these challenges are upheld, they could have both favorable and unfavorable impacts on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, depending on whether the interpretations that are overturned were more favorable toward the Partnership’s business and operations than subsequent revised agency interpretations. The likely increase of challenges to agency actions may also increase legal costs, create delays in permitting and project development, and create less certainty around agency actions, at least in the near term.

Previous wording

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations affecting the coal mining industry, including laws and regulations pertaining to employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air and water quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the discharge or release of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining, and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose strict liability without regard to fault or legality of the original conduct. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial liabilities, and the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting the performance of operations. Complying with these laws and regulations could be

Current wording

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations affecting the coal mining industry, including laws and regulations pertaining to employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air and water quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the discharge or release of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining, and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose strict liability without regard to fault or legality of the original conduct. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial liabilities, and the issuance of injunctions limiting or prohibiting the performance of operations. Complying with these laws and regulations could be costly and time-consuming and could delay the commencement or continuation of exploration or production operations. The possibility exists that new laws or regulations may be adopted, or that judicial interpretations or more stringent enforcement of existing laws and regulations may occur, which could materially affect our mining operations, cash flow, and profitability, either through direct impacts on our mining operations, or indirect impacts that discourage or limit our customers’ use of coal. Please read “Item 1. Business—Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations.”

Previous wording

The operators must also comply with laws and regulations prohibiting fraud and market manipulation in energy markets. To the extent the operators of our properties are shippers on interstate pipelines, they must comply with the tariffs of those pipelines and with federal policies related to the use of interstate capacity. The operators may be required to make significant expenditures to comply with the governmental laws and regulations described above and may be subject to potential fines and penalties if they are found to have violated these laws and regulations. While we cannot predict what actions the Trump Administration may take with respect to environmental regulation in the short term, we believe the trend of more expansive and stricter environmental legislation and regulations will continue. These current laws and regulations and other potential regulations could increase the operating costs of the operators and delay production and could ultimately impact the operators’ ability and willingness to develop our properties.

Current wording

The operators must also comply with laws and regulations prohibiting fraud and market manipulation in energy markets. To the extent the operators of our properties are shippers on interstate pipelines, they must comply with the tariffs of those pipelines and with federal policies related to the use of interstate capacity. The operators may be required to make significant expenditures to comply with the governmental laws and regulations described above and may be subject to potential fines and penalties if they are found to have violated these laws and regulations. While we cannot predict what actions future federal or state regulators may take with respect to environmental regulation, more expansive and stricter environmental legislation and regulations could be possible in the future. These current laws and regulations and other potential regulations could increase the operating costs of the operators and delay production and could ultimately impact the operators’ ability and willingness to develop our properties.

Previous wording

Oil & gas production on the properties in which we hold mineral interests utilizes hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a common practice that is used to stimulate the production of hydrocarbons from tight formations, including shales. The process involves the injection of water, sand, and chemicals under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulates the underground injection of substances through the UIC program. Hydraulic fracturing is generally exempt from regulation under the UIC program, and the hydraulic-fracturing process is typically regulated by state oil & gas commissions.

Current wording

Oil & gas production on the properties in which we hold mineral interests utilizes hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a common practice that is used to stimulate the production of hydrocarbons from tight formations, including shales. The process involves the injection of water, sand, and chemicals under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. The SDWA regulates the underground injection of substances through the UIC

Previous wording

There has been increasing public controversy regarding hydraulic fracturing about increased risks of induced seismicity, the use of fracturing fluids, impacts on drinking water supplies, use of water, and the potential for impacts to surface water, groundwater, and the environment generally. A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions have been initiated across the country implicating hydraulic-fracturing practices. If new laws or regulations are adopted that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing, those laws could make it more difficult or costly for the operators to perform fracturing to stimulate production from tight formations. In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal or state level, fracturing activities on our properties could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements, and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. Legislative changes could cause operators to incur substantial compliance costs and adversely affect revenues from our mineral interests. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the impact on our business of newly enacted or potential federal or state legislation governing hydraulic fracturing.

Current wording

In the past, there was increased public concern regarding hydraulic fracturing around increased risks of induced seismicity, the use of fracturing fluids, impacts on drinking water supplies, use of water, and the potential for impacts to surface water, groundwater, and the environment generally. A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions were initiated across the country implicating hydraulic-fracturing practices. If new laws or regulations are adopted that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing, those laws could make it more difficult or costly for the operators to perform fracturing to stimulate production from tight formations. In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal or state level, fracturing activities on our properties could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements, and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. Legislative changes could cause operators to incur substantial compliance costs and adversely affect revenues from our mineral interests. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the impact on our business of newly enacted or potential federal or state legislation governing hydraulic fracturing.

Previous wording

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed in other states, including in Oklahoma, alleging that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states are seeking to impose additional requirements, including requirements in the permitting of produced water disposal wells or otherwise to assess the relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, both Texas and Oklahoma have imposed certain limits on the permitting or operation of disposal wells in areas with increased instances of induced seismic events. In September 2021, the TRRC issued a notice to operators in the Midland area to reduce saltwater disposal well activities and provide certain data to the TRRC. Subsequently, the TRRC ordered the indefinite suspension of all deep oil & gas-produced water injection wells in the area, effective December 31, 2021. Relatedly, in December 2023, in response to continued seismicity within the area, the TRRC issued a notice to suspend the permits of all deep disposal wells within the Northern Culberson-Reeves Seismic Response Area.

Current wording

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed in other states, including in Oklahoma and Texas, alleging that disposal well operations have caused damage to neighboring properties or otherwise violated state and federal rules regulating waste disposal. In response to these concerns, regulators in some states have adopted or are considering adopting additional requirements, including requirements in the permitting of produced water disposal wells or otherwise to assess the relationship between seismicity and the use of such wells. For example, both Texas and Oklahoma have imposed certain limits on the permitting or operation of disposal wells in areas with increased instances of induced seismic events. For example, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) has released guidance to operators in the SCOOP and STACK areas for management of certain seismic activity that may be related to hydraulic fracturing activities, and has at times ordered well closures in response to seismic activities. In addition, the TRRC ordered the indefinite suspension of all deep oil & gas-produced water injection wells in the area, effective December 31, 2021. Relatedly, in December 2023, in response to continued seismicity within the area, the TRRC issued a notice to suspend the permits of all deep disposal wells within the Northern Culberson-Reeves Seismic Response Area and, in May 2024, the TRRC released a seismicity response plan curtailing permitted injection volumes for certain wells in the Stanton Seismic Response Area. Most recently, in May 2025, the TRRC released updated guidance for disposal well permits in the Permian Basis that placed new limits on maximum injection pressure and volumes to ensure safety.

Previous wording

The adoption or implementation of any new laws or regulations that restrict the operators’ ability to use hydraulic fracturing or dispose of produced water gathered from drilling and production activities by limiting volumes, disposal rates,

Current wording

The adoption or implementation of any new laws or regulations that restrict the operators’ ability to use hydraulic fracturing or dispose of produced water gathered from drilling and production activities by limiting volumes, disposal rates, disposal well locations, or otherwise, or requiring the operators to shut down or limit the operation of disposal wells, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Combustion of fossil fuels, such as the coal we produce and the oil & gas produced from our mineral interests, results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Concerns about the environmental impacts of such emissions have resulted in a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks for our business. Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Most scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere could produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts and floods, and other climatic events. Increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to emissions of GHGs, including emissions due to fossil fuels.

Current wording

Combustion of fossil fuels, such as the coal we produce and the oil & gas produced from our mineral interests, results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Additionally, our coal mines may release methane to the atmosphere during operations. Concerns about the environmental impacts of such emissions have resulted in a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks for our business. Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Many scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere could produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts and floods, and other climatic events.

Previous wording

Biden issued an executive order that committed to substantial action on climate change, calling for, among other things, the increased use of zero-emissions vehicles by the federal government, the elimination of subsidies provided to the fossil-fuel industry, a doubling of electricity generated by offshore wind by 2030, and increased emphasis on climate-related risks across governmental agencies and economic sectors. Although the Trump Administration has already announced its disagreement with various of these initiatives, we cannot predict what action the Trump Administration may take regarding these commitments or the timing of such action. Further, although Congress has not passed comprehensive climate legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories, regional GHG cap and trade programs, or the establishment of renewable energy requirements for utilities. Depending on the particular program, we, our customers, or operators of our mineral interests could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations. Litigation risks are also increasing. For more information, see our risk factor titled “We, our customers, or the operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change.”

Current wording

Although Congress has not passed comprehensive climate legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories, regional GHG cap and trade programs, or the establishment of renewable energy requirements for utilities. Depending on the particular program, we, our customers, or operators of our mineral interests could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations. Litigation risks are also increasing. For more information, see our risk factor titled “We, our customers, or the operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change.”

Previous wording

Apart from governmental regulation, there are also increasing financial risks for fossil-fuel producers as stakeholders of fossil-fuel energy companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their support into non-energy related sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil-fuel energy companies, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. There is also a risk that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil-fuel sector. Although we cannot predict the effects of these actions, such limitation of investments in and financing, bonding, and insurance coverages for fossil-fuel energy companies could adversely affect our coal mining or oil & gas production activities.

Current wording

There are also increasing financial risks for fossil-fuel producers as stakeholders of fossil-fuel energy companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their support into non-energy related sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies have in the past become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil-fuel energy companies, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. There is also a risk that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil-fuel sector. Although we cannot predict the effects of these actions, such limitation of investments in and financing, bonding, and insurance coverages for fossil-fuel energy companies could adversely affect our coal mining or oil & gas production activities.

Previous wording

Separately, the SEC adopted a rule in March 2024 that establishes a framework for the reporting of climate risks, targets and metrics. The rule is being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the implementation of the rule has been voluntarily stayed by the SEC pending the outcome of the legal challenge. Moreover, on February 11, 2025, SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not schedule argument in the case while the SEC reconsiders the final rule. While the Trump Administration may seek to repeal or otherwise modify the rule, we cannot predict whether or how such action would occur or its timing. Relatedly, California has enacted new laws requiring additional disclosure with respect to certain climate-related risks and GHG emission reduction claims, some of which are already subject to legal challenge. While the outcome of such challenges is uncertain at this time, the judge in the case has declined to grant a temporary injunction of the laws while the litigation moves forward. Other states are considering similar laws. Non-compliance with these new laws may result in the imposition of substantial fines or penalties. Any new laws or regulations imposing more stringent requirements on our business related to the disclosure of climate related risks may result in reputation harms among certain stakeholders if they disagree with our approach to mitigating climate-related risks, increased compliance costs resulting from the development of any disclosures, and increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital to the extent we do not meet any climate-related expectations or requirements of financial institutions.

Current wording

In addition, some states (such as California) have adopted or are considering adopting laws requiring the disclosure of certain climate-related risks and GHG emission reduction claims. Lawsuits have been filed challenging the implementation of these laws, but we cannot predict the outcome of these suits at this time. Other states are considering similar laws. Non-compliance with these new laws may result in the imposition of substantial fines or penalties. Any new laws or regulations imposing more stringent requirements on our business related to the disclosure of climate related risks may result in reputation harms among certain stakeholders if they disagree with our approach to mitigating climate-related risks, increased compliance costs resulting from the development of any disclosures, and increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital to the extent we do not meet any climate-related expectations or requirements of financial institutions.

Previous wording

Climate change may also result in various physical risks, such as the increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather events or changes in meteorological and hydrological patterns that could adversely impact our operations, as well as those of the operators and their supply chain. Such physical risks may result in damage to our facilities or the operators’ facilities or otherwise adversely impact operations which could decrease production attributable to our mineral interests.

Current wording

Climate change may also result in various physical risks, such as the increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather events or changes in meteorological and hydrological patterns that could adversely impact our operations, as well as those of the operators and their supply chain. Such physical risks may result in damage to our facilities or the operators’ facilities or otherwise adversely impact operations which could decrease production attributable to our mineral interests. We may not have insurance to cover these risks and the consequences for our or their operations could have a negative impact on the costs and revenues from operations.

Previous wording

Federal and state laws require us to maintain bonds to secure our obligations to repair and return property to its approximate original state after it has been mined (often referred to as “reclaim” or “reclamation”), to pay federal and state workers’ compensation and pneumoconiosis (or black lung) benefits, and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. These bonds provide assurance that we will perform our statutorily required obligations and are referred to as “surety” bonds. These bonds are typically renewable on a yearly basis. At December 31, 2024, our total of such bonds was $251.6 million. The amount of surety bonding we are required to maintain may be increased by the governmental agencies holding the bond. For example, federal and state regulators are continuing to make financial assurance requirements more stringent and costly with respect to self-insured coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, mine closure and reclamation security amounts.

Current wording

Federal and state laws require us to maintain bonds to secure our obligations to repair and return property to its approximate original state after it has been mined (often referred to as “reclaim” or “reclamation”), to pay federal and state workers’ compensation and pneumoconiosis (or black lung) benefits, and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. These bonds provide assurance that we will perform our statutorily required obligations and are referred to as “surety” bonds. These bonds are typically renewable on a yearly basis. At December 31, 2025, our total of such bonds was $237.8 million. The amount of surety bonding we are required to maintain may be increased by the governmental agencies holding the bond.

Previous wording

Part of our strategy includes positioning ourselves as a reliable energy provider for the future by pursuing strategic investments that leverage our core competencies and relationships with electric utilities, industrial customers, and federal and state governments. This strategy depends on our ability to successfully identify and evaluate investment opportunities. The number of opportunities may be limited, and we will compete with other investors for these limited opportunities, which could make them more expensive and the returns for our investments less attractive and possibly cause us to refrain from making them at all. Further, certain opportunities will depend on technological and other advancements that may not be within our control and may not come to fruition or be economically feasible in the near term, and we may fail to realize the anticipated benefit of our investments. Any new opportunities also may depend on the viability of new assets or businesses that are contingent on public policy mechanisms including investment tax credits, subsidies, renewable portfolio standards and carbon trading plans. These mechanisms have been implemented at the state and federal levels to support the development of renewable energy, demand-side, and other infrastructure technologies. The availability and

Current wording

Part of our strategy includes positioning ourselves as a reliable energy provider for the future by pursuing strategic investments that leverage our core competencies and relationships with electric utilities, industrial customers, and federal and state governments. This strategy depends on our ability to successfully identify and evaluate investment opportunities. The number of opportunities may be limited, and we will compete with other investors for these limited opportunities, which could make them more expensive and the returns for our investments less attractive and possibly cause us to refrain from making them at all. Further, certain opportunities will depend on technological and other advancements that may not be within our control and may not come to fruition or be economically feasible in the near term, and we may fail to realize, and in some cases have failed to realize, the anticipated benefit of our investments. Any new opportunities also may depend on the viability of new assets or businesses that are contingent on public policy mechanisms including investment tax credits, subsidies, renewable portfolio standards and carbon trading plans. These mechanisms have been implemented at the state and federal levels to support the development of renewable energy, demand-side, and other infrastructure

Previous wording

continuation of public policy support mechanisms will drive a significant part of the economics and viability of investments generally, as well as our participation in them.

Current wording

technologies. The availability and continuation of public policy support mechanisms will drive a significant part of the economics and viability of investments generally, as well as our participation in them.