Peabody Energy - 10-K annual report

      This report includes statements of our expectations, intentions, plans and beliefs that constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection provided by those sections. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance, including, without limitation, such statements in the section captioned “Outlook.” We use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “may,” “project,” “will” or other similar words to identify forward-looking statements.

      Without limiting the foregoing, all statements relating to our future outlook, anticipated capital expenditures, future cash flows and borrowings, and sources of funding are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions that we believe are reasonable, but are open to a wide range of uncertainties and business risks, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed in these statements. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are:

      When considering these forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the cautionary statements in this document and in our other Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings. We do not undertake any obligation to update these statements, except as required by federal securities laws.

      We are the largest private-sector coal company in the world. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we sold 239.9 million tons of coal. During this period, we sold coal to over 350 electricity generating and industrial plants in 15 countries. Our coal products fuel approximately 10% of all U.S. electricity generation and 3% of worldwide electricity generation. At December 31, 2005, we had 9.8 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves.

      We own, through our subsidiaries, majority interests in 34 coal operations located throughout all major U.S. coal producing regions and in Australia. Additionally, we own minority interests in two mines through joint venture arrangements. We shipped 75% of our U.S. mining operations’ coal sales from the western United States during the year ended December 31, 2005 and the remaining 25% from the eastern United States. Most of our production in the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. Our overall western U.S. coal production has increased from 37.0 million tons in fiscal year 1990 to 154.3 million tons during 2005, representing a compounded annual growth rate of 10%. In the West, we own and operate mines in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. In the East, we own and operate mines in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. We own 5 mines in Queensland, Australia. One of the Australian mines was acquired in 2002, two were acquired during April 2004, a fourth was opened after the 2004 acquisition, and a fifth began mining operations in early 2006. Most of our Australian production is low-sulfur, metallurgical coal. We generated 81% of our production for the year ended December 31, 2005 from non-union mines.

      For the year ended December 31, 2005, 87% of our sales (by volume) were to U.S. electricity generators, 9% were to customers outside the United States and 4% were to the U.S. industrial sector. Approximately 90% of our coal sales during the year ended December 31, 2005 were under long-term (one year or greater) contracts. Our sales backlog, including backlog subject to price reopener and/or extension provisions, was over one billion tons as of December 31, 2005. The average volume-weighted remaining term of our long-term contracts was approximately 3.2 years, with remaining terms ranging from one to 19 years. As of December 31, 2005, we had 15 to 25 million tons, 90 to 100 million tons and 155 to 165 million tons for 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, of expected production (including steam and metallurgical coal production) available for repricing at market prices. We have an annual metallurgical coal production capacity of 12 to 14 million tons.

      In addition to our mining operations, we market, broker and trade coal. Our total tons traded were 36.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. In 2005, we opened a business development, sales and marketing office in Beijing, China to pursue potential long-term growth opportunities in this market. Our other energy related commercial activities include the development of mine-mouth coal-fueled generating plants, the management of our vast coal reserve and real estate holdings, coalbed methane production, transportation services, and, more recently, BTU conversion. Our BTU conversion initiatives include participation in technologies that convert coal into natural gas, liquids and hydrogen.

      Peabody, Daniels and Co. was founded in 1883 as a retail coal supplier, entering the mining business in 1888 as Peabody & Co. with the opening of our first coal mine in Illinois. In 1926, Peabody Coal Company was listed on the Chicago Stock Exchange and, beginning in 1949, on the New York Stock Exchange.

      In 1955, Peabody Coal Company, primarily an underground mine operator, merged with Sinclair Coal Company, a major surface mining company. Peabody Coal Company was acquired by Kennecott Copper Company in 1968. The company was then sold to Peabody Holding Company in 1977, which was formed by a consortium of companies.

      During the 1980s, Peabody grew through expansion and acquisition, opening the North Antelope Mine in Wyoming’s coal-rich Powder River Basin in 1983 and the Rochelle Mine in 1985, and completing the acquisitions of the West Virginia coal properties of ARMCO Steel and Eastern Associated Coal Corp., which included seven operating mines and substantial low-sulfur coal reserves in West Virginia.

      In July 1990, Hanson, PLC acquired Peabody Holding Company. In the 1990s, Peabody continued to grow through expansion and acquisitions. In February 1997, Hanson spun off its energy-related businesses, including Eastern Group and Peabody Holding Company, into The Energy Group, plc. The Energy Group was a publicly traded company in the United Kingdom and its American Depository Receipts (ADRs) were publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

      In May 1998, Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking Partners II L.P. and affiliates (“Merchant Banking Fund”), an affiliate of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“Lehman Brothers”), purchased Peabody Holding Company and its affiliates, Peabody Resources Limited and Citizens Power LLC in a leveraged buyout transaction that coincided with the purchase by Texas Utilities of the remainder of The Energy Group.

      In August 2000, Citizens Power, our subsidiary that marketed and traded electric power and energy-related commodity risk management products, was sold to Edison Mission Energy.

      In January 2001, we sold our Peabody Resources Limited (in Australia) operations to Coal & Allied, a 71%-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto Limited for $575 million (including debt assumed by the buyer).

      In April 2001, we changed our name to Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”), reflecting our position as a premier energy supplier. In May 2001, after having reduced the debt incurred in the leveraged buyout by more than $1 billion, we completed an initial public offering of common stock, and our shares began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “BTU,” the globally recognized symbol for energy.

      In April 2004, we acquired three coal operations from RAG Coal International AG. The purchase included two mines in Queensland, Australia and the Twentymile Mine in Colorado. In December 2004, we completed the purchase of a 25.5% equity interest in Carbones del Guasare, S.A. from RAG Coal International AG. Carbones del Guasare, a joint venture that also includes Anglo American plc and a Venezuelan governmental partner, operates the Paso Diablo surface mine in northwestern Venezuela.

      In March 2005, we purchased mining assets from Lexington Coal Company for $61.0 million. The purchased assets consisted of approximately 70 million tons of reserves, preparation plants, facilities, mining equipment and materials and supplies. We used the acquired assets to open a new mine that is expected to produce 2 to 3 million tons per year, after it reaches full capacity, and to provide other synergies to existing properties. In December 2005, we acquired rail, loadout and surface facilities as well as other mining assets from another major coal producer for $84.7 million and exchanged 60 million ton blocks of leased coal reserves in the Powder River Basin. We will utilize these reserves and infrastructure to accelerate the development of a new mine, which will include adjoining leased reserves.

      On January 1, 2006, Gregory H. Boyce assumed new responsibilities as our President and Chief Executive Officer, succeeding Irl F. Engelhardt who remains Chairman of the Board. Concurrent with the leadership transition, we have identified four key focus areas to accomplish our future growth: 1) executing

      The following describes the operating characteristics of the principal mines and reserves of each of our business units and affiliates. The maps below show mine locations for 2005.

      Within the United States, we conduct operations in the Powder River Basin, Southwest, Colorado, Appalachia and Midwest regions. Internationally, we operate mines in Queensland, Australia and have a 25.5% interest in a mine in Venezuela. All of our operating segments are discussed in Note 27 to our consolidated financial statements.

      Included in the descriptions of our mining operations are discussions of the subsidiaries which manage the respective mining operation. The subsidiary that manages a particular mining operation is not necessarily the same as the subsidiary or subsidiaries which own the assets utilized in that mining operation.

      We control approximately 3.5 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves in the Southern Powder River Basin, the largest and fastest growing major U.S. coal-producing region. Our subsidiaries, Powder River Coal, LLC and Caballo Coal Company, manage three low-sulfur, non-union surface mining complexes in Wyoming that sold 125.7 million tons of coal during the year ended December 31, 2005, or approximately 52% of our total coal sales volume. The North Antelope Rochelle and Caballo mines are serviced by both major western railroads, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad. The Rawhide Mine is serviced by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

      Our Wyoming Powder River Basin reserves are classified as surface mineable, subbituminous coal with seam thickness varying from 70 to 105 feet. The sulfur content of the coal in current production ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% and the heat value ranges from 8,300 to 9,000 Btu’s per pound.

      The North Antelope Rochelle Mine is located 65 miles south of Gillette, Wyoming. This mine is one of the largest in North America, selling 82.7 million tons of compliance coal (defined as having sulfur dioxide content of 1.2 pounds or less per million Btu) during 2005. The North Antelope Rochelle facility is capable of loading its production in up to 2,000 railcars per day. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine produces premium quality coal with a sulfur content averaging 0.2% and a heat value ranging from 8,500 to 8,900 Btu per pound. The North Antelope Rochelle Mine produces the lowest sulfur coal in the United States, using two draglines along with six truck-and-shovel fleets.

      The Caballo Mine is located 20 miles south of Gillette, Wyoming. During 2005, it sold 30.6 million tons of compliance coal. Caballo is a truck-and-shovel operation with a coal handling system that includes two 12,000-ton silos and two 11,000-ton silos.

      The Rawhide Mine is located ten miles north of Gillette, Wyoming and uses truck-and-shovel mining methods. During 2005, it sold 12.4 million tons of compliance coal.

      We own and operate three mines in our Southwest operations — two in Arizona and one in New Mexico. The Arizona mines, which are managed by our Peabody Western Coal Company subsidiary, supply primarily bituminous compliance coal under long-term coal supply agreements to electricity generating stations in the region. In New Mexico, we own and manage, through our Peabody Natural Resources Company subsidiary, the Lee Ranch Mine, which mines and produces subbituminous medium sulfur coal. Together, these three mines sold 17.8 million tons of coal during 2005. We control 1.0 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves in our Southwest operations.

      The Black Mesa Mine, which is located on the reservations of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe in Arizona, used two draglines and sold 4.6 million tons of coal during 2005. The Black Mesa Mine coal was crushed, mixed with water and then transported 273 miles through an underground pipeline owned by a third party. The coal was conveyed to the Mohave Generating Station near Laughlin, Nevada, which is operated and partially owned by Southern California Edison. The mine and pipeline were designed to deliver coal exclusively to the plant, which had no other source of coal. The Mohave Generating Station coal supply agreement expired on December 31, 2005, and has not been extended. As a result, operations of the Black Mesa Mine have been suspended. Further discussion of the issues surrounding the future of the Black Mesa Mine and Mohave Generating Station is provided in Item 3.

      The Kayenta Mine is adjacent to the Black Mesa Mine and uses four draglines in three mining areas. It sold approximately 8.2 million tons of coal during 2005. The Kayenta Mine coal is crushed, then carried 17 miles by conveyor belt to storage silos where it is loaded onto a private rail line and transported 83 miles to the Navajo Generating Station, operated by the Salt River Project near Page, Arizona. The mine and railroad were designed to deliver coal exclusively to the power plant, which has no other source of coal. The Navajo coal supply agreement extends until 2011. Hourly workers at this mine are members of the UMWA.

      The Lee Ranch Mine, located near Grants, New Mexico, sold approximately 5.0 million tons of medium sulfur coal during 2005. Lee Ranch shipped the majority of its coal to two customers in Arizona and New Mexico under coal supply agreements extending until 2020 and 2014, respectively. Lee Ranch is a non-union surface mine that uses a combination of dragline and truck-and-shovel mining techniques and ships coal to its customers via the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

      We control approximately 0.2 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves and currently have two mines in the Colorado Region. Our Twentymile underground mine is managed by our Twentymile Coal Company subsidiary. Our Seneca surface mine is managed by our Seneca Coal Company subsidiary and ceased mining operations at the end of 2005. During 2005, these operations sold approximately 10.7 million tons of compliance, low-sulfur, steam coal of above average heat content to customers throughout the United States.

      The Twentymile Mine is located in Routt County, Colorado, and sold approximately 9.6 million tons of steam coal during 2005. This mine uses both longwall and continuous mining equipment. Our Twentymile Mine is non-union and has perennially been one of the largest and most productive underground mines in the United States. The coal quality is high, with less than 15% requiring washing. Approximately 90% of all coal shipped is loaded on the Union Pacific railroad; the remainder is hauled by truck.

      The Seneca Mine near Hayden, Colorado shipped 1.1 million tons of compliance coal during 2005, operating with two draglines in two separate mining areas. The mine’s coal was hauled by truck to the nearby Hayden Generating Station, operated by the Public Service of Colorado, under a coal supply agreement that extends until 2011. This mine has exhausted its economically recoverable reserves and ceased mining operations at the end of 2005. Reclamation of the final cuts is underway. Grading and re-soiling are anticipated to be complete by the end of 2006. Our Twentymile Mine now supplies the Hayden Generating Station. The Seneca mine closure is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Hourly workers at Seneca are members of the UMWA.

      The Appalachia/ Highland Operations consist of a joint venture and five wholly-owned business units and related facilities in West Virginia and one business unit in western Kentucky. Our subsidiary, Pine Ridge Coal Company, LLC, manages the Big Mountain Business Unit, and our subsidiary, Rivers

      The Big Mountain Business Unit is based near Prenter, West Virginia. This business unit’s primary source of coal is from the Big Mountain No. 16 operation. In addition, there is contract mine production (about 40% of the total shipped) from coal reserves we control processed at the business unit’s preparation facility. During 2005, the Big Mountain Business Unit sold approximately 1.9 million tons of steam coal. Big Mountain No. 16 is an underground mine using continuous mining equipment. Processed coal is loaded on the CSX railroad. Hourly workers at the Big Mountain Business Unit are members of the UMWA.

      The Harris Business Unit is based near Bald Knob, West Virginia. The business unit’s primary source of coal is the Harris No. 1 Mine. The business unit also has a small amount of contract mine production from a mine also located near Bald Knob, West Virginia. The Harris Business Unit sold approximately 2.1 million tons of primarily metallurgical product during 2005. This mine uses both longwall and continuous mining equipment. In 2006, the Harris Business Unit will transition to the James Creek reserves, allowing it to access additional metallurgical coal. Hourly workers at the Harris Business Unit are members of the UMWA.

      The Rocklick preparation plant, located near Wharton, West Virginia, processes metallurgical coal produced by the Harris Business Unit and steam coal produced from contract mining operations. This preparation plant shipped approximately 2.4 million tons of coal during 2005. Processed coal is loaded at the plant site on the CSX railroad or transferred via conveyor to our Kopperston loadout facility and loaded on the Norfolk Southern railroad. Hourly workers at the Rocklick preparation plant are members of the UMWA.

      The Wells Business Unit, located near Wharton, West Virginia, sold approximately 3.5 million tons of metallurgical and steam coal during 2005. Wells operates a preparation plant and processes purchased coal production from the Rivers Edge Mine, and contract mines, using continuous mining equipment. The processed coal is loaded on the CSX railroad. Hourly workers at the Wells preparation plant are members of the UMWA.

      The Federal Business Unit consists of the Federal No. 2 Mine, near Fairview, West Virginia, and uses longwall and continuous mining equipment to extract coal. The business unit operates a preparation plant which processed and shipped approximately 4.2 million tons of steam coal during 2005. Coal shipped from the Federal No. 2 Mine has sulfur content only slightly above that of medium sulfur coal and has above

      The Highland No. 9 Mine, which uses continuous mining equipment, is managed by our Highland Mining Company, LLC subsidiary and is located near Waverly, Kentucky. The mine sold 3.8 million tons of steam coal during 2005. This business unit also operates a preparation plant and barge loading facility. Hourly workers at the Highland No. 9 Mine are members of the UMWA.

      We have a 49% interest in the Kanawha Eagle Joint Venture, which owns and manages underground mining operations, a preparation plant and barge-and-rail loading facilities near Marmet, West Virginia. The mines are non-union and use continuous mining equipment. The joint venture shipped 2.4 million tons during 2005.

      Our Midwest Operations consist of 14 wholly-owned mines in the Illinois Basin and are comprised of our Bluegrass Mine Services, LLC, Indian Hill Company, Coulterville Coal Company, LLC, Black Beauty Holding Company, LLC and Arclar Company LLC subsidiaries. We control approximately 4.2 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves in the Midwest. In 2005, these operations collectively sold 34.6 million tons of coal, more than any other Midwestern coal producer. We ship coal from these mines primarily to electricity generators in the Midwestern United States and to industrial customers that generate their own power.

      Bluegrass Mine Services, LLC owns and manages three mines in western Kentucky. Patriot, a surface mine, and Freedom, an underground mine, are located in Henderson County, Kentucky. The Big Run underground mine is located in Ohio County, Kentucky. These mines sold 1.3 million tons, 1.6 million tons and 1.3 million tons of steam coal, respectively, in 2005. The two underground mines use continuous mining equipment and the surface mine uses truck and shovel equipment. Bluegrass Mine Services, LLC also owns and operates a preparation plant and a coal loading dock. Bluegrass Mine Services, LLC employees are non-union.

      In late 2004, we purchased, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Indian Hill Company, the remaining 55% interest of Dodge Hill Holding JV, LLC. Dodge Hill Holding manages Dodge Hill No. 1, an underground mine located in Union County, Kentucky, which has non-union employees and sold 1.7 million tons of steam coal in 2005.

      In 2005, our Coulterville Coal Company, LLC subsidiary acquired coal reserves and mining equipment from Lexington Coal Company and subsequently opened Gateway Mine in Randolph County, located in southwestern Illinois. The Gateway Mine began production in the second half of 2005 and sold 0.4 million tons of steam coal during 2005. The mine, which has non-union employees, is managed and operated by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Black Beauty Coal Company.

      The Black Beauty Holding Company, LLC mines sold 22.0 million tons of compliance, medium sulfur and high sulfur steam coal during 2005. Black Beauty’s principal Indiana mines include Air Quality,

      In east central Illinois, Black Beauty’s Riola Mine Complex is an underground mining facility. The Riola Mine Complex sold 2.4 million tons of medium sulfur coal during 2005. Due to unforeseen geologic conditions, and for the safety of our employees, Black Beauty is in the process of reorienting its mine plan. All Black Beauty Coal Company employees are non-union.

      Black Beauty owns a 75% interest in United Minerals Company, LLC. United Minerals, which utilizes a non-union workforce, currently acts as a contract miner for Black Beauty on a portion of the Somerville Mine Complex reserves and is a contract operator for Black Beauty at the Evansville River Terminal coal dock located on the Ohio River.

      We operate the Wildcat Hills surface mine and Willow Lake underground mining complex located in Gallatin and Saline counties in southern Illinois. During 2005, these mines sold 2.6 million tons and 3.7 million tons, respectively, of medium sulfur coal that is primarily shipped by barge to downriver utility plants. Black Beauty provides a non-union contract workforce to mine the surface reserves at Wildcat Hills. The hourly workforce at the Willow Lake underground mine, which is represented under an International Brotherhood of Boilermakers labor agreement that expires in October 2006, is supplied by our Big Ridge, Inc. subsidiary.

      We manage five mines in Queensland, Australia through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Peabody Pacific Pty Limited. In July 2005, we began development of the Baralaba coal mine, with coal sales to commence in early 2006. During 2005, these operations sold 8.3 million tons of coal, 5.8 millions tons of which were metallurgical coal. Coal from these mines is shipped via rail from the mine to the loading point at Dalrymple Bay and the Port of Brisbane, where the coal is loaded onto ocean-going vessels. All sales from our Australian mines are denominated in U.S. dollars. Our Australian mines operate with site-specific collective bargaining labor agreements. Our Australian operations control 0.3 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves.

      Our Wilkie Creek Coal Mine is a surface, truck-and-shovel operation. In 2005, the Wilkie Creek Mine sold 2.0 million tons of steam coal, all of which was sold to the Asia export market.

      Burton is a surface mine using the truck-and-shovel terrace mining technique. We own 95% of the Burton operation and the remaining 5% interest is owned by the contract miner that operates on reserves that we control. During 2005, we sold 3.8 million tons of metallurgical coal and 0.5 million tons of steam coal from the Burton Mine.

      The North Goonyella Mine is a longwall underground operation. The North Goonyella Mine operates in a difficult geologic environment and produces a unique metallurgical coal product. During 2005, the North Goonyella Mine sold 0.7 million tons of metallurgical coal.

      The Eaglefield Mine is a surface operation utilizing truck-and-shovel mining methods. It is adjacent to, and fulfills contract tonnages in conjunction with the North Goonyella underground mine. Coal is mined by a contractor from reserves that we control. During 2005, the Eaglefield mine sold 1.3 million tons of metallurgical coal.

      The recently opened Baralaba Mine is a contractor operated surface operation utilizing truck-and-shovel mining methods. The mine will produce a pulverized coal injection (“PCI”) product, a substitute for metallurgical coal used primarily by steel makers, and steam coal. All production will be shipped through the Port of Gladstone with shipments scheduled to commence in the first quarter of 2006. We anticipate production of approximately 0.6 million tons in 2006. We own 62.5% interest in the Baralaba Mine and manage the operations utilizing a contractor for overburden removal and coal mining.

      We own a 25.5% interest in Carbones del Guasare, S.A., a joint venture that includes Anglo American plc and a Venezuelan governmental partner. Carbones del Guasare operates the Paso Diablo Mine in Venezuela. The Paso Diablo Mine is a surface operation in northwestern Venezuela that produces approximately 6 to 8 million tons of steam coal annually for export primarily to the United States and Europe. We are responsible for our pro-rata share of sales from Paso Diablo; the joint venture is responsible for production, processing and transportation of coal to ocean-going vessels for delivery to customers.

      We currently have a sales backlog in excess of one billion tons of coal, including backlog subject to price reopener and/or extension provisions, and our coal supply agreements have remaining terms ranging from one to 19 years and an average volume-weighted remaining term of approximately 3.2 years. For 2005, we sold approximately 90% of our sales volume under long-term coal supply agreements. In 2005, we sold coal to over 350 electricity generating and industrial plants in 15 countries. Our primary customer base is in the United States, although customers in the Pacific Rim and other international locations represent an increasing portion of our revenue stream. One of our largest coal supply agreements is the subject of ongoing litigation and arbitration, as discussed in Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

      We expect to continue selling a significant portion of our coal under long-term supply agreements. Our strategy is to selectively renew, or enter into new, long-term coal supply contracts when we can do so at prices we believe are favorable. Long-term contracts are attractive for regions where market prices are expected to remain stable, for cost-plus arrangements serving captive electricity generating plants and for the sale of high-sulfur coal to “scrubbed” generating plants. To the extent we do not renew or replace expiring long-term coal supply agreements, our future sales will be subject to market fluctuations.

      In January 2006 we signed a19-year,65-million-ton coal supply agreement with Arizona Public Service Company (“APS”). The contract is expected to generate revenue in excess of $1 billion. We plan to open the El Segundo Mine to serve APS’s Cholla Generating Station near Joseph City, Arizona, in addition to other customers. The El Segundo Mine is expected to begin coal production in 2008 and will have the capacity to produce 6 million tons of coal annually.

      Typically, customers enter into coal supply agreements to secure reliable sources of coal at predictable prices, while we seek stable sources of revenue to support the investments required to open, expand and maintain or improve productivity at the mines needed to supply these contracts. The terms of coal supply agreements result from competitive bidding and extensive negotiations with customers. Consequently, the terms of these contracts 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.

      Each contract sets a base price. Some contracts provide for a predetermined adjustment to base price at times specified in the agreement. Base prices may also be adjusted quarterly, annually or at other periodic intervals for changes in production costs and/or changes due to inflation or deflation. Changes in production costs may be measured by defined formulas that may include actual cost experience at the mine as part of the formula. The inflation/deflation adjustments are measured by public indices, the most common of which is the implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In most cases, the components of the base price represented by taxes, fees and royalties which are based on a percentage of the selling price are also adjusted for any changes in the base price and passed through to the customer. Some contracts allow the base price to be adjusted to reflect the cost of capital.

      Most contracts contain provisions to adjust the base price due to new statutes, ordinances or regulations that impact our cost of performance of the agreement. Additionally, some contracts contain provisions that allow for the recovery of costs impacted by the modifications or changes in the interpretation or application of any existing statute by local, state or federal government authorities. Some agreements provide that if the parties fail to agree on a price adjustment caused by cost increases due to changes in applicable laws and regulations, either party may terminate the agreement.

      Price reopener provisions are present in many of our multi-year coal contracts. These provisions may allow either party to commence a renegotiation of the contract price at various intervals. In a limited number of agreements, if the parties do not agree on a new price, the purchaser or seller has an option to terminate the contract. Under some contracts, we have the right to match lower prices offered to our customers by other suppliers.

      Quality and volumes for the coal are stipulated in coal supply agreements, and in some limited instances buyers have the option to vary annual or monthly volumes if necessary. Variations to the quality and volumes of coal may lead to adjustments in the contract price. Most coal supply agreements contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal within certain ranges for specific coal characteristics such as heat (Btu), sulfur, and ash content, grindability and ash fusion temperature. Failure to meet these specifications can result in economic penalties, suspension or cancellation of shipments or termination of the contracts. Coal supply agreements typically stipulate procedures for quality control, sampling and weighing. In the eastern United States, approximately half of our customers require that the coal is sampled and weighed at the destination, whereas in the western United States, samples and weights are usually taken at the shipping source.

      Contract provisions in some cases set out mechanisms for temporary reductions or delays in coal volumes in the event of a force majeure, including events such as strikes, adverse mining conditions or serious transportation problems that affect the seller or unanticipated plant outages that may affect the buyer. More recent contracts stipulate that this tonnage can be made up by mutual agreement. Buyers often negotiate similar clauses covering changes in environmental laws. We often negotiate the right to supply coal that complies with a new environmental requirement to avoid contract termination. Coal supply agreements typically contain termination clauses if either party fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, although most termination provisions provide the opportunity to cure defaults.

      In some of our contracts, we have a right of substitution, allowing us to provide coal from different mines, including third party production, as long as the replacement coal meets the contracted quality specifications and will be sold at the same delivered cost.

      Our sales, trading, brokerage and marketing operations include COALSALES, LLC; COALSALES II, LLC (formerly Peabody COALSALES Company); COALTRADE, LLC (formerly Peabody COALTRADE, Inc.) and COALTRADE International, LLC. Through our sales, trading, brokerage and marketing departments, we sell coal produced by our diverse portfolio of operations, broker coal sales of other coal producers, both as principal and agent, trade coal and emission allowances, and provide transportation-related services. We have opened a business development, sales and marketing office in Beijing, China to pursue potential long-term growth opportunities in this market. As of December 31, 2005, we had 75 employees in our sales, trading, brokerage, marketing and transportation operations, including personnel dedicated to performing market research, contract administration and risk/credit management activities. These operations also include our COALTRADE Australia operation, which brokers coal in the Australia and Pacific Rim markets, and is based in Newcastle, Australia.

      Usually coal consumed domestically is sold at the mine, and transportation costs are borne by the purchaser. Export coal is usually sold at the loading port, with purchasers paying ocean freight. Producers usually pay shipping costs from the mine to the port, including any demurrage costs.

      The majority of our sales volume is shipped by rail, but a portion of our production is shipped by other modes of transportation, including barge, truck and ocean-going vessels. Our transportation department manages the loading of coal via these transportation modes.

      Approximately 12,000 unit trains are loaded each year to accommodate the coal shipped by our mines overall. A unit train generally consists of 100 to 150 cars, each of which can hold 100 to 120 tons of coal. We believe we have good relationships with rail carriers and barge companies due, in part, to our modern coal-loading facilities and the experience of our transportation coordinators.

      The main types of goods we purchase are mining equipment and replacement parts, explosives, fuel, tires, steel-related (including roof control) products and lubricants. Although we have many long, well-established relationships with our key suppliers, we do not believe that we are dependent on any of our individual suppliers, except as noted below. The supplier base providing mining materials has been relatively consistent in recent years, although there has been some consolidation. Recent consolidation of suppliers of explosives has limited the number of sources for these materials. Although our current supply of explosives is concentrated with one supplier, some alternative sources are available to us in the regions where we operate. Further, purchases of certain underground mining equipment are concentrated with one principal supplier; however, supplier competition continues to develop. In the past year, demand for certain surface and underground mining equipment andoff-the-road tires has increased. As a result, lead times for certain items have generally increased, although no material impact is currently expected to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      To support the continued growth and globalization of our businesses, our Board of Directors approved a project to convert our existing information systems across the major business processes to an integrated information technology system provided by SAP AG. The project will begin in the first half of 2006 and is expected to be completed in approximately two years.

      We continue to place great emphasis on the application of technical innovation to improve new and existing equipment performance. This research and development effort is typically undertaken and funded by equipment manufacturers using our input and expertise. Our engineering, maintenance and purchasing personnel work together with manufacturers to design and produce equipment that we believe will add value to the business.

      A major effort has been underway to improve the performance of our draglines systems, which move a third of the billion tons of overburden handled annually. The dragline improvement effort includes more efficient bucket design, faster cycle times, improved swing motion controls to increase component life and better monitors to enable increased payloads. In 2005, work began to relocate a dragline from Central Missouri to the North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. The dragline is being refurbished and upgraded in Wyoming with many new design features including a new trapezoidal boom, larger bucket, larger hoist motors and additional drag and swing motors. The upgrade modifications are expected to increase the dragline system capacity by 20% over the original capacity.

      Technology to capture, analyze and transfer information regarding safety, performance and maintenance conditions quickly at our operations is a priority. A wireless data acquisition system has been installed at the North Antelope Rochelle Mine to more efficiently dispatch mobile equipment and monitor all major mining equipment performance and condition on a real-time basis. The system is being evaluated for potential rollout to other mining operations. Proprietary software for hand-held Personal Digital Assistant (“PDA”) devices has been developed and is being tested for safety observations, audits and front-line supervisor reports. All draglines are equipped with stress and performance monitoring equipment.

      We have recently purchased a longwall system at our Twentymile Mine withstate-of-the-art controls and software expected to increase mine output beginning in 2006. In addition, the North Goonyella Mine in Australia has purchased upgraded longwall components to widen the longwall face and maximize operating performance. We have twostate-of-the-art flexible coal train conveyor systems in operation at our Highland Mine that continuously transport coal from the continuous miner to the conveyor belt system.

      World-class maintenance standards based on condition-based maintenance practices are being implemented at all operations. Using these techniques allows us to increase equipment utilization and reduce capital spending by extending the equipment life, while minimizing the risk of premature failures. Lubrication is replaced and work is scheduled on condition rather than time. Benefits from sophisticated lubrication analysis and quality-control include lower lubrication consumption, optimum equipment performance and extended component life. We are upgrading our computerized maintenance management system to support our maintenance practices.

      Our mines use sophisticated software to schedule and monitor trains, mine and pit blending, quality and customer shipments. The integrated software has been developed in-house and provides a competitive tool to differentiate our reliability and product consistency. We are the largest user of advanced coal quality analyzers among coal producers, according to the manufacturer of this equipment. These analyzers allow continuous analysis of certain coal quality parameters, such as sulfur content. Their use helps ensure consistent product quality and helps customers meet stringent air emission requirements.

      We support the Power Systems Development Facility, a research and development facility that is focused on developing a highly efficient electricity generating plant using advanced emissions reduction technology funded primarily through the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by an affiliate of Southern Company. Peabody is also a member of the multi-company alliance working with the Department of Energy on FutureGen, a long-term project to develop near-zero emission power generation technology that will produce both power and hydrogen from coal and will capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

      The markets in which we sell our coal are highly competitive. According to the National Mining Association’s “2004 Coal Producer Survey,” the top 10 coal companies in the United States produced approximately 69% of total domestic coal in 2004. Our principal U.S. competitors are other large coal producers, including Arch Coal, Inc., Kennecott Energy Company, CONSOL Energy Inc, Foundation Coal Corporation and Massey Energy Company, which collectively accounted for approximately 41% of

      A number of factors beyond our control affect the markets in which we sell our coal. Continued demand for our coal and the prices obtained by us depend primarily on the coal consumption patterns of the electricity and steel industries in the United States, China, India and elsewhere around the world; the availability, location, cost of transportation and price of competing coal; and other electricity generation and fuel supply sources such as natural gas, oil, nuclear and hydroelectric. Coal consumption patterns are affected primarily by the demand for electricity, environmental and other governmental regulations, and technological developments. We compete on the basis of coal quality, delivered price, customer service and support, and reliability.

      To maximize our coal assets and land holdings for long-term growth, we are continuing to pursue the development of coal-fueled generating projects in areas of the U.S. where electricity demand is strong and where there is access to land, water, transmission lines and low-cost coal. The projects we are currently pursuing, as further detailed below, include the 1,500-megawatt Prairie State Energy Campus in Washington County, Illinois; the 1,500-megawatt Thoroughbred Energy Campus in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky; and the 300-megawatt Mustang Energy Project near Grants, New Mexico. These projects involve mine-mouth generating plants using our surface lands and coal reserves. Our ultimate role in these projects could take numerous forms, including, but not limited to equity partner, contract miner or coal lessor.

      We are continuing to progress on the permitting processes, transmission access agreements and contractor-related activities for developing clean, low-cost mine-mouth generating plants using our surface lands and coal reserves. Because coal costs just a fraction of natural gas, mine-mouth generating plants can provide low-cost electricity to satisfy growing baseload generation demand. The plants will be designed to comply with all current clean air standards using advanced emissions control technologies. The plants, assuming all necessary permits and financing are obtained and following selection of partners and sale of a majority of the output of each plant, could be operational following a four-year construction phase. The first of these plants would not be operational earlier than mid-2010.

      Our Prairie State Energy Campus is a planned 1,500-megawatt coal-fueled electricity generation project located in Washington County, Illinois. Prairie State would be fueled by six million tons of coal each year produced from an adjacent underground mine. During August 2004, Prairie State signed a letter of intent with Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc. for engineering, design and construction of Prairie State’spower-relatedfacilities. In January 2005, Prairie State achieved a major milestone when the State of Illinois issued the final air permit for the electric generating station and adjoining coal mine. In February 2005, a group of Midwest rural electric cooperatives and municipal joint action agencies entered into definitive agreements to acquire approximately 47% of the project. This group of investors is comprised of Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc, Kentucky Municipal Power Agency, Wolverine Power Cooperative, Northern Illinois Municipal Power Agency, Indiana Municipal Power Agency and the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission. After an initial appeal, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency reissued the air permit on April 28, 2005. The same parties who filed the earlier permit challenge filed a new appeal on June 8, 2005. We believe the permit was appropriately issued and expect to prevail in the appeal process. Various other required permits are in process and may also be subject to challenge.

      In 2003, the 1,500-megawatt Thoroughbred Energy Campus in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky received a conditional Certificate to Construct from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are defending the air permit granted in 2002 to Thoroughbred Energy

      In October 2004, our Mustang Energy Project was awarded a $19.7 million Clean Coal Power Initiative grant from the Department of Energy to demonstrate technology to achieve ultra-low emissions at the proposed 300-megawatt generating station near Grants, New Mexico. If successfully completed, the Mustang Energy Project would be located near our Lee Ranch Coal Company operations using lands and coal reserves controlled by us and would be fueled by about one million tons of coal each year. The project is in the early stages of obtaining all necessary permits.

      We are a founding member of the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, a non-profit company that is partnering with the U.S. Department of Energy to facilitate the design, construction and operation of the world’s first near-zero emission coal-fueled power plant. FutureGen will demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies to generate electricity and also produce hydrogen to power fuel cells for transportation and other energy needs. The technology also will integrate the capture of carbon emissions with carbon sequestration, helping to address the issue of climate change as energy demand continues to grow worldwide. The alliance announced in December 2005 that it entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and site in the United States the cleanest coal-fueled power plant in the world with a target of zero emissions, hydrogen production and carbon dioxide sequestration capabilities.

      With the increase in demand in our country for natural gas and oil based commodities, significant attention has been placed on determining how we can participate in technologies to economically convert our coal resources. Over the last twenty years, technology has advanced to convert coal to natural gas as well as liquids, such as diesel fuel, gasoline and jet fuel.

      In October 2005, we reached an agreement to acquire a 30% interest in Econo-Power International Corporation (“EPICTM”). We will invest up to $6 million for the 30% interest and will assist in developing coal supply options for customers of that technology. As of December 31, 2005, we have funded $2 million under this agreement. EPICTM systems use air-blown gasifiers to convert coal into a synthetic gas that is ideal for industrial applications.

      In November 2005, we announced that we had entered into a memorandum of understanding with ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC to advance project development of a commercial-scale coal gasification project in Illinois. This project would transform coal into pipeline quality natural gas. The project would require approximately three million tons of coal per year and is expected to begin the permitting process in early 2006.

      We continue to evaluate the potential of the coalbed methane business and will make acquisitions, develop our properties, enter into joint operating agreements and ventures with other companies or make property sales as appropriate. Our subsidiary, Peabody Natural Gas, LLC, produces coalbed methane from its operations in the Southern Powder River Basin near the Caballo Mine and North Antelope Rochelle Mine. At December 31, 2005, we operated 73 coalbed methane wells with net production of approximately 2.6 million cubic feet per day. We are evaluating the coalbed methane resources in several deep coal seams in the Powder River Basin and continue to evaluate coalbed methane and shale gas opportunities in western Kentucky, southern Indiana and West Virginia.

      We have significant long-term liabilities for reclamation (also called asset retirement obligations), work-related injuries and illnesses, pensions and retiree health care. In addition, labor contracts with the UMWA and voluntary arrangements with non-union employees include long-term benefits, notably health care coverage for retired employees and future retirees and their dependents. The majority of our existing liabilities relate to our past operations.

     Asset Retirement Obligations. Asset retirement obligations primarily represent the present value of future anticipated costs to restore surface lands to productivity levels equal to or greater than pre-mining conditions, as required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Expense (which includes liability accretion and asset amortization) for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $35.9 million, $42.4 million, and $31.2 million, respectively. Our method for accounting for reclamation activities changed on January 1, 2003, as a result of the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations” (“SFAS No. 143”). The effect of the adoption of SFAS No. 143 is discussed in Note 7 to our consolidated financial statements. Total asset retirement obligations as of December 31, 2005 of $399.2 million consisted of $340.7 million related to locations with active mining operations and $58.5 million related to locations that are closed or inactive.

     Workers’ Compensation. These liabilities represent the actuarial estimates for compensable, work-related injuries (traumatic claims) and occupational disease, primarily black lung disease (pneumoconiosis). The Federal Black Lung Benefits Act requires employers to pay black lung awards to former employees who filed claims after June 1973. These liabilities totaled approximately $271.9 million as of December 31, 2005, $34.3 million of which was a current liability. Expense for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $56.9 million, $65.4 million and $50.6 million, respectively.

     Pension-Related Provisions. Pension-related costs represent the actuarially-estimated cost of pension benefits. Annual minimum contributions to the pension plans are determined by consulting actuaries based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act minimum funding standards and an agreement with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Pension-related liabilities totaled approximately $123.3 million as of December 31, 2005, $7.9 million of which was a current liability. Expense for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $38.7 million, $28.5 million and $20.7 million, respectively.

     Retiree Health Care. Consistent with SFAS No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions” we record a liability representing the estimated cost of providing retiree health care benefits to current retirees and active employees who will retire in the future. Provisions for active employees represent the amount recognized to date, based on their service to date; additional amounts are accrued periodically so that the total estimated liability is accrued when the employee retires.

      A second category of retiree health care obligations represents the liability for future contributions to certain multi-employer health funds. The United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund was created by federal law in 1992. This multi-employer fund provides health care benefits to a closed group of our retired former employees who last worked prior to 1976, as well as orphaned beneficiaries of bankrupt companies who were receiving benefits as orphans prior to the 1992 law. No new retirees will be added to this group. The liability is subject to increases or decreases in per capita health care costs, offset by the mortality curve in this aging population of beneficiaries. Another fund, the 1992 Benefit Plan created by the same federal law in 1992, provides benefits to qualifying retired former employees of bankrupt companies who have defaulted in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits. Beneficiaries continue to be added to this fund as employers default in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits, but the overall exposure for new beneficiaries into this fund is limited to retirees covered under their employer’s plan who retired prior to October 1, 1994. A third fund, the 1993 Benefit Fund, was established through collective bargaining and provides benefits to qualifying retired former employees who retired after September 30, 1994 of certain signatory companies who have gone out of business and have defaulted in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits. Beneficiaries continue to be added to this fund as employers go out of business, however our liability is

      Our retiree health care liabilities totaled approximately $1,034.3 million as of December 31, 2005, $75.0 million of which was a current liability. Expense for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $99.0 million, $58.4 million and $83.7 million, respectively. Obligations to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund totaled $36.7 million as of December 31, 2005, $8.8 million of which was a current liability. Expense for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was $0.9 million, $4.9 million and $1.2 million, respectively. The 1992 Fund and the 1993 Fund are expensed as payments are made and no liability was recorded other than amounts due and unpaid. Expense related to these funds was $4.0 million, $4.4 million and $5.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

      As of December 31, 2005, we and our subsidiaries had approximately 8,300 employees. As of December 31, 2005, approximately 61% of our hourly employees were non-union and they generated 81% of our 2005 coal production. Relations with our employees and, where applicable, organized labor are important to our success.

      Recently, we opened a training center in the eastern region of the United States under our “Workforce of the Future” initiative and we will soon open centers in the midwest and western regions. Due to our current employee demographics, a significant portion of our current hourly employees will retire over the next decade. Our training centers are educating our workforce, particularly our most recent hires, in our rigorous safety standards, the latest in mining techniques and equipment, and the centers serve as centers for dissemination of mining best practices across all of our operations. Our training efforts exceed minimum government standards for safety and technical expertise with the intent of developing and retaining a world-class workforce.

      Approximately 64% of our U.S. miners are non-union and are employed in the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Illinois and Kentucky. The UMWA represented approximately 30% of our subsidiaries’ hourly employees, who generated 14% of our domestic production during the year ended December 31, 2005. An additional 6% of our hourly employees are represented by labor unions other than the UMWA. These employees generated 2% of our production during the year ended December 31, 2005. Hourly workers at our mines in Arizona and one of our mines in Colorado are represented by the UMWA under the Western Surface Agreement of 2000, which is effective through September 1, 2007. Our union labor east of the Mississippi River is primarily represented by the UMWA and the majority of union mines are subject to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement. The current five-year labor agreement was ratified in December 2001 and is effective through December 31, 2006.

      The Australian coal mining industry is highly unionized and the majority of workers employed at our Australian Mining Operations are members of trade unions. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (“CFMEU”) represents our hourly production employees. Our Australian hourly employees are approximately 4% of our hourly workforce and generated 4% of our total production in the year ended December 31, 2005. Negotiations are underway to renew the labor agreement at our Wilkie Creek Mine, which expires in June 2006. The Eaglefield Mine operates under a labor agreement that expires in May 2007. The Burton and North Goonyella Mines operate under agreements due to expire in 2008.

      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,

      We endeavor to conduct our 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. None of the violations to date or the monetary penalties assessed has been material.

      Stringent health and safety standards have been in effect since Congress enacted the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 significantly expanded the enforcement of safety and health standards and imposed safety and health standards on all aspects of mining operations. See risks inherent to mining in Item 1A. Risk Factors.

      Most of the states in which we operate have state programs for mine safety and health regulation and enforcement. Collectively, federal and state safety and health regulation in the coal mining industry is perhaps the most comprehensive and pervasive system for protection of employee health and safety affecting any segment of U.S. industry. Several states are reevaluating their safety regulations, and in February 2006 the Mine Safety and Health Administration adopted emergency rules. While regulation has a significant effect on our operating costs, our U.S. competitors are subject to the same degree of regulation.

      Our goal is to achieve excellent safety and health performance. We measure our progress in this area primarily through the use of accident frequency rates. We believe that it is our responsibility to our employees to provide a superior safety and health environment. We seek to implement this goal by: training employees in safe work practices; openly communicating with employees; establishing, following and improving safety standards; involving employees in the establishment of safety standards; and recording, reporting and investigating all accidents, incidents and losses to avoid reoccurrence. A portion of the annual performance incentives for our operating units is tied to their safety record.

      Our safety performance in 2005, as measured by accident frequency rates, was 45% better than the U.S. average for our industry. During 2005, we achieved our rate of zero accidents at four of our operations, which contributed to a 30% improvement in safety compared to the previous year. We received multiple safety awards during the year, including our second consecutive Safe Sam award at our North Antelope Rochelle Mine, Wyoming’s safest mine and our most productive, and the Mountaineer Guardian Award from the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health, Safety and Training and the West Virginia Coal Association for outstanding safety achievement at our Federal No. 2 underground mine. Our training centers educate our employees in safety best practices and reinforce our company-wide belief that productivity and profitability follow when safety is a cornerstone of all of our operations. See “Employees” above for a discussion of our Workforce of the Future initiative.

      In the U.S., under the 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 must pay federal black lung benefits and medical expenses to claimants who are current and former employees and last worked for the operator after July 1, 1973. 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, less than 7% of the miners currently seeking federal black lung benefits are awarded these benefits. The trust fund is funded by an excise tax on U.S. production of up to $1.10 per ton for deep-mined coal and up to $0.55 per ton for surface-mined coal, neither amount to exceed 4.4% of the gross sales price.

      The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (“Coal Act”) provides for the funding of health benefits for certain UMWA retirees. The Coal Act established the Combined Fund into which “signatory operators” and “related persons” are obligated to pay annual premiums for beneficiaries. The Coal Act also created a second benefit fund, the 1992 Benefit Plan, for miners who retired between July 21, 1992, and September 30, 1994, and whose former employers are no longer in business. Annual payments made by certain of our subsidiaries under the Coal Act totaled $6.3 million, $19.3 million $20.6 million, respectively, during the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.

      Our subsidiaries have been billed a retroactive assessment in the amount of $7.4 million for periods prior to October 1, 2003 as well as an increase of $0.7 million for the period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 and $0.6 million from October 2004 through August 15, 2005 as a result of the Social Security Administration’s premium recalculation. These amounts were paid as required by the Combined Fund Trustees, but were paid under protest. In August 2005, a federal court in Maryland ruled in favor of our subsidiaries, and we suspended payments to the Combined Fund to recoup our overpayment. On December 2, 2005, the same federal court granted a stay of payment recoupment and we paid to the Combined Fund the amount we recouped.

      Additionally, the Trustees assessed our subsidiaries a $1.1 million contribution for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004, related to an estimated shortfall in the amount necessary to fund the required unassigned orphaned beneficiary premium. This amount was also paid in 12 monthly installments as required by the Combined Fund Trustees, but was paid under protest.

      We are subject to various federal, state and foreign environmental laws. Some of these laws, discussed below, place many requirements on our coal mining operations. Federal and state regulations require regular monitoring of our mines and other facilities to ensure compliance.

      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 (“OSM”), establishes mining, environmental protection and reclamation standards for all aspects of U.S. surface mining as well as many aspects of deep mining. Mine operators must obtain SMCRA permits and permit renewals for mining operations from the OSM. Where state regulatory agencies have adopted federal mining programs under the act, the state becomes the regulatory authority. Except for Arizona, states in which we have active mining operations have achieved primary control of enforcement through federal authorization. In Arizona, we mine on tribal lands and are regulated by OSM because the tribes do not have SMCRA authorization.

      SMCRA permit provisions include requirements for coal prospecting; mine plan development; topsoil removal, storage and replacement; selective handling of overburden materials; mine pit backfilling and

      The U.S. mining permit application process is initiated by collecting baseline data to adequately characterize the pre-mine environmental condition of the permit area. This work includes surveys of cultural resources, soils, vegetation, wildlife, assessment of surface and ground water hydrology, climatology and wetlands. In conducting this work, we collect geologic data to define and model the soil and rock structures and coal that we will mine. We develop mine and reclamation plans by utilizing this geologic data and incorporating elements of the environmental data. The mine and reclamation plan incorporates the provisions of SMCRA, the state programs and the complementary environmental programs that impact coal mining. Also included in the permit application are documents defining ownership and agreements pertaining to coal, minerals, oil and gas, water rights, rights of way and surface land and documents required of the OSM’s Applicant Violator System.

      Once 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. Some SMCRA mine permits take over a year to prepare, depending on the size and complexity of the mine and often take six months to two years to 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 obligations. The Abandoned Mine Land Fund, which is part of SMCRA, 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. The fee, which expires on June 30, 2006, is $0.35 per ton on surface-mined coal and $0.15 per ton on deep-mined coal. It is expected the fee will be renewed, although its purpose and the amount per ton are still to be determined as part of the United States government’s budget process.

      SMCRA stipulates compliance with many other major environmental programs. These programs include the Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Acts (“CERCLA”, commonly known as “Superfund”) superfund and employeeright-to-know provisions. Besides OSM, other Federal regulatory agencies are involved in monitoring or permitting specific aspects of mining operations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is the lead agency for States or Tribes with no authorized programs under the Clean Water Act, RCRA and CERCLA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) regulates activities affecting navigable waters and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) regulates the use of explosive blasting.

      We do not believe there are any substantial matters that pose a risk to maintaining our existing mining permits or hinder our ability to acquire future mining permits. It is our policy to comply in all material respects with the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the state and tribal laws and regulations governing mine reclamation.

      The Clean Air Act and the corresponding state laws that regulate the emissions of materials into the air affect U.S. coal mining operations both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts on coal mining and processing operations may occur through Clean Air Act permitting requirements and/or emission control requirements relating to particulate matter. The Clean Air Act indirectly, but more significantly, affects the coal industry by extensively regulating the air emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and other compounds emitted by coal-based electricity generating plants.

      Title IV of the Clean Air Act places limits on sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation plants. The limits set baseline emission standards for these facilities. Reductions in emissions occurred in Phase I in 1995 and in Phase II in 2000 and apply to all coal-based power plants. The affected electricity generators have been able to meet these requirements by, among other ways, switching to lower sulfur fuels; installing pollution control devices, such as flue gas desulfurization systems, which are known as “scrubbers;” reducing electricity generating levels; or purchasing sulfur dioxide emission allowances. Emission sources receive these sulfur dioxide emission allowances, which can be traded or sold to allow other units to emit higher levels of sulfur dioxide. Title IV also required that certain categories of coal-based electric generating stations install certain types of nitrogen oxide controls. We cannot accurately predict the effect of the Title IV sulfur dioxide provisions of the Clean Air Act on us in future years. At this time, we believe that implementation of Phase II has resulted in an upward pressure on the price of lower sulfur coals, as additional coal-based electricity generating plants have complied with the restrictions of Title IV.

      In July 1997, the EPA adopted new, more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standards for very fine particulate matter and ozone. As a result, some states will be required to change their existing implementation plans to attain and maintain compliance with the new air quality standards. Our mining operations and electricity generating customers are likely to be directly affected when the revisions to the air quality standards are implemented by the states. State and federal regulations relating to implementation of the new air quality standards may restrict our ability to develop new mines or could require us to modify our existing operations.

      In December 2003, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”), which is designed to help bring the eastern half of the United States into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulates and ozone. The rule became final in March 2005 and will require further reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generating plants in 28 states and the District of Columbia although it is being challenged. Once fully implemented, the rule will reduce sulfur dioxide from power plants by approximately 73% from 2003 levels and, by 2015, nitrogen oxide emissions by approximately 61% from 2003 levels.

      The Clean Air Act also requires electricity generators that currently are major sources of nitrogen oxide in moderate or higher ozone non-attainment areas (areas where the air quality does not meet acceptable standards) to install reasonably available control technology for nitrogen oxide, which is a precursor of ozone. In addition, the EPA promulgated the final “NOx SIP Call” rules that would require coal-fueled power plants in 19 eastern states and Washington, D.C. to make substantial reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions. These states were required to submit their Phase II SIPs by April 2005. Two additional states, Georgia and Missouri, were required to submit a complete NOx SIP by April 2005 to address affected portions of their states. EPA has proposed to stay the applicability of the SIP Call to Georgia in response to a petition to reconsider whether Georgia should be covered. Installation of additional control measures required under the final rules have made and will continue to make it more costly to operate coal-based electricity generating plants.

      The Justice Department, on behalf of the EPA, has filed a number of lawsuits since November 1999, alleging that 12 electricity generators violated the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments at power plants in the midwestern and southern United States. Six electricity generators have announced settlements with the Justice Department requiring the installation of additional control equipment on selected generating units, and at least one generator has received a favorable court decision. If the remaining electricity generators are found to be in violation, they could be subject to civil penalties and be required to install the required control equipment or cease operations. Our customers are among the named electricity generators and if found not to be in compliance, our customers could be required to install additional control equipment at the affected plants or they could decide to close some or all of those plants. If our customers decide to install additional pollution control equipment at the affected plants, we have the ability to supply coal from various regions to meet any new coal requirements.

      In October 2003, EPA promulgated new regulations clarifying the types of plant modifications that electric generators could make without triggering best available control technology requirements. These regulations could affect the pending new source review cases and whether additional cases are brought. Various parties filed an appeal of these regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court issued a stay of these regulations pending a decision on the merits.

      The Clean Air Act set a national goal of the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas across the U.S. Under regulations issued by the EPA in 1999, states were required to consider setting a goal of restoring natural visibility conditions in Class I areas in their states by 2064 and to explain their reasons to the extent they determine not to adopt this goal. The state plans must require the application of “Best Available Retrofit Technology” (“BART”) after 2010 on certain electric generating stations reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to regional haze which impairs visibility in these areas. The extent and nature of these BART requirements have been the subject of litigation. As a result of the litigation, EPA finalized amendments to the 1999 BART regulations in June 2005. EPA included in the amendments guidelines for states to use in determining which facilities must install controls and the types of controls the facilities must use. States are required to develop their implementation plans by December 2007. For states subject to CAIR that adopt the CAIR cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide and NOx, the state is allowed to apply CAIR controls as a substitute for those required by BART. Five western states have elected an option offered by the EPA of regulating visibility-impairing emissions through a regional rather than a source-by-source approach. However, this option was litigated and the states’ rules were invalidated. The EPA’s regional haze regulations could cause our customers to install equipment to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. The requirement to install control equipment could affect the amount of coal supplied to those customers if they decide to switch to other sources of fuel to lower emission of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

      On March 15, 2005, EPA adopted the Clean Air Mercury Rule (“CAMR”) to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. When fully implemented, and after the appeals have been resolved, the rule will reduce mercury emissions by nearly 70%. CAMR establishes standards of performance limiting mercury emissions from new and existing power plants and creates a cap-and-trade program, which will reduce emissions in two phases. When fully implemented, the cap on mercury emissions will be 15 tons per year. Some states are considering rules that are more stringent than the federal program. Implementation of the federal program or the more stringent state programs could cause our customers to switch to other fuels to the extent it would be economically preferable for them to do so, and could impact the completion or success of our generation development projects.

      Legislation supported by the Administration has been introduced in Congress that would reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury in phases, with reductions of 70% by 2018. Other similar emission reduction proposals have been introduced in Congress, some of which propose to also regulate carbon dioxide. No such legislation has passed either house of Congress. If this type of legislation were enacted into law, it could impact the amount of coal supplied to those electricity generating customers if they decide to switch to other sources of fuel whose use would result in lower emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.

      A small number of states have either proposed or adopted legislation or regulations limiting emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from electric generating stations. A smaller number of states have also proposed to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from electric generating stations. Limitations imposed by states on emissions of any of these four substances from electric generating stations could result in fuel switching by the generators if they determined it to be economically preferable to do so.

      The Clean Water Act of 1972 affects U.S. coal mining operations by requiring effluent limitations and treatment standards for waste water discharge through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

      States are empowered to develop and enforce “in stream” 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. “In stream” standards vary from state to state. Additionally, through the Clean Water Act section 401 certification program, states have approval authority over federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to their waters. States consider whether the activity will comply with its water quality standards and other applicable requirements in deciding whether or not to certify the activity.

      Section 404 under the Clean Water Act requires mining companies to obtain COE permits to place material in streams for the purpose of creating slurry ponds, water impoundments, refuse areas, valley fills or other mining activities. These permits have been the subject of multiple recent court cases, the results of which may affect permitting costs or result in permitting delays.

      Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) regulations established a process by which states designate stream segments as impaired (not meeting present water quality standards). Industrial dischargers, including coal mines, may be required to meet new TMDL effluent standards for these stream segments. States are also adopting anti-degradation regulations in which a state designates certain water bodies or streams as “high quality/exceptional use.” These regulations would restrict the diminution of water quality in these streams. Waters discharged from coal mines to high quality/exceptional use streams may be required to meet additional conditions or provide additional demonstrations and/or justification. In general, these Clean Water Act requirements could result in higher water treatment and permitting costs or permit delays, which could adversely affect our coal production costs or efforts.

      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 materials found on a mine site are those contained in products used in vehicles and for machinery maintenance. Coal mine wastes, such as overburden and coal cleaning wastes, are not considered hazardous waste materials 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. In a 1993 regulatory determination, the EPA addressed some high volume-low toxicity coal combustion materials generated at electric utility and independent power producing facilities. In May 2000, the EPA concluded that coal combustion materials do not warrant regulation as hazardous under RCRA. The EPA is retaining the hazardous waste exemption for these materials. The EPA is evaluating national non-hazardous waste guidelines for coal combustion materials placed at a mine. National guidelines for mine-fills may affect the cost of ash placement at mines.

      CERCLA affects U.S. coal mining and hard rock 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 Superfund, joint and several liabilities may be imposed on waste generators, site owners or operators and others regardless of fault. Under the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory process, companies are required annually to report the use, manufacture or processing of listed toxic materials that exceed defined thresholds, including chemicals used in equipment maintenance, reclamation, water treatment and ash received for mine placement from power generation customers.

      The Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPACT”) was signed by President Bush in August 2005. EPACT contains tax incentives and directed spending totaling an estimated $14.1 billion intended to stimulate supply-side energy growth and increased efficiency.

      In addition to rules affecting the leasing process of federal coal properties, EPACT programs and incentives include:

      Finally, certain sections of EPACT are potentially applicable to the area of Btu Conversion, such as the aforementioned fossil energy project loan guarantee program as well as a provision allowing taxpayers to capitalize 50% of the cost of refinery investments which increase the total throughput of qualified fuels — including synthetic fuels produced from coal — by at least 25%. In addition, EPACT requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy to use fuel produced from coal, oil shale and tar sands (“covered fuel”) to assist in meeting the fuel requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”). The law authorizes the DOD to enter into multi-year contracts to procure a covered fuel to meet one or more of its fuel requirements and to carry out an assessment of potential locations for covered fuel sources.

      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 and exploration in Australia is generally carried on 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. Surface rights are typically acquired directly from landowners and, in the absence of agreement, there is an arbitration provision in the mining law.

      Since 1992, the Australian courts have recognized that native title to lands, 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 (“NTA”) 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 the mining process unless those rights have previously been extinguished. Native title rights can be extinguished either by a valid act of Government (as set out in the NTA) or by the loss of connection between the land and the group of Aboriginal peoples concerned.

      The NTA provides that where native title rights still exist and the mining project will affect those native title rights, it will be necessary to consult with the relevant Aboriginal group and to come to an agreement on issues such as the preservation of sacred or important sites, the employment of members of the group by the mine operator, and the payment of compensation for the effect on native title of the mining project. In the absence of agreement with the relevant Aboriginal group, there is an arbitration provision in the NTA.

      There is also federal and state legislation to prevent damage to Aboriginal cultural heritage and archeological sites. The NTA and laws protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage and archeological sites have had no impact on our current operations.

      The federal system requires that approval is obtained for any activity which will have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. Matters of national environmental significance include listed endangered species, nuclear actions, World Heritage areas, National Heritage areas, and migratory species. An application for such an approval may require public consultation and may be approved, refused or granted subject to conditions. Otherwise, responsibility for environmental regulation in Australia is primarily vested in the states.

      Each state and territory in Australia has its own environmental and planning regime for the development of mines. In addition, each state and territory also has a specific act dealing with mining in particular, regulating the granting of mining licenses and leases. The mining legislation in each state and territory operates concurrently with environmental and planning legislation. The mining legislation governs mining licenses and leases, including the restoration of land following the completion of mining activities. Apart from the grant of rights to mine (which are covered by the mining statutes), all licensing, permitting, consent and approval requirements are contained in the various state and territory environmental and planning statutes.

      The particular provisions of the various state and territory environmental and planning statutes vary depending upon the jurisdiction. Despite variation in details, each state and territory has a system involving at least two major phases. First, obtaining the developmental application and, if that is granted, obtaining the detailed operational pollution control licenses, which authorize emissions up to a maximum level; and second, obtaining pollution control approvals, which authorize the installation of pollution control equipment and devices. In the first regulatory phase, an application to a regulatory authority is filled. The relevant authority will either grant a conditional consent, an unconditional consent, or deny the application based on the details of the application and on any submissions or objections lodged by members of the public. If the developmental application is granted, the detailed pollution control license may then be issued and such license may regulate emissions to the atmosphere; emissions in waters; noise impacts, including impacts from blasting; dust impacts; the generation, handling, storage and transportation of waste; and requirements for the rehabilitation and restoration of land.

      Each state and territory in Australia also has either a specific statute or certain sections in other environmental and planning statutes relating to the contamination of land and vesting powers in the various regulatory authorities in respect of the remediation of contaminated land. Those statutes are based on varying policies — the primary difference between the statutes is that in certain states and territories, liability for remediation is placed upon the occupier of the land, regardless of the culpability of that occupier for the contamination. In other states and territories, primary liability for remediation is placed on the original polluter, whether or not the polluter still occupies the land. If the original polluter cannot itself carry out the remediation, then a number of the statutes contain provisions which enable recovery of the costs of remediation from the polluter as a debt.

      Many of the environmental planning statutes across the states and territories contain “third party” appeal rights in relation, particularly, to the first regulatory phase. This means that any party has a right to take proceedings for a threatened or actual breach of the statute, without first having to establish that any particular interest of that person (other than as a member of the public) stands to be affected by the threatened or actual breach.

      Accordingly, in most states and territories throughout Australia, mining activities involve a number of regulatory phases. Following exploratory investigations pursuant to a mining lease, the activity proposed to be carried out must be the subject of an application for the activity or development. This phase of the regulatory process, as noted above, usually involves the preparation of extensive documents to constitute the application, addressing all of the environmental impacts of the proposed activity. It also generally involves extensive notification and consultation with other relevant statutory authorities and members of the public. Once a decision is made to allow a mine to be developed by the grant of a development consent, permit or other approval, then a formal mining lease can be obtained under the mining statute. In addition, operational licenses and approvals can then be applied for and obtained in relation to pollution control devices and emissions to the atmosphere, to waters and for noise. The obtaining of licenses and approvals, during the operational phase, generally does not involve any extensive notification or consultation with members of the public, as most of these issues are anticipated to be resolved in the first regulatory phase.

      The combined effect of various state and federal statutes requires an employer to ensure that persons employed in a mine are safe from injury by providing a safe working environment and systems of work; safety machinery; equipment, plant and substances; 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 that deals specifically with the coal mining industry. Mining employers, owners, directors and managers, persons in control of work places, mine managers, supervisors and employees are all subject to these duties.

      It is mandatory for an employer to have insurance coverage with respect to the compensation of injured workers; similar coverage is in effect throughout Australia which is of a no fault nature and which provide for benefits up to a prescribed level. The specific benefits vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally include the payment of weekly compensation to an incapacitated employee, together with payment of medical, hospital and related expenses. The injured employee has a right to sue his or her employer for further damages if a case of negligence can be established.

      The United States, Australia and more than 160 other nations are signatories to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which addresses emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the signatories to the convention established a binding set of emission targets for developed nations. Although the specific emission targets vary from country to country, the United States would be required to reduce emissions to 93% of 1990 levels over a five-year budget period from 2008 through 2012. Although the United States has not ratified the emission targets and no comprehensive regulations focusing on greenhouse gas emissions are in place in the U.S., these restrictions, whether through ratification of the emission targets or other efforts to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could adversely affect the price and demand for coal. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003,” coal accounts for 31% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions could result in reduced use of coal if electricity generators switch to lower carbon sources of fuel. In March 2001, President Bush reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and further stated that he did not believe that the government should impose mandatory carbon dioxide emission reductions on

      We file annual, quarterly and current reports, and our amendments to those reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). You may access and read our SEC filings without charge through our website, at www.peabodyenergy.com, or the SEC’s website, at www.sec.gov. You may also read and copy any document we file at the SEC’s public reference room located at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room.

      You may also request copies of our filings, at no cost, by telephone at (314) 342-3400 or by mail at: Peabody Energy Corporation, 701 Market Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, attention: Investor Relations.

      Most of our sales are made under coal supply agreements, which are important to the stability and profitability of our operations. The execution of a satisfactory coal supply agreement is frequently the basis on which we undertake the development of coal reserves required to be supplied under the contract. For the year ended December 31, 2005, 90% of our sales volume was sold under long-term coal supply agreements. At December 31, 2005, our coal supply agreements had remaining terms ranging from one to 19 years and an average volume-weighted remaining term of approximately 3.2 years.

      Many of our coal supply agreements contain provisions that permit the parties to adjust the contract price upward or downward at specified times. We may adjust these contract prices based on inflation or deflation 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. We sometimes experience a reduction in coal prices in new long-term coal supply agreements replacing some of our expiring contracts. Coal supply agreements also typically contain force majeure provisions allowing temporary suspension of performance by us or the customer during the duration of specified events beyond the control of the affected party. Most coal supply agreements contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal meeting quality thresholds for certain characteristics such as Btu, sulfur content, ash content, 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 permit the customer to terminate the contract if transportation costs, which our customers typically bear, increase substantially. In addition, some of these contracts allow our customers to terminate their contracts in the event of changes in regulations affecting our industry that increase the price of coal beyond specified limits.

      The operating profits we realize from coal sold under supply agreements depend on a variety of factors. In addition, price adjustment and other provisions may increase our exposure to short-term coal price volatility provided by those contracts. If a substantial portion of our coal supply agreements were modified or terminated, we could be materially adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to find

      For the year ended December 31, 2005, we derived 21% of our total coal revenues from sales to our five largest customers. At December 31, 2005, we had 79 coal supply agreements with these customers expiring at various times from 2006 to 2011. We are currently discussing the extension of existing agreements or entering into new long-term agreements with some of these customers, but these negotiations may not be successful and those customers may not continue to purchase coal from us under long-term coal supply agreements. If a number of these customers were to significantly reduce their purchases of coal from us, or if we were unable to sell coal to them on terms as favorable to us as the terms under our current agreements, our financial condition and results of operations could suffer materially.

      We had been supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station pursuant to a long-term coal supply agreement through our Black Mesa Mine. The mine suspended its operations on December 31, 2005, and the coal supply agreement expired on that date. As a part of an alternate dispute resolution, Peabody Western has been participating in mediation with the owners of the Mohave Generating Station and the Navajo Generating Station, and the two tribes to resolve the complex issues surrounding groundwater and other disputes involving the two generating stations. Resolution of these issues is critical to the operation of the Mohave Generating Station after December 31, 2005. There is no assurance that these issues will be resolved. The Mohave plant was the sole customer of the Black Mesa Mine, which sold 4.6 million tons of coal in 2005. During 2005, the mine generated $29.8 million of Adjusted EBITDA (reconciled to its most comparable measure under generally accepted accounting principles in Note 27 of the consolidated financial statements), which represented 3.4% of our total EBITDA of $870.4 million.

      Our financial performance could be affected by our indebtedness. As of December 31, 2005, our total indebtedness was approximately $1,405.5 million, and we had $493.3 million of available borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facility. We may also incur additional indebtedness in the future.

      The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences, including, but not limited to:

      In addition, our indebtedness subjects us to financial and other restrictive covenants. Failure by us to comply with these covenants could result in an event of default which, if not cured or waived, could have

      If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to sell assets, seek additional capital or seek to restructure or refinance our indebtedness, including the notes. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. In the absence of sufficient operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to sell material assets or operations to attempt to meet our debt service and other obligations. The credit facility and indentures governing the notes restrict our ability to sell assets and use the proceeds from the sales. We may not be able to consummate those sales or to obtain the proceeds which we could realize from them and these proceeds may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

      Transportation costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of coal 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 some of our operations less competitive than other sources of coal. Certain coal supply agreements, which account for less than 5% of our tons sold, permit the customer to terminate the contract if the cost of transportation increases by an amount ranging from 10% to 20% in any given12-month period.

      Coal producers depend upon rail, barge, trucking, overland conveyor, pipeline and ocean-going vessels to deliver coal to markets. While our coal customers typically arrange and pay for transportation of coal from the mine or port to the point of use, disruption of these transportation services because of weather-related problems, infrastructure damage, strikes, lock-outs, lack of fuel or maintenance items, transportation delays or other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal to our customers and thus could adversely affect our results of operations. For example, two primary lines serve the Powder River Basin mines. Due to the high volume of coal shipped from all Powder River Basin mines, the loss of one, or both, of those lines due to damage or labor strike could create temporary congestion on the rail systems servicing that region.

      Continued increases in coal demand, combined with inventories at electricity generators that are lower than historical averages, created periodic regional rail and port congestion in 2005. To the extent rail or port congestion constrains our operations’ ability to successfully ship coal to our customers, our operating results will be reduced.

      Our mining operations are subject to conditions that can impact the safety of our workforce, or delay coal deliveries or increase the cost of mining at particular mines for varying lengths of time. These conditions include fires and explosions from methane gas or coal dust; accidental minewater discharges; weather, flooding and natural disasters; unexpected maintenance problems; key equipment failures; variations in coal seam thickness; variations in the amount of rock and soil overlying the coal deposit; variations in rock and other natural materials and variations in geologic conditions. We maintain insurance policies that provide limited coverage for some of these risks, although there can be no assurance that these risks would be fully covered by our insurance policies. Despite our efforts, significant mine accidents could occur and have a substantial impact.

      Federal, state and local authorities regulate the 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, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed,

      In addition, the United States, Australia and more than 160 other nations are signatories to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which addresses emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the signatories to the convention established a binding set of emission targets for developed nations. Although the specific emission targets vary from country to country, the United States would be required to reduce emissions to 93% of 1990 levels over a five-year budget period from 2008 through 2012. Although the United States has not ratified the emission targets and no comprehensive regulations focusing on greenhouse gas emissions are in place in the U.S., these restrictions, whether through ratification of the emission targets or other efforts to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could adversely affect the price and demand for coal. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003,” coal accounts for 31% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions could result in reduced use of coal if electricity generators switch to lower carbon sources of fuel. Further developments in connection with regulations or other limits on carbon dioxide emissions could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

      We provide postretirement health and life insurance benefits to eligible union and non-union employees. We calculated the total accumulated postretirement benefit obligation under SFAS No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions,” which we estimate had a present value of $1,034.3 million as of December 31, 2005, $75.0 million of which was a current liability. We have estimated these unfunded obligations based on assumptions described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements. If our assumptions do not materialize as expected, cash expenditures and costs that we incur could be materially higher. Moreover, regulatory changes could increase our obligations to provide these or additional benefits.

      We are party to an agreement with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) and TXU Europe Limited, an affiliate of our former parent corporation, under which we are required to make specified contributions to two of our defined benefit pension plans and to maintain a $37.0 million letter of credit in favor of the PBGC. If we or the PBGC give notice of an intent to terminate one or more of the covered pension plans in which liabilities are not fully funded, or if we fail to maintain the letter of credit, the PBGC may draw down on the letter of credit and use the proceeds to satisfy liabilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The PBGC, however, is required to first apply amounts received from a $110.0 million guaranty in place from TXU Europe Limited in favor of the

      In addition, certain of our subsidiaries participate in two defined benefit multi-employer pension funds that were established as a result of collective bargaining with the UMWA pursuant to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement as periodically negotiated. The UMWA 1950 Pension Plan provides pension and disability pension benefits to qualifying represented employees retiring from a participating employer where the employee last worked prior to January 1, 1976. This is a closed group of beneficiaries with no new entrants. The UMWA 1974 Pension Plan provides pension and disability pension benefits to qualifying represented employees retiring from a participating employer where the employee last worked after December 31, 1975.

      Contributions to these funds could increase as a result of future collective bargaining with the UMWA, a shrinking contribution base as a result of the insolvency of other coal companies who currently contribute to these funds, lower than expected returns on pension fund assets, higher medical and drug costs or other funding deficiencies.

      The United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund was created by federal law in 1992. This multi-employer fund provides health care benefits to a closed group of our retired former employees who last worked prior to 1976, as well as orphaned beneficiaries of bankrupt companies who were receiving benefits as orphans prior to the 1992 law. No new retirees will be added to this group. The liability is subject to increases or decreases in per capita health care costs, offset by the mortality curve in this aging population of beneficiaries. Another fund, the 1992 Benefit Plan created by the same federal law in 1992, provides benefits to qualifying retired former employees of bankrupt companies who have defaulted in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits. Beneficiaries continue to be added to this fund as employers default in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits, but the overall exposure for new beneficiaries into this fund is limited to retirees covered under their employer’s plan who retired prior to October 1, 1994. A third fund, the 1993 Benefit Fund, was established through collective bargaining and provides benefits to qualifying retired former employees who retired after September 30, 1994 of certain signatory companies who have gone out of business and have defaulted in providing their former employees with retiree medical benefits. Beneficiaries continue to be added to this fund as employers go out of business.

      Based upon the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, we assumed future cash savings which allowed us to reduce our projected postretirement benefit obligations and related expense. Failure to achieve these assumed future savings under all benefit plans could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

      Our mining operations require a reliable supply of replacement parts, explosives, fuel, tires, steel-related products (including roof control) and lubricants. If the cost of any of these inputs increased significantly, or if a source for these supplies or mining equipment were unavailable to meet our replacement demands, our profitability could be reduced from our current expectations. Recent consolidation of suppliers of explosives has limited the number of sources for these materials, and our current supply of explosives is concentrated with one supplier. Further, our purchases of some items of underground mining equipment are concentrated with one principal supplier. In the past year, industry-wide demand growth has exceeded supply growth for certain surface and underground mining equipment andoff-the-road tires. As a result, lead times for some items has generally increased by up to several months.

      Our recoverable reserves decline as we produce coal. We have not yet applied for the permits required or developed the mines necessary to use all of our reserves. Furthermore, we may not be able to mine all of our reserves as profitably as we do at our current operations. Our future success depends upon our conducting successful exploration and development activities or acquiring properties containing economically recoverable reserves. Our current strategy includes increasing our reserves through acquisitions of government and other leases and producing properties and continuing to use our existing properties. The federal government also leases natural gas and coalbed methane reserves in the West, including in the Powder River Basin. Some of these natural gas and coalbed methane reserves are located on, or adjacent to, some of our Powder River Basin reserves, potentially creating conflicting interests between us and lessees of those interests. Other lessees’ rights relating to these mineral interests could prevent, delay or increase the cost of developing our coal reserves. These lessees may also seek damages from us based on claims that our coal mining operations impair their interests. Additionally, the federal government limits the amount of federal land that may be leased by any company to 150,000 acres nationwide. As of December 31, 2005, we leased a total of 62,330 acres from the federal government. The limit could restrict our ability to lease additional federal lands. For additional discussion of our federal leases see Item 2. Properties.

      Our planned mine development projects and acquisition activities may not result in significant additional reserves and we may not have continuing success developing additional mines. Most of our mining operations are conducted on properties owned or leased by us. Because title to most of our leased properties and mineral rights are not thoroughly verified until a permit to mine the property is obtained, our right to mine some of our reserves may be materially adversely affected if defects in title or boundaries exist. In addition, in order to develop our reserves, we must receive various governmental permits. We cannot predict whether we will continue to receive the permits necessary for us to operate profitably in the future. We may not be able to negotiate new leases from the government or from private parties or obtain mining contracts for properties containing additional reserves or maintain our leasehold interest in properties on which mining operations are not commenced during the term of the lease. From time to time, we have experienced litigation with lessors of our coal properties and with royalty holders.

      We have annual capacity to produce approximately 12 to 14 million tons of metallurgical coal. Prices for metallurgical coal at the end of 2005 were at historically high levels. We have committed approximately 7 million tons of our projected 2006 metallurgical coal production at prices that carry significant premiums to historical pricing. As a result, our projected margins from these sales have increased significantly, and will represent a larger percentage of our overall revenues and profits in the future. To the extent we experience either production or transportation difficulties that impair our ability to ship metallurgical coal to our customers at anticipated levels, our profitability will be reduced in 2006.

      After 2006, we have metallurgical coal production that has not yet been priced. As a result, a decrease in metallurgical coal prices could decrease our profitability beyond 2006.

      In conducting our trading, brokerage and mining operations, we utilize third party sources of coal production, including contract miners and brokerage sources, to fulfill deliveries under our coal supply agreements. Recently, certain of our brokerage sources and contract miners have experienced adverse geologic mining and/or financial difficulties that have made their delivery of coal to us at the contractual price difficult or uncertain. Our profitability or exposure to loss on transactions or relationships such as

      During the mid-1970s and early 1980s, a growing coal market and increased demand for coal attracted new investors to the coal industry, spurred the development of new mines and resulted in added production capacity throughout the industry, all of which led to increased competition and lower coal prices. Similarly, continued increases in future coal prices could encourage the development of expanded capacity by new or existing coal producers. Any overcapacity could reduce coal prices in the future.

      As of December 31, 2005, we and our subsidiaries had approximately 8,300 employees. As of December 31, 2005, approximately 39% of our hourly employees were represented by unions and they generated 19% of our 2005 coal production. Relations with our employees and, where applicable, organized labor are important to our success. The labor contract for the majority of our represented employees expires on December 31, 2006. We could incur the risk of strikes and higher labor costs if the labor negotiations are not completed on mutually acceptable terms.

      Due to the higher labor costs and the increased risk of strikes and other work-related stoppages that may be associated with union operations in the coal industry, our competitors who operate without union labor may have a competitive advantage in areas where they compete with our unionized operations. If some or all of our current non-union operations were to become unionized, we could incur an increased risk of work stoppages, reduced productivity and higher labor costs.

      Approximately 64% of our U.S. miners are non-union and are employed in the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Illinois and Kentucky. The UMWA represented approximately 30% of our subsidiaries’ hourly employees, who generated 14% of our domestic production during the year ended December 31, 2005. An additional 6% of our hourly employees are represented by labor unions other than the UMWA. These employees generated 2% of our production during the year ended December 31, 2005. Hourly workers at our mines in Arizona and one of our mines in Colorado are represented by the UMWA under the Western Surface Agreement of 2000, which is effective through September 1, 2007. Our union labor east of the Mississippi River is primarily represented by the UMWA and the majority of union mines are subject to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement. The current five-year labor agreement was ratified in December 2001 and is effective through December 31, 2006.

      The Australian coal mining industry is highly unionized and the majority of workers employed at our Australian Mining Operations are members of trade unions. The CFMEU represents our hourly production employees. Our Australian hourly employees are approximately 4% of our hourly workforce and generated 4% of our total production in the year ended December 31, 2005. Negotiations are underway to renew the labor agreement at our Wilkie Creek Mine, which expires in June 2006. The Eaglefield Mine operates under a labor agreement that expires in May 2007. The Burton and North Goonyella Mines operate under agreements due to expire in 2008.

      U. S. federal and state laws and Australian laws require us to secure certain of our obligations to reclaim lands used for mining, to pay federal and state workers’ compensation, to secure coal lease obligations and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. The primary method for us to meet those obligations is to post a corporate guarantee (i.e. self bond) or to provide a third party surety bond. As of December 31, 2005, we had $674.7 million of self bonds in place primarily for our reclamation obligations. As of December 31, 2005, we also had outstanding surety bonds with third parties of $642.0 million, of which $323.6 million was for post-mining reclamation, $258.8 million was for lease obligations and $45.3 million was for workers’ compensation and other obligations. These bonds are typically renewable on a yearly basis. It has become increasingly difficult for us to secure new surety bonds or renew bonds without the posting of partial collateral. Surety bond issuers and holders may not continue to renew the bonds or may demand additional collateral upon those renewals. Our failure to maintain, or inability to acquire, surety bonds or to provide a suitable alternative would have a material adverse effect on us. That failure could result from a variety of factors including the following:

      Our ability to self bond reduces our costs of providing financial assurances. To the extent we are unable to maintain our current level of self bonding, due to legislative or regulatory changes or changes in our financial condition, our costs would increase.

      We manage our business with a number of key personnel, the loss of a number of whom could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, as our business develops and expands, we believe that our future success will depend greatly on our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel. We cannot assure you that key personnel will continue to be employed by us or that we will be able to attract and retain qualified personnel in the future. We do not have “key person” life insurance to cover our executive officers. Failure to retain or attract key personnel could have a material adverse effect on us.

      Due to the current demographics of our mining workforce, a high portion of our current hourly employees are eligible to retire over the next decade. Failure to attract new employees to the mining workforce could have a material adverse effect on us.

      Terrorist attacks and threats, escalation of military activity in response to such attacks or acts of war may negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our business is affected by general economic conditions, fluctuations in consumer confidence and spending, and market liquidity, which can decline as a result of numerous factors outside of our control, such as terrorist attacks and acts of war. Future terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, rumors or threats of war, actual conflicts involving the United States or its allies, or military or trade disruptions affecting our customers may materially adversely affect our operations. As a result, there could be delays or losses in transportation and deliveries of coal to our customers, decreased sales of our coal and extension of time for payment of accounts receivable from our customers. Strategic targets such as energy-related assets may be at greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other targets in the United States. In addition, disruption or significant increases in energy prices could result in government-imposed price controls. It is possible that any, or a combination, of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Our ability to receive payment for coal sold and delivered depends on the continued creditworthiness of our customers. Our customer base is changing with deregulation as utilities sell their power plants to their non-regulated affiliates or third parties. These new power plant owners or other customers may have credit ratings that are below investment grade. If deterioration of the creditworthiness of our customers occurs, our $225.0 million accounts receivable securitization program and our business could be adversely affected.

      Provisions contained in our certificate of incorporation and by-laws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. Provisions of our 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. For example, a change of control of our company may be delayed or deterred as a result of the stockholders’ rights plan adopted by our board of directors. These provisions could limit the price that certain investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock and may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control.

      None.

      We had an estimated 9.8 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves as of December 31, 2005. An estimated 9.5 billion tons of our proven and probable coal reserves are in the United States and 0.3 billion tons are in Australia. Forty-two percent of our reserves, or 4.1 billion tons, are compliance coal and 58% are non-compliance coal. We own approximately 42% of these reserves and lease property containing the remaining 58%. Compliance coal is defined by Phase II of the Clean Air Act as coal having sulfur dioxide content of 1.2 pounds or less per million Btu. Electricity generators are able to use coal that exceeds these specifications by using emissions reduction technology, using emission allowance credits or blending higher sulfur coal with lower sulfur coal.

      Below is a table summarizing the locations and reserves of our major operating regions.

      Reserves are defined by SEC Industry Guide 7 as that part of a mineral deposit which could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time of the reserve determination. Proven and probable coal reserves are defined by SEC Industry Guide 7 as follows:

      Our estimates of proven and probable coal reserves are established within these guidelines. Proven reserves require the coal to lie within one-quarter mile of a valid point of measure or point of observation, such as exploratory drill holes or previously mined areas. Estimates of probable reserves may lie more than one-quarter mile, but less than three-quarters of a mile, from a point of thickness measurement. Estimates within the proven category have the highest degree of assurance, while estimates within the probable category have only a moderate degree of geologic assurance. Further exploration is necessary to place probable reserves into the proven reserve category. Our active properties generally have a much higher degree of reliability because of increased drilling density. Active surface reserves generally have points of observation as close as 330 feet to 660 feet.

      Our reserve estimates are prepared by our staff of geologists, whose experience ranges from 10 to 30 years. We also have a chief geologist of reserve reporting whose primary responsibility is to track changes in reserve estimates, supervise our other geologists and coordinate periodic third party reviews of our reserve estimates by qualified mining consultants.

      Our reserve estimates are predicated on information obtained from our ongoing drilling program, which totals nearly 500,000 individual drill holes. We compile data from individual drill holes in a computerized drill-hole database from which the depth, thickness and, where core drilling is used, the quality of the coal are determined. The density of the drill pattern determines whether the reserves will be classified as proven or probable. The reserve estimates are then input into our computerized land management system, which overlays the geological data with data on ownership or control of the mineral and surface interests to determine the extent of our reserves in a given area. The land management system contains reserve information, including the quantity and quality (where available) of reserves as well as production rates, surface ownership, lease payments and other information relating to our coal reserves and land holdings. We periodically update our reserve estimates to reflect production of coal from the reserves and new drilling or other data received. Accordingly, reserve estimates will change from time to time to reflect mining activities, analysis of new engineering and geological data, changes in reserve holdings, modification of mining methods and other factors.

      Our estimate of the economic recoverability of our reserves is based upon a comparison of unassigned reserves to assigned reserves currently in production in the same geologic setting to determine an estimated mining cost. These estimated mining costs are compared to existing market prices for the quality of coal expected to be mined and taking into consideration typical contractual sales agreements for the region and product. Where possible, we also review production by competitors in similar mining areas. Only reserves expected to be mined economically and with an acceptable profit margin are included in our reserve estimates. Finally, our reserve estimates include reductions for recoverability factors to estimate a saleable product.

      We periodically engage independent mining and geological consultants to review estimates of our coal reserves. The most recent of these reviews, which was completed in April 2003, included a review of the

      With respect to the accuracy of our reserve estimates, our experience is that recovered reserves are within plus or minus 10% of our proven and probable estimates, on average, and our probable estimates are generally within the same statistical degree of accuracy when the necessary drilling is completed to move reserves from the probable to the proven classification. On a regional basis, the expected degree of variance from reserve estimate to tons produced is lower in the Powder River Basin, Southwest and Illinois Basin due to the continuity of the coal seams as confirmed by the mining history. Appalachia, however, has a higher degree of risk due to the mountainous nature of the topography which makes exploration drilling more difficult. Our recovered reserves in Appalachia are less predictable and may vary by an additional one to two percent above the threshold discussed above.

      We have numerous 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 our principal reserves in Wyoming and other reserves in Montana and Colorado. Each of these leases continues indefinitely, provided there is diligent development of the property and continued operation of the related mine or mines. The Bureau of Land Management 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 at10-year intervals thereafter. Annual rents on surface land under our 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 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, 2005, we leased 10,903 acres of federal land in Colorado, 11,254 acres in Montana and 40,173 acres in Wyoming, for a total of 62,330 nationwide.

      Similar provisions govern three coal leases with the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes. These leases cover coal contained in 65,000 acres of land in northern Arizona lying within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Indian reservations. We also lease coal-mining properties from various state governments.

      Private coal leases normally have terms of between 10 and 20 years and usually give us 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 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 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 our private leases are normally extended by active production on or near the end of the lease term. Leases containing undeveloped reserves may expire or these leases may be renewed periodically. With a portfolio of approximately 9.8 billion tons, we believe that we have sufficient reserves to replace capacity from depleting mines for the foreseeable future and that our significant reserve holdings is one of our strengths. We believe that the current level of production at our major mines is sustainable for the foreseeable future.

      Consistent with industry practice, we conduct only limited investigation of title to our coal properties prior to leasing. Title to lands and reserves of the lessors or grantors and the boundaries of our leased properties are not completely verified until we prepare to mine those reserves.

      The following chart provides a summary, by geographic region and mining complex, of production for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and 2003, tonnage of coal reserves that is assigned to our operating mines, our property interest in those reserves and other characteristics of the facilities.

      The following chart provides a summary of the amount of our proven and probable coal reserves in each U.S. state and Australia, the predominant type of coal mined in the applicable location, our property interest in the reserves and other characteristics of the facilities.

      We hold approximately 9.8 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves and more than 420,000 acres of surface property. Our resource development group constantly reviews these reserves for opportunities to generate revenues through the sale of non-strategic coal reserves and surface land. In addition, we generate revenue through royalties from coal reserves and oil and gas rights leased to third parties, coalbed methane production and farm income from surface land under third party contracts.

      From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe we have recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities and that there is no individual case pending that is likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We discuss our significant legal proceedings below.

      Gold Fields Mining, LLC (“Gold Fields”), one of our subsidiaries, is a dormant, non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson PLC, a predecessor owner of ours. In the February 1997 spin-off of its energy businesses, Hanson PLC transferred ownership of Gold Fields to us,

      Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Betty Jean Cole, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al. and Darlene Evans, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al.). The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages for diminution of property value, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. A predecessor of Gold Fields formerly operated two lead mills near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the 1950s and mined, in accordance with lease agreements and permits, approximately 1.5% of the total amount of the ore mined in the county.

      Gold Fields is also a defendant, along with other companies, in several personal injury lawsuits involving over 50 children, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, arising out of the same lead mill operations. Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged personal injuries from lead exposure. Previously scheduled trials for some of these plaintiffs have been postponed.

      In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw land owners filed a class action lawsuit against Gold Fields and five other companies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of theories. Gold Fields has filed a third-party complaint against the United States, and other parties. In February 2005, the state of Oklahoma on behalf of itself and several other parties sent a notice to Gold Fields and other companies regarding a possible natural resources damage claim.

      The outcome of litigation and these claims are subject to numerous uncertainties. Based on our evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. However, we believe this matter is likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      On June 18, 1999, the Navajo Nation served three of our subsidiaries, including Peabody Western Coal Company (“Peabody Western”), with a complaint that had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Navajo Nation has alleged 16 claims, including Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violations and fraud. The complaint alleges that the defendants jointly participated in unlawful activity to obtain favorable coal lease amendments. The plaintiff is seeking various remedies including actual damages of at least $600 million, which could be trebled under the RICO counts, punitive damages of at least $1 billion, a determination that Peabody Western’s two coal leases have terminated due to Peabody Western’s breach of these leases and a reformation of these leases to adjust the royalty rate to 20%. Subsequently, the court allowed the Hopi Tribe to intervene in this lawsuit and the Hopi Tribe is also seeking unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and reformation of its coal lease. On March 4, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a companion lawsuit involving the Navajo Nation and the United States rejecting the Navajo Nation’s allegation that the United States breached its trust responsibilities to the Tribe in approving the coal lease amendments.

      On February 9, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a consent motion to stay the litigation until further order of the court. Peabody Western, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe and the customers purchasing coal from the Black Mesa and Kayenta mines are in mediation with respect to this litigation and other business issues.

      The outcome of litigation, or the current mediation, is subject to numerous uncertainties. Based on our evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. However, we believe this matter is likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      We had been supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station pursuant to a long-term coal supply agreement through our Black Mesa Mine. The mine suspended its operations on December 31, 2005, and the coal supply agreement expired on that date. As a part of the alternate dispute resolution referenced in the Navajo Nation litigation, Peabody Western has been participating in mediation with the owners of the Mohave Generating Station and the Navajo Generating Station and the two tribes to resolve the complex issues surrounding groundwater and other disputes involving the two generating stations. Resolution of these issues is critical to the operation of the Mohave Generating Station after December 31, 2005. There is no assurance that these issues will be resolved. The Mohave plant was the sole customer of the Black Mesa Mine, which sold 4.6 million tons of coal in 2005. During 2005, the mine generated $29.8 million of Adjusted EBITDA (reconciled to its most comparable measure under generally accepted accounting principles in Note 27 of the consolidated financial statements), which represented 3.4% of our total Adjusted EBITDA of $870.4 million.

      Salt River Project and the other owners of the Navajo Generating Station filed a lawsuit on September 27, 1996, in the Superior Court of Maricopa County in Arizona seeking a declaratory judgment that certain costs relating to final reclamation, environmental monitoring work and mine decommissioning and costs primarily relating to retiree health care benefits are not recoverable by our subsidiary, Peabody Western, under the terms of a coal supply agreement dated February 18, 1977. The contract expires in 2011. The trial court subsequently ruled that the mine decommissioning costs were subject to arbitration but that the retiree health care costs were not subject to arbitration. We have recorded a receivable for mine decommissioning costs of $74.2 million and $68.6 million included in “Investments and other assets” in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2005, and December 31, 2004, respectively.

      The outcome of litigation is subject to numerous uncertainties. Based on our evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. However, we believe this matter is likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      Three of our subsidiaries have been named in six separate complaints filed in Boone, Kanawha, Wyoming, and McDowell Counties, West Virginia seeking compensation for property damage and personal injury arising out of flooding that occurred in southern West Virginia during heavy rainstorms in July of 2001. These cases, along with approximately 50 similar cases not involving our subsidiaries, include approximately 3,500 plaintiffs and 77 defendants engaged in the extraction of natural resources. Plaintiffs have alleged that timbering, mining and disturbances of surface land by the defendants in the extraction of natural resources caused natural surface waters to be diverted in unnatural ways, thereby resulting in flooding which would not have occurred absent the defendants’ use and disturbance of surface lands.

      These cases have been consolidated pursuant to the Court’s Mass Litigation Rules. The Mass Litigation Panel has ordered that the cases be tried based upon the six geographic watersheds in which the flooding occurred. The first such trial is scheduled for early March 2006; however, our subsidiaries held no active mining permits in the geographic area which is the focus of the first trial. Trials involving two additional watersheds are scheduled for the second half of 2006. No trials are scheduled for the remaining three watersheds. Certain of our defendant subsidiaries did hold multiple active permits in the five remaining geographic watersheds. Our insurance carrier has acknowledged our tender of these claims and is currently providing a defense under applicable policies of insurance.

      While the outcome of litigation is subject to uncertainties, based on our preliminary evaluation of the issues and the potential impact on us, we believe this matter ultimately will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      In connection with the August 2000 sale of our former subsidiary, Citizens Power LLC (“Citizens Power”), we have indemnified the buyer, Edison Mission Energy, from certain losses resulting from specified power contracts and guarantees. During the period that Citizens Power was owned by us, Citizens Power guaranteed the obligations of two affiliates to make payments to third parties for power delivered under fixed-priced power sales agreements with terms that extend through 2008. Edison Mission Energy has stated and we believe there will be sufficient cash flow to pay the power suppliers, assuming timely payment by the power purchasers.

      We are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including CERCLA (also known as Superfund), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Conservation and Recovery Act. Superfund and similar state laws create liability for investigation and remediation in response to releases of hazardous substances in the environment and for damages to natural resources. Under that legislation and many state Superfund statutes, joint and several liability may be imposed on waste generators, site owners and operators and others regardless of fault. These regulations could require us to do some or all of the following:

      Environmental claims have been asserted against Gold Fields related to activities of Gold Fields or its former affiliates. Gold Fields is a dormant, non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson PLC, a predecessor owner of ours. We have been named a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) based on CERCLA at five sites, and claims have been asserted at 17 other sites. The number of PRP sites in and of itself is not a relevant measure of liability, because the nature and extent of environmental concerns varies by site, as does our estimated share of responsibility.

      Our policy is to accrue environmental cleanup-related costs of a non-capital nature when those costs are believed to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. The quantification of environmental exposures requires an assessment of many factors, including the nature and extent of contamination, the timing, extent and method of the remedial action, changing laws and regulations, advancements in environmental technologies, the quality of information available related to specific sites, the assessment stage of each site investigation, preliminary findings and the length of time involved in remediation or settlement. We also assess the financial capability and proportional share of costs of other PRPs and, where allegations are based on tentative findings, the reasonableness of our apportionment. We have not anticipated any recoveries from insurance carriers in the estimation of liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets. Undiscounted liabilities for environmental cleanup-related costs for all of the sites noted above totaled $42.5 million at December 31, 2005, and $40.5 million at December 31, 2004, $23.6 million and $15.1 million of which was a current liability, respectively. These amounts represent those costs that we believe are probable and reasonably estimable. In September 2005, Gold Fields and other PRPs received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the PRPs’ mining operations caused the EPA to incur approximately $125 million in residential yard remediation costs at Picher, Oklahoma and will cause the EPA to incur additional remediation costs relating to historic mining sites. Gold Fields has participated in the ongoing settlement discussions. A predecessor of Gold Fields formerly operated two lead mills near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the 1950s and mined, in accordance with lease agreements and permits, approximately 1.5% of the total amount of the ore mined in the county. Gold Fields believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims. Gold Fields is involved in other litigation in the Picher area, and we have agreed to indemnify one of the defendants in this litigation as discussed under the “Oklahoma Lead Litigation” caption above.

      Significant uncertainty exists as to whether claims will be pursued against Gold Fields in all cases, and where they are pursued, the amount of the eventual costs and liabilities, which could be greater or less than this provision.

      Although waste substances generated by coal mining and processing are generally not regarded as hazardous substances for the purposes of Superfund and similar legislation, some products used by coal companies in operations, such as chemicals, and the disposal of these products are governed by the statute. Thus, coal mines currently or previously owned or operated by us, and sites to which we have sent waste materials, may be subject to liability under Superfund and similar state laws.

      In addition to the matters described above, we are party to other claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of pending or threatened proceedings is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      While the outcome of litigation is subject to uncertainties, based on our preliminary evaluation of the issues and their potential impact on us, we believe these matters will be resolved without a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

      No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the quarter ended December 31, 2005.

      Set forth below are the names, ages as of February 15, 2006 and current positions of our executive officers. Executive officers are appointed by, and hold office at, the discretion of our Board of Directors.