Talk:Peabody Energy

First post

Awesome additions but I have been watching this close and have removed some redlinks but now it's sort of turning towards some giant ad. I'm going to add a <pov> tag and see if someone can clear this up. Binarypower 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the content that I added?! MrPeabodyEnergy 02:44, 07 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was contaminated with copyright-infringing information by 199.217.207.70 (talk · contribs). Content in Wikipedia must be licenced under the GFDL; this was just a cut'and'paste from the company's website. It's okay to add information based on Peabody's website (although it's best to check facts from an independent source too, as the subject of an article will inevitably only say nice things about themselves), but not to copy text or pictures from there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added a header for this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial History

How is it that this article perports to offer the history of Peabody Coal company and yet has no mention of the dozens of times that Peabody Coal has used it's money and power to oppress it's own workers and stamp out dissent?

What about the times Peabody Energy has used its money and power to influence the University of Wyoming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.81.15 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The word strike does not appear once on the page, and yet the history of Peabody Coal is a history of labor conflict and strike breaking. Is this the result of a company managing the telling of it's own history? And while there is a reference to the song Paradise, there is zero critical analysis of why "Mr. Peabody's coal train hauled it away."

How does one put the little flag that says this is debated information? Or reads like an advertisement? --Rico 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Added unbalanced tag as the extensive century-long conflict and controversy of the Peabody Coal Company is not discussed on this page, and the addtions to the talk section have remained unanswered.

Thank you. Now does someone with a greater or more local grasp of the history here care to add some historical context to this web brochure for Peabody Energy Company? A good start would be with these pages:

• http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/filthy-fuels/peabody-energy-not-a-good-neighbor
• http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Peabody-Coal-Company-Company-History.html
• http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Peabody-Energy-Corporation-Company-History.html

Sourcing would be a challenge, but doable. Thanks in advance to someone willing to take on this task. --Rico (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to history and recent developments section

Hi, I have made a minor edit to this article in the form of adding a citation. Addressing the flag posted at the top of this article, I’m proposing revisions to the history and recent developments sections that would provide a more comprehensive synopsis of this company’s history, better aligned with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic content standards.

Though I’m not employed by Peabody Energy, I do have a background in the energy industry and want to make others aware of this and will be careful to ensure a neutral point of view. Accordingly, I’ll be sure to post to the talk page before moving forward with any edits in order to gain consensus on any substantive changes.

Please take a look at my proposed revisions to the history section in a sandbox on my user page and let me know what you think or feel free to make direct changes to the sandbox draft. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your feedback. JamesClyde (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's tweak the very last sentence to make it more neutral. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Hroðulf; given the feedback from you as well as on the Help desk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Looking_for_input I have gone ahead and implemented these revisions in the article - with the exception of the very last sentence, based on your recommendation above. I omitted the last sentence for now, with the intention of doing some additional research and proposing a rephrased version here later today. If there are any additional thoughts about these revisions please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Thanks! JamesClyde (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hroðulf, per your request, I have rephrased the last sentence from my original draft of the history of the section so that it now reads, “At the 2010 World Energy Congress, Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce proposed a plan that advocated for the expanded use of coal worldwide, placing emphasis on geographic areas with limited or no access to electricity.” Please let me know what you think and I’ll update the section accordingly. Thanks again! JamesClyde (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had some additional updates I thought would be beneficial to the history section. The most significant addition is a couple sentences in the current era subsection on the Prairie State Energy Campus. Anyways I thought it would be easiest for other editors to review the material if I included my revised version of the section in the collapsible box below. In the hopes of attaining consensus, please feel free to comment on or make changes to this draft. JamesClyde (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised history section

Early years (1883 – 1959)

The Peabody Energy company was originally founded as Peabody, Daniels & Company in 1883 by Francis Peabody, the son of a prominent Chicago lawyer, and a partner. The company bought coal from established mines and sold it to homes and businesses in the Chicago area. In the late 1880’s, Francis Peabody bought out his partner’s share of the business and the company was incorporated in the state of Illinois under the name Peabody Coal Company in 1890. In 1895, it began operations of its first mine in Williamson County, Illinois and later expanded its operations in Illinois. In 1913, the company won its first long-term contract to supply Chicago Edison Company, the predecessor to utility Commonwealth Edison. The company’s growth continued after World War I and the corporation went public for the first time in 1929 with a listing on the Midwest Stock Exchange and in 1949, was listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Despite being ranked eighth among the country’s top coal producers in the mid 1950’s, Peabody began to lose market share to companies operating cost-efficient surface mining operations. To address the situation, it entered into merger talks with Sinclair Coal Company. A merger between the two companies occurred in 1955, resulting in the transfer of Peabody's headquarters to St. Louis, Missouri. The merged company retained the Peabody name. Under the leadership of chairman Russell Kelce, the company expanded production and sales.

1960–2000

In 1962, Peabody expanded into the Pacific with the opening of mining operations in Queensland, Australia. During this period Peabody also forged an equity partnership with the Japanese trading company Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and the Australian construction company Thiess Holdings. In 1968, the company was purchased by the Kennecott Copper Corporation. However, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission challenged the purchase as an antitrust violation. In 1976, the FTC ordered Kennecott to divest itself of Peabody. The newly-created Peabody Holding Company purchased the Peabody Coal business of Kennecott for $1.1 billion, and a consortium of companies controlled Peabody-Holding.

In the 1980s, Peabody expanded its operations in the Eastern United States, acquiring the West Virginia coal mines of Armco Inc in 1984. The company sought to broaden its metallurgical coal portfolio through the purchase of Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates’ seven West Virginia mines in 1987. Peabody also expanded westward, opening the North Antelope and Rochelle mines in the low sulfur Wyodak seam in the heart of Wyoming’s Powder River Basin in 1983 and 1984, respectively.

The passage of the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990 prompted the closure of some Peabody mines. However, other mines under its ownership were able to remain in operation due to the implementation of new equipment and procedures that reduced sulfur dioxide emissions. Stricter requirements outlined in Phase II of the legislation also prompted Peabody to invest in emissions reducing technologies. In 1990, the U.K.-based conglomerate Hanson plc, one of the owners of Peabody Holding at the time, bought out the rest of the owners.

In 1993, Peabody Energy expanded their holdings in the Pacific with the acquisition of three mines in Australia and subsequently developed a fourth operation in New South Wales. Peabody also expanded its operations domestically with acquisitions in New Mexico in 1993 and Wyoming in 1994 and assumed a stake in Black Beauty, a Midwest producer, in response to increased demand for metallurgical coal.

2001–

Following corporate ownership changes in the 1990s, the company filed an initial public offering (IPO) in May 2001, and since this time it has operated as a publicly-traded company.

In 2002 Peabody launched its Peabody Energy Australia Coal Co. following the acquisition of the Wilkie Creek Mine in Queensland’s Surat Basin. In October 2006, Peabody completed an acquisition of Excel Coal Limited, an independent coal company in Australia. Peabody paid $1.52 billion for Excel and also assumed $227 million of Excel's debt. At the time, Excel owned three operating mines and three development-stage mines in Australia. Additionally, Excel had an estimated 500 million tons of proven and probable coal reserves. As of 2011, Peabody's Australian mining operations are located in Queensland and New South Wales. Most of the company’s Australian production is metallurgical coal.

The company also advanced a number of coal-to-liquids and coal-to-gas projects to reduce emissions during the decade. On August 30, 2007, Ernie Fletcher, the governor of the U.S. state of Kentucky signed into state law a bill that will provide approximately $300 million in incentives to Peabody to build a coal gasification plant in that state. The resulting incentives were provisioned in the form of breaks on sales taxes, incentive taxes and coal severance taxes. In 2007, Peabody and a consortium of municipal electric cooperatives began construction on the 1600-megawatt Prairie State Energy Campus clean coal project in Lively Grove, Illinois. The company now retains five percent equity stake in the project, which is expected to begin generating power for customers in 2011. At the 2010 World Energy Congress, Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce proposed a plan that advocated for the expanded use of coal worldwide, placing emphasis on geographic areas with limited or no access to electricity.

I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions discussed above after receiving feedback from another editor on the WikiProject Missouri's talk page and allowing time for other editors to weigh in. As always, I welcome any further feedback on this content. JamesClyde (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Areas of business section

This article lacks a section explaining the geographic areas of operations, and after looking over and drawing from the BAE Systems article (based on it being a FA), I’m proposing adding this brief section, titled "Areas of business," to the article that would go directly below the History section. I encourage other editors to take a look at it and give me feedback or make changes directly to the draft itself. Thanks for your time! JamesClyde (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up on my earlier comment after implementing the revisions proposed above that I felt were non-controversial in nature and would make logical sense to go directly after the History section. I also implemented the minor, one sentence, revision discussed in the section above. As always, I’m open to any further suggestions or thoughts on a better place for the Areas of business section. Thanks! JamesClyde (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor updates

I've proposed some minor revisions to this section that simply note Peabody has opened offices in Balikpapan and Essen and updated the citations acordingly. Though I do not consider these revisions to be controversial, as I have a WP:COI with this article, I've included a draft with my changes in it below so other editors can review the material and weigh in if they have any comments, questions, or objections. JamesClyde (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Updated areas of business section

Peabody Energy’s world headquarters is in St. Louis, MO, and as of 2010 it also maintains offices in London, England; Beijing, China; Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; Singapore; Brisbane and Sydney, Australia; Essen, Germany, and Balikpapan and Jakarta, Indonesia. In the U.S. West, Peabody operates Powder River Basin operations in Wyoming as well as other mining operations in Arizona and New Mexico. Operations in the U.S. Midwest consist of mines in Indiana and Illinois. Peabody also operates a single underground mine in Colorado. All of these assets are occupied with the mining, preparation, and selling of coal to utility companies or steelmakers.

Peabody’s Australian operations consist of metallurgical and thermal coal mining operations in Queensland and New South Wales. Purchasers of its coal product include Australian utility companies or steel producers.

The Trading and Brokerage function is primarily concerned with the brokering of coal sales, trading coal, and freight or freight-related contracts. A smaller division of Peabody Energy deals with mining, export and transportation joint ventures, energy related commercial activities, and the management of Peabody’s operations and holdings. With growing demand for coal across Asian markets, especially in China, Indonesia, and India, Peabody has expanded its presence in Asia through offices in China, Mongolia, Indonesia, and Singapore.

Not having received any feedback and believing these revisions to be well sourced and noncontroversial, I've gone ahead and added Essen and Balikpapan to the list of international offices and updated the corresponding citations. Please feel free to comment if you have any thoughts or suggested changes. JamesClyde (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates to lede

Hi, I have proposed some revisions updating information in the lede section and adding a couple sentences providing a better overview of what Peabody Energy does. This draft is included in the collapsible box below. Though I don’t consider these revisions to be controversial as they are largely updating outdated information, I was hoping to get feedback from the community on these revisions before implementing them. If anyone has any thoughts or recommended changes to this draft please feel free to comment on or revise the proposed content. JamesClyde (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated lede section

Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU), is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. Its primary business consists of the mining, sale and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in electricity generation and steelmaking. Peabody also markets, brokers and trades coal through offices in China, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Singapore and the United States. Other commercial initiatives include the development of mine-mouth coal-fueled plants, the management of coal reserve holdings, and technologies to transform coal to natural gas and transportation fuels.

The coal produced by Peabody Energy fuels approximately 10% of the electricity generated in the United States and 2% of electricity generated throughout the world, based on recorded sales in 2010 of 246 million tons of coal. Peabody markets coal to electricity generating and industrial customers in more than 25 nations. As of December 31, 2010, the company had approximately 9 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves and liquidity that matches the company’s entire enterprise value of 12 years ago.

Peabody Energy maintains ownership of majority interests in 28 surface and underground mining operations located throughout the United States and Australia. In the United States, company-owned mines are located in Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Illinois, and Indiana. Peabody's largest operation is the North Antelope-Rochelle Mine located in Campbell County, Wyoming, mining more than 100 million tons of coal in 2010. Peabody spun off coal mining operations in West Virginia and Kentucky into Patriot Coal Corporation (NYSE: PCX) in October 2007. In October 2011, Peabody acquired a majority ownership stake in Queensland-based Macarthur Coal Ltd, which specializes in the production of metallurgical coal, primarily seaborne pulverized injection coal.

Peabody Energy was listed as number 338 on the Fortune 500 list of companies in 2011. The company was named to Fortune Magazine's list of America's Most Admired Companies in 2008, ranking first in their sector in: Innovation, People Management, Social Responsibility, Financial Soundness, et al. The company is headquartered in downtown St. Louis, Missouri.

Not having received any feedback over the last week, I have gone ahead and implemented the revision discussed above. If there are any thoughts, questions, or recommended changes to this material please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. JamesClyde (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Black Mesa controversy

Hi, I had some revisions to this, section the most significant of which were the addition of a couple of sentences at the end noting that the Black Mesa Mine had recently been decommissioned. I also noticed that the only source cited in this section is a critical piece from the Phoenix New Times and added some additional substantiation from the Associated Press and the Funding Universe company history profile. I have included this proposed draft in the collapsible box below.

I realize this is a controversial issue and as I have a WP:COI with this article (see my user page), I will not move forward with any revisions to this section without first receiving feedback from third parties. In the hopes of gaining WP:CONSENSUS, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts, suggestions, or changes to this material.

Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed draft

Main article: Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy

In 1964 Peabody Energy subsidiary Peabody Western Coal signed a series off-lease agreements with the Navajo tribe and two years later with the Hopi tribe for mineral rights as well as use of a water source on the Black Mesa, a 2.1-million-acre highland in Northeast Arizona. The company’s contracts with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe were approved despite opposition from those who disputed the authority of the official tribal councils. They were also negotiated by natural resources attorney John Sterling Boyden, who represented the Hopi tribe but whose firm had also represented Peabody in other legal matters, contributing to allegations of a conflict of interest.

When rail negotiations to transport coal from the project broke down, Peabody designed a coal slurry pipeline similar to a natural gas pipeline to transport the coal 273 miles to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. The company pumped potable water from the underground Navajo Aquifer (N-aquifer) to supply the slurry pipeline, a solution that generated controversy. The Navajo Aquifer is a main source of potable water for the Navajo and Hopi tribes, who use the water for farming and livestock maintenance as well as drinking and other domestic uses. Members of the tribes as well as outside environmental groups have alleged that the pumping of water by Peabody Energy has caused contamination of water sources and a severe decline in potable water. Peabody contends that operations consumed only one percent of the aquifer’s water.

The Black Mesa Mine suspended operations in 2006 after the mine’s sole customer, the Mohave Station, was retired. The site was fully decommissioned in January 2010.

It's good to see editors with specialized knowledge contributing, particularly when they take care to avoid any taint of WP:COI. All the material in the proposed draft seems to be soundly referenced, and good to go! May only demur would be the best place for the addition: The WP:SS guideline suggests that it might best be added to the subsidiary article Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy, rather than here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Old Moonraker. I've added the material to the Black Mesa controversy section for now, but will look at incorporating or transferring some of it into the Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy article according to WP:SS. Looking at both articles, it looks like material from the Black Mesa article was lifted and copied into the Peabody article by an editor that had been involved on that page. Anyways, thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Environmental track record and reference in song sections

I have some WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT concerns with these sections and have proposed a revised draft below of the sections incorporating them into one section titled Environmental record. Of specific concern are minor issues with the tone of some of the language and the fact that the sourcing in the first paragraph of the Environmental track record section only cites two flyers from the Sierra Club and the NRDC. It is also my opinion that while the reference in the song Paradise is worthy of mention, it is not worthy of its own section on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT.

My proposed draft retains the majority of the content and citations in the current draft, but modifies some of the language in a way that I felt was neutral in tone. I also added some material on Peabody’s reclamation efforts and recognition they have received on account of them. However, due to my WP:COI with this article and the fact that these issues are controversial, I will work to gain WP:CONSENSUS before moving forwardwith any revisions.

Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your careful approach has demonstrated that you are editing impartially. Go straight ahead with your edits and WP:BRD will fix any problems. Go for it!

The phrase "Critics have expressed" may well attract a {{who}} tag unless they are specifically identified: the anonymous report from the Sierra Club expresses its opinion, but doesn't summarise those from other critics (but that was only from a skim read—sorry if I missed something). You might consider formatting that reference, to allow readers to assess the organization from the wikilink. In fact, it might be worth wikilinking all the named organizations with articles.

All the best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback Old Moonraker. I changed the language of the sentence discussing critics, added the appropriate wikilinks, and reformatted the citations so it would be clear who the source was. I'll go ahead and implement the revisions in the spirit of WP:BRD, as you recommended, and then follow up on this page in case any other editors are interested in additional changes. JamesClyde (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Environmental record section

The practice of extracting coal from the earth for energy production purposes has been the subject of controversy for an extended duration of time. The Sierra Club has expressed concern regarding Peabody Energy’s initial opposition to the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations, as well as its support for the expanded use of coal generated electricity as a means of meeting increasing worldwide energy usage demands. The Natural Resources Defense Council has been critical of Peabody’s advocacy for expanding coal generated electricity in the U.S., specifically on account of the environmental impacts of surface mining operations. The environmental impact of Peabody’s surface mining operations in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky was also the subject of criticism in John Prine’s 1971 song “Paradise.” In Newsweek's 2011 Green Rankings, Peabody Energy was ranked #9 out of the top 500 largest US companies based on their environmental impact.

Peabody Energy states its mission as “to be a leading worldwide producer and supplier of sustainable energy solutions, which power economic prosperity and result in a better quality of life,” and to return mined lands to a “condition that is equal to or better than before mining occurred. Peabody launched its first land reclamation program, Operation Green Earth, in 1954. Since then, Peabody’s activities in regards to the pursuit of its mission, specifically concerning environmental sustainability practices, have been recognized by regulators and industry groups, but have raised concerns among its critics, primarily some environmental advocacy organizations. The company has taken steps to enact environmental restoration and has been recognized by the United States Department of the Interior, for their reclamation efforts.

In response to federal legislation, such as the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and environmental criticism of its mining operations, Peabody has directed investments in technologies and equipment that serve to mitigate adverse environmental effects of their coal mining operations. In 2007, the company became the only non-Chinese equity partner in the 650-megawatt near-zero emissions GreenGen clean-coal project in Tianjin, China. Peabody has also invested invested in the development of carbon capture technologies and coal-to-gas and coal-to-hydrogen projects.

I've gone ahead and implemented the proposed draft discussed above. If anyone has any thoughts or changes, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request of Financial Information in Info Box

{{Request edit}}

Hi everyone,

First of all, I want to disclose up front that Peabody Energy is a client of my employer New Media Strategies, giving me a WP:COI. However any edits I suggest will adhere to Wikipedia policies.

I noticed in the info box that the financial information is out of date (it's from 2010) and it cites a website that is not a reliable source. I have the updated 2011 information that is sourced from Peabody's official 2011 10-k listed below. Can someone please update the information in the info box with the below numbers?

• Revenue: $7.97 billion

• Operating Income: $1.59 billion

• Net Income: $946 million

• Total Assets: $16.73 billion

• Total Equity: $5.52 billion

Thanks. Namk48 (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You can make edits like this yourself. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I changed it correctly, and swapped the template at the top of this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Canoe1967. My only concern is that it appears the link in the citations doesn't lead directly to the 10-k. Namk48 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be a java thingy. I left more detail on your talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've responded with a new link on my talk page. Namk48 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed unbalanced tag

I am removing the unbalanced tag from the article in good faith. It seems to me that either consensus has been reached, and there has been no further comments in a reasonable amount of time; or both.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Peabody Energy Resolves N.Y. Probe Into Climate Disclosures?

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/peabody-energy-resolves-new-york-probe-into-climate-disclosures
• http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112015/peabody-coal-climate-change-settlement-new-york-ag-exxon-subpoena-investigation
• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/19/the-truth-behind-peabodys-campaign-to-rebrand-coal-as-a-poverty-cure

And so on William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a story in the Guardian today that Peabody Energy has been at the center of the climate change denial campaign:

• Goldenberg, Suzanne; Bengtsson, Helena (13 June 2016), Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change, The Guardian, retrieved 2016-06-13.

The article may be seeing a series of posts regarding this topic. Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Prairie State Energy

First, I want to disclose that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. Please see the disclosure on my [page]. The 2001-present section of the Peabody page states that Peabody retains a five percent equity stake in the Prairie State Energy Campus clean coal project in Illinois. I want to suggest an addition noting that Peabody sold its stake in the project to the Wabash Valley Power Association in 2016. Here's a reference link. Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Amg at Peabody (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not having received any feedback on this suggested addition in the past two weeks, I have proceeded with making this addition to the Peabody page, believing it to be factual and well referenced. Please contact me via my user page with any questions. Amg at Peabody (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Self-bonding obligations

Please note that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. For more information, see the disclosure on my page. The last graph under the "Environmental record" section of the Peabody article refers to Peabody's self-bonding obligations in several states. I'd like to suggest the addition of the fact that in 2016, Peabody reached settlement agreements with Illinois, Wyoming, New Mexico and Indiana related to its self-bonding obligations. Here is a reference link for the information. Thanks for your time. Amg at Peabody (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

After not receiving any feedback on this suggested update after more than two weeks, I added the information to the section, believing it to be factual and well-referenced. Please let me know if you have any feedback. Amg at Peabody (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Request edit to mission statement

First I want to disclose that I am working with Peabody. Please see the disclosure on my user page. I'd like to suggest an edit to the statement about Peabody's mission in the second paragraph under "Environmental record." I'm suggesting the addition of the fact that as of 2017, Peabody's mission is "to create superior value for shareholders as the leading global supplier of coal, which enables economic prosperity and a better quality of life." Here is a link to the updated mission statement for reference. Thanks for your attention to this suggestion. Amg at Peabody (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Since four weeks have passed and I have not received any comment on this suggested addition, I am proceeding with adding this information to the entry, as I believe it to be factual and noncontroversial. Thanks. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Addition under Environmental Record

First, I want to note that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. Please see the disclosure on my user page. I would like to suggest the addition of updated information after the second paragraph under the "Environmental record" section. I would suggest the addition of the fact that Peabody has received 17 environmental awards in the last six years, including the 2018 National Reclamation Award from the Interstate Mining Compact Commission for its reclamation work at its Wild Boar Mine in Indiana. Here is a link for reference. Thanks for your consideration of this matter.Amg at Peabody (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I also would like to suggest that at the end of this section updated information be added regarding the fact that Peabody has restored more than 5,000 acres of mined lands into wildlife habitat, forests, farmland, rangeland and wetlands. Here's a link for reference. Thanks for taking the time to review this suggestion. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make another suggestion regarding information to add to this section, which is that in 2017, Holly Krutka, Peabody's vice president of coal generation and emissions technology, spoke on a panel at the United Nations Conference of the Parties in Bonn, Germany, where she reinforced Peabody's commitment to high efficiency-low emissions (HELE) coal-fueled generation technologies and carbon capture, utilization and storage. Here is a link with information. Thank you for your consideration. Amg at Peabody (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fortune 500 addition

First, I want to disclose that I am working with Peabody. Please see the disclosure on my [page]. I would like to suggest the addition of the fact that Peabody ranked at No. 491 in the Fortune 500 list released in 2018. Perhaps this addition could be made at the end of the fourth graph of the first section - the paragraph that also includes the company's ranking on the Fortune Admired Companies list. Here's a link for reference, and here's a link to the info from Fortune.. Thanks for taking the time to review this suggestion. Amg at Peabody (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

After not receiving any comment after 10 weeks regarding this suggested addition, I have proceeded with making the addition to the entry, believing it to be factual and well-referenced. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating sales/reserve numbers

First, I would like to disclose that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. Please see my [page] for details. I would like to suggest an update to the sales and reserve numbers in the second graph of the Peabody page entry to 2017 numbers. In 2017, Peabody recorded sales of 191.5 million tons of coal. Here's a link to the updated sales number. Also, Peabody now serves customers on six continents (as opposed to five listed in the current entry). Here's a link to that updated data. And as of Dec. 31, 2017, the company had approximately 5.2 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves, according to its annual report. Thanks for your attention to this request. Amg at Peabody (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

After not receiving feedback after six weeks on this edit, which is just an update to documented numbers, I have made the suggested changes. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition regarding diversity

First, please see the disclosure on my [page] regarding my connection with Peabody. I would like to suggest the addition of the following information at the end of the "2001-present" section: In 2017, CEO Glenn Kellow was among 175 company CEOs who signed the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion Pledge, which is focused on promoting diversity in the workplace and in the community. Here's a link to a Fortune report about the pledge, and a link to a list of participating companies. Amg at Peabody (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition regarding Coal Mining award

First, I want to disclose that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. I would like to suggest at the end of the "Environmental Record" section the addition of the fact that Peabody was honored as the 2017 Coal Mining Company of the Year by Corporate LiveWire for responsible coal mining. Here is a link to the information. Thank you for your consideration. Amg at Peabody (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Shoal Creek acquisition

First I would like to disclose that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. Please see my page for more information. I would like to suggest the addition of the following information regarding a recent acquisition by Peabody at the end of the "2001-present" section: In December 2018, Peabody completed its $387 million acquisition of the Shoal Creek mine in central Alabama from Drummond Co. Inc. The Shoal Creek mine sold 2.4 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2017, generating $387 million in revenue. Here is a link to a news report about the deal, and here is a link to the press release from the company regarding the acquisition. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding info regarding Arq investment

First, I want to disclose that I am working in conjunction with Peabody. Please see the disclosure on my page. I'd like to suggest the addition of the fact that Peabody announced in 2018 plans to invest $10 million in a partnership with London-based Arq, a company that is advancing technology to convert coal into oil products. Here's a link to a news article about the investment. Thanks for your consideration. Amg at Peabody (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not having received any feedback on this suggested addition after three weeks, I have posted it to the entry, believing it to be factual and well referenced. Amg at Peabody (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

More detail on events leading to Chapter 11 filing

Greetings Wikipedians. I think this article should mention the company's very optimistic forecast in 2011 (one of the most bullish I've ever seen), followed by four consecutive years of large losses and a bankruptcy filing. It's a sad tale, but it needs to be told, if only to educate readers as to how managements' forward-looking statements can prove disastrously inaccurate - particularly when its earnings are driven by volatie commodity prices. Therefore, I made what I think are the appropriate edits, accompanied by citations to show my sources. I am not affiliated in any way with Peabody Energy. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Coal producer

Reverted this as the company appears to be involved in coal mining. Not sure why the term producer would be used in its place. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Financial results need to be updated

Greetings Wikipedians! The table of net income/loss stops at 2020. I will endeavor to update it with the most current data available from reliable sources. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Why doesn't this include anything about the damage caused by it's Australian operations, including the company releasing coal sludge waste in Australia's oldest National Park?

Why doesn't this entry include anything about the damage caused by it's Australian operations, including the company releasing coal sludge waste in Australia's oldest National ParK? CathodeRey (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Peabody was charged with polluting the Royal National Park, Australia's oldest national park, which the company has plead guilty to. The NSW Land and Environment Court fined the company $500,000, including costs.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/195b6213fad722119d769b77

Peabody released polluted waste material into Camp Gully creek, which discharges into the Hacking River, the main waterway in the Royal National Park on numerous occasions through 2022, in January, July, August, September (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexMQOrb_mI), October, November, and December. In January 2023 the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) reported yet another spill, “grey, turbid water with possible coal material present.“ https://www.ssec.org.au/help-protect-the-royal-national-park-submission-guide-for-the-epa-review-of-peabodys-metropolitan-colliery/

In March 2023 the NSW Environment Protection Authority reviewed the mine’s license to pollute and tightened some conditions, but this has failed to prevent further damage to the park. In August 2023, the embankment of the mine site next to Camp Gully creek collapsed, and coal waste material again spilled through to the Hacking River. No effective emergency management procedures were put in place to stop the coal waste polluting the river. Coal pollution has since been seen washing up across the historic Audley Weir precinct after flood, and is still on the banks of the river. CathodeRey (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings! Mining companies are prone to violations & fines due to the nature of their business. Is the Australian dumping is incident unusual? To be fair and balanced, our article shouldn't cherry-pick one incident. But if the Australian coal sludge dump is part of a larger pattern of misbehavior, that could be worth pointing out. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC) BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts financial information box

Greetings Wikipedians! The financial numbers in Quick Facts are several years out of date. Net income should be added, because operating income doesn't tell the whole story, since it omits interest expense and taxes. If nobody else takes this on, I will make these changes. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC) BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)