BTU

Centurion Mine Advancing Toward Targeted Production Rates Seaborne Thermal Results Benefit from Higher Pricing Multiple Strategic Financial Actions Further Strengthen Capital Structure ST. LOUIS, July 29, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Peabody (NYSE: BTU) today reported net income attributable to common stockholders of $(90.6) million, or $(0.74) per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2026, compared to $(27.6) million, or $(0.23) per diluted share, in the prior-year quarter. Peabody reported Adjusted EBITDA1 of $24.0 million in the second quarter of 2026 compared to $93.3 million in the prior-year quarter. "While second quarter results reflected temporarily lower volumes and higher costs, we are already seeing those impacts mitigate across our operations. We expect improved results in the second half of the year as performance at our flagship Centurion Mine achieves targeted production rates," said Peabody President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Grech. "We're targeting strong cash generation for the second half of 2026, fueled by our seaborne metallurgical and thermal segments." Highlights Completed significant longwall commissioning activities at Centurion and are targeting 1.5 to 2.0 million tons of sales in the second half of 2026, while costs and margins progress toward targeted run-rate levels. Issued $250 million of 0.5% 2031 convertible notes, purchased a capped call with a cap price of $50.61 per share and repurchased $241.2 million of 3.25% 2028 convertible notes (with a conversion price of $18.99 per share) for cash consideration of $386.8 million, effectively repurchasing 5.0 million shares. Revised U.S. and Australia surety arrangements reducing reclamation cash collateral requirements by approximately $350 million. Increased revolving credit facility capacity to $400 million. Awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to advance rare earth elements (REE) and critical minerals (CM) development opportunities in the Powder River Basin. Coupled with the Wyoming Energy Authority grant awarded earlier this year, the company continued to progress promising REE/CM opportunities. Declared a quarterly dividend of $0.075 per share on July 29, 2026, payable on Sept. 3, 2026, to stockholders of record on Aug. 12, 2026. Second Quarter Segment Performance Seaborne Thermal delivered Adjusted EBITDA of $52.1 million in the second quarter, realizing average prices 12.4 percent higher than the first quarter amid strong coal-fueled generation across multiple Asian countries. Costs per ton of $57.93 came in at the low end of guidance, reflecting strong production volumes at Wilpinjong. Seaborne Metallurgical delivered Adjusted EBITDA of $(17.0) million in the quarter, as the continued commissioning of Centurion contributed to higher-than-expected costs. Sales volumes exceeded expectations by 0.2 million tons due to higher volumes at Metropolitan and the CMJV. Realized pricing increased 7.1 percent quarter over quarter to $148.04 per ton, supported by growing supply constraints in China. Powder River Basin delivered Adjusted EBITDA of $(7.1) million in the second quarter. Sales volumes fell below targeted levels due to milder weather extending the spring shoulder season and longer coal generation plant maintenance downtimes ahead of summer. Costs totaled $14.06 per ton, reflecting lower volumes while maintaining full utilization of the equipment fleet to uncover more coal in advance of higher expected volumes in the second half of the year. Other U.S. Thermal delivered Adjusted EBITDA of $26.9 million in the quarter. Sales volumes of 3.0 million tons came in 0.4 million tons below expectations, reflecting the impact of mild weather and heavy rainfall at the end of the quarter resulting in rail outages. Despite these challenges, costs of $46.13 per ton were in line with guidance, reflecting disciplined cost management. Centurion Update Centurion made meaningful commissioning progress during the quarter. The operating team has implemented effective processes to address face conditions while maintaining production momentum and is working through remaining roof control issues, which are due to a limited rock fault zone. With operational constraints significantly reduced, Peabody's focus is on achieving targeted production rates. The company is now targeting annual Centurion sales of 2.0 to 2.5 million tons, including 0.5 to 0.7 million tons in the third quarter. Costs are expected to trend more in line with expectations as production volumes increase. Financial Update At June 30, 2026, the company had $526.3 million cash and total liquidity of $959.1 million. "Peabody enhanced its capital structure through a series of strategic financial transactions, including an opportunistic refinancing of convertible notes, revised surety arrangements that reduced restricted cash and collateral by approximately $350 million and increased our revolving credit facility to $400 million," said Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Mark Spurbeck. "Together, these actions unlock shareholder value, jump start shareholder returns, lower borrowing costs and increase financial flexibility." During the quarter, the company issued $250 million of 2031 convertible notes at a conversion price of $38.32 per share, which was effectively increased to $50.61 per share with a related capped call transaction. The company also repurchased $241.2 million of 2028 convertible notes for cash consideration of $386.8 million, effectively repurchasing 5.0 million shares. New surety arrangements resulted in a reduction to Restricted Cash and Collateral of approximately $350 million (43 percent). The company intends to evaluate additional 2028 convertible note repurchases and share repurchases in accordance with its shareholder return policy and financial strategy to increase free cash flow per share and maintain financial resiliency. Third Quarter 2026 Outlook Seaborne Thermal Volume is expected to be 3.0 million tons, including 1.9 million export tons. 1.1 million tons of Newcastle product and 0.8 million tons of high ash product are unpriced. Costs are anticipated to be $52—$57 per ton. Seaborne Metallurgical Seaborne met volume is expected to be 1.9—2.1 million tons, a decrease from second quarter due to a longwall move at Metropolitan and an expected lock outage impacting sales at Shoal Creek. Sales are anticipated to achieve approximately 70-75 percent of the premium hard coking coal price index. Costs are anticipated to be $130—$140 per ton. U.S. Thermal PRB volume is expected to be 22 million tons at an average price of $13.60 per ton and costs of approximately $11.75—$12.25 per ton. Other U.S. Thermal volume is expected to be 3.7 million tons at an average price of $58.20 per ton and costs of approximately $45—$49 per ton. 2026 Guidance Targets For the full year outlook, the company is updating guidance. Seaborne thermal expects a volume increase of 200 thousand tons to 12.7 million tons. Seaborne met costs are expected to increase by approximately $10 per ton, primarily due to lower volumes and elevated contract labor, materials and supply costs at Centurion. The company also is increasing Powder River Basin costs by $0.25 per ton, reflecting lower first-half shipments. Today's earnings call is scheduled for 10 a.m. CT and can be accessed via the company's website at PeabodyEnergy.com. Peabody (NYSE: BTU) is a leading coal producer, providing essential products for the production of affordable, reliable energy and steel. Our commitment to sustainability underpins everything we do and shapes our strategy for the future. For further information, visit PeabodyEnergy.com. Contact:Kala FinklangEmail: [email protected] Certain forward-looking measures and metrics presented are non-GAAP financial and operating/statistical measures. Due to the volatility and variability of certain items needed to reconcile these measures to their nearest GAAP measure, no reconciliation can be provided without unreasonable cost or effort. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include words or variation of words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "seeks," "estimates," "projects," "forecasts," "targets," "would," "will," "should," "goal," "could" or "may" or other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements provide management's or the Board's current expectations or predictions of future conditions, events, or results. All statements that address operating performance, events, or developments that may occur in the future are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the shareholder return framework, execution of the Company's operating plans, market conditions for the Company's products, reclamation obligations, financial outlook, potential acquisitions and strategic investments, and liquidity requirements. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and reflect Peabody's good faith beliefs, assumptions, and expectations, but they are not guarantees of future performance or events. Furthermore, Peabody disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, a variety of economic, competitive, and regulatory factors, many of which are beyond Peabody's control, that are described in Peabody's periodic reports filed with the SEC including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2025, and other factors that Peabody may describe from time to time in other filings with the SEC. You may get such filings for free at Peabody's website at www.peabodyenergy.com. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors and, consequently, you should not consider any such list to be a complete set of all potential risks or uncertainties. View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peabody-reports-results-for-the-quarter-ended-june-30-2026-302837096.html

Interested in Peabody Energy Corporation? Here are five stocks we like better. Weak second-quarter results: Peabody reported a $90.6 million net loss and $24 million in adjusted EBITDA, pressured by lower U.S. thermal shipments and costly commissioning work at the Centurion metallurgical coal mine. Centurion remains the key operational catalyst: The mine resolved its shield-alignment problem but is still working through a roof-control zone, with 1.5 million to 2 million tons of second-half 2026 sales targeted as production improves. Liquidity and second-half outlook strengthened: Peabody ended the quarter with more than $500 million in cash and over $900 million of liquidity after refinancing and surety actions released $350 million of restricted cash, while management expects stronger U.S. coal demand and improved costs in the third quarter. Peabody Energy is a Double Threat Energy and Steel Play Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) reported a second-quarter net loss attributable to common stockholders of $90.6 million, or $0.74 per diluted share, and adjusted EBITDA of $24 million, as lower U.S. thermal volumes and elevated commissioning costs at its Centurion metallurgical coal mine weighed on results. President and CEO Jim Grech said the company made progress on operational and financial priorities during the quarter but acknowledged that the earnings result fell short of Peabody’s expectations. “$24 million of adjusted EBITDA is nowhere near the type of quarter that this platform is capable of or that we expect going forward,” Grech said. → This Tiny AI Supplier Could Be More Important Than the Chipmakers High Teck: Teck Resources Hits 12-Year High on Deal Drama Peabody exited the quarter with more than $500 million of cash and total liquidity above $900 million. The company also completed financing and surety-related transactions that it said strengthened its capital structure, reduced interest costs and released restricted cash. Centurion remained a central focus of the call. Grech said the mine has addressed a shield-alignment issue that developed during its longer-than-expected commissioning process. The issue was labor-intensive and costly to resolve, but the longwall is now “in excellent shape,” he said. → Refiner Stocks Are Near Record Highs—Can Iran-Driven Margins Keep Them There? The mine continues to encounter roof-control challenges in a faulted zone covering roughly 20% of the longwall face. Peabody expects to work through the zone during the third quarter and does not expect the issue to continue into the fourth quarter. Grech said the company has about 300 meters remaining in the affected area. Centurion is targeting 1.5 million to 2 million tons of sales in the second half of 2026, including 500,000 to 700,000 tons in the third quarter. Grech said quarterly output could vary based on mining advance rates and processing yields while the operation moves through the faulted zone. Approximately 150,000 tons of projected third-quarter Centurion production is expected to come from continuous-miner coal, according to Grech. → Innovative ETF Strategies That Are Paying Off This Summer The company said run-of-mine production, preparation-plant yields and rail shipments have improved in recent weeks. Grech said that when the longwall operates without interruptions, performance has been as good as or better than the company expected. Peabody expects costs to trend closer to long-range expectations as production rates improve in the second half. Peabody plans to provide Centurion updates in August and September, including during an Aug. 11 site visit. The company said the mine’s longwall move will occur in 2027, though it has not yet provided timing or duration guidance for that work. Chief Financial Officer Mark Spurbeck said Peabody’s seaborne thermal segment shipped 3 million tons during the quarter, including 1.9 million tons of export coal. The average realized export price was $95.87 per ton, up 11.2% from the prior quarter and 31.6% from a year earlier. Segment costs of $58 per ton were at the low end of guidance, producing a 23% adjusted EBITDA margin and more than $52 million of adjusted EBITDA. Seaborne metallurgical shipments totaled 2.5 million tons, exceeding expectations by 200,000 tons because of higher output from Metropolitan and the CMJV. However, segment costs reached $155 per ton, above guidance due primarily to Centurion commissioning costs. The segment reported an adjusted EBITDA loss of $17 million, despite a 7% sequential improvement in realized pricing. In U.S. thermal operations, Peabody reported $19.8 million of adjusted EBITDA. Powder River Basin shipments were 16.4 million tons, below the company’s 19 million-ton expectation, as mild weather extended into June and power plants completed longer maintenance outages. PRB unit costs rose to $14 per ton after the company moved an additional 11 million cubic meters of overburden to uncover coal, but Peabody expects costs to decline to about $12 per ton in the third quarter. Other U.S. thermal shipments were 3 million tons, 400,000 tons below guidance, due to the extended shoulder season and heavy Midwest rainfall that delayed deliveries. The segment produced $26.9 million of adjusted EBITDA, with costs held at $46 per ton. Chief Commercial Officer Malcolm Roberts said seaborne metallurgical and thermal coal markets remained constructive in the second quarter, while U.S. thermal demand was softer because of mild weather and lower natural-gas prices. Premium hard coking coal averaged $238 per ton in the quarter, up 29% from the prior-year period, Roberts said. He attributed supply tightening in part to mine-safety inspections and curtailed production in China’s Shanxi province following a mine accident. Peabody estimates that 30 million tons of production were removed from supply during the second quarter. Newcastle 6,000-calorie thermal coal averaged $137 per ton, more than 35% above the prior-year level, according to Roberts. He cited strong coal-fired generation across Asia and elevated liquefied natural gas prices amid Middle East conflict. Indonesia’s expected lower coal output could further constrain seaborne thermal supply, he said. For the third quarter, Peabody expects: Seaborne thermal volumes of 3 million tons, including 1.9 million tons of export coal, with costs of $52 to $57 per ton. Seaborne metallurgical volumes of 1.9 million to 2.1 million tons, with costs of $130 to $140 per ton. Powder River Basin shipments of 22 million tons at costs of about $12 per ton. Other U.S. thermal shipments of 3.7 million tons, with an average price of $58.20 per ton and costs of $45 to $49 per ton. Roberts said the company expects a seasonal increase in U.S. coal burn during the second half and indicated that the midpoint of Peabody’s U.S. thermal guidance is the appropriate assumption based on current grid demand conditions. During the quarter, Peabody issued $250 million of 0.5% convertible notes due 2031 and used the proceeds, along with balance-sheet cash, to redeem $241.2 million of its 3.25% 2028 convertible notes for $386.8 million. Spurbeck said the $145.6 million redemption premium effectively represented the repurchase of more than 5 million shares at a weighted average price of $28.92 per share. The transactions raised the average conversion price of Peabody’s convertible notes to $38.31 per share from $18.99, reduced diluted shares by 6.2 million and lowered annual interest expense by $6.6 million. The company also revised its global surety arrangements, freeing $350 million of restricted cash and collateral. Spurbeck said that amount was fully available and included in cash balances as of June 30. Peabody increased its revolving credit facility to $400 million, extended its maturity to June 2030 and reduced borrowing costs by 25 basis points. Year to date, Peabody generated $145.3 million of available free cash flow, including the release of restricted cash and collateral. It used $145.6 million for the convertible-note repurchase premium and paid $18.3 million in cash dividends, resulting in a shareholder payout ratio above 100% for the first half. Grech said Peabody intends to continue executing its shareholder return program and may consider both open-market share repurchases and additional purchases of its remaining convertible notes, depending on market conditions. Peabody Energy Corporation is one of the world's largest private-sector coal companies, engaged primarily in the production and sale of metallurgical and thermal coal. The company's operations span surface and underground mines, serving utilities, steel mills and other industrial customers that rely on coal as an essential component in power generation and steelmaking. Peabody's product portfolio includes high-energy thermal coal for electricity generation and low-volatile metallurgical coal used in steel production, reflecting its diverse end-market reach. Founded in 1883, Peabody Energy has grown from a regional mining concern into a global energy supplier. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "Peabody Energy Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for July 2026.

Coal mining company Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) met Wall Street’s revenue expectations in Q2 CY2026, with sales up 12.7% year on year to $1.00 billion. Its GAAP loss of $0.74 per share was 75.9% below analysts’ consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy Peabody Energy? Find out in our full research report. Revenue: $1.00 billion vs analyst estimates of $1.00 billion (12.7% year-on-year growth, in line) EPS (GAAP): -$0.74 vs analyst expectations of -$0.42 (75.9% miss) Market Capitalization: $2.83 billion "While second quarter results reflected temporarily lower volumes and higher costs, we are already seeing those impacts mitigate across our operations. We expect improved results in the second half of the year as performance at our flagship Centurion Mine achieves targeted production rates," said Peabody President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Grech. Beginning with a single wagon hauling coal in Illinois back when Grover Cleveland was president, Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) mines coal used by electricity generators and steel manufacturers. A company’s long-term performance can give signals about its business quality. Even a bad business, especially in a cyclical industry, can shine for a year or so, but a top-tier one should exhibit resilience through cycles. Over the last five years, Peabody Energy grew its sales at a tepid 7.6% compounded annual growth rate. This fell short of our benchmark for the energy upstream and integrated energy sector and is a poor baseline for our analysis. Within Energy, a singular timeframe, even if it’s quite long-term, only sheds light on how well a company rode the last commodity cycle. To better assess whether a company compounds through cycles, we validate our view with an even longer, ten-year view. Peabody Energy’s performance shows it grew in the past five-year but relinquished its gains over the last ten years, as its revenue fell by 1.8% annually. This quarter, Peabody Energy’s year-on-year revenue growth was 12.7%, and its $1.00 billion of revenue was in line with Wall Street’s estimates. ALSO WORTH WATCHING: Nvidia’s Quiet Partner. Nvidia’s chips cost a hundred grand. The connectors that make them work cost even more. One company makes them all. Every AI server needs specialized infrastructure the chip companies don’t make. High-speed cables. Power connectors. Thermal sensors. This 90-year-old company built a monopoly on it. The AI boom just started. This stock is still flying under the radar. Claim The Stock Ticker Here for FREE. Peabody Energy was profitable over the last five years but held back by its large cost base. Its average EBITDA margin of 25.6% was weak for an upstream and integrated energy business. Analyzing the trend in its profitability, Peabody Energy’s EBITDA margin decreased by 30.3 percentage points over the last year. Peabody Energy’s performance was poor no matter how you look at it - it shows that costs were rising and it couldn’t pass them onto its customers. in line with the same quarter last year. This indicates the company’s overall cost structure has been relatively stable. As mentioned above, adjusted EBITDA ignores capital structure and drilling expenditure decisions. These are two huge aspects of an Energy producer, so in order to understand a comprehensive picture of business quality, an investor needs to account for these. Said differently, adjusted EBITDA margins could be solid but free cash flow is abysmal because decline rates of the asset are extreme and the drilling is expensive. Free cash flow tells you about not only the economics of the production that has happened but how much it costs to stay in business as well (further drilling or extraction). Peabody Energy has shown decent cash profitability, giving it some flexibility to reinvest or return capital to investors. The company’s free cash flow margin averaged 9.9% over the last five years, slightly better than the broader energy upstream and integrated energy sector. The level of free cash flow is important, but its durability across cycles is just as critical. Consistent margins are far more valuable than volatile swings driven by commodity prices. Peabody Energy’s ratio of quarterly free cash flow volatility to WTI crude price volatility over the past five years was 13.6 (lower is better), indicating that its cash generation is far more sensitive to commodity-price swings than most peers. This elevated volatility limits its access to capital in downturns and makes it unlikely to act as a consolidator when weaker competitors come under pressure. You may be asking why we wait until the free cash flow line to perform this stability analysis versus commodity prices. Why not compare revenue or EBITDA to WTI in the case of Peabody Energy? Because what ultimately matters is not how much revenue or profit you earn when prices are high but how much cash you can generate when prices are low. Free cash flow is the superior metric because it includes everything from hedging prowess to growth and maintenance capex to management behavior during good times and bad. We struggled to find many positives in these results. Overall, this was a softer quarter. The stock traded down 4.8% to $22.12 immediately following the results. Peabody Energy’s earnings report left more to be desired. Let’s look forward to see if this quarter has created an opportunity to buy the stock. When making that decision, it’s important to consider its valuation, business qualities, as well as what has happened in the latest quarter. We cover that in our actionable full research report which you can read here, it’s free.

As the Q1 earnings season wraps, let’s dig into this quarter’s best and worst performers in the mixed or offshore upstream e&p industry, including Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) and its peers. This category includes smaller or niche E&P companies operating in specialized basins, geographies, or resource types outside major classifications. These firms may target unconventional resources, frontier regions, or specific commodity niches. Tailwinds include potential for outsized returns from successful exploration, acquisition opportunities during industry downturns, and specialized expertise commanding premium valuations. Headwinds include higher operational and geological risks, limited scale reducing negotiating power and cost efficiencies, and constrained capital market access during challenging commodity environments. Regulatory risks and ESG concerns may disproportionately affect smaller operators with fewer resources for compliance. The 21 mixed or offshore upstream e&p stocks we track reported a satisfactory Q1. As a group, revenues missed analysts’ consensus estimates by 5%. Amidst this news, share prices of the companies have had a rough stretch. On average, they are down 6% since the latest earnings results. Beginning with a single wagon hauling coal in Illinois back when Grover Cleveland was president, Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) mines coal used by electricity generators and steel manufacturers. Peabody Energy reported revenues of $973.3 million, up 3.9% year on year. This print was in line with analysts’ expectations, but overall, it was a disappointing quarter for the company with a significant miss of analysts’ EBITDA and EPS estimates. "Amid volatility in global energy markets, our thermal segments benefited from strong demand and higher realized pricing," said President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Grech. Interestingly, the stock is up 7.1% since reporting and currently trades at $28.41. Read our full report on Peabody Energy here, it’s free. Operating in water depths reaching 12,000 feet below the surface, Seadrill (NYSE:SDRL) owns and operates drillships and semi-submersible rigs that drill oil and gas wells in deepwater offshore locations. Seadrill reported revenues of $358 million, up 6.9% year on year, outperforming analysts’ expectations by 7.2%. The business had an incredible quarter with a beat of analysts’ EPS and EBITDA estimates. Although it had a fine quarter compared to its peers, the market seems unhappy with the results as the stock is down 5.9% since reporting. It currently trades at $45.46. Is now the time to buy Seadrill? Access our full analysis of the earnings results here, it’s free. Taking a hands-off approach to energy production, Vitesse Energy (NYSE:VTS) owns non-operated stakes in oil and natural gas wells primarily in North Dakota and Montana's Williston Basin. Vitesse Energy reported revenues of $67.41 million, up 1.9% year on year, falling short of analysts’ expectations by 6.8%. It was a disappointing quarter as it posted a significant miss of analysts’ EBITDA and EPS estimates. As expected, the stock is down 6.4% since the results and currently trades at $17.86. Read our full analysis of Vitesse Energy’s results here. Operating one of the largest dairy-based renewable natural gas facilities in the United States, Gevo (NASDAQ:GEVO) produces sustainable aviation fuel and other renewable hydrocarbon fuels from plant-based feedstocks like corn. Gevo reported revenues of $42.95 million, up 47.5% year on year. This print missed analysts’ expectations by 5%. Overall, it was a slower quarter as it also logged EPS in line with analysts’ estimates. The stock is down 20.9% since reporting and currently trades at $1.61. Read our full, actionable report on Gevo here, it’s free. Operating one of North America's largest ethanol platforms with capacity to process 310 million bushels of corn annually, Green Plains (NASDAQ:GPRE) operates ten biorefineries that convert corn into ethanol for fuel, distillers grains for animal feed, and renewable corn oil. Green Plains reported revenues of $445.8 million, down 25.9% year on year. This result came in 15.8% below analysts’ expectations. Zooming out, it was actually a very strong quarter as it put up a beat of analysts’ EPS estimates and a solid beat of analysts’ EBITDA estimates. The stock is down 12.3% since reporting and currently trades at $14.89. Read our full, actionable report on Green Plains here, it’s free. Late in 2025 into early 2026, there was hand-wringing around artificial intelligence. For software companies, the fear was that AI would erode pricing power and compress margins as new tools made it easier to replicate what once required expensive enterprise platforms. Crypto investors had their own version of the same anxiety: if AI agents could trade, allocate capital, and manage wallets autonomously, what exactly was the long-term value of today’s crypto infrastructure? These concerns triggered a noticeable rotation away from these sectors and into safer havens. But markets rarely dwell on one narrative for long. Spring 2026 came, and the focus shifted abruptly from technological disruption to geopolitical risk. The US’ conflict with Iran became the dominant driver of market psychology, and when geopolitics takes center stage, the script changes quickly. Investors stop debating growth rates and start worrying about oil supply, inflation, and global stability. Want to invest in winners with rock-solid fundamentals? Check out our Strong Momentum Stocks and add them to your watchlist. These companies are poised for growth regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate. StockStory’s analyst team — all seasoned professional investors — uses quantitative analysis and automation to deliver market-beating insights faster and with higher quality.

Peabody Energy has been treading water for the past six months, recording a small loss of 4.1% while holding steady at $26.11. The stock also fell short of the S&P 500’s 9.1% gain during that period. Is there a buying opportunity in Peabody Energy, or does it present a risk to your portfolio? Get the full stock story straight from our expert analysts, it’s free. We're cautious about Peabody Energy. Here are three reasons why BTU doesn't excite us and a stock we'd rather own. Cyclical sectors like Energy often flatter weaker operators during favorable price environments, but a longer-term lens separates those from businesses that can consistently perform across market cycles. Unfortunately, Peabody Energy’s 7.7% annualized revenue growth over the last five years was tepid. This fell short of our benchmark for the energy upstream and integrated energy sector. While energy gross margins can be distorted by commodity prices, hedging, and short-term cost swings, sustained margins across a full cycle reflect a producer’s underlying asset quality, infrastructure position, and cost structure. Peabody Energy, which averaged 24.9% gross margin over the last five years, exhibiting bottom-tier unit economics in the sector. It means the company will struggle at higher commodity prices than peers with better gross margins. Adjusted EBITDA margin strips out accounting distortions tied to depletion and historical drilling spend, providing a clearer view of the cash-generating power of the underlying asset base before financing and reinvestment decisions. Analyzing the trend in its profitability, Peabody Energy’s EBITDA margin decreased by 25.1 percentage points over the last year. Peabody Energy’s performance was poor no matter how you look at it - it shows that costs were rising and it couldn’t pass them onto its customers. Its EBITDA margin for the trailing 12 months was 10.1%. We cheer for all companies serving everyday consumers, but in the case of Peabody Energy, we’ll be cheering from the sidelines. With its shares underperforming the market lately, the stock trades at 4× forward EV-to-EBITDA (or $26.11 per share). This valuation tells us a lot of optimism is priced in - we think other companies feature superior fundamentals at the moment. Let us point you toward the Amazon and PayPal of Latin America. ONE MORE THING: Top 6 Stocks for This Week. This market is separating quality stocks from expensive ones fast. AI taking down whole sectors with no warning. In a rotation this fast, you need more than a list of good companies. Our AI system flagged Palantir before it ran 1,662%. AppLovin before it ran 753%. Nvidia before it ran 1,178%. Each week it produces 6 new names that pass the same tests. Get Our Top 6 Stocks for Free HERE. Stocks that have made our list include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,326% between June 2020 and June 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-small-cap company Comfort Systems (+782% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.

Image source: The Motley Fool. May 5, 2026 President and Chief Executive Officer — James C. Grech President and Chief Operating Officer — Malcolm Roberts Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer — Mark A. Spurbeck Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email [email protected] James C. Grech: One of the world's largest hedge funds recently commented to us that Peabody Energy Corporation was at the intersection of some of the most significant themes going on in America, and I could not agree more. Consider a few of these. The AI data center theme continues to play out, with new investments being announced weekly. When coupled with plans for increased U.S. manufacturing, this means power generation will struggle to keep up with demand for the foreseeable future. U.S. coal plants’ reliability and affordability also continue to be emphasized. During the coldest days of last winter, for instance, fossil fuels provided more than 90% of the additional U.S. generation needed versus just 4% for wind and solar. The often quoted national average of 16% of electricity from coal also does not do justice to the workload, reliability, and economics that coal power generation provides in certain states. For example, our home state of Missouri gets approximately 60% of its electricity from coal, while California has virtually no coal-fueled power. As a result, Missouri's average cost of electricity was just $0.11 per kilowatt-hour last year, but California power averaged $0.27, nearly two and a half times that of Missouri. The third quarter continued to see two 202 executive orders to keep coal-fueled generating plants open and utilities announcing additional extensions. The count of life extensions for U.S. coal-fueled generation now totals 58 units and 46 gigawatts of generation, more than a quarter of the total installed base. This comes as the Trump administration continues to implement common sense policies. In the third quarter alone, we saw federal funding and an emergency order to extend the lives of coal plants, a 5.5% reduction in the federal coal royalty rate, and an upcoming 2.5% production tax credit from the one big beautiful bill. We also saw a growing national focus on securing rare earth elements and critical minerals. We have long said that our leading U.S. thermal coal platform, and particularly our Powder River Basin position, represents a free option for investors. To extend that analogy, today, that option is nicely in the money. With that brief overview, Malcolm, I will now turn the call over to you to give more color on the markets. Malcolm Roberts: Thanks, Jim, and good morning, everyone. I will begin with a look at the seaborne markets, where the notable change in metallurgical coal this past quarter has been how unchanged those markets have been. Consider this: the normally volatile premium hard coking coal benchmark price averaged $184 per metric ton in the third quarter, which is the same as the price it averaged in Q2 and just a dollar per ton lower than Q1. The global steel story has continued to center around China's anti-involution policies, which appear to be firming as the country looks to trim unprofitable supply. China's crude steel production is down roughly 3% year to date. Unfortunately, domestic steel demand has also been sluggish, so Chinese steel exports are still running at elevated levels. Lower crude steel production in traditional markets outside China has tempered the benefit of new blast furnaces in India and the incremental coal imports they represent. I will remind listeners that while China imports less than 20% of its metallurgical coal demand, India imports 90% of its steelmaking coal needs. We note that in recent days, China has been aggressively pursuing imports of premium seaborne coking coals as domestic pricing in China has risen to a level that makes imports attractive. Seaborne met coal supply continued to see challenges this past quarter, with some producers struggling at these sustained low pricing levels. We estimate that 45 million tonnes of seaborne met coal production, or 15% of seaborne supply, is earning an unsustainable level of revenue at current price levels. Benchmark prices today stand at approximately $195 per metric ton. Next year's spot curve is in the $215 range. This coming quarter, we will be looking at the pace of Chinese policies and the strength of the restocking cycle in both India and China. Seaborne thermal coal saw some support in the third quarter, with the average benchmark price up 8%. Positives for demand include developed Asian markets in Korea and Taiwan favoring Australian imports over Russian coals, while Chinese coastal plant stockpiles stand at a twelve-month low. Anti-involution policies are touching all of China's coal mines, where there are 276-day work limits, safety checks, and production quotas that invariably have an impact on most. Enforcement has been observed but has been sporadic. On the supply side, seaborne thermal production is adjusting, with large exporting nations such as Indonesia and Colombia curtailing unprofitable production. An improving market balance is reflected in the forward seaborne thermal benchmark price contango, with next year's Newcastle pricing up 9% above current levels. During Q4, we will see if the recent rebound in Chinese imports accelerates. Within U.S. markets, I will reinforce Jim's initial remarks. The favorable trends we have discussed all year are well intact. Through nine months, total U.S. electricity demand is up 2% over the prior year. That relates mostly to the early-stage buildout of data centers and increased load growth from AI. Electricity demand growth only looks to expand, with ICF International, for instance, forecasting 25% growth within five years and 78% growth within 25 years. Peabody Energy Corporation has been saying that increasing utilization of existing coal plants represents the best form of incremental power in the U.S., and that is exactly what has occurred year to date. Percentage growth in U.S. coal generation has been five times greater than overall electricity generation growth. The 11% increase in U.S. coal burn this year has been driven by good fundamentals, including natural gas prices that have averaged $3.45 per MMBtu, leading to gas generation being down 3%. And those trends may well be repeated next year with a forward curve for natural gas averaging an even stronger $4. Our view is spare generation capacity could provide substantial growth in coal consumption while filling the electron gap. First, consider the landscape in the U.S. Renewables continue to be built out but do not solve the massive 24/7 reliability needs when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Renewable saturation is a real concept. Gas plants are being built; however, new turbines ordered today may be five years away from being delivered, given backlogs. Additional nuclear generation is fine, but at least a decade or fifteen years away from reality. For those keeping score on coal plant longevity, add three coal-fueled plants in North Carolina to the list of those being extended. And these plants are not just being kept in service; they are generating more electrons: 42% of capacity in 2024. The fleet can never run at 100%, of course, but optimal levels could look a lot like 2008. Coal plants ran at 72% utilization. Closing that gap could add 10% of generation to the U.S. electrical grid without needing to add any new plants, and that increase could translate to some 250 million tons or more per year of additional thermal coal demand. Now, that is not a projection; it is just simple math. However, it does provide a compelling case for coal's rebound in the U.S. and one that has already begun to play out this year. From a supply standpoint, providing those additional tonnes to meet growing U.S. generation can come somewhat from running mines harder and utilizing latent capacity. You have seen that from Peabody Energy Corporation, with U.S. shipments up 7% year to date. With higher coal burn, we also estimate that U.S. generated inventories are down 14% from this time last year. Market fundamentals continue to tighten. We have begun to see price indices increase while natural gas prices have risen across the curve. Coal continues to present attractive economics. That is a brief review of the coal market dynamics. I will now pass the call over to Mark. Mark A. Spurbeck: Thanks, Malcolm, and good morning all. I will start with a quick overview. We delivered another strong financial quarter, with adjusted EBITDA increasing from Q2, driven by higher Powder River Basin shipments, better than expected seaborne thermal coal volume, and the lowest metallurgical coal cost we have seen in several years, despite burdensome Queensland royalties. At September 30, our cash position was $603 million and total liquidity exceeded $950 million, ensuring we have the financial flexibility to manage short-term market volatility while fully capturing upside from more favorable price. Together with the increased operating leverage from Centurion, we expect to be positioned to generate free cash flow and deliver outsized returns to shareholders. Let us take a closer look at our financial performance for the third quarter. We recorded a GAAP net loss attributable to common stockholders of $70.1 million, or $0.58 per diluted share, which included $54 million of acquisition termination costs, primarily related to financing arrangements, transition services, and legal fees. We reported adjusted EBITDA of just under $100 million, generated $122 million in operating cash flow, and continued completing development at Centurion South, now just three months away from starting the longwall. Turning to operating segment performance, Seaborne Thermal recorded $41 million of adjusted EBITDA and 17% margins. Sales volumes exceeded company expectations, with an increase of 500,000 tons quarter over quarter as the company recovered the delayed tons from long Newcastle shipping queues in Q2 and then some. The segment expanded margins by 10% from Q2, demonstrating the continued strength of our low-cost Australian thermal platform. The Seaborne Metallurgical segment reported adjusted EBITDA of $28 million. Revenue per ton rose 6% quarter over quarter due to a higher product quality mix, enhanced by 210,000 tons of Centurion premium hard coking coal. Costs were significantly better than company targets, with cost improvements achieved at all five met coal operations. The U.S. Thermal mines generated $59 million of adjusted EBITDA on the improved domestic demand that Jim and Malcolm discussed. On a year-to-date basis, our U.S. Thermal platform has delivered nearly $150 million of cash flow, and EBITDA has outpaced capital by an almost five-to-one margin. The Powder River Basin delivered $52 million of adjusted EBITDA, a 20% increase from the prior quarter. Margin per ton improved 6% driven by higher volume and reported costs at the low end of guidance. The new lower federal royalty rate improved costs by $0.70 per ton, but reduced revenue by $0.30 as certain contracts require law changes to be passed on to customers. To get a better sense of the momentum building in the PRB, shipments are up 10% year over year, yet margins have improved by 39%, resulting in a 53% increase in reported EBITDA compared to the prior year. The Other U.S. Thermal segment contributed a modest $7 million of adjusted EBITDA in the third quarter. Sales volumes met company expectations despite an unplanned five-week dragline outage at Bear Run, which led to a production loss of 400,000 tons. That was mostly offset by a drawdown of inventory, resulting in a net sales reduction of 100,000 tons. Related repair costs totaled $2.5 million, temporarily increasing costs above expected levels. The dragline resumed operating on September 18, and we do not anticipate any impact on fourth quarter production. Also, the Twentymile team completed the longwall move to the 11 East panel in October. We expect to return to normal production rates going forward, though we anticipate less-than-ratable sales in the fourth quarter as we rebuild inventory. Lastly, we recorded a one-time $5.5 million charge in the Corporate and Other segment for the settlement of claims related to a dispute over the calculation of overtime at our U.S. operations. Looking ahead to the fourth quarter, Seaborne Thermal volumes are expected to be 3.2 million tons, including 2.1 million tons of export coal, 200,000 tons of which are priced on average at $100 per ton. 800,000 tons of Newcastle product and 1.1 million tons of high-ash coal remain unpriced. Seaborne Thermal costs are expected to be between $45 and $48 per ton, an improvement over prior implied fourth quarter guidance. As a reminder, Wambo Underground came offline in the third quarter. Going forward, we anticipate a Seaborne Thermal quality mix of 40% Newcastle and 60% higher-ash product. Seaborne Met volumes are targeted at 2.4 million tons, up 300,000 from the third quarter, while costs are expected to be $112.50 per ton, better than prior full-year guidance. In the PRB, we expect shipments of 23 million tons at costs of $11.25 per ton, both better than prior implied fourth quarter guidance. Other U.S. Thermal coal shipments are expected to be just slightly below the third quarter at 3.6 million tons, as we rebuild inventory and production ramps up at Twentymile following the longwall move. Costs are anticipated to be approximately $45 per ton, a $5 improvement from the prior quarter. With Wambo Underground closing as planned, we anticipate certain non-reclamation costs to be reported in the Corporate and Other segment. These costs are very much front-end loaded and estimated at $9 million in the fourth quarter. After third quarter's results, we are making favorable changes to full-year guidance for the second quarter in a row. Seaborne Thermal volumes are anticipated to be 350,000 tons higher at 15.1 to 15.4 million. Seaborne Met cost targets have improved by an additional $2.50 to $115 per ton at the midpoint. PRB volumes are anticipated to be 3 million tons higher at 84 to 86 million, while costs are being lowered another $0.25 to $11.25 to $11.75 per ton. With the recent challenges at Bear Run and Twentymile behind us, we are adjusting Other U.S. Thermal full-year volume to be at or slightly below the previous low end of guidance at 13.2 to 13.4 million tons, and full-year costs $2 per ton higher at $45 to $49 per ton. In summary, we delivered another straightforward quarter, underscoring the continued discipline of our operations team. This Centurion South investment is nearly complete; we are well positioned to significantly expand margins. We expect another consistent quarter to end the year. We remain confident in our ability to bring Centurion online early next year and deliver stronger cash flow. Our robust balance sheet provides flexibility to navigate near-term seaborne weakness, capitalize on accelerating cash flows as conditions improve, and create significant value for our shareholders. Thank you. I will now turn the call back over to Jim. James C. Grech: Thanks, Mark. I would like to briefly review our core priorities, which play into Peabody Energy Corporation's compelling investment themes. First, we are highly focused on safe, productive, and environmentally sound operations. That is our key to everything else we do. Second, we are on our final approach to Centurion’s longwall start-up. Centurion joins our multiproduct met coal platform that will see a volume increase of approximately 25% in 2026. Third, we believe our low-cost thermal coal platform will continue to deliver EBITDA well ahead of its modest CapEx needs. Fourth, our leading U.S. Thermal position will continue to benefit from the rising domestic generation trends. And fifth, we will maintain a fortress balance sheet with a focus on maximizing shareholder returns. Our sixth priority is also our newest, which is to leverage our number one U.S. coal production position to assess our potential to meet growing U.S. needs for rare earth elements and critical minerals. We told you last quarter that we saw rare earth and critical mineral potential from preliminary studies performed in conjunction with the University of Wyoming, and the new sampling and laboratory analysis program was beginning in the third quarter. Preliminary data from our targeted zones indicate that we have similar or better concentration than others have reported in the PRB. We acknowledge that we are in the early stages in our assessment of our potential to produce critical minerals and rare earth elements with sustainable processes that could potentially generate attractive returns for our shareholders. In continuation of this assessment, we have multiple activities currently underway. We have accelerated our drilling program as we continue our assessment of both types and concentrations of rare earth elements in conjunction with several third-party labs. We are in discussion with multiple departments in the Trump administration regarding rare earth and critical mineral priorities and potential for funding. We also have been in early discussions with a number of potential technology partners regarding processing platforms. I would describe our actions as aggressive in pacing, yet disciplined in approach. By our year-end reporting early next year, we will look to provide a greater sense of mineral types and concentrations while also discussing next-stage plans. With that, operator, we can now open up the line to questions. Operator: Thank you. We will now open the call for questions. To ask a question, you may press star then 1 on your touchtone phone. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star then 2. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. First question comes from the line of Nick Childs with B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead. Analyst: Yes, thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. My first question, obviously some key tailwinds for domestic thermal this year, and Malcolm, you mentioned optimal coal-fired utilizations could be in the 70s. That would imply 250 million tons of demand. In this blue-sky scenario, how should we think about Peabody Energy Corporation’s response? What is the maximum level of output we could see Peabody Energy Corporation producing in the PRB, how much capital would be required, and how long would it take to ultimately achieve this level? Malcolm Roberts: I will talk about the market, and then capital I will hand over to Jim or Mark, depending on who wants to take it. When we look at this market, there was quite a bit of latent capacity available over the last couple of years that we are seeing fill up very quickly. It is a great question because the expansion is going to come from two things. One is going to be customer commitments. Adding on capacity is not something you do for one year, so it is going to need customer commitments. And then we will be looking for the price signals, and we will see what the market does in terms of pricing those to bring those additional tons on. I think that is the best way to look at it, but I would say we see ourselves approaching absorbing the latent capacity that we have had over the last couple of years. Mark A. Spurbeck: Good morning, Nick. I think Malcolm has it exactly right. You look at what we have done, particularly in the PRB, increasing our volumes by 10 million tons from the beginning of the year, so that latent capacity is really being taken up in the market. We have seen our peers do something similar. There is going to be additional demand if any of these projections for load growth continue to bear out like we have seen so far this year. The amount of capital it is going to take remains to be seen, but certainly we are going to need to see the economics and prices in coal to justify the additional investment. There are two things when I think about additional production: one is the capital, mainly the equipment fleet; but two is also the labor and getting a workforce assembled to produce this additional tonnage. Latent capacity is being taken up, and additional volumes are going to come at higher costs. Analyst: This is really helpful. Just as a follow-up here, you mentioned price signals and customer commitments. What would you need to see from a duration perspective? Would you need to see 2030-type commitments at this point to deploy incremental capital? And any volume figure—could we see 10 million more tons, 20 million more tons? Appreciate any clarity there. Mark A. Spurbeck: With that 10 million ton increase this year, that is pretty much running at our full-out run rate, so there is no additional latent capacity to speak of, particularly at our NARM mine, which is the largest mine. With regard to the type of commitments, we are seeing multiyear commitments from customers already and a lot of inquiries. It would look the same as any other investment: we have to see a return. How much can we do on an as-needed basis, on a leasing basis versus outright investment and purchase? That is to be determined. But we fully expect, with latent capacity being taken up this year, to see upward pricing pressure. We are seeing it already, and I expect that could continue next year, particularly if that forward curve on gas above $4 is right next year. Analyst: Got it. Thanks for that. Switching gears, obviously you have Centurion coming on here shortly and that will reweight you towards the benchmark. But with the termination of the Anglo deal, how are you thinking about M&A opportunities in met going forward? Do you still have a desire to further reweight your met portfolio to higher quality grades beyond what we will see at Centurion? James C. Grech: Hi, Nick. Good morning. Our focus has been on growing the seaborne metallurgical coal, and with the position we are in right now, our entire focus is on getting the Centurion mine up and running and getting it to the maximum capacity possible, and we are in good shape to do that. One of the things that we are addressing, which is going well, as Mark said, is labor. We have 160 of the 400 employees hired that we need to get to full capacity, and we anticipate being able to get up to full labor complement as the longwall is coming online. Our focus really is on getting the Centurion mine up and running, maximizing the output from that mine, and then really taking advantage of the U.S. tailwinds that we have—following up on your questions—getting as many tons out as economically as we can from our U.S. platform. That is where our focus is, and if the market unfolds as we think it has the potential next year to do so, with the upward pricing pressures domestically and internationally, our focus on our organic assets positions us for very robust cash flow potential. Of course, that can work back to share buybacks and so on for our shareholders. That is really where the focus of our company is going forward. Analyst: That is clear, Jim. I appreciate the update, and best of luck. Operator: The next question comes from Nathan Martin with Benchmark Company. Please go ahead. Analyst: Thanks, operator. Good morning, everyone. Just back to the PRB for one second. You said the operation, I think, is basically running at the max at this point. If we look out to the next two years, 2026–2027, are you seeing enough demand to continue running at that max? And roughly how contracted are you and at what price at that level? Malcolm Roberts: Malcolm here. I think there are two questions. Are we confident about running at max capacity for the next couple of years? The answer is definitely yes in the PRB. The second question was what we think price levels will be. I cannot comment on that, except we are encouraged by where we have seen index price movements and where we are doing business today. Analyst: And, Malcolm, can you just clarify—go ahead. Sorry. James C. Grech: I am sorry, Nate. Jim. If there is something to take from what Malcolm and Mark have been saying, it is that we are seeing an environment in the market where demand certainty is increasing, and the ability for U.S. producers to quickly add production is going to be the challenge, and that should result in upward pricing pressure. There is going to be value to the first movers on the customer side who step out and enter into these multiyear agreements, securing the reliability that they are looking for, and we have been seeing some of that. This inflection point has real potential to hit the market: demand increasing quickly, coal plant utilization wanting to increase to go along with it, and how quickly the production side can respond. For the production side to respond, we need to see more long-term agreements put in place where we can justify the investment, as Mark was talking about. It could make for a pretty volatile pricing environment going forward if these demand projections hold as we are seeing many consultants forecast. Analyst: Got it. Appreciate those comments. Shifting to the met segment, clearly a nice quarter-over-quarter improvement in cost per ton there. As you look ahead to 2026 and the start of the Centurion longwall, should we expect that to drive another incremental improvement? I believe you said that was going to be the lowest cost operation in the segment. How should we think about how met segment costs could compare to 2025 guidance? Some puts and takes would be helpful. Thanks. Mark A. Spurbeck: Yes, Nate. We are not sharing guidance for 2026 yet. We will do that on our next call. Over the 25-year life, Centurion will be the lowest-cost producer in the portfolio. We talked about the South having some shorter panels and lower production—a run rate of about 3.5 million tons or so next year versus a life-of-mine of 4.7 million. So there will be some give or take there. I would not look for any step change next year. Analyst: That is fair. One final one: thoughts on potential scenarios for how you see the arbitration process with Anglo playing out? And specifically, are there any further adjustments to your results—like the $54 million charge we saw this quarter—expected going forward? James C. Grech: Nate, I will talk about the process, and then I will let Mark comment about any other adjustments. Our analysis of the MAC, which was a prospective analysis, we feel has been confirmed by events and the passage of time and, of course, the enormous loss of value that we see. We have hired two prominent law firms, Jones Day and Quinn Emanuel, and they have done their analysis and they join us in a high level of confidence in our position. An arbitration process probably takes years, and we are on the front end of that process. I cannot predict how long it is going to take, but it will take a while to get to any resolution. As each day passes, we get more and more firm in our conviction of our position. Now as far as any other expenses looking forward, I will give that to Mark. Mark A. Spurbeck: On the $54 million charge for the quarter, that brings the year-to-date charge to $75 million. That is a lot of cost that would have been capitalized had we been able to complete the transaction, primarily related to the bridge financing arrangements. That was significantly most of it—about $45 million of the year-to-date charge. There is also about $15 million of professional fees and transition services. That is really a catch-up to where we are at, and that is obviously stopped now. I would not expect anything significant like you have seen. There will be some legal defense costs going forward. We estimate that at about $5 million a year. Analyst: Very helpful. I appreciate the time, and best of luck in the fourth quarter. Operator: The next question comes from the line of George Eddy with UBS. Please go ahead. Analyst: Good day, Jim, Mark, Malcolm, and Vic. Hope you are all well. Can I ask more about rare earths in the PRB? In terms of details we will get by year end, should we expect to see grades, volumes, costs, and potential timeline to get to market—all of those by year end? James C. Grech: George, what we said is we are in the very early stages of our assessment, which is ongoing. We are getting some preliminary data in; it is being analyzed. We are getting more data in and more analysis is needed. We have accelerated our drilling program with that as well. What we are planning to give at our year-end results in February is a preliminary analysis of indicative element types and concentrations. That is what we will be giving at that point in time. Analyst: Okay. You had called out earlier similar or better grades than peers. Is it reasonable for me to assume that it is similar to other pits—heavy in scandium and gallium where the value is? And lastly on that, can you help elaborate on discussions on partnerships with the current administration? You are a leading player in both coal and critical minerals—two clear top priorities. How are they approaching this in your discussions? James C. Grech: There are a few things there. First off, I am not going to get speculative on the types and concentrations. We will have that in just a few months. We want to make sure that we are very thorough in how we approach this. We take a disciplined, systematic approach. We will get all the sampling done and the data in, and when we give our year-end report in February, we will give the information we have at that time. We are not going to get speculative right now on concentrations and types. We have been very active with the Trump administration, meeting with various departments in Washington and we even have more upcoming meetings in the near future. We are working closely with them. As you said, with the volumes we do in coal and the potential rare earth elements, we have a unique position, and we have that both in the U.S. and Australia. With the Trump administration and the recent agreement with Australia, we are also looking at the potential for rare earth elements along with our coal mines in Australia. One other thing I would like to point out where we are very unique when it comes to the potential for rare earth elements is the massive scale we have in the PRB, which cannot be duplicated. We have the workforce, the equipment, and the logistics. We are currently mining 80 million tons of coal a year and moving over 400 million cubic yards of earth a year. No one else can duplicate that. We are not trying to get shovel-ready; we are already shoveling in the PRB. It is a unique position we have, and as we get data and can solidify our analysis, we will bring that out. Analyst: One last one for Mark on the Anglo termination. There was a $29 million deposit return. Is there another $46 million to come still—the $75 million total? And can you remind me what the $54 million that has gone through in Q3 represents and if there is anything more in terms of cost beyond that legal $5 million a year you flagged? Mark A. Spurbeck: You are right. The remaining deposit—we expect that to be returned to us. We have asked for that in short order; it is not clear why only a portion of the deposit was returned to us. On the $54 million of costs, about $35 million of that was related to the bridge financing, which has now been terminated, as we announced previously. The additional amount was almost entirely related to professional fees and transition services, which have completely been halted at this point, so they will not be going forward. The only thing we will have going forward is the arbitration legal fees, and we anticipate that to be about $5 million per year. Operator: The next question comes from Matthew Key with Texas Capital. Please go ahead. Analyst: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking my questions. I have a macro one on the rare earth side. We saw this morning that the U.S. and China reached a tentative deal to pause some of those export controls on rare earth elements for about a year. What impact, if any, do you think this will have on government support for domestic rare earth projects? James C. Grech: Matthew, I am not really sure I have a specific answer. What I will comment on is that I know there is a strong desire to have a domestic supply of rare earth elements here by our government. There could be an international supply, maybe things with China, and I am not sure how that will play out. But I do know there is a very strong desire for conventional or unconventional supply right here native in the United States. I would expect that would continue, but I do not want to speak for the administration on it. That is just my expectation. Analyst: Got it. That is helpful. And just a follow-up on M&A on the seaborne met side. Given that you are in arbitration with Anglo and that could take some time, would you not be considering any additional M&A in seaborne met until that arbitration process is completed? James C. Grech: First off, I will say that our belief that the arbitration process will be successful for us is not going to be a hindrance to anything we do in the future. We have 100% confidence in that process, and we are not going to stop anything strategic with our company because of that process. As you are asking about M&A, again, our focus right now is on our organic assets—getting Centurion online, getting the full value of that for our shareholders, and leaning into this market upside that we see happening both in the U.S. and internationally next year. We are making sure our platform is capitalized, we have the maintenance in order, and we have the staffing in order to take full advantage of the upside we see coming in the market and generate some very robust cash flows. That is where our focus is right now. James C. Grech: Okay. Thank you, operator, and thanks to everyone for the time today. I will thank our Peabody Energy Corporation team, which amid everything else turned in safety performance that remains near our all-time record performance of 2024. We look forward to keeping all of you up to date on our progress as we finish up in 2025. Thank you. Operator: The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect. Thank you. Before you buy stock in Peabody Energy, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Peabody Energy wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $490,864!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,216,789!* Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 963% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 201% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 5, 2026. This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Peabody Energy (BTU) Q1 2026 Earnings Transcript was originally published by The Motley Fool

Q1 snapshot: Peabody posted a $32.4M net loss but generated $82.5M of adjusted EBITDA, led by a strong seaborne thermal business that shipped 3.0M tons with realized export prices of $86.25/ton and seaborne thermal costs of $50.26/ton. Centurion disruptions: Commissioning and ramp-up issues at the Centurion metallurgical mine cut volumes by about 1M tons, trimmed full‑year Centurion sales guidance to 2.5M tons (from 3.5M), and cost the company roughly $80M while pushing seaborne met cost guidance to $123–$133/ton. Liquidity and strategic moves: Peabody exited the quarter with just under $500M cash and total liquidity above $850M, provided Q2 volume/cost guidance (seaborne thermal ~3.0M tons; PRB ~19.0M tons), and is advancing a PRB coal‑fed rare‑earth pilot and a West Coast export proof‑of‑concept to Guaymas. Interested in Peabody Energy Corporation? Here are five stocks we like better. Peabody Energy is a Double Threat Energy and Steel Play Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) executives highlighted stronger-than-expected thermal performance, improving seaborne market conditions, and a detailed remediation plan at its Centurion metallurgical operation during the company’s first-quarter 2026 earnings call. Management also discussed early-stage development initiatives in critical minerals and a proof-of-concept shipment for potential West Coast exports of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Chief Financial Officer Mark Spurbeck said Peabody reported a first-quarter net loss attributable to common stockholders of $32.4 million, or $0.27 per diluted share, while generating adjusted EBITDA of $82.5 million. → 3 Emerging Markets ETFs to Maximize Exposure to High-Potential Countries High Teck: Teck Resources Hits 12-Year High on Deal Drama Spurbeck attributed the quarter’s results to “outstanding performance from our seaborne thermal platform,” which benefited from higher realized prices and strong Asian demand late in the quarter. The seaborne thermal business shipped 3.0 million tons, exceeding expectations and increasing export shipments by 200,000 tons. Realized export prices averaged $86.25 per ton, up more than 5% from the prior quarter, which Spurbeck said was driven by higher Asian demand amid elevated LNG prices in March. Higher production at Peabody’s two Australian thermal mines helped lower seaborne thermal costs to $50.26 per ton, below the low end of guidance, resulting in a 25% adjusted EBITDA margin and $48.5 million of adjusted EBITDA, Spurbeck said. → The Real SpaceX Play: 5 Chip Stocks Powering the IPO Before It Launches Peabody’s seaborne metallurgical segment was impacted by ramp-up challenges at Centurion. Spurbeck said seaborne metallurgical shipments totaled 2.0 million tons, about 400,000 tons below plan, driven by Centurion’s longwall ramp-up and wet weather at the company’s CMJV operation. Those impacts were partially offset by higher-than-anticipated production at Metropolitan, where a longwall move was completed ahead of schedule. Seaborne met costs came in above guidance at $142 per ton, which Spurbeck attributed largely to lower volumes at Centurion, partially offset by realized prices that increased 13% quarter-over-quarter. The segment posted an adjusted EBITDA loss of $7 million, with Spurbeck saying Centurion reduced what otherwise would have been a “strong quarter” by $80 million, including $10 million of additional commissioning costs. → Tyson Foods' Total Returns: Tasty Treats for Income Investors? Chief Executive Officer Jim Grech said Centurion experienced a longer-than-anticipated commissioning period after “temporary mechanical and electrical issues” encountered during equipment commissioning in February. While those issues were resolved, Grech said disruptions contributed to slower cutting speed and roof control conditions, prompting a comprehensive response plan focused on strata management and execution with safety as a priority. Grech said the company has had “no carbon monoxide events, no methane issues, no ignition events, and no regulatory challenges” at Centurion. Over recent weeks, he said teams have taken steps to stabilize the operation, including reinforcing the roof and face, realigning shields, and improving cutting conditions. Grech said the company expects remaining temporary headwinds to be largely confined to the second quarter, with performance in the back half of 2026 expected to reflect a return to full longwall production rates. He also said a seven-week longwall move originally planned for the fourth quarter is now expected to shift into early 2027, which he said should support stronger production in the second half of 2026. As a result, Grech said Peabody reduced its full-year Centurion sales outlook to 2.5 million tons from an original expectation of 3.5 million tons. The company updated full-year metallurgical segment volumes to reflect the 1 million ton decrease and raised expected costs to $123 to $133 per ton. In response to analyst questions, Grech provided additional detail on the causes of the commissioning delays, saying the mine deployed “eight-year old unused mining equipment” that was fitted with updated technology. Once underground and under full load, Peabody faced unanticipated electrical issues requiring troubleshooting and parts, followed by mechanical issues with conveyors and chutes. Grech said slow longwall progress contributed to localized ground conditions, including moisture in roof cavities and floor softening beneath shields, leading to misalignment in a limited number of shields. He said the shields themselves are performing well and the remediation process is focused on alignment as the longwall advances. Spurbeck said Peabody’s U.S. thermal business delivered $61.5 million of adjusted EBITDA. PRB shipments totaled 21.2 million tons, exceeding expectations, though costs were above guidance due to sales mix and the timing of repairs and maintenance. Spurbeck said higher costs outweighed higher realized prices, resulting in $23.7 million of adjusted EBITDA for PRB. Other U.S. thermal operations shipped 3.3 million tons at better-than-expected costs, contributing $37.8 million of adjusted EBITDA. Spurbeck also noted that the company’s “20 mi” mine continued to perform well in its new longwall panel. Fuel costs were a key theme. Spurbeck said Peabody consumes about 100 million gallons of diesel annually, with most used at its large U.S. surface mines. He said each $10-per-barrel change in oil prices impacts EBITDA by about $6 million per quarter, excluding potential benefits from higher coal prices. Due to the Middle East conflict and the forward curve, Peabody raised full-year PRB cost guidance by $0.50 per ton and increased seaborne thermal cost guidance by $2 per ton. Spurbeck said seaborne metallurgical and other U.S. thermal costs are expected to remain at beginning-of-year levels. In the Q&A, Spurbeck told Jefferies analyst Chris LaFemina that PRB costs in the first half are higher mainly due to diesel and shoulder-season volumes, while full-year expectations assume a decline in diesel pricing on the forward strip and higher volumes later in the year. Asked about potential pass-throughs or hedging, Chief Commercial Officer Malcolm Roberts said the majority of PRB contracts are fixed price and “don’t have a fuel rise or fall.” Spurbeck added that Peabody does not hedge diesel and has found hedging approaches “not cost-effective.” Roberts described a sharp shift in seaborne thermal coal fundamentals during the quarter. He said the Iran conflict in late February caused a “sharp rerating” of thermal coal demand, with March Newcastle pricing averaging more than $20 per ton higher than pre-conflict levels. Roberts also pointed to high LNG prices and limited availability leading multiple countries to rely more heavily on coal-fired generation, citing policy support and actions across Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines. Roberts also said Indonesia’s directive to keep more coal domestically has begun to constrain seaborne thermal supply. He noted Indonesia exports over half of the world’s seaborne thermal coal and has announced production cuts that could represent about a quarter of its exports if fully implemented, though he cautioned that such proclamations often fall short of initial estimates. Not all developments were favorable, Roberts said, noting freight rates have increased roughly 50% from pre-conflict levels, raising delivered costs. On met coal, Roberts said the market remains “very constructive.” He stated first-quarter benchmark pricing for Premium Hard Coking Coal averaged more than 25% above year-ago levels, while pricing across lower grades diverged, with Low Vol PCI up 14% year-over-year and High-Vol A down 12% versus the first quarter of 2025. For U.S. markets, Roberts said demand remained strong early in the quarter due to a very cold January. While Henry Hub gas prices weakened later in the quarter and the industry is in shoulder season, he said Peabody expects load growth and summer burn to support demand. For the second quarter, Spurbeck said Peabody expects: Seaborne thermal volume: 3.0 million tons, including 1.9 million tons of export coal; 300,000 tons priced at an average of $64.60 per ton, with 1.0 million tons of Newcastle product and 600,000 tons of higher-ash coal remaining unpriced. Seaborne thermal costs: $57 to $62 per ton, including about $3.50 per ton related to higher fuel costs, a stronger Australian dollar, and planned repairs at Wilpinjong. Seaborne metallurgical volume: 2.3 million tons, with realizations of 75% of the Premium Hard Coking Coal index; costs expected to remain elevated before Centurion reaches full longwall volume in the second half. PRB shipments: 19.0 million tons at costs of $13.25 per ton, reflecting shoulder season and a $0.50 adjustment for higher fuel. Other U.S. thermal shipments: 3.4 million tons, with costs of $45 to $49 per ton. Spurbeck said Peabody ended the quarter with just under $500 million in cash and total liquidity above $850 million, which he said provides flexibility to navigate near-term challenges, support shareholder returns, and invest for long-term value. In response to a question about share repurchases, Spurbeck said management shares the view that free cash flow should increase when Centurion reaches full production in the second half. He said Peabody sees opportunities in “buying back shares,” while also evaluating its 2028 convertible securities and potential dilution. Grech also discussed development initiatives. He said Peabody received a $6.25 million grant from the Wyoming Energy Authority and is advancing initial plans for a pilot plant to process rare earth elements using PRB coal as feedstock. In Q&A, Grech said the company expects development and construction to take about 18 months, with an additional one to two years to reach full development, describing an 18- to 48-month ramp timeframe. He added the company is pursuing multiple opportunities and is taking an “option-based approach” across different feedstocks, including coal and overburden, but was not ready to discuss additional projects. Peabody also detailed a test shipment for potential West Coast thermal coal exports. Grech said the company sent PRB coal from North Antelope Rochelle Mine via Union Pacific to Mexico’s Port of Guaymas for export to an Asian customer, describing it as a proof-of-concept shipment coordinated with U.S. and Mexican governments and logistics partners. Roberts told analysts the logistics will limit near-term scale, and Grech said meaningful expansion is not expected in the next three to six months due to port capacity needs, though he characterized longer-term opportunity as significant. In a follow-up exchange, Grech said Guaymas could potentially reach 5 million to 10 million tons of capacity “or slightly higher,” while other West Coast port options being discussed could be at the upper end of that range. Grech closed the call by reiterating that Centurion remains the company’s top operational priority and that Peabody is focused on cost discipline and “unlocking additional value” from its asset base. Peabody Energy Corporation is one of the world's largest private-sector coal companies, engaged primarily in the production and sale of metallurgical and thermal coal. The company's operations span surface and underground mines, serving utilities, steel mills and other industrial customers that rely on coal as an essential component in power generation and steelmaking. Peabody's product portfolio includes high-energy thermal coal for electricity generation and low-volatile metallurgical coal used in steel production, reflecting its diverse end-market reach. Founded in 1883, Peabody Energy has grown from a regional mining concern into a global energy supplier. The article "Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat.