My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-02-29_ENFORCEMENT - C1982056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Coal
>
C1982056
>
2016-02-29_ENFORCEMENT - C1982056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:19:35 PM
Creation date
3/4/2016 11:15:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/29/2016
Doc Name
Sightline Citizens Complaint to OSM Regarding Peabody Self Bond
From
Sightline Institute
To
OSM
Violation No.
TDNX16140182002
Email Name
DIH
JRS
MPB
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Our review of the information found in Peabody Energy Company's filings with the SEC shows <br />that Peabody Energy Corporation and its various subsidiaries would fail to meet this basic self - <br />bonding test of financial solvency. 59 <br />According to Peabody's 2015 end of year filing, the company ratio of total liabilities to net <br />worth is 12.6 -far in excess of the 2.5 benchmark required under federal statute. <br />Table 9: Peabody Enemy Total Liabilities to Net Worth60 at End of 2015 <br />Total Liabilities 10.972 <br />Net Worth .869 <br />Ratio 12.6 <br />Standard I <2.5 <br />In order to achieve "technical" compliance with SMCRA self -bonding rules, Peabody, like <br />most other coal companies created a network of subsidiaries that allow for "technical" <br />compliance through the use of various accounting treatments involving a network of <br />subsidiaries. Peabody Energy Corporation has created a parent company for its mining <br />subsidiary that appears relatively free of liabilities and therefore in compliance with SMCRA <br />rules. <br />For example, in New Mexico, where Peabody has millions in current SMCRA self -bonding <br />obligations, the company has historically61 used interlocking corporate networks to meet the <br />financial tests. Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)62 is deemed the parent company for the <br />purpose of the self -bonding application and has a separate accounting statement from that <br />of Peabody Energy Corporation. <br />5" This is also the conclusion of an earlier report by the Western Organization of Resources Council <br />http 11www underminedpromise org/UnderminedPromisell.pdf <br />60 Form BK -2016 Year End. <br />61 The following illustration is drawn from information provided by the New Mexico (agency name). We reference here a letter <br />and attachments from Stuart Butzler of the law offices of Modrall Sperling representing Peabody Energy and James O'Hara, <br />Coal Program Manager, Mining and Minerals Division, February 18, 2011. <br />82 PIC is deemed the parent applicant for the New Mexico filing. PIC is a subsidiary of the parent corporation Peabody Energy <br />for purposes of the 10K Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. <br />http 1/www peabodyenergy com/content/162/sec-filings, Form 1OK, February 25, 2015, Peabody Energy Corporation List of <br />Subsidiaries, Exhibit 21, p. 4. PIC is identified as a wholly owned subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation in Emst and <br />Young, Consolidated Financial Statements, Peabody Investments Corporation and Subsidiaries Year Ended December 31, <br />2010 and attached to the Butzler letter_ <br />Peabody's Strategies for Survival Ignore Market Realities and Risk Backfiring 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.