AREC American Resources Corporation

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to our normal business operations. We are not currently a party to, and our property is not subject to, any material legal proceedings.

Environmental, Governmental, and Other Regulatory Matters

Our operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as those relating to matters such as permitting and licensing, employee health and safety, reclamation and restoration of mining properties, water discharges, air emissions, plant and wildlife protection, the storage, treatment and disposal of wastes, remediation of contaminants, surface subsidence from underground mining and the effects of mining on surface water and groundwater conditions. In addition, we may become subject to additional costs for benefits for current and retired coal miners. These environmental laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, SMCRA with respect to coal mining activities and ancillary activities; the CAA with respect to air emissions; the CWA with respect to water discharges and the permitting of key operational infrastructure such as impoundments; RCRA with respect to solid and hazardous waste management and disposal, as well as the regulation of underground storage tanks; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) with respect to releases, threatened releases and remediation of hazardous substances; the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”) with respect to threatened and endangered species; and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) with respect to the evaluation of environmental impacts related to any federally issued permit or license. Many of these federal laws have state and local counterparts which also impose requirements and potential liability on our operations.

Compliance with these laws and regulations may be costly and time-consuming and may delay commencement, continuation or expansion of exploration or production at our facilities. They may also depress demand for our products by imposing more stringent requirements and limits on our customers’ operations. Moreover, these laws are constantly evolving and are becoming increasingly complex and stringent over time. These laws and regulations, particularly new legislative or administrative proposals, or judicial interpretations of existing laws and regulations related to the protection of the environment could result in substantially increased capital, operating and compliance costs. Individually and collectively, these developments could have a material adverse effect on our operations directly and/or indirectly, through our customers’ inability to use our products.

Certain implementing regulations for these environmental laws are undergoing revision or have not yet been promulgated. As a result, we cannot always determine the ultimate impact of complying with existing laws and regulations.

Due in part to these extensive and comprehensive regulatory requirements and ever- changing interpretations of these requirements, violations of these laws can occur from time to time in our industry and also in our operations. Expenditures relating to environmental compliance are a major cost consideration for our operations and safety and compliance is a significant factor in mine design, both to meet regulatory requirements and to minimize long-term environmental liabilities. To the extent that these expenditures, as with all costs, are not ultimately reflected in the prices of our products and services, operating results will be reduced.

In addition, our customers are subject to extensive regulation regarding the environmental impacts associated with the combustion or other use of coal, which may affect demand for our coal. Changes in applicable laws or the adoption of new laws relating to energy production, GHG emissions and other emissions from use of coal products may cause coal to become a less attractive source of energy, which may adversely affect our mining operations, the cost structure and, the demand for coal. For example, if the emissions rates or caps adopted under the CPP on GHGs are upheld or a tax on carbon is imposed, the market share of coal as fuel used to generate electricity would be expected to decrease.

We believe that our competitors with operations in the United States are confronted by substantially similar conditions. However, foreign producers and operators may not be subject to similar requirements and may not be required to undertake equivalent costs in or be subject to similar limitations on their operations. As a result, the costs and operating restrictions necessary for compliance with United States environmental laws and regulations may have an adverse effect on our competitive position with regard to those foreign competitors. The specific impact on each competitor may vary depending on a number of factors, including the age and location of its operating facilities, applicable legislation and its production methods.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

SMCRA establishes operational, reclamation and closure standards for our mining operations and requires that comprehensive environmental protection and reclamation standards be met during the course of and following completion of mining activities. SMCRA also stipulates compliance with many other major environmental statutes, including the CAA, the CWA, the ESA, RCRA and CERCLA. Permits for all mining operations must be obtained from the United States Office of Surface Mining (“OSM”) or, where state regulatory agencies have adopted federally approved state programs under SMCRA, the appropriate state regulatory authority. Our operations are located in states which have achieved primary jurisdiction for enforcement of SMCRA through approved state programs.

SMCRA imposes a complex set of requirements covering all facets of coal mining. SMCRA regulations govern, among other things, coal prospecting, mine plan development, topsoil or growth medium removal and replacement, disposal of excess spoil and coal refuse, protection of the hydrologic balance, and suitable post mining land uses.

From time to time, OSM will also update its mining regulations under SMCRA. For example, in December 2016, OSM finalized a new version of the Stream Protection Rule which became effective in January 2017. The rule would have impacted both surface and underground mining operations, as it would have imposed stricter guidelines on conducting coal mining operations, and would have required more extensive baseline data on hydrology, geology and aquatic biology in permit applications. The rule also required the collection of increased pre-mining data about the site of the proposed mining operation and adjacent areas to establish a baseline for evaluation of the impacts of mining and the effectiveness of reclamation associated with returning streams to pre-mining conditions. However, in February 2017, both the House and Senate passed a resolution disapproving of the Stream Protection Rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”). President Trump signed the resolution on February 16, 2017 and, pursuant to the CRA, the Stream Protection Rule “shall have no force or effect” and cannot be replaced by a similar rule absent future legislation. On November 17, 2017, OSMRE published a Federal Register notice that removed the text of the Stream Protection Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Whether Congress will enact future legislation to require a new Stream Protection Rule remains uncertain. The existing rules, or other new SMCRA regulations, could result in additional material costs, obligations and restrictions upon our operations.

Abandoned Mine Lands Fund

SMCRA also imposes a reclamation fee on all current mining operations, the proceeds of which are deposited in the AML Fund, which is used to restore unreclaimed and abandoned mine lands mined before 1977. The current per ton fee is $0.280 per ton for surface mined coal and $0.120 per ton for underground mined coal. These fees are currently scheduled to be in effect until September 30, 2021.

Mining Permits and Approvals

Numerous governmental permits and approvals are required for mining operations. We are required to prepare and present to federal, state, and local authorities data detailing the effect or impact that any proposed exploration project for production of coal may have upon the environment, the public and our employees. The permitting rules, and the interpretations of these rules, are complex, change frequently, and may be subject to discretionary interpretations by regulators. The requirements imposed by these permits and associated regulations can be costly and time-consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of exploration, production or expansion at our operations. The governing laws, rules, and regulations authorize substantial fines and penalties, including revocation or suspension of mining permits under some circumstances. Monetary sanctions and, in certain circumstances, even criminal sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with these laws.

Applications for permits and permit renewals at our mining operations are also subject to public comment and potential legal challenges from third parties seeking to prevent a permit from being issued, or to overturn the applicable agency’s grant of the permit. Should our permitting efforts become subject to such challenges, they could delay commencement, continuation or expansion of our mining operations. If such comments lead to a formal challenge to the issuance of these permits, the permits may not be issued in a timely fashion, may involve requirements which restrict our ability to conduct our mining operations or to do so profitably, or may not be issued at all. Any delays, denials, or revocation of these or other similar permits we need to operate could reduce our production and materially adversely impact our cash flow and results of our operations.

In order to obtain mining permits and approvals from state regulatory authorities, mine operators must also submit a reclamation plan for restoring the mined property to its prior condition, productive use or other permitted condition. The conditions of certain permits also require that we obtain surface owner consent if the surface estate has been split from the mineral estate. This requires us to negotiate with third parties for surface access that overlies coal we acquired or intend to acquire. These negotiations can be costly and time-consuming, lasting years in some instances, which can create additional delays in the permitting process. If we cannot successfully negotiate for land access, we could be denied a permit to mine coal we already own.

Finally, we typically submit necessary mining permit applications several months, or even years, before we anticipate mining a new area. However, we cannot control the pace at which the government issues permits needed for new or ongoing operations. For example, the process of obtaining CWA permits can be particularly time-consuming and subject to delays and denials. The EPA also has the authority to veto permits issued by the Corps under the CWA’s Section 404 program that prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into regulated waters without a permit. Even after we obtain the permits that we need to operate, many of the permits must be periodically renewed, or may require modification. There is some risk that not all existing permits will be approved for renewal, or that existing permits will be approved for renewal only upon terms that restrict or limit our operations in ways that may be material.

Financial Assurance

Federal and state laws require a mine operator to secure the performance of its reclamation and lease obligations under SMCRA through the use of surety bonds or other approved forms of financial security for payment of certain long-term obligations, including mine closure or reclamation costs. The changes in the market for coal used to generate electricity in recent years have led to bankruptcies involving prominent coal producers. Several of these companies relied on self-bonding to guarantee their responsibilities under the SMCRA permits including for reclamation. In response to these bankruptcies, OSMRE issued a Policy Advisory in August 2016 to state agencies that are authorized under the SMCRA to implement the act in their states. Certain states, including Virginia, had previously announced that it would no longer accept self-bonding to secure reclamation obligations under the state mining laws. This Policy Advisory is intended to discourage authorized states from approving self-bonding arrangements and may lead to increased demand for other forms of financial assurance, which may strain capacity for those instruments and increase our costs of obtaining and maintaining the amounts of financial assurance needed for our operations. In addition, OSMRE announced in August 2016 that it would initiate a rulemaking under SMCRA to revise the requirements for self-bonding. Individually and collectively, these revised various financial assurance requirements may increase the amount of financial assurance needed and limit the types of acceptable instruments, straining the capacity of the surety markets to meet demand. This may delay the timing for and increase the costs of obtaining the required financial assurance.

We may use surety bonds, trusts and letters of credit to provide financial assurance for certain transactions and business activities. Federal and state laws require us to obtain surety bonds to secure payment of certain long-term obligations including mine closure or reclamation costs and other miscellaneous obligations. The bonds are renewable on a yearly basis. Surety bond rates have increased in recent years and the market terms of such bonds have generally become less favorable. Sureties typically require coal producers to post collateral, often having a value equal to 40% or more of the face amount of the bond. As a result, we may be required to provide collateral, letters of credit or other assurances of payment in order to obtain the necessary types and amounts of financial assurance. Under our surety bonding program, we are not currently required to post any letters of credit or other collateral to secure the surety bonds; obtaining letters of credit in lieu of surety bonds could result in a significant cost increase. Moreover, the need to obtain letters of credit may also reduce amounts that we can borrow under any senior secured credit facility for other purposes. If, in the future, we are unable to secure surety bonds for these obligations, and are forced to secure letters of credit indefinitely or obtain some other form of financial assurance at too high of a cost, our profitability may be negatively affected. 

Although our current bonding capacity approved by our surety, Lexon Insurance Company, is substantial and enough to cover our current and anticipated future bonding needs, this amount may increase or decrease over time. As of December 31, 2018, and 2017, we had outstanding surety bonds at all of our mining operations totaling approximately $26.66 million and $24.80 million, respectively. While we anticipate reducing the outstanding surety bonds through continued reclamation of many of our permits, that number may increase should we acquire additional mining permits, acquire additional mining operations, expand our mining operations that result in additional reclamation bonds, or if any of our sites encounters additional environmental liability that may require additional reclamation bonding. While we intend to maintain a credit profile that eliminates the need to post collateral for our surety bonds, our surety has the right to demand additional collateral at its discretion.

Mine Safety and Health

The Mine Act and the MINER Act, and regulations issued under these federal statutes, impose stringent health and safety standards on mining operations. The regulations that have been adopted under the Mine Act and the MINER Act are comprehensive and affect numerous aspects of mining operations, including training of mine personnel, mining procedures, roof control, ventilation, blasting, use and maintenance of mining equipment, dust and noise control, communications, emergency response procedures, and other matters. MSHA regularly inspects mines to ensure compliance with regulations promulgated under the Mine Act and MINER Act.

From time to time MSHA will also publish new regulations imposing additional requirements and costs on our operations. For example, MSHA implemented a rule in August 2014 to lower miners’ exposure to respirable coal mine dust. The rule requires shift dust to be monitored and reduces the respirable dust standard for designated occupants and miners. MSHA also finalized a new rule in January 2015 on proximity detection systems for continuous mining machines, which requires underground coal mine operators to equip continuous mining machines, except full-face continuous mining machines, with proximity detection systems.

Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia all have similar programs for mine safety and health regulation and enforcement. The various requirements mandated by federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations place restrictions on our methods of operation and result in fees and civil penalties for violations of such requirements or criminal liability for the knowing violation of such standards, significantly impacting operating costs and productivity. The regulations enacted under the Mine Act and MINER Act as well as under similar state acts are routinely expanded or made more stringent, raising compliance costs and increasing potential liability. Our compliance with current or future mine health and safety regulations could increase our mining costs. At this time, it is not possible to predict the full effect that new or proposed statutes, regulations and policies will have on our operating costs, but any expansion of existing regulations, or making such regulations more stringent may have a negative impact on the profitability of our operations. If we were to be found in violation of mine safety and health regulations, we could face penalties or restrictions that may materially and adversely impact our operations, financial results and liquidity.

In addition, government inspectors have the authority to issue orders to shut down our operations based on safety considerations under certain circumstances, such as imminent dangers, accidents, failures to abate violations, and unwarrantable failures to comply with mandatory safety standards. If an incident were to occur at one of our operations, it could be shut down for an extended period of time, and our reputation with prospective customers could be materially damaged. Moreover, if one of our operations is issued a notice of pattern of violations, then MSHA can issue an order withdrawing the miners from the area affected by any enforcement action during each subsequent significant and substantial (“S&S”) citation until the S&S citation or order is abated. In 2013 MSHA modified the pattern of violations regulation, allowing, among other things, the use of non-final citations and orders in determining whether a pattern of violations exists at a mine.

Workers’ Compensation and Black Lung

We are insured for workers’ compensation benefits for work related injuries that occur within our United States operations. We retain exposure for the first $10,000 per accident for all of our subsidiaries and are insured above the deductible for statutory limits. Workers’ compensation liabilities, including those related to claims incurred but not reported, are recorded principally using annual valuations based on discounted future expected payments using historical data of the operating subsidiary or combined insurance industry data when historical data is limited. State workers’ compensation acts typically provide for an exception to an employer’s immunity from civil lawsuits for workplace injuries in the case of intentional torts. However, Kentucky’s workers’ compensation act provides a much broader exception to workers’ compensation immunity. The exception allows an injured employee to recover against his or her employer where he or she can show damages caused by an unsafe working condition of which the employer was aware that was a violation of a statute, regulation, rule or consensus industry standard. These types of lawsuits are not uncommon and could have a significant impact on our operating costs.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes significant changes to the federal black lung program including an automatic survivor benefit paid upon the death of a miner with an awarded black lung claim and the establishment of a rebuttable presumption with regard to pneumoconiosis among miners with 15 or more years of coal mine employment that are totally disabled by a respiratory condition. These changes could have a material impact on our costs expended in association with the federal black lung program. In addition to possibly incurring liability under federal statutes, we may also be liable under state laws for black lung claims.

Clean Air Act

The CAA and comparable state laws that regulate air emissions affect coal mining operations both directly and indirectly. Direct impacts on coal mining and processing operations include CAA permitting requirements and emission control requirements relating to air pollutants, including particulate matter such as fugitive dust. The CAA indirectly affects coal mining operations by extensively regulating the emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other compounds emitted by coal-fired power plants. In addition to the GHG issues discussed below, the air emissions programs that may materially and adversely affect our operations, financial results, liquidity, and demand for our coal, directly or indirectly, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Global Climate Change

Climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. There is widespread concern about the contributions of human activity to such changes, especially through the emission of GHGs. There are three primary sources of GHGs associated with the coal industry. First, the end use of our coal by our customers in electricity generation, coke plants, and steelmaking is a source of GHGs. Second, combustion of fuel by equipment used in coal production and to transport our coal to our customers is a source of GHGs. Third, coal mining itself can release methane, which is considered to be a more potent GHG than CO2, directly into the atmosphere. These emissions from coal consumption, transportation and production are subject to pending and proposed regulation as part of initiatives to address global climate change.

As a result, numerous proposals have been made and are likely to continue to be made at the international, national, regional and state levels of government to monitor and limit emissions of GHGs. Collectively, these initiatives could result in higher electric costs to our customers or lower the demand for coal used in electric generation, which could in turn adversely impact our business.

At present, we are principally focused on metallurgical coal production, which is not used in connection with the production of power generation. However, we may seek to sell greater amounts of our coal into the power-generation market in the future. The market for our coal may be adversely impacted if comprehensive legislation or regulations focusing on GHG emission reductions are adopted, or if our customers are unable to obtain financing for their operations. At the international level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change released an international climate agreement in December 2015. The agreement has been ratified by more than 70 countries, and entered into force in November 2016. Although this agreement does not create any binding obligations for nations to limit their GHG emissions, it does include pledges to voluntarily limit or reduce future emissions. In addition, in November 2014, President Obama announced that the United States would seek to cut net GHG emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 in return for China’s commitment to seek to peak emissions around 2030, with concurrent increases in renewable energy.

At the federal level, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented to date. The EPA has, however, has determined that emissions of GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment, because emissions of GHGs are, according to the EPA, contributing to the warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA has begun adopting and implementing regulations to restrict emissions of GHGs under existing provisions of the CAA. For example, in August 2015, EPA finalized the CPP to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants. The CPP creates individualized emission guidelines for states to follow and requires each state to develop an implementation plan to meet the individual state’s specific targets for reducing GHG emissions. The EPA also proposed a federal compliance plan to implement the CPP in the event that a state does not submit an approvable plan to the EPA. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the implementation of the CPP. This stay suspends the rule and will remain in effect until the completion of the appeals process. The Supreme Court’s stay only applies to EPA’s regulations for CO2 emissions from existing power plants and will not affect EPA’s standards for new power plants. If the CPP is ultimately upheld and depending on how it is implemented by the states, it could have an adverse impact on the demand for coal for electric generation.

At the state level, several states have already adopted measures requiring GHG emissions to be reduced within state boundaries, including cap-and-trade programs and the imposition of renewable energy portfolio standards. Various states and regions have also adopted GHG initiatives and certain governmental bodies, have imposed, or are considering the imposition of, fees or taxes based on the emission of GHGs by certain facilities. A number of states have also enacted legislative mandates requiring electricity suppliers to use renewable energy sources to generate a certain percentage of power.

The uncertainty over the outcome of litigation challenging the CPP and the extent of future regulation of GHG emissions may inhibit utilities from investing in the building of new coal-fired plants to replace older plants or investing in the upgrading of existing coal-fired plants. Any reduction in the amount of coal consumed by electric power generators as a result of actual or potential regulation of GHG emissions could decrease demand for our coal, thereby reducing our revenues and materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations. We or prospective customers may also have to invest in CO2 capture and storage technologies in order to burn coal and comply with future GHG emission standards.

Finally, there have been attempts to encourage greater regulation of coalbed methane because methane has a greater GHG effect than CO2. Methane from coal mines can give rise to safety concerns and may require that various measures be taken to mitigate those risks. If new laws or regulations were introduced to reduce coalbed methane emissions, those rules could adversely affect our costs of operations by requiring installation of air pollution controls, higher taxes, or costs incurred to purchase credits that permit us to continue operations.

Clean Water Act

The CWA and corresponding state laws and regulations affect coal mining operations by restricting the discharge of pollutants, including dredged or fill materials, into waters of the United States. Likewise, permits are required under the CWA to construct impoundments, fills or other structure in areas that are designated as waters of the United States. The CWA provisions and associated state and federal regulations are complex and subject to amendments, legal challenges and changes in implementation. Recent court decisions, regulatory actions and proposed legislation have created uncertainty over CWA jurisdiction and permitting requirements.

Prior to discharging any pollutants into waters of the United States, coal mining companies must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit from the appropriate state or federal permitting authority. NPDES permits include effluent limitations for discharged pollutants and other terms and conditions, including required monitoring of discharges. Failure to comply with the CWA or NPDES permits can lead to the imposition of significant penalties, litigation, compliance costs and delays in coal production. Changes and proposed changes in state and federally recommended water quality standards may result in the issuance or modification of permits with new or more stringent effluent limits or terms and conditions. For instance, waters.

For instance, waters that states have designated as impaired (i.e., as not meeting present water quality standards) are subject to Total Maximum Daily Load regulations, which may lead to the adoption of more stringent discharge standards for our coal mines and could require more costly treatment. Likewise, the water quality of certain receiving streams requires an anti-degradation review before approving any discharge permits. TMDL regulations and anti-degradation policies may increase the cost, time and difficulty associated with obtaining and complying with NPDES permits.

In addition, in certain circumstances private citizens may challenge alleged violations of NPDES permit limits in court. While it is difficult to predict the outcome of any potential or future suits, such litigation could result in increased compliance costs following the completion of mining at our operations.

Finally, in June 2015, the EPA and the Corps published a new definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) that became effective on August 28, 2015. Many groups have filed suit to challenge the validity of this rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the rule nationwide pending the outcome of this litigation. On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review challenges to the 2015 Rule. With this final rule, the agencies intend to maintain the status quo by adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule and thus providing continuity and regulatory certainty for regulated entities, the States and Tribes, and the public while the agencies continue to consider possible revisions to the 2015 Rule. In light of this holding, in February 2018 the agencies published a final rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule of February 6, 2020. We anticipate that the WOTUS rules, if upheld in litigation, will expand areas requiring NPDES or Corps Section 404 permits. If so, the CWA permits we need may not be issued, may not be issued in a timely fashion, or may be issued with new requirements which restrict our ability to conduct our mining operations or to do so profitably.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA and corresponding state laws establish standards for the management of solid and hazardous wastes generated at our various facilities. Besides affecting current waste disposal practices, RCRA also addresses the environmental effects of certain past hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal practices. In addition, RCRA requires certain of our facilities to evaluate and respond to any past release, or threatened release, of a hazardous substance that may pose a risk to human health or the environment.

RCRA may affect coal mining operations by establishing requirements for the proper management, handling, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Currently, certain coal mine wastes, such as earth and rock covering a mineral deposit (commonly referred to as overburden) and coal cleaning wastes, are exempted from hazardous waste management under RCRA. Any change or reclassification of this exemption could significantly increase our coal mining costs.

EPA began regulating coal ash as a solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA in 2015. The EPA’s rule requires closure of sites that fail to meet prescribed engineering standards, regular inspections of impoundments, and immediate remediation and closure of unlined ponds that are polluting ground water. The rule also establishes limits for the location of new sites. However, the rule does not regulate closed coal ash impoundments unless they are located at active power plants. These requirements, as well as any future changes in the management of coal combustion residues, could increase our customers’ operating costs and potentially reduce their ability or need to purchase coal. In addition, contamination caused by the past disposal of coal combustion residues, including coal ash, could lead to material liability for our customers under RCRA or other federal or state laws and potentially further reduce the demand for coal.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CERCLA and similar state laws affect coal mining operations by, among other things, imposing cleanup requirements for threatened or actual releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Under CERCLA and similar state laws, joint and several liabilities may be imposed on hazardous substance generators, site owners, transporters, lessees and others regardless of fault or the legality of the original disposal activity. Although the EPA excludes most wastes generated by coal mining and processing operations from the primary hazardous waste laws, such wastes can, in certain circumstances, constitute hazardous substances for the purposes of CERCLA. In addition, the disposal, release or spilling of some products used by coal companies in operations, such as chemicals, could trigger the liability provisions of CERCLA or similar state laws. Thus, we may be subject to liability under CERCLA and similar state laws for coal mines that we currently own, lease or operate or that we or our predecessors have previously owned, leased or operated, and sites to which we or our predecessors sent hazardous substances. These liabilities could be significant and materially and adversely impact our financial results and liquidity.

Endangered Species and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts

The ESA and similar state legislation protect species designated as threatened, endangered or other special status. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “USFWS”) works closely with the OSM and state regulatory agencies to ensure that species subject to the ESA are protected from mining-related impacts. Several species indigenous to the areas in which we operate area protected under the ESA. Other species in the vicinity of our operations may have their listing status reviewed in the future and could also become protected under the ESA. In addition, the USFWS has identified bald eagle habitat in some of the counties where we operate. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits taking certain actions that would harm bald or golden eagles without obtaining a permit from the USFWS. Compliance with the requirements of the ESA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act could have the effect of prohibiting or delaying us from obtaining mining permits. These requirements may also include restrictions on timber harvesting, road building and other mining or agricultural activities in areas containing the affected species or their habitats.

Use of Explosives

Our surface mining operations are subject to numerous regulations relating to blasting activities. Due to these regulations, we will incur costs to design and implement blast schedules and to conduct pre-blast surveys and blast monitoring, either directly or through the costs of a contractor we may employ. In addition, the storage of explosives is subject to various regulatory requirements. For example, pursuant to a rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security in 2007, facilities in possession of chemicals of interest (including ammonium nitrate at certain threshold levels) are required to complete a screening review. Our mines are low risk, Tier 4 facilities which are not subject to additional security plans. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security proposed regulation of ammonium nitrate under the ammonium nitrate security rule. Additional requirements may include tracking and verifications for each transaction related to ammonium nitrate, though a final rule has yet to be issued. Finally, in December 2014, the OSM announced its decision to pursue a rulemaking to revise regulations under SMCRA which will address all blast generated fumes and toxic gases. OSM has not yet issued a proposed rule to address these blasts. The outcome of these rulemakings could materially adversely impact our cost or ability to conduct our mining operations.

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA requires federal agencies, including the Department of Interior, to evaluate major agency actions that have the potential to significantly impact the environment, such as issuing a permit or other approval. In the course of such evaluations, an agency will typically prepare an environmental assessment to determine the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed project. Where the activities in question have significant impacts to the environment, the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement. Compliance with NEPA can be time-consuming and may result in the imposition of mitigation measures that could affect the amount of coal that we are able to produce from mines on federal lands and may require public comment. Furthermore, whether agencies have complied with NEPA is subject to protest, appeal or litigation, which can delay or halt projects. The NEPA review process, including potential disputes regarding the level of evaluation required for climate change impacts, may extend the time and/or increase the costs and difficulty of obtaining necessary governmental approvals, and may lead to litigation regarding the adequacy of the NEPA analysis, which could delay or potentially preclude the issuance of approvals or grant of leases.

The Council on Environmental Quality recently released guidance discussing how federal agencies should consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change in their NEPA evaluations. The guidance encourages agencies to provide more detailed discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action’s reasonably foreseeable emissions and effects. This guidance could create additional delays and costs in the NEPA review process or in our operations, or even an inability to obtain necessary federal approvals for our operations due to the increased risk of legal challenges from environmental groups seeking additional analysis of climate impacts.

Other Environmental Laws

We are required to comply with numerous other federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to those previously discussed. These additional laws include but are not limited to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Each of these laws can impact permitting or planned operations and can result in additional costs or operational delays.

Property

Our principal offices are located at 9002 Technology Lane, Fishers, Indiana 46038. We pay $2,500 per month in rent for the office space and the rental lease expired in December 2018 and is continuing on a month-to-month basis. We also rent office space from an affiliated entity, LRR, at 11000 Highway 7 South, Kite, Kentucky 41828 and pay $500 per month rent and the rental lease expires October 30, 2021.

The Company also utilizes various office spaces on-site at its coal mining operations and coal preparation plant locations in eastern Kentucky, with such rental payments covered under any surface lease contracts with any of the surface land owners.

Employees

ARC, through its operating subsidiaries, employs a combination of company employees and contract labor to mine coal, process coal, and related functions. The Company is continually evaluating the use of company employees and contract labor to determine the optimal mix of each, given the needs of the Company. Currently, McCoy Elkhorn’s Mine #15, McCoy Elkhorn’s Carnegie 1 Mine and Deane Mining’s Access Energy mine are primarily run by company employees, and Deane Mining’s Razorblade Surface mine is primarily run by contract labor, and the Company’s various coal preparation facilities are run by company employees.

The Company currently has approximately 227 employees, with a substantial majority based in eastern Kentucky. The Company is headquartered in Fishers, Indiana with six members of the Company’s executive team based at this location.

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

We qualify as an emerging growth company as that term is used in the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

We have already taken advantage of these reduced reporting burdens in this Form 10-K, which are also available to us as a smaller reporting company as defined under Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) for complying with new or revised accounting standards. We are choosing to utilize the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards under Section 102(b)(2) of the JOBS Act. This election allows our Company to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates.

We could remain an emerging growth company for up to five years, or until the earliest of (i) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion, (ii) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three year period.

We are a reporting company and file all reports required under sections 13 and 15d of the Exchange Act.