Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of December 31, 2017, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $159.0 million, all of which is obligated within the next three years, with $41.9 million obligated in the next year. In Australia, the Company has generally secured the ability to transport coal through rail contracts and ownership interests in five east coast coal export terminals that are primarily funded through take-or-pay arrangements with terms ranging up to 25 years. In the U.S., the Company has entered into certain long-term coal export terminal agreements to secure export capacity through the Gulf Coast. As of December 31, 2017, these Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.3 billion, of which approximately $182 million is obligated within the next year. Contingencies From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company’s results of operations for the periods presented. Effect of Automatic Stay. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on the Petition Date in the Bankruptcy Court. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, each of the Debtors continued to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates. The automatic stay was lifted when the Plan became effective on April 3, 2017 and was replaced by the injunction provisions under the Debtors’ confirmed Plan. The Plan’s injunction provisions provide that all holders of prepetition claims or interests are enjoined, or stayed, from, among other things, (a) commencing, conducting or continuing any suit, action or other proceeding against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, (b) enforcing, levying, attaching, collecting or otherwise recovering an award against the Debtors, their property or the assets or property of the reorganized Debtors, (c) creating, perfecting or otherwise enforcing a lien against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, and (d) asserting any setoff, right of subrogation or recoupment against any obligation due a Debtor or a reorganized Debtor. The Chapter 11 Cases impacted the liabilities of the Debtors described below and in Note 4. “Discontinued Operations,” as well as certain other contingent liabilities the Debtors may have. For example, if a contingent litigation liability of the Debtors is ultimately allowed as a prepetition claim under the Bankruptcy Code, that claim will be subject to the applicable treatment set forth in the Plan and be discharged pursuant to the terms of the Plan. A group of creditors (the Ad Hoc Committee) that held certain interests in the Company's prepetition indebtedness appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Plan. On December 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the District Court) entered an order dismissing the Ad Hoc Committee's appeal, and, in the alternative, affirming the order confirming the Plan. On January 26, 2018, the Ad Hoc Committee appealed the District Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the Eighth Circuit). In its appeal, the Ad Hoc Committee does not ask the Eighth Circuit to reverse the order confirming the Plan. Instead, the Ad Hoc Committee asks the Eighth Circuit to award the Ad Hoc Committee members either unspecified damages or the right to buy an unspecified amount of Company stock at a discount. The Company does not believe the appeal is meritorious and will vigorously defend it. Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a statement of claim was delivered to Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEA-PCI, that was then known as Macarthur Coal Limited, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee, from the minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Management Agreement. Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd is the manager of the Monto Coal Joint Venture pursuant to the Management Agreement. Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd holds a 51% interest in the Monto Coal Joint Venture. The plaintiffs are Sanrus Pty Ltd, Edge Developments Pty Ltd and H&J Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd. An additional statement of claim was delivered to PEA-PCI in November 2010 from the same minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that PEA-PCI induced Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd to breach the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and the Monto Coal Management Agreement, respectively. The plaintiffs later amended their claim to allege damages for lost opportunities to sell their joint venture interest. These actions, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages from the three defendants collectively of amounts ranging from $15.6 million Australian dollars to $1.8 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The defendants dispute the claims and are vigorously defending their positions. Orders have been made by the court relating to trial preparation steps, with the steps expected to be completed by the end of April 2018. The court ordered the parties to participate in a mediation by the end of August 2018 and expects to set some trial dates in the second half of 2018 with the remainder of trial to be completed in 2019. Based on the Company’s evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss currently cannot be reasonably estimated. Berenergy Corporation. The Company has been in a legal dispute with Berenergy Corporation (Berenergy) regarding Berenergy’s access to certain of its underground oil deposits beneath the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine and contiguous undisturbed areas. The Company believes that any claims related to this matter constitute prepetition claims. On October 13, 2016, the Sixth Judicial Court in the state of Wyoming (Wyoming Court) entered an order (Wyoming Court Decision) allowing the Company the right to mine through certain wells owned by Berenergy but required the Company to compensate Berenergy for damages of $0.9 million, which the Company recognized during 2016. Further, the Wyoming Court ruled that should Berenergy obtain approval from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the Commission) to recover certain secondary deposits beneath the mine’s contiguous undisturbed areas, the Company would be liable to Berenergy for the cost of certain special procedures and equipment required to access the secondary deposits remotely from outside the Company’s mine area, which has been estimated as $13.1 million by Berenergy. Berenergy so far has not applied to the Commission for approval and the Company believes it is not probable that the Commission would approve access to the secondary deposits if Berenergy applied based on the Company’s view of a lack of economic feasibility and certain restrictions on Berenergy’s legal claim to the deposits. Based upon these factors, the Company has not accrued a liability related to the secondary deposits as of December 31, 2017. On December 21, 2016, Berenergy filed a Notice of Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. On January 5, 2017, Peabody filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. Both parties filed appellate briefs on April 17, 2017. The matter before the Wyoming Supreme Court has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were held on August 16, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order disallowing Berenergy’s proof of claim for the amounts awarded in the Wyoming Court Decision, which the Company believes discharged its obligation to pay these amounts. On January 4, 2018, the Wyoming Supreme Court vacated the Wyoming Court Decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case if the federal lessors could not be joined. On February 6, 2018, the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered a rehearing to decide whether its January 4, 2018 decision would apply to Berenergy’s access rights under a private, as opposed to a Federal, lease. County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Confirmation Order in the Bankruptcy Court because the Confirmation Order enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was heard on October 5, 2017 and granted on October 24, 2017. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company. On November 26, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s October 24, 2017 order to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On November 28, 2017, plaintiffs sought a stay pending appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, which was denied December 8, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the plaintiffs moved the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for a stay pending appeal. In the underlying cases pending in California, the parties are litigating whether the complaints should be heard in federal or state court. 10th Circuit U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Appeal. On September 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court of Wyoming’s decision upholding BLM’s approval of four coal leases in the Powder River Basin. Two of the four leases relate to the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. There is no immediate impact on the Company’s leases as the Court of Appeals did not vacate the leases as part of its ruling. Rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court with directions to order BLM to revise its environmental analysis. On November 27, 2017, the District Court remanded BLM to revise its environmental analysis. On January 31, 2018, the federal respondents filed a status report advising the District Court that they would conduct an environmental assessment to remedy the National Environmental Policy Act defect found by the Tenth Circuit, and anticipated that the environmental assessment would be completed in approximately six months. The Company’s operations will continue in the normal course during this period since the decision has no impact on mining at this time. The Company currently believes that its operations are unlikely to be materially impacted by this case, but the timing and magnitude of any impact on the Company’s future operations is not certain. Wilpinjong Extension Project (WEP). Wollar Progress Association has applied to the Land & Environment Court for a judicial review of the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission’s decision to approve the WEP. The matter was heard by the court in early February 2018. However, a decision has not yet been ordered. In the interim, the Company’s Wilpinjong Mine continues to mine in accordance with its approvals. Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations Environmental Claims and Litigation Arising From Historical, Non-Coal Producing Operations. Gold Fields Mining, LLC (Gold Fields) is a non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson plc, the Company’s predecessor owner. In a February 1997 spin-off, Hanson plc transferred ownership of Gold Fields to PEC despite the fact that Gold Fields and many of its subsidiaries had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields and its subsidiaries. Prior to the Effective Date, Gold Fields was one of PEC’s subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields agreed to indemnify Blue Tee with respect to certain claims relating to the historical operations of a predecessor of Blue Tee, which is a former affiliate of Gold Fields. Neither PEC nor Gold Fields had any involvement with the past operations of the Blue Tee predecessor. Environmental assessments for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages were also asserted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and natural resources trustees against Gold Fields related to historical activities of Gold Fields’ predecessor. As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields ceased its response actions and other engagements with the EPA at these sites and ceased paying remediation costs on Blue Tee’s behalf. During the Chapter 11 Cases, Blue Tee and several governmental entities including the EPA, the Department of the Interior and several states filed claims against Gold Fields and PEC and objections to the Plan. Gold Fields and PEC filed various objections to the claims. On March 16, 2017, the Debtors agreed to settle the objections to the Plan filed by Blue Tee and several government entities in the Chapter 11 Cases. Under the settlements, the Debtors will (1) not seek to recover federal tax refunds owed to Debtors in the amount of approximately $11 million; (2) transfer $12 million of insurance settlement proceeds from Century and Pacific Employers Insurance Company relating to environmental liabilities to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust (as described in the Plan); and (3) pay $20 million to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust. On March 16 and 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving these settlements. On July 13, 2017, the Debtors and government entities entered into a settlement agreement to reflect the above settlement. Notice of the settlement agreement was given in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court gave final approval of the settlement agreement after the notice and comment period expired. As of the Effective Date, all Gold Fields assets and liabilities have been transferred to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust and the Reorganized Debtors have no further obligations with respect to Gold Fields. Other At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

As of December 31, 2017, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $159.0 million, all of which is obligated within the next three years, with $41.9 million obligated in the next year.

In Australia, the Company has generally secured the ability to transport coal through rail contracts and ownership interests in five east coast coal export terminals that are primarily funded through take-or-pay arrangements with terms ranging up to 25 years. In the U.S., the Company has entered into certain long-term coal export terminal agreements to secure export capacity through the Gulf Coast. As of December 31, 2017, these Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.3 billion, of which approximately $182 million is obligated within the next year.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or related to indemnities or historical operations. The Company believes it has recorded adequate reserves for these liabilities. The Company discusses its significant legal proceedings below, including ongoing proceedings and those that impacted the Company’s results of operations for the periods presented.

Effect of Automatic Stay. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on the Petition Date in the Bankruptcy Court. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, each of the Debtors continued to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, automatically enjoined, or stayed, among other things, the continuation of most judicial or administrative proceedings or the filing of other actions against or on behalf of the Debtors or their property to recover on, collect or secure a claim arising prior to the Petition Date or to exercise control over property of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates.

The automatic stay was lifted when the Plan became effective on April 3, 2017 and was replaced by the injunction provisions under the Debtors’ confirmed Plan. The Plan’s injunction provisions provide that all holders of prepetition claims or interests are enjoined, or stayed, from, among other things, (a) commencing, conducting or continuing any suit, action or other proceeding against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, (b) enforcing, levying, attaching, collecting or otherwise recovering an award against the Debtors, their property or the assets or property of the reorganized Debtors, (c) creating, perfecting or otherwise enforcing a lien against the Debtors, their estates or the reorganized Debtors, and (d) asserting any setoff, right of subrogation or recoupment against any obligation due a Debtor or a reorganized Debtor.

The Chapter 11 Cases impacted the liabilities of the Debtors described below and in Note 4. “Discontinued Operations,” as well as certain other contingent liabilities the Debtors may have. For example, if a contingent litigation liability of the Debtors is ultimately allowed as a prepetition claim under the Bankruptcy Code, that claim will be subject to the applicable treatment set forth in the Plan and be discharged pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

A group of creditors (the Ad Hoc Committee) that held certain interests in the Company's prepetition indebtedness appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Plan. On December 29, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the District Court) entered an order dismissing the Ad Hoc Committee's appeal, and, in the alternative, affirming the order confirming the Plan. On January 26, 2018, the Ad Hoc Committee appealed the District Court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the Eighth Circuit). In its appeal, the Ad Hoc Committee does not ask the Eighth Circuit to reverse the order confirming the Plan. Instead, the Ad Hoc Committee asks the Eighth Circuit to award the Ad Hoc Committee members either unspecified damages or the right to buy an unspecified amount of Company stock at a discount. The Company does not believe the appeal is meritorious and will vigorously defend it.

Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations

Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). In October 2007, a statement of claim was delivered to Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEA-PCI, that was then known as Macarthur Coal Limited, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee, from the minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd breached the Monto Coal Management Agreement. Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd is the manager of the Monto Coal Joint Venture pursuant to the Management Agreement. Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd holds a 51% interest in the Monto Coal Joint Venture. The plaintiffs are Sanrus Pty Ltd, Edge Developments Pty Ltd and H&J Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd. An additional statement of claim was delivered to PEA-PCI in November 2010 from the same minority interest holders in the Monto Coal Joint Venture, alleging that PEA-PCI induced Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd to breach the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement and the Monto Coal Management Agreement, respectively. The plaintiffs later amended their claim to allege damages for lost opportunities to sell their joint venture interest. These actions, which are pending before the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, seek damages from the three defendants collectively of amounts ranging from $15.6 million Australian dollars to $1.8 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The defendants dispute the claims and are vigorously defending their positions. Orders have been made by the court relating to trial preparation steps, with the steps expected to be completed by the end of April 2018. The court ordered the parties to participate in a mediation by the end of August 2018 and expects to set some trial dates in the second half of 2018 with the remainder of trial to be completed in 2019. Based on the Company’s evaluation of the issues and their potential impact, the amount of any future loss currently cannot be reasonably estimated.

Berenergy Corporation. The Company has been in a legal dispute with Berenergy Corporation (Berenergy) regarding Berenergy’s access to certain of its underground oil deposits beneath the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine and contiguous undisturbed areas. The Company believes that any claims related to this matter constitute prepetition claims. On October 13, 2016, the Sixth Judicial Court in the state of Wyoming (Wyoming Court) entered an order (Wyoming Court Decision) allowing the Company the right to mine through certain wells owned by Berenergy but required the Company to compensate Berenergy for damages of $0.9 million, which the Company recognized during 2016. Further, the Wyoming Court ruled that should Berenergy obtain approval from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the Commission) to recover certain secondary deposits beneath the mine’s contiguous undisturbed areas, the Company would be liable to Berenergy for the cost of certain special procedures and equipment required to access the secondary deposits remotely from outside the Company’s mine area, which has been estimated as $13.1 million by Berenergy. Berenergy so far has not applied to the Commission for approval and the Company believes it is not probable that the Commission would approve access to the secondary deposits if Berenergy applied based on the Company’s view of a lack of economic feasibility and certain restrictions on Berenergy’s legal claim to the deposits. Based upon these factors, the Company has not accrued a liability related to the secondary deposits as of December 31, 2017. On December 21, 2016, Berenergy filed a Notice of Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. On January 5, 2017, Peabody filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court of the Wyoming Court Decision. Both parties filed appellate briefs on April 17, 2017. The matter before the Wyoming Supreme Court has been fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were held on August 16, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order disallowing Berenergy’s proof of claim for the amounts awarded in the Wyoming Court Decision, which the Company believes discharged its obligation to pay these amounts. On January 4, 2018, the Wyoming Supreme Court vacated the Wyoming Court Decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case if the federal lessors could not be joined. On February 6, 2018, the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered a rehearing to decide whether its January 4, 2018 decision would apply to Berenergy’s access rights under a private, as opposed to a Federal, lease.

County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach. The Company was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in three nearly identical lawsuits. The lawsuits seek to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to those fuels. The lawsuits primarily assert that the companies’ products have caused a sea level rise that is damaging the plaintiffs. The complaints specifically alleged that the defendants’ activities from 1965 to 2015 caused such damage. The Company filed a motion to enforce the Confirmation Order in the Bankruptcy Court because the Confirmation Order enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was heard on October 5, 2017 and granted on October 24, 2017. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their lawsuits against the Company. On November 26, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s October 24, 2017 order to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On November 28, 2017, plaintiffs sought a stay pending appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, which was denied December 8, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the plaintiffs moved the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for a stay pending appeal. In the underlying cases pending in California, the parties are litigating whether the complaints should be heard in federal or state court.

10th Circuit U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Appeal. On September 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court of Wyoming’s decision upholding BLM’s approval of four coal leases in the Powder River Basin. Two of the four leases relate to the Company’s North Antelope Rochelle Mine in Wyoming. There is no immediate impact on the Company’s leases as the Court of Appeals did not vacate the leases as part of its ruling. Rather, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the District Court with directions to order BLM to revise its environmental analysis. On November 27, 2017, the District Court remanded BLM to revise its environmental analysis. On January 31, 2018, the federal respondents filed a status report advising the District Court that they would conduct an environmental assessment to remedy the National Environmental Policy Act defect found by the Tenth Circuit, and anticipated that the environmental assessment would be completed in approximately six months. The Company’s operations will continue in the normal course during this period since the decision has no impact on mining at this time. The Company currently believes that its operations are unlikely to be materially impacted by this case, but the timing and magnitude of any impact on the Company’s future operations is not certain.

Wilpinjong Extension Project (WEP). Wollar Progress Association has applied to the Land & Environment Court for a judicial review of the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission’s decision to approve the WEP. The matter was heard by the court in early February 2018. However, a decision has not yet been ordered. In the interim, the Company’s Wilpinjong Mine continues to mine in accordance with its approvals.

Claims, Litigation and Settlements Relating to Indemnities or Historical Operations

Environmental Claims and Litigation Arising From Historical, Non-Coal Producing Operations. Gold Fields Mining, LLC (Gold Fields) is a non-coal producing entity that was previously managed and owned by Hanson plc, the Company’s predecessor owner. In a February 1997 spin-off, Hanson plc transferred ownership of Gold Fields to PEC despite the fact that Gold Fields and many of its subsidiaries had no ongoing operations and PEC had no prior involvement in the past operations of Gold Fields and its subsidiaries. Prior to the Effective Date, Gold Fields was one of PEC’s subsidiaries. As part of separate transactions, both PEC and Gold Fields agreed to indemnify Blue Tee with respect to certain claims relating to the historical operations of a predecessor of Blue Tee, which is a former affiliate of Gold Fields. Neither PEC nor Gold Fields had any involvement with the past operations of the Blue Tee predecessor. Environmental assessments for remediation, past and future costs, and/or natural resource damages were also asserted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and natural resources trustees against Gold Fields related to historical activities of Gold Fields’ predecessor.

As a result of filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Gold Fields ceased its response actions and other engagements with the EPA at these sites and ceased paying remediation costs on Blue Tee’s behalf. During the Chapter 11 Cases, Blue Tee and several governmental entities including the EPA, the Department of the Interior and several states filed claims against Gold Fields and PEC and objections to the Plan. Gold Fields and PEC filed various objections to the claims.

On March 16, 2017, the Debtors agreed to settle the objections to the Plan filed by Blue Tee and several government entities in the Chapter 11 Cases. Under the settlements, the Debtors will (1) not seek to recover federal tax refunds owed to Debtors in the amount of approximately $11 million; (2) transfer $12 million of insurance settlement proceeds from Century and Pacific Employers Insurance Company relating to environmental liabilities to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust (as described in the Plan); and (3) pay $20 million to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust. On March 16 and 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving these settlements. On July 13, 2017, the Debtors and government entities entered into a settlement agreement to reflect the above settlement. Notice of the settlement agreement was given in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court gave final approval of the settlement agreement after the notice and comment period expired. As of the Effective Date, all Gold Fields assets and liabilities have been transferred to the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust and the Reorganized Debtors have no further obligations with respect to Gold Fields.

Other

At times the Company becomes a party to other disputes, including those related to contract miner performance, claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, regulatory investigations and administrative procedures in the ordinary course of business in the U.S., Australia and other countries where the Company does business. Based on current information, the Company believes that such other pending or threatened proceedings are likely to be resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.