Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of March 31, 2020, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $42.7 million, all of which is obligated within the next five years, with $35.6 million obligated within the next 12 months. As of March 31, 2020, Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $945.0 million, of which approximately $105 million is obligated within the next year. The change in commitments under take-or-pay arrangements since the year ended December 31, 2019 was largely driven by changes in the foreign currency exchange rates. For additional information regarding the Company’s commitments under take-or-pay arrangements, refer to Note 26. “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. 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. Litigation Relating to Continuing Operations Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd and Peabody Energy Australia PCI Pty Ltd (PEA-PCI). On October 1, 2007, a claim was made against Peabody Monto Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Macarthur Coal Limited (Macarthur) that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, an equity accounted investee of Macarthur, now known as PEA-PCI. The claim, made by the minority interest holders in the joint venture, alleged that the Macarthur companies breached certain agreements by failing to develop a mine project. The claim was amended to assert that Macarthur also induced the alleged breach of the Monto Coal Joint Venture Agreement. The Company acquired Macarthur and its subsidiaries in 2011. The claim originally sought damages of up to $1.1 billion Australian dollars, plus interest and costs, but was amended in November 2019 to seek $18 million Australian dollars, plus interest and costs. The Company asserted that the Macarthur companies were never under an obligation to develop the mine project because the project was not economically viable. A trial commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia on April 8, 2019 and concluded on December 12, 2019. Before a decision was handed down, the parties reached a settlement to end the multi-year dispute, the terms of which included the Company (a) transferring its interests in Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd, and therefore the Monto Coal Joint Venture, to the claimant; and (b) agreeing to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer certain other assets to the claimant. These settlement terms are not expected to result in a material impact to the Company’s financial accounts. As a result of the settlement, the parties filed a dismissal of the litigation on January 24, 2020. 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 brought by municipalities in California on July 17, 2017. 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 and seek compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, attorneys’ fees and costs, disgorgement of profits and equitable relief of abatement. 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 Company’s Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Debtors and Debtors in Possession as revised March 15, 2017 (the Plan) because it enjoins claims that arose before the effective date of the Plan. The motion to enforce was granted on October 24, 2017, and 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the District Court). On November 28, 2017, the plaintiffs sought a stay pending appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, which was denied on December 8, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the plaintiffs moved the District Court for a stay pending appeal. The District Court denied the stay request on September 20, 2018, and the plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On March 29, 2019, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court ruling enjoining the plaintiffs from proceeding with their lawsuits against the Company. That ruling likewise was appealed. On May 6, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ request for stay and affirmed the order compelling the plaintiffs to dismiss the Company. The plaintiffs may ask the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider or may appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In the underlying cases pending in California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for remand and decided the cases should be heard in state court. The defendants appealed the order granting remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) and sought a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decision pending completion of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ request for a stay pending completion of the Ninth Circuit appeal. The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss part of the appeal. The parties are now litigating at the Ninth Circuit whether a state or federal court should hear these lawsuits. Regardless of whether state court or federal court is the venue, the Company believes the lawsuits against it should be dismissed under enforcement of the Plan. The Company does not believe the lawsuits are meritorious and, if the lawsuits are not dismissed, the Company intends to vigorously defend them. 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.