Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Unconditional Purchase Obligations As of June 30, 2020, purchase commitments for capital expenditures were $43.5 million, all of which is obligated within the next five years, with $27.2 million obligated within the next 12 months. As of June 30, 2020, Australian and U.S. commitments under take-or-pay arrangements totaled $1.2 billion, of which approximately $110 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 extensions to the Company’s commercial agreements for rail and port commitments, partially offset by reductions to near-term commitments related to its North Goonyella Mine. 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 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 appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (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 denied the plaintiffs’ request for stay and affirmed the order compelling the plaintiffs to dismiss the Company. The plaintiffs filed an application with the United States Supreme Court to recall the Eighth Circuit’s mandate, which the Supreme Court denied on June 24, 2020. Plaintiffs have until October 5, 2020 to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. On July 1, 2020, plaintiffs dismissed Peabody with prejudice from the underlying cases pending in California. In the underlying cases pending in California, on May 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the cases should be heard in state court rather than federal court. The Company does not believe the lawsuits are meritorious and, if the Company is brought back into these lawsuits, the Company would expect to vigorously defend them. FTC Complaint for Preliminary Injunction. On February 26, 2020, the FTC brought a complaint against the Company and Arch in the District Court seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Company and Arch from consummating their proposed joint venture relating to their operations in Wyoming and Colorado. Peabody and Arch continue to pursue creation of the joint venture and are litigating the FTC’s decision in the District Court. Related hearings took place July 14, 2020 through July 24, 2020 and closing arguments are scheduled for August 10, 2020, with a ruling expected during the third quarter of 2020. The FTC has also initiated an administrative proceeding on the merits, which is currently scheduled for hearing on October 27, 2020. If the court denies the preliminary injunction, Peabody plans to proceed with the joint venture. 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.