Alliance Resource (ARLP) Risk Analysis

Mining companies must obtain numerous governmental permits or approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to various environmental and safety matters in connection with coal mining. The permitting rules are complex and can change over time. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. The public has the right to comment on permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Accordingly, permits required to conduct our operations may not be issued, maintained, or renewed, may not be issued or renewed in a timely fashion, or may involve requirements that restrict our ability to economically conduct our mining operations. Limitations on our ability to conduct our mining operations due to the inability to obtain or renew necessary permits or similar approvals could reduce our production, cash flow, and profitability. Please read "Item 1. Business-Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations-Mining Permits and Approvals." The EPA has been reviewing permits required for the discharge of overburden from mining operations under Section 404 of the CWA. Various initiatives by the EPA regarding these permits have increased the time required to obtain and the costs of complying with such permits. In addition, the EPA previously exercised its "veto" power to withdraw or restrict the use of previously issued permits in connection with one of the largest surface mining operations in Appalachia. The EPA's action was ultimately upheld by a federal court. As a result of these developments, we could be unable to obtain or experience delays in securing, utilizing, or renewing Section 404 permits required for our operations, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operation and financial position. Please read "Item 1. Business-Environmental, Health and Safety Regulations-Water Discharge." In addition, some of our permits could be subject to challenges from the public, which could result in additional costs or delays in the permitting process or even an inability to obtain permits, permit modifications, or permit renewals necessary for our operations.

We are party to a number of legal proceedings incident to our normal business activities. There is the potential that an individual matter or the aggregation of multiple matters could have an adverse effect on our cash flows, results of operations, or financial position. Please see "Item 3. Legal Proceedings" and "Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data-Note 16 – Commitments and Contingencies" for further discussion.

The anticipated after-tax benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Even though we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, we would be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a "qualifying income" requirement. Based on our current operations and current Treasury Regulations, we believe we satisfy the qualifying income requirement. However, we have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS on this or any other matter affecting us. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement or a change in current law could cause us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity. If we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would pay U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, and would likely be liable for state income tax at varying rates. Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits would flow through to our unitholders. Because taxes would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, our treatment as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the anticipated cash flow and after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units. At the state level, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. If any state were to impose a tax upon us as an entity, the cash available for distribution to you would be reduced and the value of our units could be negatively impacted.

Increased attention to climate change risk has also resulted in a recent trend of governmental investigations and private litigation by state and local governmental agencies as well as private plaintiffs in an effort to hold energy companies accountable for the alleged effects of climate change. Other public nuisance lawsuits have been brought in the past against power, coal, and oil & gas companies alleging that their operations are contributing to climate change. The plaintiffs in these suits sought various remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages and injunctive relief. While the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal common law provided no basis for public nuisance claims against the defendants in those cases, tort-type liabilities remain a possibility and a source of concern. Government entities in other states (including California and New York) have brought similar claims seeking to hold a wide variety of companies that produce fossil fuels liable for the alleged impacts of the GHG emissions attributable to those fuels. Those lawsuits allege damages as a result of climate change and the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and abatement under various tort theories. Separately, litigation has been brought against certain fossil-fuel companies alleging that they have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change for some time but failed to adequately disclose such impacts to their investors or consumers. In addition, in December 2024, New York adopted a law requiring companies that emitted over one billion tons of GHG emissions into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2018, with sufficient connections to the state, to pay into a "climate superfund" to support climate-related adaptation and mitigation projects. We, among others, have been identified by New York as a potentially responsible party under the law but, to date, have not received any cost recovery demands. It is uncertain whether we or others in our industry will be required to pay penalties as a result of the New York law, nor can we predict whether or not other states will adopt similar legislation in the future. To the extent we are required to pay such penalties, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. It is possible that we could be included in similar future lawsuits initiated by state and local governments as well as private claimants or subject to regulatory fines or penalties in the future.

All of our oil & gas mineral interests may not ultimately be developed or produced by the operators of our properties. Recovery of undeveloped reserves requires significant capital expenditures and successful drilling operations, and the decision to pursue the development of an undeveloped drilling location will be made by the operator and not by us. We generally do not have access to the estimated costs of development of these reserves or the scheduled development plans of the operators. Our estimate of reserves assumes that substantial capital expenditures are required to develop the reserves. We cannot be certain that the estimated costs of the development of these reserves are accurate, that development will occur as scheduled or that the results of the development will be as estimated. Delays in the development of our reserves, increases in costs to drill and develop our reserves, or decreases in commodity prices will reduce the future net revenues of our estimated undeveloped reserves and could result in some projects becoming uneconomical. In addition, delays in the development of reserves could force us to reclassify certain of our proved undeveloped reserves as unproved reserves.

We depend on the leadership and involvement of Mr. Craft. Mr. Craft has been integral to our success, due in part to his ability to identify and develop internal growth projects and accretive acquisitions, make strategic decisions, and attract and retain key personnel. The loss of his leadership and involvement or the services of any members of our senior management team could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our profitability depends substantially on our ability to mine coal mineral reserves and resources that have the geological characteristics that enable them to be mined at competitive costs and to meet the quality needed by our customers. Because we deplete our reserves and resources as we mine coal, our future success and growth depend, in part, upon our ability to acquire additional coal mineral reserves and resources that are economically recoverable. Replacement reserves and resources may not be available when required or, if available, may not be mineable at costs comparable to those of the depleting mines. We may not be able to accurately assess the geological characteristics of any reserves or resources that we acquire, which could adversely affect our profitability and financial condition. Exhaustion of reserves and resources at certain mines also could have an adverse effect on our operating results that is disproportionate to the percentage of overall production represented by such mines. Our ability to obtain other reserves and resources in the future could be limited by restrictions under our existing or future debt agreements, competition from other coal companies for attractive properties, the lack of suitable acquisition candidates, or the inability to acquire coal properties on commercially reasonable terms.

Before making any distributions to our unitholders, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they have incurred on our behalf. The reimbursement of these expenses and the payment of these fees could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to the unitholders. Our general partner has sole discretion to determine the amount of these expenses and fees. For additional information, please see "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence-Related-Party Transactions-Expense Reimbursements."

Volatility in coal and oil & gas prices has been and may continue to be heightened as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, hostilities in the Middle East and the potential impact to global shipping. Globally, various governments have banned imports from Russia including commodities such as oil & gas and coal. These events have caused volatility in the aforementioned commodity markets. Such conflicts and the resulting volatility may significantly affect prices for our coal and oil & gas or the cost of supplies and equipment, as well as the prices of competing sources of energy for our electric power plant customers. Global geopolitical conflicts, trade and monetary sanctions, as well as any escalation of the conflict and future developments, could significantly affect worldwide market prices and demand for our coal and oil & gas and cause turmoil in the capital markets and generally in the global financial system. Additionally, the geopolitical and macroeconomic consequences of such conflicts and any associated sanctions cannot be predicted but could severely impact the world economy. If any of these events occur, the resulting political instability and societal disruption could reduce overall demand for products, causing a reduction in our revenues or an increase in our costs and thereby materially and adversely affecting our results of operations.

Combustion of fossil fuels, such as the coal we produce and the oil & gas produced from our mineral interests, results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Concerns about the environmental impacts of such emissions have resulted in a series of regulatory, political, litigation, and financial risks for our business. Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Most scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere could produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts and floods, and other climatic events. Increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to emissions of GHGs, including emissions due to fossil fuels. In the United States, no comprehensive climate change legislation has been implemented at the federal level. However, the EPA has adopted regulations that, among other things, establish construction and operating permit reviews for GHG emissions from certain large stationary sources, require the monitoring and annual reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources in the United States, constrain the emissions of powerplants (though such emissions restraints have been subject to challenge; for more information, see our regulatory disclosure titled "GHG emissions"), and, in some cases, require shutdown of power plants by a certain date. Additionally, in December 2023, EPA issued its final methane rules, known as OOOOb and OOOOc, that established new sources and first-time existing source standards of performance for methane and volatile organic compound emissions for oil & gas facilities. The final rules include nationwide emissions guidelines for states to limit methane emissions from existing crude oil and natural gas facilities and states have two years to prepare and submit their plants to impose methane emission controls on existing sources. The rules also revise requirements for fugitive emissions monitoring and repair as well as equipment leaks and the frequency of monitoring surveys and establishes a "super-emitter" response program to timely mitigate emissions events. The final rules are currently being challenged by 23 states and a coalition of industry groups in the D.C. Circuit Court, although OOOOb is already in effect. In February 2025, the court granted the EPA's motion to hold the cases in abeyance while the EPA reviews the final rules. While the Trump Administration may take action to repeal or modify the methane rules, we cannot predict whether such action will occur or its timing. To the extent the methane rules are implemented as originally promulgated, compliance with the new rules may affect the amount oil and gas companies owe under the Inflation Reduction Act, which amended the CAA to impose a first-time fee on the emission of methane from sources required to report their GHG emissions to the EPA. The methane emissions fee applies to excess methane emissions from certain facilities and starts at $900 per metric ton of leaked methane in 2024 and increases to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026 and thereafter. In November 2024, the EPA finalized a rule, applicable to oil and gas facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, to implement the methane emissions fee provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. We cannot predict whether, how, or when the Trump Administration might take action to revise or repeal the methane fee rule. Additionally, Congress may take actions to repeal or revise the Inflation Reduction Act, including with respect to the methane emissions fee, which timing or outcome similarly cannot be predicted. Should the regulation requiring such payments survive judicial review, we may be required to make such payments, which could have an adverse effect on our revenue. However, given the long-term trend toward increasing regulation, future federal GHG regulations of the oil and gas industry remain a significant possibility and may have an impact on drilling operations on our oil & gas mineral interests. Separately, various states and groups of states have adopted or are considering adopting legislation, regulations, or other regulatory initiatives that are focused on such areas as GHG cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, reporting and tracking programs, and restriction of emissions. Internationally, the Paris Agreement requires member states to submit non-binding, individually-determined emissions reduction targets. The United States rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021 and in December 2024, unveiled a new emissions target, seeking to cut emissions by 61-66% from 2005 levels by 2035. The Trump Administration, however, withdrew from the Paris Agreement in January 2025, alongside any other commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, the Trump Administration revoked any purported financial commitment by the United States pursuant to the same. The full impact of these actions is uncertain at this time and it is unclear what additional initiatives may be adopted or implemented that may have adverse effects on us and the operators' operations. Governmental, scientific, and public concern over climate change has also resulted in increased political risks, including certain climate-related pledges made by certain candidates now in political office. In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that committed to substantial action on climate change, calling for, among other things, the increased use of zero-emissions vehicles by the federal government, the elimination of subsidies provided to the fossil-fuel industry, a doubling of electricity generated by offshore wind by 2030, and increased emphasis on climate-related risks across governmental agencies and economic sectors. Although the Trump Administration has already announced its disagreement with various of these initiatives, we cannot predict what action the Trump Administration may take regarding these commitments or the timing of such action. Further, although Congress has not passed comprehensive climate legislation, almost half of the states have begun to address GHG emissions, primarily through the planned development of emissions inventories, regional GHG cap and trade programs, or the establishment of renewable energy requirements for utilities. Depending on the particular program, we, our customers, or operators of our mineral interests could be required to control GHG emissions or to purchase and surrender allowances for GHG emissions resulting from our operations. Litigation risks are also increasing. For more information, see our risk factor titled "We, our customers, or the operators of our oil & gas mineral interests could be subject to litigation related to climate change." Apart from governmental regulation, there are also increasing financial risks for fossil-fuel producers as stakeholders of fossil-fuel energy companies may elect in the future to shift some or all of their support into non-energy related sectors. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil-fuel energy companies also have become more attentive to sustainable lending practices and some of them may elect not to provide funding for fossil-fuel energy companies, although this trend has waned recently and several high-profile banks and institutional investors have withdrawn from various associations that aim to limit financing of industries that emit significant GHG emissions. There is also a risk that financial institutions will be required to adopt policies that have the effect of reducing the funding provided to the fossil-fuel sector. Although we cannot predict the effects of these actions, such limitation of investments in and financing, bonding, and insurance coverages for fossil-fuel energy companies could adversely affect our coal mining or oil & gas production activities. Separately, the SEC adopted a rule in March 2024 that establishes a framework for the reporting of climate risks, targets and metrics. The rule is being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the implementation of the rule has been voluntarily stayed by the SEC pending the outcome of the legal challenge. Moreover, on February 11, 2025, SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not schedule argument in the case while the SEC reconsiders the final rule. While the Trump Administration may seek to repeal or otherwise modify the rule, we cannot predict whether or how such action would occur or its timing. Relatedly, California has enacted new laws requiring additional disclosure with respect to certain climate-related risks and GHG emission reduction claims, some of which are already subject to legal challenge. While the outcome of such challenges is uncertain at this time, the judge in the case has declined to grant a temporary injunction of the laws while the litigation moves forward. Other states are considering similar laws. Non-compliance with these new laws may result in the imposition of substantial fines or penalties. Any new laws or regulations imposing more stringent requirements on our business related to the disclosure of climate related risks may result in reputation harms among certain stakeholders if they disagree with our approach to mitigating climate-related risks, increased compliance costs resulting from the development of any disclosures, and increased costs of and restrictions on access to capital to the extent we do not meet any climate-related expectations or requirements of financial institutions. We could become subject to new or more stringent international, federal, or state legislation, regulations, or other regulatory initiatives that impose more stringent standards for GHG emissions from fossil-fuel companies and related disclosure obligations whether as a result of newly adopted legislation or regulations or as a result of expanding our businesses and operations into areas already subject to more stringent standards, resulting in increased costs of compliance or costs of consuming, and thereby reducing demand for coal and oil & gas and the profitability of our interests. Additionally, political, litigation, and financial risks could result in either us or oil & gas operators restricting or canceling mining or oil & gas production activities, incurring liability for infrastructure damages due to climate change, or having an impaired ability to continue to operate economically. One or more of these developments, as well as concerted conservation and efficiency efforts that result in reduced electricity consumption, and consumer and corporate preferences for non-fossil-fuel sources, including alternative energy sources, could cause prices and sales of our coal and/or oil & gas to materially decline and could cause our costs to increase and adversely affect our revenues and results of operations. Climate change may also result in various physical risks, such as the increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather events or changes in meteorological and hydrological patterns that could adversely impact our operations, as well as those of the operators and their supply chain. Such physical risks may result in damage to our facilities or the operators' facilities or otherwise adversely impact operations which could decrease production attributable to our mineral interests. We may not have insurance to cover these risks and the consequences for our or their operations could have a negative impact on the costs and revenues from operations.

In 2024, we derived more than 10% of our total revenues from each of American Electric Power Company Inc., Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Tennessee Valley Authority. If we were to lose this or any of our significant customers without finding replacement customers willing to purchase an equivalent amount of coal on similar terms, or if these customers were to decrease the amounts of coal purchased or change the terms, including pricing terms, on which they buy coal from us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Some of our long-term sales contracts contain provisions that allow the purchase price to be renegotiated at periodic intervals. These price reopener provisions may automatically set a new price based on the prevailing market price or, in some instances, require the parties to the contract to agree on a new price. Any adjustment or renegotiation leading to a significantly lower contract price could adversely affect our operating profit margins. Accordingly, long-term sales contracts may provide only limited protection during adverse market conditions. In some circumstances, the failure of the parties to agree on a price under a reopener provision can also lead to the early termination of a contract. Several of our long-term sales contracts also contain provisions that allow the customer to suspend or terminate performance under the contract upon the occurrence or continuation of certain events that are beyond the customer's reasonable control. Such events could include labor disputes, mechanical malfunctions, and changes in government regulations, including changes in environmental regulations rendering the use of our coal inconsistent with the customer's environmental compliance strategies. Additionally, most of our long-term sales contracts contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal within stated ranges for specific coal characteristics. Failure to meet these specifications can result in economic penalties, rejection or suspension of shipments, or termination of the contracts. In the event of early termination of any of our long-term sales contracts, if we are unable to enter into new contracts on similar terms, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected.