Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Peabody Energy Q2 Earnings Call. For the conference, all participant lines are in a listen-only mode. There will be an opportunity for your questions. Instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I'll turn the conference over to the Senior Vice President, Global Investor and Corporate Communications (sic) [Relations], Mr. Vic Svec. Please go ahead, sir. Victor P. Svec - SVP-Global Investor & Corporate Relations: Okay. Thank you, John, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking part in the conference call for BTU. With us today are President and CEO Glenn Kellow, and our newly-appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Amy Schwetz. Amy is a financial executive with two decades of experience and a recognized leader within Peabody. She has held both domestic and international posts with Peabody over the past 10 years. Some of you may also recall Amy from her position within Investor Relations several years ago and we are pleased to welcome her to this new role. And also with us today is Senior Vice President of Finance Walter Hawkins. Now we do have some forward-looking statements today. I'd encourage you to consider those along with the risk factors that we note at the end of our release, as well as the MD&A section of our filed documents, and we also refer you to peabodyenergy.com for additional information. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Amy. Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: Thanks, Vic, and good morning, everyone. I've been pleased to be part of Peabody's finance team at both the corporate and operational levels and I look forward to getting reacquainted with many of our investors and analysts…

Certainly. First to the line of Jeremy Sussman with Clarkson. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hello and thanks for taking my questions. First question I have, just one of the things we've noticed, a lot of the global competitors that we also cover clearly have lowered costs in part on the volume growth side. As I look through your guidance results, one thing I've noticed is that you've managed to kind of keep unit costs flat to down despite lower volumes. Can you maybe elaborate on I guess what you've been doing and what we should see going forward here? Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. Good morning, Jeremy, and thanks for the question. I think the first part of that is you're right. Obviously, we've seen some production increases from some of our competitors or peers in terms of lowering the cost structure that you've seen, even if those potential margins are cash negative. Our approach has been a structured approach. The first is we've talked for some time about our overall programs to reduce and lower cost. And they have been about the owner-operated conversions in Australia. They've been about benchmarking activities and driving across the portfolio. They've been about condition-based monitoring and leveraging procurement. Those things are all, as you see, taking effect, and we still think there's additional runway ahead of us to continue to initiate those activities. The second thing is we do benefit from having an Australian cost base at this particular point in time, and you've seen us talk about the impact of hedging. And for this quarter, we break out our segments and you can see the full benefit of that. We've also been undertaking a range of initiatives on SG&A, and we've been talking about that in terms of de-layering the organization, refocusing the organization, and you're seeing the benefits there. I think the thing that's new in this quarter that we haven't talked about to date is that we don't believe producing into troubled spot markets at an incremental cash-negative position is the path for long-term value. And so as a result, what we've been attempting to do, and we've touched every single one of our Australian operations through this process, is what might be an ideal sweet spot with respect to operating volumes. And in some instances, that's been able to turn what would otherwise be variable costs, take out fixed costs through that process. And so that may be changing shift patterns, reducing roster systems or, in fact, actually parking equipment. So in that way, that's where we've entered into that new phase and you've seen cost performance being very strong despite the production plan.

Thanks. That's very helpful. And just – by the way, appreciate the increased disclosure in the release. That's helpful for all of us. Just a follow-up, a two-part question. First I think is you signed 14 million tons of new PRB coal this quarter. What was the price you signed at? And then second, can you elaborate a little bit about Burton? You mentioned it on the opening remarks. And maybe for argument's sake, let's just say that everything stays the same for the next 12 months. I guess what type of annual savings could we see from this mine and can you talk about just kind of how should we think about take-or-pay liabilities on the rail and port side that may exist? Thanks very much. Victor P. Svec - SVP-Global Investor & Corporate Relations: So, Jeremy, regarding the Powder River Basin, while we don't disclose the specific price in the quarter that we contracted at, we have said in the past and it continues to apply that we do sign new business above the OTC and above the strip. That's related to what has typically been a good premium that Peabody has been able to obtain. It's also related to the fact that in this business, longer-term type of contracts, those that require a certain amount of volumes associated with them over time will almost always tend to trade above what can be very thinly-traded spot volumes that are associated out there. What we can say and I believe what we've already said is that we have almost 90 million tons of volumes that are priced for the Powder River Basin for 2016. That's at an average revenue per ton of $14.23. And then I would also point you to the additional disclosures which you had referenced regarding historic revenues per ton and margins on the Powder River Basin, which are superior to our peers out there. So we're pleased to be able to provide that additional disclosure.

Thanks, Vic. And maybe on to the Burton question? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: Sure. With respect to Burton – this is Amy – Burton does add several dollars of cost to our met coal platform, depending on the quarterly performance. Take-or-pay for our met coal operations is right around $10 per ton. We have experienced some success in terms of trying to off-load capacity to other producers in the Bowen Basin as we've adjusted our production volumes. And in a scenario where we further drop production from Burton, we would look to do the same. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I think you – probably going back in time, you can see that Burton has been a focus area for us. We talked some time ago about restructuring that contract to be able to work through lower volumes at Burton. And as we flagged, it's certainly a mine that is under increased scrutiny as we look to right about the middle of next year, whether it be important milestones about whether we continue with that activity or not.

Understood. Thank you very much for the answers.

The next question is from Paul Forward with Stifel. Please go ahead. Paul S. Forward - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Thanks a lot. And thanks for the disclosure on the forward sales on Powder River Basin for next year, 89 million tons at $14.23. Just wondered if you might offer up a little bit, does that skew more toward a 8,800-plus Btu/lb North Antelope Rochelle type coal? And I guess as a follow-up to that, as you look over the next couple of years, what's the outlook for some of the lower-end coal in the Powder River Basin? And can you anticipate rotating more production to North Antelope Rochelle? Victor P. Svec - SVP-Global Investor & Corporate Relations: Thanks, Paul. In reference to your first question, the majority of that is probably oriented toward North Antelope Rochelle. And just by way of background, we're pleased to have what is the largest and most productive coal mine really in the world with North Antelope Rochelle, well over 100 million tons a year of production, which is a growing percent of the U.S. total. And we point out that one mine produces more than the entire state of West Virginia. So it allows us good economies of scale as well. But to your question regarding the pricing, it would skew a bit toward that, toward the 8,800 Btu/lb. Now regarding the 8,400 Btu/lb product, you know those quite often can fill particular niches on the part of customers. So we have that lower Btu product available from both the Caballo Mine as well as the very low-cost Rawhide Mine, which has among the very best overburden ratios that we've seen anywhere in the world. So, we continue to satisfy those customer needs from those operations. Paul S. Forward - Stifel, Nicolaus…

Our next question is from Evan Kurtz with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Evan L. Kurtz - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi. Thanks for taking my question. First off, just wanted to thank you for some of the increased disclosure on both Australian met and splitting apart some of the assets in Western coal. But I did have one question. It seems like in some of your cost per ton figures now, you may be stripping out some of the hedge losses. And I just wanted to confirm that and also to understand is all of that change only happening in Australia or is there also some hedge loss components coming out of the Western coal numbers? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: Yes. So this is Amy here. That change was made across the board in both the current period and as it relates to the historical periods and what's been posted out to the websites as well. I think in particular you see the significant movement in the Australian cost per ton number from where we might have been guiding to in the previous quarter. And I guess if we strip that impact out and looked at our guidance or what our guidance would have been last quarter versus where we're at this quarter, we still improved that guidance range by $1 to $2 a ton, absent the impact of hedging. Evan L. Kurtz - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Great. And I'm sorry. Did I miss that, there's no hedging impact on the Western cost numbers? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: That's correct. Evan L. Kurtz - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Okay. Great. And then just to drill down on some of…

Our next question is from Matthew Fields with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys, and hey, Amy, congratulations on the new position. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on Evan's questions about Australian cost per ton. And so I guess you answered it in that last quarter the costs were about $65 a ton. But if you do the math on a blended basis from your six-month figure here it implies it was $55 per ton in the first quarter. So that $10 per ton is purely the hedging costs that sort of are not – that you're not showing anymore? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: That's correct. Those hedging costs have been pulled out and included on a separate line item in the supplemental financial information.

Okay. And then at some point, though, those costs are flowing through your income statement, though, no? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: They are, and they would flow through the cost of sales line item on the income statement.

Okay. And then is that why sort of in your guidance table your new $53 to $56 per ton cost guidance does not have a previous comparison? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: That's exactly right.

Because that $62 to $64 is not comparable anymore? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: That's exactly right. So we didn't want to confuse the issue there. This new guidance methodology or the new cost per ton methodology is stripped of the impact of hedging. And then you'll note that we've included the supplemental table in the earnings release as well that gives you some additional information as to our hedge position going forward in 2015 and into 2016 and 2017.

Okay. Thanks very much. And then one follow-up, just sort of where bond prices, with where they are, what they are in the $0.20, $0.30 on the dollar. Are you planning to be buying these up in the open market? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: So I would say that given both our equity and our bonds are publicly traded, you can probably appreciate that we can't comment on specific strategies. Our objective is always to preserve and enhance the company's value. And at this point in time, we really think that's done by focusing on our areas of emphasis. And particularly in the area of financial strength you'll see that our current near-term goal is to maximize liquidity and reduce leverage over time.

Okay. And then just sort of on the back of that, if you're not going to be buying bonds back in the open market, I guess a good way to take advantage of the discount to in fact delever would be to exchange based on current prices. And your sort of first-lien capacity you could do quite a lot it seems, especially with the $1.5 billion 2018 maturity looming. Can you talk about that and your sort of appetite and outlook for how to deal with that maturity, please? Amy B. Schwetz - CFO, Chief Accounting Officer & Executive VP: I guess as it relates, again, we're not going to get into the specific strategies as it relates to our debt or equity at this point in time. The 2018 maturity is about three years away, so we feel like we have plenty of runway to deal with that as the date approaches.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Our next question is from Matthew Korn with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good day, everyone. Thanks for taking my call. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning, Matthew.

Glenn, what are your thoughts right now on where we are on the seaborne met coal balancing process? Is the 15 million tons you described, is that enough once executed? Is there any sign you're seeing that these Chinese miners who you pointed out are deeply underwater now, that you're going to see a substantial drop-off there in the near to medium term? Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, I think you've seen a range of supply cutbacks that we've been predicting. I think what's been on top of that has been uncertainty about the demand side as well. So I think what we've done is seek to both lower our costs in our Australian met position. But we've also, as you've seen, announced takeouts some 3 million tons per year on an annualized rate across what we've previously announced at North Goonyella. Now what we're flagging at Metropolitan, and as I've talked about before in the PCI space, look to reduce it at Coppabella. You've also seen other notable large producers recently talk about lower guidance with respect to met coal production. So I think certainly on the supply side we've seen an acceleration of those initiatives. The question is going to be as we look to demand signals that would assist in improving steel making both on a global scale and particularly around with respect to China.

And let me follow up with that on a domestic question. How firm are your domestic utility-priced contracts holding up now? Are you getting any pressure from utilities who are seeing the low spot prices? Are the utilities, are they starting to see the potential for supply threats driven by the current prices?

Certainly we've taken the view over time and this has been tested in all venues that our contracts are sacrosanct from a pricing perspective. The only time we work with customers and customers work with us are sometimes around volumes depending on how the rails are moving and other elements there. So contracts are contracts and that's been well established through the years.

All right. Thanks. Appreciate it, guys. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thank you.

And next question is from Pavan Hoskote with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Pavan P. Hoskote - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. Pavan P. Hoskote - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thanks for taking my question. We'll start off with Australia. There clearly a lot of moving pieces here, right. You've got secular cost-cutting potential. And then on the hedging fund, you got favorable price contracts that potentially roll off next year, offset by unfavorable currency hedges rolling off that impact cost. If you assume met coal and thermal coal prices stay at these levels and then Australian exchange rates stay at these levels as well, what do you estimate 2016 and 2017 Australia EBITDA to be? I'm not looking for exact numbers, but just conceptually just trying to see what the trend might be. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, maybe first part of that I'll address the cost situation. And then from a hedging perspective, we've given quite a bit of detail that we started last quarter in terms of breaking out our current hedge position for the remainder of 2015, 2016 and 2017. And I would point to what we would see, all other things being equal, if you look at the forward rate position that would have an implied EBITDA improvement through each of those years that would accelerate. With respect to pricing rolling off, we participate in the met coal market on a quarterly settlement basis and it's a question maybe with respect to thermal, which would be an annual price contract on about 40% to 50% of our volumes. Pavan P. Hoskote - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. That's helpful. And then on…

And final question will come from the line of Daniel Scott with Cowen & Co. Please go ahead. Daniel W. Scott - Cowen & Co. LLC: Hey, good morning, guys. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning, Daniel. Daniel W. Scott - Cowen & Co. LLC: You guys have talked a lot about India as the one bright spot in the export market. How much are you guys participating directly to India met coal sales? Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I think India has certainly been one of our largest customers. I think for the six months to-date, it's been certainly in the top three customers, including the traditional markets of Korea and Japan. And as we've probably seen, we've been able to respond, and China would rank fourth outside of that group. So it's been a key customer for us and an increasing customer over time. Victor P. Svec - SVP-Global Investor & Corporate Relations: And, Dan, just to broaden it, the industry as a whole is seeing India rise to the largest coal-importing nation this year. You're seeing strength on the thermal side, of course. As people may point out, well, they're looking to increase production or they are increasing production, but the fact is they continue to have substantially larger growth in imports than they do on production from a percent standpoint. So we're benefiting from that. That's on the thermal side, but we're also seeing increased met coal support as they build more blast furnaces along the coast. Daniel W. Scott - Cowen & Co. LLC: Okay, great. On the back of Jeremy's question about the Burton Mine, I think you said several dollars per ton of drag on the met coal production costs. I assume…

And I'll turn things back over to Mr. Glenn Kellow for closing remarks. Glenn L. Kellow - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thank you, and thanks, everyone, for joining our call today. I also appreciate the good work of the Peabody team both at the staff and operational level. While these are unprecedented times, I do firmly believe in the quality of our assets and the quality of our people. Thank you for your continued interest. We have a great deal of work ahead of us, and we look forward to keeping you appraised of our progress.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference for today. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.