Alpha Metallurgical Resources, Inc.

Greetings and welcome to the Alpha Metallurgical Resources second quarter 2026 conference call. This time all participants are in a listen-only mode. An answer session will follow the formal presentation. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Emily O'Quinn, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations and Communications. You may now begin.

Thank you, Rob, and good morning, everyone. Before we get started, let me remind you that during our prepared remarks, our comments regarding anticipated business and financial performance contain forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially from those discussed. For more information regarding forward-looking statements and some of the factors that can affect them, please refer to the company's second quarter 2026 earnings release and the associated SEC filing. Please also see those documents for information about our use of non-GAAP measures and their reconciliation to GAAP measures. On the call today, I'm joined by ALSA's Chief Executive Officer, Andy Edson, and Chief Financial Officer, Todd Munsey, who will provide prepared remarks. Also participating on the call are our President and Chief Operating Officer, Jason Whitehead, and our Chief Commercial Officer, Dan Horn. Following our prepared remarks, we will be available to answer questions. With that, I'll turn the call over to Andy.

Thanks, Emily. Good morning, everyone. Today, we released our definitive second quarter financial results, which included adjusted EBITDA of $25.6 million and 3.5 million tons shipped. We closed out the first half of 2026 with fewer tons shipped and higher costs than expected. Given our performance today and our outlook for the rest of the year, we recently issued new guidance ranges for shipment volumes and cost of coal sales. Looking at the cost first, we increased our midpoint of guidance by $7 per ton as compared to our early estimations. This increase is largely due to higher costs on supplies and materials, including diesel. As we communicated last quarter, the impact of the Iran war has resulted in dramatic fluctuations and significant increases to our diesel spend. Other mining supplies have also increased in cost. We're projecting the need to spread these elevated costs across slightly fewer tons overall for the year. and all of these factors are incorporated in our new cost guidance range of $103 to $107 per ton. In terms of sales volumes, we brought down the midpoint of the guidance by a million tons for the year as compared to our initial expectations. Several factors informed our decision making here, including continued met market weakness. The new range of 14.2 million to 15.4 million tons not only incorporates our lighter than usual shipment performance in the first half, but it also accounts for a reduced efficiency rate at DTA. As we previously announced, one of the two stacker reclaimer machines at DTA sustained significant damage during a storm on June 14th. High winds reached over 80 miles per hour during the weather event, resulting in significant harm to the machine. The team at DTA has been exceptional, working diligently to safely and resourcefully keep as much coal moving through the terminal as possible, while simultaneously working through various processes with third-party equipment providers, structural engineers, and the terminal's insurance carrier. DTA has also filed an insurance claim because of the storm damage. The plans for returning the terminal to full operational capacity hinge on many processes that are still underway, so we don't have a definitive timeline to share just yet. We remain engaged in discussions with our partners at Core Natural Resources and DTA's leadership as appropriate to help advance those processes and gain clarity on the path ahead. In the meantime, we're very pleased with their efforts to keep the coal moving and expect to be able to mitigate isolated delays in coal handling that will normally been accomplished by the damaged stacker reclaimer. Our new shipment guidance race, for example, contemplates the continuation of the currently reduced operational capacity of DTA. It also reflects our ability to utilize throughput availability at other East Coast terminals. In summary, we're appreciative of DTA leadership and the way they have quickly established alternate workflows to maximize the terminal's capabilities under these unfortunate circumstances. We will provide updates as appropriate once longer-term plans are solidified. Our views on the MET coal markets remain largely unchanged since last quarter, as we continue to see weakness driven by sluggish global steel demand. The U.S. East Coast indexes have hardly moved, and in recent weeks, the Australian POV has begun to retreat. With its latest movement, the spread between Aussie POV and U.S. East Coast lowball has tightened, with the POV roughly 14% higher than U.S. East Coast lowball, as compared to about 23% higher when we announced first quarter earnings in May. The further $32 drop from U.S. East Coast Low Vol down to U.S. East Coast High Vol A sits at about 20% as compared to 22% a quarter ago. We continue to believe that this is unsustainable. As I wrap up my prepared remarks, I want to congratulate several of our West Virginia operations on their recognition by the Home Safety Association. 13 of our mines, plants, and docks were given awards for their outstanding performance in 2025. Additionally, our outstanding mine rescue teams have brought home top honors in numerous category competitions, as well as overall championships in two mine rescue contests this summer. We're proud of your accomplishments and grateful for your commitment to this important work. I'll now turn the call over to Todd for a review of our second quarter financial results.

Thanks, Andy. Adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter was $25.6 million, down from $30 million in the first quarter. We sold 3.5 million tons in Q2, down from 3.6 million tons in Q1. Met segment realizations decreased quarter over quarter with an average realization of $118.71 in the second quarter compared to $124.39 in the first quarter. Export met tons priced against Atlantic Indices and other pricing mechanisms in the second quarter realized $109.08 per ton. while export coal priced on the Australian indices realized $143.82 per ton. These results are compared to realizations of $110.32 per ton and $144.95 respectively in the first quarter. Realization for our metallurgical sales in the second quarter was a total weighted average of $124.30 per ton down from $128.40 per ton in Q1. Realizations in the incidental thermal portion of the MET segment increased to $79.36 per ton in the second quarter, up from $69.41 per ton in Q1. Cost of coal sales for our MET segment decreased to $103.07 per ton in Q2, down from $107.98 per ton in the first quarter. For the second quarter, SG&A, excluding non-cash stock compensation and non-recurring items, increased to $13.7 million as compared to $13.5 million in the first quarter. Moving to the balance sheet and cash flows, as of June 30th, we had $307.6 million in unrestricted cash and $30.9 million in short-term investments. As compared to $317.2 million of unrestricted cash and $49.6 million in short-term investments as of March 31st. We had $184.3 million in unused availability under our ABL at the end of the second quarter, partially offset by a minimum required liquidity of $75 million. As of the end of June, Alpha had total liquidity of $447.8 million, down from $476.2 million at the end of March. Apex for the second quarter was $45.1 million, up from $40.7 million in Q1. Cash provided by Operating Activities was $39.9 million in the second quarter, up from $29 million in the first quarter. As of June 30th, our ABL facility had no borrowings and $40.7 million of letters of credit outstanding. In terms of our committed position for 2026, at the midpoint of guidance, 70% of our metallurgical tonnage in the MET segment is committed and priced at an average price of $128.17. Another 30% of our MET tonnage for the year is committed but not yet priced. The thermal byproduct portion of the MET segment is fully committed and priced at the midpoint of guidance at an average price of $75.94. From a market perspective, metallurgical coal markets were subdued in the second quarter. Continued uncertainty and volatility resulting from the war in Iran and broader global economic conditions influenced markets alongside persistently weak steel demand. The Australian PLV index increased from $236.80 per metric ton on April 1 to $243.50 on June 30. The U.S. East Coast Low Vol Index dropped from $195 per metric ton in early April to $190 by the end of June. The U.S. East Coast High Vol Index decreased from $159.50 per metric ton at the beginning of the quarter to $157 at the quarter's close. And the U.S. East Coast High Vol B Index declined from $149.50 per metric ton to $147 at the end of the quarter. Since then, the Australian premium low vol index has decreased to $214.30 per metric ton as of August 6th, representing a drop of roughly 12% since quarter close. The U.S. East Coast indices are stagnant with low vol at $188 per ton, virtually flat to the quarter end level. The U.S. East Coast high vol A and high vol B indices are also largely unchanged from quarter close. at $156 and $146.50 per ton, respectively, as of August 6th. In the seaborne thermal market, the API2 index was $117.80 per metric ton at the beginning of April, decreased to $115.65 at the end of June. Since then, the API2 index is roughly flat at $115.75 as of August 6th. With that, operator, we are now ready to open the call for questions.

Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A moment, please, while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Nick Giles with B. Reilly Securities. Your line is now live.

Yeah, thanks, operator. Hey, good morning, guys. Maybe first just on DTA, it sounds like there are still a fair few unknowns, but just curious how you might quantify the kind of optimization that you can achieve with just one stack of Reclaimer, and how much of that optimization could we see show up in maybe 3Q versus further improvements in 4Q as kind of temporary fixes are installed, if you will?

Hey, Nick. It's Andy. Good morning. Yeah, I think the folks at CORE did a pretty good job answering this question yesterday. And we'll, you know, our view is exactly the same. There's a lot of moving parts here, up to and including insurance settlements and really engineering work. If you've ever been to DTA and you just see the scale and the size of these machines and the amount of damage that it sustained, It's a pretty big undertaking to figure this out and try to optimize. I can't give you any specifics, but again, I think our revised guidance covers what we believe we can accomplish. Hopefully, there may be a little bit of upside to that, but a lot of it's going to depend on how quickly we can get the logistics worked out and moving the damaged SR off of The current plot, moving it over to a yard where it can be disassembled and we can start to work on just clearing out the space so we can start moving pieces around. But the team down there has done a fantastic job handling the situation and keeping us as efficient as possible. But we are seeing some reduced efficiency and some throughput. But as I said, that's all reflected in our guidance for the rest of the year.

Understood. No, thanks, Andy. And sorry to stay on the topic, but just do you have any initial sense for, you know, if there was 100% utilization with both stack of reclaimers, kind of what utilization you could achieve with just one as we look out to 2027? No.

I mean, that's an unanswerable question, Nick. We don't have any plans that contemplate it that way. We're devising those as we go. So, yeah, really. It's going to be a while before I could tell you that.

Understood. No, fair enough. Maybe just switching gears on the cost side, you know, costs are obviously impacted from DTA and from the kind of higher diesel prices as well. But, you know, are there any areas where you're seeing relief or any kind of further efforts that you can do operationally just to drive costs lower?

Yeah, we are. I mean, right now it's more just looking at the portfolio and obviously the guidance reduction was looking at whether it's something as simple as schedule changes versus, you know, surface mines are easier to ramp up or ramp down based on the situation. So we're continuing to look through that and see what tons are most at risk. And it's not always just about cost. It's about margin. That's the number that we're worried about. So if you've got a low cost that is achieving a very low realization, then it needs to be at risk rather than something that's higher cost but achieves higher margins. So we continue to go through that and evaluate the portfolio to see what other actions that could be taken. And, of course, Jason, his team always have a couple of tricks up their sleeve as far as identifying efficiencies or areas where costs can be taken out. So we'll just let that develop as the rest of the year moves on.

Understood. Okay, well, I'll turn it over, but I appreciate the update.

Appreciate you.

As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Our next question comes from Nathan Martin with the Benchmark Company.

Thanks, operator. Good morning, everyone. Tell me if we can get your thoughts on shipping cadence for the balance of the year. What gets you to the high or the low end of your new guidance? And then how long does the shipment guidance assume the damaged DTA stack or reclaimer remains out of commission?

Well, good morning, Nate, by the way. I'll take those in reverse order. Obviously, our guidance runs through the end of the year, so that's the assumption. And as far as the cadence, I mean, if you take just the pro rata for the back half of the year and look at our typical seasonal trends between Q3 and Q4, I think that would probably apply. And there's been a little bit of back and forth that timing could get us. We are in concert with this market. We're seeing some of our customers pushing back on some cargo, so that could flip us from one quarter into the next. But I think generally speaking, our seasonal trend will probably still apply just at a lower overall rate.

Appreciate that, Andy. That's helpful. And then maybe a question for Dan. I noticed in your updated committed and price table, the domestic tonnage declined, I think, to $3.8 million from $4.1 million previously. First, I was just hoping to get some color on that.

Yeah, Nate, this is Dan. The domestic piece, we had some customers that had some optionality built in there, some options they can declare or not declare. Some of those were not declared. But generally speaking, we're shipping more or less what we thought. That happens most every year. There's some optionality built into our domestic contracts that as the year progresses, they either nominate them or don't nominate them, and this year they didn't nominate them. So that's the main reason.

Got it, Dan. That makes sense. Appreciate that. And then while I have you, it looks like you guys still have about 30% of your MET tons that are committed but still unpriced. How should we think about the quality mix of what you guys have left to sell for the year and which markets you expect those committed tons to move into?

Well, Nate, it's all of the above, frankly. Some are going to go to Aussie. I would apply the same percentages that we've already stated in there to those tons, too. They tend to be some to Europe, some to Asia, and the domestic. That ratio doesn't – I don't expect it would change a lot. You know, there's not a lot of spot opportunities. We don't have a whole lot, as you can see from our committed and uncommitted, we don't have a whole lot of spot tons left anyway. So they're going to ship under the term contracts to the known markets.

All right, appreciate that. I'll go ahead and pass it on, guys. Thank you for the time, and good luck coming forward.

Thanks, appreciate it.

Our next question comes from Matthew Key with Texas Capital Securities.

Good morning and thanks for taking my questions. I just have a quick one on the macro just regarding high vol A pricing. What do you think needs to happen to get some momentum there? Do you think this is mostly just a supply-driven story and we need to see some volume get taken offline? And also, is that something that you would be considering kind of as we, you know, get to 2027 if the market doesn't improve kind of from these levels?

Yeah, I'll let Dan answer. throw in his thoughts on the gory details, but generally speaking, I don't know that this is, yeah, the supply has grown a bit. We have seen some tons coming off through the first half of the year from some of the smaller producers, particularly in Central Appalachia, but it still seems like this is a demand story until the global economy kicks into gear. That's going to be the point of inflection. I don't think Anyone can cut enough production at this point to get pricing where it needs to be. But that being said, we always look at our portfolio. The cuts that have been made, the schedule changes, those kinds of things have been focused on the lower-ranked coals, the Haval Bs particularly, and some Haval As where appropriate. But, Dan, your thoughts on the market?

Yeah, I mean, I think... Andy nailed it pretty well. Everyone knew there was going to be high-volt supply coming on, but at the same time, everybody expected the steel market globally to be stronger than it is today, and that a normal seaborne coal market would have absorbed those high-volt tons. There's something like 500,000, maybe probably a little more, of new high-volt tons that are being produced each month that weren't being produced a year or two ago. and those, you know, those three or four or five vessels per month are finding homes in the spot market at low realizations in Asia. Largely by the, you know, being sold by the long wall mines. We've stayed away from most of those low priced opportunities. We've settled into our better markets and frankly, some of our higher BTU, high vol B tons were moving into the thermal market at basically the same realizations. We're taking advantage of an improved thermal market to move some tons as well. So it wasn't a surprise that the supply would be increasing. I guess a bit of a surprise is that the global economy is a little weaker and particularly due to the steel exports out of China, they continue to hurt our markets in South America and around the world with cheaper imported steel. We need our customers to produce more steel, frankly.

Got it. and just kind of want to follow up on that. Are there any kind of additional levers that you could pull to adjust your sales mix at all, like maybe to a slightly heavier weight in low vol versus high vol A or any other kind of adjustments you could do there?

Yeah, Matthew, I guess you're my straight man. We have a new mine coming online, Wildcat, that is in production now and be ramping up over the course of Q3 and Q4 and absolutely our mix will shift dramatically Thank you for your time and best of luck. Thanks, appreciate you. We have an additional question from Nick.

Yeah, thanks for taking my follow-up. I just wanted to ask about domestic negotiations, which I assume are underway. I mean, you know, U.S. prices have been weaker year on year, but I imagine that we're kind of getting close enough to the cost curve that, you know, maybe there's some resilience there. So just curious if you had any comments on that thus far.

Not particularly, Nick, at this point. I mean, everything you said is correct. You know, the The domestic prices have gone down the last couple of years. If you take a look at our customers, the years they're having, they're producing steel and selling it at some pretty high numbers this year. We hope that we'll participate in some of that uplift in the market next year.

And maybe just on that point, on the low vol side, I mean, do you see any material change in mix that you would be willing to send domestic versus preserving the optionality for just kind of the better low vol prices in the seaborne market?

Not particularly. I think as we wade into the negotiations, we'll see where the customers' interests are, where they align and where they don't. We really don't have a fixed number of, oh, let's sell this much high vol, this much low vol. We have a new mine that we're interested in shipping some of that to customers, obviously, but no, I think we'll, we have to hear from the customers and hear what their requirements are first, so it's really premature to get into what that mix would look like. I will add, let me just add that, you know, I'll just add that the demand seems to be good. There's many blast furnaces in North America that are running. The demand for coke should be pretty good this year, and therefore the demand for coking coal should be good. So we would expect probably in that kind of environment they'll use more lowball in their mixes to produce higher quality coke in shorter coking times. That's typically what happens in these years.

Understood. That's helpful context. We'll stay tuned there, and thanks again, guys.

Thank you. We have reached the end of the question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Andy Edson for closing remarks.

Thank you all for your interest in Alpha and for joining our call this morning. We hope you all have a great weekend. Talk to you next quarter.

This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.