Introduction

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. traces its history back to 1847. Today, we are a leading mining and natural resources company. We are a major supplier of iron ore pellets to the North American steel industry from our mines and pellet plants located in Michigan and Minnesota. Cliffs also produces low-volatile metallurgical coal in the U.S. from its mines located in Alabama and West Virginia. Additionally, Cliffs operates an iron ore mining complex in Western Australia and owns two non-operating iron ore mines in Eastern Canada. Driven by the core values of safety, social, environmental and capital stewardship, our employees endeavor to provide all stakeholders with operating and financial transparency.

We are organized through a global commercial group responsible for sales and delivery of our products and operations groups responsible for the production of the minerals that we market. Our operations are organized according to product category and geographic location: U.S. Iron Ore, Asia Pacific Iron Ore, North American Coal and Eastern Canadian Iron Ore.

In the U.S., we currently operate five iron ore mines in Michigan and Minnesota and two metallurgical coal operations located in Alabama and West Virginia. Our Asia Pacific operations consist solely of our Koolyanobbing iron ore mining complex in Western Australia. We also own two iron ore mines in Eastern Canada, although we have currently shutdown one of the mines due to its unsustainable high cost structure and the other mine has ceased all production and transitioned to "care-and-maintenance" mode.

Re-focusing the Company on our Core U.S. Iron Ore Business

Our leadership changed over the past year. Subsequent to our 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, where shareholders elected six new directors to our Board of Directors, including our new Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Lourenco Goncalves, our Board changed substantially. The reconstituted Board of Directors has established a strategy to return the Company to its core strengths.

We have shifted from a diversification based strategy to one that focuses on strengthening our U.S. Iron Ore operations. We are the market-leading iron ore producer in the U.S., supplying differentiated iron ore pellets under long-term contracts, some of which begin to expire in the end of 2016, to the largest U.S. steel producers. Pricing protections and long-term supply, certainty provided by our existing contracts and our low-cost operating profile positions U.S. Iron Ore as our most stable and profitable business. We expect to continue to strengthen U.S. Iron Ore cost operating profile through our operational expertise and disciplined capital allocation policies.     

Eastern Canadian Iron Ore

The Cliffs' Wabush Scully mine in Newfoundland and Labrador was idled by the end of the first quarter of 2014 and subsequently began to commence permanent closure in the fourth quarter of 2014. With costs unsustainably high, it was not economically viable to continue running this operation. Approximately 500 employees at both the Wabush Scully mine and the Pointe Noire rail and port operation in Québec were impacted by these actions.

On November 19, 2014, we announced the pursuit of an exit option for our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore operations. With the expansion no longer viable and the Bloom Lake operation remaining unprofitable, we have shifted our focus to executing an exit option for Eastern Canadian Iron Ore operations that minimizes the cash outflows and associated liabilities.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, we disclosed that, despite our cost-cutting progress at our Bloom Lake mine, we concluded that Phase I alone was not economically feasible based on our current operating plans. For the Bloom Lake mine to be profitable, we concluded that Phase II of the Bloom Lake mine must be developed to reduce the overall cash cost of operations. We could only develop Phase II of the Bloom Lake mine if we had been able to secure new equity partners to share in the capital costs, which we estimated to be approximately $1.2 billion. As the equity partners were unable to commit within the short timeframe we required, we determined that the Phase II expansion of the Bloom Lake mine was no longer a viable option for us and we shifted our focus to considering available possibilities and executing an exit option for Eastern Canadian Iron Ore operations that minimized the cash outflows and associated liabilities. In December 2014, iron ore production at the Bloom Lake mine was suspended and the Bloom Lake mine was placed in ‘‘care-and-maintenance’’ mode.

On January 27, 2015, we announced that Bloom Lake General Partner Limited and certain of its affiliates, including Cliffs Québec Iron Mining ULC (collectively, the "Bloom Lake Group") commenced restructuring proceedings in Montreal, Québec, under the CCAA. The Bloom Lake Group had recently suspended operations, and for several months we were exploring options to sell certain of our Canadian assets, among other initiatives. The decision to seek protection under the CCAA was based on a thorough legal and financial analysis of the options available to the Bloom Lake Group. The Bloom Lake Group was no longer generating any revenues and was not able to meet its obligations as they came due. The initial CCAA order addressed the Bloom Lake Group's immediate liquidity issues and permits the Bloom Lake Group to preserve and protect its assets for the benefit of all stakeholders while restructuring and sale options are explored. As part of the CCAA process, the Court has appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as the Monitor. The Monitor's role in the CCAA process is to monitor the activities of the Bloom Lake Group and provide assistance to the Bloom Lake Group and its stakeholders in respect of the CCAA process.

Business Segments

Our Company’s operations are organized and managed according to product category and geographic location: U.S. Iron Ore, Asia Pacific Iron Ore, North American Coal and Eastern Canadian Iron Ore. Amapá, which was sold in the fourth quarter of 2013, previously was reported through our Latin American Iron Ore operating segment, which did not meet the criteria for a reportable segment. Additionally, Sonoma, which was sold in the fourth quarter of 2012, previously was reported through our Asia Pacific Coal operating segment, which did not meet the criteria for a reportable segment.

Segment information reflects our strategic business units, which are organized to meet customer requirements and global competition. We have historically evaluated segment performance based on sales margin, defined as revenues less cost of goods sold, and operating expenses identifiable to each segment. Additionally, beginning in the third quarter of 2014, concurrent with the change of a majority of our Board of Directors and appointment of our new Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer in August 2014, management began to evaluate segment performance based on EBITDA, defined as Net Income (Loss) before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, and Adjusted EBITDA, defined as EBITDA excluding certain items such as impairment charges, impacts of permanently idled, closed or sold facilities, foreign currency remeasurement, severance and other costs associated with the change in control, litigation judgments and intersegment corporate allocations of SG&A costs. Management uses and believes that investors benefit from referring to these measures in evaluating operating and financial results, as well as in planning, forecasting and analyzing future periods as these financial measures approximate the cash flows associated with the operational earnings. Financial information about our segments, including financial information about geographic areas, is included in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and NOTE 2 - SEGMENT REPORTING included in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

U.S. Iron Ore

We are a major global iron ore producer, primarily selling production from U.S. Iron Ore to integrated steel companies in the U.S. and Canada. We manage and operate five iron ore mines located in Michigan and Minnesota. The U.S.-based mines currently have an annual rated capacity of 32.9 million tons of iron ore pellet production, representing 56 percent of total U.S. pellet production capacity. Based on our equity ownership in these mines, our share of the annual rated production capacity is currently 25.5 million tons, representing 44 percent of total U.S. annual pellet capacity.

The following chart summarizes the estimated annual pellet production capacity and percentage of total U.S. pellet production capacity for each of the respective iron ore producers as of December 31, 2014 :

Our U.S. iron ore production generally is sold pursuant to long-term supply agreements with various price adjustment provisions. For the year ended December 31, 2014 , we produced a total of 29.7 million tons of iron ore pellets, including 22.4 million tons for our account and 7.3 million tons on behalf of steel company partners of the mines.

We produce various grades of iron ore pellets, including standard and fluxed, for use in our customers’ blast furnaces as part of the steelmaking process. The variation in grades results from the specific chemical and metallurgical properties of the ores at each mine and whether or not fluxstone is added in the process. Although the grade or grades of pellets currently delivered to each customer are based on that customer’s preferences, which depend in part on the characteristics of the customer’s blast furnace operation, in many cases our iron ore pellets can be used interchangeably. Industry demand for the various grades of iron ore pellets depends on each customer’s preferences and changes from time to time. In the event that a given mine is operating at full capacity, the terms of most of our pellet supply agreements allow some flexibility in providing our customers iron ore pellets from different mines.

Standard pellets require less processing, are generally the least costly pellets to produce and are called “standard” because no ground fluxstone, such as limestone or dolomite, is added to the iron ore concentrate before turning the concentrate into pellets. In the case of fluxed pellets, fluxstone is added to the concentrate, which produces pellets that can perform at higher productivity levels in the customer’s specific blast furnace and will minimize the amount of fluxstone the customer may be required to add to the blast furnace.

Each of our U.S. Iron Ore mines is located near the Great Lakes. The majority of our iron ore pellets are transported via railroads to loading ports for shipment via vessel to steelmakers in North America.

Our U.S. Iron Ore sales are influenced by seasonal factors in the first quarter of the year as shipments and sales are restricted by the Army Corp of Engineers due to closure of the Soo Locks and the Welland Canal on the Great Lakes. During the first quarter, we continue to produce our products, but we cannot ship those products via lake vessel until the conditions on the Great Lakes are navigable, which causes our first quarter inventory levels to rise. Our limited practice of shipping product to ports on the lower Great Lakes or to customers’ facilities prior to the transfer of title has somewhat mitigated the seasonal effect on first quarter inventories and sales, as shipment from this point to the customers’ operations is not limited by weather-related shipping constraints. At December 31, 2014 and 2013 , we had approximately 1.4 million and 1.2 million tons of pellets, respectively, in inventory at lower lakes or customers’ facilities.

U.S. Iron Ore Customers

Our U.S. Iron Ore revenues primarily are derived from sales of iron ore pellets to the North American integrated steel industry, consisting of three major customers. Generally, we have multi-year supply agreements with our customers. Sales volume under these agreements largely is dependent on customer requirements, and in many cases, we are the sole supplier of iron ore to the customer. Historically, each agreement has contained a base price that is adjusted annually using one or more adjustment factors. Factors that could result in a price adjustment include spot pricing, measures of general industrial inflation and steel prices. Additionally, certain of our supply agreements have a provision that limits the amount of price increase or decrease in any given year.

During 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , we sold 21.8 million , 21.3 million and 21.6 million tons of iron ore pellets, respectively, from our share of the production from our U.S. Iron Ore mines. The segment’s five largest customers together accounted for a total of 95 percent , 87 percent and 91 percent of U.S. Iron Ore product revenues for the years 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively. Effective September 16, 2014, AK Steel completed the acquisition of Severstal North America's integrated steelmaking assets located in Dearborn, Michigan. For comparative purposes, we have combined historical data of AK Steel for all periods presented. Refer to Concentration of Customers below for additional information regarding our major customers.

Asia Pacific Iron Ore

Our Asia Pacific Iron Ore operations are located in Western Australia and, as of December 31, 2014, consist solely of our wholly owned Koolyanobbing complex. Our 50 percent equity interest in Cockatoo Island also was included in these operations through September 2012, at which time we sold our interest.

The Koolyanobbing operations serve the Asian iron ore markets with direct-shipped fines and lump ore. The lump products are fed directly to blast furnaces, while the fines products are used as sinter feed. The variation in the two export product grades reflects the inherent chemical and physical characteristics of the ore bodies mined as well as the supply requirements of our customers. In September 2010, our Board of Directors approved a capital project at our Koolyanobbing operation, which was completed in the second quarter of 2012, and increased production capacity at Koolyanobbing to approximately 11.0 million metric tons annually. Production in 2014 was 11.4 million metric tons, compared with 11.1 million metric tons in 2013 and 10.7 million metric tons in 2012 .

Koolyanobbing is a collective term for the operating deposits at Koolyanobbing, Mount Jackson and Windarling. There are approximately 70 miles separating the three mining areas. Banded iron formations host the mineralization, which is predominately hematite and goethite. Each deposit is characterized with different chemical and physical attributes and, in order to achieve customer product quality, ore in varying quantities from each deposit must be blended together.

Crushing and blending are undertaken at Koolyanobbing, where the crushing and screening plant is located. Once the blended ore has been crushed and screened into a direct lump and fines shipping product, it is transported by rail approximately 360 miles south to the Port of Esperance, via Kalgoorlie, for shipment to our customers in Asia.

On July 31, 2012, we entered into a definitive asset sale agreement with our joint venture partner, HWE Cockatoo Pty Ltd., to sell our beneficial interest in the mining tenements and certain infrastructure of Cockatoo Island to Pluton Resources, which agreement was amended on August 31, 2012. On September 7, 2012, the closing date, Pluton Resources paid a nominal sum of AUD $4.00 and assumed ownership of the assets and responsibility for the environmental rehabilitation obligations and other assumed liabilities not inherently attached to the tenements acquired. The rehabilitation obligations and assumed liabilities that inherently are attached to the tenements were transferred to Pluton Resources upon registration by the Department of Mining and Petroleum denoting Pluton Resources as the tenement holder. Upon final settlement of the sale, which was completed during the second quarter of 2013, we extinguished approximately $18.6 million related to the estimated cost of the rehabilitation. As of December 31, 2013, we had no remaining rehabilitation obligations related to Cockatoo Island. Our production at Cockatoo Island continued until the completion of Stage 3 mining in September 2012. Our portion of Cockatoo's annual production of iron ore premium fines totaled 0.6 million metric tons in 2012 . We had no production at Cockatoo Island in 2014 and 2013 due to the sale of our interest in Cockatoo Island during the third quarter of 2012.

Asia Pacific Iron Ore Customers

Asia Pacific Iron Ore’s production is under contract with steel companies primarily in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Generally, we have two-year or three-year term supply agreements with steel producers in China and two-year supply agreements in Japan. Pricing for our Asia Pacific Iron Ore customers consists of shorter-term pricing mechanisms of various durations up to one month based on the average of daily spot prices that are generally associated with either unloading each shipment or the time of loading. The existing contracts are due to expire at various dates until March 2015 for our Chinese and Japanese customers which are customarily renewed in conjunction with our customers' fiscal year.

During 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , we sold 11.5 million , 11.0 million and 11.7 million metric tons of iron ore, respectively, from our Western Australia mines. No Asia Pacific Iron Ore customer comprised more than 10 percent of Cliffs consolidated sales in 2014 , 2013 or 2012 . Asia Pacific Iron Ore’s five largest customers accounted for approximately 38 percent of the segment’s sales in 2014 , 42 percent in 2013 and 44 percent in 2012 .

North American Coal

We own and operate two low-volatile metallurgical coal operations located in Alabama and West Virginia that currently have a rated capacity of 6.5 million tons of production annually as of December 31, 2014. In 2014 , we sold a total of 7.4 million tons, compared with 7.3 million tons in 2013 and 6.5 million tons in 2012 . In the fourth quarter of 2014, we sold our CLCC assets, which consisted of two high-volatile metallurgical coal mines and a thermal coal mine. The sale was completed on December 31, 2014. Sales tons at the CLCC operations were 2.4 million tons, 2.2 million tons and 2.1 million tons for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, and are included in the sales tons disclosed above.

Metallurgical coal generally is sold at a premium over the more prevalently mined thermal coal, which generally is utilized to generate electricity. Metallurgical coal receives this premium because of its coking characteristics, which include contraction and expansion when heated, and volatility, which refers to the loss in mass when coal is heated in the absence of air. Coals with lower volatility are valued more highly than coals with a higher volatility.

Each of our North American coal mines are positioned near rail or barge lines providing access to international shipping ports, which allows for export of our coal production.

North American Coal Customers

North American Coal’s metallurgical coal production is sold to global integrated steel and coke producers in Europe, North America, China, India and South America and its thermal coal production was sold to energy companies and distributors in North America and Europe. Approximately 56 percent of our 2014 and 70 percent of our 2013 production was committed under contracts of at least one year. Approximately 45 percent of our projected 2015 sales has been committed and priced. North American contract negotiations are largely completed, and international contract negotiations recently have begun. The remaining tonnage primarily is pending price negotiations with our international customers, which typically is dependent on settlements of Australian pricing for metallurgical coal. International customer contracts typically are negotiated on a fiscal year basis extending from April 1 through March 31, whereas customer contracts in North America typically are negotiated on a calendar year basis extending from January 1 through December 31.

International and North American sales represented 64 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of our North American Coal sales in 2014 . This compares with 61 percent and 39 percent, respectively, in 2013 and 66 percent and 34 percent, respectively, in 2012 . The segment’s five largest customers together accounted for a total of 48 percent, 57 percent and 50 percent of North American Coal product revenues for the years 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively. Refer to Concentration of Customers below for additional information regarding our major customers.

Eastern Canadian Iron Ore

We own two iron ore mines in Eastern Canada, the Bloom Lake mine and the Wabush Scully mine.

As disclosed in the first quarter of 2014, at the end of March 2014, we idled our Wabush Scully mine in Newfoundland and Labrador and in November 2014, we began to implement the permanent closure plan for the mine. The idle and ultimate closure was driven by the unsustainable high cost structure. Additionally, we disclosed in November 2014, that we were pursuing exit options for our Bloom Lake mine. As disclosed in January 2015, active production at the Bloom Lake mine has ceased and the mine has transitioned to "care-and-maintenance" mode. Together, the shutdown of the Wabush Scully mine and the cessation of operations at our Bloom Lake mine represent a complete curtailment of our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore operations.

We had been producing a concentrate product at our Bloom Lake operation and, starting in the second half of 2013 through the idle in the first quarter of 2014, we had been producing a concentrate product at our Wabush operation in Eastern Canada. The concentrate products had been marketed toward steel producers, predominately based in Asia, that have sintering capabilities at their steel-making operations. The Bloom Lake concentrate was blended with other sinter fines and materials at high temperatures, creating a direct charge product used in blast furnace operations.

We produced “high manganese” pellets, both in standard and fluxed grades, through June 2013 at our Wabush operation in Eastern Canada, where there is more natural manganese in the crude ore than is found at our other operations. The manganese contained in the iron ore mined at Wabush cannot be removed entirely during the concentrating process.

For the year ended December 31, 2014 , we produced a total of 6.2 million metric tons of concentrate.

Both Eastern Canadian Iron Ore mines are located near the St. Lawrence Seaway. Our iron ore products had been transported via railroads to loading ports for shipment via vessel to steelmakers in North America or into the international seaborne market.

Eastern Canadian Iron Ore Customers

Our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore revenues were derived from sales to customers in Asia, Europe and North America. We had various customers for iron ore concentrate and pellets, of which our partner in the Bloom Lake mine is considered a major customer for iron ore concentrate. Pricing for our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore customers consisted primarily of short-term pricing arrangements that were linked to spot market pricing.

During 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , we sold 7.2 million , 8.6 million and 8.9 million metric tons of iron ore concentrate and pellets, respectively, from our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore mines, with the segment’s five largest customers together accounting for a total of 88 percent, 70 percent and 62 percent of Eastern Canadian Iron Ore product revenues, respectively. Refer to Concentration of Customers below for additional information regarding our major customers.

Investments

Amapá

On December 27, 2012, our Board of Directors authorized the sale of our 30 percent interest in Amapá. Per this original agreement, together with Anglo, we were to sell our respective interest in a 100 percent sale transaction to Zamin.

On March 28, 2013, an unknown event caused the Santana port shiploader to collapse into the Amazon River, preventing further ship loading by the mine operator, Anglo. In light of the Santana port shiploader collapse and subsequent evaluation of the effect that this event had on the carrying value of our investment in Amapá as of June 30, 2013, we recorded an impairment charge of $67.6 million in the second quarter of 2013.

On August 28, 2013, we entered into additional agreements to sell our 30 percent interest in Amapá to Anglo for nominal cash consideration, plus the right to certain contingent deferred consideration upon the two-year anniversary of the closing. The closing was conditional on obtaining certain regulatory approvals and the additional agreement provided Anglo with an option to request that we transfer our interest in Amapá directly to Zamin.  Anglo exercised this option and the transfer to Zamin closed in the fourth quarter of 2013. Our interest in Amapá previously was reported as our Latin American iron ore operating segment.

Sonoma

On July 10, 2012, we entered into a definitive share and asset sale agreement to sell our 45 percent economic interest in the Sonoma joint venture coal mine located in Queensland, Australia. Upon completion of the transaction on November 12, 2012, we collected approximately AUD $141.0 million in net cash proceeds. The assets sold included our interests in the Sonoma mine along with our ownership of the affiliated wash plant, which were previously reported as our Asia Pacific Coal operating segment. Production and sales totaled approximately 2.8 million and 2.9 million metric tons of coal, respectively, through the sale completion date.

Applied Technology, Research and Development

We have been a leader in iron ore mining and process technology for more than 160 years. We operated some of the first mines on Michigan’s Marquette Iron Range and pioneered early open-pit and underground mining methods. From the first application of electrical power in Michigan’s underground mines to the use of today’s sophisticated computers and global positioning satellite systems, we have been a leader in the application of new technology to the centuries-old business of mineral extraction. Today, our engineering and technical staffs are engaged in full-time technical support of our operations and improvement of existing products.

With state-of-the-art equipment and experienced technical professionals, we remain on the forefront of mining technology. We have an unsurpassed reputation for our pelletizing technology, delivering a world-class quality product to a broad range of sophisticated end users. We are a pioneer in the development of emerging reduction technologies, a leader in the extraction of value from challenging resources and a frontrunner in the implementation of safe and sustainable technology. Our technical experts are dedicated to excellence and deliver superior technical solutions tailored to our customer base.

Concentration of Customers

Based on re-casted information to account for the acquisition of Severstal assets in Dearborn, Michigan by AK Steel in 2014 and 2012, we had two customers that individually accounted for more than 10 percent of our consolidated product revenue. In 2013 , we had one customer that individually accounted for more than 10 percent of our consolidated product revenue. Product revenue from those customers represented in the chart below totaled approximately $ 1.6 billion , $ 1.5 billion and $ 1.6 billion of our total consolidated product revenue in 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively, and is attributable to our U.S. Iron Ore, North American Coal and Eastern Canadian Iron Ore business segments. The following represents sales revenue from each of these customers as a percentage of our total consolidated product revenue, as well as the portion of product sales for U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron Ore and North American Coal that is attributable to each of these customers in 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively:

ArcelorMittal USA

Our pellet supply agreements with ArcelorMittal USA are the basis for supplying pellets to ArcelorMittal USA, which is based on customer requirements, except for the Indiana Harbor East facility, which is based on customer excess requirements. The following table outlines the expiration dates for each of the respective agreements:

ArcelorMittal USA is a 62.3 percent equity participant in Hibbing, as well as, a 21.0 percent equity partner in Empire with limited rights and obligations.

In 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , our U.S. Iron Ore pellet sales to ArcelorMittal were 10.2 million, 9.5 million and 8.6 million tons, respectively, and our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore pellet and concentrate sales to ArcelorMittal were none, 0.9 million and 0.7 million metric tons, respectively.

In 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , our North American Coal sales to ArcelorMittal were 0.5 million, 0.5 million and 0.3 million tons, respectively. We do not have any contracts with ArcelorMittal associated with the remaining North American Coal operations, due to our major contract with ArcelorMittal being transferred to the buyer of our CLCC operations. The sale of CLCC was completed on December 31, 2014.

AK Steel

On September 16, 2014, AK Steel announced an acquisition of Severstal North America’s integrated steelmaking assets located in Dearborn, Michigan. We have a long-term relationship to supply iron ore pellets to Severstal’s steelmaking assets at that location. Upon consummation of the acquisition, the contract was automatically assigned to AK Steel. The combination of sales pursuant to our preexisting sales agreement with AK Steel and the acquisition of the Dearborn facility with its sales agreement accounts for more than 10 percent of our consolidated product revenue in 2014.

On August 29, 2013 we entered into a new agreement with AK Steel to provide iron ore pellets to AK Steel for use in its Middletown, Ohio and Ashland, Kentucky blast furnace facilities. This contract includes minimum and maximum tonnage requirements for each year between 2014 and 2023.

Under the original agreement entered into with Severstal in 2006, we supply all of the Dearborn, Michigan facility’s blast furnace pellet requirements through 2022, subject to specified minimum and maximum requirements in certain years. AK Steel was the successor by merger of this contract and it remains in force. In September 2014, we entered into an amendment to the Dearborn contract with AK Steel to document the 2013 base pricing provisions, among other things, which resulted from an arbitration ruling in May 2014.

In 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , our U.S. Iron Ore pellet sales to AK Steel and the acquired Dearborn facility were 5.8 million, 4.1 million and 5.7 million tons, respectively.

Competition

Throughout the world, we compete with major and junior mining companies, as well as metals companies, both of which produce steelmaking raw materials, including iron ore and metallurgical coal.

North America

In our U.S. Iron Ore business segment, we primarily sell our product to steel producers with operations in North America. In our now shuttered Eastern Canadian Iron Ore business segment, we primarily had provided our product to the seaborne market for Asian steel producers. We compete directly with steel companies that own interests in iron ore mines, including ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel, and with major iron ore exporters from Australia and Brazil. Additionally, in the last year, there has been a 38 percent increase in steel imported into the U.S. to 44.3 million tons during the first 11 months of 2014, despite the imposition of new import tariffs last summer. This reduced demand for U.S. produced steel and directly affect the demand for iron ore within North America.

In the coal industry, our North American Coal business segment competes with many metallurgical coal producers of various sizes, including Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., Patriot Coal Corporation, CONSOL Energy Inc., Arch Coal, Inc., Walter Energy, Inc., Peabody Energy Corp. and other producers located in North America and globally.

A number of factors beyond our control affect the markets in which we sell our iron ore and coal. Continued demand for our iron ore and metallurgical coal and the prices obtained by us primarily depend on the consumption patterns of the steel industry in the U.S., China and elsewhere around the world, as well as the availability, location, cost of transportation and competing prices. Coal consumption patterns primarily are affected by demand, environmental and other governmental regulations and technological developments. The most important factors on which we compete are delivered price, coal quality characteristics such as heat value, sulfur, ash, volatile matter and moisture content and reliability of supply. Metallurgical coal, which primarily is used to make coke, a key component in the steelmaking process, generally sells at a premium over thermal coal due to its higher quality and value in the steelmaking process.

Asia Pacific

In our Asia Pacific Iron Ore business segment, we export iron ore products to the Asia Pacific markets, including China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. In the Asia Pacific marketplace, we compete with major iron ore exporters from Australia, Brazil, South Africa and India. These include Anglo, BHP Billiton, Fortescue Metals Group Ltd., Rio Tinto plc and Vale, among others.

Competition in steelmaking raw materials is predicated upon the usual competitive factors of price, availability of supply, product quality and performance, service and transportation cost to the consumer of the raw materials.

Environment

Our mining and limited exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment. We conduct our operations in a manner that is protective of public health and the environment and believe our operations are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects.

Environmental issues and their management continued to be an important focus at each of our operations throughout 2014 . In the construction of our facilities and in their operation, substantial costs have been incurred and will continue to be incurred to avoid undue effect on the environment. Our capital expenditures relating to environmental matters totaled approximately $33 million, $32 million and $31 million, in 2014 , 2013 and 2012 , respectively. It is estimated that capital expenditures for environmental improvements will total approximately $42 million in 2015. Estimated expenditures in 2015 are comprised of approximately $35 million for projects in our U.S. Iron Ore operations and $7 million in our North American Coal operations for various water treatment, air quality, dust control, selenium management, tailings management and other miscellaneous environmental projects.

Regulatory Developments

Various governmental bodies continually promulgate new or amended laws and regulations that affect our Company, our customers and our suppliers in many areas, including waste discharge and disposal, the classification of materials and products, air and water discharges and many other environmental, health and safety matters. Although we believe that our environmental policies and practices are sound and do not expect that the application of any current laws or regulations reasonably would be expected to result in a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition, we cannot predict the collective adverse impact of the expanding body of laws and regulations.

Specifically, there are several notable proposed or potential rulemakings or activities that could potentially have a material adverse impact on our facilities in the future depending on their ultimate outcome: Climate Change and GHG Regulation, Regional Haze, NO ₂ and SO ₂ National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Cross State Air Pollution Rule, increased administrative and legislative initiatives related to coal mining activities, Mercury TMDL and Minnesota Taconite Mercury Reduction Strategy's evolving scope of the Clean Water Act and definition of “Waters of the United States” and Selenium Discharge Regulation.

Climate Change and GHG Regulation

With the complexities and uncertainties associated with the U.S. and global navigation of the climate change issue as a whole, one of our significant risks for the future is mandatory carbon legislation. Policymakers are in the design process of carbon regulation at the state, regional, national and international levels. The current regulatory patchwork of carbon compliance schemes presents a challenge for multi-facility entities to identify their near-term risks. Amplifying the uncertainty, the dynamic forward outlook for carbon regulation presents a challenge to large industrial companies to assess the long-term net impacts of carbon compliance costs on their operations. Our exposure on this issue includes both the direct and indirect financial risks associated with the regulation of GHG emissions, as well as potential physical risks associated with climate change. We are continuing to review the physical risks related to climate change utilizing a formal risk management process.

Internationally, mechanisms to reduce emissions are being implemented in various countries, with differing designs and stringency, according to resources, economic structure and politics. We expect that momentum to extend carbon regulation will continue. Australia and Canada are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. As such, our facilities in each of these countries are impacted by the Kyoto Protocol, but in varying degrees according to the mechanisms each country establishes for compliance and each country’s commitment to reducing emissions. Australia and Canada are considered Annex 1 countries, meaning that they are obligated to reduce their emissions under the Protocol. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol on our Canadian operations has diminished with the idling of our Canadian operations.

In Australia, legislation for a carbon tax was passed in July 2012. The direct impact of the carbon tax on our Asia Pacific operations primarily occurs through increased fuel costs. The tax was estimated to result in an increase in direct costs of approximately A$3.5 million per year however following a change of Federal Government in September 2013 the carbon tax was repealed in July 2014.

In the U.S., federal carbon regulation potentially presents a significantly greater impact to our operations. To date, the U.S. has not legislated carbon constraints. In the absence of comprehensive federal carbon legislation, numerous state and regional regulatory initiatives are under development or are becoming effective, thereby creating a disjointed approach to carbon control. On June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the EPA to develop carbon emission standards for both new and existing power plants under the Clean Air Act's NSPS. On January 8, 2014, the EPA proposed NSPS regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new fossil fuel-fired power plants. On June 2, 2014, EPA proposed the ‘Clean Power Plan’ which consists of NSPS regulating carbon dioxide from existing power plants at a level 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. States must submit Clean Power Plan SIPs by June 2016, though extension waivers will be made available. As proposed these rules would not affect our Silver Bay power generating facility.

As an energy-intensive business, our GHG emissions inventory captures a broad range of emissions sources, such as iron ore furnaces and kilns, coal thermal driers, diesel mining equipment and our wholly owned Silver Bay power generation plant, among others. As such, our most significant regulatory risks are: (1) the costs associated with on-site emissions levels, and (2) the costs passed through to us from power generators and distillate fuel suppliers.

We believe our exposure can be reduced substantially by numerous factors, including currently contemplated regulatory flexibility mechanisms, such as allowance allocations, fixed process emissions exemptions, offsets and international provisions; emissions reduction opportunities, including energy efficiency, biofuels, fuel flexibility, emerging shale gas, coal mine methane offset reduction; and business opportunities associated with new products and technology.

We have worked proactively to develop a comprehensive, enterprise-wide GHG management strategy aimed at considering all significant aspects associated with GHG initiatives to plan effectively for and manage climate change issues, including risks and opportunities as they relate to the environment, stakeholders, including shareholders and the public, legislative and regulatory developments, operations, products and markets.

Regional Haze

In June 2005, the EPA finalized amendments to its regional haze rules. The rules require states establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in all Class I national parks and wilderness areas. Among the states with Class I areas are Michigan, Minnesota, Alabama and West Virginia in which we currently own and manage mining operations. The first phase of the regional haze rule (2008-2018) requires analysis and installation of BART on eligible emission sources and incorporation of BART and associated emission limits into SIPs.

Minnesota submitted a regional haze SIP to the EPA on December 30, 2009, and a supplement to the SIP on May 8, 2012. Michigan submitted its regional haze SIP to the EPA on November 5, 2010. During the second quarter of 2012, the EPA also sent information requests to all taconite facilities requesting information on SO ₂ and NOx emissions

and control technology assessments. On June 12, 2012, the EPA approved revisions to the Minnesota SIP addressing regional haze, but also announced it was deferring action on emission limitations that Minnesota intended to represent BART for taconite facilities. On August 15, 2012, the EPA proposed to deny the Michigan and Minnesota taconite SIP BART determinations and simultaneously proposed a separate FIP for taconite facilities. During the comment period for the proposed FIP rule, the taconite industry and other stakeholders developed detailed comments and shared information to address furnace specific case-by-case circumstances. On January 15, 2013, the EPA signed the final FIP for taconite facilities. The final FIP reflects progress toward a more technically and economically feasible regional haze implementation plan and eliminates the need for investing in additional SO ₂ emission control equipment. However, we remain concerned about the technical and economic feasibility of EPA's BART determination for NOx emissions and we filed a petition for review in the 8 ^th Circuit Court and subsequently received a judicial stay of the FIP which enabled us to conduct a detailed engineering analysis to determine the impact of the regulations on each unique iron ore indurating furnace affected by this rule. The results of this analysis enabled us to reach a settlement with EPA which was public noticed in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015. Cost estimates associated with the settlement are reflected in our 5-year capital plan.

NO ₂ and SO ₂ National Ambient Air Quality Standards

During the first half of 2010, the EPA promulgated rules that require states to use a combination of air quality monitoring and computer modeling to determine areas of each state that are in attainment with new NO ₂ and SO ₂ standards and those areas that are not in attainment with such standards. During the third quarter of 2011, the EPA issued guidance to the regulated community on conducting refined air quality dispersion modeling and implementing the new NO ₂ and SO ₂ standards. The NO ₂ and SO ₂ standards have been challenged by various large industry groups. Accordingly, at this time, we are unable to predict the final impact of these standards. During June 2011, our Minnesota iron ore mining operations received a request from the MPCA to develop modeling and compliance plans and timelines by which each facility would demonstrate compliance with present and proposed NAAQS as well as regional haze requirements outlined in the SIP. Compliance must be achieved by June 30, 2017 according to the initial state orders, although the EPA has indicated that the SO ₂ attainment area designation timelines have been extended out to 2020. We continue to assess options by which to achieve compliance and seek alignment between the state and federal expectations.

Cross State Air Pollution Rule

On July 6, 2011, the EPA promulgated the CSAPR, which was intended to be an emissions trading rule for SO ₂ and NOx. Northshore's Silver Bay Power Plant would have been subject to this rule, however Minnesota elected to follow EPA guidance allowing CSAPR to stand as BART. CSAPR was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court during the third quarter of 2012. Late in 2014, the Supreme Court re-instated CSAPR with an effective date of January 1, 2015, re-instating the obligations of this rule for Silver Bay Power. Immediate compliance obligations are being met at this time, with the material obligation being procurement of the first year of emissions allowances by March 2016 for the 2015 operating year. Silver Bay Power is completing the engineering and permitting work to install controls that will limit the cost exposure to the trading market. The allowance pricing market is continuing to fluctuate so price impacts are not yet certain, we anticipate the annual costs will be less than $1 million for 2015 and gradually decreasing to less than $400,000 per year after we complete our emission reduction project in 2017.

Increased Administrative and Legislative Initiatives Related to Coal Mining Activities

Although the focus of significantly increased government activity related to coal mining in the U.S. is generally targeted at eliminating or minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of mountaintop coal mining practices, these initiatives have the potential to impact all types of coal operations, including subsurface longwall mining typically deployed for recovering metallurgical coal. Specifically, the coordinated efforts by various federal agencies to further regulate mountaintop mining have slowed issuance of the permits required by many mining projects in Appalachia. Due to the developing nature of these initiatives and their potential to disrupt even routine mining and water permit practices in the coal industry, we are unable to predict whether these initiatives could have a material effect on our coal operations in the future. We are working closely with our trade associations to monitor the various rulemaking developments in an effort to enable us to develop viable strategies to minimize the financial impact to the business.

Mercury TMDL and Minnesota Taconite Mercury Reduction Strategy

TMDL regulations are contained in the Clean Water Act.  As a part of Minnesota's Mercury TMDL Implementation Plan, in cooperation with the MPCA, the taconite industry developed a Taconite Mercury Reduction Strategy and signed a voluntary agreement in 2009 to effectuate its terms.  The strategy includes a 75 percent target reduction of mercury air emissions from Minnesota pellet plants collectively by 2025.  It recognizes that mercury emission control technology currently does not exist and will be pursued through a research effort.  According to the voluntary agreement, any developed technology must meet the “adaptive management criteria” such that the technology must be economically feasible, must not impact pellet quality, and must not cause excessive corrosion in pellet furnaces, associated duct work and existing wet scrubbers on the furnaces.

According to the voluntary agreement, the mines proceeded with medium- and long-term testing of possible technologies.  For Cliffs, the requirements in the voluntary agreement applies to the United Taconite and Hibbing facilities.  At this time, we are unable to predict the potential impacts of the voluntary Taconite Mercury Reduction Strategy.  However, a number of research projects were conducted between 2011 and 2014 as the industry continues to assess options for reduction.  While injection of powdered activated carbon into furnace off-gasses for mercury capture in the wet scrubbers showed positive initial results, further testing during 2013 yielded lower overall potential. Alternate technologies are presently being assessed in our ongoing efforts to develop cost effective mercury reduction technologies for our indurating furnaces.

On September 22, 2014, Minnesota promulgated the Mercury Air Emissions Reporting and Reduction Rule mandating mercury air emissions reporting and reduction. The adopted rule expanded applicability to all of our Minnesota operations and requires submitting a mercury reduction plan in 2018 to reduce mercury emissions from all of our Minnesota taconite furnaces by 72 percent by January 2025 and 70 percent reduction from Northshore’s industrial boilers by January 1, 2018. The adopted rule does not include all four Adaptive Management Criteria for evaluating mercury reduction, which were agreed upon in the October 2009 Minnesota’s Mercury TMDL Implementation Plan.

To date, there is currently no proven technology to cost effectively reduce mercury emissions from taconite furnaces to the target level of 72 percent that would meet all four Adaptive Management Criteria. We remain concerned about the technical and economic feasibility to reduce taconite mercury emissions by 72 percent and are conducting detailed engineering analysis to determine the impact of the regulations on each unique iron ore indurating furnace affected by this rule. The results of this analysis will guide further dialog with the MPCA regarding our implementation of the requirements.

Selenium Discharge Regulation

Our North American Coal operations have numerous NPDES permits with either selenium discharge limits or draft permits with selenium limits. We have achieved, or have projects underway that will achieve compliance at all discharges. As such, we do not believe this issue will likely have a material impact to our North American Coal operations.

In Michigan, the MDEQ issued renewed NPDES permits for our Empire mine in December 2011 and for our Tilden mine in 2012. Our Michigan operations at Empire and Tilden are developing compliance strategies to meet new selenium process water limits according to the permit conditions. Empire and Tilden submitted the Selenium Storm Water Management Plan to the MDEQ in December 2011. The Selenium Storm Water Management Plan outlines the activities that will be undertaken to address selenium in storm water discharges from our Michigan operations. The activities include the evaluation of structural controls, non-structural controls, site specific standards, and evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater. Pilot treatment systems have had good initial results and evaluation work continues. An initial estimate for full scale implementation of storm water treatment systems and structural selenium controls at both facilities is approximately $63 million. The results from the evaluation of existing pilot and demonstration-scale work will determine if these structural controls are utilized, or if alternatives must be applied.

Tilden's NPDES permit renewal became effective on November 1, 2012.  The permit contains a compliance schedule for selenium with a limit of five µg/l that will be effective as of November 1, 2017, at Tilden's Gribben Tailings Basin outfall.  Tilden has initiated a prudent and feasible alternatives analysis to further define solutions and cost estimates. Preliminary testing and engineering for end-of-pipe solutions indicates capital costs are likely to be less than the previously estimated range of $96 million to $146 million. The next phase of engineering and updated cost estimates are scheduled to be concluded in the first half of 2015. In May 2014, the EPA proposed new selenium fish tissue limits and a lower lentic water column concentration criterion which may increase the cost for treatment. We are incorporating this contingency into our planning and treatment technology development. 

Definition of “Waters of the United States” Under the Clean Water Act

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed rule, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,”  79 Fed. Reg. 22188 (Apr. 21, 2014), attempts to add clarity to which waters are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act, and will apply to all Clean Water Act programs, including the Sec. 402 and Sec. 404 permitting programs, Sec. 311 spill prevention program and Sec. 401 state certification process.  It is unclear how the federal and state agencies will implement and enforce the final rule, and how the courts will interpret going forward, however, there is substantial cause to be concerned in several areas of the draft.  The draft regulation may expand EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act to many traditionally unregulated mine features such as mine pits, pit lakes, on site ditches, water retention structures, and tailings basins creating a new burden on our U.S. facilities.  This could further be interpreted to add questionable regulatory authority over the groundwater connections between these features and nearby traditionally navigable waters.  We are actively participating in the rulemaking development and assessing the potential impacts to our operations.

For additional information on our environmental matters, refer to Item 3. Legal Proceedings and NOTE 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND MINE CLOSURE OBLIGATIONS in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Energy

Electricity

The state of Michigan is a deregulated electricity state, which affords our mines the ability to purchase electrical energy supply from various suppliers while continuing to purchase distribution service from the incumbent utility. As of September 1, 2013, our Tilden and Empire mines in Michigan exercised the right to purchase electrical supply from Integrys Energy Services while continuing to purchase distribution service from Wisconsin Electric Power Company. The pricing of electricity in the deregulated market is based on the Midwestern Independent System Operator Day-Ahead price. Beginning on February 1, 2015, we began purchasing our electricity supply from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company in a regulated fashion as we terminated our contract with Integrys Energy Services. As of February 1, 2015, Wisconsin Electric Power Company is the sole supplier of electric power to our Empire and Tilden mines. Wisconsin Electric Power Company provides 300 megawatts of electricity to Empire and Tilden at rates that are regulated by the MPSC. The Empire and Tilden mines are subject to changes in Wisconsin Electric Power Company's rates, such as base interim rate changes that Wisconsin Electric Power Company may self-implement and final rate changes that are approved by the MPSC in response to applications filed by Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Additionally, Empire and Tilden are subject to frequent changes in Wisconsin Electric Power Company's power supply adjustment factor.

Electric power for the Hibbing and United Taconite mines is supplied by Minnesota Power. On September 16, 2008, the mines finalized agreements with terms from November 1, 2008 through December 31, 2015. The agreements were approved by the MPUC in 2009.

Silver Bay Power Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, with a 115 megawatt power plant, provides the majority of Northshore’s electrical energy requirements. Silver Bay Power has an interconnection agreement with Minnesota Power for backup power when excess generation is necessary.

Wabush had a 20-year agreement with Newfoundland Power, which ended December 31, 2014. This agreement allowed for an exchange of water rights in return for the power needs for Wabush’s mining operations. Beginning on January 1, 2015, Wabush has a short-term electricity agreement with Newfoundland Hydro Power.  The pricing of this agreement is set by the Labrador industrial rate policy. The Wabush pelletizing operation and the Bloom Lake operation in Québec are served by Québec Hydro, which provides power under regulated rates that are set on an annual basis.

The Oak Grove mine and Concord Preparation Plant are supplied electrical power by Alabama Power under a five-year contract that continues in effect until terminated by either party providing written notice to the other in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and rate schedules. Rates of the contract are subject to change during the term of the contract as regulated by the Alabama Public Services Commission.

Electrical power to the Pinnacle Complex is supplied by the Appalachian Power Company under a regulated electrical supply contract. The contract specifies the applicable rate schedule, minimum monthly charge and power capacity furnished. Rates, terms and conditions of the contract are subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

Koolyanobbing and its associated satellite mines draw power from independent diesel-fueled power stations and generators. Diesel power generation capacity has been installed at the Koolyanobbing operations.

Process Fuel

We have a long-term contract providing for the transport of natural gas on the Northern Natural Gas Pipeline for our U.S. Iron Ore operations. Our Pinnacle and Oak Grove coal operations also use natural gas, but purchase it through their local regulated utility, Mountaineer Gas and Alabama Gas Co., respectively. At U.S. Iron Ore, the Empire and Tilden mines have the capability of burning natural gas, coal or, to a lesser extent, oil. The Hibbing and Northshore mines have the capability to burn natural gas and oil. The United Taconite mine has the ability to burn coal, natural gas and petroleum coke. Consistent with 2014, we expect during 2015 our U.S. Iron Ore operations will utilize both natural gas and coal to heat furnaces and produce power at our Silver Bay Power facility. At Eastern Canadian Iron Ore, the Wabush mine has the capability to burn bunker fuel, stove and furnace oils and coke breeze and the Bloom Lake mine has the ability to burn stove and furnace oils. Our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore process fuel is primarily supplied by Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, through contracts.

Employees

As of December 31, 2014 , we had a total of 5,386 employees.

As of December 31, 2014 , approximately 85.0 percent of our U.S. Iron Ore hourly employees, approximately 100.0 percent of our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore hourly employees and approximately 100.0 percent of our North American Coal hourly employees were covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Hourly employees at our Michigan and Minnesota iron ore mining operations, excluding Northshore, are represented by the USW. The labor agreements that cover approximately 2,200 USW-represented employees at our Empire and Tilden mines in Michigan, and our United Taconite and Hibbing mines in Minnesota are effective September 1, 2012 through September 30, 2015. Employees at our Northshore operations are not represented by a union and are not, therefore, covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Hourly employees at our Eastern Canadian Iron Ore operations also are represented by the USW. The labor agreement with the USW that covers our represented employees at Bloom Lake is effective from September 1, 2013

through August 31, 2016. The labor agreement with the USW that covers our represented employees at our Pointe Noire facility, is effective from March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2020.

Hourly employees at our Lake Superior and Ishpeming railroads are represented by seven unions covering approximately 105 employees. The labor agreements that cover these employees reopened for bargaining on December 31, 2014 and we are actively bargaining with the seven unions that represent them for successor agreements. These employees negotiate under the Railway Labor Act, which provides that labor agreements remain in force until replaced by a successor agreement. Under the Railway Labor Act work stoppages cannot occur until the parties have engaged in substantial negotiations, have mediated any disputes and have received a release from the National Mediation Board.

Hourly production and maintenance employees at our Pinnacle Complex and Oak Grove mines are represented by the UMWA. Our labor agreements with the UMWA at those locations are effective July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2016. Those agreements are identical in all material respects to the NBCWA of 2011 between the UMWA and the National Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association.

Employees at our Asia Pacific Iron Ore, Corporate and Support Services are not represented by a union and are not, therefore, covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Safety

Safety is our primary core value as we continue towards a zero incident culture at our operating facilities.  We continuously monitor, track and measure our safety performance and make changes where necessary.  Best practices are shared globally to ensure each mine site can embed our policies, procedures and learnings for enhanced workplace safety. We measure progress toward achieving our objective against regularly established benchmarks, including measuring company-wide TRIR. During 2014, our TRIR (including contractors) was 2.02 per 200,000 man-hours worked. 

Refer to Exhibit 95 Mine Safety Disclosures (filed herewith) for mine safety information required in accordance with Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Available Information

Our headquarters are located at 200 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2315, and our telephone number is (216) 694-5700. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and its rules and regulations. The Exchange Act requires us to file reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Copies of these reports and other information can be read and copied at:

SEC Public Reference Room

100 F Street N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. These materials may be obtained electronically by accessing the SEC’s home page at www.sec.gov.

We use our website, www.cliffsnaturalresources.com , as a channel for routine distribution of important information, including news releases, investor presentations and financial information. We also make available, free of charge on our website, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file these documents with, or furnish them to, the SEC. In addition, our website allows investors and other interested persons to sign up to receive automatic email alerts when we post news releases and financial information on our website.

We also make available, free of charge on our website, the charters of the Audit Committee, Governance and Nominating Committee and Compensation and Organization Committee as well as the Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Code of Business Conduct & Ethics adopted by our Board of Directors. These documents are available through our investor relations page on our website at ir.cliffsnaturalresources.com . The SEC filings are available by selecting “Financial Information” and then “SEC Filings,” and material and corporate governance is available by selecting “Corporate Governance” for the Board Committee Charters, operational governance guidelines and the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

References to our website or the SEC’s website do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on such websites, and such information is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Copies of the above-referenced information are also available, free of charge, by calling (216) 694-5700 or upon written request to:

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

Investor Relations

200 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114-2315

All executive officers serve at the pleasure of the Board. There are no arrangements or understandings between any executive officer and any other person pursuant to which an executive officer was selected to be an officer of the Company. There is no family relationship between any of our executive officers, or between any of our executive officers and any of our directors.