Item 1A. Risk Factors.

In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this report, including the financial statements and related notes, you should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below. If any of these risks or uncertainties, as well as other risks and uncertainties that are not currently known to us or that we currently believe are not material, were to occur, our business, financial condition or results of operation could be materially adversely affected and you may lose all or a significant part of your investment.

Risks Inherent in Our Business

Our common units are currently traded on the OTCQB as a result of the NYSE’s delisting our common units and will trade indefinitely on the OTCQB or one of the other over-the-counter markets, which could adversely affect the market liquidity of our common units and harm our business.

Our common units were suspended from trading on the NYSE at the close of trading on December 17, 2015 and delisted from the NYSE on May 9, 2016. Our common units trade on the OTCQB under the ticker symbol “RHNO.” The common units will continue to trade on the OTCQB or one of the other over-the-counter markets.

Trading on the OTCQB or one of the other over-the-counter markets may result in a reduction in some or all of the following, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our unitholders:

Further, since our common units were delisted from the NYSE, we are no longer subject to the NYSE rules including rules requiring us to meet certain corporate governance standards. Without required compliance of these corporate governance standards, investor interest in our common units may decrease.

We may not have sufficient cash to enable us to pay the minimum quarterly distribution on our common units following establishment of cash reserves and payment of costs and expenses, including reimbursement of expenses to our general partner.

We may not have sufficient cash each quarter to pay the full amount of our minimum quarterly distribution of $4.45 per unit, or $17.80 per unit per year, which will require us to have available cash of approximately $58.1 million per quarter, or $232.4 million per year, based on the number of common and subordinated units outstanding as of December 31, 2017 and the general partner interest. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common and subordinated units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:

We may reduce or eliminate distributions at any time we determine that our cash reserves are insufficient or are otherwise required to fund current or anticipated future operations, capital expenditures, acquisitions, growth or expansion projects, debt repayment or other business needs. Beginning with the quarter ended September 30, 2014, distributions on our common units were below the minimum level and, beginning with the quarter ended June 30, 2015, we suspended the quarterly distribution on our common units altogether. Pursuant to our partnership agreement, our common units accrue arrearages every quarter when the distribution level is below the minimum quarterly distribution level and our subordinated units do not accrue such arrearages. In the future, if and as distributions are made for any quarter, the first priority is to pay the then minimum quarterly distribution to common unitholders. Any additional distribution amounts paid at that time are then paid to common unitholders until previously unpaid accumulated arrearage amounts have been paid in full. Thus, we have arrearages accumulating on our common units since the distribution level has been below our minimum quarterly level of $4.45 per unit. In addition, we have not paid any distributions on our subordinated units for any quarter after the quarter ended March 31, 2012. We may not have sufficient cash available for distributions on our common or subordinated units in the future. Any further reduction in the amount of cash available for distributions could impact our ability to pay any quarterly distribution on our common units. Moreover, we may not be able to increase distributions on our common units if we are unable to pay the accumulated arrearages on our common units as well as the full minimum quarterly distribution on our subordinated units.

A decline in coal prices could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Our results of operations and the value of our coal reserves are significantly dependent upon the prices we receive for our coal as well as our ability to improve productivity and control costs. Prices for coal tend to be cyclical; however, prices have become more volatile and depressed as a result of oversupply in the marketplace. The prices we receive for coal depend upon factors beyond our control, including:

Any adverse change in these factors could result in weaker demand and lower prices for our products. In addition, global financial and credit market disruptions have had an impact on the coal industry generally and may continue to do so. The demand for electricity and steel may remain at low levels or further decline if economic conditions remain weak. If these trends continue, we may not be able to sell all of the coal we are capable of producing or sell our coal at prices comparable to recent years.

In addition to competing with other coal producers, we compete generally with producers of other fuels, such as natural gas. A decline in the price of natural gas has made natural gas more competitive against coal and resulted in utilities switching from coal to natural gas. Sustained low natural gas prices may also cause utilities to phase out or close existing coal-fired power plants or reduce or eliminate construction of any new coal-fired power plants, which could have a material adverse effect on demand and prices received for our coal. A substantial or extended decline in the prices we receive for our coal supply contracts could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

We performed a comprehensive review of our current coal mining operation as well as potential future development projects for the year ended December 31, 2017 to ascertain any potential impairment losses. We engaged an independent third party to perform a fair market value appraisal on certain parcels of land that we own in Mesa County, Colorado. The parcels appraised for $6.0 million compared to the carrying value of $6.8 million. We recorded an impairment loss of $0.8 million, which is recorded on the Asset impairment and related charges line of the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. No other coal properties, mine development costs or other coal mining equipment and related facilities were impaired as of December 31, 2017.

We also recorded an impairment charge of $21.8 million related to the call option received from a third party to acquire substantially all of the outstanding common stock of Armstrong Energy, Inc. On October 31, 2017, Armstrong Energy filed Chapter 11 petitions in the Eastern District of Missouri’s United States Bankruptcy Court. Per the Chapter 11 petitions, Armstrong Energy filed a detailed restructuring plan as part of the Chapter 11 proceedings. On February 9, 2018, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court confirmed Armstrong Energy’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan and as such we concluded that the call option had no carrying value. An impairment charge of $21.8 million related to the call option has been recorded on the Asset impairment and related charges line of the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

We also performed a comprehensive review of our coal mining operations as well as potential future development projects to ascertain any potential impairment losses for the year ended December 31, 2016. Based on the impairment analysis, we concluded that none of the coal properties, mine development costs or other coal mining equipment and related facilities were impaired at December 31, 2016. However, for the year ended December 31, 2016, we recorded $2.6 million of asset impairment losses and related charges associated with the 2015 sale of the Deane mining complex. Of the total $2.6 million non-cash impairment and other non-cash charges incurred, approximately $2.0 million related to impairment of the note receivable that was recorded in 2015 relating to the sale of the Deane mining complex. The additional $0.6 million impairment related to other non-recoverable items associated with the sale of the Deane mining complex. The $2.6 million asset impairment charge/loss for the Deane mining complex is recorded on the Asset impairment and related charges line of the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

We could be negatively impacted by the competitiveness of the global markets in which we compete and declines in the market demand for coal.

We compete with coal producers in various regions of the United States and overseas for domestic and international sales. The domestic demand for, and prices of, our coal primarily depend on coal consumption patterns of the domestic electric utility industry and the domestic steel industry. Consumption by the domestic electric utility industry is affected by the demand for electricity, environmental and other governmental regulations, technological developments and the price of competing coal and alternative fuel sources, such as natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and wind power and other renewable energy sources. Consumption by the domestic steel industry is primarily affected by economic growth and the demand for steel used in construction as well as appliances and automobiles. The competitive environment for coal is impacted by a number of the largest markets in the world, including the United States, China, Japan and India, where demand for both electricity and steel has supported prices for steam and metallurgical coal. The economic stability of these markets has a significant effect on the demand for coal and the level of competition in supplying these markets. The cost of ocean transportation and the value of the U.S. dollar in relation to foreign currencies significantly impact the relative attractiveness of our coal as we compete on price with foreign coal producing sources. During the last several years, the U.S. coal industry has experienced increased consolidation, which has contributed to the industry becoming more competitive. Increased competition by coal producers or producers of alternate fuels could decrease the demand for, or pricing of, or both, for our coal, adversely impacting our results of operations and cash available for distribution.

Any change in consumption patterns by utilities away from the use of coal, such as resulting from current low natural gas prices, could affect our ability to sell the coal we produce, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Steam coal accounted for approximately 82% of our coal sales volume for the year ended December 31, 2017. The majority of our sales of steam coal during this period were to electric utilities for use primarily as fuel for domestic electricity consumption. The amount of coal consumed by the domestic electric utility industry is affected primarily by the overall demand for electricity, environmental and other governmental regulations, and the price and availability of competing fuels for power plants such as nuclear, natural gas and oil as well as alternative sources of energy. We compete generally with producers of other fuels, such as natural gas and oil. A decline in price for these fuels could cause demand for coal to decrease and adversely affect the price of our coal. For example, sustained low natural gas prices have led, in some instances, to decreased coal consumption by electricity-generating utilities. If alternative energy sources, such as nuclear, hydroelectric, wind or solar, become more cost-competitive on an overall basis, demand for coal could decrease and the price of coal could be materially and adversely affected. Further, legislation requiring, subsidizing or providing tax benefit for the use of alternative energy sources and fuels, or legislation providing financing or incentives to encourage continuing technological advances in this area, could further enable alternative energy sources to become more competitive with coal. A decrease in coal consumption by the domestic electric utility industry could adversely affect the price of coal, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Numerous political and regulatory authorities, along with environmental activist groups, are devoting substantial resources to anti-coal activities to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation, domestically and internationally, thereby further reducing the demand and pricing for coal, and potentially materially and adversely impacting our future financial results, liquidity and growth prospects.

Concerns about the environmental impacts of coal combustion, including perceived impacts on global climate issues, are resulting in increased regulation of coal combustion in many jurisdictions, unfavorable lending policies by government-backed lending institutions and development banks toward the financing of new overseas coal-fueled power plants and divestment efforts affecting the investment community, which could significantly affect demand for our products or our securities. Global climate issues continue to attract public and scientific attention. Numerous reports, such as the Fourth and Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have also engendered concern about the impacts of human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, on global climate issues. In turn, increasing government attention is being paid to global climate issues and to emissions of GHGs, including emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion by power plants. The 2015 Paris climate summit agreement resulted in voluntary commitments by numerous countries to reduce their GHG emissions, and could result in additional firm commitments by various nations with respect to future GHG emissions. These commitments could further disfavor coal-fired generation, particularly in the medium- to long term.

Enactment of laws or passage of regulations regarding emissions from the combustion of coal by the United States, some of its states or other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could also result in electricity generators further switching from coal to other fuel sources or additional coal-fueled power plant closures. Further, policies limiting available financing for the development of new coal-fueled power plants could adversely impact the global demand for coal in the future.

There have also been efforts in recent years affecting the investment community, including investment advisors, sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, universities and other groups, promoting the divestment of fossil fuel equities and also pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. In California, for example, legislation was signed into law in October 2015 that requires California’s state pension funds to divest investments in companies that generate 50% or more of their revenue from coal mining by July 2017. More recently, in December 2017, the Governor of New York announced that the New York Common Fund will immediately cease all new investments in entities with “significant fossil fuel activities,” and the World Bank announced that it will no longer finance upstream oil and gas after 2019, except in “exceptional circumstances.” Other activist campaigns have urged banks to cease financing coal-driven businesses. As a result, numerous major banks have enacted such policies. The impact of such efforts may adversely affect the demand for and price of securities issued by us, and impact our access to the capital and financial markets.

In addition, several well-funded non-governmental organizations have explicitly undertaken campaigns to minimize or eliminate the use of coal as a source of electricity generation. For example, the goals of Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign include retiring one-third of the nation’s coal-fired power plants by 2020, replacing retired coal plants with “clean energy solutions,” and “keeping coal in the ground.”

The net effect of these developments is to make it more costly and difficult to maintain our business and to continue to depress demand and pricing for our coal. A substantial or extended decline in the prices we receive for our coal due to these or other factors could further reduce our revenue and profitability, cash flows, liquidity, and value of our coal reserves and result in losses.

Our mining operations are subject to extensive and costly environmental laws and regulations, and such current and future laws and regulations could materially increase our operating costs or limit our ability to produce and sell coal.

The coal mining industry is subject to numerous and extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including laws and regulations pertaining to permitting and licensing requirements, air quality standards, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties, the discharge of materials into the environment, the storage, treatment and disposal of wastes, protection of wetlands, surface subsidence from underground mining and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. The costs, liabilities and requirements associated with these laws and regulations are significant and time-consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of our operations. Moreover, the possibility exists that new laws or regulations (or new judicial interpretations or enforcement policies of existing laws and regulations) could materially affect our mining operations, results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders, either through direct impacts such as those regulating our existing mining operations, or indirect impacts such as those that discourage or limit our customers’ use of coal. Violations of applicable laws and regulations would subject us to administrative, civil and criminal penalties and a range of other possible sanctions. The enforcement of laws and regulations governing the coal mining industry has increased substantially. As a result, the consequences for any noncompliance may become more significant in the future.

Our operations use petroleum products, coal processing chemicals and other materials that may be considered “hazardous materials” under applicable environmental laws and have the potential to generate other materials, all of which may affect runoff or drainage water. In the event of environmental contamination or a release of these materials, we could become subject to claims for toxic torts, natural resource damages and other damages and for the investigation and cleanup of soil, surface water, groundwater, and other media, as well as abandoned and closed mines located on property we operate. Such claims may arise out of conditions at sites that we currently own or operate, as well as at sites that we previously owned or operated, or may acquire.

The government extensively regulates mining operations, especially with respect to mine safety and health, which imposes significant actual and potential costs on us, and future regulation could increase those costs or limit our ability to produce coal.

Coal mining is subject to inherent risks to safety and health. As a result, the coal mining industry is subject to stringent safety and health standards. Fatal mining accidents in the United States in recent years have received national attention and have led to responses at the state and federal levels that have resulted in increased regulatory scrutiny of coal mining operations, particularly underground mining operations. More stringent state and federal mine safety laws and regulations have included increased sanctions for non-compliance. Moreover, future workplace accidents are likely to result in more stringent enforcement and possibly the passage of new laws and regulations.

Within the last few years, the industry has seen enactment of the Federal Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (the “MINER Act”), subsequent additional legislation and regulation imposing significant new safety initiatives and the Dodd-Frank Act, which, among other things, imposes new mine safety information reporting requirements. The MINER Act significantly amended the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”), imposing more extensive and stringent compliance standards, increasing criminal penalties and establishing a maximum civil penalty for non-compliance, and expanding the scope of federal oversight, inspection, and enforcement activities. Following the passage of the MINER Act, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued new or more stringent rules and policies on a variety of topics, including:

For example, in 2014, MSHA adopted a final rule that reduces the permissible concentration of respirable dust in underground coal mines from the current standard of 2.0 milligrams per cubic meter of air to 1.5 milligram per cubic meter. The rule had a phased implementation schedule, and the third and final phase of the rule became effective in August 2016. Under the phased approach, operators were required to adopt new measures and procedures for dust sampling, record keeping, and medical surveillance. Additionally, in September 2015, MSHA issued a proposed rule that would require underground coal mine operators to equip coal hauling machines and scoops on working sections with proximity detection systems. Proximity detection is a technology that uses electronic sensors to detect motion and the distance between a miner and a machine. These systems provide audible and visual warnings, and automatically stop moving machines when miners are in the machines’ path. These and other new safety rules could result in increased compliance costs on our operations. Subsequent to passage of the MINER Act, various coal producing states, including West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, have enacted legislation addressing issues such as mine safety and accident reporting, increased civil and criminal penalties, and increased inspections and oversight. Other states may pass similar legislation in the future. Additional federal and state legislation that would further increase mine safety regulation, inspection and enforcement, particularly with respect to underground mining operations, has also been considered.

Although we are unable to quantify the full impact, implementing and complying with these new laws and regulations could have an adverse impact on our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders and could result in harsher sanctions in the event of any violations. Please read “Part 1, Item 1. Business—Regulation and Laws.”

Penalties, fines or sanctions levied by MSHA could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash available for distribution.

Surface and underground mines like ours and those of our competitors are continuously inspected by MSHA, which often leads to notices of violation. Recently, MSHA has been conducting more frequent and more comprehensive inspections. In addition, in July 2014, MSHA proposed a rule that revises its civil penalty assessment provisions and how regulators should approach calculating penalties, which, in some instances, could result in increased civil penalty assessments for medium and larger mine operators and contractors by 300% to 1,000%. MSHA issued a revised proposed rule in February 2015, but, to date, has not taken any further action. However, increased scrutiny by MSHA and enforcement against mining operations are likely to continue.

We have in the past, and may in the future, be subject to fines, penalties or sanctions resulting from alleged violations of MSHA regulations. Any of our mines could be subject to a temporary or extended shut down as a result of an alleged MSHA violation. Any future penalties, fines or sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash available for distribution.

We may be unable to obtain and/or renew permits necessary for our operations, which could prevent us from mining certain reserves.

Numerous governmental permits and approvals are required for mining operations, and we can face delays, challenges to, and difficulties in acquiring, maintaining or renewing necessary permits and approvals, including environmental permits. The permitting rules, and the interpretations of these rules, are complex, change frequently, and are often subject to discretionary interpretations by regulators, all of which may make compliance more difficult or impractical, and may possibly preclude the continuance of ongoing mining operations or the development of future mining operations. In addition, the public has certain statutory rights to comment upon and otherwise impact the permitting process, including through court intervention. Over the past few years, the length of time needed to bring a new surface mine into production has increased because of the increased time required to obtain necessary permits. The slowing pace at which permits are issued or renewed for new and existing mines has materially impacted production in Appalachia, but could also affect other regions in the future.

Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and Section 404 CWA permits are required to discharge wastewater and discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). Expansion of EPA jurisdiction over these areas has the potential to adversely impact our operations. Considerable legal uncertainty exists surrounding the standard for what constitutes jurisdictional waters and wetlands subject to the protections and requirements of the Clean Water Act. Please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Regulation and Laws—Clean Water Act.” For now, EPA and the Corps will continue to apply the existing standard for what constitutes a water of the United States as determined by the Supreme Court in the Rapanos case and post- Rapanos guidance. Should the 2015 rule take effect, or should a different rule expanding the definition of what constitutes a water of the United States be promulgated as a result of EPA and the Corps’s rulemaking process, we could face increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas. Our surface coal mining operations typically require such permits to authorize such activities as the creation of slurry ponds, stream impoundments, and valley fills. Although the CWA gives the EPA a limited oversight role in the Section 404 permitting program, the EPA has recently asserted its authorities more forcefully to question, delay, and prevent issuance of some Section 404 permits for surface coal mining in Appalachia. Currently, significant uncertainty exists regarding the obtaining of permits under the CWA for coal mining operations in Appalachia due to various initiatives launched by the EPA regarding these permits.

Our mining operations are subject to operating risks that could adversely affect production levels and operating costs.

Our mining operations are subject to conditions and events beyond our control that could disrupt operations, resulting in decreased production levels and increased costs.

These risks include:

Any of these conditions may increase the cost of mining and delay or halt production at particular mines for varying lengths of time, which in turn could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

In general, mining accidents present a risk of various potential liabilities depending on the nature of the accident, the location, the proximity of employees or other persons to the accident scene and a range of other factors. Possible liabilities arising from a mining accident include workmen’s compensation claims or civil lawsuits for workplace injuries, claims for personal injury or property damage by people living or working nearby and fines and penalties including possible criminal enforcement against us and certain of our employees. In addition, a significant accident that results in a mine shut-down could give rise to liabilities for failure to meet the requirements of coal supply agreements especially if the counterparties dispute our invocation of the force majeure provisions of those agreements. We maintain insurance coverage to mitigate the risks of certain of these liabilities, including business interruption insurance, but those policies are subject to various exclusions and limitations and we cannot assure you that we will receive coverage under those policies for any personal injury, property damage or business interruption claims that may arise out of such an accident. Moreover, certain potential liabilities such as fines and penalties are not insurable risks. Thus, a serious mine accident may result in material liabilities that adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution.

Fluctuations in transportation costs or disruptions in transportation services could increase competition or impair our ability to supply coal to our customers, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Transportation costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of coal for our customers and, as a result, the cost of transportation is a critical factor in a customer’s purchasing decision. Increases in transportation costs could make coal a less competitive energy source or could make our coal production less competitive than coal produced from other sources.

Significant decreases in transportation costs could result in increased competition from coal producers in other regions. For instance, coordination of the many eastern U.S. coal loading facilities, the large number of small shipments, the steeper average grades of the terrain and a more unionized workforce are all issues that combine to make shipments originating in the eastern United States inherently more expensive on a per-mile basis than shipments originating in the western United States. Historically, high coal transportation rates from the western coal producing regions limited the use of western coal in certain eastern markets. The increased competition could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We depend primarily upon railroads, barges and trucks to deliver coal to our customers. Disruption of any of these services due to weather-related problems, strikes, lockouts, accidents, mechanical difficulties and other events could temporarily impair our ability to supply coal to our customers, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

In recent years, the states of Kentucky and West Virginia have increased enforcement of weight limits on coal trucks on their public roads. It is possible that other states may modify their laws to limit truck weight limits. Such legislation and enforcement efforts could result in shipment delays and increased costs. An increase in transportation costs could have an adverse effect on our ability to increase or to maintain production and could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution.

A shortage of skilled labor in the mining industry could reduce productivity and increase operating costs, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Efficient coal mining using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled laborers. During periods of high demand for coal, the coal industry has experienced a shortage of skilled labor as well as rising labor and benefit costs, due in large part to demographic changes as existing miners retire at a faster rate than new miners are entering the workforce. If a shortage of experienced labor should occur or coal producers are unable to train enough skilled laborers, there could be an adverse impact on labor productivity, an increase in our costs and our ability to expand production may be limited. If coal prices decrease or our labor prices increase, our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

Unexpected increases in raw material costs, such as steel, diesel fuel and explosives could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our coal mining operations are affected by commodity prices. We use significant amounts of steel, diesel fuel, explosives and other raw materials in our mining operations, and volatility in the prices for these raw materials could have a material adverse effect on our operations. Steel prices and the prices of scrap steel, natural gas and coking coal consumed in the production of iron and steel fluctuate significantly and may change unexpectedly. Additionally, a limited number of suppliers exist for explosives, and any of these suppliers may divert their products to other industries. Shortages in raw materials used in the manufacturing of explosives, which, in some cases, do not have ready substitutes, or the cancellation of supply contracts under which these raw materials are obtained, could increase the prices and limit the ability of us or our contractors to obtain these supplies. Future volatility in the price of steel, diesel fuel, explosives or other raw materials will impact our operating expenses and could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution.

If we are not able to acquire replacement coal reserves that are economically recoverable, our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

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

Inaccuracies in our estimates of coal reserves and non-reserve coal deposits could result in lower than expected revenues and higher than expected costs.

We base our coal reserve and non-reserve coal deposit estimates on engineering, economic and geological data assembled and analyzed by our staff, which is periodically audited by independent engineering firms. These estimates are also based on the expected cost of production and projected sale prices and assumptions concerning the permitability and advances in mining technology. The estimates of coal reserves and non-reserve coal deposits as to both quantity and quality are periodically updated to reflect the production of coal from the reserves, updated geologic models and mining recovery data, recently acquired coal reserves and estimated costs of production and sales prices. There are numerous factors and assumptions inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of coal reserves and non-reserve coal deposits and costs to mine recoverable reserves, including many factors beyond our control. Estimates of economically recoverable coal reserves necessarily depend upon a number of variable factors and assumptions, all of which may vary considerably from actual results. These factors and assumptions relate to:

For these reasons, estimates of the quantities and qualities of the economically recoverable coal attributable to any particular group of properties, classifications of coal reserves and non-reserve coal deposits based on risk of recovery, estimated cost of production and estimates of net cash flows expected from particular reserves as prepared by different engineers or by the same engineers at different times may vary materially due to changes in the above factors and assumptions. Actual production from identified coal reserve and non-reserve coal deposit areas or properties and revenues and expenditures associated with our mining operations may vary materially from estimates. Accordingly, these estimates may not reflect our actual coal reserves or non-reserve coal deposits. Any inaccuracy in our estimates related to our coal reserves and non-reserve coal deposits could result in lower than expected revenues and higher than expected costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to make cash distributions.

We invest in non-coal natural resource assets, which could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Part of our business strategy is to expand our operations through strategic acquisitions, which includes investing in non-coal natural resources assets. Our executive officers do not have experience investing in or operating non-coal natural resources assets and we may be unable to hire additional management with relevant expertise in operating such assets. Acquisitions of non-coal natural resource assets could expose us to new and additional operating and regulatory risks, including commodity price risk, which could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

The amount of estimated maintenance capital expenditures our general partner is required to deduct from operating surplus each quarter could increase in the future, resulting in a decrease in available cash from operating surplus that could be distributed to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct from operating surplus each quarter estimated maintenance capital expenditures as opposed to actual maintenance capital expenditures in order to reduce disparities in operating surplus caused by fluctuating maintenance capital expenditures, such as reserve replacement costs or refurbishment or replacement of mine equipment. Our annual estimated maintenance capital expenditures for purposes of calculating operating surplus is based on our estimates of the amounts of expenditures we will be required to make in the future to maintain our long-term operating capacity. Our partnership agreement does not cap the amount of maintenance capital expenditures that our general partner may estimate. The amount of our estimated maintenance capital expenditures may be more than our actual maintenance capital expenditures, which will reduce the amount of available cash from operating surplus that we would otherwise have available for distribution to unitholders. The amount of estimated maintenance capital expenditures deducted from operating surplus is subject to review and change by the board of directors of our general partner at least once a year, with any change approved by the conflicts committee. In addition to estimated maintenance capital expenditures, reimbursement of expenses incurred by our general partner and its affiliates will reduce the amount of available cash from operating surplus that we would otherwise have available for distribution to our unitholders. Please read “—Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us—Cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates for services provided to us or on our behalf will reduce cash available for distribution to our unitholders. The amount and timing of such reimbursements will be determined by our general partner.”

Existing and future laws and regulations regulating the emission of sulfur dioxide and other compounds could affect coal consumers and as a result reduce the demand for our coal. A reduction in demand for our coal could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Federal, state and local laws and regulations extensively regulate the amount of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, mercury and other compounds emitted into the air from electric power plants and other consumers of our coal. These laws and regulations can require significant emission control expenditures, and various new and proposed laws and regulations may require further emission reductions and associated emission control expenditures. A certain portion of our coal has a medium to high sulfur content, which results in increased sulfur dioxide emissions when combusted and therefore the use of our coal imposes certain additional costs on customers. Accordingly, these laws and regulations may affect demand and prices for our higher sulfur coal. Please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Regulation and Laws.”

Federal and state laws restricting the emissions of greenhouse gases could adversely affect our operations and demand for our coal.

One by-product of burning coal is CO ₂ , which EPA considers a GHG, and a major source of concern with respect to climate change and global warming. Global warming has garnered significant public attention, and measures have been implemented or proposed at the international, federal, state and regional levels to limit GHG emissions. Please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Regulation and Laws—Climate Change.”

For example, on the international level, the United States was one of almost 200 nations that agreed on December 12, 2015 to an international climate change agreement in Paris, France, that calls for countries to set their own GHG emission targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its GHG emission targets; however, the agreement does not set binding GHG emission reduction targets. The Paris climate agreement entered into force in November 2016; however, in August 2017 the U.S. State Department officially informed the United Nations of the intent of the U.S. to withdraw from the agreement, with the earliest possible effective date of withdrawal being November 4, 2020. Despite the planned withdrawal, certain U.S. city and state governments have announced their intention to satisfy their proportionate obligations under the Paris Agreement. These commitments could further reduce demand and prices for coal.

At the federal level, EPA has finalized a number of rules related to GHG emissions. For example, the EPA issued rules that establish carbon pollution standards for power plants, called CO ₂ emission performance rates. Judicial challenges led the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a stay of the implementation of the CPP in February 2016. By its terms, this stay will remain in effect throughout the pendency of the appeals process. The stay suspends the rule, including the requirement that states submit their initial plans by September 2016. The Supreme Court’s stay applies only to EPA’s regulations for CO ₂ emissions from existing power plants and will not affect EPA’s standards for new power plants. It is not yet clear how the courts will rule on the legality of the CPP. Additionally, in October 2017 EPA proposed to repeal the CPP, although the final outcome of this action and the pending litigation regarding the CPP is uncertain at this time. In connection with the proposed repeal, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) in December 2017 regarding emission guidelines to limit GHG emissions from existing electricity utility generating units. The ANPRM seeks comment regarding what the EPA should include in a potential new, existing-source regulation under the Clean Air Act of GHG emissions from electric utility generating units that it may propose. If the effort to repeal the rules is unsuccessful and the rules were upheld at the conclusion of the appellate process and were implemented in their current form, or if the ANPRM results in a different proposal to control GHG emissions from electric utility generating units, demand for coal will likely be further decreased. The EPA also issued a final rule for new coal-fired power plants in August 2015, which essentially set performance standards for coal-fired power plants that requires partial carbon capture and sequestration. Additional legal challenges have been filed against the EPA’s rules for new power plants. The EPA’s GHG rules for new and existing power plants, taken together, have the potential to severely reduce demand for coal. In addition, passage of any comprehensive federal climate change and energy legislation could impact the demand for coal. Any reduction in the amount of coal consumed by North American electric power generators could reduce the price of coal that we mine and sell, thereby reducing our revenues and materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations.

Many states and regions have adopted greenhouse gas initiatives and certain governmental bodies have or are considering the imposition of fees or taxes based on the emission of greenhouse gases by certain facilities, including coal-fired electric generating facilities. For example, in 2005, ten northeastern states entered into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative agreement (the “RGGI”), calling for implementation of a cap and trade program aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the participating states. Following the RGGI model, several western states and Canadian provinces have confirmed a commitment and timetable to create a carbon market in North America. It is likely that these regional efforts will continue.

Many coal-fired plants have already closed or announced plans to close and proposed new construction projects have also come under additional scrutiny with respect to GHG emissions. There have been an increasing number of protests and challenges to the permitting of new coal-fired power plants by environmental organizations and state regulators due to concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions. Other state regulatory authorities have also rejected the construction of new coal-fueled power plants based on the uncertainty surrounding the potential costs associated with GHG emissions from these plants under future laws limiting the emissions of GHGs. In addition, several permits issued to new coal-fired power plants without limits on GHG emissions have been appealed to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board. In addition, over 30 states have adopted mandatory “renewable portfolio standards,” which require electric utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electric generation portfolio from renewable resources by a certain date. These standards range generally from 10% to 30%, over time periods that generally extend from the present until between 2020 and 2030. Other states may adopt similar requirements, and federal legislation is a possibility in this area. To the extent these requirements affect our current and prospective customers; they may reduce the demand for coal-fired power, and may affect long-term demand for our coal.

If mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, the ability to capture and store large volumes of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants may be a key mitigation technology to achieve emissions reductions while meeting projected energy demands. A number of recent legislative and regulatory initiatives to encourage the development and use of CCS technology have been proposed or enacted. For example, in October 2015, the EPA released a rule that established, for the first time, new source performance standards under the federal Clean Air Act for CO ₂ emissions from new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating power plants. The EPA has designated partial carbon capture and sequestration as the best system of emission reduction for newly constructed fossil fuel-fired steam generating units at power plants to employ to meet the standard. However, widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks are in place.

In the meantime, the EPA and other regulators are using existing laws, including the federal Clean Air Act, to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs from major sources, including coal-fired power plants that may require the use of “best available control technology” or “BACT.” As state permitting authorities continue to consider GHG control requirements as part of major source permitting BACT requirements, costs associated with new facility permitting and use of coal could increase substantially. A growing concern is the possibility that BACT will be determined to be the use of an alternative fuel to coal.

As a result of these current and proposed laws, regulations and trends, electricity generators may elect to switch to other fuels that generate less GHG emissions, possibly further reducing demand for our coal, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Finally, some scientists have warned that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts and floods and other climatic events. If these warnings are correct, and if any such effects were to occur in areas where we or our customers operate, they could have an adverse effect on our assets and operations.

Federal and state laws require bonds to secure our obligations to reclaim mined property. Our inability to acquire or failure to maintain, obtain or renew these surety bonds could have an adverse effect on our ability to produce coal, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We are required under federal and state laws to place and maintain bonds to secure our obligations to repair and return property to its approximate original state after it has been mined (often referred to as “reclamation”) and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. Federal and state governments could increase bonding requirements in the future. In August 2016, the OSMRE issued a Policy Advisory discouraging state regulatory authorities from approving self-bonding arrangements. The Policy Advisory indicated that the OSMRE would begin more closely reviewing instances in which states accept self-bonds for mining operations. In the same month, the OSMRE also announced that it was beginning the rulemaking process to strengthen regulations on self-bonding. Certain business transactions, such as coal leases and other obligations, may also require bonding. We may have difficulty procuring or maintaining our surety bonds. Our bond issuers may demand higher fees, additional collateral, including supporting letters of credit or posting cash collateral or other terms less favorable to us upon those renewals. The failure to maintain or the inability to acquire sufficient surety bonds, as required by state and federal laws, could subject us to fines and penalties as well as the loss of our mining permits. Such failure could result from a variety of factors, including:

We maintain surety bonds with third parties for reclamation expenses and other miscellaneous obligations. It is possible that we may in the future have difficulty maintaining our surety bonds for mine reclamation. Due to adverse economic conditions and the volatility of the financial markets, surety bond providers may be less willing to provide us with surety bonds or maintain existing surety bonds or may demand terms that are less favorable to us than the terms we currently receive. We may have greater difficulty satisfying the liquidity requirements under our existing surety bond contracts. As of December 31, 2017, we had $37.5 million in reclamation surety bonds, secured by $6.0 million in letters of credit outstanding under our LoC Facility. For more information, please read “Part I, Item 1. Business— Recent Developments—Letter of Credit Facility—PNC Bank.” If we do not maintain sufficient borrowing capacity or have other resources to satisfy our surety and bonding requirements, our operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

We depend on a few customers for a significant portion of our revenues. If a substantial portion of our supply contracts terminate or if any of these customers were to significantly reduce their purchases of coal from us, and we are unable to successfully renegotiate or replace these contracts on comparable terms, then our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders could be adversely affected.

We sell a material portion of our coal under supply contracts. As of December 31, 2017, we had sales commitments for approximately 100% of our estimated coal production (including purchased coal to supplement our production) for the year ending December 31, 2018. When our current contracts with customers expire, our customers may decide not to extend or enter into new contracts. Of our total future committed tons, under the terms of the supply contracts, we will ship 32% in 2018, 34% in 2019, and 34% in 2020. We derived approximately 86.9% of our total coal revenues from coal sales to our ten largest customers for the year ended December 31, 2017, with affiliates of our top three customers accounting for approximately 39.4% of our coal revenues during that period.

In the absence of long-term contracts, our customers may decide to purchase fewer tons of coal than in the past or on different terms, including different pricing terms. Negotiations to extend existing contracts or enter into new long-term contracts with those and other customers may not be successful, and those customers may not continue to purchase coal from us under long-term coal supply contracts or may significantly reduce their purchases of coal from us. In addition, interruption in the purchases by or operations of our principal customers could significantly affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution. Unscheduled maintenance outages at our customers’ power plants and unseasonably moderate weather are examples of conditions that might cause our customers to reduce their purchases. Our mines may have difficulty identifying alternative purchasers of their coal if their existing customers suspend or terminate their purchases. For additional information relating to these contracts, please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Customers—Coal Supply Contracts.”

Certain provisions in our long-term coal supply contracts may provide limited protection during adverse economic conditions, may result in economic penalties to us or permit the customer to terminate the contract.

Price adjustment, “price re-opener” and other similar provisions in our supply contracts may reduce the protection from short-term coal price volatility traditionally provided by such contracts. Price re-opener provisions typically require the parties to agree on a new price. Failure of the parties to agree on a price under a price re-opener provision can lead to termination of the contract. Any adjustment or renegotiations leading to a significantly lower contract price could adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

Coal supply contracts also typically contain force majeure provisions allowing temporary suspension of performance by us or our customers during the duration of specified events beyond the control of the affected party. Most of our coal supply contracts also contain provisions requiring us to deliver coal meeting quality thresholds for certain characteristics such as Btu, sulfur content, ash content, hardness and ash fusion temperature. Failure to meet these specifications could result in economic penalties, including price adjustments, the rejection of deliveries or termination of the contracts. In addition, certain of our coal supply contracts permit the customer to terminate the agreement in the event of changes in regulations affecting our industry that increase the price of coal beyond a specified limit.

Defects in title in the coal properties that we own or loss of any leasehold interests could limit our ability to mine these properties or result in significant unanticipated costs.

We conduct a significant part of our mining operations on leased properties. A title defect or the loss of any lease could adversely affect our ability to mine the associated coal reserves. Title to most of our owned and leased properties and the associated mineral rights is not usually verified until we make a commitment to develop a property, which may not occur until after we have obtained necessary permits and completed exploration of the property. In some cases, we rely on title information or representations and warranties provided by our grantors or lessors, as the case may be. Our right to mine some coal reserves would be adversely affected by defects in title or boundaries or if a lease expires. Any challenge to our title or leasehold interest could delay the exploration and development of the property and could ultimately result in the loss of some or all of our interest in the property. Mining operations from time to time may rely on a lease that we are unable to renew on terms at least as favorable, if at all. In such event, we may have to close down or significantly alter the sequence of mining operations or incur additional costs to obtain or renew such leases, which could adversely affect our future coal production. If we mine on property that we do not control, we could incur liability for such mining.

Our work force could become unionized in the future, which could adversely affect our production and labor costs and increase the risk of work stoppages.

Currently, none of our employees are represented under collective bargaining agreements. However, all of our work force may not remain union-free in the future. If some or all of our work force were to become unionized, it could adversely affect our productivity and labor costs and increase the risk of work stoppages.

If we sustain cyber-attacks or other security breaches that disrupt our operations, or that result in the unauthorized release of proprietary or confidential information, we could be exposed to significant liability, reputational harm, loss of revenue, increased costs or other risks.

We may be subject to security breaches which could result in unauthorized access to our facilities or to information we are trying to protect. Unauthorized physical access to one or more of our facilities or locations, or electronic access to our proprietary or confidential information could result in, among other things, unfavorable publicity, litigation by parties affected by such breach, disruptions to our operations, loss of customers, and financial obligations for damages related to the theft or misuse of such information, any of which could have a substantial impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

We depend on key personnel for the success of our business.

We depend on the services of our senior management team and other key personnel, including senior management of our general partner. The loss of the services of any member of senior management or key employee could have an adverse effect on our business and reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders. We may not be able to locate or employ on acceptable terms qualified replacements for senior management or other key employees if their services were no longer available.

If the assumptions underlying our reclamation and mine closure obligations are materially inaccurate, we could be required to expend greater amounts than anticipated.

The Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and counterpart state laws and regulations establish operational, reclamation and closure standards for all aspects of surface mining as well as most aspects of underground mining. Estimates of our total reclamation and mine closing liabilities are based upon permit requirements and our engineering expertise related to these requirements. The estimate of ultimate reclamation liability is reviewed both periodically by our management and annually by independent third-party engineers. The estimated liability can change significantly if actual costs vary from assumptions or if governmental regulations change significantly. Please read “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Asset Retirement Obligations.”

Our debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing and in pursuing other business opportunities.

Our level of indebtedness could have important consequences to us, including the following:

Increases in our total indebtedness would increase our total interest expense, which would in turn reduce our forecasted cash available for distribution. As of December 31, 2017 our current portion of long-term debt that will be funded from cash flows from operating activities during 2018 was approximately $0.4 million. Our ability to service our indebtedness will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments and/or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness, or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to affect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

Our financing agreement contains operating and financial restrictions that may restrict our business and financing activities and limit our ability to pay distributions upon the occurrence of certain events.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our financing agreement and any future financing agreements could restrict our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities. For example, our financing agreement restricts our ability to:

In addition, our payment of principal and interest on our debt will reduce cash available for distribution on our units. Our financing agreement limits our ability to pay distributions upon the occurrence of the following events, among others, which would apply to us and our subsidiaries:

Any subsequent refinancing of our current debt or any new debt could have similar restrictions. Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in our financing agreement may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be impaired. If we violate any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our credit agreement, a significant portion of our indebtedness may become immediately due and payable, and our lenders’ commitment to make further loans to us may terminate. We might not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our obligations under our credit agreement will be secured by substantially all of our assets, and if we are unable to repay our indebtedness under our financing agreement, the lenders could seek to foreclose on such assets. For more information, please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Recent Developments—Financing Agreement.”

Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us

Royal owns and controls our general partner. Our general partner has fiduciary duties to its owners, and the interests of its owners may differ significantly from, or conflict with, the interests of our public common unitholders.

Royal owns and controls our general partner. Please read “Part I, Item 1. Business—Recent Developments—Royal Energy Resources, Inc. Acquisition.” Although our general partner has a fiduciary duty to manage us in a manner beneficial to us and our unitholders, the executive officers and directors of our general partner have a fiduciary duty to manage our general partner in a manner beneficial to its owners. Therefore, conflicts of interest may arise between its owners and our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. In resolving these conflicts of interest, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its owners over the interests of our common unitholders. These conflicts include the following situations:

In addition, Royal, its owners and entities in which they have an interest may compete with us. Please read “—Our sponsor, Royal and affiliates of our general partner may compete with us.”

Common units held by unitholders who are not eligible citizens will be subject to redemption.

In order to comply with U.S. laws with respect to the ownership of interests in mineral leases on federal lands, we have adopted certain requirements regarding those investors who own our common units. As used in this report, an eligible citizen means a person or entity qualified to hold an interest in mineral leases on federal lands. As of the date hereof, an eligible citizen must be: (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof; or (3) an association of U.S. citizens, such as a partnership or limited liability company, organized under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof, but only if such association does not have any direct or indirect foreign ownership, other than foreign ownership of stock in a parent corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof. For the avoidance of doubt, onshore mineral leases or any direct or indirect interest therein may be acquired and held by aliens only through stock ownership, holding or control in a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof. Unitholders who are not persons or entities who meet the requirements to be an eligible citizen run the risk of having their units redeemed by us at the lower of their purchase price cost or the then-current market price. The redemption price will be paid in cash or by delivery of a promissory note, as determined by our general partner.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability regarding our obligations.

Our general partner intends to limit its liability under contractual arrangements so that the counterparties to such arrangements have recourse only against our assets, and not against our general partner or its assets. Our general partner may therefore cause us to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse to our general partner. Our partnership agreement provides that any action taken by our general partner to limit its liability is not a breach of our general partner’s fiduciary duties, even if we could have obtained more favorable terms without the limitation on liability. In addition, we are obligated to reimburse or indemnify our general partner to the extent that it incurs obligations on our behalf. Any such reimbursement or indemnification payments would reduce the amount of cash otherwise available for distribution to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires that we distribute all of our available cash, which could limit our ability to grow and make acquisitions.

We expect that we will distribute all of our available cash to our unitholders and will rely primarily upon external financing sources, including commercial bank borrowings and the issuance of debt and equity securities, to fund our acquisitions and expansion capital expenditures. As a result, to the extent we are unable to finance growth externally; our cash distribution policy will significantly impair our ability to grow.

In addition, because we distribute all of our available cash, our growth may not be as fast as that of businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations. To the extent we issue additional units in connection with any acquisitions or expansion capital expenditures, the payment of distributions on those additional units may increase the risk that we will be unable to maintain or increase our per unit distribution level. There are no limitations in our partnership agreement or our credit agreement on our ability to issue additional units, including units ranking senior to the common units. The incurrence of additional commercial borrowings or other debt to finance our growth strategy would result in increased interest expense, which, in turn, may impact the available cash that we have to distribute to our unitholders.

Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s fiduciary duties to holders of our common and subordinated units.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that modify and reduce the fiduciary standards to which our general partner would otherwise be held by state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement permits our general partner to make a number of decisions in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner, or otherwise free of fiduciary duties to us and our unitholders. This entitles our general partner to consider only the interests and factors that it desires and relieves it of any duty or obligation to give any consideration to any interest of, or factors affecting, us, our affiliates or our limited partners. Examples of decisions that our general partner may make in its individual capacity include:

By purchasing a common unit, a unitholder is treated as having consented to the provisions in the partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

Our partnership agreement restricts the remedies available to holders of our common and subordinated units for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that restrict the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner that might otherwise constitute breaches of fiduciary duty under state fiduciary duty law. For example, our partnership agreement:

In connection with a situation involving a transaction with an affiliate or a conflict of interest, any determination by our general partner must be made in good faith. If an affiliate transaction or the resolution of a conflict of interest is not approved by our common unitholders or the conflicts committee and the board of directors of our general partner determines that the resolution or course of action taken with respect to the affiliate transaction or conflict of interest satisfies either of the standards set forth in subclauses (3) and (4) above, then it will be presumed that, in making its decision, the board of directors acted in good faith, and in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of any limited partner or the partnership, the person bringing or prosecuting such proceeding will have the burden of overcoming such presumption.

Our sponsor, Royal, and affiliates of our general partner may compete with us.

Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will be restricted from engaging in any business activities other than acting as our general partner and those activities incidental to its ownership interest in us. However, affiliates of our general partner, including our sponsor, Royal, are not prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities, including those that might be in direct competition with us. In addition, Royal and its affiliates may compete with us for investment opportunities and may own an interest in entities that compete with us. Further, Royal and its affiliates may acquire, develop or dispose of additional coal properties or other assets in the future without any obligation to offer us the opportunity to purchase or develop any of those assets.

Pursuant to the terms of our partnership agreement, the doctrine of corporate opportunity, or any analogous doctrine, does not apply to our general partner or any of its affiliates, including its executive officers and directors and Royal. Any such person or entity that becomes aware of a potential transaction, agreement, arrangement or other matter that may be an opportunity for us will not have any duty to communicate or offer such opportunity to us. Any such person or entity will not be liable to us or to any limited partner for breach of any fiduciary duty or other duty by reason of the fact that such person or entity pursues or acquires such opportunity for itself, directs such opportunity to another person or entity or does not communicate such opportunity or information to us. This may create actual and potential conflicts of interest between us and affiliates of our general partner and result in less than favorable treatment of us and our unitholders.

Our general partner may elect to cause us to issue common units to it in connection with a resetting of the target distribution levels related to its incentive distribution rights, without the approval of the conflicts committee of its board of directors or the holders of our common units. This could result in lower distributions to holders of our common units.

Our general partner has the right, at any time when there are no subordinated units outstanding and it has received incentive distributions at the highest level to which it is entitled (48.0%) for each of the prior four consecutive fiscal quarters, to reset the initial target distribution levels at higher levels based on our distributions at the time of the exercise of the reset election. Following a reset election by our general partner, the minimum quarterly distribution will be adjusted to equal the reset minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels will be reset to correspondingly higher levels based on percentage increases above the reset minimum quarterly distribution.

If our general partner elects to reset the target distribution levels, it will be entitled to receive a number of common units and will retain its then-current general partner interest. The number of common units to be issued to our general partner will equal the number of common units, which would have entitled the holder to an average aggregate quarterly cash distribution in the prior two quarters equal to the average of the distributions to our general partner on the incentive distribution rights in the prior two quarters. We anticipate that our general partner would exercise this reset right in order to facilitate acquisitions or internal growth projects that would not be sufficiently accretive to cash distributions per common unit without such conversion. It is possible, however, that our general partner could exercise this reset election at a time when it is experiencing, or expects to experience, declines in the cash distributions it receives related to its incentive distribution rights and may, therefore, desire to be issued common units rather than retain the right to receive incentive distributions based on the initial target distribution levels. As a result, a reset election may cause our common unitholders to experience a reduction in the amount of cash distributions that our common unitholders would have otherwise received had we not issued new common units to our general partner in connection with resetting the target distribution levels.

Holders of our common units have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its directors, which could reduce the price at which the common units will trade.

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence management’s decisions regarding our business. Unitholders will have no right on an annual or ongoing basis to elect our general partner or its board of directors. The board of directors of our general partner, including the independent directors, is chosen entirely by Royal, as a result of it owning our general partner, and not by our unitholders. Unlike publicly traded corporations, we do not conduct annual meetings of our unitholders to elect directors or conduct other matters routinely conducted at annual meetings of stockholders of corporations. As a result of these limitations, the price at which the common units will trade could be diminished because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Even if holders of our common units are dissatisfied, they cannot currently remove our general partner without its consent.

If our unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they will have limited ability to remove our general partner. Unitholders are currently unable to remove our general partner without its consent because our general partner and its affiliates own sufficient units to be able to prevent its removal. The vote of the holders of at least 66 ² / ₃ % of all outstanding common and subordinated units voting together as a single class is required to remove our general partner. As of March 16, 2018, Royal owned an aggregate of approximately 54% of our common and subordinated units. Also, if our general partner is removed without cause during the subordination period and no units held by the holders of the subordinated units or their affiliates are voted in favor of that removal, all remaining subordinated units will automatically be converted into common units and any existing arrearages on the common units will be extinguished. Cause is narrowly defined in our partnership agreement to mean that a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final, non-appealable judgment finding our general partner liable for actual fraud or willful or wanton misconduct in its capacity as our general partner. Cause does not include most cases of charges of poor management of the business.

Our general partner interest or the control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the members of our general partner to transfer their respective membership interests in our general partner to a third party. The new members of our general partner would then be in a position to replace the board of directors and executive officers of our general partner with their own designees and thereby exert significant control over the decisions taken by the board of directors and executive officers of our general partner. This effectively permits a “change of control” without the vote or consent of the unitholders.

Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price equal to the greater of (1) the average of the daily closing price of the common units over the 20 trading days preceding the date three days before notice of exercise of the call right is first mailed and (2) the highest per-unit price paid by our general partner or any of its affiliates for common units during the 90-day period preceding the date such notice is first mailed. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return or a negative return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units. Our general partner is not obligated to obtain a fairness opinion regarding the value of the common units to be repurchased by it upon exercise of the limited call right. There is no restriction in our partnership agreement that prevents our general partner from issuing additional common units and exercising its call right. If our general partner exercised its limited call right, the effect would be to take us private and, if the units were subsequently deregistered, we would no longer be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). As of March 16, 2018, Royal owned an aggregate of approximately 50.6% of our common units and approximately 92.6% of our subordinated units.

We may issue additional units without unitholder approval, which would dilute existing unitholder ownership interests.

Our partnership agreement does not limit the number of additional limited partner interests we may issue at any time without the approval of our unitholders. The issuance of additional common units, preferred units or other equity interests of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

The Series A preferred units are senior in right of distributions and liquidation and upon conversion, would result in the issuance of additional common units in the future, which could result in substantial dilution of our common unitholders’ ownership interests.

The Series A preferred units are a new class of partnership interests that rank senior to our common units with respect to distribution rights and rights upon liquidation. We are required to pay annual distributions on the Series A preferred units in an amount equal to the greater of (i) 50% of CAM Mining free cash flow (which is defined in our partnership agreement as (i) the total revenue of the our Central Appalachia business segment, minus (ii) the cost of operations (exclusive of depreciation, depletion and amortization) for the our Central Appalachia business segment, minus (iii) an amount equal to $6.50, multiplied by the aggregate number of met coal and steam coal tons sold by us from our Central Appalachia business segment) and (ii) an amount equal to the number of outstanding Series A preferred units multiplied by $0.80. If we fail to pay the any or all of the distributions in respect of the Series A preferred units, such deficiency will accrue until paid in full and we will not be permitted to pay any distributions on our partnership interests that rank junior to the Series A preferred units, including our common units. The preferred units also rank senior to the common units in right of liquidation, and will be entitled to receive a liquidation preference in any such case.

We may convert the Series A preferred units into common units at any time on or after the time at which the amount of aggregate distributions paid in respect of each Series A preferred unit exceeds $10.00 per unit. All unconverted Series A preferred units will convert into common units on December 31, 2021. The number of common units issued in any conversion will be based on the volume-weighted average closing price of the common units for 90 days preceding the date of conversion. Accordingly, the lower the trading price of our common units over the 90 day measurement period, the greater the number of common units that will be issued upon conversion of the preferred units, which would result in greater dilution to our existing common unitholders. Dilution has the following effects on our common unitholders:

In addition, to the extent the preferred units are converted into more than 66 2/3% of our common units, the holders of the preferred will have the right to remove our general partner.

Holders of our Series A preferred units have substantial negative control rights.

For as long as the Series A preferred units are outstanding, we will be restricted from taking certain actions without the consent of the holders of a majority of the Series A preferred units, including: (i) the issuance of additional Series A preferred units, or securities that rank senior or equal to the Series A preferred units; (ii) the sale or transfer of CAM Mining, LLC or a material portion of its assets; (iii) the repurchase of common units, or the issuance of rights or warrants to holders of common units entitling them to purchase common units at less than fair market value; (iv) consummation of a spin off; (v) the incurrence, assumption or guaranty indebtedness for borrowed money in excess of $50.0 million except indebtedness relating to entities or assets that are acquired by the Partnership or its affiliates that is in existence at the time of such acquisition or (vi) the modification of CAM Mining’s accounting principles or the financial or operational reporting principles of the our Central Appalachia business segment, subject to certain exceptions. These consent rights effectively add a constituency to our fundamental decision-making process, and failure to obtain such consent from the Series A preferred holders could prevent us from taking an action that our management or board of directors otherwise view as prudent or necessary for our business operations or the execution of our business strategy.

The market price of our common units could be adversely affected by sales of substantial amounts of our common units in the public or private markets, including sales by Royal or other large holders.

As of March 16, 2018, we had 12,993,869 common units, 1,145,743 subordinated units and 1,500,000 Series A preferred units outstanding. All of the subordinated units will convert into common units on a one-for-one basis at the end of the subordination period. On March 21, 2016, we issued 6,000,000 common units to Royal in a private placement. In connection with this issuance, we entered into a registration rights agreement with Royal which grants Royal piggyback registration rights under certain circumstances with respect to these common units. In addition, under our partnership agreement, our general partner and its affiliates (including Royal) have registration rights relating to the offer and sale of any units that they hold, subject to certain limitations. Sales by Royal or other large holders of a substantial number of our common units in the public markets, or the perception that such sales might occur, could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common units or could impair our ability to obtain capital through an offering of equity securities.

Our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of unitholders owning 20% or more of our common units.

Our partnership agreement restricts unitholders’ voting rights by providing that any units held by a person or group that owns 20% or more of any class of units then outstanding, other than our general partner and its affiliates, their transferees and persons who acquired such units with the prior approval of the board of directors of our general partner, cannot vote on any matter.

Cost reimbursements due to our general partner and its affiliates for services provided to us or on our behalf will reduce cash available for distribution to our unitholders. The amount and timing of such reimbursements will be determined by our general partner.

Prior to making any distribution on the common units, we will reimburse our general partner and its affiliates for all expenses they incur and payments they make on our behalf. Our partnership agreement does not set a limit on the amount of expenses for which our general partner and its affiliates may be reimbursed. These expenses include salary, bonus, incentive compensation and other amounts paid to persons who perform services for us or on our behalf and expenses allocated to our general partner by its affiliates. Our partnership agreement provides that our general partner will determine in good faith the expenses that are allocable to us. The reimbursement of expenses and payment of fees, if any, to our general partner and its affiliates will reduce the amount of available cash to pay cash distributions to our unitholders.

While our partnership agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash, our partnership agreement, including provisions requiring us to make cash distributions contained therein, may be amended.

While our partnership agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash, our partnership agreement, including provisions requiring us to make cash distributions contained therein, may be amended. Our partnership agreement generally may not be amended during the subordination period without the approval of our public common unitholders. However, our partnership agreement can be amended with the consent of our general partner and the approval of a majority of the outstanding common units (including common units held by Royal) after the subordination period has ended. As of March 16, 2018, Royal owned approximately 50.6% of the outstanding common units and 92.6% of our outstanding subordinated units.

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions and in certain circumstances may be personally liable for our obligations.

Under certain circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the “Delaware Act”), we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Delaware law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. A purchaser of units who becomes a limited partner is liable for the obligations of the transferring limited partner to make contributions to the partnership that are known to the purchaser of units at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

It may be determined that the right, or the exercise of the right by the limited partners as a group, to (i) remove or replace our general partner, (ii) approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or (iii) take other action under our partnership agreement constitutes “participation in the control” of our business. A limited partner that participates in the control of our business within the meaning of the Delaware Act may be held personally liable for our obligations under the laws of Delaware, to the same extent as our general partner. This liability would extend to persons who transact business with us under the reasonable belief that the limited partner is a general partner. Neither our partnership agreement nor the Delaware Act specifically provides for legal recourse against our general partner if a limited partner were to lose limited liability through any fault of our general partner.

Tax Risks

Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as well as our not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual states. If the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) were to treat us as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, or we become subject to entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced.

The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends largely on our being treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Despite the fact that we are organized as a limited partnership under Delaware law, we will be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless we satisfy a “qualifying income” requirement. Based on our current operations, we believe that we satisfy the qualifying income requirement and will be treated as a partnership. We may, however, decide that it is in our best interest to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. Failing to meet the qualifying income requirement, a change in current law, or an election to be treated as a corporation, could cause us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to taxation as an entity.

If we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate and would likely pay state and local income tax at varying rates. Any distributions to you would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits would flow through to you. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be substantially reduced. Therefore, treatment of us as a corporation would materially reduce the after-tax return to our unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of our common units.

Additionally, several states have been evaluating ways to subject partnerships to entity-level taxation through the imposition of state income, franchise, or other forms of taxation. We currently own assets and conduct business in several states that impose a margin or franchise tax. In the future, we may expand our operations to other states. Imposition of a similar tax on us in jurisdictions to which we expand could substantially reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Our partnership agreement provides that if a law is enacted or existing law is modified or interpreted in a manner that subjects us to additional amounts of entity level taxation for U.S. federal, state, local, or foreign income tax purposes, the minimum quarterly distribution amount and the target distribution amounts may be adjusted to reflect the impact of that law or interpretation on us. Changes in current state law may subject us to additional entity level taxation by individual states.

Although we monitor our level of non-qualifying income closely and attempt to manage our operations to ensure compliance with the qualifying income requirement, given the continued weak demand and low prices for met and steam coal, there is a risk that we will not be able to continue to meet the qualifying income level necessary to maintain our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.

As a publicly traded partnership, we may be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes unless 90% or more of our gross income in each year consists of certain identified types of “qualifying income.” In addition to qualifying income, like many other publicly traded partnerships, we also generate ancillary income that may not constitute qualifying income. Although we monitor our level of gross income that may not constitute qualifying income closely and attempt to manage our operations to ensure compliance with the qualifying income requirement, given the continued weak demand and low prices for met and steam coal, the sale of which generates qualifying income, there is a risk that we will not be able to continue to meet the qualifying income level necessary to maintain our status as a publicly-traded partnership. To the extent we become aware that we may not generate or have not generated sufficient qualifying income with respect to a tax period, we can and would take action to preserve our treatment as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, including seeking relief from the IRS. Section 7704(e) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for the possibility of relief upon, among other things, determination by the IRS that such failure to meet the qualifying income requirement was inadvertent. However, we are unaware of examples of such relief being sought by a publicly traded partnership.

The tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships or an investment in our common units could be subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative changes and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of publicly traded partnerships, including us, or an investment in our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial changes or differing interpretations at any time. For example, from time to time, members of Congress propose and consider substantive changes to the existing federal income tax laws that would affect publicly traded partnerships. Although there is no current legislative proposal, a prior legislative proposal would have eliminated the qualifying income exception to the treatment of all publicly traded partnerships as corporations upon which we rely for our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition on January 24, 2017, final regulations regarding which activities give rise to qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Code (the “Final Regulations”) were published in the Federal Register. The Final Regulations are effective as of January 19, 2017, and apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 19, 2017. We do not believe the Final Regulations affect our ability to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

However, any modification to the U.S. federal income tax laws may be applied retroactively and could make it more difficult or impossible for us to meet the exception for certain publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We are unable to predict whether any of these changes or other proposals will ultimately be enacted. Any such changes could negatively impact the value of an investment in our common units. You are urged to consult with your own tax advisor with respect to the status of regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on your investment in our common units.

If the IRS contests the federal income tax positions we take, the market for our common units may be adversely impacted and the cost of any IRS contest may substantially reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We have not requested a ruling from the IRS with respect to our treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes or any other matter affecting us. The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take and it may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain some or all of our positions. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units and the price at which they trade. Moreover, the costs of any contest with the IRS will reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders and thus will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our general partner. We have requested and obtained a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that, based on facts presented in the private letter ruling request, income from management fees, cost reimbursements and cost-sharing payments related to our management and operation of mining, production, processing, and sale of coal and from energy infrastructure support services will constitute “qualifying income” within the meaning of Section 7704 of the Code.

If the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments directly from us, in which case our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced and our current and former unitholders may be required to indemnify us for any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments that were paid on such unitholders’ behalf.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, if the IRS makes audit adjustments to our income tax returns, it (and some states) may assess and collect any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments directly from us. To the extent possible under the new rules, our general partner may elect to either pay the taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) directly to the IRS or, if we are eligible, issue a revised information statement to each unitholder and former unitholder with respect to an audited and adjusted return. Although our general partner may elect to have our unitholders and former unitholders take such audit adjustment into account and pay any resulting taxes (including applicable penalties or interest) in accordance with their interests in us during the tax year under audit, there can be no assurance that such election will be practical, permissible or effective in all circumstances. As a result, our current unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such unitholders did not own units in us during the tax year under audit. If, as a result of any such audit adjustment, we are required to make payments of taxes, penalties and interest, our cash available for distribution to our unitholders might be substantially reduced and our current and former unitholders may be required to indemnify us for any taxes (including any applicable penalties and interest) resulting from such audit adjustments that were paid on such unitholders’ behalf. These rules are not applicable for tax years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017.

Our unitholders are required to pay taxes on their share of our income even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.

Our unitholders are required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and local income taxes, on their share of our taxable income, whether or not they receive cash distributions from us. Our unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax due with respect to that income.

We anticipate engaging in transactions to reduce our indebtedness and manage our liquidity that generate taxable income (including cancellation of indebtedness income) allocable to unitholders, and income tax liabilities arising therefrom may exceed the value of your investment in us.

In response to current market conditions, from time to time we may consider engaging in transactions to delever us and manage our liquidity that would result in income and gain to our unitholders without a corresponding cash distribution. For example, we may sell assets and use the proceeds to repay existing debt or fund capital expenditures, in which case, you would be allocated taxable income and gain resulting from the sale without receiving a cash distribution. Further, we may pursue opportunities to reduce our existing debt, such as debt exchanges, debt repurchases, or modifications and extinguishment of our existing debt that would result in “cancellation of indebtedness income” (also referred to as “COD income”) being allocated to our unitholders as ordinary taxable income. Unitholders may be allocated COD income, and income tax liabilities arising therefrom may exceed the current value of your investment in us.

Entities taxed as corporations may have net operating losses to offset COD income or may otherwise qualify for an exception to the recognition of COD income, such as the bankruptcy or insolvency exceptions. As long as we are treated as a partnership, however, these exceptions are not available to the partnership and are only available to a unitholder if the unitholder itself is insolvent or in bankruptcy. As a result, these exceptions generally would not apply to prevent the taxation of COD income allocated to our unitholders. The ultimate tax effect of any such income allocations will depend on the unitholder’s individual tax position, including, for example, the availability of any suspended passive losses that may offset some portion of the allocable COD income. Unitholders may, however, be allocated substantial amounts of ordinary income subject to taxation, without any ability to offset such allocated income against any capital losses attributable to the unitholder’s ultimate disposition of its units. Unitholders are encouraged to consult their tax advisors with respect to the consequences to them of COD income.

Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our units could be more or less than expected.

If you sell your units, you will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and your tax basis in those units. Because distributions in excess of your allocable share of our net taxable income decrease your tax basis in your units, the amount, if any, of such prior excess distributions with respect to the units you sell will, in effect, become taxable income to you if you sell such units at a price greater than your tax basis in those units, even if the price you receive is less than your original cost. In addition, because the amount realized includes a unitholder’s share of our non-recourse liabilities, if you sell your units, you may incur a tax liability in excess of the amount of cash you receive from the sale.

A substantial portion of the amount realized from the sale of your units, whether or not representing gain, may be taxed as ordinary income to you due to potential recapture items, including depreciation recapture. Thus, you may recognize both ordinary income and capital loss from the sale of your units if the amount realized on a sale of your units is less than your adjusted basis in the units.

Net capital loss may only offset capital gains and, in the case of individuals, up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year. In the taxable period in which you sell your units, you may recognize ordinary income from our allocations of income and gain to you prior to the sale and from recapture items that generally cannot be offset by any capital loss recognized upon the sale of units.

Unitholders may be subject to limitation on their ability to deduct interest expense incurred by us.

In general, we are entitled to a deduction for interest paid or accrued on indebtedness properly allocable to our trade or business during our taxable year. However, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, our deduction for “business interest” is limited to the sum of our business interest income and 30% of our “adjusted taxable income.” For the purposes of this limitation, our adjusted taxable income is computed without regard to any business interest expense or business interest income, and in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction allowable for depreciation, amortization, or depletion.

Tax-exempt entities face unique tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Investment in our common units by tax-exempt entities, such as employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts (known as IRAs), raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of our income allocated to organizations that are exempt from U.S. federal income tax, including IRAs and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable income and will be taxable to them. Further, with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, a tax-exempt entity with more than one unrelated trade or business (including by attribution from investment in a partnership such as ours that is engaged in one or more unrelated trade or business) is required to compute the unrelated business taxable income of such tax-exempt entity separately with respect to each such trade or business (including for purposes of determining any net operating loss deduction). As a result, for years beginning after December 31, 2017, it may not be possible for tax-exempt entities to utilize losses from an investment in our partnership to offset unrelated business taxable income from another unrelated trade or business and vice versa. If you are a tax-exempt entity, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.

Non-U.S. Unitholders will be subject to U.S. taxes and withholding with respect to their income and gain from owning our common units.

Non-U.S. Unitholders are generally taxed and subject to income tax filing requirements by the United States on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (“effectively connected income”). Income allocated to you and any gain from the sale of your common units will generally be considered to be “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business. As a result, distributions to a Non-U.S. Unitholder will be subject to withholding at the highest applicable effective tax rate and a Non-U.S. Unitholder who sells or otherwise disposes of a common unit will also be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the gain realized from the sale or disposition of that common unit.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposes a withholding obligation of 10% of the amount realized upon a Non-U.S. Unitholder’s sale or exchange of an interest in a partnership that is engaged in a U.S. trade or business. However, due to challenges of administering a withholding obligation applicable to open market trading and other complications, the IRS has temporarily suspended the application of this withholding rule to open market transfers of interest in publicly traded partnerships pending promulgation of regulations or other guidance that resolves the challenges. It is not clear if or when such regulations or other guidance will be issued. If you are a non-U.S. person, you should consult your tax advisor before investing in our common units.

We treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard to the common units actually purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of the common units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, we have adopted certain methods of allocating depreciation and amortization deductions that may not conform to all aspects of the Treasury Regulations. A successful IRS challenge to the use of these methods could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to you. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain from your sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audit adjustments to your tax returns.

We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month, instead of on the basis of the date a particular unit is transferred. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could change the allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

We generally prorate our items of income, gain, loss and deduction between transferors and transferees of our common units each month based upon the ownership of our units on the first day of each month (the “Allocation Date”), instead of on the basis of the date a particular common unit is transferred. Similarly, we generally allocate gain or loss realized on the sale or other disposition of our assets or, in the discretion of the general partner, any other extraordinary item of income, gain, loss or deduction on the Allocation Date. Nonetheless, we allocate certain deductions for depreciation of capital additions based upon the date the underlying property is placed in service. Treasury Regulations allow a similar monthly simplifying convention, but such regulations do not specifically authorize all aspects of our proration method. If the IRS were to challenge our proration method, we could be required to change our allocation of items of income, gain, loss and deduction among our unitholders.

A unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan (e.g., a loan to a “short seller” to cover a short sale of units) may be considered to have disposed of those units. If so, the unitholder would no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner with respect to those units during the period of the loan and could recognize gain or loss from the disposition.

Because there are no specific rules governing the federal income tax consequences of loaning a partnership interest, a unitholder whose units are the subject of a securities loan may be considered to have disposed of the loaned units. In that case, the unitholder may no longer be treated for tax purposes as a partner in us with respect to those units during the period of the loan to the short seller and the unitholder may recognize gain or loss from such disposition. Moreover, during the period of the loan, any of our income, gain, loss or deduction with respect to those units may not be reportable by the unitholder and any cash distributions received by the unitholder as to those units could be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from a securities loan should consult a tax advisor to discuss whether it is advisable to modify any applicable brokerage account agreements to prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.

We have adopted certain valuation methodologies in determining a unitholder’s allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction. The IRS may challenge these methodologies or the resulting allocations, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.

In determining the items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders, we must routinely determine the fair market value of our assets. Although we may, from time to time, consult with professional appraisers regarding valuation matters, we make many fair market value estimates using a methodology based on the market value of our common units as a means to measure the fair market value of our assets. The IRS may challenge these valuation methods and the resulting allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction.

A successful IRS challenge to these methods or allocations could adversely affect the timing or amount of taxable income or loss being allocated to our unitholders. It also could affect the amount of gain from our unitholders’ sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of the common units or result in audit adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns without the benefit of additional deductions.

Unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements in jurisdictions where they do not live as a result of investing in our common units.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, unitholders will likely be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we conduct business or own property now or in the future, even if they do not live in any of those jurisdictions. Our unitholders will likely be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various jurisdictions. Further, unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

We currently own assets and conduct business in a number of states, most of which also impose an income tax on corporations and other entities. In addition, many of these states also impose a personal income tax on individuals. As we make acquisitions or expand our business, we may own assets or conduct business in additional states that impose a personal income tax. It is your responsibility to file all U.S. federal, state and local tax returns.