NAPTP Investor Conference
May 22, 2015
Joseph W. Craft III
Chief Executive Officer
Forward-Looking Statements
This presentation contains forward-looking statements and information that are
based on the beliefs of Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. and Alliance Holdings GP,
L.P. (the “Partnerships”) and those of their respective general partners (the
“General Partners”), as well as assumptions made by and information currently
available to them. When used in this presentation, words such as “anticipate,”
“project,” “expect,” “plan,” “goal,” “forecast,” “intend,” “could,” “believe,” “may,”
and similar expressions and statements regarding the plans and objectives of the
Partnerships for future operations, are intended to identify forward-looking
statements.
Although the Partnerships and their General Partners believe that such expectations
reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable at the time such
statements are made, neither the Partnerships nor the General Partners can give
assurances that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such statements are
subject to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If one or more of these
risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying assumptions prove incorrect,
actual results may vary materially from those the Partnerships anticipated,
estimated, projected or expected.
The Partnerships have no obligation to publicly update or revise any forwardlooking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise.
2
Two Ways to Invest in Alliance
Management /
Others (a)
70.8%
L.P.
Interest
Alliance Holdings
GP , L.P.
29.2%
L.P.
Interest
(NASDAQ: AHGP)
59.9 million units outstanding
1.98% General
Partner Interest (b)
IDRs
41.9% L.P.
Interest
Alliance Resource
Partners, L.P.
(NASDAQ: ARLP)
74.2 million units outstanding
Public
Unitholders
58.1%
L.P.
Interest
Public
Unitholders
 Cash flow growth from ARLP operations drives distribution growth
for all unitholders
 AHGP ownership of Incentive Distribution Rights provides leverage
to growth at ARLP
__________________
(a) Includes control group comprised of present members of Alliance management and
others, all of whom are subject to a transfer restrictions agreement
(b) Includes general partner interest held directly in ARLP’s Intermediate Partnership.
3
Alliance Partnership Profiles
NASDAQ Symbol:
ARLP
AHGP
Unit Price:
$31.97
$49.27
LTM/YTD Unit Price
Change:
Annualized
Distribution:
(31.4)%/(25.7)%
(22.9)%/(19.1)%
$2.65
$3.75
Distribution Yield:
8.3%
7.6%
Coverage Ratio:
1.6x
1.0x
Debt/EBITDA (LTM):
1.1x
-
Mkt Cap/Ent Value:
$2.4B/$3.2B
$2.9B/$2.98B
Asset Profile:
• First & largest publicly-traded
master limited partnership
involved in the production and
marketing of coal
• 3rd largest eastern coal
producer with 40.7 million tons
produced in 2014
• 1.6 billion tons of reserves at
March 31, 2015
•
Ownership Interests in ARLP
 100% of Incentive Distribution
Rights
 1.98% G.P. Interest
 15.5 million ARLP common
units ~41.9% of ARLP units
outstanding
Market data as of February 27, 2014 NASDAQ close
Market data as of May 19, 2015 NASDAQ close
4
4
The Alliance Strategy for Success
14 Consecutive Years of Record Performance ~
Create Sustainable Growth in Cash Flow and
Deliver Consistent Growth in Distributions to ARLP
and AHGP Unitholders
Focus on ~
 Low-cost operations
 High return organic development projects
 Disciplined acquisitions
 Strong Balance Sheet
5
5
Alliance Assets
 Diversified producer and marketer of coal to
major U.S. utilities and industrial users
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
10
9
11
Pattiki Complex
2.
River View Complex
3.
Dotiki Complex
4.
Warrior Complex
5.
Hopkins Complex
6.
Gibson Complex
6a. Gibson North Mine
6b. Gibson South Mine
7.
Sebree Mining Complex
8.
MC Mining Complex
9.
Mettiki Complex
13
Maryland
6a
6b
1.
West Virginia
1
10. Tunnel Ridge Complex
2
12 7
3 4
5
Kentucky
8
Virginia
11. Investment in White
Oak Resources
12. Sebree Reserve Project
13. Penn Ridge Project
Illinois Basin
Mount Vernon Transfer
Terminal
Appalachia
6
Alliance Has Consistently Delivered ~
ARLP Coal Tons Sold
ARLP Coal Tons Produced
Million Tons
Million Tons
ARLP Revenues
ARLP EBITDA
Dollars in Billions
Dollars in Millions
7
7
Cash Flow Growth Drives Performance
28 Consecutive Quarters of Increased Distributions ~
ARLP Distribution Per Unit
$2.75
CAGR 10.6%
$2.50
$2.25
$2.00
$1.75
$1.50
Coverage ratio
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015Q1
1.9x
1.8x
1.4x
1.6x
1.7x
1.6x
Source: Company filings
Company filings - 2010 through 2014 distributions paid per unit adjusted for 2:1 unit split. 2015 Q1 distribution declared annualized.
8
8
IDRs Enhance Growth at AHGP
AHGP Distribution Per Unit
$4.00
CAGR 14.6%
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015Q1
Source: Company filings
Company filings - 2010 through 2014 distributions paid per unit . 2015 Q1 distribution declared annualized.
9
9
Coal Industry Update
Industry Headline Issues
Coal sector performance
Regulatory impact
Natural gas competition
 11 
Coal Sector Performance
Metallurgical coal producers levered up in 2011, adding ~$10B of
incremental debt just as met coal prices peaked
Metallurgical coal prices have fallen by nearly half, leaving
significant amounts of production uneconomic
Total Debt
Met Export Volume vs Price
80
$200
70
$20,000M
$180
60
$10,000M
$5,000M
$160
50
40
$140
30
Price ($/st)
Million Short Tons
$15,000M
$120
20
$0M
$100
10
2010
2011
Thermal Producers
2012
2013
2014
$80
0
2010
Met Producers
Source: ARLP analysis, EIA.
Thermal heavy producers ARLP, Armstrong, CLD, CNX, FELP, HNRG, WLB, WMLP;
Metallurgical heavy producers ACI, ANR, BTU, ICO, JRCC, MEE, PCX, RNO, WLT
 12 
2011
2012
Met Exports
2013
Met Price
2014
Source: EIA
Coal Sector Performance
Coal markets have weakened for thermal producers and equity
performance has come under recent pressure, but thermal
producers have fared better than metallurgical-heavy peers
Debt/EBITDA
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2010
2011
2012
Thermal Producers
2013
2014
Met Producers
EBITDA/Interest Expense
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2010
2011
Thermal Producers
2012
2013
2014
Met Producers
Source: ARLP analysis
 13 
Impact of Regulations on Future
Coal Demand
Regulations (predominantly MATS) will lead to
~57GW of eastern U.S. coal capacity being
retired by 2020
 Excess capacity of remaining 181GW of eastern U.S.
coal plants can more than offset retiring capacity
Final GHG rules scheduled to be released
summer of 2015
 Ultimate impact is uncertain
 Litigation
 Congress
 Governors
Source: ARLP analysis
 14 
Future U.S. Coal Demand Expected to be
Relatively Stable
1,200
Million Tons
1,000
800
600
400
200
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
Utilities
2015
Exports
2016
2017
2018 2019 2020
Other
Source: EIA – 2015 Annual Energy Outlook, April 14, 2015
 15 
15
Coal & Natural Gas Will Continue to Dominate U.S.
Power Generation and Compete for Market Share
Electric Generation Coal vs Gas Market Share
80%
1,200
70%
60%
800
50%
40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
Utility Coal Consumption
(million tons)
Electricity Generation
Market Share
1,000
10%
‐
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
Coal
2012
2013
2014
Natural Gas
Source: EIA – 2015 Annual Energy Outlook, April 14, 2015
 16 
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Utility Coal Consumption
16
Cost Competitiveness of Eastern Basins
 ILB and NAPP production costs have consistently been near or
below $1.50/mmBTU


ILB production costs were $1.36/mmBTU in 4Q 2014
Substantial amount of ARLP production is at the low end of ILB and NAPP basins
CAPP continues to struggle to compete
Average Cash Cost by Basin
$3.50
$3.00
$/mmBTU
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Q1'12 Q2'12 Q3'12 Q4'12 Q1'13 Q2'13 Q3'13 Q4'13 Q1'14 Q2'14 Q3'14 Q4'14
ILB
CAPP
 17 
NAPP
Source: EVA
NYMEX Natural Gas May 19, 2015
 18 
Nov‐2016
Sep‐2016
Jul‐2016
May‐2016
Mar‐2016
Jan‐2016
Nov‐2015
Sep‐2015
Jul‐2015
May‐2015
Mar‐2015
Jan‐2015
Nov‐2014
Sep‐2014
Jul‐2014
May‐2014
Mar‐2014
Jan‐2014
Nov‐2013
Sep‐2013
Jul‐2013
May‐2013
Mar‐2013
Jan‐2013
Nov‐2012
Sep‐2012
Jul‐2012
May‐2012
Mar‐2012
Jan‐2012
Nov‐2011
Sep‐2011
Jul‐2011
May‐2011
Mar‐2011
Jan‐2011
Henry Hub Price per MMBtu
Price Competitiveness of Eastern Coal
Basins with Natural Gas
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
ILB and NAPP Coal Competes
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
ILB and NAPP Capturing Market Share from
CAPP
Current low gas prices and tepid power demand environment
 Eastern utility consumption expected to stabilize at ~250M tons
ILB and NAPP expected to maintain the market share captured
from CAPP
 Capacity can grow by 20 million to 50 million tons in response to
higher natural gas prices or increased electricity demand
Sources: EIA actual consumption through February 2015 and ARLP Analysis
 19 
Natural Gas Prices to Rise in
Short Term
Average gas price of $2.86/mmBTU in 2015 expected to
increase to $3.38/mmBTU in 2016; $4.26/mmBTU in 2017
Anticipated gas price increase driven by decline in E&P
capital budgets
 Reduced well economics due to lower gas and oil prices
 38% decline in gas-directed rig count
 Anticipated reduction in associated gas production due
to 58% decline in oil-directed rig count
 Several producers not completing DNP wells due to low
prices
 Hedges rolling off
Source: EVA May 2015 Quarterly Overview of Natural Gas Industry
 20 
Alliance is Well Positioned
for the Future
ARLP is a Preferred Supplier
 Reliable performance history
 Strong balance sheet
 Multiple transportation options
 Direct rail – CSX and NS
 Direct barge – Ohio and Green Rivers
 Truck and Mt. Vernon transloading facility
 Wide range of coal specifications
 Heat content – low, mid and high BTU products (11,000 to 12,500)
 Sulfur – 1.5% to 3.0+%
 Favorable trace elements – low chlorine
 Contract flexibility
 Quality mix
 Volume optionality
 Multiple sourcing options
 22 
22
Reserve Decisions on the Horizon
Pittsburgh 8 producers

~20 million tons of current capacity will either deplete or require
recapitalization by 2020
 Substantial portion of those tons serve river markets
 Tunnel Ridge is well positioned with a 20+ year mine life with its
current reserve base
ILB producers


~10 million to 20 million tons of current capacity either
depleting, requiring recapitalization, or out of the money on the
cost curve
ARLP’s ILB platform well positioned to capture this market share
 23 
Recent Coal Reserve Acquisitions
Added 660 million tons to Illinois Basin platform…
Enhanced reserve platform
provides opportunities to  Optimize existing Illinois
Basin operations
 Develop future organic
growth projects in response
to improved market
conditions
Existing Reserves
Acquired Reserves
Source: Company filings
Source: ARLP filings and estimates as of March 31, 2015
 24 
24
Excess Capacity Available
ARLP can respond rapidly to improved market conditions
55.0
Production Tons
(Millions)
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
2011
2012
Actual / Projected
2013
White Oak
2014
2015 (e)
Excess Capacity
Note: 2015 (e) based on midpoint of current guidance provided on April 28, 2015
Company filings and projections
White Oak sales tons will not be included in ARLP’s reported volumes. However, production from White Oak will provide
ARLP with cash flows from royalties, coal processing fees and priority distributions from its equity investment
Source: ARLP filings and estimates
 25 
25
Alliance Investment Thesis
Why Alliance?
The MLP Coal Investment leveraging….
 Clear strategy and focus
 Sustainable competitive advantages




Strategically located operations
Low cost producer
Strong customer relationships
Solid balance sheet
 Exceptional track record


14 consecutive years of record operating and
financial performance
28 consecutive quarters of distribution growth
 Well covered distributions providing high yield
to investors
 27 
27
Coal Keeps the Lights On