UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008

2009

Commission file number: 1-13283

Penn Virginia Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Virginia		23-1184320
Virginia		23-1184320
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

Three Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 300

100 Matsonford Road

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (610) 687-8900

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Title of each class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value		New York Stock Exchange

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yesx No¨o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Yes¨o Nox

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesx No¨o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.¨o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One)

Large accelerated filer		x		Accelerated filero		¨
Non-accelerated filer		¨o		Smaller reporting company		¨o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes¨o Nox

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $1,966,744,687$532,899,076 as of June 30, 20082009 (the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter), based on the last sale price of such stock as quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. For purposes of making this calculation only, the registrant has defined affiliates as including all directors and executive officers of the registrant, but excluding any institutional shareholders. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of February 25, 2009, 41,871,60722, 2010, 45,409,837 shares of common stock of the registrant were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement relating to the registrant’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be held on May 5, 2009,2010, is incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PENN VIRGINIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Table of Contents

		Page
Forward-Looking Statements			ii

Item
Part I
1. Overview of Business			1
1A. Risk Factors			23
1B. Unresolved Staff Comments			41
2. Properties			42
3. Legal Proceedings			48
4. Reserved			48
Part II
5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			49
6. Selected Financial Data			51
7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition			52
Overview of Business			52
Liquidity and Capital Resources			53
Contractual Obligations			62
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements			62
Results of Operations – Consolidated Review			63
Results of Operations – Oil and Gas Segment			64
Results of Operations – Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment			72
Results of Operations – Natural Gas Midstream Segment			76
Results of Operations – Eliminations and Other			80
Environmental Matters			82
Critical Accounting Estimates			83
New Accounting Standards			85
7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			85
8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			89
9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			154
9A. Controls and Procedures			154
9B. Other Information			154
Part III
10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			155
11. Executive Compensation			155
12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters			155
13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence			155
14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services			155
Part IV
15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules			156

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained herein that are not descriptions of historical facts are “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. Because such statements include risks, uncertainties and contingencies, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and contingencies include, but are not limited to, the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Additional information concerning these and other factors can be found in our press releases and public periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of the factors that will determine our future results are beyond the ability of management to control or predict. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect management’s views only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, or to make any other forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

Item 1

Business

Item 1 Business

General

Penn Virginia Corporation (NYSE: PVA) is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in the development, exploration and production of natural gas and oil in various domestic onshore regions including East Texas, the Mid-Continent, Appalachia Mississippi and the Gulf Coast.Mississippi. We also indirectly own partner interests in Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P. (NYSE: PVR), or PVR, a publicly traded limited partnership formed by us in 2001. Our ownership interests in PVR are held principally through our general partner interest and our 77%51.4% limited partner interest in Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (NYSE: PVG), or PVG, a publicly traded limited partnership formed by us in 2006. As of December 31, 2008,2009, PVG owned an approximatelyapproximate 37% limited partner interest in PVR and 100% of the general partner of PVR, which holds a 2% general partner interest in PVR.PVR and all of the incentive distribution rights, or IDRs. During 2009, we sold a portion of our limited partner interest in PVG in a public offering, reducing our limited partner interest in PVG from 77% to 51.4%. See “—Corporate Structure.”

PVG consolidates PVR’s results into its financial statements because PVG controls PVR’s general partner. We consolidate PVG’s results into our financial statements because we control PVG’s general partner. PVG and PVR function with capital structures that are independent of each other and us. While we report consolidated financial results of PVR’s coal and natural resource management and natural gas midstream businesses, the only cash we received from those businesses is in the form of cash distributions we received from PVG and PVR in respect of our partner interests in each of them. We received cash distributions of $42.3 million, $44.0 million $29.8 million and $28.6$29.8 million in the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and 2006 on accountas a result of our partner interests in PVG and PVR.

Unless the context requires otherwise, references to the “Company,” “Penn Virginia,” “we,” “us” or “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refer to Penn Virginia Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Segments

We are engaged in three primary business segments: (i) oil and gas, (ii) coal and natural resource management and (iii) natural gas midstream. We operate our oil and gas segment.segment, and PVR operates the coal and natural resource management and natural gas midstream segments. Our operating income was $256.8 million in 2008, compared to $192.6 million in 2007 and $170.5 million in 2006. Our segments’ contributions to operating income in 2008 were as follows:

These contributions were partially offset by $29.0 million of intercompany eliminations and corporate expenses, or 10%.

Oil and Gas Segment Overview

We have a geographically diverse asset base with core areas of operation in the East Texas, Mid-Continent, Appalachian Mississippi and Gulf CoastMississippi regions of the United States. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we had proved natural gas and oil reserves of approximately 916935 Bcfe, of which 82%83% were natural gas and 51%47% were proved developed. Our operations include both conventional and unconventional developmental drilling opportunities, as well as some exploratory prospects.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, 97% of our proved reserves were located in primarily longer-lived, lower-risk basins in East Texas, the Mid-Continent, Appalachia and Mississippi, which comprised 43%, 15%21%, 19%14% and 15%19%, respectively, of the proved reserves. OurWe sold our Gulf Coast properties, representing 3% of proved reserves, are shorter-lived and have higher impact exploratory prospects.in a transaction that closed on January 29, 2010. In 2008,2009, we produced 46.951.0 Bcfe, a 16%9% increase compared to 40.646.9 Bcfe in 2007,2008, with East Texas, the Mid-Continent, Appalachia, Mississippi and the Gulf Coast comprising 29%, 16%26%, 25%, 16%23%, 15% and 16%11% of total production volumes. In the three years ended December 31, 2008,2009, we drilled 785607 gross (544.4(413.3 net) wells, of which 94%93% were successful in producing natural gas in commercial quantities. For a more detailed discussion of our reserves and production, see Item 2, “Properties.”

The primary development play types that our oil and gas operations are focused on include: (i) the horizontal Lower Bossier (Haynesville) Shale and vertical Cotton Valley plays in East Texas, (ii) the horizontal Granite Wash horizontal Hartshorne CBM and the Woodford Shale playsplay in the Mid-Continent (iii) multi-lateral horizontal CBM and Marcellus Shale plays in Appalachia and (iv)(iii) the predominantly horizontal Selma Chalk play in Mississippi. In addition, we intend to focus on drilling exploratory wells in the Marcellus Shale play in Appalachia in order to determine whether our leasehold acreage position there will support a development program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We have grown our reserves and production primarily through development and exploratory drilling, complemented to a lesser extent by making strategic acquisitions. In 2008,Despite a challenging year in 2009, we replaced 604%approximately 147% of our 20082009 production entirely through the drillbit by adding approximately 28375 Bcfe of proved reserves from extensions, discoveries and additions, net of revisions. In 2008,2009, capital expenditures in our oil and gas segment were $641.7$171.8 million, of which $481.4$140.2 million, or 75%82%, was related to development drilling $23.8and $18.7 million, or 4%, was related to exploratory drilling, $95.5 million, or 15%11%, was related to leasehold acquisitions and $36.8acquisitions. The remaining $12.9 million, or 6%7%, was related to exploration drilling, pipelines, gathering and facilities.

As of December 31, 2009, we owned 1.1 million net acres of leasehold interests, approximately 34% of which were undeveloped. Many of our proved undeveloped locations and additional potential drilling locations are direct offsets or extensions from existing production. We believe our existing undeveloped acreage position represents over 10 years of drilling opportunities based on our historical drilling rate.

PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment Overview

The PVR coal and natural resource management segment primarily involves the management and leasing of coal properties and the subsequent collection of royalties. PVR also earns revenues from other land management activities, such as selling standing timber, leasing fee-based coal-related infrastructure facilities to certain lessees and end-user industrial plants, collecting oil and gas royalties and from coal transportation, or wheelage, fees.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, PVR owned or controlled approximately 827829 million tons of proven and probable coal reserves in Central and Northern Appalachia, the San Juan Basin and the Illinois Basin. PVR enters into long-term leases with experienced, third-party mine operators, providing them the right to mine PVR’s coal reserves in exchange for royalty payments. PVR actively works with its lessees to develop efficient methods to exploit its reserves and to maximize production from PVR’s properties. PVR does not operate any mines. In 2008,2009, PVR’s lessees produced 33.734.3 million tons of coal from its properties and paid PVR coal royalties revenues of $122.8$120.4 million, for an average royalty per ton of $3.65.$3.51. Approximately 86%82% of PVR’s coal royalties revenues in 20082009 were derived from coal mined on PVR’s properties under leases containing royalty rates based on the higher of a fixed base price or a percentage of the gross sales price. The balance of PVR’s coal royalties revenues for the respective periods was derived from coal mined on PVR’s properties under leases containing fixed royalty rates that escalate annually. See “—PVR Contracts— Contracts — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment” for a description of PVR’s coal leases.

PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment Overview

PVR’s natural gas midstream segment is engaged in providing natural gas processing, gathering and other related services. As of December 31, 2008,2009, PVR owned and operated natural gas midstream assets located in Oklahoma and Texas, including fivesix natural gas processing facilities having 300400 MMcfd of total capacity and approximately 4,0694,118 miles of natural gas gathering pipelines. PVR’s natural gas midstream business earns revenues primarily from gas processing contracts with natural gas producers and from fees charged for gathering natural gas volumes and providing other related services. In addition, PVR owns a 25% member interest in Thunder Creek Gas Services, LLC, or Thunder Creek, a joint venture that gathers and transports CBM in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. PVR also owns a natural gas marketing business, which aggregates third-party volumes and sells those volumes into intrastate pipeline systems and at market hubs accessed by various interstate pipelines.

In 2008,2009, system throughput volumes at PVR’s gas processing plants and gathering systems, including gathering-only volumes, were 98.7121.3 Bcf, or approximately 270332 MMcfd.

Eliminations and Other

Eliminations and other primarily represents elimination of intercompany sales, corporate functions and the oil and gas segment derivatives

Business Strategy

We intend to pursue the following business strategies:

Mississippi and Appalachia.Mississippi. We are applying horizontal drilling technology in each of thesethe core areas which may result in increased reserve additions, higher production rates and increased rates of return. Capital spending levels in each of our core areas is expected to be significantly lower in 2009 than 2008.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contracts

Oil and Gas Segment

Transportation.  We have entered into contracts which provide firm transportation capacity rights for specified volumes per day on a pipeline system for terms ranging from one to 15 years. The contracts require us to pay transportation demand charges regardless of the amount of pipeline capacity we use. We may sell excess capacity to third parties at our discretion.

Marketing.  We generally sell our natural gas using spot market and short-term fixed price physical contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, approximately 16%13% and 14%12% of our oil and gas segment revenues and 6%4% and 5%3% of our total consolidated revenues resulted from two of our oil and gas customers, Dominion Field Services, IncInc. and Crosstex Energy Services, L.P.Chesapeake Operating, Inc.

PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment

PVR earns most of its coal royalties revenues under long-term leases that generally require its lessees to make royalty payments to it based on the higher of a percentage of the gross sales price or a fixed price per ton of coal they sell. The balance of PVR’s coal royalties revenues is earned under long-term leases that require the lessees to make royalty payments to PVR based on fixed royalty rates that escalate annually. A typical lease either expires upon exhaustion of the leased reserves or has a five to ten-year base term, with the lessee having an option to extend the lease for at least five years after the expiration of the base term. Substantially all of PVR’s leases require the lessee to pay minimum rental payments to PVR in monthly or annual installments, even if no mining activities are ongoing. These minimum rentals are recoupable, usually over a period from one to three years from the time of payment, against the production royalties owed to PVR once coal production commences.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Substantially all of PVR’s leases impose obligations on the lessees to diligently mine the leased coal using modern mining techniques, indemnify PVR for any damages it incurs in connection with the lessee’s mining operations, including any damages PVR may incur due to the lessee’s failure to fulfill reclamation or other environmental obligations, conduct mining operations in compliance with all applicable laws, obtain its written consent prior to assigning the lease and maintain commercially reasonable amounts of general liability and other insurance. Substantially all of the leases grant PVR the right to review all lessee mining plans and maps, enter the leased premises to examine mine workings and conduct audits of lessees’ compliance with lease terms. In the event of a default by a lessee, substantially all of the leases give PVR the right to terminate the lease and take possession of the leased premises.

In addition, PVR earns revenues under coal services contracts, timber contracts and oil and gas leases. PVR’s coal services contracts generally provide that the users of PVR’s coal services pay PVR a fixed fee per ton of coal processed at its facilities. All of PVR’s coal services contracts are with lessees of PVR’s coal reserves and these contracts generally have terms that run concurrently with the related coal lease. PVR’s timber contracts generally provide that the timber companies pay PVR a fixed price per thousand board feet of timber harvested from PVR’s property. PVR receives royalties under its oil and gas leases based on a percentage of the revenues the producers receive for the oil and gas they sell.

PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment

PVR’s natural gas midstream business generates revenues primarily from gas purchase and processing contracts with natural gas producers and from fees charged for gathering natural gas volumes and providing other related services. During the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, PVR’s natural gas midstream business generated a majority of its gross margin from two types of contractual arrangements under which its margin is exposed to increases and decreases in the price of natural gas and NGLs: (i) gas purchase/keep-whole and (ii) percentage-of-proceeds. AsFor the fourth quarter of December 31, 2008,2009, approximately 27%28% of PVR’s system throughput volumes were gathered or processed under gas purchase/keep-whole contracts, 45%53% were gathered or processed under percentage-of-proceeds contracts and 28%19% were gathered or processed under fee-based gathering contracts. A majority of the gas purchase/keep-whole and percentage-of-proceeds contracts include fee-based components such as gathering and compression charges. There is also a processing fee floor included in many

In 2009, 21% of the gas purchase/keep-whole contracts that ensures a minimum processing margin should the actual margins fall below the floor.

In 2008, 27% and 13% of PVR’sPVR natural gas midstream segmentsegment’s revenues and 16% and 8%13% of our total consolidated revenues resulted from twoone of PVR’s natural gas midstream customers, Conoco, Inc. and Louis Dreyfus Energy Services.

Gas Purchase/Keep-Whole Arrangements.  Under gas purchase/keep-whole arrangements, PVR generally purchases natural gas at the wellhead at either (i) a percentage discount to a specified index price, (ii) a specified index price less a fixed amount or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii). PVR then gathers the natural gas to one of its plants where it is processed to extract the entrained NGLs, which are then sold to third parties at market prices. PVR resells the remaining natural gas to third parties at an index price which typically corresponds to the specified purchase index. Because the extraction of the NGLs from the natural gas during processing reduces the BTU content of the natural gas, PVR retains a reduced volume of gas to sell after processing. Accordingly, under these arrangements, PVR’s revenues and gross margins increase as the price of NGLs increases relative to the price of natural gas, and its revenues and gross margins decrease as the price of natural gas increases relative to the price of NGLs. PVR has generally been able to mitigate its exposure in the latter case by requiring the payment under many of its gas purchase/keep-whole arrangements of minimum processing charges which ensure that PVR receives a minimum amount of processing revenues. The gross margins that PVR realizes under the arrangements described in clauses (i) and (iii) above also decrease in periods of low natural gas prices because these gross margins are based on a percentage of the index price.

Percentage-of-Proceeds Arrangements.  Under percentage-of-proceeds arrangements, PVR generally gathers and processes natural gas on behalf of producers, sells the resulting residue gas and NGL volumes at market prices and remits to producers an agreed-upon percentage of the proceeds of those sales based on either an index price or the price actually received for the gas and NGLs. Under these types of arrangements, PVR’s revenues and gross margins increase as natural gas prices and NGL prices increase, and its revenues and gross margins decrease as natural gas prices and NGL prices decrease.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fee-Based Arrangements.  Under fee-based arrangements, PVR receives fees for gathering, compressing and/or processing natural gas. The revenues PVR earns from these arrangements are directly dependent on the volume of natural gas that flows through its systems and are independent of commodity prices. To the extent a sustained decline in commodity prices results in a decline in volumes, however, PVR’s revenues from these arrangements would be reduced due to the related reduction in drilling and development of new supply.

In many cases, PVR provides services under contracts that contain a combination of more than one of the arrangements described above. The terms of PVR’s contracts vary based on gas quality conditions, the competitive environment at the time the contracts were signed and customer requirements. The contract mix and, accordingly, exposure to natural gas and NGL prices, may change as a result of changes in producer preferences, expansion in regions where some types of contracts are more common and other market factors.

Natural Gas Marketing Contracts.  PVR is also engaged in natural gas marketing by aggregating third-party volumes and selling those volumes into interstate and intrastate pipeline systems such as Enogex and ONEOKPanhandle Eastern Pipeline and at market hubs accessed by various interstate pipelines. Connect Energy Services, LLC, or Connect Energy, PVR’s wholly owned subsidiary, has earned fees from Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P., or PVOG LP, our wholly owned subsidiary, since September 1, 2006, for marketing a portion of PVOG LP’s natural gas production. Revenues from this business do not generate qualifying income for a publicly traded limited partnership, but PVR does not expect it to have an impact on its tax status, as it does not represent a significant percentage of PVR’s operating income. For the years ended December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, PVR’s natural gas marketing activities generated $5.8$1.8 million and $4.6$5.8 million in net revenues. Fees paid to the PVR natural gas midstream segment by our oil and gas segment are eliminated in consolidation.

Commodity Derivative Contracts

Oil and Gas Segment Commodity Derivatives.Derivatives.  We utilize three-way collar derivative contracts to hedge against the variability in cash flows associated with anticipated sales of our future oil and gas production. While the use of derivative instruments limits the risk of adverse price movements, such use may also limit future revenues from favorable price movements.

A three-way collar contract consists of a collar contract plus a put option contract sold by us with a price below the floor price of the collar. The counterparty to a collar contract is required to make a payment to us if the settlement price for any settlement period is below the floor price for such contract. We are required to make a payment to the counterparty if the settlement price for any settlement period is above the ceiling price for such contract. Neither party is required to make a payment to the other party if the settlement price for any settlement period is equal to or greater than the floor price and equal to or less than the ceiling price for such contract.

The additional put option sold by us requires us to make a payment to the counterparty if the settlement price for any settlement period is below the put option price. By combining the collar contract with the additional put option, we are entitled to a net payment equal to the difference between the floor price of the collar contract and the additional put option price if the settlement price is equal to or less than the additional put option price. If the settlement price is greater than the additional put option price, the result is the same as it would have been with a collar contract only. If market prices are below the additional put option, we would be entitled to receive the market price plus the difference between the additional put option and the floor. See the oil and gas segment commodity derivative table in Item 7A, –“Quantitative“Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk –— Price Risk.” This strategy enables us to increase the floor and the ceiling prices of the collar beyond the range of a traditional collar contract while defraying the associated cost with the sale of the additional put option.

We determine the fair values of our oil and gas derivative agreements based on discounted cash flows derived from third-party quoted forward prices for NYMEX Henry Hub gas and West Texas Intermediate crude oil closing prices as of December 31, 2008.2009. The discounted cash flows utilize discount rates adjusted for the credit risk of our counterparties for derivativesif the derivative is in an asset position and our own credit risk derivativesif the derivative is in a liability position, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 157.position.

PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment Commodity Derivatives.Derivatives.  PVR utilizes three-way collar derivative contracts to hedge against the variability in cash flows associated with anticipated natural gas midstream revenues and cost of midstream

gas purchased. PVR also utilizes collar derivative contracts to hedge against the variability in its frac spread. PVR’s frac spread is the spread between the purchase price for the natural gas PVR purchases from producers and the sale price for NGLs that PVR sells after processing. PVR hedges against the variability in its frac spread by entering into costless collar and swap

TABLE OF CONTENTS

derivative contracts to sell NGLs forward at a predetermined commodity price and to purchase an equivalent volume of natural gas forward on an MMBtu basis. While the use of derivative instruments limits the risk of adverse price movements, such use may also limit future revenues or cost savings from favorable price movements.

A three-way collar contract consists of a collar contract plus a put option contract sold by PVR with a price below the floor price of the collar. The counterparty to a collar contract is required to make a payment to PVR if the settlement price for any settlement period is below the floor price for such contract. PVR is required to make a payment to the counterparty if the settlement price for any settlement period is above the ceiling price for such contract. Neither party is required to make a payment to the other party if the settlement price for any settlement period is equal to or greater than the floor price and equal to or less than the ceiling price for such contract.

The additional put option sold by PVR requires it to make a payment to the counterparty if the settlement price for any settlement period is below the put option price. By combining the collar contract with the additional put option, PVR is entitled to a net payment equal to the difference between the floor price of the collar contract and the additional put option price if the settlement price is equal to or less than the additional put option price. If the settlement price is greater than the additional put option price, the result is the same as it would have been with a collar contract only. If market prices are below the additional put option, PVR would be entitled to receive the market price plus the difference between the additional put option and the floor. See the PVR natural gas midstream segment commodity derivative table in Item 7A –“Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk – Price Risk.” This strategy enables PVR to increase the floor and the ceiling prices of the collar beyond the range of a traditional collar contract while defraying the associated cost with the sale of the additional put option.

See Note 8 – “Derivative Instruments” into the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” for a further description of our and PVR’s derivatives programs.

Corporate Structure

We are a Virginia corporation formed in 1882. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we owned the general partner of PVG and an approximately 77%51.4% limited partner interest in PVG. PVG owns an approximately 37% limited partner interest in PVR and the general partner of PVR, which holds a 2% general partner interest in PVR and all of the incentive distribution rights, or IDRs. We directly owned an additional 0.1% limited partner interest in PVR as of December 31, 2008.2009. The following diagram depicts our ownership of PVG and PVR as of December 31, 2008:2009:

Because PVG controls the general partner of PVR, the financial results of PVR are included in PVG’s consolidated financial statements. Because we control the general partner of PVG, the financial results of PVG are included in our consolidated financial statements. However, PVG and PVR function with capital structures that are independent of each

other and us, with each having publicly traded common units and PVR having its own debt instruments. PVG does not currently have any debt instruments. While we report consolidated financial results of PVR’s coal and natural resource management and natural gas midstream businesses, the only cash we receive from those businesses is in the form of cash distributions we receive from PVG and PVR in respect of our partner interests in each of them.

PVG and PVR Distributions

PVG Cash Distributions

PVG paid cash distributions of $1.40$1.52 per common unit during the year ended December 31, 2008.2009. In the first quarter of 2009,2010, PVG paid a cash distribution of $0.38 ($1.52 on an annualized basis) per common unit with respect to the fourth quarter of 2008.2009. This distribution was unchanged from the previous distribution paid on November 19, 2008.18, 2009. For the remainder of 2009,2010, PVG expects to pay quarterly cash distributions of at least $0.38 ($1.52 on an annualized basis) per common unit.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PVR Cash Distributions

PVR paid cash distributions of $1.82$1.88 per common unit during the year ended December 31, 2008.2009. In the first quarter of 2009,2010, PVR paid a cash distribution of $0.47 ($1.88 on an annualized basis) per common unit with respect to the fourth quarter of 2008.2009. This distribution was unchanged from the previous distribution paid on November 14, 2008.13, 2009. For the remainder of 2009,2010, PVR expects to pay quarterly cash distributions of at least $0.47 ($1.88 on an annualized basis) per common unit.

PVR IDRs

In accordance with PVR’s partnership agreement, IDRs represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly distributions of PVR’s available cash from operating surplus after the minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels have been achieved. The minimum quarterly distribution is $0.25 ($1.00 on an annualized basis) per unit. PVR’s general partner currently holds 100% of the IDRs, but may transfer these rights separately from its general partner interest to an affiliate (other than an individual) or to another entity as part of the merger or consolidation of PVR’s general partner with or into such entity or the transfer of all or substantially all of PVR’s general partner’s assets to another entity without the prior approval of PVR’s unitholders if the transferee agrees to be bound by the provisions of PVR’s partnership agreement. Prior to September 30, 2011, other transfers of the IDRs will require the affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the outstanding PVR common units. On or after September 30, 2011, the IDRs will be freely transferable. The IDRs are payable as follows:

If for any quarter:

then, PVR will distribute any additional available cash from operating surplus for that quarter among the unitholders and its general partner in the following manner:

Since 2001, PVR has increased its quarterly cash distribution from $0.25 ($1.00 on an annualized basis) per unit to $0.47 ($1.88 on an annualized basis) per unit, which is its most recently declared distribution. These increased cash distributions

by PVR have placed PVG, as the owner of PVR’s general partner, at the maximum target cash distribution level as described above and, as a consequence, since reaching such level, PVG, as the owner of PVR’s general partner, has received 50% of available cash in excess of $0.375 per unit.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cash Distributions Received

In conjunction with the initial public offering of PVG, we contributed our general partner interest, IDRs and most of our limited partner interest in PVR to PVG in exchange for the general partner interest and limited partner interests in PVG. We are currently entitled to receive quarterly cash distributions from PVG and PVR on our limited partner interests in PVG and PVR. As a result of our partner interests in PVG and PVR, we received the following total cash distributions for the periods presented. The reduction in cash distributions we received from 2008 to 2009 was the result of $44.0 million and $29.8 million fromour sale of a portion of our interest in PVG and PVR in the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 as shown in the following table:during 2009.

		Year Ended December 31,
		2009				2008				2007
Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P.		$	41,916			$	43,435			$	29,200
Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P.(1)			363				583				640
		$	42,279			$	44,018			$	29,840

We have historically received, on an annual basis, increasing distributions from our partner interests in PVG and PVR. Based on PVG’s and PVR’s current annualized distribution rates of $1.52 and $1.88 per unit, we would expect to receive aggregate annualized distributions of approximately $46.3 million in respect of our partner interests in the year ended December 31, 2009.

Prior to PVG’s initial public offering in December 2006, we indirectly owned common units representing an approximately 37% limited partner interest in PVR, as well as the sole 2% general partner interest and all of the IDRs in PVR. We received total distributions from PVR of $28.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2006, allocated among our limited partner interest, general partner interest and IDRs as shown in the following table:

Competition

Oil and Gas Segment

The oil and natural gas industry is very competitive, and we compete with a substantial number of other companies that are large, well-established and have greater financial and operational resources than we do, which may adversely affect our ability to compete or grow our business. Many such companies not only engage in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas reserves, but also carry on refining operations, electricity generation and the marketing of refined products. Competition is particularly intense in the acquisition of prospective oil and natural gas properties and oil and gas reserves. Our competitive position depends on our geological, geophysical and engineering expertise, our financial resources, our ability to develop properties and our ability to select, acquire and develop proved reserves. We compete with other oil and natural gas companies to secure drilling rigs and other equipment necessary for the drilling and completion of wells and recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, including geologists, geo-physicists, engineers and other specialists. Such equipment and labor may be in short supply from time to time. Shortages of equipment, labor or materials may result in increased costs or the inability to obtain such resources as needed. We also compete with majorsubstantially larger and independent oil and gas companies in the marketing and sale of oil and natural gas, and the oil and natural gas industry in general competes with other industries supplying energy and fuel to industrial, commercial and individual consumers.

PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment

The coal industry is intensely competitive primarily as a result of the existence of numerous producers. PVR’s lessees compete with both large and small coal producers in various regions of the United States for domestic sales. The industry has undergone significant consolidation which has led to some of the competitors of PVR’s lessees having significantly larger financial and operating resources than most of PVR’s lessees. PVR’s lessees compete on the basis of coal price at the mine, coal quality (including sulfur content), transportation cost from the mine to the customer and the reliability of supply. Continued demand for PVR’s coal and the prices that PVR’s lessees obtain are also affected by demand for electricity, demand for metallurgical coal, access to transportation, environmental and government regulations, technological developments and the availability and price of alternative fuel supplies, including nuclear, natural gas, oil and hydroelectric power. Demand for PVR’s low sulfur coal and the prices PVR’s lessees will be able to obtain for it will also be affected by the price and availability of high sulfur coal, which can be marketed in tandem with emissions allowances which permit the high sulfur coal to meet federal Clean Air Act, or CAA, requirements.

PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment

PVR experiences competition in all of its natural gas midstream markets. PVR’s competitors include major integrated oil companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines and companies that gather, compress, process, transport and market natural gas. Many of PVR’s competitors have greater financial resources and access to larger natural gas supplies than PVR does.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The ability to offer natural gas producers competitive gathering and processing arrangements and subsequent reliable service is fundamental to obtaining and keeping gas supplies for PVR’s gathering systems. The primary concerns of the producer are:

Government Regulation and Environmental Matters

The operations of our oil and gas business and PVR’s coal and natural resource management business and PVR’s natural gas midstream businessbusinesses are subject to environmental laws and regulations adopted by various governmental authorities in the jurisdictions in which these operations are conducted.conducted.

Oil and Gas Segment

State Regulatory Matters.  Various aspects of our oil and natural gas operations are regulated by administrative agencies under statutory provisions of the states where such operations are conducted. All of the jurisdictions in which we own or operate producing crude oil and natural gas properties have statutory provisions regulating the exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas. These provisions include permitting regulations regarding the drilling of wells, maintaining bonding requirements to drill or operate wells, locating wells, the method of drilling and casing wells, the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled and the plugging and abandoning of wells. Our operations are also subject to various conservation laws and regulations. These include the regulation of the size of drilling and spacing units or proration units, the number of wells that may be drilled in an area and the unitization or pooling of crude oil and natural gas properties. In addition, state conservation laws establish maximum rates of production from crude oil and natural gas wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose certain requirements regarding the ratability or fair apportionment of production from fields and individual wells. The effect of these regulations is to limit the amounts of crude oil and natural gas we can produce from our wells and to limit the number of wells or the locations at which we can drill.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or the FERC, regulates the transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, or the NGA, and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, or the NGPA. In the past, the federal government has regulated the prices at which oil

and gas could be sold. The Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989 removed all NGA and NGPA price and nonprice controls affecting producers’ wellhead sales of natural gas effective January 1, 1993. While sales by producers of their own natural gas production and all sales of crude oil, condensate and NGLs can currently be made at market prices, Congress could reenact price controls in the future.

Commencing in April 1992, the FERC issued Order Nos. 636, 636-A, 636-B and 636-C, or Order No. 636, which require interstate pipelines to provide transportation separate, or “unbundled,” from the pipelines’ sale of gas. Also, Order No. 636 requires pipelines to provide open-access transportation on a basis that is equal for all gas supplies. Although Order No. 636 does not directly regulate gas producers like us, the FERC has stated that it intends for Order No. 636 to foster increased competition within all phases of the natural gas industry. The courts have largely affirmed the significant features of Order No. 636 and numerous related orders pertaining to the individual pipelines, although certain appeals remain pending and the FERC continues to review and modify its open access regulations. In particular, the FERC has issued Order Nos. 637, 637-A and 637-B which, among other things, (i) permit pipelines to charge different maximum cost-based rates for peak and off-peak periods, (ii) encourage auctions for pipeline capacity, (iii) require pipelines to implement imbalance management services and (iv) restrict the ability of pipelines to impose penalties for imbalances, overruns and non-compliance with operational flow orders.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the NGA and the NGPA and gave the FERC the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation for violations of rules, regulations and orders issued under these acts. In addition, the FERC has issued regulations that make it unlawful for any entity in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC to use any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance.

While any additional FERC action on these matters would affect us only indirectly, these changes are intended to further enhance competition in, and prevent manipulation of, natural gas markets. We cannot predict what further action the FERC will take on these matters, nor can we predict whether the FERC’s actions will achieve its stated goal of increasing competition in, and preventing manipulation of, natural gas markets. However, we do not believe that we will be treated materially differently than other natural gas producers with which we compete.

Environmental Matters.  Extensive federal, state and local laws govern oil and natural gas operations, regulate the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relate to the protection of the environment. Numerous governmental departments issue rules and regulations to implement and enforce such laws that are often difficult and costly to comply with and which carry substantial administrative, civil and even criminal penalties for failure to comply. Some laws, rules and regulations relating to protection of the environment may, in certain circumstances, impose “strict liability” for environmental contamination, rendering a person liable for environmental and natural resource damages and cleanup costs without regard to negligence or fault on the part of such person. Other laws, rules and regulations may restrict the rate of oil and natural gas production below the rate that would otherwise exist or even prohibit exploration or production activities in sensitive areas. In addition, state laws often require some form of remedial action to prevent pollution from former operations, such as closure of inactive pits and plugging of abandoned wells. The regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases its cost of doing business and consequently affects its profitability. These laws, rules and regulations affect our operations, as well as the oil and gas exploration and production industry in general. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with current applicable environmental laws, rules and regulations and that continued compliance with existing requirements will not have a material adverse impact on us. Nevertheless, changes in existing environmental laws or the adoption of new environmental laws have the potential to adversely affect our operations.

As part of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the EPA was required to issue a rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above certain thresholds from all sectors of the U.S. economy. The proposed rule included greenhouse gas reporting requirements for oil and natural gas systems (“Subpart W”), including production and distribution facilities, but the EPA received extensive comments to Subpart W relating to the reporting of fugitive and vented emissions from the oil and gas sector. As a result, Subpart W was not included in the final rule. While the EPA may re-issue a proposed rule regarding the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from oil and natural gas systems, we do not believe that any such future requirement will have a material adverse affect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

OSHA.  We are subject to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA, and comparable state laws that regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard requires that information be maintained about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations and that this information be provided to employees, state and local government authorities and citizens.

PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment

General Regulation Applicable to Coal Lessees.  PVR’s lessees are obligated to conduct mining operations in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations include matters involving the discharge of materials into the environment, employee health and safety, mine permits and other licensing requirements, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, management of materials generated by mining operations, surface subsidence from underground mining, water pollution, legislatively mandated benefits for current and retired coal miners, air quality standards, protection of wetlands, plant and wildlife protection, limitations on land use, storage of petroleum products and substances which are regarded as hazardous under applicable laws and management of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

of electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. These extensive and comprehensive regulatory requirements are closely enforced, PVR’s lessees regularly have on-site inspections and violations during mining operations are not unusual in the industry, notwithstanding compliance efforts by PVR’s lessees. However, none of the violations to date, or the monetary penalties assessed, have been material to us, PVR or, to our knowledge, to PVR’s lessees. Although many new safety requirements have been instituted recently, PVR does not currently expect that future compliance will have a material adverse effect on PVR.

While it is not possible to quantify the costs of compliance by PVR’s lessees with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, those costs have been and are expected to continue to be significant. The lessees post performance bonds pursuant to federal and state mining laws and regulations for the estimated costs of reclamation and mine closing, including the cost of treating mine water discharge when necessary. We do not accrue for such costs because PVR’s lessees are contractually liable for all costs relating to their mining operations, including the costs of reclamation and mine closure. However, PVR does require some smaller lessees to deposit into escrow certain funds for reclamation and mine closure costs or post performance bonds for these costs. Although we believe that the lessees typically accrue adequate amounts for these costs, their future operating results would be adversely affected if they later determined these accruals to be insufficient. Compliance with these laws and regulations has substantially increased the cost of coal mining for all domestic coal producers.

In addition, the utility industry, which is the most significant end-user of coal, is subject to extensive regulation regarding the environmental impact of its power generation activities which could affect demand for coal mined by PVR’s lessees. The possibility exists that new legislation or regulations may be adopted which have a significant impact on the mining operations of PVR’s lessees or their customers’ ability to use coal and may require PVR, its lessees or their customers to change operations significantly or incur substantial costs.

Air Emissions.  The CAA and corresponding state and local laws and regulations affect all aspects of PVR’s business, both directly and indirectly. The CAA directly impacts PVR’s lessees’ coal mining and processing operations by imposing permitting requirements and, in some cases, requirements to install certain emissions control equipment, on sources that emit various hazardous and non-hazardous air pollutants. The CAA also indirectly affects coal mining operations by extensively regulating the air emissions of coal-fired electric power generating plants. There have been a series of recent federal rulemakings that are focused on emissions from coal-fired electric generating facilities. Installation of additional emissions control technology and additional measures required under Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, laws and regulations will make it more costly to build and operate coal-fired power plants and, depending on the requirements of individual state implementation plans, could make coal a less attractive fuel alternative in the planning and building of power plants in the future. Any reduction in coal’s share of power generating capacity could negatively impact PVR’s lessees’ ability to sell coal, which could have a material effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

The EPA’s Acid Rain Program, provided in Title IV of the CAA, regulates emissions of sulfur dioxide from electric generating facilities. Sulfur dioxide is a by-product of coal combustion. Affected facilities purchase or are otherwise allocated sulfur dioxide emissions allowances, which must be surrendered annually in an amount equal to a facility’s sulfur dioxide emissions in that year. Affected facilities may sell or trade excess allowances to other facilities that require additional allowances to offset their sulfur dioxide emissions. In addition to purchasing or trading for additional sulfur dioxide allowances, affected power facilities can satisfy the requirements of the EPA’s Acid Rain Program by switching to lower sulfur fuels, installing pollution control devices such as flue gas desulfurization systems, or “scrubbers,” or by reducing electricity generating levels.

The EPA has promulgated rules, referred to as the “NOx SIP Call,” that require coal-fired power plants and other large stationary sources in 21 eastern states and Washington D.C. to make substantial reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions in an effort to reduce the impacts of ozone transport between states. Additionally, in March 2005, the EPA issued the final Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, which would have permanently capped nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in 28 eastern states and Washington, D.C. beginning in 2009 and 2010. CAIR required those states to achieve the required emission reductions by requiring power plants to either participate in an EPA-administered “cap-and-trade” program that caps emission in two phases,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

or by meeting an individual state emissions budget through measures established by the state. The stringency of the caps under CAIR may have required many coal-fired sources to install additional pollution control equipment, such as wet scrubbers, to comply. This increased sulfur emission removal capability required by CAIR could have resulted in decreased demand for lower sulfur coal, which may have potentially driven down prices for lower sulfur coal. On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated CAIR in its entirety. The EPA subsequently filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of the case without vacatur. On December 23, 2008, the Court issued an opinion to remand without vacating CAIR. Therefore, CAIR will remain in effect while the EPA conducts rulemaking to modify CAIR to comply with the Court’s July 2008 opinion. The Court declined to impose a schedule by

which the EPA must complete the rulemaking, but reminded the EPA that the Court does “.not intend to grant an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of this Court’s decision.” The EPA is considering its options on how to proceed.

In March 2005, the EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury Rule, or CAMR, which was to establish a two-part, nationwide cap on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants beginning in 2010. It was the subject of extensive controversy and litigation and, in February 2008, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated CAMR. The EPA appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2008, but withdrew its petition for certiorari on February 6, 2009. However, a utility group continues to seek certiorari, challenging the court of appeals decision to overturn CAMR. In the meantime, the EPA plans to develop standards consistent with the court of appeal’s ruling.ruling, intending to propose air toxics standards for coal- and oil-fired electric generating units by March 10, 2011, and finalize a rule by November 16, 2011. In conjunction with these efforts, on December 24, 2009, the EPA approved an Information Collection Request (ICR) requiring all U.S. power plants with coal-or oil-fired electric generating units to submit emissions information for use in developing air toxics emissions standards. In addition, various states have promulgated or are considering more stringent emission limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired electric generating units.

The EPA has adopted new, more stringent national air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. As a result, some states will be required to amend their existing state implementation plans to attain and maintain compliance with the new air quality standards. In March 2007, the EPA published final rules addressing how states would implement plans to bring regions designated as non-attainment for fine particulate matter into compliance with the new air quality standard. Under the EPA’s final rule, states had until April 2008 to submit their implementation plans to the EPA for approval. Because coal mining operations and coal-fired electric generating facilities emit particulate matter, PVR’s lessees’ mining operations and their customers could be affected when the new standards are implemented by the applicable states.

Likewise, the EPA’s regional haze program to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas required affected states to develop implementation plans by December 2007 that, among other things, identify facilities that will have to reduce emissions and comply with stricter emission limitations. This program may restrict construction of new coal-fired power plants where emissions are projected to reduce visibility in protected areas. In addition, this program may require certain existing coal-fired power plants to install emissions control equipment to reduce haze-causing emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.

The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, has filed lawsuits against a number of coal-fired electric generating facilities alleging violations of the new source review provisions of the CAA. The EPA has alleged that certain modifications have been made to these facilities without first obtaining permits required under the new source review program. Several of these lawsuits have settled, but others remain pending. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in one such case,Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. The Court held that the EPA is not required to use an “hourly rate test” in determining whether a modification to a coal burning utility requires a permit under the new source review program, thus allowing the EPA to apply a test based on average annual emissions. The use of an annual emissions test could subject more coal-fired utility modification projects to the permitting requirements of the CAA New Source Review Program, such as those that allow plants to run for more hours in a given year. However, Duke is expected to continue to contest remaining issues in the case, and so litigation in this and other pending cases will likely continue. Depending on the ultimate resolution of these cases, demand for PVR’s coal could be affected, which could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Carbon Dioxide Emissions.  The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for developed nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Carbon dioxide, which is a major byproduct of the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels, is subject to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol went into effect on February 16, 2005 for those nations that ratified the treaty. In 2002, the United States withdrew its support for the Kyoto Protocol, and the United States is not participating in this treaty. Since the Kyoto Protocol became effective, there has been increasing international pressure on the United States to adopt mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held inMassachusetts v. EPA that unless the EPA affirmatively concludes that greenhouse gases are not causing climate change, the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles under the CAA. The Court remanded the matter to the EPA for further consideration. This litigation did not directly concern the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as coal mining operations or coal-fired power plants. However, the Court’s decision is likely to influence another lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, involving a challenge to the EPA’s decision not to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants and other stationary sources under a CAA new source performance standard rule, which specifies emissions limits for new facilities. The court remanded that question to the EPA for further consideration in light of the ruling inMassachusetts v. EPA. On July 11, 2008, the EPA released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA in response to the ruling inMassachusetts v. EPA. The notice did not contain a definitive proposal of what a greenhouse gas regulatory program would look like, but it presented the EPA’s analyses and policy alternatives for consideration. The EPA stated that promulgating a program under the CAA would take years to issue. In 2009, EPA took further steps toward greenhouse gas regulation under the CAA, issuing a final rule declaring that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” The issuance of this “endangerment finding” allows the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions under existing provisions of CAA. In late September and early October of 2009, in anticipation of the issuance of the endangerment finding, the EPA officially proposed two sets of rules regarding possible future regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA, one that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and the other greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources such as power plants or industrial facilities. Any decision in this case or any regulatory action by the EPA limiting greenhouse gas emissions

from power plants could impact the demand for PVR’s coal, which could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

The permitting of a number of proposed new coal-fired power plants has also recently been contested by environmental organizations for concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions from new plants. For instance, in October 2007, state regulators in Kansas became the first to deny an air emissions construction permit for a new coal-fired power plant based on the plant’s projected emissions of carbon dioxide. State regulatory authorities in Florida and North Carolina have also rejected the construction of new coal-fired power plants based on the uncertainty surrounding the potential costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions from these plants under future laws limiting the emission of carbon dioxide.

In addition, permits for several new coal-fired power plants without limits imposed on their greenhouse gas emissions have been appealed by environmental organizations to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, or EAB, and other judicial forums under the CAA. For example, in June 2008, a Georgia court voided a CAA permit and halted the construction of a coal-fired power plant for failure to address carbon dioxide emissions. Likewise, in November 2008, in another case,In re Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, the EAB remanded the permitting decision back to the Region to reopen the record and reconsider whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA with instructions to consider its nationwide implications. In December 2008, the EPA Administrator issued an interpretive rule determining thatthe phrase in the CAA “not subject to regulation” does not include pollutants for which only monitoring and reporting is required. Because carbon dioxide is such a pollutant, this interpretive rule has the effect of precluding any consideration of carbon dioxide emissions in connection with federal permitting under the CAA. Environmental groups filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the interpretive rule. On February 17, 2009, the EPA stated that it would grant the Petition for Reconsideration and allow public comment, but it declined to stay the effectiveness of the interpretive rule at that time.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A number of states have also either passed legislation or announced initiatives focused on decreasing or stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, and many of these measures have focused on emissions from coal-fired electric generating facilities. For example, ten northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have agreed to implement a regional cap-and-trade program, referred to as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions from regional power plants beginning in 2009. This initiative aims to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to levels roughly corresponding to average annual emissions between 2000 and 2004. The members of RGGI agreed to seek to establish in statute and/or regulation a carbon dioxide trading program and have each state’s component of the regional program effective no later than December 31, 2008. Auctions for carbon dioxide allowances under the program began in September 2008. Following the RGGI model, seven Western states and four Canadian provinces have also formed a regional greenhouse gas reduction initiative known as the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, which calls for an overall reduction of regional greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial and commercial sources, including fossil-fuel fired power plants, in participating states through trading of emissions credits beginning in 2012. Similarly, in 2007, six Midwestern states and one Canadian province signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord to develop and implement steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including developing a market-based, multi-sector cap. Some states have passed laws individually. For example, in 2006, the governor of California signed Assembly Bill 32 into law, requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant sources. In 2007, New Jersey passed a greenhouse gas reduction that would be economy wide, requiring emissions to drop to 1990 levels by 2020 and that emissions be capped at 80% of 2006 levels by 2050.

Several different pieces ofAt the federal level, legislation werewas introduced in Congress in 2007, 2008 and 20082009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Newly elected President Obama, stated in his campaign that climate change policySuch or similar federal legislation, which generally seeks to place an economy-wide cap on emissions of greenhouse gases and would be a priorityrequire most sources of his administration, and the Democratic majority in Congress has indicated that it will seek to enact legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.emissions to obtain greenhouse gas emission “allowances” corresponding to their annual emissions of greenhouse gases, could be taken up in 2010 or later years. It is possible that future federal and state initiatives to control and put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, or otherwise regulate greenhouse gas emissions, could result in increased costs associated with coal consumption, such as costs to install additional controls to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or costs to purchase emissions reduction credits to comply with future emissions trading programs. Such increased costs for coal consumption could result in some customers switching to alternative sources of fuel, which could negatively impact PVR’s lessees’ coal sales, and thereby have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.  The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, or SMCRA, and similar state statutes establish minimum national operational, reclamation and closure standards for all aspects of surface mining, as well as most aspects of deep mining. SMCRA requires that comprehensive environmental protection and reclamation standards be met during the course of and following completion of mining activities. SMCRA also imposes on mine operators the responsibility of restoring the land to its original state and compensating the landowner for types of

damages occurring as a result of mining operations, and requires mine operators to post performance bonds to ensure compliance with any reclamation obligations. Moreover, regulatory authorities may attempt to assign the liabilities of PVR’s coal lessees to another entity such as PVR if any of its lessees are not financially capable of fulfilling those obligations on the theory that PVR “owned” or “controlled” the mine operator in such a way for liability to attach. To our knowledge, no such claims have been asserted against PVR to date. In conjunction with mining the property, PVR’s coal lessees are contractually obligated under the terms of their leases to comply with all state and local laws, including SMCRA, with obligations including the reclamation and restoration of the mined areas by grading, shaping and reseeding the soil. Upon completion of the mining, reclamation generally is completed by seeding with grasses or planting trees for use as pasture or timberland, as specified in the approved reclamation plan. Additionally, the Abandoned Mine Lands Program, which is part of SMCRA, imposes a tax on all current mining operations, the proceeds of which are used to restore mines closed before 1977. The maximum tax is 31.5 cents per ton on surface-mined coal and 13.5 cents per ton on underground-mined coal. This tax was set to expire on June 30, 2006, but the program was extended until September 30, 2021.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Federal and state laws require bonds to secure PVR’s lessees’ obligations to reclaim lands used for mining and to satisfy other miscellaneous obligations. These bonds are typically renewable on a yearly basis. It has become increasingly difficult for mining companies to secure new surety bonds without the posting of partial collateral. In addition, surety bond costs have increased while the market terms of surety bonds have generally become less favorable. It is possible that surety bonds issuers may refuse to renew bonds or may demand additional collateral upon those renewals. Any failure to maintain, or inability to acquire, surety bonds that are required by state and federal laws would have a material adverse effect on PVR’s lessees’ ability to produce coal, which could affect PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes.  The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, or the Superfund law, and analogous state laws, impose liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons that are considered to have contributed to the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner or operator of the site where the release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances found at the site. Persons who are or were responsible for releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA may be subject to joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment and for damages to natural resources.

Some products used by coal companies in operations generate waste containing hazardous substances. PVR could become liable under federal and state Superfund and waste management statutes if its lessees are unable to pay environmental cleanup costs. CERCLA authorizes the EPA and, in some cases, third parties, to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek recovery from the responsible classes of persons of the costs they incurred in connection with such response. It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other wastes released into the environment. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, and corresponding state laws and regulations exclude many mining wastes from the regulatory definition of hazardous wastes. Currently, the management and disposal of coal combustion by-products are also not regulated at the federal level and not uniformly at the state level. If rules are adopted to regulate the management and disposal of these by-products, they could add additional costs to the use of coal as a fuel and may encourage power plant operators to switch to a different fuel.

Clean Water Act.  PVR’s coal lessees’ operations are regulated under the Clean Water Act, or the CWA, with respect to discharges of pollutants, including dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Individual or general permits under Section 404 of the CWA are required to conduct dredge or fill activities in jurisdictional waters of the United States. Surface coal mining operators obtain these permits to authorize such activities as the creation of slurry ponds, stream impoundments and valley fills. Uncertainty over what legally constitutes a navigable water of the United States within the CWA’s regulatory scope may adversely impact the ability of PVR’s coal lessees to secure the necessary permits for their mining activities. Some surface mining activities require a CWA Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit under the CWA for valley fills and the associated sediment control ponds. On June 5, 2007, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s divided opinion inRapanos v. United States, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the Corps, issued joint guidance to EPA regions and Corps districts interpreting the geographic extent of regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. Specifically, the guidance places jurisdictional water bodies into two groups: waters where the agencies will assert regulatory jurisdiction “categorically” and waters where the agencies will assert jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis following a “significant nexus analysis.” It remains to be seen how this guidance will affect the permitting process for obtaining additional permits for valley fills and sediment ponds although it is likely to add uncertainty and delays in the issuance of new permits. Some valley fill surface mining activities have the potential to impact headwater streams that are not relatively permanent, which could therefore trigger a detailed “significant nexus analysis” to determine whether a Section 404 permit would be required. Such analyses could require the extensive collection of additional field data and could lead to delays in the issuance of CWA Section 404 permits for valley fill surface mining operations.

Recent federal district court decisions in West Virginia, and related litigation filed in federal district court in Kentucky, have created additional uncertainty regarding the future ability to obtain certain general permits authorizing the construction of valley fills for the disposal of overburden from mining operations. The Corps is authorized by Section 404 of the CWA to issue “nationwide” permits for specific categories of dredging

TABLE OF CONTENTS

and filling activities that are similar in nature and that are determined to have minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide Permit 21 authorizes the disposal of dredged or fill material from surface coal mining activities into the waters of the United States. A July 2004 decision by the Southern District of West Virginia inOhio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Bulen enjoined the Huntington District of the Corps from issuing further permits pursuant to Nationwide Permit 21. While the decision was vacated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2005, it has been remanded to the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for further proceedings. Moreover, a similar lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky that seeks to enjoin the issuance of permits pursuant to Nationwide Permit 21 by the Louisville District of the Corps.

In the event similar lawsuits prove to be successful in adjoining jurisdictions, PVR’s lessees may be required to apply for individual discharge permits pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA in areas where they would have otherwise utilized Nationwide Permit 21. Such a change could result in delays in PVR’s lessees obtaining the required mining permits to conduct their operations, which could in turn have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Individual CWA Section 404 permits for valley fills associated with surface mining activities are also subject to certain legal challenges and uncertainty. On September 22, 2005, in the caseOhio Valley Environmental Coalition (“OVEC”) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, environmental group plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia challenging the Corps’ decision to issue individual CWA Section 404 permits for certain mining projects. Alex Energy, Inc., or Alex Energy, a lessee of PVR that operates the Republic No. 2 Mine in Kanawha County, West Virginia, intervened as a defendant in this litigation when the plaintiffs’ amended their complaint to add the December 22, 2005 individual CWA Section 404 permit for the Republic No. 2 Mine, or the Republic No. 2 Permit. On March 23, 2007, the district court rescinded several challenged CWA Section 404 permits, including the Republic No. 2 Permit, and remanded the permit applications to the Corps for further proceedings. In addition, the district court enjoined the permit holders, including Alex Energy, from all activities authorized under the rescinded permits. As part of theOVEC litigation, the environmental groups have also challenged the CWA Section 404 permit issued to Alex Energy for the Republic No. 1 Mine, also located in Kanawha County, West Virginia.

The Corps, Alex Energy, other impacted mining companies, and mining associations appealed the March 23, 2007 ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On February 13, 2009, the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court’s March 23, 2007 opinion and order that had rescinded the challenged permits and vacated the District Court’s injunction of activity under those permits and reversed a related order by the District Court that would have required yet additional permits under the CWA. One of the three judges dissented in part from this decision and would have upheld the decision rescinding the permits and enjoining future activity but agreed with the other two judges on the other parts of the decision. This decision may be subject to further appellate review including by the Fourth Circuit itself. We are unable to predict the outcome of any further appellate review that may be obtained.

In December 2007, plaintiff environmental groups brought a similar suit against the issuance of a CWA Section 404 permit for a surface coal mine in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging identical violations. The Corps has voluntarily suspended its consideration of the permit application in that case for agency re-evaluation. While the final outcome of these cases remains uncertain, if lawsuits challenging the use of valley fills ultimately limits or prohibits the mining methods or operations of PVR’s lessees, it could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues. In addition, it is possible that similar litigation affecting recently issued, pending or future individual or general CWA Section 404 permits relevant to the mining and related operations of PVR’s lessees could adversely impact PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

In December 2008, the Department of Interior published the Excess Spoil, Coal Mine Waste and Buffers for Perennial and Intermittent Streams rule under SMCRA in part to clarify when valley fills are permitted. The rule would require a 100-foot buffer around all waters, including streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. However, the rule would exempt certain activities, such as permanent spoil fills and coal waste disposal facilities, and allow mining that changes a waterway’s flow, providing the mining company repairs damage later. Companies could also receive a permit to dispose of waste within the buffer zone if they explain why an

TABLE OF CONTENTS

alternative is not reasonably possible or is not necessary to meet environmental requirements. Environmental groups have brought lawsuits challenging the rule. It is unclear what impact the rule will have on the previously discussed lawsuits related to valley fills or any mining operations undertaken by PVR’s lessees in the future.

Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, regulations under the CWA establish a process to calculate the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet state water quality standards and to allocate pollutant loads among the point- and non-point pollutant sources discharging into that water body. This process applies to those waters that states have designated as impaired (not meeting present water quality standards). Industrial dischargers, including coal mines, discharging to such waters will be required to meet new TMDL allocations for these stream segments. The adoption of new TMDL-related allocations for streams to which PVR’s lessees’ coal mining operations discharge could require more costly water treatment and could adversely affect PVR’s lessees’ coal production.

The CWA also requires states to develop anti-degradation policies to ensure non-impaired water bodies in the state do not fall below applicable water quality standards. These and other regulatory developments may restrict PVR’s lessees’ ability to develop new mines or could require PVR’s lessees to modify existing operations, which could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal business.

The Safe Drinking Water Act, or the SDWA, and its state equivalents affect coal mining operations by imposing requirements on the underground injection of fine coal slurries, fly ash and flue gas scrubber sludge, and by requiring permits to conduct such underground injection activities. In addition to establishing the underground injection control program, the SDWA also imposes regulatory requirements on owners and operators of “public water systems.” This regulatory program could impact PVR’s lessees’ reclamation operations where subsidence or other mining-related problems require the provision of drinking water to affected adjacent homeowners.

Endangered Species Act.  The Endangered Species Act and counterpart state legislation protect species threatened with possible extinction. Protection of threatened and endangered species may have the effect of prohibiting or delaying PVR’s lessees from obtaining mining permits and may include restrictions on timber harvesting, road building and other mining or agricultural activities in areas containing the affected species or their habitats. A number of species indigenous to areas where PVR’s properties are located are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Based on the species that have been identified to date and the current application of applicable laws and regulations, however, we do not believe there are any species protected under the Endangered Species Act that would materially and adversely affect PVR’s lessees’ ability to mine coal from PVR’s properties in accordance with current mining plans.

Mine Health and Safety Laws.  The operations of PVR’s coal lessees are subject to stringent health and safety standards that have been imposed by federal legislation since the adoption of the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 resulted in increased operating costs. The Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which significantly expanded the enforcement of health and safety standards of the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, imposes comprehensive health and safety standards on all mining operations. In addition, as part of the Mine Health and Safety Acts of 1969 and 1977, the Black Lung Acts require payments of benefits by all businesses conducting current mining operations to coal miners with black lung or pneumoconiosis and to some beneficiaries of miners who have died from this disease.

Recent mining accidents in West Virginia and Kentucky have received national attention and instigated responses at the state and national level that are likely to result in increased scrutiny of current safety practices and procedures at all mining operations, particularly underground mining operations. In January 2006, West Virginia passed a law imposing stringent new mine safety and accident reporting requirements and increased civil and criminal penalties for violations of mine safety laws. On March 7, 2006, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed into law an expanded miner safety program including more stringent requirements for accident reporting and the installation of additional mine safety equipment at underground mines. Similarly, on April 27, 2006, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher signed mine safety legislation that includes requirements for increased inspections of underground mines and additional mine safety equipment and authorizes the assessment of penalties of up to $5,000 per incident for violations of mine ventilation or roof control requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

On June 15, 2006, the President signed the “Miner Act,” which was new mining safety legislation that mandates improvements in mine safety practices, increases civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance, requires the creation of additional mine rescue teams and expands the scope of federal oversight, inspection and enforcement activities. Pursuant to the Miner Act, the Mine Safety Health Administration, or MSHA, has promulgated new emergency rules on mine safety and revised MSHA’s civil penalty assessment regulations, which resulted in an across-the-board increase in penalties from the existing regulations. These requirements may add significant costs to PVR’s lessees’ operations, particularly for underground mines, and could affect the financial performance of PVR’s lessees’ operations.

Implementing and complying with these new laws and regulations could adversely affect PVR’s lessees’ coal production and could therefore have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Mining Permits and Approvals.  Numerous governmental permits or approvals are required for mining operations. In connection with obtaining these permits and approvals, PVR’s coal lessees may be required to prepare and present to federal, state or local authorities data pertaining to the effect or impact that any proposed production of coal may have upon the environment. The requirements imposed by any of these authorities may be costly and time consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of mining operations.

Under some circumstances, substantial fines and penalties, including revocation of mining permits, may be imposed under the laws described above. Monetary sanctions and, in severe circumstances, criminal sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with these laws. Regulations also provide that a mining permit can be refused or revoked if the permit applicant or permittee owns or controls, directly or indirectly through other entities, mining operations which have outstanding environmental violations. Although, like other coal companies, PVR’s lessees’ have been cited for violations in the ordinary course of business, to our knowledge, none of them have had one of their permits suspended or revoked because of any violation, and the penalties assessed for these violations have not been material.

In order to obtain mining permits and approvals from state regulatory authorities, mine operators, including PVR’s lessees, must submit a reclamation plan for restoring, upon the completion of mining operations, the mined property to its prior condition, productive use or other permitted condition. Typically, PVR’s lessees submit the necessary permit applications between 12 and 24 months before they plan to begin mining a new area. In PVR’s experience, permits generally are approved within 12 months after a completed application is submitted. In the past, PVR’s lessees have generally obtained their mining permits without significant delay. PVR’s lessees have obtained or applied for permits to mine a majority of the reserves that are currently planned to be mined over the next five years. PVR’s lessees are also in the planning phase for obtaining permits for the additional reserves planned to be mined over the following five years. However, there are no assurances that they will not experience difficulty in obtaining mining permits in the future. See “—PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Clean Water Act.”

OSHA.  PVR’s lessees and PVR’s own business are subject to OSHA. See “—Oil and Gas Segment—Segment — OSHA.”

PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment

General Regulation.  PVR’s natural gas gathering facilities generally are exempt from the FERC’s jurisdiction under the NGA, but FERC regulation nevertheless could significantly affect PVR’s gathering business and the market for its services. In recent years, the FERC has pursued pro-competitive policies in its regulation of interstate natural gas pipelines into which PVR’s gathering pipelines deliver. However, we cannot assure you that the FERC will continue this approach as it considers matters such as pipeline rates and rules and policies that may affect rights of access to natural gas transportation capacity.

For example, the FERC will assert jurisdiction over an affiliated gatherer that acts to benefit its pipeline affiliate in a manner that is contrary to the FERC’s policies concerning jurisdictional services adopted pursuant to the NGA. In addition, natural gas gathering may receive greater regulatory scrutiny at both the state and federal levels now that the FERC has taken a less stringent approach to regulation of the gathering activities of interstate pipeline transmission companies and a number of such companies have transferred gathering facilities to unregulated affiliates. PVR’s gathering operations could be adversely affected should they be

TABLE OF CONTENTS

subject in the future to the application of state or federal regulation of rates and services. PVR’s gathering operations also may be or become subject to safety and operational regulations relating to the design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of gathering facilities. Additional rules and legislation pertaining to these matters are considered or adopted from time to time. We cannot predict what effect, if any, such changes might have on PVR’s natural gas midstream operations, but the industry could be required to incur additional capital expenditures and increased costs depending on future legislative and regulatory changes.

In Texas, PVR’s gathering facilities are subject to regulation by the Texas Railroad Commission, which has the authority to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of gas utilities, including certain gathering facilities, are just and reasonable and not discriminatory. PVR’s operations in Oklahoma are regulated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which prohibits PVR from charging any unduly discriminatory fees for its gathering services. We cannot predict whether PVR’s gathering rates will be found to be unjust, unreasonable or unduly discriminatory.

PVR is subject to ratable take and common purchaser statutes in Texas and Oklahoma. Ratable take statutes generally require gatherers to take, without undue discrimination, natural gas production that may be tendered to the gatherer for handling. Similarly, common purchaser statutes generally require gatherers to purchase without undue discrimination as to source of supply or producer. These statutes have the effect of restricting PVR’s right as an owner of gathering facilities to decide with whom it contracts to purchase or transport natural gas. Federal law leaves any economic regulation of natural gas gathering to the states, and Texas and Oklahoma have adopted complaint-based regulation that generally allows natural gas

producers and shippers to file complaints with state regulators in an effort to resolve grievances relating to natural gas gathering rates and access. We cannot assure you that federal and state authorities will retain their current regulatory policies in the future.

Texas and Oklahoma administer federal pipeline safety standards under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, or the NGPSA, which requires certain natural gas pipelines to comply with safety standards in constructing and operating the pipelines, and subjects pipelines to regular inspections. PVR also operates a NGL pipeline that is subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended, and comparable state statutes with respect to design, installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of pipeline facilities. In response to recent pipeline accidents, Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation have instituted heightened pipeline safety requirements. Certain of PVR’s gathering facilities are exempt from these federal pipeline safety requirements under the rural gathering exemption. We cannot assure you that the rural gathering exemption will be retained in its current form in the future.

Failure to comply with applicable regulations under the NGA, the NGPSA and certain state laws can result in the imposition of administrative, civil and criminal remedies.

Air Emissions.  PVR’s natural gas midstream operations are subject to the CAA and comparable state laws and regulations. See “—PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Air Emissions.” These laws and regulations govern emissions of pollutants into the air resulting from the activities of PVR’s processing plants and compressor stations and also impose procedural requirements on how PVR conducts its natural gas midstream operations. Such laws and regulations may include requirements that PVR obtain pre-approval for the construction or modification of certain projects or facilities expected to produce air emissions, strictly comply with the emissions and operational limitations of air emissions permits PVR is required to obtain or utilize specific equipment or technologies to control emissions. PVR’s failure to comply with these requirements could subject it to monetary penalties, injunctions, conditions or restrictions on operations, and potentially criminal enforcement actions. PVR will be required to incur certain capital expenditures in the future for air pollution control equipment in connection with obtaining and maintaining operating permits and approvals for air emissions.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes.  PVR’s natural gas midstream operations could incur liability under CERCLA and comparable state laws resulting from the disposal or other release of hazardous substances or wastes originating from properties PVR owns or operates, regardless of whether such disposal or release occurred during or prior to PVR’s acquisition of such properties. See “—PVR Coal and Natural Resource

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management Segment—Segment — Hazardous Materials and Wastes.” Although petroleum, including natural gas and NGLs are generally excluded from CERCLA’s definition of “hazardous substance,” PVR’s natural gas midstream operations do generate wastes in the course of ordinary operations that may fall within the definition of a CERCLA “hazardous substance,” or be subject to regulation under state laws.

PVR’s natural gas midstream operations generate wastes, including some hazardous wastes, which are subject to RCRA and comparable state laws. However, RCRA currently exempts many natural gas gathering and field processing wastes from classification as hazardous waste. Specifically, RCRA excludes from the definition of hazardous waste produced waters and other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. Unrecovered petroleum product wastes, however, may still be regulated under RCRA as solid waste. Moreover, ordinary industrial wastes such as paint wastes, waste solvents, laboratory wastes and waste compressor oils may be regulated as hazardous waste. The transportation of natural gas and NGLs in pipelines may also generate some hazardous wastes. Although PVR believes that it is unlikely that the RCRA exemption will be repealed in the near future, repeal would increase costs for waste disposal and environmental remediation at PVR’s facilities.

PVR currently owns or leases numerous properties that for many years have been used for the measurement, gathering, field compression and processing of natural gas and NGLs. Although PVR believes that the operators of such properties used operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hydrocarbons or wastes may have been disposed of or released on or under such properties or on or under other locations where such wastes have been taken for disposal. These properties and the substances disposed or released on them may be subject to CERCLA, RCRA and analogous state laws. Under such laws, PVR could be required to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes (including waste disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or property contamination (including groundwater contamination, whether from prior owners or operators or other historic activities or spills) or to perform remedial plugging or pit closure operations to prevent future contamination. PVR has ongoing remediation projects underway at several sites, but it does not believe that the costs associated with such cleanups will have a material adverse impact on PVR’s operations or revenues.

Water Discharges.  PVR’s natural gas midstream operations are subject to the CWA. See “—PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Clean Water Act.” Any unpermitted release of pollutants, including NGLs or condensates, from PVR’s systems or facilities could result in fines or penalties as well as significant remedial obligations.

OSHA.OSHA.  PVR’s natural gas midstream operations are subject to OSHA. See “—Oil and Gas Segment—Segment — OSHA.”

Employees and Labor Relations

We and our subsidiaries had a total of 392382 employees at December 31, 2008,2009, including 157167 employees who directly supported PVR’s operations. We consider our current employee relations to be favorable.

Available Information

Our internet address ishttp://www.pennvirginia.com. We make available free of charge on or through our internet website our Corporate Governance Principles, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Executive and Financial Officer Code of Ethics, Audit Committee Charter, Compensation and Benefits Committee Charter and Nominating and Governance Committee Charter and we will provide copies of such documents to any shareholder who so requests. We also make available free of charge on or through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. All references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.10-K to the “NYSE” refer to the New York Stock Exchange, and all references to the “SEC” refer to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Common Abbreviations and Definitions

The following are abbreviations and definitions commonly used in the coal and oil and gas industries that are used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our business and operations are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties as described below. However, the risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we may currently deem immaterial, may become important factors that harm our business, financial condition or results of operations. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could suffer.

Risks Related to Our Oil and Gas Business

Natural gas and crude oil prices are volatile, and a substantial or extended decline in prices would hurt our profitability and financial condition.

Our revenues, operating results, cash flow, profitability, future rate of growth and the carrying value of our oil and gas properties depend heavily on prevailing market prices for natural gas and crude oil. Historically, natural gas and crude oil prices have been volatile, and they are likely to continue to be volatile. Wide fluctuations in natural gas and crude oil prices may result from relatively minor changes in the supply of and demand for oil and gas, market demand and other factors that are beyond our control, including:

Some of our projections and estimates are based on assumptions as to the future prices of natural gas and crude oil. These price assumptions are used for planning purposes. We expect our assumptions will change over time and that actual prices in the future will likely differ from our estimates. Any substantial or extended decline in the actual prices of natural gas or crude oil would have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations (including reduced cash flow and borrowing capacity and possible asset impairment), the quantities of natural gas and crude oil reserves that we can economically produce, the quantity of estimated proved reserves that may be attributed to our properties and our ability to fund our capital program.

The current deterioration of the credit and capital markets may adversely impact our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms or obtain funding under our revolving credit facility. This may hinder or prevent us from implementing our development plan, completing acquisitions or otherwise meeting our future capital needs.

Global financial markets have been experiencing extreme volatility and disruption, and the debt and equity capital markets have been exceedingly distressed. These issues have made, and will likely continue to make, it difficult to obtain financing. In particular, the cost of raising money in the equity capital markets has increased substantially while the availability of funds from those markets has diminished significantly. The current global economic downturn may adversely impact our ability to issue additional equity in the future at prices which will not be dilutive to our existing shareholders or preclude us from issuing equity at all.

Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the cost of obtaining money from the credit markets has increased as many lenders and institutional investors have increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at maturity at all or on terms similar to our current debt and reduced and, in some cases, ceased to provide funding to borrowers. Moreover, even if lenders and institutional investors are willing and able to provide adequate funding, interest rates may rise in the future and therefore increase the cost of borrowing we incur on any of our floating rate debt. In addition, we may be unable to obtain adequate funding under our revolving credit facility, or the Revolver, because (i) our lending counterparties may be unwilling or unable to meet their future funding obligations or (ii) our borrowing base is re-determined twice a year and may decrease as a result of lower oil or natural gas prices and declines in reserves. See “Long-Term Debt” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” for a more detailed description of our and PVR’s debt covenants and borrowing capacities.

Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that future funding will be available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable terms. If funding is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, it might adversely affect our development plan as currently anticipated and our ability to complete acquisitions each of which could have a material adverse effect on our production, revenues and results of operations.

Our future performance depends on our ability to find or acquire additional oil and gas reserves that are economically recoverable.

Unless we successfully replace the reserves that we produce, our reserves will decline, eventually resulting in a decrease in oil and gas production and lower revenues and cash flows from operations. We have historically succeeded in substantially replacing reserves primarily through exploration and development and, to a lesser extent, acquisitions. We have conducted such activities on our existing oil and gas properties as well as on newly acquired properties. We may not be able to continue to replace reserves from such activities at acceptable costs. The currently depressed oil and gas prices may further limit the types of reserves that can be developed at acceptable costs. Lower prices also decrease our cash flows and may cause us to reduce capital expenditures. The business of exploring for, developing or acquiring reserves is capital intensive. We may not be able to make the necessary capital investments to maintain or expand our oil and gas reserves if cash flows from operations are reduced and external sources of capital remain limited or unavailable due to the deterioration of the global economy, including financial and credit markets. In addition, exploration and development activities involve numerous risks that may result in dry holes, the failure to produce oil and gas in commercial quantities and the inability to fully produce discovered reserves.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We are continually identifying and evaluating acquisition opportunities. However, competition for producing oil and gas properties is intense and many of our competitors have financial and other resources substantially greater than those available to us. Depending on the longevity of the deterioration of the market, our ability to make acquisitions may be significantly adversely affected. In the event we are successful in completing an acquisition, we cannot ensure that such acquisition will consist of properties that contain economically recoverable reserves or that such acquisition will be profitably integrated into our operations.

We may not be able to fund our planned capital expenditures.

We make, and will continue to make, substantial capital expenditures to find, acquire, develop, exploit and produce oil and natural gas reserves. In 2009,2010, we anticipate making oil and gas segment capital expenditures, excluding acquisitions, of up to approximately $250.0$425 million. This is $391.7$253 million, or 61%147%, lowerhigher than the $641.7$172 million of capital expenditures, excluding acquisitions, that our oil and gas segment made in 2008. As a result of our decreased anticipated capital expenditures, we project a decrease in the number of wells that will be drilled in 2009.

If oil and gas prices decrease or we encounter operating difficulties that result in our cash flow from operations being less than expected, we may have to reduce the capital we can spend unless we raise additional funds through debt or equity financing. The current global economic downturn may adversely impact our ability to issue additional equity in the future at prices which will not be dilutive to our existing shareholders or preclude us from issuing equity at all. In addition, debt financing may not be available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable terms.

Future cash flows and the availability of financing will also be subject to a number of variables, such as:

If our revenues were to decrease due to lower oil and natural gas prices, decreased production or other reasons, and if we could not obtain capital through the Revolver, or otherwise, our ability to execute our development plans, replace our reserves or maintain production levels could be greatly limited.

Exploration and development drilling may not result in commercially productive reserves.

Oil and gas drilling and production activities are subject to numerous risks, including the risk that no commercially productive natural gas or oil reserves will be found. The costs of drilling, completing and operating wells are often uncertain, and drilling operations may be curtailed, delayed or canceled as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

The prevailing prices of oil and gas also affect the cost of and the demand for drilling rigs, production equipment and related services. The availability of drilling rigs can vary significantly from region to region at any particular time. Although land drilling rigs can be moved from one region to another in response to changes in levels of demand, an undersupply of rigs in any region may result in drilling delays and higher drilling costs for the rigs that are available in that region.

Another significant risk inherent in our drilling plans is the need to obtain drilling permits from state, local and other governmental authorities. Delays in obtaining regulatory approvals and drilling permits, including delays which jeopardize our ability to realize the potential benefits from leased properties within the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

applicable lease periods, the failure to obtain a drilling permit for a well or the receipt of a permit with unreasonable conditions or costs could have a material adverse effect on our ability to explore on or develop our properties.

The wells we drill may not be productive and we may not recover all or any portion of our investment in such wells. The seismic data and other technologies we use do not allow us to know conclusively prior to drilling a well that natural gas or oil is present or may be produced economically. The cost of drilling, completing and operating a well is often uncertain, and cost factors can adversely affect the economics of a project. Drilling activities can result in dry wells or wells that are productive but do not produce sufficient net revenues after operating and other costs to cover initial drilling costs.

Our future drilling activities may not be successful, nor can we be sure that our overall drilling success rate or our drilling success rate within a particular area will not decline. Unsuccessful drilling activities could have a material adverse effect on our business results of operations or financial condition. Also, we may not be able to obtain any options or lease rights in potential drilling locations that we identify. Although we have identified numerous potential drilling locations, we may not be able to economically produce oil or natural gas from all of them.

We are exposed to the credit risk of our customers, and nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers would reduce our cash flows.

We are subject to risk from loss resulting from our customers’ nonperformance or nonpayment. We depend on a limited number of customers for a significant portion of revenues from our oil and gas segment. In 2008, 30%2009, 25% of our oil and gas segment revenues and 11%7% of our total consolidated revenues resulted from two of our oil and gas customers. Any nonpayment or nonperformance by our oil and gas customers would reduce our cash flows.

Our business involves many operating risks that may result in substantial losses for which insurance may be unavailable or inadequate.

Our operations are subject to all of the risks and hazards typically associated with the exploitation, development and exploration for and the production and transportation of oil and natural gas. These operating risks include:

Any of these risks could result in substantial losses resulting from injury or loss of life, damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment, pollution and other environmental damages, clean-up responsibilities, regulatory investigations and penalties and suspension of operations. In addition, under certain circumstances, we may be liable for environmental damage caused by previous owners or operators of properties that we own, lease or operate. As a result, we may incur substantial liabilities to third parties or governmental entities, which could reduce or eliminate funds available for exploration, development or acquisitions or cause us to incur losses.

In accordance with industry practice, we maintain insurance against some, but not all, of the risks described above. We cannot assure you that our insurance will be adequate to cover losses or liabilities. Also, we cannot predict the continued availability of insurance at premium levels that justify its purchase. No assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain insurance in the future at rates we consider reasonable. The occurrence of a significant event, not fully insured or indemnified against, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our business depends on transportation facilities owned by others.

We deliver substantially all of our oil and natural gas production through pipelines that we do not own. The marketability of our production depends upon the availability, proximity and capacity of these pipelines as well as gathering systems and processing facilities. The unavailability or lack of available capacity on these systems and facilities could result in the shut-in of producing wells or the delay or discontinuance of development plans for properties. Federal, state and local regulation of oil and natural gas production and transportation, tax and energy policies, changes in supply and demand, pipeline pressures, damage to or destruction of pipelines and general economic conditions could adversely affect our ability to produce, gather and market our oil and natural gas.

Estimates of oil and natural gas reserves are not precise.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains estimates of our proved oil and gas reserves and the estimated future net cash flows from such reserves. These estimates are based upon various assumptions, including assumptions required by the SEC relating to oil and natural gas prices, drilling and operating expenses, capital expenditures, taxes and availability of funds. The process of estimating oil and natural gas reserves is complex. This process requires significant decisions and assumptions in the evaluation of available geological, geophysical, engineering and economic data for each reservoir. These estimates are dependent on many variables and, therefore, changes often occur as these variables evolve and commodity prices fluctuate.

Actual future production, oil and gas prices, revenues, taxes, development expenditures, operating expenses and quantities of recoverable oil and gas reserves will most likely vary from those estimated. Any significant variance could

materially affect the estimated quantities and present value of reserves disclosed by us. In addition, we may adjust estimates of proved reserves to reflect production history, results of exploration and development, prevailing oil and gas prices and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

At December 31, 2008,2009, approximately 49%53% of our estimated proved reserves were proved undeveloped. Estimation of proved undeveloped reserves and proved developed non-producing reserves is based on volumetric calculations and adjacent reserve performance data. Recovery of proved undeveloped reserves requires significant capital expenditures and successful drilling operations. Production revenues from proved developed non-producing reserves will not be realized until some time in the future. The reserve data assumes that we will make significant capital expenditures to develop our reserves. Although we have prepared estimates of our reserves and the costs associated with these reserves in accordance with industry standards, these estimated costs may not be accurate, development may not occur as scheduled and actual results may not occur as estimated.

You should not assume that the present value of estimated future net cash flows (standardized measure) referred to herein is the current fair value of our estimated oil and gas reserves. In accordance with SEC requirements, we base the estimated discounted future net cash flows from our proved reserves on prices and costs on the date of the estimate. Actual current and future prices and costs may be materially higher or lower than the prices and costs as of the date of the estimate. As a result, net present value estimates using actual prices and costs may be significantly less than the SEC estimate that is provided herein. In addition, the 10% discount factor, which is required by the SEC to be used in calculating discounted future net cash flows for reporting purposes, is not necessarily the most accurate discount factor for us.

The oil and gas segment may record impairment losses on its oil and gas properties.

Quantities of proved reserves are estimated based on economic conditions in existence in the period of assessment. Lower oil and gas prices may have the impact of shortening the economic lives on certain fields because it becomes uneconomic to produce all recoverable reserves on such fields, thus reducing proved property reserve estimates. If such revisions in the estimated quantities of proved reserves occur, it will have the effect of increasing the rates of depreciation, depletion and amortization, or DD&A, on the affected properties, which would decrease earnings or result in losses through higher DD&A expense. The revisions may also be sufficient enough to cause impairment losses on certain properties that would result in a further non-cash expense to earnings.

If natural gas, crude oil and NGL prices decline or we drill uneconomic wells, it is reasonably possible we will have a significant impairment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We have limited control over the activities on properties we do not operate.

In 2008,2009, other companies operated approximately 21%35% of our net production. Our success in properties operated by others will depend upon a number of factors outside of our control, including timing and amount of capital expenditures, the operator’s expertise and financial resources, approval of other participants in drilling wells, selection of technology and maintenance of safety and environmental standards. We have limited ability to influence or control the operation or future development of these non-operated properties or the amount of capital expenditures that we are required to fund for their operation. Our dependence on the operator and other working interest owners for these projects and our limited ability to influence or control the operation and future development of these properties could have a material adverse effect on the realization of our targeted returns or lead to unexpected future costs.

Certain working interest owners in our properties have the right to control the timing of drilling activities on our properties under certain circumstances.

Under certain circumstances, certain of the other working interest owners in our properties have the right to limit the amount of drilling activities that can take place on our properties at any given time. If these working interest owners chose to exercise this right, we could be required to scale back anticipated drilling activities on the affected properties. In such an event, production from the affected properties would be deferred, thereby decreasing production from the properties in the short-term.

Our producing property acquisitions carry significant risks.

Acquisition of producing oil and gas properties is a key element of maintaining and growing reserves and production. Competition for these assets has been and will continue to be intense. Depending on the longevity of the deterioration of the market, our ability to make acquisitions may be significatelysignificantly adversely affected. In the event we do complete an acquisition,

its success will depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include the purchase price, future oil and gas prices, the ability to reasonably estimate or assess the recoverable volumes of reserves, rates of future production and future net revenues attainable from reserves, future operating and capital costs, results of future exploration, exploitation and development activities on the acquired properties and future abandonment and possible future environmental or other liabilities. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved oil and gas reserves, actual future production rates and associated costs and potential liabilities with respect to prospective acquisition targets. Actual results may vary substantially from those assumed in the estimates. A customary review of subject properties will not necessarily reveal all existing or potential problems.

Additionally, significant acquisitions can change the nature of our operations and business depending upon the character of the acquired properties if they have substantially different operating and geological characteristics or are in different geographic locations than our existing properties. To the extent that acquired properties are substantially different than our existing properties, our ability to efficiently realize the expected economic benefits of such transactions may be limited.

Integrating acquired businesses and properties involves a number of special risks. These risks include the possibility that management may be distracted from regular business concerns by the need to integrate operations and systems and that unforeseen difficulties can arise in integrating operations and systems and in retaining and assimilating employees. Any of these or other similar risks could lead to potential adverse short-term or long-term effects on our operating results, and may cause us to not be able to realize any or all of the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions.

Derivative transactions may limit our potential gains and involve other risks.

In order to manage our exposure to price risks in the sale of our oil and natural gas, we periodically enter into oil and gas price hedging arrangements with respect to a portion of our expected production. Our hedges are limited in duration, usually for periods of two years or less. While intended to reduce the effects of volatile oil and natural gas prices, such transactions may limit our potential gains if oil or natural gas prices were to rise over the price established by the hedging arrangements. In trying to maintain an appropriate balance, we may end up hedging too much or too little, depending upon how oil or natural gas prices fluctuate in the future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition, derivative transactions may expose us to the risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including instances in which:

In addition, derivative instruments involve basis risk. Basis risk in a derivative contract occurs when the index upon which the contract is based is more or less variable than the index upon which the hedged asset is based, thereby making the hedge less effective. For example, a NYMEX index used for hedging certain volumes of production may have more or less variability than the regional price index used for the sale of that production.

We are subject to complex laws and regulations that can adversely affect the cost, manner or feasibility of doing business.

Exploration, development, production and sale of oil and gas are subject to extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations, including complex environmental laws. Future laws or regulations, any adverse changes in the interpretation of existing laws and regulations, inability to obtain necessary regulatory approvals or a failure to comply with existing legal requirements may harm our business, results of operations or financial condition. We may be required to make large expenditures to comply with environmental and other governmental regulations. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the suspension or termination of operations and subject us to administrative, civil and criminal penalties. Matters subject to regulation include discharge permits for drilling operations, drilling bonds, spacing of wells, unitization and pooling of properties, environmental protection and taxation. Our operations create the risk of environmental liabilities to the government or third parties for any unlawful discharge of oil, gas or other pollutants into the air, soil or water. In the event of environmental violations, we may be charged with remedial costs. Laws and regulations protecting the environment have become more stringent in recent years, and may, in some circumstances, result in liability for environmental damage regardless of negligence or fault. In addition, pollution and similar environmental risks generally are

not fully insurable. These liabilities and costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — Oil and Gas Segment—Segment — 
Environmental Matters.”

Risks Related to Our Ownership Interests in PVG and PVR

We are not the only partnersmay sell all or a part of our remaining partner interest in PVG.

In September 2009, we sold approximately one-third of our limited partner interest in PVG, and PVR,we continue to own the general partner interest and PVG’san approximately 51% limited partner interest in PVG. We may sell all or a portion of our remaining interests in PVG in one or more transactions. We cannot be certain of whether or when any such sales may occur or, if they do, the amount of proceeds they would generate. However, if we sell all or a part of our interests in PVG, we will likely incur additional general and administrative costs related to costs and services which, prior to such sale, were paid for, in part, by affiliates of PVG.

A reduction in PVR’s respective partnership agreements require themdistributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to distribute all availablewhich PVG is currently entitled, and, consequently, will affect the amount of cash distributions PVG is able to their respective partners,make to its unitholders, including public unitholders.

us.

PVG and PVR are publicly traded limited partnerships. We own PVG GP, LLC, the sole general partner of PVG. As of December 31, 2008,2009, we also owned an approximately 77%51.4% limited partner interest in PVG. As of December 31, 2008,2009, PVG owned an approximately 37% limited partner interest in PVR, as well as 100% of the general partner of PVR, which owns a 2% general partner interest and the IDRs. We directly owned an additional 0.1% limited partner interest in PVR as of December 31, 2008. The remainder2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PVG’s ownership of the outstanding limitedIDRs in PVR through PVG’s ownership of PVR’s general partner, interestsentitles it to receive increasing percentages, up to 50%, of incremental cash distributions above $0.375 per unit distributed by PVR on a quarterly basis. A decrease in eachthe amount of distributions by PVR to less than $0.375 per unit per quarter would reduce PVG’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.325 per common unit per quarter from 50% to 25%, consequently resulting in less cash available to PVG and PVR are owned by public unitholders. Although PVG’sto distribute to its unitholders, including us.

PVG and PVR’s respective partnership agreements require them to distribute, on a quarterly basis, 100% of their available cash to their respective unitholders of record and their respective general partners, we are not the only limited partners of PVG and PVR and, therefore, we receive only our proportionate share of cash distributions from each of PVG and PVR based on our partner interests in each of them. The remainder of the quarterly cash distributions is distributed, pro rata, to the public unitholders.

partners. For each of PVG and PVR, available cash is generally all cash on hand at the end of each quarter, after payment of fees and expenses and the establishment of cash reserves by their respective general partners.

PVG’s and PVR’s general partners determine the amount and timing of cash distributions by PVG and PVR and have broad discretion to establish and make additions to the respective partnership’s reserves in amounts the general partner determines to be necessary or appropriate:

A decrease in the amount of distributions by PVR and, consequently, PVG may be caused by a variety of circumstances. PVR may generate less cash available for distributions or determine to create larger reserves in computing cash available for distribution. Even if cash available for distribution remained stable, PVG and PVR may determine to modify the IDRs to reduce the percentage of incremental cash distributions such IDRs are entitled to receive. Accordingly, cash distributions we receive on our partner interests in PVG and PVR may be reduced at any time, or we may not receive any cash distributions from PVG or PVR, which would in turn reduce our available cash.

PVG’s ability to make distributions to us is entirely dependent upon PVG receiving distributions from PVR, and the amount of cash that PVR will be able to distribute to its unitholders, including PVG, principally depends upon the amount of cash it can generate from its coal and natural resource management and natural gas midstream businesses.

PVG’s earnings and cash flow consist exclusively of cash distributions from PVR. Consequently, a significant decline in PVR’s earnings or cash distributions would have a negative impact on its distributions to its partners, including us. The amount of cash that PVR will be able to distribute to its partners, including PVG, each quarter principally depends upon the amount of cash it can generate from its coal and natural resource management and natural gas midstream businesses. The amount of cash that PVR will generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on, among other things:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition, the actual amount of cash that PVR will have available for distribution will depend on other factors, some of which are beyond its control, including:

Because of these factors, PVR may not have sufficient available cash each quarter to continue paying distributions at their current level or at all. If PVR reduces its per unit distribution, PVG will have less cash available for distribution to its unitholders, including us, and would probably be required to reduce its per unit distribution to its unitholders, including us. The amount of cash that PVR has available for distribution depends primarily upon PVR’s cash flow, including cash flow from financial reserves and working capital borrowings, and is not solely a function of profitability, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result, PVR may make cash distributions during periods when it records losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when it records profits.

Since PVR’s inception as a publicly traded partnership, it has grown principally by making acquisitions in both of its business segments and, to a lesser extent, by organic growth on its properties. Readily available access to debt and equity capital and credit availability hashave been and continue to be critical factors in PVR’s ability to grow. The current deterioration instate of the global financial marketseconomy and the consequential adverse effect on credit availability ismay adversely impactingimpact PVR’s access to new capital and credit availability. Depending on the longevity and ultimate severity of this deterioration,downturn, PVR’s ability to make acquisitions may be significantly adversely affected, as may PVR’s ability to make cash distributions to its unitholders and, in turn, would affect our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders.

In addition, the timing and amount, if any, of an increase or decrease in distributions by PVR to its unitholders will not necessarily be comparable to the timing and amount of any changes in distributions made by PVG. PVG’s ability to distribute cash received from PVR to its unitholders, including us, is limited by a number of factors, including:

A reduction in PVR’s distributions will disproportionately affect the amount of cash distributions to which PVG is currently entitled, and, consequently, will affect the amount of cash distributions PVG is able to make to its unitholders, including us.

PVG’s ownership of the IDRs in PVR, through PVG’s ownership of PVR’s general partner, entitles PVG to receive its pro rata share of specified percentages of total cash distributions made by PVR with respect to any particular quarter only in the event that PVR distributes more than $0.275 per unit for such quarter. As a result, the holders of PVR’s common units have a priority over the holders of PVR’s IDRs to the extent of cash distributions by PVR up to and including $0.275 per unit for any quarter.

PVG’s IDRs entitle it to receive increasing percentages, up to 50%, of incremental cash distributions above $0.375 per unit distributed by PVR on a quarterly basis. Because PVG is at the maximum target cash distribution level on the IDRs,

future growth in distributions PVG receives from PVR, and in distributions we receive from PVG, will not result from an increase in the target cash distribution level associated with the IDRs. Furthermore, a decrease in the amount of distributions by PVR to less than $0.375 per unit per quarter would reduce PVG’s percentage of the incremental cash distributions above $0.325 per common unit per quarter from 50% to 25%, consequently resulting in less cash available to PVG to distribute to its unitholders, including us. A decrease in the amount of distributions by PVR and, consequently, PVG may be caused by a variety of circumstances. PVR may generate less cash available for distributions or determine to create larger reserves in computing cash available for distribution. Even if cash available for distribution remained stable, PVG and PVR may determine to modify the IDRs to reduce the percentage of incremental cash distributions such IDRs are entitled to receive.

PVR may issue additional limited partner interests or other equity securities, which may increase the risk that PVR will not have sufficient available cash to maintain or increase its cash distribution level, which in turn may reduce the available cash that PVG has to distribute to its unitholders, including us.

PVR has wide latitude to issue additional limited partner interests on the terms and conditions established by its general partner. PVG receives cash distributions from PVR on the general partner interest, IDRs and the limited partner interest that PVG holds. Because a majority of the cash PVG receives from PVR is attributable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

to PVG’s indirect ownership of the IDRs, payment of distributions on additional PVR limited partner interests may increase the risk that PVR will be unable to maintain or increase its quarterly cash distribution per unit, which in turn may reduce the amount of incentive distributions PVG receives and the available cash that PVG has to distribute to its unitholders, including us.

Conflicts of interest may arise because the board of directors of the respective general partners of PVG and PVR has a fiduciary duty to manage the general partners in a manner that is beneficial to their owners, and at the same time, in a manner that is beneficial to the respective unitholders of PVG and PVR.

We own the sole general partner of PVG and PVG owns the sole general partner of PVR. PVG and PVR are publicly traded limited partnerships. Each of the board of directors of the general partners owes a fiduciary duty to the respective unitholders of PVG and PVR, and not just to us and PVG as owners of the general partners. As a result of these conflicts, the board of directors of the general partners of PVG and PVR may favor the interests of the public unitholders of PVG and PVR over the interests of the respective owners of the general partners.

Our ability to sell our common units of PVG, and PVG’s ability to sell its partner interests in PVR, may be limited by securities law restrictions and liquidity constraints.

As of December 31, 2008, we owned 30,077,429 common units of PVG and PVG owned 19,587,049 common units of PVR, all of which are unregistered and restricted securities within the meaning of Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. Unless we or PVG were to register these units, we or PVG are limited to selling into the market in any three-month period an amount of PVG common units or PVR common units that does not exceed the greater of 1% of the total number of common units outstanding or the average weekly reported trading volume of the common units for the four calendar weeks prior to the sale. In addition, PVG faces contractual limitations on its ability to sell its general partner interest and IDRs in PVR and the market for such interests is illiquid.

Congress is considering proposed legislation that may, if enacted, negatively impact the value of our limited partner interests in PVG by precluding PVG from qualifying for treatment as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes under the publicly traded partnership rules.

In response to recent public offerings of interests in the management operations of private equity funds and hedge funds, members of Congress are considering substantive changes to the definition of qualifying income under Section 7704(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and changing the characterization of certain types of income received from partnerships. In particular, one proposal recharacterizes certain income and gain received with respect to “investment service partnership interests” as ordinary income for the performance of services, which may not be treated as qualifying income for publicly traded partnerships. As such proposal is currently interpreted, a significant portion of PVG’s interests in PVR may be viewed as an investment service partnership interest. Although we are unable to predict whether the proposed legislation, or any other proposals, will ultimately be enacted, the enactment of any such legislation could negatively impact the value of our limited partner interests in PVG.

Risks Related to PVR’s Coal and Natural Resource Management Business

If PVR’s lessees do not manage their operations well or experience financial difficulties, their production volumes and PVR’s coal royalties revenues could decrease.

PVR depends on its lessees to effectively manage their operations on its properties. PVR’s lessees make their own business decisions with respect to their operations, including decisions relating to:

If PVR’s lessees do not manage their operations well, or if they experience financial difficulties, their production could be reduced, which would result in lower coal royalties revenues to PVR and could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The coal mining operations of PVR’s lessees are subject to numerous operational risks that could result in lower coal royalties revenues.

PVR’s coal royalties revenues are largely dependent on the level of production from its coal reserves achieved by its lessees. The level of PVR’s lessees’ production is subject to operating conditions or events that may increase PVR’s lessees’ cost of mining and delay or halt production at particular mines for varying lengths of time and that are beyond their or its control, including:

Any interruptions to the production of coal from PVR’s reserves could reduce its coal royalties revenues and could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, PVR’s coal royalties revenues are based upon sales of coal by its lessees to their customers. If PVR’s lessees do not receive payments for delivered coal on a timely basis from their customers, their cash flow would be adversely affected, which could cause PVR’s cash flow to be adversely affected and could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

A substantial or extended decline in coal prices could reduce PVR’s coal royalties revenues and the value of PVR’s coal reserves.

A substantial or extended decline in coal prices from recent levels could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s lessees’ operations (including mine closures) and on the quantities of coal that may be economically produced from its properties. In addition, because a majority of PVR’s coal royalties are derived from coal mined on PVR’s properties under leases containing royalty rates based on the higher of a fixed base price or a percentage of the gross sales price, PVR’s coal royalties revenues could be reduced by such a decline. Such a decline could also reduce PVR’s coal services revenues and the value of its coal reserves. Additionally, volatility in coal prices could make it difficult to estimate with precision the value of PVR’s coal reserves and any coal reserves that PVR may consider for acquisition. The future impact of the current deteriorationstate of the global economy, including financial and credit markets on coal production levels and prices is uncertain. Depending on the longevity and ultimate severity of the deterioration,downturn, demand for coal may decline, which could adversely effect production and pricing for coal mined by PVR’s lessees, and, consequently, adversely effectaffect the royalty income received by PVR.

PVR depends on a limited number of primary operators for a significant portion of its coal royalties revenues and the loss of or reduction in production from any of PVR’s major lessees would reduce its coal royalties revenues.

PVR depends on a limited number of primary operators for a significant portion of its coal royalties revenues. In the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, five primary operators, each with multiple leases, accounted for 65%61% of PVR’s coal royalties revenues and 7%10% of our total consolidated revenues. If any of these operators enters bankruptcy or decides to cease operations or significantly reduces its production, PVR’s coal royalties revenues would be reduced.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A failure on the part of PVR’s lessees to make coal royalty payments could give PVR the right to terminate the lease, repossess the property or obtain liquidation damages and/or enforce payment obligations under the lease. If PVR repossessed any of its properties, PVR would seek to find a replacement lessee. PVR may not be able to find a replacement lessee and, if it finds a replacement lessee, PVR may not be able to enter into a new lease on favorable terms within a reasonable period of time. In addition, the outgoing lessee could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings that could further delay the execution of a new lease or the assignment of the existing lease to another operator. If PVR enters into a new lease, the replacement operator might not achieve the same levels of production or sell coal at the same price as the lessee it replaced. In addition, it may be difficult for PVR to secure new or replacement lessees for small or isolated coal reserves, since industry trends toward consolidation favor larger-scale, higher technology mining operations to increase productivity rates.

PVR’s coal business will be adversely affected if PVR is unable to replace or increase its coal reserves through acquisitions.

Because PVR’s reserves decline as its lessees mine its coal, PVR’s future success and growth depends, in part, upon its ability to acquire additional coal reserves that are economically recoverable. The current deterioration instate of the global economy, including financial markets, and the consequential adverse effect on credit availability is adversely impacting PVR’s access to new capital and credit availability. Depending on the longevity and ultimate severity of this deterioration,downturn, PVR’s ability to make acquisitions may be significantly adversely affected. If PVR is unable to negotiate purchase contracts to replace or increase its coal reserves on acceptable terms, PVR’s coal royalties revenues will decline as its coal reserves are depleted and PVR could, therefore, experience a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. If PVR is able to acquire additional coal reserves, there is a possibility that any acquisition could be dilutive to earnings and reduce its ability to make distributions to unitholders, including us, or to pay interest on, or the principal of, its debt obligations. Any debt PVR incurs to finance an acquisition may similarly affect its ability to make distributions to unitholders, including us, or to pay interest on, or the principal of, its debt obligations. PVR’s ability to make acquisitions in the future also could be limited by restrictions under its existing or future debt agreements, competition from other coal companies for attractive properties or the lack of suitable acquisition candidates.

PVR’s lessees could satisfy obligations to their customers with coal from properties other than PVR’s, depriving PVR of the ability to receive amounts in excess of the minimum coal royalties payments.

PVR does not control its lessees’ business operations. PVR’s lessees’ customer supply contracts do not generally require its lessees to satisfy their obligations to their customers with coal mined from PVR’s reserves. Several factors may influence a lessee’s decision to supply its customers with coal mined from properties PVR does not own or lease, including the royalty rates under the lessee’s lease with PVR, mining conditions, transportation costs and availability and customer coal quality specifications. If a lessee satisfies its obligations to its customers with coal from properties PVR does not own or lease, production under its lease will decrease, and PVR will receive lower coal royalties revenues.

Fluctuations in transportation costs and the availability or reliability of transportation could reduce the production of coal mined from PVR’s properties.

Transportation costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of coal for the customers of PVR’s lessees. Increases in transportation costs could make coal a less competitive source of energy or could make coal produced by some or all of PVR’s lessees less competitive than coal produced from other sources. On the other hand, significant decreases in transportation costs could result in increased competition for PVR’s lessees from coal producers in other parts of the country or increased imports from offshore producers.

PVR’s lessees depend upon rail, barge, trucking, overland conveyor and other systems to deliver coal to their customers. Disruption of these transportation services due to weather-related problems, strikes, lockouts, bottlenecks, mechanical failures and other events could temporarily impair the ability of PVR’s lessees to supply coal to their customers. PVR’s lessees’ transportation providers may face difficulties in the future and impair the ability of its lessees to supply coal to their customers, thereby resulting in decreased coal royalties revenues to PVR.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PVR’s lessees’ workforces could become increasingly unionized in the future, which could adversely affect their productivity and thereby reduce PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

One of PVR’s lessees has one mine operated by unionized employees. This mine was PVR’s third largest mine on the basis of coal production for the year ended December 31, 2008.2009. All of PVR’s lessees could become increasingly unionized in the future. If some or all of PVR’s lessees’ non-unionized operations were to become unionized, it could adversely affect their productivity and increase the risk of work stoppages. In addition, PVR’s lessees’ operations may be adversely affected by work stoppages at unionized companies, particularly if union workers were to orchestrate boycotts against its lessees’ operations. Any further unionization of PVR’s lessees’ employees could adversely affect the stability of production from its coal reserves and reduce its coal royalties revenues.

PVR’s coal reserve estimates depend on many assumptions that may be inaccurate, which could materially adversely affect the quantities and value of PVR’s coal reserves.

PVR’s estimates of its coal reserves may vary substantially from the actual amounts of coal its lessees may be able to economically recover. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of reserves, including many factors beyond PVR’s control. Estimates of coal reserves necessarily depend upon a number of variables and assumptions, any one of which may, if incorrect, result in an estimate that varies considerably from actual results. These factors and assumptions relate to:

Actual production, revenues and expenditures with respect to PVR’s coal reserves will likely vary from estimates, and these variations may be material. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on the coal reserve data provided by PVR.

Any change in fuel consumption patterns by electric power generators away from the use of coal could affect the ability of PVR’s lessees to sell the coal they produce and thereby reduce PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, domestic electric power generation accounted for approximately 90%89% of domestic coal consumption in 2007.2008. The amount of coal consumed for domestic electric power generation is affected primarily by the overall demand for electricity, the price and availability of competing fuels for power plants such as nuclear, natural gas, fuel oil and hydroelectric power and environmental and other governmental regulations. PVR believes that most new power plants will be built to produce electricity during peak periods of demand. Many of these new power plants will likely be fired by natural gas because of lower construction costs compared to coal-fired plants and because natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel. The increasingly stringent requirements of the CAA may result in more electric power generators shifting from coal to natural gas-fired power plants. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Air Emissions.”

Extensive environmental laws and regulations affecting electric power generators could have corresponding effects on the ability of PVR’s lessees to sell the coal they produce and thereby reduce PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

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, which are the ultimate consumers of the coal PVR’s lessees produce. These laws and regulations can require significant emission control expenditures for many coal-fired power plants, and various new and proposed laws and regulations may require further emission reductions and associated emission control expenditures. As

TABLE OF CONTENTS

a result of these current and proposed laws, regulations and trends, electricity generators may elect to switch to other fuels that generate less of these emissions, possibly further reducing demand for the coal that PVR’s lessees produce and thereby reducing its coal royalties revenues. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Air Emissions.”

Concerns about the environmental impacts of fossil-fuel emissions, including perceived impacts on global climate change, are resulting in increased regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases in many jurisdictions and increased interest in and the likelihood of further regulation, which could significantly affect PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Global climate change continues to attract considerable public and scientific attention. Several widely publicized scientific reports have engendered widespread concern about the impacts of human activity, especially fossil fuel combustion, on global climate change. Legislative attention in the United States is being paid to global climate change and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from coal combustion by power plants. Such legislation was introduced in Congress in 2006, 2007 and 2008the last several years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and further proposals or amendments are likely to be offered in the future. AlthoughIn anticipation of EPA’s endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions (which was finalized in December 2009), the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision inMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency relatedagency proposed two sets of rules regarding possible future regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. While the first proposes to newregulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, the reasoning of the decision could affect regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under other federal regulatory programs, including those that regulatetargets greenhouse gas emissions from coal-firedlarge stationary sources such as power plants.plants or industrial facilities. Several states have also either passed legislation or announced initiatives focused on decreasing or stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, and many of these measures have focused on emissions from coal-fired power plants. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Governmental Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Air Emissions.” Enactment of laws, passage of regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions by the United States or some of its states, or other actions to limit carbon dioxide emissions could result in electric generators switching from coal to other fuel sources. This may adversely affect the use of and demand for fossil fuels, particularly coal.

Delays in PVR’s lessees obtaining mining permits and approvals, or the inability to obtain required permits and approvals, could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

Mine operators, including PVR’s lessees, must obtain numerous permits and approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to various environmental and safety matters in connection with coal mining. The permitting rules are complex and can change over time. The public has the right to comment on many permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Accordingly, permits required by PVR’s lessees to conduct operations may not be issued, maintained or renewed, may not be issued or renewed in a timely fashion, or may involve requirements that restrict PVR’s lessees’ ability to economically conduct their mining operations. Limitations on PVR’s lessees’ ability to conduct their mining operations due to the inability to obtain or renew necessary permits, or due to uncertainty, litigation or delays associated with the eventual issuance of these permits, could have an adverse effect on its coal royalties revenues. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Mining Permits and Approvals.”

Uncertainty over the precise parameters of the CWA’s regulatory scope and a recent federal district court decision may adversely impact PVR’s coal lessees’ ability to secure the necessary permits for their valley fill surface mining activities.

To dispose of mining overburden generated from surface mining activities, PVR’s lessees often need to obtain government approvals, including CWA Section 404 permits to construct valley fills and sediment control ponds. Ongoing uncertainty over which waters are subject to the CWA may adversely impact PVR’s lessees’ ability to secure these necessary permits. In addition, a 2007 decision by a U.S. District Court in West Virginia invalidated a permit issued to one of PVR’s lessees for the Republic No. 2 Mine and enjoined PVR’s lessee, Alex Energy, Inc., from taking any further actions under this permit. This ruling was appealed and the appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s order. It is unclear if this ruling will be appealed or if

TABLE OF CONTENTS

the permits will be challenged on other grounds. Uncertainty over the correct legal standard for issuing Section 404 permits may lead to rulings invalidating other permits, additional challenges to various permits and additional delays and costs in applying for and obtaining new permits that could ultimately have an adverse effect on PVR’s

coal royalties revenues. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment—Segment — Clean Water Act,” for more information about the litigation described above

PVR’s lessees’ mining operations are subject to extensive and costly laws and regulations, which could increase operating costs and limit its lessees’ ability to produce coal, which could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues.

PVR’s lessees are subject to numerous and detailed federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting coal mining operations, including laws and regulations pertaining to employee health and safety, permitting and licensing requirements, air quality standards, water pollution, plant and wildlife protection, reclamation and restoration of mining properties after mining is completed, the discharge of materials into the environment, surface subsidence from underground mining and the effects that mining has on groundwater quality and availability. Numerous governmental permits and approvals are required for mining operations. PVR’s lessees are required to prepare and present to federal, state or local authorities data pertaining to the effect or impact that any proposed exploration for or production of coal may have upon the environment. The costs, liabilities and requirements associated with these regulations may be significant and time-consuming and may delay commencement or continuation of exploration or production operations. The possibility exists that new laws or regulations (or judicial interpretations of existing laws and regulations) may be adopted in the future that could materially affect PVR’s lessees’ mining operations, either through direct impacts such as new requirements impacting its lessees’ existing mining operations, or indirect impacts such as new laws and regulations that discourage or limit coal consumers’ use of coal. Any of these direct or indirect impacts could have an adverse effect on PVR’s coal royalties revenues. See Item 1, “Business—“Business — Government Regulation and Environmental Matters—Matters — PVR Coal and Natural Resource Management Segment.”

Because of extensive and comprehensive regulatory requirements, violations during mining operations are not unusual in the industry and, notwithstanding compliance efforts, PVR does not believe violations by its lessees can be eliminated completely. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of cleanup and site restoration costs and liens and, to a lesser extent, the issuance of injunctions to limit or cease operations. PVR’s lessees may also incur costs and liabilities resulting from claims for damages to property or injury to persons arising from their operations. If PVR’s lessees are required to pay these costs and liabilities and if their financial viability is affected by doing so, then their mining operations and, as a result, PVR’s coal royalties revenues and its ability to make distributions to us, could be adversely affected.

The PVR coal and natural resource management segment may record impairment losses on its long-lived assets.

The PVR coal and natural resource management segment has completed a number of acquisitions in recent years. See Note 4, “Acquisitions and Divestitures,” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” for a description of the PVR coal and natural resource management segment’s material acquisitions. In conjunction with our accounting for these acquisitions, it was necessary for us to estimate the values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, which involved the use of various assumptions. The most significant assumptions, and the ones requiring the most judgment, involve the estimated fair values of property, plant and equipment, and the resulting amount of goodwill, if any. Unforeseen changes in operations, the business environment or market conditions could substantially alter management’s assumptions and could result in lower estimates of values of acquired assets or of future cash flows. This could result in impairment charges being recorded in our consolidated statements of income.

Risks Related to PVR’s Natural Gas Midstream Business

The success of PVR’s natural gas midstream business depends upon its ability to find and contract for new sources of natural gas supply.

In order to maintain or increase system throughput levels on PVR’s gathering systems and asset utilization rates at its processing plants, PVR must contract for new natural gas supplies. The primary factors affecting PVR’s ability to connect new supplies of natural gas to its gathering systems include the level of drilling activity creating new gas supply near its gathering systems, PVR’s success in contracting for existing natural gas supplies that are not committed to other systems and PVR’s ability to expand and increase the capacity of its systems. PVR may not be able to obtain additional contracts for natural gas supplies.

Fluctuations in energy prices can greatly affect production rates and investments by third parties in the development of new oil and natural gas reserves. Drilling activity generally decreases as oil and natural gas prices decrease. PVR has no control over the level of drilling activity in its areas of operations, the amount of reserves underlying the wells and the rate at which production from a well will decline. In addition, PVR has no control over producers or their production decisions,

which are affected by, among other things, prevailing and projected energy prices, demand for hydrocarbons, the level of reserves, geological considerations, governmental regulation and the availability and cost of capital.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PVR’s natural gas midstream assets, including its gathering systems and processing plants, are connected to natural gas reserves and wells for which the production will naturally decline over time. PVR’s cash flows associated with these systems will decline unless it is able to secure new supplies of natural gas by connecting additional production to these systems. A material decrease in natural gas production in PVR’s areas of operation, as a result of depressed commodity prices or otherwise, would result in a decline in the volume of natural gas PVR handles, which would reduce its revenues and operating income. In addition, PVR’s future growth will depend, in part, upon whether it can contract for additional supplies at a greater rate than the rate of natural decline in PVR’s currently connected supplies.

PVR typically does not obtain independent evaluations of natural gas reserves dedicated to its gathering systems; therefore, volumes of natural gas on PVR’s systems in the future could be less than it anticipates.

PVR typically does not obtain independent evaluations of natural gas reserves connected to its gathering systems due to the unwillingness of producers to provide reserve information, as well as the cost of such evaluations. Accordingly, PVR does not have independent estimates of total reserves dedicated to its gathering systems or the anticipated life of such reserves. If the total reserves or estimated life of the reserves connected to PVR’s gathering systems is less than it anticipates and PVR’s is unable to secure additional sources of natural gas, then the volumes of natural gas gathered on PVR’s gathering systems in the future could be less than PVR anticipates. A decline in the volumes of natural gas on PVR’s systems could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

A reduction in demand for NGL products by the petrochemical, refining or heating industries could materially adversely affect PVR’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

The NGL products PVR produces, including ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline, have a variety of applications, including as heating fuels, petrochemical feedstocks and refining blend stocks. A reduction in demand for NGL products, whether because of general economic conditions, new government regulations, reduced demand by consumers for products made with NGL products, increased competition from petroleum-based products due to pricing differences, mild winter weather or other reasons, could result in a decline in the volume of NGL products PVR handles or reduce the fees PVR charges for its services. Any reduced demand for PVR’s NGL products could adversely affect demand for the services PVR provides as well as NGL prices, which would negatively impact PVR’s results of operations and financial condition.

The profitability of PVR’s natural gas midstream business is dependent upon prices and market demand for natural gas and NGLs, which are beyond PVR’s control and have been volatile.

PVR is subject to significant risks due to fluctuations in natural gas commodity prices. During 2008,2009, PVR generated a majority of its gross margin from two types of contractual arrangements under which its margin is exposed to increases and decreases in the price of natural gas and NGLs—NGLs — gas purchase/keep-whole and percentage-of-proceeds arrangements. See Item 1, “Business—Contracts—“Business — Contracts — PVR Natural Gas Midstream Segment.”

Virtually all of the system throughput volumes in PVR’s Crescent System and Hamlin System are processed under percentage-of-proceeds arrangements. The system throughput volumes in PVR’s Panhandle System are processed primarily under either percentage-of proceeds or gas purchase/keep-whole arrangements. Under both types of arrangements, PVR provides gathering and processing services for natural gas received. Under percentage-of-proceeds arrangements, PVR generally sells the NGLs produced from the processing operations and the remaining residue gas at market prices and remits to the producers an agreed upon percentage of the proceeds based on either an index price or the price actually received for gas and NGLs. Under these arrangements, revenues and gross margins decline when natural gas prices and NGL prices decrease. Accordingly, a decrease in the price of natural gas or NGLs could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition. Under gas purchase/keep-whole arrangements, PVR generally buys natural gas from producers based upon an index price and then sells the NGLs and the remaining residue gas to third parties at market prices. Because the extraction of the NGLs from the natural gas during processing reduces the volume of natural gas available for sale, profitability is dependent on the value of those NGLs being higher than the value of the volume of gas reduction or “shrink.” Under these

TABLE OF CONTENTS

arrangements, revenues and gross margins decrease when the price of natural gas increases relative to the price of NGLs. Accordingly, a change in the relationship between the price of natural gas and the price of NGLs could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

In the past, the prices of natural gas and NGLs have been extremely volatile, and PVR expects this volatility to continue. The markets and prices for residue gas and NGLs depend upon factors beyond PVR’s control. These factors include demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs, which fluctuates with changes in market and economic conditions, and other factors, including:

Acquisitions and expansions may affect PVR’s business by substantially increasing the level of its indebtedness and contingent liabilities and increasing the risks of being unable to effectively integrate these new operations.

From time to time, PVR evaluates and acquires assets and businesses that it believes complement its existing operations. Readily available access to debt and equity capital and credit availability has been and continues to be critical factors in PVR’s ability to grow. The current deterioration instate of the global economy, including financial markets, and the consequential adverse effect on credit availability is adversely impacting PVR’s access to new capital and credit availability. Depending on the longevity and ultimate severity of the deterioration,this downturn, PVR’s ability to make acquisitions may be significantly adversely affected. In the event PVR completes acquisitions, PVR may encounter difficulties integrating these acquisitions with its existing businesses without a loss of employees or customers, a loss of revenues, an increase in operating or other costs or other difficulties. In addition, PVR may not be able to realize the operating efficiencies, competitive advantages, cost savings or other benefits expected from these acquisitions. Future acquisitions might not generate increases in PVR’s cash distributions to its unitholders, and because of the capital used to complete such acquisitions, or the debt incurred, PVR’s and our results of operations may change significantly.

Expanding PVR’s natural gas midstream business by constructing new gathering systems, pipelines and processing facilities subjects PVR to construction risks.

One of the ways PVR may grow its natural gas midstream business is through the construction of additions to existing gathering, compression and processing systems. The construction of a new gathering system or pipeline, the expansion of an existing pipeline through the addition of new pipe or compression and the construction of new processing facilities involve numerous regulatory, environmental, political and legal uncertainties beyond PVR’s control and require the expenditure of significant amounts of capital. PVR’s access to such capital is currently adversely impacted by the deterioration instate of the global economy, including financial and credit markets. If PVR does undertake these projects, they may not be completed on schedule, or at all, or at the anticipated cost. Moreover, PVR’s revenues may not increase immediately upon the expenditure of funds on a particular project. For example, the construction of gathering facilities requires the expenditure of significant amounts of capital, which may exceed PVR’s estimates. Generally, PVR may have only limited natural gas supplies committed to these facilities prior to their construction. Moreover, PVR may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in production in a region in which anticipated production growth does not materialize. As a result, there is the risk that new facilities may not be able to attract enough natural

TABLE OF CONTENTS

gas to achieve PVR’s expected investment return, which could have a material adverse effect on PVR’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

If PVR is unable to obtain new rights-of-way or the cost of renewing existing rights-of-way increases, then PVR may be unable to fully execute its growth strategy and its cash flows could be reduced.

The construction of additions to PVR’s existing gathering assets may require PVR to obtain new rights-of-way before constructing new pipelines. PVR may be unable to obtain rights-of-way to connect new natural gas supplies to its existing gathering lines or capitalize on other attractive expansion opportunities. Additionally, it may become more expensive for PVR to obtain new rights-of-way or to renew existing rights-of-way. If the cost of obtaining new rights-of-way or renewing existing rights-of-way increases, then PVR’s cash flows could be reduced.

PVR is exposed to the credit risk of its natural gas midstream customers, and nonpayment or nonperformance by PVR’s customers would reduce its cash flows.

PVR is subject to risk of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by its natural gas midstream customers. PVR depends on a limited number of customers for a significant portion of its natural gas midstream revenues. In the year ended December 31, 2008, 40%2009, 21% of PVR’s natural gas midstream segment revenues and 24%13% of our total consolidated revenues related to two of PVR’s natural gas midstream segment customers. Any nonpayment or nonperformance by PVR’s natural gas midstream segment customers would reduce its cash flows.

Any reduction in the capacity of, or the allocations to, PVR in interconnecting third-party pipelines could cause a reduction of volumes processed, which could adversely affect PVR’s revenues and cash flows.

PVR is dependent upon connections to third-party pipelines to receive and deliver residue gas and NGLs. Any reduction of capacities of these interconnecting pipelines due to testing, line repair, reduced operating pressures or other causes could result in reduced volumes gathered and processed in PVR’s natural gas midstream facilities. Similarly, if additional shippers begin transporting volumes of residue gas and NGLs on interconnecting pipelines, PVR’s allocations in these pipelines could be reduced. Any reduction in volumes gathered and processed in PVR’s facilities could adversely affect its revenues and cash flows.

Natural gas derivative transactions may limit PVR’s potential gains and involve other risks.

In order to manage PVR’s exposure to price risks in the marketing of its natural gas and NGLs, PVR periodically enters into condensate, natural gas and NGL price hedging arrangements with respect to a portion of its expected production. PVR’s hedges are limited in duration, usually for periods of two years or less. However, in connection with acquisitions, sometimes PVR’s hedges are for longer periods. These hedging transactions may limit PVR’s potential gains if natural gas or NGL prices were to rise (or decline with respect to natural gas hedges entered into to lock the frac spread) over the price established by the hedging arrangements. Moreover, PVR has entered into derivative transactions related to only a portion of its condensate, natural gas and NGL volumes. As a result, PVR will continue to have direct commodity price risk with respect to the unhedged portion of these volumes. In trying to maintain an appropriate balance, PVR may end up hedging too much or too little, depending upon how natural gas or NGL prices fluctuate in the future.

In addition, derivative transactions may expose PVR to the risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including instances in which:

TABLE OF CONTENTS