SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Company Overview
April 2016
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this presentation that address activities,
events or developments that Antero Resources Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company” or “Antero”) expects, believes or
anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,”
“project,” “foresee,” “should,” “would,” “could,” or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. However, the
absence of these words does not mean that the statements are not forward-looking. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, forward-
looking statements contained in this presentation specifically include estimates of the Company’s reserves, expectations of plans, strategies,
objectives and anticipated financial and operating results of the Company, including as to the Company’s drilling program, production, hedging
activities, capital expenditure levels and other guidance included in this presentation. These statements are based on certain assumptions made
by the Company based on management’s experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, anticipated future developments and
other factors believed to be appropriate. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are
beyond the control of the Company, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking
statements. These include the factors discussed or referenced under the heading “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2015 and in the Company’s subsequent filings with the SEC.
The Company cautions you that these forward-looking statements are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to
predict and many of which are beyond our control, incident to the exploration for and development, production, gathering and sale of natural gas
and oil. These risks include, but are not limited to, commodity price volatility, inflation, lack of availability of drilling and production equipment and
services, environmental risks, drilling and other operating risks, regulatory changes, the uncertainty inherent in estimating natural gas and oil
reserves and in projecting future rates of production, cash flow and access to capital, the timing of development expenditures, and the other risks
described under the heading “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in the Company’s
subsequent filings with the SEC.
Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made and the Company undertakes no obligation to correct
or update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
1
Antero Resources Corporation is denoted as “AR” and Antero Midstream Partners LP is denoted as “AM”
in the presentation, which are their respective New York Stock Exchange ticker symbols.
2
CHANGES SINCE APRIL 2016 PRESENTATION
Updated AR Marcellus and Utica single well economics
as of 3/31/2016 strip pricing
Slides 13, 31, 62, 63
Updated AR slides highlighting net acreage position as
of 3/31/2016
Slides 5, 32, 37, 39, 44
Updated AR slide showing gas and equivalent
realizations as of 3/31/2016
Slide 22
New AR slide highlighting Marcellus 2.0 Bcf/1,000’ EUR
and SWE as of 3/31/2016 strip pricing
Slide 12
New AR slides highlighting strength of Antero credit
profile with borrowing base and ratings affirmed
Slides 20, 21
Updated AR slides showing 3/31/2016 hedging position
and mark-to-market value
Slides 15, 18, 19, 58
New AR slides highlighting improving operational
performance
Slides 35, 36, 38, 54
WHY OWN ANTERO?
3
 $3.7 billion of consolidated liquidity available as of 12/31/15 pro forma for AM unit sale
 Ba2/BB corporate ratings affirmed; $4.5 billion borrowing base affirmed
 Stable leverage not increasing through the down cycle
Balance Sheet
Strength
Production Sold
Forward at
Attractive Prices
Momentum +
Growth
Superior Realized
Prices & Margins
Attractive &
Improving Well
Economics
Largest Core
Drilling Inventory
 94% of forecasted production hedged through 2018 at $3.81/MMBtu
 $3.1 billion mark-to-market on 3.6 Tcfe hedge position as of 3/31/2016
 Over 33 Tcfe of unhedged 3P inventory to drill and produce as prices improve
 15% production growth guidance in 2016 and 20% growth targeted in 2017
 Forecasted cash flow growth in 2016 and 2017
 Flexibility to adjust activity up or down – 8 rigs currently running, 70 DUCs at YE 2016
 Realized prices and EBITDAX margins lead Appalachian peers
 Forecast positive basis to Nymex in 2016 and beyond due to large FT portfolio with
superior pricing points; low average cost of $0.46 per MMBtu
 20% to 35% ROR at 3/31/16 strip prices and 47% to 64% ROR including hedges
 Long laterals up to 14,000 ft.; rolling off legacy drilling and completion contracts;
multiple process improvements and higher proppant loading all improving RORs
 Based on geologic interpretation of core, Antero has the largest drilling inventory in the
core of the two plays with over 3,700 undrilled locations
 Antero continues to consolidate its acreage position
4
Most Active Operator
in Appalachia
Largest Firm Transport
and Processing
Portfolio in Appalachia
Largest Gas Hedge
Position in U.S. E&P +
Strong Financial
Liquidity
Prudent Growth Drives
Value Creation
Current Flexibility &
Upside Participation in
Commodity Price
Recovery
Highest Realizations
and Margins Among
Large Cap
Appalachian Peers
Growth &
Momentum
Flexibility &
Upside
Hedging &
Liquidity
Midstream
Drilling
LEADING UNCONVENTIONAL BUSINESS MODEL
MLP (NYSE: AM)
Highlights
Substantial Value in
Midstream Business
Realizations
Takeaway
Well
Economics
1
2 3
4
5
67
8
Premier Appalachian
E&P Company
Run by Co-Founders
Sustainable Business
Model
Note: 2015 SEC prices were $2.56/MMBtu for natural gas and $50.13/Bbl for oil on a weighted average Appalachian index basis.
1. 3P reserve pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and
2018 and thereafter, respectively.
2. All net acres allocated to the WV/PA Utica Shale Dry Gas and Upper Devonian Shale are included among the net acres allocated to the Marcellus Shale as they are stacked pay formations attributable to
the same leasehold.
3. Antero and industry rig locations as of 4/1/2016, per RigData.
DRILLING – MOST ACTIVE OPERATOR IN APPALACHIA
5
COMBINED TOTAL – 12/31/15 RESERVES
Assumes Ethane Rejection
Net Proved Reserves 13.2 Tcfe
Net 3P Reserves 37.1 Tcfe
Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $11.2 Bn
Net 3P Reserves & Resource 50 to 53 Tcfe
Net 3P Liquids 1,237 MMBbls
% Liquids – Net 3P 20%
1Q 2016 Net Production 1,758 MMcfe/d
- 1Q 2016 Net Liquids 68,516 Bbl/d
Net Acres(2) 573,000
Undrilled 3P Locations 3,719
OHIO UTICA SHALE CORE
Net Proved Reserves 1.8 Tcfe
Net 3P Reserves 7.5 Tcfe
Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $2.5 Bn
Net Acres 148,000
Undrilled 3P Locations 814
MARCELLUS SHALE CORE
Net Proved Reserves 11.4 Tcfe
Net 3P Reserves 29.6 Tcfe
Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $8.7 Bn
Net Acres 425,000
Undrilled 3P Locations 2,905
WV/PA UTICA SHALE DRY GAS
Net Resource 12.5 to 16 Tcf
Net Acres 190,000
Undrilled Locations 1,889
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RigCount
Operators
SW Marcellus + Utica Rigs(3)
Utica Marcellus
2014 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2016 vs. 2014 2014 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2016 vs. 2014
Activity Levels
Average Rigs Running 4 5 1 (75%) 14 9 7 (50%)
Average Completion Crews 2.0 3.0 1.5 (25%) 5.5 2.0 4.0 (27%)
Operational Improvements
Drilling Days 29 31 24 17% 29 24 21 28%
Average Lateral Length (Ft) 8,543 8,575 9,232 8% 8,052 8,910 9,456 17%
Stages per Well 47 49 53 12% 40 45 47 17%
Stage Length 183 175 175 4% 200 200 200 0%
Stages per Day 3.2 3.7 4.4 38% 3.2 3.5 3.8 19%
Well Cost & Performance Improvements
D&C per 1,000' $1.55 $1.36 $1.14 (26%) $1.34 $1.18 $0.95 (29%)
EUR per 1,000' (Bcf) (1)
1.4 1.6 1.6 14% 1.5 1.7 2.0 33%
EUR per 1,000' (Bcfe) (1)
1.5 1.5 1.8 20% 1.8 1.9 2.3 28%
Marcellus ShaleUtica Shale Ohio
6
Operating Highlights
 Top 10 best drilling footage days in
Marcellus since 2009 have all occurred in
2016, including 5,291’ drilled in 24 hours
in West Virginia on the Charleston 3H
 Recently drilled and cased longest lateral
in company history at 14,024 feet
 Increased sand placement during
completions to 98% in Q1 2016
 Stayed within targeted zone for 98% of
lateral length drilled in Q1 2016
 Utilizing new floating casing procedure,
reducing casing run time by over 12 hours
 Increased proppant loading and shorter
stages in certain areas of the Marcellus
1. Based on statistics for wells completed within each respective period.
2. Year end 2016 forecast.
$1.14
1.6
1.8
$0.95
2.0
2.31.8
9,000 9,0005% 12%
DRILLING – CONTINUOUS OPERATING IMPROVEMENT
(2) (2)
DRILLING – PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF WELL COST
REDUCTIONS
7
Marcellus Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral ($MM)(1)
NOTE: Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period.
1. Based on 200 ft. stage spacing.
2. Based on 175 ft. stage spacing.
$5.3 $4.6 $5.3 $4.7 $4.7 $4.7
$8.7
$7.8
$7.6 $7.1 $7.1
$5.6
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1
$MM
DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE
$14.0
$12.4 $12.9
$11.8 $11.8
29% Reduction in
Utica well costs since
Q4 2014
Utica Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral ($MM)(2)
$4.0 $3.8 $3.4 $3.2 $3.2 $3.1
$8.3
$7.3 $7.4 $7.0 $7.0
$5.4
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1
$MM
DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE
$12.3
$11.1 $10.8
$10.2 $10.2
$0.95 / 1,000’
32% Reduction in
Marcellus well costs
since Q4 2014
17% Reduction vs. well
costs assumed in YE
2015 reserves
13% Reduction vs. well
costs assumed in YE
2015 reserves
$1.14 / 1,000’
Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
COST COST
$8.5
$10.3
$198
$341
$434
$649
$1,164
$1,351
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
$1,221
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
NGLs (C3+) Oil Ethane
5 246
6,436
23,051
48,298
60,000
24% Growth
Guidance
1. Represents Bloomberg street consensus estimates as of 4/15/2016.
1,715
2,058
0
600
1,200
1,800
2,400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E
Marcellus Utica Guidance
30 124
239
522
1,007
1,493
8
AVERAGE NET DAILY PRODUCTION (MMcfe/d)
0
50
100
150
200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
Marcellus Utica Deferred Completions
19
38
60
114
177 181
131
110
180
OPERATED GROSS WELLS COMPLETED
AVERAGE NET DAILY LIQUIDS PRODUCTION (Bbl/d)
15%
Growth
Guidance
20%
Growth
Target
 Antero is in the unique position of being able to sustain growth and value creation through the price down cycle
CONSOLIDATED EBITDAX ($MM)
Street
Consensus(1)
GROWTH & MOMENTUM – THROUGH THE DOWN CYCLE
3.7x
4.9x
0.6x
1.5x
3.0x
3.4x
3.8x
4.8x
1.2x
1.9x
4.7x
0.0x
1.0x
2.0x
3.0x
4.0x
5.0x
6.0x
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5
YE 2015 Leverage YE 2016E Leverage
15% 17% 17%
3% 2%
(11%)
12%
1%
(5%)
(27%)
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5
2016E Production Growth
2016E EBITDAX Growth
GROWTH & MOMENTUM – CONTINUED MEASURED
GROWTH
9
2015 vs. 2016E Year-End Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX(1),(2)
NOTE: Peers include CNX, COG, EQT, RRC and SWN.
1. 2015 and 2016E production and EBITDAX per Bloomberg Street Consensus estimates. Peer 5 2016E production and EBITDAX per company issued press release.
2. 2016E Debt to EBITDAX assumes year-end 2016E debt divided by 2016E EBITDAX. 2016E debt calculated as 2015 YE debt, less free cash flow. Free cash flow is equal to 2016E EBITDAX, less 2016E
interest expense per Bloomberg consensus estimates, less 2016 capital spending guidance per company press releases.
3. AR pro forma for secondary offering of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016 for net proceeds of $178 million.
9.8x
Antero continues to grow its production and cash flow through the commodity price downturn while also maintaining
prudent leverage metrics
2016E EBITDAX and Production Growth(1)
Antero is the
only one of its
Appalachian
peers that is
growing cash
flow in line with
production
growth
(66%)(40%)
(3)
$3.7
$11.2 $13.9
$20.4
$26.7
$3.1
$2.5
$0.9
($0.3) ($1.6)
$2.4
$2.4 $2.4
$2.4
$2.4
$9.2
$16.1
$17.3
$22.5
$27.6
($5.0)
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
$45.0
SEC Pricing 12/31/2015 Strip $60 Oil $67.50 Oil $75 Oil
$3.50 Gas $4.00 Gas $4.50 Gas
AR Ownership in AM shares ($B)
Hedge Value Pre-Tax PV-10 ($B)
3P Reserves Pre-Tax PV-10 ($B)
FLEXIBILITY & UPSIDE – ANTERO THRIVES WITH RISING PRICES
10
 As the most active operator in Appalachia, Antero has kept its workforce intact while also preserving the ability to accelerate efficiently when
commodity prices recover
 Accelerated development is further enhanced by Antero’s ability to flow incremental production to the most favorable price indices using Antero’s
firm transport portfolio
 Despite its large hedge position, Antero has tremendous leverage to natural gas and NGL prices due to scale of its 3P reserves and development
infrastructure
Net 3P Reserve/Hedge pre-tax PV-10 plus
AM ownership less net debt, Per Share(3)
$46
$65
$83
Increase in pre-tax
PV10 value does not
include the addition of
locations; represents
upside in prices only
on 12/31/15 locations
Note: Assumes NGL prices equal to 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter. All PV-10 values are on a pre-tax basis.
1. Total 3P locations of 3,719 less 110 planned completions in 2016.
2. Strip pricing as of December 31, 2015 for each of the first ten years and flat thereafter.
$54 Oil; $3.23 Gas
Increase in reserve pre-tax
PV-10 is well in excess of
hedge PV-10 lost at higher
prices
3P Reserve/Hedge Pre-Tax PV-10 Upside Value(3)
Substantial InventoryOptionality to Accelerate Development
$42
Remaining
Undeveloped
3P Locations(1)
3,609
85%
Producing Wells
at YE 2015
540 wells producing
1.5 Bcfe/d net (13%)
2016E Well
Completions
110 (2%)
3. PV-10 of 3P reserves and hedges less $4.5 billion of net debt as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AM unit offering,
plus market value of 108.9 million AM units owned by AR (as of 3/31/2016).
(2)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
5
10
15
20
25
2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E
Average Rigs
Ability to triple rig count
from 2016 levels, as
demonstrated by
historical rig utilization
# of Antero Rigs MMcfe/d
AR Net
Production
2016 Guidance
2017 Target
($Bn)
11
1. Revenues represent annual mark-to-market value based on 3/31/2016 strip pricing, including 1Q 2016 actual hedge gain of $324 million.
2. Consensus EBITDAX as of 3/31/2016.
3. Includes targeted drilling and completion cost improvements.
 Antero can achieve 15% year-over-year net production growth for 2016 by spending only $675 million, or approximately $500
million less than the $1.2 billion of expected hedge revenues for the year(1)
 Incremental growth capital of $625 million in 2016 positions Antero to achieve its 20% year-over-year targeted net production
growth in 2017, while only having to spend $875 million in 2017
FLEXIBILITY & UPSIDE – LOW MAINTENANCE CAPITAL
Maintenance Capital
$275
Maintenance Capital
$500
2016 Growth Capital
$400
2017 Growth Capital
$375
2017 Growth Capital
$625
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2016 2017
$1.3 Bn D&C Budget
0% Y-O-Y
Growth of
1,493 MMcfe/d
15% Y-O-Y
Growth
Contributes to
2017 20% Y-O-Y
Growth Target
0% Y-O-Y
Growth of
1,715 MMcfe/d
20% Y-O-Y
Growth Target
for $875 MM
Capex in 2017
Hedge
Revenues
$1,156MM(1)
Hedge
Revenues
$572MM(1)
$MM
2016 2017
Prior year DUCs completed 16 70
D&C Capital – DUCs ($MM) $125 $425
Driven by the DUC inventory, continued capital efficiency
and volumes sold forward at attractive prices, Antero is
positioned to achieve its 2016 guidance and 2017
production target with modest outspend
2018 Growth
Capital
TBD
(3)
Consensus
EBITDAX(2)
Consensus
EBITDAX(2)
 While we have not changed our 1.7 Bcf/1,000' Marcellus project-wide type curve, we are seeing stronger EURs per 1,000' in a
significant portion of our Marcellus rich gas acreage as exhibited in our 2.0 Bcf/1,000' average for wells completed in the first quarter
with at least 30 days of production history
$8.7
$11.7
$5.2
$7.7
35%
45%
24%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
$0.0
$3.0
$6.0
$9.0
$12.0
$15.0
1.7 Bcf/1,000'
2.3 Bcfe/1,000'
2.0 Bcf/1,000'
2.7 Bcfe/1,000'
1.7 Bcf/1,000'
2.1 Bcfe/1,000'
2.0 Bcf/1,000'
2.5 Bcfe/1,000'
Pre-TaxROR
Pre-TaxPV-10
Pre-Tax PV-10 Pre-Tax ROR
Classification(1) Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate Highly-Rich Gas
BTU Regime 1275-1350 1275-1350 1200-1275 1200-1275
EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 24.4 18.8 22.1
EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.7
% Liquids: 33% 33% 24% 24%
Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Well Cost ($MM): $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 $8.5
Bcf/1,000’ 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0
Bcfe/1,000’: 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.5
Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.48 $0.41 $0.53 $0.45
Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): $8.7 $11.7 $5.3 $7.7
Pre-Tax ROR: 35% 45% 24% 30%
Payout (Years): 2.5 2.0 3.7 2.9
Breakeven NYMEX Gas Price ($/MMBtu)(5) $1.67 $1.40 $2.31 $2.05
Gross 3P Locations(3): 626 971
12
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL(2)
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.26 $41 $16
2017 $2.77 $45 $21
2018 $2.87 $47 $24
2019 $2.93 $49 $25
2020 $3.03 $50 $26
2021-25 $3.49 $51-$53 $27
Assumptions
 Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip
 Oil – 3/31/2016 strip
 NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price
2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+
4535
2016 Development Plan: Completions
1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter,
and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities.
2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to
projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship.
3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015.
4. Represents actual results for 1Q 2016.
5. Breakeven price for 15% pre-tax rate of return.
WELL ECONOMICS – MARCELLUS UPSIDE POTENTIAL
Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate Highly-Rich Gas
(4) (4)
$2.26
$2.77 $2.87 $2.93 $3.03
$4.13
$3.67 $3.84 $3.61
$3.33
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
03/31/16 NYMEX Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
03/31/16 NYMEX Strip Pricing - After Hedges
24% 24%
35%
20%
23% 24%
13%
10% 9%
64% 64%
63%
56%
48% 47%
28%
24%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Utica Highly-
Rich Gas
Utica Dry Gas
- Ohio
Marcellus
Highly-Rich
Gas/
Condensate
Utica Rich Gas Utica Highly-
Rich Gas/
Condensate
Marcellus
Highly-Rich
Gas
Marcellus Dry
Gas
Marcellus Rich
Gas
Utica
Condensate
ROR
ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
2016/2017 Antero
Drilling Plan
ANTERO MARCELLUS & UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2)
108 263 626 161 98 971 755 553 184
1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2024, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and
applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities.
2. ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing – After Hedges reflects 3/31/2016 well cost ROR methodology with the 3/31/2016 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2021 projected production volumes resulting in
blend of strip and hedge prices.
13
 At 3/31/2016 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations with well economics that exceed 20%
rate of return (excluding hedges)
– Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 47% to 64%
 Rates of return include pad, facilities, cash production expenses (including midstream and FT
costs)
– See assumptions pages in appendix for further detail
2,227 “High
Grade” Drilling
Locations
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.26 $41 $16
2017 $2.77 $45 $21
2018 $2.87 $47 $24
2019 $2.93 $49 $25
2020 $3.03 $50 $26
2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27
3/31/16 Strip Pricing 3/31/16 Hedge Pricing
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
C3+ NGL
($/Bbl)
$4.13 $29
$3.67 $19
$3.84 $25
$3.61 $25
$3.33 $26
$3.17 - $3.80 $27
Locations
WELL ECONOMICS – SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000 Proved Developed Production (BBtu/d)
Undeveloped Production (BBtu/d)
Hedged Volume (BBtu/d)
WELL ECONOMICS – HEDGING UNDEVELOPED PRODUCTION
14
1. Represents illustrative Antero production forecast, adjusted for residue gas BTU content of 1100 BTU.
2. Hedged volume as of 3/31/2016.
3. Represents average hedge price for nine months ending 12/31/2016.
Antero has hedged a significant portion of its forecasted undeveloped production stream from
wells yet to be drilled at prices well above current strip pricing, including virtually all of its
undeveloped production forecast through the end of 2017
Natural Gas Hedged Volume vs. Production
(BBtu/d)
(1)
(1)
Antero has hedged virtually all of its
undeveloped production through
the end of 2017
Developed (Illustrative)
Undeveloped (Illustrative)
$3.91/Mcfe(3)
$3.57/Mcfe
$3.91/Mcfe
$3.70/Mcfe
$3.66/Mcfe
No Production Guidance
or Targets Disclosed
Beyond 2017
(2)
Antero Resources
Corporation (NYSE: AR)
$10.8 Billion Enterprise Value(1)
Ba2/BB Corporate Rating
Antero Midstream
Partners LP (NYSE: AM)
$4.5 Billion Enterprise Value
62% LP Interest
$2.4 Billion MV
$11.2 Bn 3P PV-10(3)
E&P Assets
Gathering/Compression
Assets
MIDSTREAM – MLP (NYSE: AM) HIGHLIGHTS
SUBSTANTIAL VALUE IN MIDSTREAM BUSINESS
1. AR enterprise value excludes AM debt, minority interest and cash. Market values (MV) as of 3/31/2016 and includes subordinated units; balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AM unit sale.
2. 3.6 Tcfe hedged at $3.71/Mcfe average price through 2022 with mark-to-market (MTM) value of $3.1 billion as of 3/31/2016.
3. 3P pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and
thereafter, respectively.
4. Based on 277.0 million AR shares outstanding and 176.2 million AM units outstanding.
15
Corporate Structure Overview
Market Valuation of AR Ownership in AM:
• AR ownership: 62% LP Interest = 108.9 million units
AM Price
per Unit
AM Units
Owned
by AR
(MM)
AR Value in
AM LP Units
($MMs)
Value Per
AR Share(4)
$22 109 $2,396 $9
$23 109 $2,505 $9
$24 109 $2,614 $9
$25 109 $2,723 $10
$26 109 $2,831 $10
$27 109 $2,940 $11
Water Infrastructure
Assets
MLP Benefits:
- Funding vehicle to expand midstream business
- Highlights value of Antero Midstream
- Liquid asset for Antero Resources
Public
38% LP Interest
$1.5 Billion MV
$3.1 Bn MTM
Hedge Position(2)
TAKEAWAY – LARGEST FT AND PROCESSING PORTFOLIO
IN APPALACHIA
Antero Long Term Firm Processing & Takeaway Position (YE 2018) – Accessing Favorable Markets
Mariner East 2
62 MBbl/d Commitment
Marcus Hook Export
Shell
20 MBbl/d Commitment
Beaver County Cracker (2)
Sabine Pass (Trains 1-4)
50 MMcf/d per Train
Lake Charles LNG(3)
150 MMcf/d
Freeport LNG
70 MMcf/d
1. May 2016 and full year 2016 futures basis, respectively, provided by Intercontinental Exchange dated 3/31/2016. Favorable markets shaded in green.
2. Subject to Shell FID expected mid-year 2016.
3. Lake Charles LNG 150 MMcf/d commitment subject to BG FID expected in 2016.
Chicago(1)
$(0.03) /
$(0.03)
CGTLA(1)
$(0.06) /
$(0.06)
TCO(1)
$(0.11) /
$(0.14)
16
Cove Point LNG4.85 Bcf/d
Firm Gas
Takeaway
By YE 2018
 Antero’s natural gas firm transportation (FT) portfolio builds to 4.85 Bcf/d by YE 2018 with 87% serving favorable markets, with an average demand
fee of $0.46/MMBtu and positive weighted average basis differential to NYMEX after assumed Btu uplift for gas
YE 2018 Gas Market Mix
Antero 4.85 Bcf/d FT
44%
Gulf Coast
17%
Midwest
13%
Atlantic
Seaboard
13%
Dom S/TETCO
(PA)
13%
TCO
Positive
weighted
average basis
differential
Antero Commitments
(3)
(2)
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
TAKEAWAY – FIRM TRANSPORTATION AND SALES
PORTFOLIO
17
MMBtu/d
Columbia
7/26/2009 – 9/30/2025
Momentum III
9/1/2012 – 12/31/2023
EQT
8/1/2012 – 6/30/2025
REX/MGT/ANR
7/1/2014 – 12/31/2034
Stonewall/Tennessee
11/1/2015– 9/30/2030
(Stonewall/WB) Mid-Atlantic/NYMEX
Gulf Coast
(TCO) Appalachia or Gulf Coast
Appalachia
Appalachia
(REX/ANR/NGPL/MGT) Midwest
Firm Sales #1
10/1/2011– 10/31/2019
Firm Sales #2
1/1/2013 – 5/31/2022
ANR
3/1/2015– 2/28/2045
Stonewall/WB
11/1/2015 – 9/30/2037
(ANR/Rover) Gulf Coast
Antero Transportation Portfolio
582 BBtu/d
590 BBtu/d
375 BBtu/d
250 BBtu/d
800 BBtu/d
600 BBtu/d
630 BBtu/d
40 BBtu/d
Gross Gas Production (Actuals)
Illustrative Gross Gas Production(1)
1. Assumes production growth guidance of 15% in 2016 and targeted 20% annual production growth in 2017.
2. Based on 2016 production guidance of 1.715 Bcfe/d.
3. Assumes 30% to 50% mitigation on excess capacity and current spreads based on strip pricing as of 12/31/2015.
Lowest cost, local
unfavorable FT not
projected to be used
through 2017
2016E Net Marketing Expenses:
$15 Million
2016E Net Marketing Expenses:
$20 Million
2016E Net Marketing Expenses:
$30 to $35 Million (3)
2016E Net Marketing Expenses:
$30 to $55 Million (3)
2016E Total Net Marketing Expenses:
$95 to $125 Million
($0.15 to $0.20 per Mcfe)(2)
2017E Total Net Marketing
Expenses:
$ Amounts in line with 2016
 While Antero has excess FT in place through 2017, the expected cost of unutilized FT is estimated to be
manageable at <10% of EBITDA
Projected cost after
mitigation due to positive
futures spreads
Marketed Volume (Term / Contracted)
Marketed Volume (Spot / Guidance)
80 BBtu/d
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$MM
18
 Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model which includes development of a large, repeatable drilling inventory
– Locks in higher returns in a low commodity price environment and reduces the amount of time for well payouts, thereby
enhancing liquidity
 Antero has realized $2.1 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2009
– Gains realized in 28 of last 29 quarters, or 97% of the quarters since 2009
● Based on Antero’s hedge position and strip pricing as of 3/31/2016, the unrealized commodity derivative value is $3.1 billion
● Significant additional hedge capacity remains under the credit facility hedging covenant for 2020 – 2022 period
Quarterly Realized Hedge Gains / (Losses)
Realized Hedge Gains
Projected Hedge Gains
NYMEX Natural Gas
Historical Spot Prices
($/MMBtu)
NYMEX Natural Gas
Futures Prices 03/31/16
3.6 Tcfe Hedged at
average price of
$3.71/Mcfe
through 2022
Average Hedge Prices
($/Mcfe)
$3.36
$3.91
$3.57
$3.91
$3.70 $3.66
$3.24
$3.1 Billion in
Projected Hedge
Gains Through 2022Realized $2.1 Billion
in Hedge Gains
Since 2009
HEDGING – INTEGRAL TO BUSINESS MODEL
(1)
1. Represents average hedge price for nine months ending 12/31/2016.
Liquid “non-E&P assets” of $5.5 Bn
significantly exceeds total debt of $3.9 Bn
Liquidity
LIQUIDITY – STRONG BALANCE SHEET AND FLEXIBILITY
Antero Resources (NYSE:AR) Antero Midstream (NYSE:AM)
12/31/2015 Debt Liquid Non-E&P Assets 12/31/2015 Debt Liquid Assets
Debt Type $MM
Credit facility $529
6.00% senior notes due 2020 525
5.375% senior notes due 2021 1,000
5.125% senior notes due 2022 1,100
5.625% senior notes due 2023 750
Total $3,904
Asset Type $MM
Commodity derivatives(1) $3,073
AM equity ownership(2) 2,407
Cash 16
Total $5,496
Asset Type $MM
Cash $16
Credit facility – commitments(3) 4,000
Credit facility – drawn (529)
Credit facility – letters of credit (702)
Total $2,785
Debt Type $MM
Credit facility $620
Total $620
Asset Type $MM
Cash $7
Total $7
Liquidity
Asset Type $MM
Cash $7
Credit facility – capacity 1,500
Credit facility – drawn (620)
Credit facility – letters of credit -
Total $887
Approximately $2.8 billion of liquidity at AR
plus an additional $2.4 billion of AM units
Approximately $900 million of liquidity
at AM
19
Only 41% of AM credit facility capacity drawn
Note: All balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015. Pro forma for AR secondary offering of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016 for net proceeds of $178 million.
1. Mark-to-market as of 3/31/2016.
2. Based on AR ownership of AM units (108.9 million common and subordinated units) and AM’s closing price as of 3/31/2016.
3. AR credit facility commitments of $4.0 billion, borrowing base of $4.5 billion.
Baa3
Ba1 Ba1 Ba1
Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 Ba3
B1 B1 B1
B2 B2 B2
B3
Caa1
Caa2
Baa2
Baa3 Baa3 Baa3
Baa2 Baa2
Ba2
Baa3 Baa3
Ba1 Ba1
Baa3
Ba1 Ba1 Ba1 Ba1
Ba3 Ba3
Ba2
Ba3
-Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
Baa3
NBL XEC EQT PXD APC HES CXO AR CLR MUR NFX RRC SWN EGN QEP SM WPX UNT EPE WLL DNR
20
Moody’s Baa / Ba Ratings Review
Source: Moody’s releases on 02/11/2016 and 02/18/2016.
Note: Issuers are sorted based on rating following review.
 Antero’s Ba2 / BB credit ratings were affirmed by Moody’s and S&P in February 2016
 Moody’s reviewed 20 high yield issuers and announced 16 downgrades ranging from 1 to 5 notches
 S&P reviewed 45 high yield issuers and announced 25 downgrades ranging from 1 to 3 notches
Antero was one of only five Baa and
Ba companies that received an
“affirmed” rating from Moody’s
AR
Rating Affirmed
Baa1
Baa2
Baa3
Ba1
Ba2
Ba3
B1
B2
B3
Caa1
Caa2
Caa3
Gray – Previous Rating
Red – New Rating
Appalachian Company
1
2 2
5
5
3
2
44
33
422
3
3
Reduction in Ratings
LIQUIDITY – ANTERO CREDIT QUALITY AFFIRMED
Notch
Notches
Old Borrowing
Base
$4,500 $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $1,800 $2,000 $1,525 $1,750 $1,175 $900 $827 $625 $375 $375 $500 $450
New Borrowing
Base
$4,500 $4,000 $3,000 $2,750 $1,500 $1,250 $1,150 $1,025 $925 $725 $700 $450 $335 $325 $300 $100
Result -- -- -- ($1,250) ($300) ($750) ($375) ($725) ($250) ($175) ($127) ($175) ($40) ($50) ($200) ($350) Average
% Change -- -- -- (31%) (17%) (38%) (25%) (41%) (21%) (19%) (15%) (28%) (11%) (13%) (40%) (78%) (29%)
Borrowing Base Actions
1. Represents Spring 2016 borrowing base actions for all public companies for which J.P. Morgan is a lender.
$2,750
$1,500
$1,150
$925
$725 $700 $450
$335 $325 $300 $100
$2,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,000
$4,000
$1,800
$1,525 $1,750
$1,175
$900 $827 $625
$375 $375
$500 $450
AR CHK RRC WLL BBEP SM OAS WPX MEMP LGCY HK EVEP BBG XCO SGY CWEI
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
BorrowingBaseAmount($mm)
$1,250
$1,025
Antero was one of only three
public E&P companies (two
Appalachia) that did not
receive a reduction in their
borrowing base from Spring
redetermination process
Red – New Borrowing Base
Appalachian Company
 Antero’s $4.5 Billion borrowing base was reaffirmed by its lender group, representing one of only three public E&P companies
that did not receive a reduction in its borrowing base thus far in the redetermination season (1)
– Driven by significant PDP reserve growth and increase in value of hedge position
21
$1,250
$300
$375
$725
$ Amount of Reduction
$350$50
$175$127$175
$750
$250
$40 $200
LIQUIDITY – BORROWING BASE AFFIRMED
$2.03
$1.88
$1.59
$1.35 $1.14
$1.11
$0.58
$0.73
$0.88
$0.75 $0.85
$0.72
$4.34
$3.22
$3.06
$2.75
$2.21 $2.20
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5
$/Mcfe
Noncontrolling Interest of Midstream MLP EBITDA LOE
Production Taxes GPT
G&A EBITDAX
4-year Avg. All-in F&D
$4.40
$3.08 $3.00
$2.78
$2.07
$1.94
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5
$/Mcf
1. Includes natural gas hedges.
2. Source: Public data from 4Q 2015 earnings releases. Peers include COG, CNX, EQT, RRC and SWN.
3. Includes realized hedge gains and losses. Operating costs include lease operating expenses, production taxes, gathering, processing and firm transport costs and general and administrative costs. 4-year proved
reserve average all-in F&D from 2011-2014. Calculation = (Development costs + exploration costs + leasehold costs) / Total reserves added (2014 ending reserves – 2011 beginning reserves + 4-year reserve
sales – 4-year reserve purchases + 4-year accumulated production). AR price realization includes $0.06 of midstream revenues; EBITDAX excludes AR’s midstream EBITDA not attributable to AR’s ownership.
22
4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations(1)(2) 4Q 2015 Price Realization & EBITDAX Margin vs F&D(2)(3)
($/Mcfe)
 Antero continues to be a leader in its Appalachian peer group in price realizations and EBITDAX unit margins
4Q 2015 NYMEX
= $2.27/Mcf
REALIZATIONS – A LEADER IN REALIZATIONS & MARGINS
4Q 2015 and 1Q 2016 Natural Gas Realizations ($/Mcf)
Average
NYMEX
Price
($/Mcf)
Average
Differential
($/Mcf)
Average
BTU Upgrade
($/Mcf)
Relative to
NYMEX
($/Mcf)
Gas
Hedge
Effect
($/Mcf)
Average
Realized
Gas Price
($/Mcf)
Average
Realized Gas
Premium to
NYMEX
($/Mcf)
Liquids
Upgrade
($/Mcfe)
Realized
Equivalent
Price
($/Mcfe)
Gas
Equivalent
Premium to
NYMEX
($/Mcfe)
4Q 2015 $2.27 $(0.31) $0.17 $(0.14) $2.27 $4.40 $2.13 ($0.12) $4.28 $2.01
1Q 2016 $2.09 $(0.16) $0.15 $(0.01) $2.46 $4.54 $2.45 ($0.40) $4.14 $2.05
DOM S
23%
DOM S, 3%
TETCO M2
7%
TETCO M2
1%
TCO
40%
TCO
33% TCO, 21%
NYMEX
10%
NYMEX
10%
NYMEX
10%
Gulf Coast
2%
Gulf Coast
28%
Gulf Coast
49%
Chicago
18%
Chicago
28%
Chicago
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
($/Mcf) 2015A 2016E
NYMEX Strip Price(1) $2.66 $2.47
Basis Differential to NYMEX(1) $(0.53) $(0.12)
BTU Upgrade(5) $0.24 $0.24
Estimated Realized Hedge Gains $1.44 $1.50
Realized Gas Price with Hedges $3.81 $4.10
Premium to NYMEX +$1.15 +$1.63
Liquids Impact +$0.29 +$0.10
Premium to NYMEX w/ Liquids +$1.44 +$1.73
Realized Gas-Equivalent Price $4.10 $4.16
REALIZATIONS – FAVORABLE PRICE INDICES
Note: Hedge volumes as of 12/31/2015.
1. Based on 12/31/2015 strip pricing and actuals for 2015.
2. Differential represents contractual deduct to NYMEX-based firm sales contract.
3. Represents 120,000 MMBtu/d of TCO index hedges and 390,000 MMBtu/d of
TCO basis hedges that are matched with NYMEX hedges for presentation
purposes.
4. Represents 60,000 MMBtu/d of TCO index hedges and 120,000 MMBtu/d of
TCO basis hedges that are matched with NYMEX hedges for presentation
purposes.
5. Based on BTU content of residue sales gas.
2015
Basis(1)
2016
Basis(1)
2017
Basis(1)
2015
Hedges
2016
Hedges
2017
Hedges
Marketed%ofTargetResidueGasProduction
+$0.02/MMBtu
$(0.12)/MMBtu(2)
$(1.30)/MMBtu
$(0.28)/MMBtu
$0.01/MMBtu
$(0.43)/MMBtu(2)
$(0.18)/MMBtu
$(0.04)/MMBtu
$(0.43)/MMBtu(2)
$(0.78)/MMBtu
$(0.25)/MMBtu
$(0.05)/MMBtu
$(0.06)/MMBtu
1,370,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.40/MMBtu
40,000 MMBtu/d
@ $4.00/MMBtu
230,000 MMBtu/d
@ $5.74/MMBtu
510,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.87/MMBtu(3)
170,000 MMBtu/d
@ $4.09/MMBtu
272,500 MMBtu/d
@ $5.35/MMBtu
180,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.54/MMBtu(4)
99% exposure to favorable price indices69% exposure to favorable price indices 97% exposure to favorable price indices
 Antero’s exposure to favorable gas price indices like Chicago, Gulf Coast, NYMEX and TCO is expected to increase to >99% in 2016
 Improved 2016 realizations driven by Stonewall gathering pipeline which was placed in-service December 1, 2015 and will eliminate
virtually all swing sales at Dominion South and Tetco in 2016
$(1.00)/MMBtu
$(0.93)/MMBtu
Wtd. Avg.
Basis ($0.53)
Wtd. Avg.
Basis $(0.12)
1,160,000 MMBtu/d
@ $4.34/MMBtu
Wtd. Avg.
Basis $(0.15)
1,612,500 MMBtu/d
@ $3.92/MMBtu
420,000 MMBtu/d
@ $4.27/MMBtu
2015A 2016E 2017E
23
380,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.88/MMBtu
990,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.49/MMBtu
70,000 MMBtu/d
@ $4.57/MMBtu
1,860,000 MMBtu/d
@ $3.63/MMBtu
$(0.10)/MMBtu
Current markets
indicate positive
differential in 2016
$15.17
$21.89
$41.00
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
AR NGL Pricing Mont Belvieu
Realized NGL C3+ Price WTI
$0.59
$0.42
$0.47 $0.47
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2016 2017
Hedged Volume Average Hedge Price Strip (4/11/2016)
REALIZATIONS – NGL UPSIDE REFLECTS EXPORTS AND
PROPANE HEDGES
24
1. Based on 2016 NGL and WTI strip prices as of 12/31/2015.
2. As of 4/11/2016.
Ethane & Propane Pricing Improvement
NGL Marketing Propane Hedges
 Realized NGL (C3+) price was 50% of WTI in 2014 and
35% of WTI for 2015
− Including propane hedges, 2015 realizations were 42%
of WTI
 Antero has guided to realized C3+ NGL prices of 35% to
40% of WTI for 2016 (before hedging)
− 1Q 2016 realizations were 42%, before hedges
− Antero has hedged 30,000 Bbl/d of propane in 2016 at
$0.59 per gallon
 By 2017, Antero will market a significant portion of its NGL
volumes out of Marcus Hook to export markets once
Mariner East 2 is in service
– 61,500 Bbl/d firm commitment with expansion rights
(Bbl/d)
$48 MM $(13) MM
($/Gal)
Mark-to-Market Value(2)
37%
2016 C3+ NGL pricing guidance
of 37% of WTI based on
12/31/15 strip pricing(1)
2016E C3+ Guidance
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
$0.45
$0.50
$/Gal
Ethane Propane
$0.29
$0.47
$0.14
$0.18
NORTHEAST NGLS ARE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGED
1. As an anchor shipper on Mariner East 2, Antero has the right to expand its NGL commitment with notice to operator.
2. 2015 NGL production assumes ethane rejection.
Mariner East 2
61,500 Bbl/d AR
Commitment(1)
4Q 2016 In-Service
 Not so much a supply problem but more of a logistics problem for NGLs in the northeast today
− The majority of northeast NGL production is being transported by expensive rail and trucking
− NGLs that are transported “to the water” are also faced with high shipping rates
Export
15%
Gulf
Coast
13%
Mid-
Atlantic
6%
Sarnia
3%
Northeast
43%
Midwest
10%
Edmonton
10%
2015 NGL Marketing by Region
25
NORTHEAST NGL GROWTH IS SUPPORTED BY
INCREASING TAKEAWAY OPTIONS
1. Chart 10 per BAML research dated 6/5/2015. Pipeline volumes are capacity estimates.
Industry NGL Pipelines – Actual (2015) and Projected(1)
26
Shell
Beaver County Cracker
(Pending FID 1H 2016)
Mariner East 2
62 MBbl/d Commitment
Marcus Hook Export
Gulf Coast
Critical to
NGL Pricing
Appalachia
 NGL transportation rates are expected to decline $0.12 to $0.15 per gallon by 2017 as pipeline options to domestic markets and
export terminals go in-service (Mariner East 1 and 2, for example)
(MMBbl/d)
POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR LONG-TERM NGL MARKETS
Steady Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2035(1)
1. Source: PIRA NGL Study, September 2015.
2. Source: IHS, Waterborne, SK Gas Analysis; Wood Mackenzie; Wood Mackenzie; PDH C3 capacity based on 25 MBbl/d = 650 Mt/y.
Multiple Factors Driving Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2020(2)
MMBbl/d
0.0
0.33
0.67
 Forecast global LPG demand growth of 800 MBbl/d to 1 MMBbl/d by 2020 to be driven by petrochem projects in Asia and Middle East as well as
residential/commercial, alkylate and power generation demand
− Naphtha cracker conversion to LPG another potential demand driver that has not yet been factored into analyst estimates ≈1 MMBbl/d
China Korea
Haiwei (2016)
- 21 MBbl/d C3
SK Advanced (2016)
- 27 MBbl/d C3
Ningbo Fuji (2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Fujian Meide (2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Tianjin Bohua 2 (2018)
- 29 MBbl/d C3 United States
Fujian Meide 2 (2018)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Enterprise (3Q 2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Oriental Tangshan (2019)
- 25 MBbl/d C3
Formosa (2017)
- 25 MBbl/d C3
Firm and Likely PDH Underway
(By 2020)
Total - 243 MBbl/d C3
Million Tons, Global PDH Capacity
1990 2000 2010 2020
20
10
0
27
14.7
13.0
11.4
9.8
8.2
6.5
4.9
3.3
1.7
U.S. Driven Global LPG Supply Through 2035(1)
MMBbl/d MMBbl/d
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.3
-0.3
Continued Operational
Improvement
Production and
Cash Flow Growth
Most active developer in the lowest cost basin with growing production base and
firm transport to favorable markets; over 33 Tcfe of unhedged 3P reserves increase
~$10 billion in pre-tax PV-10 value with a 50% recovery in commodity prices
KEY CATALYSTS FOR ANTERO
Guiding to production growth of 15% in 2016 and targeting 20% in 2017 with
~100% hedged at $3.91/MMBtu for remaining nine months of 2016 and at
$3.57/MMBtu for 2017, respectively
Large, low unit cost core Marcellus and Utica natural gas drilling inventory
with associated liquids generates attractive returns supported by long-term
natural gas hedges, takeaway portfolio and downstream LNG and NGL sales
agreements
Current well costs estimated to be 16% to 19% lower than 2015 costs;
numerous completion enhancements recently implemented to potentially
increase EURs
Antero owns 62% of Antero Midstream Partners and thereby participates
directly in its growth and value creation; acquisition of integrated water
business from Antero expected to result in distributable cash flow per unit
accretion in 2016
Midstream MLP
Growth
Sustainability of
Antero’s Integrated
Business Model
1
2
3
5
4
Exposure to
Commodity Upside
Antero is well positioned to be a leading consolidator in Appalachia
6
Consolidation
28
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
AR
1Q '16
EQT CHK COG AR SWN RRC CNX
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6
Core Net Acres - Dry Core Net Acres - Liquids Rich
LEADER IN APPALACHIAN BASIN
Top Producers in Appalachia (Net MMcfe/d) – 4Q 2015(1)(2)
Top 12 U.S. Natural Gas Producers (Net MMcf/d) – 4Q 2015(1)
Appalachian Producers by Proved Reserves (Bcfe) – YE 2015(1)(2) Appalachian Producers by Core Net Acres (000’s) – December 2015(4)
1. Based on company filings and presentations.
2. Appalachian only production and reserves where available. Excludes companies that do not break out Appalachian production including CVX, HES and XOM.
3. Includes proved reserves categorized in “Northern Division” consisting of Utica Shale, Marcellus Shale and Powder River Basin.
4. Based on Antero geologic interpretation supported by state well data, company presentations and public land data. Peer group includes CNX, COG, EQT, RRC, SWN, CHK.
(3)
29
4th Largest
Appalachian
Producer in 4Q
 Antero has the largest proved reserve base, largest core liquids-rich acreage position and is one of the largest producers in the Appalachian Basin
Appalachian Peers
11th Largest
U.S. Gas
Producer in 4Q
Largest Proved
Reserve Base In
Appalachia Largest Liquids-
Rich Core Position
in Appalachia
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
AR EQT RRC COG CNX CHK SWN
AR
1Q ’16
AR
1st
ASSET OVERVIEW
30
$1.55
$1.36
$1.14
$0.000
$0.500
$1.000
$1.500
$2.000
2014 2015 Current Spot
$MM/1,000’Lateral
Well Cost ($MM/1,000' of Lateral)
12%
Decrease
vs. 2014
16%
Decrease
vs. 2015
626 971
553
755
63% 47%
24%
28%35%
24%
10% 13%
0
400
800
1,200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Highly-Rich
Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
Total 3P Locations ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
184
98
108
161
263
14%
48%
64%
56%
64%
9%
23% 24% 20% 24%
0
100
200
300
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Condensate Highly-Rich
Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich
Gas
Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
MARCELLUS WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2)
WELL COST REDUCTIONS SUPPORT
SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL
Marcellus Well Cost Improvement(3)
1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and
applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities.
2. ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip-With Hedges reflects 3/31/2016 well cost ROR methodology, with the 3/31/2016 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2021 projected production volumes resulting in blend of strip
and hedge prices.
3. Current spot well costs based on $8.5 million for a 9,000’ lateral Marcellus well and $10.25 million for a 9,000’ lateral Utica well.
31
UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2)
 74% of Marcellus locations are processable (1100-plus Btu)  68% of Utica locations are processable (1100-plus Btu)
2016
Drilling
Plan
 Antero has reduced average well costs for a 9,000’ lateral by 12% in the Marcellus and 12% in the Utica as compared to 2014 well costs
 At 3/31/2016 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations that exceed a 20% rate of return (excluding hedges)
– Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 50% to 80%
Utica Well Cost Improvement(3)
$1.34
$1.18
$0.95
$0.000
$0.500
$1.000
$1.500
$2.000
2014 2015 Current Spot
$MM/1,000’Lateral
Well Cost ($MM/1,000' of Lateral)
12%
Decrease
vs. 2014
19%
Decrease
vs. 2015
WORLD CLASS MARCELLUS SHALE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
100% operated
Operating 7 drilling rigs including
1 intermediate rig
425,000 net acres in
southwestern Marcellus core
(75% includes processable rich
gas assuming an 1100 Btu cutoff)
– 52% HBP with additional 26%
not expiring for 5+ years
452 horizontal wells completed
and online
– Laterals average 7,600’
– 100% drilling success rate
6 plants in-service at Sherwood
Processing Complex capable of
processing in excess of 1.2 Bcf/d
of rich gas
− Over 900 MMcf/d of Antero gas
being processed currently
Net production of 1,232 MMcfe/d
in 1Q 2016, including 46,900
Bbl/d of liquids
2,905 future drilling locations in
the Marcellus (2,150 or 74% are
processable rich gas)
29.6 Tcfe of net 3P (21% liquids),
includes 11.4 Tcfe of proved
reserves (assuming ethane
rejection except for 1.1 Tcfe)
Highly-Rich Gas
139,000 Net Acres
971 Gross Locations
Rich Gas
96,000 Net Acres
553 Gross Locations
Dry Gas
108,000 Net Acres
755 Gross Locations
Highly-Rich/Condensate
82,000 Net Acres
626 Gross Locations
HEFLIN UNIT
30-Day Rate
2H: 21.4 MMcfe/d
(21% liquids)
CONSTABLE UNIT
30-Day Rate
1H: 14.3 MMcfe/d
(25% liquids)
Sherwood
Processing
Complex
Source: Company presentations and press releases. Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held. Note: Rates in ethane rejection.
NERO UNIT
30-Day Rate
1H: 18.2 MMcfe/d
(27% liquids)
BEE LEWIS PAD
30-Day Rate
4-well combined
30-Day Rate of
67 MMcfe/d
(26% liquids)
RJ SMITH PAD
30-Day Rate
4-well combined
30-Day Rate of
56 MMcfe/d
(21% liquids)
32
HENDERSHOT UNIT
30-Day Rate
1H: 16.3 MMcfe/d
2H: 18.1 MMcfe/d
(29% liquids)
HORNET UNIT
30-Day Rate
1H: 21.5 MMcfe/d
2H: 17.2 MMcfe/d
(26% liquids)
CARR UNIT
30-Day Rate
2H: 20.6 MMcfe/d
(20% liquids)
WAGNER PAD
30-Day Rate
4-well combined
30-Day Rate of
59 MMcfe/d
(14% liquids)
Antero’s Marcellus well performance has continued to improve over time with a tight statistical
range of results across its entire acreage position
PROLIFIC PREDICTABLE RESULTS ACROSS ENTIRE
MARCELLUS POSITION
33
Marcellus PDP Locations
(As of 12/31/2015)
(1)
1. Source: IHS; 3rd party producing wells include Consol, EQT, Exxon/XTO, Noble, Ascent, PDC, Magnum Hunter, Statoil, Chesapeake/SWN.
>1275 BTU
2.2 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral
10 SSL Wells
1200-1275 BTU
2.0 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral
116 SSL Wells
1100-1200 BTU
1.8 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral
104 SSL Wells
Average Antero Marcellus Well
2014
Actual
2015
Actual Target
30-Day Rate (MMcfe/d): 13.1 15.0 16.1
Gross EUR (Bcfe): 15.3 16.8 19.2
Gross Well Cost ($MM): $11.8 $11.1 $8.5
Lateral Length (Feet): 8,052 8,508 9,000
Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.89 $0.78 $0.52
Btu: 1195 1228 1250
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 More
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
 Antero’s Marcellus average 30-day rates have increased by 55% over the past two years as the Company increased per well lateral lengths by
13% and shortened stage lengths by 33% compared to year-end 2013
INCREASING RECOVERIES AND LOW VARIANCE
IN MARCELLUS
1. Processed rates converting C3+ NGLs and condensate at 6:1. Ethane rejected and sold in gas stream.
Antero 30-Day Rates – 446 Marcellus Wells(1)
34
Antero SSL Reserves in Bcfe per 1,000’ of Lateral – 252 Marcellus Short Stage Length (SSL) Wells
2014 – 13.0 MMcfe/d
2013 – 9.4 MMcfe/d
2009–2012 – 8.0 MMcfe/d
 SSL results have been highly consistent and predictable, with a standard
deviation of only +/-0.3 around the 1.7 Bcf/1,000’ average (equates to 2.0
Bcfe/1,000’)
 These wells provide the basis for AR’s undeveloped 3P reserve evaluations
P10: 2.42 Bcfe/1,000’
P90: 1.39 Bcfe/1,000’
P10/P90: 1.7x
StdDev: 0.3xP90 P10
2015 – 14.3 MMcfe/d
 Antero 3P reserves are evaluated quarterly by AR engineers and
audited annually by DeGolyer and MacNaughton
– Proved reserves volume delta at YE2015: 0.9%
– Probable/Possible volume delta at YE2015: 1.9%
2016 YTD
18.2 MMcfe/d
7,621
8,052
8,910 9,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
2013 2014 2015 2016 Forecast
34
29
24
21
15
20
25
30
35
2013 2014 2015 1Q 2016
913
1,237
1,675
2,116
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2013 2014 2015 1Q 2016
$1,530
$1,340
$1,180
$950
$300
$700
$1,100
$1,500
$1,900
2013 2014 2015 2016 Forecast
MARCELLUS OPERATIONAL ADVANCES
35
Reduced Drilling Days Per Well
1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period.
Increased Lateral Length per Well (1)
Increased Lateral Feet Drilled per Day
LateralFeet/Day
DrillingDays/Well
Reduced Well Cost/Lateral Length ($/Feet)
WellCost/LateralLength($/Feet)
AverageLateralLengthperWell(Feet)
1,194
1,128 1,117
990
1,031
1,016
958 956
1,084
1,126
1,274
1,304
1,337
1,418
1,480
1,500
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 2016
Plan
ProppantPlaced(lbs/ft)MARCELLUS PROPPANT PLACEMENT
36
Increased Proppant Load by 50% While Increasing Proppant Placement to 98%
Pilot testing demonstrated
improved recoveries while
maintaining well density
Note: Antero acreage position reflects townships in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held. Antero 30-day rates in ethane rejection.
1. 30-day rate reflects restricted choke regime.
 100% operated
 Operating 1 drilling rig
 148,000 net acres in the core rich gas/
condensate window (72% includes processable
rich gas assuming an 1100 Btu cutoff)
– 29% HBP with additional 60% not expiring
for 5+ years
 121 operated horizontal wells completed and
online in Antero core areas
− 100% drilling success rate
 4 plants in-service at Seneca Processing
Complex capable of processing 800 MMcf/d of
rich gas
− Over 500 MMcf/d being processed currently,
including third party production
 Net production of 526 MMcfe/d in 1Q 2016
including 21,600 Bbl/d of liquids
 Fifth third-party compressor station went in-
service September 2015 with a capacity of 120
MMcf/d
 First AM compressor station went in-service
November 2015
 814 future gross drilling locations (551 or 68%
are processable gas)
 7.5 Tcfe of net 3P (15% liquids), includes
1.8 Tcfe of proved reserves (assuming ethane
rejection)
WORLD CLASS OHIO UTICA SHALE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
37
Cadiz
Processing
Plant
NORMAN UNIT
30-Day Rate
2 wells average
16.8 MMcfe/d
(15% liquids)
RUBEL UNIT
30-Day Rate
3 wells average
17.2 MMcfe/d
(20% liquids)
Utica
Core
Area
GARY UNIT
30-Day Rate
3 wells average
24.2 MMcfe/d
(21% liquids)
Highly-Rich/Cond
25,000 Net Acres
98 Gross Locations
Highly-Rich Gas
16,000 Net Acres
108 Gross Locations
Rich Gas
30,000 Net Acres
161 Gross Locations
Dry Gas
41,000 Net Acres
263 Gross Locations
NEUHART UNIT 3H
30-Day Rate
16.2 MMcfe/d
(57% liquids)
Condensate
36,000 Net Acres
184 Gross Locations
DOLLISON UNIT 1H
30-Day Rate
19.8 MMcfe/d
(40% liquids)
MYRON UNIT 1H
30-Day Rate
26.8 MMcfe/d
(52% liquids)
Seneca
Processing
Complex
LAW UNIT
30-Day Rate
2 wells average
16.1 MMcfe/d
(50% liquids)
SCHAFER UNIT
30-Day Rate(1)
2 wells average
14.2 MMcfe/d
(49% liquids)
URBAN PAD
30-Day Rate
4 wells average
18.8 MMcfe/d
(15% liquids)
GRAVES UNIT
500’ Density Pilot
30-Day Rate
4 wells average
15.5 MMcfe/d
(24% liquids)
FRANKLIN UNIT
30-Day Rate
3 wells average
17.6 MMcfe/d
(16% liquids)
FRAKES UNIT
30-Day Rate
2 wells average
18.6 MMcfe/d
(42% liquids)
8,543 8,575
9,000
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
2014 2015 2016 Forecast
29
31
24
10
20
30
40
2014 2015 1Q 2016
1,216
1,406
1,606
0
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
2014 2015 1Q 2016
$1,550
$1,360
$1,140
$300
$600
$900
$1,200
$1,500
$1,800
2014 2015 2016 Forecast
Increased Lateral Length per Well (1)
UTICA OPERATIONAL ADVANCES
38
Reduced Drilling Days Per Well
1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period.
Increased Lateral Feet Drilled per Day
LateralFeet/Day
DrillingDays
Reduced Well Cost / Lateral Length ($/Feet)
AverageLateralLengthperWell(Feet)
WellCost/LateralLength($/Feet)
ANTERO’S FIRST UTICA DRY GAS WELL
39
 Antero recently drilled and completed its first dry gas Utica well in
Tyler County, WV (Rymer 4HD)
− 11,409 Total Vertical Depth (TVD)
− 6,620’ lateral length
− 100% working interest
− 20 MMcf/d restricted flow rate for first 90 days
 Dry gas fairway extends from the Antero Utica acreage in eastern
Ohio to the Antero Marcellus play acreage in northern West
Virginia
 190,000 net acres in West Virginia and Pennsylvania with net
resource of 12.5 to 16 Tcf as of 9/30/2015 (not included in 37.1
Tcfe of net 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015)
− 1,889 locations underlying current Marcellus Shale leasehold in
West Virginia and Pennsylvania
 41,000 net acres in Ohio with net 3P reserves of 2.3 Tcf as of
12/31/2015
− 263 locations in Ohio
 In total, Antero has 231,000 net acres and 2,152 potential
locations in the Point Pleasant high pressure, high porosity dry gas
fairway in OH, WV and PA
− 10,000’ to 14,500’ TVD
− Density log porosity values average > 8.5%
− 120’ to 130’ total thickness
− 25 MMcf/d to 73 MMcf/d industry 24-hr IP flow rates
− 1000 to 1040 BTU expected
NOTE: Wellbore diagram for illustrative purposes only.
Targeted Pay Zone
IP / 1,000’ Lateral (MMcf/d)
5.0 – 10.0
10.0 – 15.0
15.0 – 25.0
Gulfport
Irons #1-4H
5,714’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 5.3 MMcf/d
Range
Claysville SC #11H
5,420’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 10.9 MMcf/d
CNX
Gaut 4IH
5,840’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 10.4 MMcf/d
EQT
Scotts Run
3,221’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 22.6 MMcf/d
Gastar
Blake U-7H
6,617’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 5.6 MMcf/d
Gastar
Sims U-5H
4,447’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 6.6 MMcf/d
Stone Energy
Pribble 6HU
3,605’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 8.3 MMcf/d
Magnum Hunter
Stalder #3UH
5,050’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 6.4 MMcf/d
Magnum Hunter
Stewart Winland 1300U
5,280’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 8.8 MMcf/d
Utica Dry Gas Fairway
Antero
Rymer 4HD
6,620’ Lateral
IP 20.0 MMcf/d
Keys to Execution
Local Presence
 Antero has more than 3,500 employees and contract personnel working full-time
for Antero in West Virginia. 79% of these personnel are West Virginia residents.
 District office in Marietta, OH
 District office in Bridgeport, WV
 227 (48%) of Antero’s 473 employees are located in West Virginia and Ohio
Safety & Environmental
 Five company safety representatives and 57 safety consultants cover all
material field operations 24/7 including drilling, completion, construction and
pipelining
 37 person environmental staff plus outside consultants monitor all operations
and perform baseline water well testing
Central Fresh Water
System & Water
Recycling
 Numerous sources of water – built central water system to source fresh water
for completions
 Antero recycled over 74% of its flowback and produced water through 2014
 Building state of the art wastewater treatment facility in WV (60,000 Bbl/d)
Natural Gas
Vehicles (NGV)
 Antero supported the first natural gas fueling station in West Virginia
 Antero has 30 NGV trucks and plans to continue to convert its truck fleet to NGV
Pad Impact Mitigation
 Closed loop mud system – no mud pits
 Protective liners or mats on all well pads in addition to berms
Natural Gas Powered
Drilling Rigs & Frac
Equipment
 6 of Antero’s contracted drilling rigs are currently running on natural gas
 First natural gas powered clean fleet frac crew began operations summer 2014
Green Completion Units
 All Antero well completions use green completion units for completion flowback,
essentially eliminating methane emissions (full compliance with EPA 2015
requirements)
LEED Gold Headquarters
Building
 Corporate headquarters in Denver, Colorado LEED Gold Certified
HEALTH, SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT & COMMUNITY
Antero Core Values: Protect Our People, Communities And The Environment
Strong West Virginia
Presence
 79% of all Antero Marcellus
employees and contract
workers are West Virginia
residents
 Antero named Business of
the Year for 2013 in
Harrison County, West
Virginia “For outstanding
corporate citizenship and
community involvement”
 Antero representatives
recently participated in a
ribbon cutting with the
Governor of West Virginia
for the grand opening of
the first natural gas fueling
station in the state; Antero
supported the station with
volume commitments for
its NGV truck fleet
40
CLEAN FLEET & CNG TECHNOLOGY LEADER
● Antero has contracted for two clean completion
fleets to enhance the economics of its completion
operations and reduce the environmental impact
● Replaces diesel engines (for pressure pumping)
with electric motors powered by natural gas-fired
electric generators
● A clean fleet allows Antero to fuel part of its
completion operations from field gas instead of
more expensive diesel fuel. Benefits of using a
clean fleet include:
− Reduce fuel costs by up to 80%
representing cost savings of up to
$40,000/day
− Reduces NOx and CO emissions by 99%
− Eliminates 25 diesel truckloads from the
roads for an average well completion
− Reduces silica dust to levels 90% below
OSHA permissible exposure limits resulting
in a safer and cleaner work environment
− Significantly reduces noise pollution from a
well site
− Is the most environmentally responsible
completion solution in the oil and gas
industry
• Additionally, Antero utilizes compressed natural
gas (CNG) to fuel its truck fleet in Appalachia
− Antero supported the first natural gas fueling
station in West Virginia
− Antero has 30 NGV trucks and plans to
continue to convert its truck fleet to NGV
41
42
Antero Midstream (NYSE: AM)
Asset Overview
Regional Gas Pipelines
Miles Capacity In-Service
Stonewall Gathering
Pipeline(2)
50 1.4 Bcf/d Yes
1. Acquired by AM from AR for a $1.05 billion upfront payment and a $125 million earn out in each of 2019 and 2020.
2. AM holds option to purchase 15% of Stonewall pipeline at cost plus cost of carry.
End
Users
End
Users
Gas Processing
Y-Grade Pipeline
Long-Haul Interstate
Pipeline
Inter
Connect
NGL Product
Pipelines
Fractionation
Compression
Low Pressure Gathering
Well Pad
Terminals
and
Storage
(Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E
Marcellus 106 114
Utica 55 56
Total 161 170
AM has option to participate
in processing, fractionation,
terminaling and storage
projects offered to AR
(Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E
Marcellus 76 98
Utica 36 36
Total 112 134
(MMcf/d) YE 2015 YE 2016E
Marcellus 700 940
Utica 120 120
Total 820 1,060
AM Owned Assets
Condensate Gathering
Stabilization
(Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E
Utica 19 19
End
Users
AM Option Assets
(Ethane, Propane,
Butane, etc.)
AM’S FULL VALUE CHAIN BUSINESS MODEL
43
1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance.
2. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital.
44
Utica
Shale
Marcellus
Shale
Projected Gathering and Compression Infrastructure(1)
Marcellus
Shale
Utica
Shale Total
YE 2015 Cumulative Gathering/
Compression Capex ($MM) $981 $462 $1,443
Gathering Pipelines
(Miles) 182 91 273
Compression Capacity
(MMcf/d) 700 120 820
Condensate Gathering Pipelines
(Miles) - 19 19
2016E Gathering/Compression
Capex Budget ($MM)(2) $235 $20 $255
Gathering Pipelines
(Miles) 30 1 31
Compression Capacity
(MMcf/d) 240 - 240
Condensate Gathering Pipelines
(Miles) - - -
Gathering and Compression Assets
ANTERO MIDSTREAM GATHERING AND COMPRESSION
ASSET OVERVIEW
• Gathering and compression assets in core of rapidly
growing Marcellus and Utica Shale plays
– Acreage dedication of ~442,000 net leasehold
acres for gathering and compression services
– Additional stacked pay potential with dedication on
~148,000 acres of Utica deep rights underlying the
Marcellus in WV and PA
– 100% fixed fee long term contracts
• AR owns 62% of AM units (NYSE: AM)
ANTERO MIDSTREAM WATER BUSINESS OVERVIEW
45
Note: Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are owned.
1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance.
2. All Antero water withdrawal sites are fully permitted under long-term state regulatory permits both in WV and OH.
3. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital.
4. Marcellus assumes fee of $3.685 per barrel subject to annual inflation and 250,000 barrels of water per well that utilize the fresh water delivery system based on 9,000 foot lateral. Operating margin
excludes G&A. Utica assumes fee of $3.635 per barrel subject to annual inflation and 275,000 barrels of water per well that utilize the fresh water delivery system based on 9,000 foot lateral. Operating
margin excludes G&A.
 AM acquired AR’s integrated water business for $1.05 billion plus earn out payments of $125 million at year-end in each of 2019 and 2020
− The acquired business includes Antero’s Marcellus and Utica freshwater delivery business, the fully-contracted future advanced wastewater
treatment complex and all fluid handling and disposal services for Antero
Antero advanced wastewater treatment facility to be
constructed – connects to Antero freshwater delivery system
Projected Water Business Infrastructure(1)
Marcellus
Shale
Utica
Shale Total
YE 2015 Cumulative Fresh Water
Delivery Capex ($MM) $469 $62 $531
Water Pipelines
(Miles) 184 75 259
Fresh Water Storage
Impoundments 22 13 35
2016E Fresh Water Delivery Capex
Budget ($MM)(3) $40 $10 $50
Water Pipelines
(Miles) 20 9 29
Fresh Water Storage
Impoundments 1 - 1
Cash Operating
Margin per Well(4) $700k - $750k
$775k -
$825k
2016E Advanced Waste Water
Treatment Budget ($MM) $130
2016E Total Water Business
Budget ($MM) $180
Water Business Assets
• Fresh water delivery assets provide fresh water to support
Marcellus and Utica well completions
– Year-round water supply sources: Clearwater Facility, Ohio
River, local rivers & reservoirs(2)
– 100% fixed fee long term contracts
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Antero Clearwater Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Bbl/d)
Produced/Flowback Volumes (Bbl/d)
Illustrative Produced & Flowback Water VolumesAdvanced Wastewater Treatment
Antero Produced Water Services and Freshwater Delivery Business
Antero Advanced
Wastewater Treatment
3rd Party Recycling
and Well Disposal
(Bbl/d)
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Complex
Estimated capital expenditures ($ million)(1) ~$275
Standalone EBITDA at 100% utilization(2) ~$55 – $65
Implied investment to standalone EBITDA build-out multiple ~4x – 5x
Estimated per well savings to Antero Resources ~$150,000
Estimated in-service date Late 2017
Operating capacity (Bbl/d) 60,000
Operating agreement
•Antero has contracted with Veolia to integrate an advanced wastewater treatment complex into its water business
• Veolia will build and operate, and Antero will own largest
advanced wastewater treatment complex in Appalachia
− Will treat and recycle AR produced and flowback water
− Creates additional year-round water source for completions
− Will have capacity for third party business over first two years
1. Includes capital to construct pipeline to connect facility to freshwater delivery system. Includes $10 million that AR agreed to fund in the drop down transaction.
2. Standalone EBITDA projection assumes inter-company fixed fee for recycling of $4.00 per barrel and 60,000 barrels per day of capacity. Does not include potential sales of marketable byproducts.
20 Years, Extendable
46Integrated Water Business
Antero Advanced
Wastewater Treatment
Freshwater delivery system
Flowback and
produced
Water
Well Pad
Well Pad
Completion
Operations
Producing
Freshwater
Salt
Calcium Chloride
Marketable byproduct
Marketable byproduct used in oil
and gas operations
Freshwater delivery system
ANTERO MIDSTREAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT ASSET OVERVIEW
10 38 80 126
266
531
908
1,134
1,1971,216 1,195 1,222
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800 Utica Marcellus
108
216
281 331
386
531
738
935 965
1,038
1,124
1,303
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600 Utica Marcellus
26 31 40 36 41
116
222
358
454 435
478
606
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800 Utica Marcellus
$1
$5 $7 $8
$11
$19
$28
$36
$41
$55
$83
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
Low Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d)
Compression (MMcf/d)
High Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d)
EBITDA ($MM)
47
$313
Note: Y-O-Y growth based on 1Q’15 to 1Q’16.
1. Represents midpoint of 2016 guidance.
HIGH GROWTH MIDSTREAM THROUGHPUT
0.0x
0.5x
1.0x
1.5x
2.0x
2.5x
3.0x
3.5x
4.0x
4.5x
Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7
TotalDebt/LTMEBITDA
• $1.5 billion revolver in place to fund future growth capital
(5x Debt/EBITDA Cap)
• Liquidity of $887 million at 12/31/2015
• Sponsor (NYSE: AR) has Ba2/BB corporate ratings
AM Liquidity (12/31/2015)
AM Peer Leverage Comparison(1)
($ in millions)
Revolver Capacity $1,500
Less: Borrowings 620
Plus: Cash 7
Liquidity $887
1. As of 12/31/2015. Peers include TEP, EQM, WES, RMP, SHLX, DM, and CNNX.
2. AM includes full year EBITDA contribution from water business.
Financial Flexibility
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY
48
(2)
49
APPENDIX
49
($ in millions) 12/31/2015
Pro Forma for AM
Unit Sale(4)
Cash $23 $23
Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility 707 529
Midstream Bank Credit Facility 620 620
6.00% Senior Notes Due 2020 525 525
5.375% Senior Notes Due 2021 1,000 1,000
5.125% Senior Notes Due 2022 1,100 1,100
5.625% Senior Notes Due 2023 750 750
Net Unamortized Premium 7 7
Total Debt $4,709 $4,531
Net Debt $4,686 $4,508
Financial & Operating Statistics
LTM EBITDAX(1)
$1,221 $1,221
LTM Interest Expense(2) $237 $234
Proved Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 13,215 13,215
Proved Developed Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 5,838 5,838
Credit Statistics
Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x 3.7x
Net Debt / Net Book Capitalization 39% 38%
Net Debt / Proved Developed Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.80 $0.77
Net Debt / Proved Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.35 $0.34
Liquidity
Credit Facility Commitments(3) $5,500 $5,500
Less: Borrowings (1,327) (1,149)
Less: Letters of Credit (702) (702)
Plus: Cash 23 23
Liquidity (Credit Facility + Cash) $3,494 $3,672
ANTERO CAPITALIZATION – CONSOLIDATED
1. LTM and 12/31/2015 EBITDAX reconciliation provided below.
2. LTM interest expense adjusted for all capital market transactions since 1/1/2015.
3. AR lender commitments under the facility increased to $4.0 billion from $3.0 billion on 2/17/2015; borrowing base capacity increased to $4.5 billion from $4.0 billion on 10/26/2015. AM credit facility
increased to $1.5 billion concurrent with water drop down on 9/23/2015.
4. Pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units for net proceeds of $178 million on 3/24/2016.
50
ANTERO RESOURCES – 2016 GUIDANCE
Key Variable 2016 Guidance
Net Daily Production (MMcfe/d) 1,715
Net Residue Natural Gas Production (MMcf/d) 1,355
Net C3+ NGL Production (Bbl/d) 46,500
Net Ethane Production (Bbl/d) 10,000
Net Oil Production (Bbl/d) 3,500
Net Liquids Production (Bbl/d) 60,000
Natural Gas Realized Price Premium to NYMEX Henry Hub Before Hedging ($/Mcf)(1)(2) +$0.00 to $0.10
Oil Realized Price Differential to NYMEX WTI Oil Before Hedging ($/Bbl) $(10.00) - $(11.00)
C3+ NGL Realized Price (% of NYMEX WTI)(1) 35% - 40%
Ethane Realized Price (Differential to Mont Belvieu) ($/Gal) $0.00
Operating:
Cash Production Expense ($/Mcfe)(3) $1.50 - $1.60
Marketing Expense, Net of Marketing Revenue ($/Mcfe) $0.15 - $0.20
G&A Expense ($/Mcfe) $0.20 - $0.25
Operated Wells Completed 110
Drilled Uncompleted Wells 70
Average Operated Drilling Rigs ≈ 7
Capital Expenditures ($MM):
Drilling & Completion $1,300
Land $100
Total Capital Expenditures ($MM) $1,400
1. Based on current strip pricing as of December 31, 2015.
2. Includes Btu upgrade as Antero’s processed tailgate and unprocessed dry gas production is greater than 1000 Btu on average.
3. Includes lease operating expenses, gathering, compression and transportation expenses and production taxes.
Key Operating & Financial Assumptions
51
ANTERO MIDSTREAM – 2016 GUIDANCE
Key Variable 2016 Guidance
Financial:
Adjusted EBITDA ($MM) $300 - $325
Distributable Cash Flow ($MM) $250 - $275
Year-over-Year Distribution Growth(1) 28% - 30%
Operating:
Low Pressure Pipeline Added (Miles) 9
High Pressure Pipeline Added (Miles) 22
Compression Capacity Added (MMcf/d) 240
Fresh Water Pipeline Added (Miles) 30
Capital Expenditures ($MM):
Gathering and Compression Infrastructure $240
Fresh Water Infrastructure $40
Advanced Wastewater Treatment $130
Maintenance Capital $25
Total Capital Expenditures ($MM) $435
1. Reflects the expected distribution growth percentage associated with the fourth quarter 2016 over the fourth quarter 2015.
Key Operating & Financial Assumptions
52
23% Common
Units Held by AR
34% Common
Units Held by
Public
43%
Subordinated
Units Held
by AR
PRO FORMA IMPACT OF AM UNIT OFFERING
Antero Midstream Pro Forma Ownership
AR Consolidated Pro Forma Capitalization (12/31/15)Transaction Details
 On 3/24/2016, AR priced the sale of 8 million units of AM at
$22.40 per unit raising $178 million in net proceeds to
repay AR bank debt
 Pro forma the monetization, AR reduced its YE 2015
consolidated leverage from 3.8x to 3.7x, while still
maintaining a 62% ownership in AM
– Post transaction AM ownership value of $2.4 billion
 Net proceeds of $178 million will fund a significant portion
of the expected outspend in 2016 (excluding 1.2 million
unit shoe exercise)
Following the offering Antero Resources
will maintain a 62% ownership of common
and subordinated units in Antero
Midstream
As of 12/31/15 Pro Forma
43%
Subordinated
Units Held by
AR
19% Common
Units Held by AR
38% Common
Units Held by
Public
1. Net of offering costs.
2. Based on AR credit facility commitment of $4.0 billion and AM credit facility of $1.5 billion.
3. Based on AM closing price of $22.11 on 03/31/2016.
Antero Antero
Resources Resources
$MM 12/31/2015 Adjustment Pro Forma
Cash $23 $23
Credit facility (AR) $707 ($178)
(1)
$529
Credit facility (AM) 620 $620
6.00% senior notes due 2020 525 525
5.375% senior notes due 2021 1,000 1,000
5.125% senior notes due 2022 1,100 1,100
5.625% senior notes due 2023 750 750
Total Debt $4,702 ($178)
(1)
$4,524
Net Debt $4,679 ($178) $4,501
Financial Data
LTM EBITDAX $1,221 $1,221
Credit Statistics
Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x 3.7x
Liquidity
Cash $23 $23
Credit facility – commitments
(2)
$5,500 $5,500
Credit facility – drawn (1,327) 178 (1,149)
Credit facility – letters of credit (702) (702)
Total Liquidity $3,494 $178 $3,672
AM Common Units Owned by AR 40.9 (8.0) 32.9
AM Subordinated Units Owned by AR 75.9 75.9
Value of AR-Owned AM Units
(3)
$2,584 ($178) $2,407
53
522
1,007
1,493
1,758 1,715
2,058
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2013 2014 2015 1Q16 2016E 2017E
MMcfe/d
Actual Guidance/Target
DELIVERING RECORD PRODUCTION VOLUMES
 1Q 2016 net production of 1,758 MMcfe/d was 18% above 4Q 2015
 Driven by excellent operational execution and strong new well results
54
118%
93%
48%
15%
Guidance
20%
Target
18%
$1,300
$100
Drilling & Completion Land
2016 CAPITAL BUDGET
By Area
55
$1.8 Billion – 2015(1)
By Segment ($MM)
$1,650
$160
Drilling & Completion Land
56%
44%
Marcellus Utica
By Area
$1.4 Billion – 2016
By Segment ($MM)
 Antero’s 2016 initial capital budget is $1.4 billion, a 23% decrease from 2015 capital expenditures of $1.8 billion and a 58%
decline from 2014 capital expenditures
23%
131 Completions
 50 DUCs
1. Excludes $39 million for leasehold acquisitions in 2015. DUCs are drilled but uncompleted wells at year-end.
110 Completions
 70 DUCs
75%
25%
Marcellus Utica
1.2x
0.0x
1.0x
2.0x
3.0x
4.0x
5.0x
6.0x
AR Peer 6 Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 4 Peer 3 Peer 5 Peer 7
$3,117
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7
Mark-to-Market Hedge Value ($MM)
$941
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
AR Peer 2 Peer 1 Peer 3 Peer 6 Peer 7 Peer 5 Peer 4
E&P Debt (Net of Cash and M-T-M Hedge Value) ($MM)(1)
56
HEDGE BOOK SUPPORTS FINANCIAL PROFILE
Note: Data presented as filed for the year ended December 31, 2015. Peer group comprised of Ba1 and Ba3 credit peers including APC, CLR, CXO, HES, MUR, NFX, RRC.
1. Represents total E&P debt less cash and mark-to-market hedge value.
Antero exceeds closest credit peer by $2.3 billion
AR net leverage maps with strong
Baa credit peers
Only credit peer with less than
$1.0 billion of E&P debt
Ba1 Credit Peer
Ba3 Credit Peer
E&P Debt (Net of Cash and M-T-M Hedge Value) / LTM EBITDAX (Exclud. Realized Hedging Revenue) ($MM)
90%
83%
80%
74%
69%
51%
46% 45%
39%
25%
15% 14%
11%
39%
22%
13%
44%
53%
2%
23% 22%
19%
1%
6%
80%
31%
14%
8%
5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
AR Peer 1 Peer2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7 Peer 8 Peer 9 Peer 10 Peer 11 Peer 12 Peer 13 Peer 14 Peer 15
2016 2017 2018
HIGHEST PROPORTION HEDGED AMONG E&P OPERATORS
57
Antero has substantially de-risked its cash flow profile and differentiated itself versus its peer
group through its extensive hedge portfolio, with 100% of forecasted production hedged in
2016 and 2017 and 80% of consensus estimated production hedged in 2018
Source: Public filings. Projected production for peers based on consensus estimates. Projected production for AR based on 2016 guidance of 15% growth, 2017 target of 20% growth, and 2018 consensus estimates.
Note: Peers include APC, CHK, CLR, COG, CXO, EOG, EQT, GPOR, NBL, NFX, PXD, RICE, RRC, SWN, WPX.
1. As of December 31, 2015.
0% - >0% - >
100%+
2016 Average Peer
Production Hedged: 43%
2017 Average Peer
Production Hedged: 16%
2018 Average Peer
Production Hedged: 4%
Total Production Hedged (% of Forecasted / Consensus Production)
• Antero has 3.5 Tcfe hedged at average price of
$3.79/MMBtu and $3.1 Billion mark-to-market(1)
• 94% hedged through 2018 at $3.81/MMBtu
0% - >0% - >
Peer Group Average Production
Hedged Through 2018: 20%
Antero Production Hedged
Through 2018: 94%
1,793 2,079 2,015 2,330 1,378 630 120
$3.91
$3.57
$3.91 $3.70 $3.66
$3.36 $3.24
$2.26
$2.77 $2.87 $2.93 $3.03 $3.17 $3.34
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Bal '16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
BBtu/d $/MMBtu
$4
-$8
$5 $25 $34 $29 $28 $26 $12 $16 $17 $28 $29 $19 $25 $43
$80 $83 $59 $49 $48
$14
$47 $54
-$1
$1
$58 $78
$185 $196$206
$275
$324
($2.00)
($1.00)
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
($70.0)
$0.0
$70.0
$140.0
$210.0
$280.0
$350.0
Quarterly Realized Gains/(Losses)
1Q '08 - 1Q '16
58
Average Index Hedge Price(1)Hedged Volume Current NYMEX Strip(2)
COMMODITY HEDGE POSITION
 ~$3.1 billion mark-to-market unrealized gain based on 3/31/2016 prices
 3.6 Tcfe hedged from April 1, 2016 through year-end 2022
$832 MM $558 MM $740 MM $617 MM $291 MM $39 MM
Mark-to-Market Value(2)
LARGEST GAS HEDGE POSITION IN U.S. E&P
~ 100% of 2016
Guidance Hedged
581. Weighted average index price based on volumes hedged assuming 6:1 gas to liquids ratio; excludes impact of TCO basis hedges. 30,000 Bbl/d of propane hedged in 2016, 36,500 Bbl/d hedged in 2017
and 2,000 Bbl/d hedged in 2018.
2. As of 3/31/2016.
 Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model due to the large, repeatable drilling inventory
 Antero has realized $2.1 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2008
– Gains realized in 31 of last 33 quarters
$MM $/Mcfe
($4) MM
~ 100% of 2017
Target Hedged
0.1
0.4
0.9
1.8
3.5
5.6
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Utica Marcellus Borrowing Base
$4.5 Bn
OUTSTANDING RESERVE GROWTH
1. 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 reserves assuming ethane rejection. 2015 SEC prices were $2.56/MMBtu for natural gas and $50.13/Bbl for oil on a weighted average Appalachian index basis.
59
3P RESERVES BY VOLUME – 2015(1)NET PDP RESERVES (Tcfe)(1)
NET PROVED RESERVES (Tcfe)(1) 2015 RESERVE ADDITIONS
• Proved reserves increased 4% to 13.2 Tcfe at 12/31/2015 with a pre-tax
PV-10 of $6.7 billion at SEC pricing, including $3.1 billion of hedges
− Proved PV-10 at strip pricing of $8.2 billion, including $2.5 billion of
hedges
• 3P reserves were 37.1 Tcfe at 12/31/2015 with a pre-tax PV-10 of $6.8
billion at SEC pricing, including $3.1 billion of hedges
− 3P PV-10 at strip pricing of $13.7 billion, including $2.5 billion of hedges
• All-in finding and development cost of $0.80/Mcfe for 2015 (includes land
and all price and performance revisions)
• Drill bit only finding and development cost of $0.71/Mcfe for 2015
• Only 69% of 3P Marcellus locations booked as SSL (1.7 Bcf/1,000’ type
curve) at 12/31/2015
• Negligible Utica Shale WV/PA dry gas reserves booked – estimated
net resource of 12.5 – 16 Tcf
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Marcellus Utica
0.7
2.8
4.3
7.6
12.7
(Tcfe)
13.2
13.2 Tcfe
Proved
21.4 Tcfe
Probable
2.5 Tcfe
Possible
Proved
Probable
Possible
37.1 Tcfe 3P
93% 2P
Reserves
(Tcfe) $Bn
$550 MM
Gas – 27.6 Tcf
Oil – 92 MMBbls
NGLs – 2,382 MMBbls
Gas – 29.7 Tcf
Oil – 92 MMBbls
NGLs – 1,145 MMBbls
CONSIDERABLE RESERVE BASE WITH
ETHANE OPTIONALITY
 27 year proved reserve life based on 2015 production annualized
 Reserve base provides significant exposure to liquids-rich projects
– 3P reserves of over 2.4 BBbl of NGLs and condensate in ethane recovery mode; 35% liquids
1. Ethane rejection occurs when ethane is left in the wellhead gas stream as the gas is processed, rather than being separated out and sold as a liquid after fractionation. When ethane is left in the gas
stream, the BTU content of the residue gas at the outlet of the processing plant is higher. Producers will elect to “reject” ethane when the price received for the higher BTU residue gas is greater than the
price received for the ethane being sold as a liquid after fractionation. When ethane is recovered, the BTU content of the residue gas is lower, but a producer is then able to recover the value of the ethane
sold as a separate NGL product.
2. 1.1 Tcfe of ethane reserves (182 million barrels) was included in 12/31/2015 reserves from the Marcellus Shale as the first de-ethanizer was placed online at the MarkWest Sherwood facility in December
2015 and Antero’s first ethane sales contract is expected to commence in 2017 upon the completion of Mariner East 2.
ETHANE REJECTION(1)(2) ETHANE RECOVERY(1)
60
Marcellus – 29.6 Tcfe
Utica – 7.5 Tcfe
37.1
Tcfe
Marcellus – 34.0 Tcfe
Utica – 8.4 Tcfe
42.4
Tcfe
20%
Liquids
35%
Liquids
LARGE UTICA SHALE DRY GAS POSITION
61
 Antero has completed its first dry gas Utica well – a 6,620’
lateral in Tyler County, WV
 Antero has 231,000 net acres of exposure to Utica dry gas
play in OH, WV and PA
 Other operators have reported strong Utica Shale dry gas
results including the following wells:
Chesapeake
Hubbard BRK #3H
3,550’ Lateral
IP 11.1 MMcf/d
Hess
Porterfield 1H-17
5,000’ Lateral
IP 17.2 MMcf/d
Gulfport
Irons #1-4H
5,714’ Lateral
IP 30.3 MMcf/d
Eclipse
Tippens #6H
5,858’ Lateral
IP 23.2 MMcf/d
Magnum Hunter
Stalder #3UH
5,050’ Lateral
IP 32.5 MMcf/d
Well Operator
24-hr IP
(MMcf/d)
Lateral
Length
(Ft)
24-hr
IP/1,000’
Lateral
(MMcf/d)
Scotts Run EQT 72.9 3,221 22.633
Gaut 4IH CNX 61.0 5,840 11.131
CSC #11H RRC 59.0 5,420 10.886
Stewart-Win 1300U MHR 46.5 5,289 8.792
Bigfoot 9H RICE 41.7 6,957 5.994
Blank U-7H GST 36.8 6,617 5.561
Stalder #3UH MHR 32.5 5,050 6.436
Irons #1-4H GPOR 30.3 5,714 5.303
Pribble 6HU SGY 30.0 3,605 8.322
Simms U-5H GST 29.4 4,447 6.611
Conner 6H CVX 25.0 6,451 3.875
Messenger 3H SWN 25.0 5,889 4.245
Tippens #6H ECR 23.2 5,858 3.960
Porterfield 1H-17 HESS 17.2 5,000 3.440
1. Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held in OH, WV and PA.
2. The Rymer 4HD has been flowing into the sales line for 90 days with an average choke-restricted flow rate of 20 MMcf/d.
Magnum Hunter
Stewart Winland 1300U
5,289’ Lateral
IP 46.5 MMcf/d
Range
Claysville SC #11H
5,420’ Lateral
IP 59.0 MMcf/d
Chevron
Conner 6H
6,451’ Lateral
IP 25.0 MMcf/d
Gastar
Simms U-5H
4,447’ Lateral
IP 29.4 MMcf/d
Utica Shale Dry Gas Acreage in OH/WV/PA(1)
Rice
Bigfoot 9H
6,957’ Lateral
IP 41.7 MMcf/d
AR Utica Shale Dry Gas
WV/PA
Net Resource
12.5 to 16 Tcf
1,889 Gross Locations
190,000 Net Acres
AR Utica Shale Dry Gas
Ohio
3P Reserves
2.3 Tcf
263 Gross Locations
41,000 Net Acres
AR Utica Shale Dry Gas
Total OH/WV/PA
Net Resource
14.8 to 18.3 Tcf
2,152 Gross Locations
231,000 Net Acres
Stone Energy
Pribble 6HU
3,605’ Lateral
IP 30.0 MMcf/d
Southwestern
Messenger 3H
5,889’ Lateral
IP 25.0 MMcf/d
Rice
Blue Thunder
10H, 12H
≈9,000’ Lateral
Gastar
Blake U-7H
6,617’ Lateral
IP 36.8 MMcf/d
EQT
Scotts Run
3,221’ Lateral
IP 72.9 MMcf/d
CNX
Gaut 4IH
5,840’ Lateral
IP 61.0 MMcf/d
Antero
Rymer 4HD
6,620’ Lateral
IP 20.0 MMcf/d
(2)
626
971
553
755
63%
47%
24%
28%
35%
24%
10% 13%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
Total 3P Locations
ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
MARCELLUS SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS
– IN ETHANE REJECTION
62
DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS
HIGHLY
RICH GAS
LOCATIONS
Assumptions
 Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip
 Oil – 3/31/2016 strip
 NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price 2016; 50%
of Oil Price 2017+
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL(2)
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.26 $41 $16
2017 $2.77 $45 $21
2018 $2.87 $47 $24
2019 $2.93 $49 $25
2020 $3.03 $50 $26
2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27-$27
Marcellus Well Economics and Total Gross Locations(1)
Classification
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich
Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Modeled BTU 1313 1250 1150 1050
EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 18.8 16.8 15.3
EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.6
% Liquids: 33% 24% 12% 0%
Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Well Cost ($MM): $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 $8.5
Bcfe/1,000’: 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7
Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.48 $0.53 $0.60 $0.65
Direct Operating Expense ($/well/month): $1,498 $1,498 $1,498 $1,498
Direct Operating Expense ($/Mcf): $0.92 $0.92 $1.17 $0.70
Transportation Expense ($/Mcf): $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28
Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): $8.7 $5.3 $0.0 $1.0
Pre-Tax ROR: 35% 24% 10% 13%
Payout (Years): 2.5 3.7 8.2 6.8
Gross 3P Locations in BTU Regime(3): 626 971 553 755
1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter,
and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities.
2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to
projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship.
3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015.
2016
Drilling
Plan
184
98
108
161 263
14%
48%
64%
56%
64%
9%
23% 24%
20%
24%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
Total 3P Locations
ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
UTICA SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS
– IN ETHANE REJECTION
63
DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS
HIGHLY
RICH GAS
LOCATIONS
Utica Well Economics and Gross Locations(1)
Classification Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich
Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Modeled BTU 1275 1235 1215 1175 1050
EUR (Bcfe): 9.4 17.0 25.3 23.8 21.4
EUR (MMBoe): 1.6 2.8 4.2 4.0 3.6
% Liquids 35% 26% 21% 14% 0%
Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Well Cost ($MM): $10.0 $10.0 $10.25 $10.25 $10.25
Bcfe/1,000’: 1.0 1.9 2.8 2.7 2.4
Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $1.31 $0.73 $0.50 $0.53 $0.59
Fixed Operating Expense ($/well/month): $2,788 $2,788 $2,788 $2,788 $1,498
Direct Operating Expense ($/Mcf): $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.50
Direct Operating Expense ($/Bbl): $2.73 $2.73 $2.73 - -
Transportation Expense ($/Mcf): $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55
Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): ($0.8) $4.8 $6.3 $4.5 $5.8
Pre-Tax ROR: 9% 23% 24% 20% 24%
Payout (Years): 8.5 3.3 3.3 4.1 3.4
Gross 3P Locations in BTU Regime(3): 184 98 108 161 263
1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter,
and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities.
2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to
projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship.
3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 3P locations representative of BTU regime; EUR and economics within regime will vary based on BTU content.
2016
Drilling
Plan
Assumptions
 Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip
 Oil – 3/31/2016 strip
 NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price 2016; 50%
of Oil Price 2017+
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL(2)
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.26 $41 $16
2017 $2.77 $45 $21
2018 $2.87 $47 $24
2019 $2.93 $49 $25
2020 $3.03 $50 $26
2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27-$27
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2016 FT Portfolio and
Projected Gas Sales
Net Production Target (MMcfe/d) (1) 1,715
Net Gas Production Target (MMcf/d) (80% of Net Production) 1,372
Net Revenue Interest Gross-up 80%
Gross Gas Production Target (MMcf/d) 1,715
BTU Upgrade (2) x1.100
Gross Gas Production Target (BBtu/d) 1,885
Firm Transportation / Firm Sales (BBtu/d) 3,525
Estimated % Utilization of FT/FS 53%
Excess Firm Transportation 1,640
Marketable Firm Transport (BBtu/d) (3) 1,015
Unmarketable Firm Transportation 625
Estimated % Utilization of FT/FS Portfolio (Including Marketable FT) 82%
641. Based on 2016 net daily production guidance.
2. Assumes 1100 BTU residue sales gas.
3. Represents excess firm transportation that is deemed marketable to 3rd parties based on a positive differential between the receipt and delivery points of the FT capacity, less variable transport cost.
• Antero projects firm transportation in excess of
equity gas production of approximately 1,640 BBtu/d
in 2016
• Expect to market or mitigate a portion of the cost of
approximately 1,015 BBtu/d of the excess FT with 3rd
party gas
• Expect to fully utilize FT portfolio by 2019, based on
five year development plan (excludes Appalachia
based FT directed to unfavorable indices)
(BBtu/d)
2016 Targeted
Gross Gas
Production(1)
1,885 BBtu/d
Unmarketable Unutilized
Firm Transport
~625 BBtu/d ($0.15 / MMBtu)
Marketable Unutilized
Firm Transport
~1,015 BBtu/d
($0.39 / MMBtu)
Utilized Firm Transport /
Firm Sales
~1,885 BBtu/d
($0.45 / MMBtu)
Total Firm Transport
3,525 BBtu/d
Excess
Capacity Marketable /
FT Segment (Location) (BBtu/d) Unmarketable
Columbia / TGP (Marcellus) 550 Marketable
ANR North / ANR South (Utica) 465 Marketable
EQT / M3 (Marcellus) 625 Unmarketable
Total Excess Firm Transport 1,640
2016 Firm Transport
DecreasingCostofFT
PORTFOLIO APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED
TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
($ in millions, except per unit amounts) Demand 2016E 2016E 2016E
Fee Marketing Marketing Marketing
($ / MMBtu) Expenses Revenue Expenses, Net
"Unmarketable" Firm Transport
625 BBtu/d of EQT / M3 Appalachia FT $0.15 $35 - $35
"Marketable" Firm Transport Capacity
550 BBtu/d of Columbia / TGP $0.49 $99 $43 - $72 $27 - $56
465 BBtu/d of ANR North / ANR South $0.24 42 $6 - $11 $31 - $36
Sub-Total $141 $49 - $83 $58 - $92
Grand Total - 2016 Marketing Expenses, Net $176 $49 - $83 ~$95 to $125 MM
$ / Mcfe - 2016 Targeted Production (1)
$0.28 $0.08 - $0.13 $0.15 - $0.20
65
NOTE: Analysis based on strip pricing as of 12/31/15.
1. Represents 2016 net production growth guidance of 15% to 1,715 MMcfe/d.
2. Spread for each respective “marketable” firm transport represents the difference between the gas price Antero
would receive at the delivery point of each pipeline versus the price Antero would pay to buy gas at the receipt
point of each piece of capacity, less the variable costs to transport on each segment of firm transportation.
2016 Projected Marketing Expenses:
0
600
1,200
1,800
2,400
3,000
3,600
(BBtu/d)
2016 Targeted Gross
Gas Production
1,885 BBtu/d
$0.06 / Mcfe of 2016E
Production (2)
$0.09 to $0.14 /
Mcfe of 2016E
Production (2)
Utilized FT
$0.45 / Mcfe of 2016E
Production (2)
2016 FT and Marketing Expenses per Unit:
2016 Marketing Revenue Projection:
Based on the 2016 guidance of 15% annual
production growth, Antero projects net marketing
expenses of $0.15 to $0.20 per Mcfe in 2016
Gathering
& Transportation
Costs
Marketable
Net Marketing
Expense
Unmarketable
Net Marketing
Expense
Unmarketable (EQT / M3) ($/MMBtu)
2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Sold Gas) $1.56
2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Bought Gas) (1.56)
Total Spread $0.00
Marketable (TCO / TGP) ($/MMBtu)
2016 TGP-500 Pricing (Sold Gas) $2.43
2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Bought Gas) (1.56)
Less: Variable FT Costs (0.15)
Total Spread ("In the Money") $0.72
Illustrative Marketing Example:
Positive Spread
No Spread
2016E
Marketing 2016E Marketing Revenue
Spread Assuming % Volume Mitigated
($ / MMBtu) (2)
30% 50%
"Marketable" Firm Transport Capacity
550 BBtu/d of Columbia / TGP $0.72 $43 $72
465 BBtu/d of ANR North / ANR South $0.12 6 11
Sub-Total $49 $83
$ / Mcfe - 2016E Targeted Production (1)
$0.08 $0.13
FT MARKETING EXPENSE UPDATE
$0.14 $0.17
$0.23
$0.33
$0.11
$0.11
$0.12
$0.13
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
2013A 2014A 2015A 2016E
($/MMBtu)
Wtd. Avg. FT Demand ($/MMBtu) Wtd. Avg. FT Commodity/Fuel ($/MMBtu)
All-in Firm Transportation Costs(1)
FIRM TRANSPORTATION REDUCES APPALACHIAN
BASIS EXPOSURE
Appalachia
49%
Gulf Coast
51%
2013 Firm
Transportation(1)(2)
2013 Firm Transportation – 647 MMcf/d
Average All-in FT Cost $0.25/MMBtu
2016 Firm Transportation – 3.55 Bcf/d
Average All-in FT Cost $0.46/MMBtu
+ $0.18/MMBtu
 Antero’s firm transportation (FT) portfolio increases visibility on production growth and increases exposure to Gulf Coast and Midwest
pricing, with little incremental cost per Mcf
 Reduces weighted average basis by $0.35 per MMBtu compared to 2014 basis – while significantly reducing Appalachian basis
exposure
Utilized portion included
in cash production
expense
(fixed cost)
1. Assumes full utilization of firm transportation capacity.
2. Represents accessible firm transportation and sales agreements.
3. Based on current strip pricing as at 03/31/2016.
Included in cash
production expense
(variable cost)
$0.25 $0.28
$0.35
$0.46
2016 Basis(3)
TCO – $(0.14)/MMBtu
DOM S – $(0.87)/MMBtu
2016 Basis(3)
Chicago – $(0.03)/MMBtu
2016 Basis(3)
CGTLA – $(0.06)/MMBtu
66
Appalachia
36%
Midwest
21%
Gulf Coast
43%
$525
$1,000
$1,100
$750
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
($inMillions)
$1,500
$887
($620)
$0 $7
$0
$250
$500
$750
$1,000
$1,250
$1,500
Credit Facility
12/31/2015
Bank Debt
12/31/2015
L/Cs Outstanding
12/31/2015
Cash
12/31/2015
Liquidity
12/31/2015
67
STRONG FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY AND DEBT TERM
STRUCTURE
67
$4,000
$2,785
($529)
($702) $16
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
Credit Facility
12/31/2015
Bank Debt
12/31/2015
L/Cs Outstanding
12/31/2015
Cash
12/31/2015
Liquidity
12/31/2015
AR LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)(1) AM LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)
 Approximately $3.7 billion of combined AR and AM financial liquidity as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016
 No leverage covenant in AR bank facility, only interest coverage and working capital covenants
AR Credit Facility AR Senior Notes
DEBT MATURITY PROFILE(1)
 Recent credit facility increases and equity offerings have allowed Antero to reduce its cost of debt to 4.3% and significantly enhance liquidity
with an average debt maturity is February 2021
AM Credit Facility
$620
1. Pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units for net proceeds of $178 million on 3/24/2016.
Moody's S&P
POSITIVE RATINGS MOMENTUM
Moody’s / S&P Historical Corporate Credit Ratings
“Outlook Stable. The affirmation reflects our view that Antero will
maintain funds from operations (FFO)/Debt above 20% in 2016, as it
continues to invest and grow production in the Marcellus Shale. The
company has very good hedges in place, which will limit exposure to
commodity prices.”
- S&P Credit Research, February 2016
“Moody’s confirmed Antero Resources’ rating, which reflects its strong
hedge book through 2018 and good liquidity. Antero has $3.1 billion in
unrealized hedge gains, $3 billion of availability under its $4 billion
committed revolving credit facility and a 67% interest in Antero
Midstream Partners LP.
- Moody’s Credit Research, February 2016
Corporate Credit Rating
(Moody’s / S&P)
Ba3 / BB-
B1 / B+
B2 / B
B3 / B-
2/24/2011 10/21/2013 9/4/20145/31/13
Ba2 / BB
Ba1 / BB+
Caa1 / CCC+
(1)
1. Represents corporate credit rating of Antero Resources Corporation / Antero Resources LLC.
Baa3 / BBB-
Moody’s Rating Rationale S&P Rating Rationale
68
3/31/2015
Ba2/BB
2/12/20169/1/2010
Ratings Affirmed
February 2016
 Antero’s corporate credit ratings were recently affirmed at Ba2/BB by Moody’s and S&P, respectively, despite the severe
commodity price down cycle
69
LARGEST LIQUIDS-RICH CORE POSITION
Source: Core outlines and peer net acreage positions based on investor presentations, news releases and 10-K/10-Qs. Rig information per RigData as of 4/1/2016.
1. Based on company filings and presentations. Peer group includes Ascent, CHK, CNX, CVX, ECR, EQT, GPOR, NBL, REX, RRC, STO, SWN.
• Antero controls an estimated 37% of
the NGLs in the liquids-rich core of
the two plays
• Antero has the largest core liquids-
rich position in Appalachia with
≈377,000 net acres (> 1100 Btu)
• Represents over 21% of core liquids-
rich acreage in Marcellus and Utica
plays combined
 Antero has over 2,700 undeveloped rich gas locations with an average lateral length of 7,580’ in its 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015
0
100
200
300
400
(000s)
Core Liquids-Rich Net Acres(1)
LNG Exports
48%
Mexico/Canada
Exports
18%
Power
Generation
17%
Transportation
1%
Industrial
16%
20 BCF/D OF INCREMENTAL GAS DEMAND BY 2020
 Significant demand growth expected for U.S.
natural gas
 More than 65% of the 20 Bcf/d in incremental
gas demand forecast by 2020 is expected to
be generated from exports:
− LNG: 9.5 Bcf/d (~48%)
− Mexico/Canada: 3.5 Bcf/d (~18%)
 Of the 9.5 Bcf/d of expected incremental
demand from LNG export projects, 6.7 Bcf/d
(or 70%) of the projects have secured the
necessary DOE and FERC permits
70
Incremental Demand Growth Through 2020 by Category
Projected Incremental Natural Gas Demand Through 2020
Source: Simmons & Company International, “2015 US Natural Gas Outlook and Updated Long Term Demand Forecast,” September 2014.
Sherwood 7
2
5
9
13
17
20
0
4
8
12
16
20
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mexico/Canada Exports Power Generation
Transportation Petrochem
LNG Exports
9.5 Bcf/d of the 20 Bcf/d of
incremental demand is
expected to come from
LNG exports
(Bcf/d)
LNG
Exports
Power Gen
Petrochem
LNG Exports by Project
(in Bcf/d)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Sabine Pass 1 - 0.6 - - - -
Sabine Pass 2 - 0.6 - - - -
Sabine Pass 3 - - 0.6 - - -
Sabine Pass 4 - - 0.6 - - -
Sabine Pass 5 - - - - 0.6 - 3.0
Cove Point 1 - - 0.4 - - -
Cove Point 2 - - - 0.4 - - 0.8
Cameron 1 - - - 0.6 - -
Cameron 2 - - - 0.6 - -
Cameron 3 - - - - 0.6 - 1.8
Freeport 1 - - - 0.5 - -
Freeport 2 - - - - 0.5 -
Freeport 3 - - - - 0.5 -
Freeport 4 - - - - - 0.4 2.1
Corpus Christi 1 - - - - 0.6 -
Corpus Christi 2 - - - - - 0.6 1.2
Lake Charles 1 - - - - - 0.6 0.6
LNG Incremental Exports - 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.9 1.7
LNG Cumulative Exports - 1.2 2.8 5.0 7.9 9.5
LNG EXPORTS BY PROJECT – EXPECTED START UP
 Assuming 9.5 Bcf/d of LNG exports by 2020,
the U.S. will be the world’s 3rd largest LNG
exporter behind Qatar and Australia
− 7.7 Bcf/d (81%) of the 9.5 Bcf/d of expected LNG
exports have secured US DOE non-FTA (Free
Trade Agreement) permit approval
− 6.7 Bcf/d (four projects, 70%) have been
awarded FERC construction permits
 The first LNG export project, Sabine Pass LNG
Train 1, is expected to commence operations
in early 2016
− Antero has committed to 200 MMcf/d on Sabine
Pass Trains 1-4
 The second LNG export project, Cove Point
LNG, is expected to commence operations in
mid-2017
− Antero has committed to 330 MMcf/d on Cove
Point 1 & 2
71
LNG Exports by Project Through 2020
Antero Supply Agreements
for Portion of Capacity
Source: Simmons & Company International, “2015 US Natural Gas Outlook and Updated Long Term Demand Forecast,” September 2014.
Note: Data updated for recent announcements subsequent to Simmons report.
Antero Supplied
2015 GLOBAL LPG DEMAND
 Global LPG demand is 8.5 MMBbl/d and growing
72
GLOBAL LPG DEMAND DRIVEN BY
PETCHEM AND RES/COMM
 Largest end-use sectors for LPG are residential/commercial, which tends to grow with population and improvement in
living standards in the emerging markets
− PIRA forecasting >1.0 MMBbl/d over next 5 years and >4.5 MMBbl/d of global LPG demand growth over next 20 years
731. PIRA NGL Study, September 2015.
MMBbl/d
14.7
13.0
11.4
9.8
8.2
6.5
4.9
3.3
1.6
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016

More Related Content

What's hot

Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (a) march 2016
Am website presentation (a)   march 2016Am website presentation (a)   march 2016
Am website presentation (a) march 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation (a) march 2016
Company website presentation (a)   march 2016Company website presentation (a)   march 2016
Company website presentation (a) march 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) june 2016
Company website presentation (a)   june 2016Company website presentation (a)   june 2016
Company website presentation (a) june 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
Company website presentation (b)   october 2016Company website presentation (b)   october 2016
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
Company website presentation (a)   july 2016Company website presentation (a)   july 2016
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation august 2016
Am website presentation   august 2016Am website presentation   august 2016
Am website presentation august 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
Company website presentation (a)   september 2016Company website presentation (a)   september 2016
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
AnteroResources
 
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
Company website presentation (a)   february 2016Company website presentation (a)   february 2016
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation february 2016
Company website presentation   february 2016Company website presentation   february 2016
Company website presentation february 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
Company website presentation (a)   january 2016Company website presentation (a)   january 2016
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
AnteroResources
 
Barclays conference presentation (website) september 2016 v5
Barclays conference presentation (website)   september 2016 v5Barclays conference presentation (website)   september 2016 v5
Barclays conference presentation (website) september 2016 v5
AnteroResources
 
Goldman conference presentation v f-02.01.16_revised 4
Goldman conference presentation   v f-02.01.16_revised 4Goldman conference presentation   v f-02.01.16_revised 4
Goldman conference presentation v f-02.01.16_revised 4
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation december 2016
Company website presentation   december 2016Company website presentation   december 2016
Company website presentation december 2016
AnteroResources
 
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation 4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (b) september 2016
Company website presentation (b)   september 2016Company website presentation (b)   september 2016
Company website presentation (b) september 2016
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation february 2016
Am website presentation   february 2016Am website presentation   february 2016
Am website presentation february 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company Website Presentation - August 2014
Company Website Presentation - August 2014Company Website Presentation - August 2014
Company Website Presentation - August 2014
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation august 2014
Company website presentation   august 2014Company website presentation   august 2014
Company website presentation august 2014
AnteroResources
 

What's hot (20)

Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1
 
Am website presentation (a) march 2016
Am website presentation (a)   march 2016Am website presentation (a)   march 2016
Am website presentation (a) march 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) march 2016
Company website presentation (a)   march 2016Company website presentation (a)   march 2016
Company website presentation (a) march 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) june 2016
Company website presentation (a)   june 2016Company website presentation (a)   june 2016
Company website presentation (a) june 2016
 
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
Company website presentation (b)   october 2016Company website presentation (b)   october 2016
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
Company website presentation (a)   july 2016Company website presentation (a)   july 2016
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
 
Am website presentation august 2016
Am website presentation   august 2016Am website presentation   august 2016
Am website presentation august 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
Company website presentation (a)   september 2016Company website presentation (a)   september 2016
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
 
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
Credit suisse conference presentation - february 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
Company website presentation (a)   february 2016Company website presentation (a)   february 2016
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
 
Company website presentation february 2016
Company website presentation   february 2016Company website presentation   february 2016
Company website presentation february 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
Company website presentation (a)   january 2016Company website presentation (a)   january 2016
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
 
Barclays conference presentation (website) september 2016 v5
Barclays conference presentation (website)   september 2016 v5Barclays conference presentation (website)   september 2016 v5
Barclays conference presentation (website) september 2016 v5
 
Goldman conference presentation v f-02.01.16_revised 4
Goldman conference presentation   v f-02.01.16_revised 4Goldman conference presentation   v f-02.01.16_revised 4
Goldman conference presentation v f-02.01.16_revised 4
 
Company website presentation december 2016
Company website presentation   december 2016Company website presentation   december 2016
Company website presentation december 2016
 
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation 4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
 
Company website presentation (b) september 2016
Company website presentation (b)   september 2016Company website presentation (b)   september 2016
Company website presentation (b) september 2016
 
Am website presentation february 2016
Am website presentation   february 2016Am website presentation   february 2016
Am website presentation february 2016
 
Company Website Presentation - August 2014
Company Website Presentation - August 2014Company Website Presentation - August 2014
Company Website Presentation - August 2014
 
Company website presentation august 2014
Company website presentation   august 2014Company website presentation   august 2014
Company website presentation august 2014
 

Viewers also liked

Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyPhoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyGailGuge
 
Company website presentation november 2015
Company website presentation   november 2015Company website presentation   november 2015
Company website presentation november 2015
AnteroResources
 
Design project two brief
Design project two   brief Design project two   brief
Design project two brief
Jonathan Lim
 
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 Beyond
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 BeyondInvent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 Beyond
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 BeyondChaitanya Rane
 
Seo histroy
Seo histroy Seo histroy
Seo histroy
Vijay Kumar
 
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011Chaitanya Rane
 
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïdTemporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
CARLOS BRETA
 
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education AcademyIntroduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
JISC infoNet
 
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)Mehdi Ziady
 
The Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy FrameworkThe Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy Framework
JISC infoNet
 
programa nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacionprograma nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacion
Adita Perez Perez
 
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
1492.travel
 
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPUHawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
Asiana Ponciano
 
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEMPOST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
Rajendran
 
Company website presentation september 2016
Company website presentation   september 2016Company website presentation   september 2016
Company website presentation september 2016
AnteroResources
 
Fast web development using groovy on grails
Fast web development using groovy on grailsFast web development using groovy on grails
Fast web development using groovy on grailsAnshuman Biswal
 
Mobile computing : Indirect TCP
Mobile computing : Indirect TCPMobile computing : Indirect TCP
Mobile computing : Indirect TCP
Sushant Kushwaha
 
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃOLIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
Polícia Militar do Estado do Tocantins
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyPhoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
 
Company website presentation november 2015
Company website presentation   november 2015Company website presentation   november 2015
Company website presentation november 2015
 
Design project two brief
Design project two   brief Design project two   brief
Design project two brief
 
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 Beyond
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 BeyondInvent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 Beyond
Invent The Future The New Normal For Hotels In 2010 Beyond
 
Seo histroy
Seo histroy Seo histroy
Seo histroy
 
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011
Optimizing The Ecommerce Exp Trends 2011
 
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïdTemporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
 
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education AcademyIntroduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
 
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
 
Sweden
 Sweden Sweden
Sweden
 
The Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy FrameworkThe Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy Framework
 
programa nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacionprograma nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacion
 
Euubc
EuubcEuubc
Euubc
 
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
2o taller de socialización proyecto diseño de producto turístico en Oriente A...
 
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPUHawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
Hawaiian Airlines Social Media Marketing Presentation at HPU
 
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEMPOST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
 
Company website presentation september 2016
Company website presentation   september 2016Company website presentation   september 2016
Company website presentation september 2016
 
Fast web development using groovy on grails
Fast web development using groovy on grailsFast web development using groovy on grails
Fast web development using groovy on grails
 
Mobile computing : Indirect TCP
Mobile computing : Indirect TCPMobile computing : Indirect TCP
Mobile computing : Indirect TCP
 
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃOLIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
LIÇÃO 11 - MELQUISEDEQUE ABENÇOA ABRAÃO
 

Similar to Company website presentation April 2016

Company website presentation october 2016
Company website presentation   october 2016Company website presentation   october 2016
Company website presentation october 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (b) march 2017
Company website presentation (b)   march 2017Company website presentation (b)   march 2017
Company website presentation (b) march 2017
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation march 2017
Company website presentation   march 2017Company website presentation   march 2017
Company website presentation march 2017
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (a) september 2016
Am website presentation (a)   september 2016Am website presentation (a)   september 2016
Am website presentation (a) september 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation (a) december 2016
Company website presentation (a)   december 2016Company website presentation (a)   december 2016
Company website presentation (a) december 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation november 2016
Company website presentation   november 2016Company website presentation   november 2016
Company website presentation november 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation august 2016
Company website presentation   august 2016Company website presentation   august 2016
Company website presentation august 2016
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (a) july 2016
Am website presentation (a)   july 2016Am website presentation (a)   july 2016
Am website presentation (a) july 2016
anteromidstream
 
Am website presentation september 2016
Am website presentation   september 2016Am website presentation   september 2016
Am website presentation september 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation April 2016
Am website presentation April 2016Am website presentation April 2016
Am website presentation April 2016
anteromidstream
 
Am website presentation november 2016
Am website presentation   november 2016Am website presentation   november 2016
Am website presentation november 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation september 2015
Company website presentation   september 2015Company website presentation   september 2015
Company website presentation september 2015
AnteroResources
 
Company Presentation - October 2014
Company Presentation - October 2014Company Presentation - October 2014
Company Presentation - October 2014
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
Company website presentation (c)   october 2014Company website presentation (c)   october 2014
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
Company website presentation (c)   october 2014Company website presentation (c)   october 2014
Company website presentation (c) october 2014AnteroResources
 
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
Marcellus Drilling News
 
Company Website Presentation November 2015
Company Website Presentation November 2015Company Website Presentation November 2015
Company Website Presentation November 2015
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (b) june 2016
Am website presentation (b)   june 2016Am website presentation (b)   june 2016
Am website presentation (b) june 2016
anteromidstream
 

Similar to Company website presentation April 2016 (20)

Company website presentation october 2016
Company website presentation   october 2016Company website presentation   october 2016
Company website presentation october 2016
 
Company website presentation (b) march 2017
Company website presentation (b)   march 2017Company website presentation (b)   march 2017
Company website presentation (b) march 2017
 
Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016
 
Company website presentation march 2017
Company website presentation   march 2017Company website presentation   march 2017
Company website presentation march 2017
 
Am website presentation (a) september 2016
Am website presentation (a)   september 2016Am website presentation (a)   september 2016
Am website presentation (a) september 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) december 2016
Company website presentation (a)   december 2016Company website presentation (a)   december 2016
Company website presentation (a) december 2016
 
Company website presentation november 2016
Company website presentation   november 2016Company website presentation   november 2016
Company website presentation november 2016
 
Company website presentation august 2016
Company website presentation   august 2016Company website presentation   august 2016
Company website presentation august 2016
 
Am website presentation (a) july 2016
Am website presentation (a)   july 2016Am website presentation (a)   july 2016
Am website presentation (a) july 2016
 
Am website presentation september 2016
Am website presentation   september 2016Am website presentation   september 2016
Am website presentation september 2016
 
Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015
 
Am website presentation April 2016
Am website presentation April 2016Am website presentation April 2016
Am website presentation April 2016
 
Am website presentation november 2016
Am website presentation   november 2016Am website presentation   november 2016
Am website presentation november 2016
 
Company website presentation september 2015
Company website presentation   september 2015Company website presentation   september 2015
Company website presentation september 2015
 
Company Presentation - October 2014
Company Presentation - October 2014Company Presentation - October 2014
Company Presentation - October 2014
 
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
Company website presentation (c)   october 2014Company website presentation (c)   october 2014
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
 
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
Company website presentation (c)   october 2014Company website presentation (c)   october 2014
Company website presentation (c) october 2014
 
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
Antero Resources Company Presentation - Nov 2015
 
Company Website Presentation November 2015
Company Website Presentation November 2015Company Website Presentation November 2015
Company Website Presentation November 2015
 
Am website presentation (b) june 2016
Am website presentation (b)   june 2016Am website presentation (b)   june 2016
Am website presentation (b) june 2016
 

More from AnteroResources

Company website presentation april 2017
Company website presentation   april 2017Company website presentation   april 2017
Company website presentation april 2017
AnteroResources
 
Howard weil conference presentation march 2017 v-f (small)
Howard weil conference presentation   march 2017 v-f (small)Howard weil conference presentation   march 2017 v-f (small)
Howard weil conference presentation march 2017 v-f (small)
AnteroResources
 
Credit suisse conference presentation february 2017 v-f
Credit suisse conference presentation   february 2017 v-fCredit suisse conference presentation   february 2017 v-f
Credit suisse conference presentation february 2017 v-f
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
Company website presentation (c)   february 2017Company website presentation (c)   february 2017
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
Company website presentation (b)   february 2017Company website presentation (b)   february 2017
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
Company website presentation (a)   february 2017Company website presentation (a)   february 2017
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation february 2017
Company website presentation   february 2017Company website presentation   february 2017
Company website presentation february 2017
AnteroResources
 
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy ConferenceGoldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation april 2016
Company website presentation   april 2016Company website presentation   april 2016
Company website presentation april 2016
AnteroResources
 

More from AnteroResources (9)

Company website presentation april 2017
Company website presentation   april 2017Company website presentation   april 2017
Company website presentation april 2017
 
Howard weil conference presentation march 2017 v-f (small)
Howard weil conference presentation   march 2017 v-f (small)Howard weil conference presentation   march 2017 v-f (small)
Howard weil conference presentation march 2017 v-f (small)
 
Credit suisse conference presentation february 2017 v-f
Credit suisse conference presentation   february 2017 v-fCredit suisse conference presentation   february 2017 v-f
Credit suisse conference presentation february 2017 v-f
 
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
Company website presentation (c)   february 2017Company website presentation (c)   february 2017
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
 
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
Company website presentation (b)   february 2017Company website presentation (b)   february 2017
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
 
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
Company website presentation (a)   february 2017Company website presentation (a)   february 2017
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
 
Company website presentation february 2017
Company website presentation   february 2017Company website presentation   february 2017
Company website presentation february 2017
 
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy ConferenceGoldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
 
Company website presentation april 2016
Company website presentation   april 2016Company website presentation   april 2016
Company website presentation april 2016
 

Recently uploaded

Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd
 
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
Sysco_Investors
 
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Philip Rabenok
 
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdfCorporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Probe Gold
 
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial PresentationSnam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
Valentina Ottini
 
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
CollectiveMining1
 
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
ybout
 

Recently uploaded (7)

Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd - Corporate Presentation, June 2024
 
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
2024-deutsche-bank-global-consumer-conference.pdf
 
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
 
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdfCorporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
 
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial PresentationSnam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
Snam 2023-27 Industrial Plan - Financial Presentation
 
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
 
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
一比一原版(UW毕业证)华盛顿大学毕业证成绩单专业办理
 

Company website presentation April 2016

  • 2. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this presentation that address activities, events or developments that Antero Resources Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company” or “Antero”) expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” “foresee,” “should,” “would,” “could,” or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that the statements are not forward-looking. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, forward- looking statements contained in this presentation specifically include estimates of the Company’s reserves, expectations of plans, strategies, objectives and anticipated financial and operating results of the Company, including as to the Company’s drilling program, production, hedging activities, capital expenditure levels and other guidance included in this presentation. These statements are based on certain assumptions made by the Company based on management’s experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, anticipated future developments and other factors believed to be appropriate. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking statements. These include the factors discussed or referenced under the heading “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in the Company’s subsequent filings with the SEC. The Company cautions you that these forward-looking statements are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control, incident to the exploration for and development, production, gathering and sale of natural gas and oil. These risks include, but are not limited to, commodity price volatility, inflation, lack of availability of drilling and production equipment and services, environmental risks, drilling and other operating risks, regulatory changes, the uncertainty inherent in estimating natural gas and oil reserves and in projecting future rates of production, cash flow and access to capital, the timing of development expenditures, and the other risks described under the heading “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 and in the Company’s subsequent filings with the SEC. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made and the Company undertakes no obligation to correct or update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. 1 Antero Resources Corporation is denoted as “AR” and Antero Midstream Partners LP is denoted as “AM” in the presentation, which are their respective New York Stock Exchange ticker symbols.
  • 3. 2 CHANGES SINCE APRIL 2016 PRESENTATION Updated AR Marcellus and Utica single well economics as of 3/31/2016 strip pricing Slides 13, 31, 62, 63 Updated AR slides highlighting net acreage position as of 3/31/2016 Slides 5, 32, 37, 39, 44 Updated AR slide showing gas and equivalent realizations as of 3/31/2016 Slide 22 New AR slide highlighting Marcellus 2.0 Bcf/1,000’ EUR and SWE as of 3/31/2016 strip pricing Slide 12 New AR slides highlighting strength of Antero credit profile with borrowing base and ratings affirmed Slides 20, 21 Updated AR slides showing 3/31/2016 hedging position and mark-to-market value Slides 15, 18, 19, 58 New AR slides highlighting improving operational performance Slides 35, 36, 38, 54
  • 4. WHY OWN ANTERO? 3  $3.7 billion of consolidated liquidity available as of 12/31/15 pro forma for AM unit sale  Ba2/BB corporate ratings affirmed; $4.5 billion borrowing base affirmed  Stable leverage not increasing through the down cycle Balance Sheet Strength Production Sold Forward at Attractive Prices Momentum + Growth Superior Realized Prices & Margins Attractive & Improving Well Economics Largest Core Drilling Inventory  94% of forecasted production hedged through 2018 at $3.81/MMBtu  $3.1 billion mark-to-market on 3.6 Tcfe hedge position as of 3/31/2016  Over 33 Tcfe of unhedged 3P inventory to drill and produce as prices improve  15% production growth guidance in 2016 and 20% growth targeted in 2017  Forecasted cash flow growth in 2016 and 2017  Flexibility to adjust activity up or down – 8 rigs currently running, 70 DUCs at YE 2016  Realized prices and EBITDAX margins lead Appalachian peers  Forecast positive basis to Nymex in 2016 and beyond due to large FT portfolio with superior pricing points; low average cost of $0.46 per MMBtu  20% to 35% ROR at 3/31/16 strip prices and 47% to 64% ROR including hedges  Long laterals up to 14,000 ft.; rolling off legacy drilling and completion contracts; multiple process improvements and higher proppant loading all improving RORs  Based on geologic interpretation of core, Antero has the largest drilling inventory in the core of the two plays with over 3,700 undrilled locations  Antero continues to consolidate its acreage position
  • 5. 4 Most Active Operator in Appalachia Largest Firm Transport and Processing Portfolio in Appalachia Largest Gas Hedge Position in U.S. E&P + Strong Financial Liquidity Prudent Growth Drives Value Creation Current Flexibility & Upside Participation in Commodity Price Recovery Highest Realizations and Margins Among Large Cap Appalachian Peers Growth & Momentum Flexibility & Upside Hedging & Liquidity Midstream Drilling LEADING UNCONVENTIONAL BUSINESS MODEL MLP (NYSE: AM) Highlights Substantial Value in Midstream Business Realizations Takeaway Well Economics 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 Premier Appalachian E&P Company Run by Co-Founders Sustainable Business Model
  • 6. Note: 2015 SEC prices were $2.56/MMBtu for natural gas and $50.13/Bbl for oil on a weighted average Appalachian index basis. 1. 3P reserve pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and thereafter, respectively. 2. All net acres allocated to the WV/PA Utica Shale Dry Gas and Upper Devonian Shale are included among the net acres allocated to the Marcellus Shale as they are stacked pay formations attributable to the same leasehold. 3. Antero and industry rig locations as of 4/1/2016, per RigData. DRILLING – MOST ACTIVE OPERATOR IN APPALACHIA 5 COMBINED TOTAL – 12/31/15 RESERVES Assumes Ethane Rejection Net Proved Reserves 13.2 Tcfe Net 3P Reserves 37.1 Tcfe Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $11.2 Bn Net 3P Reserves & Resource 50 to 53 Tcfe Net 3P Liquids 1,237 MMBbls % Liquids – Net 3P 20% 1Q 2016 Net Production 1,758 MMcfe/d - 1Q 2016 Net Liquids 68,516 Bbl/d Net Acres(2) 573,000 Undrilled 3P Locations 3,719 OHIO UTICA SHALE CORE Net Proved Reserves 1.8 Tcfe Net 3P Reserves 7.5 Tcfe Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $2.5 Bn Net Acres 148,000 Undrilled 3P Locations 814 MARCELLUS SHALE CORE Net Proved Reserves 11.4 Tcfe Net 3P Reserves 29.6 Tcfe Strip Pre-Tax 3P PV-10(1) $8.7 Bn Net Acres 425,000 Undrilled 3P Locations 2,905 WV/PA UTICA SHALE DRY GAS Net Resource 12.5 to 16 Tcf Net Acres 190,000 Undrilled Locations 1,889 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RigCount Operators SW Marcellus + Utica Rigs(3)
  • 7. Utica Marcellus 2014 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2016 vs. 2014 2014 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2016 vs. 2014 Activity Levels Average Rigs Running 4 5 1 (75%) 14 9 7 (50%) Average Completion Crews 2.0 3.0 1.5 (25%) 5.5 2.0 4.0 (27%) Operational Improvements Drilling Days 29 31 24 17% 29 24 21 28% Average Lateral Length (Ft) 8,543 8,575 9,232 8% 8,052 8,910 9,456 17% Stages per Well 47 49 53 12% 40 45 47 17% Stage Length 183 175 175 4% 200 200 200 0% Stages per Day 3.2 3.7 4.4 38% 3.2 3.5 3.8 19% Well Cost & Performance Improvements D&C per 1,000' $1.55 $1.36 $1.14 (26%) $1.34 $1.18 $0.95 (29%) EUR per 1,000' (Bcf) (1) 1.4 1.6 1.6 14% 1.5 1.7 2.0 33% EUR per 1,000' (Bcfe) (1) 1.5 1.5 1.8 20% 1.8 1.9 2.3 28% Marcellus ShaleUtica Shale Ohio 6 Operating Highlights  Top 10 best drilling footage days in Marcellus since 2009 have all occurred in 2016, including 5,291’ drilled in 24 hours in West Virginia on the Charleston 3H  Recently drilled and cased longest lateral in company history at 14,024 feet  Increased sand placement during completions to 98% in Q1 2016  Stayed within targeted zone for 98% of lateral length drilled in Q1 2016  Utilizing new floating casing procedure, reducing casing run time by over 12 hours  Increased proppant loading and shorter stages in certain areas of the Marcellus 1. Based on statistics for wells completed within each respective period. 2. Year end 2016 forecast. $1.14 1.6 1.8 $0.95 2.0 2.31.8 9,000 9,0005% 12% DRILLING – CONTINUOUS OPERATING IMPROVEMENT (2) (2)
  • 8. DRILLING – PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF WELL COST REDUCTIONS 7 Marcellus Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral ($MM)(1) NOTE: Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period. 1. Based on 200 ft. stage spacing. 2. Based on 175 ft. stage spacing. $5.3 $4.6 $5.3 $4.7 $4.7 $4.7 $8.7 $7.8 $7.6 $7.1 $7.1 $5.6 $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 $MM DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE $14.0 $12.4 $12.9 $11.8 $11.8 29% Reduction in Utica well costs since Q4 2014 Utica Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral ($MM)(2) $4.0 $3.8 $3.4 $3.2 $3.2 $3.1 $8.3 $7.3 $7.4 $7.0 $7.0 $5.4 $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 $MM DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE $12.3 $11.1 $10.8 $10.2 $10.2 $0.95 / 1,000’ 32% Reduction in Marcellus well costs since Q4 2014 17% Reduction vs. well costs assumed in YE 2015 reserves 13% Reduction vs. well costs assumed in YE 2015 reserves $1.14 / 1,000’ Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 COST COST $8.5 $10.3
  • 9. $198 $341 $434 $649 $1,164 $1,351 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E $1,221 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E NGLs (C3+) Oil Ethane 5 246 6,436 23,051 48,298 60,000 24% Growth Guidance 1. Represents Bloomberg street consensus estimates as of 4/15/2016. 1,715 2,058 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E Marcellus Utica Guidance 30 124 239 522 1,007 1,493 8 AVERAGE NET DAILY PRODUCTION (MMcfe/d) 0 50 100 150 200 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E Marcellus Utica Deferred Completions 19 38 60 114 177 181 131 110 180 OPERATED GROSS WELLS COMPLETED AVERAGE NET DAILY LIQUIDS PRODUCTION (Bbl/d) 15% Growth Guidance 20% Growth Target  Antero is in the unique position of being able to sustain growth and value creation through the price down cycle CONSOLIDATED EBITDAX ($MM) Street Consensus(1) GROWTH & MOMENTUM – THROUGH THE DOWN CYCLE
  • 10. 3.7x 4.9x 0.6x 1.5x 3.0x 3.4x 3.8x 4.8x 1.2x 1.9x 4.7x 0.0x 1.0x 2.0x 3.0x 4.0x 5.0x 6.0x AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 YE 2015 Leverage YE 2016E Leverage 15% 17% 17% 3% 2% (11%) 12% 1% (5%) (27%) -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 2016E Production Growth 2016E EBITDAX Growth GROWTH & MOMENTUM – CONTINUED MEASURED GROWTH 9 2015 vs. 2016E Year-End Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX(1),(2) NOTE: Peers include CNX, COG, EQT, RRC and SWN. 1. 2015 and 2016E production and EBITDAX per Bloomberg Street Consensus estimates. Peer 5 2016E production and EBITDAX per company issued press release. 2. 2016E Debt to EBITDAX assumes year-end 2016E debt divided by 2016E EBITDAX. 2016E debt calculated as 2015 YE debt, less free cash flow. Free cash flow is equal to 2016E EBITDAX, less 2016E interest expense per Bloomberg consensus estimates, less 2016 capital spending guidance per company press releases. 3. AR pro forma for secondary offering of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016 for net proceeds of $178 million. 9.8x Antero continues to grow its production and cash flow through the commodity price downturn while also maintaining prudent leverage metrics 2016E EBITDAX and Production Growth(1) Antero is the only one of its Appalachian peers that is growing cash flow in line with production growth (66%)(40%) (3)
  • 11. $3.7 $11.2 $13.9 $20.4 $26.7 $3.1 $2.5 $0.9 ($0.3) ($1.6) $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $9.2 $16.1 $17.3 $22.5 $27.6 ($5.0) $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0 $45.0 SEC Pricing 12/31/2015 Strip $60 Oil $67.50 Oil $75 Oil $3.50 Gas $4.00 Gas $4.50 Gas AR Ownership in AM shares ($B) Hedge Value Pre-Tax PV-10 ($B) 3P Reserves Pre-Tax PV-10 ($B) FLEXIBILITY & UPSIDE – ANTERO THRIVES WITH RISING PRICES 10  As the most active operator in Appalachia, Antero has kept its workforce intact while also preserving the ability to accelerate efficiently when commodity prices recover  Accelerated development is further enhanced by Antero’s ability to flow incremental production to the most favorable price indices using Antero’s firm transport portfolio  Despite its large hedge position, Antero has tremendous leverage to natural gas and NGL prices due to scale of its 3P reserves and development infrastructure Net 3P Reserve/Hedge pre-tax PV-10 plus AM ownership less net debt, Per Share(3) $46 $65 $83 Increase in pre-tax PV10 value does not include the addition of locations; represents upside in prices only on 12/31/15 locations Note: Assumes NGL prices equal to 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter. All PV-10 values are on a pre-tax basis. 1. Total 3P locations of 3,719 less 110 planned completions in 2016. 2. Strip pricing as of December 31, 2015 for each of the first ten years and flat thereafter. $54 Oil; $3.23 Gas Increase in reserve pre-tax PV-10 is well in excess of hedge PV-10 lost at higher prices 3P Reserve/Hedge Pre-Tax PV-10 Upside Value(3) Substantial InventoryOptionality to Accelerate Development $42 Remaining Undeveloped 3P Locations(1) 3,609 85% Producing Wells at YE 2015 540 wells producing 1.5 Bcfe/d net (13%) 2016E Well Completions 110 (2%) 3. PV-10 of 3P reserves and hedges less $4.5 billion of net debt as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AM unit offering, plus market value of 108.9 million AM units owned by AR (as of 3/31/2016). (2) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 5 10 15 20 25 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E Average Rigs Ability to triple rig count from 2016 levels, as demonstrated by historical rig utilization # of Antero Rigs MMcfe/d AR Net Production 2016 Guidance 2017 Target ($Bn)
  • 12. 11 1. Revenues represent annual mark-to-market value based on 3/31/2016 strip pricing, including 1Q 2016 actual hedge gain of $324 million. 2. Consensus EBITDAX as of 3/31/2016. 3. Includes targeted drilling and completion cost improvements.  Antero can achieve 15% year-over-year net production growth for 2016 by spending only $675 million, or approximately $500 million less than the $1.2 billion of expected hedge revenues for the year(1)  Incremental growth capital of $625 million in 2016 positions Antero to achieve its 20% year-over-year targeted net production growth in 2017, while only having to spend $875 million in 2017 FLEXIBILITY & UPSIDE – LOW MAINTENANCE CAPITAL Maintenance Capital $275 Maintenance Capital $500 2016 Growth Capital $400 2017 Growth Capital $375 2017 Growth Capital $625 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 2016 2017 $1.3 Bn D&C Budget 0% Y-O-Y Growth of 1,493 MMcfe/d 15% Y-O-Y Growth Contributes to 2017 20% Y-O-Y Growth Target 0% Y-O-Y Growth of 1,715 MMcfe/d 20% Y-O-Y Growth Target for $875 MM Capex in 2017 Hedge Revenues $1,156MM(1) Hedge Revenues $572MM(1) $MM 2016 2017 Prior year DUCs completed 16 70 D&C Capital – DUCs ($MM) $125 $425 Driven by the DUC inventory, continued capital efficiency and volumes sold forward at attractive prices, Antero is positioned to achieve its 2016 guidance and 2017 production target with modest outspend 2018 Growth Capital TBD (3) Consensus EBITDAX(2) Consensus EBITDAX(2)
  • 13.  While we have not changed our 1.7 Bcf/1,000' Marcellus project-wide type curve, we are seeing stronger EURs per 1,000' in a significant portion of our Marcellus rich gas acreage as exhibited in our 2.0 Bcf/1,000' average for wells completed in the first quarter with at least 30 days of production history $8.7 $11.7 $5.2 $7.7 35% 45% 24% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $0.0 $3.0 $6.0 $9.0 $12.0 $15.0 1.7 Bcf/1,000' 2.3 Bcfe/1,000' 2.0 Bcf/1,000' 2.7 Bcfe/1,000' 1.7 Bcf/1,000' 2.1 Bcfe/1,000' 2.0 Bcf/1,000' 2.5 Bcfe/1,000' Pre-TaxROR Pre-TaxPV-10 Pre-Tax PV-10 Pre-Tax ROR Classification(1) Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate Highly-Rich Gas BTU Regime 1275-1350 1275-1350 1200-1275 1200-1275 EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 24.4 18.8 22.1 EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.7 % Liquids: 33% 33% 24% 24% Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Well Cost ($MM): $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 Bcf/1,000’ 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 Bcfe/1,000’: 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.5 Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.48 $0.41 $0.53 $0.45 Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): $8.7 $11.7 $5.3 $7.7 Pre-Tax ROR: 35% 45% 24% 30% Payout (Years): 2.5 2.0 3.7 2.9 Breakeven NYMEX Gas Price ($/MMBtu)(5) $1.67 $1.40 $2.31 $2.05 Gross 3P Locations(3): 626 971 12 NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL(2) ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.26 $41 $16 2017 $2.77 $45 $21 2018 $2.87 $47 $24 2019 $2.93 $49 $25 2020 $3.03 $50 $26 2021-25 $3.49 $51-$53 $27 Assumptions  Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip  Oil – 3/31/2016 strip  NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+ 4535 2016 Development Plan: Completions 1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities. 2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship. 3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 4. Represents actual results for 1Q 2016. 5. Breakeven price for 15% pre-tax rate of return. WELL ECONOMICS – MARCELLUS UPSIDE POTENTIAL Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate Highly-Rich Gas (4) (4)
  • 14. $2.26 $2.77 $2.87 $2.93 $3.03 $4.13 $3.67 $3.84 $3.61 $3.33 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 03/31/16 NYMEX Strip Pricing - Before Hedges 03/31/16 NYMEX Strip Pricing - After Hedges 24% 24% 35% 20% 23% 24% 13% 10% 9% 64% 64% 63% 56% 48% 47% 28% 24% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Utica Highly- Rich Gas Utica Dry Gas - Ohio Marcellus Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Utica Rich Gas Utica Highly- Rich Gas/ Condensate Marcellus Highly-Rich Gas Marcellus Dry Gas Marcellus Rich Gas Utica Condensate ROR ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges 2016/2017 Antero Drilling Plan ANTERO MARCELLUS & UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2) 108 263 626 161 98 971 755 553 184 1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2024, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities. 2. ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing – After Hedges reflects 3/31/2016 well cost ROR methodology with the 3/31/2016 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2021 projected production volumes resulting in blend of strip and hedge prices. 13  At 3/31/2016 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations with well economics that exceed 20% rate of return (excluding hedges) – Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 47% to 64%  Rates of return include pad, facilities, cash production expenses (including midstream and FT costs) – See assumptions pages in appendix for further detail 2,227 “High Grade” Drilling Locations NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.26 $41 $16 2017 $2.77 $45 $21 2018 $2.87 $47 $24 2019 $2.93 $49 $25 2020 $3.03 $50 $26 2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27 3/31/16 Strip Pricing 3/31/16 Hedge Pricing NYMEX ($/MMBtu) C3+ NGL ($/Bbl) $4.13 $29 $3.67 $19 $3.84 $25 $3.61 $25 $3.33 $26 $3.17 - $3.80 $27 Locations WELL ECONOMICS – SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL
  • 15. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Proved Developed Production (BBtu/d) Undeveloped Production (BBtu/d) Hedged Volume (BBtu/d) WELL ECONOMICS – HEDGING UNDEVELOPED PRODUCTION 14 1. Represents illustrative Antero production forecast, adjusted for residue gas BTU content of 1100 BTU. 2. Hedged volume as of 3/31/2016. 3. Represents average hedge price for nine months ending 12/31/2016. Antero has hedged a significant portion of its forecasted undeveloped production stream from wells yet to be drilled at prices well above current strip pricing, including virtually all of its undeveloped production forecast through the end of 2017 Natural Gas Hedged Volume vs. Production (BBtu/d) (1) (1) Antero has hedged virtually all of its undeveloped production through the end of 2017 Developed (Illustrative) Undeveloped (Illustrative) $3.91/Mcfe(3) $3.57/Mcfe $3.91/Mcfe $3.70/Mcfe $3.66/Mcfe No Production Guidance or Targets Disclosed Beyond 2017 (2)
  • 16. Antero Resources Corporation (NYSE: AR) $10.8 Billion Enterprise Value(1) Ba2/BB Corporate Rating Antero Midstream Partners LP (NYSE: AM) $4.5 Billion Enterprise Value 62% LP Interest $2.4 Billion MV $11.2 Bn 3P PV-10(3) E&P Assets Gathering/Compression Assets MIDSTREAM – MLP (NYSE: AM) HIGHLIGHTS SUBSTANTIAL VALUE IN MIDSTREAM BUSINESS 1. AR enterprise value excludes AM debt, minority interest and cash. Market values (MV) as of 3/31/2016 and includes subordinated units; balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AM unit sale. 2. 3.6 Tcfe hedged at $3.71/Mcfe average price through 2022 with mark-to-market (MTM) value of $3.1 billion as of 3/31/2016. 3. 3P pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and thereafter, respectively. 4. Based on 277.0 million AR shares outstanding and 176.2 million AM units outstanding. 15 Corporate Structure Overview Market Valuation of AR Ownership in AM: • AR ownership: 62% LP Interest = 108.9 million units AM Price per Unit AM Units Owned by AR (MM) AR Value in AM LP Units ($MMs) Value Per AR Share(4) $22 109 $2,396 $9 $23 109 $2,505 $9 $24 109 $2,614 $9 $25 109 $2,723 $10 $26 109 $2,831 $10 $27 109 $2,940 $11 Water Infrastructure Assets MLP Benefits: - Funding vehicle to expand midstream business - Highlights value of Antero Midstream - Liquid asset for Antero Resources Public 38% LP Interest $1.5 Billion MV $3.1 Bn MTM Hedge Position(2)
  • 17. TAKEAWAY – LARGEST FT AND PROCESSING PORTFOLIO IN APPALACHIA Antero Long Term Firm Processing & Takeaway Position (YE 2018) – Accessing Favorable Markets Mariner East 2 62 MBbl/d Commitment Marcus Hook Export Shell 20 MBbl/d Commitment Beaver County Cracker (2) Sabine Pass (Trains 1-4) 50 MMcf/d per Train Lake Charles LNG(3) 150 MMcf/d Freeport LNG 70 MMcf/d 1. May 2016 and full year 2016 futures basis, respectively, provided by Intercontinental Exchange dated 3/31/2016. Favorable markets shaded in green. 2. Subject to Shell FID expected mid-year 2016. 3. Lake Charles LNG 150 MMcf/d commitment subject to BG FID expected in 2016. Chicago(1) $(0.03) / $(0.03) CGTLA(1) $(0.06) / $(0.06) TCO(1) $(0.11) / $(0.14) 16 Cove Point LNG4.85 Bcf/d Firm Gas Takeaway By YE 2018  Antero’s natural gas firm transportation (FT) portfolio builds to 4.85 Bcf/d by YE 2018 with 87% serving favorable markets, with an average demand fee of $0.46/MMBtu and positive weighted average basis differential to NYMEX after assumed Btu uplift for gas YE 2018 Gas Market Mix Antero 4.85 Bcf/d FT 44% Gulf Coast 17% Midwest 13% Atlantic Seaboard 13% Dom S/TETCO (PA) 13% TCO Positive weighted average basis differential Antero Commitments (3) (2)
  • 18. - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 TAKEAWAY – FIRM TRANSPORTATION AND SALES PORTFOLIO 17 MMBtu/d Columbia 7/26/2009 – 9/30/2025 Momentum III 9/1/2012 – 12/31/2023 EQT 8/1/2012 – 6/30/2025 REX/MGT/ANR 7/1/2014 – 12/31/2034 Stonewall/Tennessee 11/1/2015– 9/30/2030 (Stonewall/WB) Mid-Atlantic/NYMEX Gulf Coast (TCO) Appalachia or Gulf Coast Appalachia Appalachia (REX/ANR/NGPL/MGT) Midwest Firm Sales #1 10/1/2011– 10/31/2019 Firm Sales #2 1/1/2013 – 5/31/2022 ANR 3/1/2015– 2/28/2045 Stonewall/WB 11/1/2015 – 9/30/2037 (ANR/Rover) Gulf Coast Antero Transportation Portfolio 582 BBtu/d 590 BBtu/d 375 BBtu/d 250 BBtu/d 800 BBtu/d 600 BBtu/d 630 BBtu/d 40 BBtu/d Gross Gas Production (Actuals) Illustrative Gross Gas Production(1) 1. Assumes production growth guidance of 15% in 2016 and targeted 20% annual production growth in 2017. 2. Based on 2016 production guidance of 1.715 Bcfe/d. 3. Assumes 30% to 50% mitigation on excess capacity and current spreads based on strip pricing as of 12/31/2015. Lowest cost, local unfavorable FT not projected to be used through 2017 2016E Net Marketing Expenses: $15 Million 2016E Net Marketing Expenses: $20 Million 2016E Net Marketing Expenses: $30 to $35 Million (3) 2016E Net Marketing Expenses: $30 to $55 Million (3) 2016E Total Net Marketing Expenses: $95 to $125 Million ($0.15 to $0.20 per Mcfe)(2) 2017E Total Net Marketing Expenses: $ Amounts in line with 2016  While Antero has excess FT in place through 2017, the expected cost of unutilized FT is estimated to be manageable at <10% of EBITDA Projected cost after mitigation due to positive futures spreads Marketed Volume (Term / Contracted) Marketed Volume (Spot / Guidance) 80 BBtu/d
  • 19. $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $MM 18  Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model which includes development of a large, repeatable drilling inventory – Locks in higher returns in a low commodity price environment and reduces the amount of time for well payouts, thereby enhancing liquidity  Antero has realized $2.1 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2009 – Gains realized in 28 of last 29 quarters, or 97% of the quarters since 2009 ● Based on Antero’s hedge position and strip pricing as of 3/31/2016, the unrealized commodity derivative value is $3.1 billion ● Significant additional hedge capacity remains under the credit facility hedging covenant for 2020 – 2022 period Quarterly Realized Hedge Gains / (Losses) Realized Hedge Gains Projected Hedge Gains NYMEX Natural Gas Historical Spot Prices ($/MMBtu) NYMEX Natural Gas Futures Prices 03/31/16 3.6 Tcfe Hedged at average price of $3.71/Mcfe through 2022 Average Hedge Prices ($/Mcfe) $3.36 $3.91 $3.57 $3.91 $3.70 $3.66 $3.24 $3.1 Billion in Projected Hedge Gains Through 2022Realized $2.1 Billion in Hedge Gains Since 2009 HEDGING – INTEGRAL TO BUSINESS MODEL (1) 1. Represents average hedge price for nine months ending 12/31/2016.
  • 20. Liquid “non-E&P assets” of $5.5 Bn significantly exceeds total debt of $3.9 Bn Liquidity LIQUIDITY – STRONG BALANCE SHEET AND FLEXIBILITY Antero Resources (NYSE:AR) Antero Midstream (NYSE:AM) 12/31/2015 Debt Liquid Non-E&P Assets 12/31/2015 Debt Liquid Assets Debt Type $MM Credit facility $529 6.00% senior notes due 2020 525 5.375% senior notes due 2021 1,000 5.125% senior notes due 2022 1,100 5.625% senior notes due 2023 750 Total $3,904 Asset Type $MM Commodity derivatives(1) $3,073 AM equity ownership(2) 2,407 Cash 16 Total $5,496 Asset Type $MM Cash $16 Credit facility – commitments(3) 4,000 Credit facility – drawn (529) Credit facility – letters of credit (702) Total $2,785 Debt Type $MM Credit facility $620 Total $620 Asset Type $MM Cash $7 Total $7 Liquidity Asset Type $MM Cash $7 Credit facility – capacity 1,500 Credit facility – drawn (620) Credit facility – letters of credit - Total $887 Approximately $2.8 billion of liquidity at AR plus an additional $2.4 billion of AM units Approximately $900 million of liquidity at AM 19 Only 41% of AM credit facility capacity drawn Note: All balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015. Pro forma for AR secondary offering of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016 for net proceeds of $178 million. 1. Mark-to-market as of 3/31/2016. 2. Based on AR ownership of AM units (108.9 million common and subordinated units) and AM’s closing price as of 3/31/2016. 3. AR credit facility commitments of $4.0 billion, borrowing base of $4.5 billion.
  • 21. Baa3 Ba1 Ba1 Ba1 Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 Ba3 B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B2 B3 Caa1 Caa2 Baa2 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa2 Baa2 Ba2 Baa3 Baa3 Ba1 Ba1 Baa3 Ba1 Ba1 Ba1 Ba1 Ba3 Ba3 Ba2 Ba3 -Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 Baa3 NBL XEC EQT PXD APC HES CXO AR CLR MUR NFX RRC SWN EGN QEP SM WPX UNT EPE WLL DNR 20 Moody’s Baa / Ba Ratings Review Source: Moody’s releases on 02/11/2016 and 02/18/2016. Note: Issuers are sorted based on rating following review.  Antero’s Ba2 / BB credit ratings were affirmed by Moody’s and S&P in February 2016  Moody’s reviewed 20 high yield issuers and announced 16 downgrades ranging from 1 to 5 notches  S&P reviewed 45 high yield issuers and announced 25 downgrades ranging from 1 to 3 notches Antero was one of only five Baa and Ba companies that received an “affirmed” rating from Moody’s AR Rating Affirmed Baa1 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 B1 B2 B3 Caa1 Caa2 Caa3 Gray – Previous Rating Red – New Rating Appalachian Company 1 2 2 5 5 3 2 44 33 422 3 3 Reduction in Ratings LIQUIDITY – ANTERO CREDIT QUALITY AFFIRMED Notch Notches
  • 22. Old Borrowing Base $4,500 $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $1,800 $2,000 $1,525 $1,750 $1,175 $900 $827 $625 $375 $375 $500 $450 New Borrowing Base $4,500 $4,000 $3,000 $2,750 $1,500 $1,250 $1,150 $1,025 $925 $725 $700 $450 $335 $325 $300 $100 Result -- -- -- ($1,250) ($300) ($750) ($375) ($725) ($250) ($175) ($127) ($175) ($40) ($50) ($200) ($350) Average % Change -- -- -- (31%) (17%) (38%) (25%) (41%) (21%) (19%) (15%) (28%) (11%) (13%) (40%) (78%) (29%) Borrowing Base Actions 1. Represents Spring 2016 borrowing base actions for all public companies for which J.P. Morgan is a lender. $2,750 $1,500 $1,150 $925 $725 $700 $450 $335 $325 $300 $100 $2,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $1,800 $1,525 $1,750 $1,175 $900 $827 $625 $375 $375 $500 $450 AR CHK RRC WLL BBEP SM OAS WPX MEMP LGCY HK EVEP BBG XCO SGY CWEI $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 BorrowingBaseAmount($mm) $1,250 $1,025 Antero was one of only three public E&P companies (two Appalachia) that did not receive a reduction in their borrowing base from Spring redetermination process Red – New Borrowing Base Appalachian Company  Antero’s $4.5 Billion borrowing base was reaffirmed by its lender group, representing one of only three public E&P companies that did not receive a reduction in its borrowing base thus far in the redetermination season (1) – Driven by significant PDP reserve growth and increase in value of hedge position 21 $1,250 $300 $375 $725 $ Amount of Reduction $350$50 $175$127$175 $750 $250 $40 $200 LIQUIDITY – BORROWING BASE AFFIRMED
  • 23. $2.03 $1.88 $1.59 $1.35 $1.14 $1.11 $0.58 $0.73 $0.88 $0.75 $0.85 $0.72 $4.34 $3.22 $3.06 $2.75 $2.21 $2.20 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 $/Mcfe Noncontrolling Interest of Midstream MLP EBITDA LOE Production Taxes GPT G&A EBITDAX 4-year Avg. All-in F&D $4.40 $3.08 $3.00 $2.78 $2.07 $1.94 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 $/Mcf 1. Includes natural gas hedges. 2. Source: Public data from 4Q 2015 earnings releases. Peers include COG, CNX, EQT, RRC and SWN. 3. Includes realized hedge gains and losses. Operating costs include lease operating expenses, production taxes, gathering, processing and firm transport costs and general and administrative costs. 4-year proved reserve average all-in F&D from 2011-2014. Calculation = (Development costs + exploration costs + leasehold costs) / Total reserves added (2014 ending reserves – 2011 beginning reserves + 4-year reserve sales – 4-year reserve purchases + 4-year accumulated production). AR price realization includes $0.06 of midstream revenues; EBITDAX excludes AR’s midstream EBITDA not attributable to AR’s ownership. 22 4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations(1)(2) 4Q 2015 Price Realization & EBITDAX Margin vs F&D(2)(3) ($/Mcfe)  Antero continues to be a leader in its Appalachian peer group in price realizations and EBITDAX unit margins 4Q 2015 NYMEX = $2.27/Mcf REALIZATIONS – A LEADER IN REALIZATIONS & MARGINS 4Q 2015 and 1Q 2016 Natural Gas Realizations ($/Mcf) Average NYMEX Price ($/Mcf) Average Differential ($/Mcf) Average BTU Upgrade ($/Mcf) Relative to NYMEX ($/Mcf) Gas Hedge Effect ($/Mcf) Average Realized Gas Price ($/Mcf) Average Realized Gas Premium to NYMEX ($/Mcf) Liquids Upgrade ($/Mcfe) Realized Equivalent Price ($/Mcfe) Gas Equivalent Premium to NYMEX ($/Mcfe) 4Q 2015 $2.27 $(0.31) $0.17 $(0.14) $2.27 $4.40 $2.13 ($0.12) $4.28 $2.01 1Q 2016 $2.09 $(0.16) $0.15 $(0.01) $2.46 $4.54 $2.45 ($0.40) $4.14 $2.05
  • 24. DOM S 23% DOM S, 3% TETCO M2 7% TETCO M2 1% TCO 40% TCO 33% TCO, 21% NYMEX 10% NYMEX 10% NYMEX 10% Gulf Coast 2% Gulf Coast 28% Gulf Coast 49% Chicago 18% Chicago 28% Chicago 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ($/Mcf) 2015A 2016E NYMEX Strip Price(1) $2.66 $2.47 Basis Differential to NYMEX(1) $(0.53) $(0.12) BTU Upgrade(5) $0.24 $0.24 Estimated Realized Hedge Gains $1.44 $1.50 Realized Gas Price with Hedges $3.81 $4.10 Premium to NYMEX +$1.15 +$1.63 Liquids Impact +$0.29 +$0.10 Premium to NYMEX w/ Liquids +$1.44 +$1.73 Realized Gas-Equivalent Price $4.10 $4.16 REALIZATIONS – FAVORABLE PRICE INDICES Note: Hedge volumes as of 12/31/2015. 1. Based on 12/31/2015 strip pricing and actuals for 2015. 2. Differential represents contractual deduct to NYMEX-based firm sales contract. 3. Represents 120,000 MMBtu/d of TCO index hedges and 390,000 MMBtu/d of TCO basis hedges that are matched with NYMEX hedges for presentation purposes. 4. Represents 60,000 MMBtu/d of TCO index hedges and 120,000 MMBtu/d of TCO basis hedges that are matched with NYMEX hedges for presentation purposes. 5. Based on BTU content of residue sales gas. 2015 Basis(1) 2016 Basis(1) 2017 Basis(1) 2015 Hedges 2016 Hedges 2017 Hedges Marketed%ofTargetResidueGasProduction +$0.02/MMBtu $(0.12)/MMBtu(2) $(1.30)/MMBtu $(0.28)/MMBtu $0.01/MMBtu $(0.43)/MMBtu(2) $(0.18)/MMBtu $(0.04)/MMBtu $(0.43)/MMBtu(2) $(0.78)/MMBtu $(0.25)/MMBtu $(0.05)/MMBtu $(0.06)/MMBtu 1,370,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.40/MMBtu 40,000 MMBtu/d @ $4.00/MMBtu 230,000 MMBtu/d @ $5.74/MMBtu 510,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.87/MMBtu(3) 170,000 MMBtu/d @ $4.09/MMBtu 272,500 MMBtu/d @ $5.35/MMBtu 180,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.54/MMBtu(4) 99% exposure to favorable price indices69% exposure to favorable price indices 97% exposure to favorable price indices  Antero’s exposure to favorable gas price indices like Chicago, Gulf Coast, NYMEX and TCO is expected to increase to >99% in 2016  Improved 2016 realizations driven by Stonewall gathering pipeline which was placed in-service December 1, 2015 and will eliminate virtually all swing sales at Dominion South and Tetco in 2016 $(1.00)/MMBtu $(0.93)/MMBtu Wtd. Avg. Basis ($0.53) Wtd. Avg. Basis $(0.12) 1,160,000 MMBtu/d @ $4.34/MMBtu Wtd. Avg. Basis $(0.15) 1,612,500 MMBtu/d @ $3.92/MMBtu 420,000 MMBtu/d @ $4.27/MMBtu 2015A 2016E 2017E 23 380,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.88/MMBtu 990,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.49/MMBtu 70,000 MMBtu/d @ $4.57/MMBtu 1,860,000 MMBtu/d @ $3.63/MMBtu $(0.10)/MMBtu Current markets indicate positive differential in 2016
  • 25. $15.17 $21.89 $41.00 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 AR NGL Pricing Mont Belvieu Realized NGL C3+ Price WTI $0.59 $0.42 $0.47 $0.47 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2016 2017 Hedged Volume Average Hedge Price Strip (4/11/2016) REALIZATIONS – NGL UPSIDE REFLECTS EXPORTS AND PROPANE HEDGES 24 1. Based on 2016 NGL and WTI strip prices as of 12/31/2015. 2. As of 4/11/2016. Ethane & Propane Pricing Improvement NGL Marketing Propane Hedges  Realized NGL (C3+) price was 50% of WTI in 2014 and 35% of WTI for 2015 − Including propane hedges, 2015 realizations were 42% of WTI  Antero has guided to realized C3+ NGL prices of 35% to 40% of WTI for 2016 (before hedging) − 1Q 2016 realizations were 42%, before hedges − Antero has hedged 30,000 Bbl/d of propane in 2016 at $0.59 per gallon  By 2017, Antero will market a significant portion of its NGL volumes out of Marcus Hook to export markets once Mariner East 2 is in service – 61,500 Bbl/d firm commitment with expansion rights (Bbl/d) $48 MM $(13) MM ($/Gal) Mark-to-Market Value(2) 37% 2016 C3+ NGL pricing guidance of 37% of WTI based on 12/31/15 strip pricing(1) 2016E C3+ Guidance $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 $/Gal Ethane Propane $0.29 $0.47 $0.14 $0.18
  • 26. NORTHEAST NGLS ARE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGED 1. As an anchor shipper on Mariner East 2, Antero has the right to expand its NGL commitment with notice to operator. 2. 2015 NGL production assumes ethane rejection. Mariner East 2 61,500 Bbl/d AR Commitment(1) 4Q 2016 In-Service  Not so much a supply problem but more of a logistics problem for NGLs in the northeast today − The majority of northeast NGL production is being transported by expensive rail and trucking − NGLs that are transported “to the water” are also faced with high shipping rates Export 15% Gulf Coast 13% Mid- Atlantic 6% Sarnia 3% Northeast 43% Midwest 10% Edmonton 10% 2015 NGL Marketing by Region 25
  • 27. NORTHEAST NGL GROWTH IS SUPPORTED BY INCREASING TAKEAWAY OPTIONS 1. Chart 10 per BAML research dated 6/5/2015. Pipeline volumes are capacity estimates. Industry NGL Pipelines – Actual (2015) and Projected(1) 26 Shell Beaver County Cracker (Pending FID 1H 2016) Mariner East 2 62 MBbl/d Commitment Marcus Hook Export Gulf Coast Critical to NGL Pricing Appalachia  NGL transportation rates are expected to decline $0.12 to $0.15 per gallon by 2017 as pipeline options to domestic markets and export terminals go in-service (Mariner East 1 and 2, for example) (MMBbl/d)
  • 28. POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR LONG-TERM NGL MARKETS Steady Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2035(1) 1. Source: PIRA NGL Study, September 2015. 2. Source: IHS, Waterborne, SK Gas Analysis; Wood Mackenzie; Wood Mackenzie; PDH C3 capacity based on 25 MBbl/d = 650 Mt/y. Multiple Factors Driving Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2020(2) MMBbl/d 0.0 0.33 0.67  Forecast global LPG demand growth of 800 MBbl/d to 1 MMBbl/d by 2020 to be driven by petrochem projects in Asia and Middle East as well as residential/commercial, alkylate and power generation demand − Naphtha cracker conversion to LPG another potential demand driver that has not yet been factored into analyst estimates ≈1 MMBbl/d China Korea Haiwei (2016) - 21 MBbl/d C3 SK Advanced (2016) - 27 MBbl/d C3 Ningbo Fuji (2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Fujian Meide (2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Tianjin Bohua 2 (2018) - 29 MBbl/d C3 United States Fujian Meide 2 (2018) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Enterprise (3Q 2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Oriental Tangshan (2019) - 25 MBbl/d C3 Formosa (2017) - 25 MBbl/d C3 Firm and Likely PDH Underway (By 2020) Total - 243 MBbl/d C3 Million Tons, Global PDH Capacity 1990 2000 2010 2020 20 10 0 27 14.7 13.0 11.4 9.8 8.2 6.5 4.9 3.3 1.7 U.S. Driven Global LPG Supply Through 2035(1) MMBbl/d MMBbl/d 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.3 -0.3
  • 29. Continued Operational Improvement Production and Cash Flow Growth Most active developer in the lowest cost basin with growing production base and firm transport to favorable markets; over 33 Tcfe of unhedged 3P reserves increase ~$10 billion in pre-tax PV-10 value with a 50% recovery in commodity prices KEY CATALYSTS FOR ANTERO Guiding to production growth of 15% in 2016 and targeting 20% in 2017 with ~100% hedged at $3.91/MMBtu for remaining nine months of 2016 and at $3.57/MMBtu for 2017, respectively Large, low unit cost core Marcellus and Utica natural gas drilling inventory with associated liquids generates attractive returns supported by long-term natural gas hedges, takeaway portfolio and downstream LNG and NGL sales agreements Current well costs estimated to be 16% to 19% lower than 2015 costs; numerous completion enhancements recently implemented to potentially increase EURs Antero owns 62% of Antero Midstream Partners and thereby participates directly in its growth and value creation; acquisition of integrated water business from Antero expected to result in distributable cash flow per unit accretion in 2016 Midstream MLP Growth Sustainability of Antero’s Integrated Business Model 1 2 3 5 4 Exposure to Commodity Upside Antero is well positioned to be a leading consolidator in Appalachia 6 Consolidation 28
  • 30. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 AR 1Q '16 EQT CHK COG AR SWN RRC CNX - 100 200 300 400 500 600 AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Core Net Acres - Dry Core Net Acres - Liquids Rich LEADER IN APPALACHIAN BASIN Top Producers in Appalachia (Net MMcfe/d) – 4Q 2015(1)(2) Top 12 U.S. Natural Gas Producers (Net MMcf/d) – 4Q 2015(1) Appalachian Producers by Proved Reserves (Bcfe) – YE 2015(1)(2) Appalachian Producers by Core Net Acres (000’s) – December 2015(4) 1. Based on company filings and presentations. 2. Appalachian only production and reserves where available. Excludes companies that do not break out Appalachian production including CVX, HES and XOM. 3. Includes proved reserves categorized in “Northern Division” consisting of Utica Shale, Marcellus Shale and Powder River Basin. 4. Based on Antero geologic interpretation supported by state well data, company presentations and public land data. Peer group includes CNX, COG, EQT, RRC, SWN, CHK. (3) 29 4th Largest Appalachian Producer in 4Q  Antero has the largest proved reserve base, largest core liquids-rich acreage position and is one of the largest producers in the Appalachian Basin Appalachian Peers 11th Largest U.S. Gas Producer in 4Q Largest Proved Reserve Base In Appalachia Largest Liquids- Rich Core Position in Appalachia 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 AR EQT RRC COG CNX CHK SWN AR 1Q ’16 AR 1st
  • 32. $1.55 $1.36 $1.14 $0.000 $0.500 $1.000 $1.500 $2.000 2014 2015 Current Spot $MM/1,000’Lateral Well Cost ($MM/1,000' of Lateral) 12% Decrease vs. 2014 16% Decrease vs. 2015 626 971 553 755 63% 47% 24% 28%35% 24% 10% 13% 0 400 800 1,200 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR Total 3P Locations ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges 184 98 108 161 263 14% 48% 64% 56% 64% 9% 23% 24% 20% 24% 0 100 200 300 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR MARCELLUS WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2) WELL COST REDUCTIONS SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL Marcellus Well Cost Improvement(3) 1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities. 2. ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip-With Hedges reflects 3/31/2016 well cost ROR methodology, with the 3/31/2016 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2021 projected production volumes resulting in blend of strip and hedge prices. 3. Current spot well costs based on $8.5 million for a 9,000’ lateral Marcellus well and $10.25 million for a 9,000’ lateral Utica well. 31 UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2)  74% of Marcellus locations are processable (1100-plus Btu)  68% of Utica locations are processable (1100-plus Btu) 2016 Drilling Plan  Antero has reduced average well costs for a 9,000’ lateral by 12% in the Marcellus and 12% in the Utica as compared to 2014 well costs  At 3/31/2016 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations that exceed a 20% rate of return (excluding hedges) – Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 50% to 80% Utica Well Cost Improvement(3) $1.34 $1.18 $0.95 $0.000 $0.500 $1.000 $1.500 $2.000 2014 2015 Current Spot $MM/1,000’Lateral Well Cost ($MM/1,000' of Lateral) 12% Decrease vs. 2014 19% Decrease vs. 2015
  • 33. WORLD CLASS MARCELLUS SHALE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 100% operated Operating 7 drilling rigs including 1 intermediate rig 425,000 net acres in southwestern Marcellus core (75% includes processable rich gas assuming an 1100 Btu cutoff) – 52% HBP with additional 26% not expiring for 5+ years 452 horizontal wells completed and online – Laterals average 7,600’ – 100% drilling success rate 6 plants in-service at Sherwood Processing Complex capable of processing in excess of 1.2 Bcf/d of rich gas − Over 900 MMcf/d of Antero gas being processed currently Net production of 1,232 MMcfe/d in 1Q 2016, including 46,900 Bbl/d of liquids 2,905 future drilling locations in the Marcellus (2,150 or 74% are processable rich gas) 29.6 Tcfe of net 3P (21% liquids), includes 11.4 Tcfe of proved reserves (assuming ethane rejection except for 1.1 Tcfe) Highly-Rich Gas 139,000 Net Acres 971 Gross Locations Rich Gas 96,000 Net Acres 553 Gross Locations Dry Gas 108,000 Net Acres 755 Gross Locations Highly-Rich/Condensate 82,000 Net Acres 626 Gross Locations HEFLIN UNIT 30-Day Rate 2H: 21.4 MMcfe/d (21% liquids) CONSTABLE UNIT 30-Day Rate 1H: 14.3 MMcfe/d (25% liquids) Sherwood Processing Complex Source: Company presentations and press releases. Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held. Note: Rates in ethane rejection. NERO UNIT 30-Day Rate 1H: 18.2 MMcfe/d (27% liquids) BEE LEWIS PAD 30-Day Rate 4-well combined 30-Day Rate of 67 MMcfe/d (26% liquids) RJ SMITH PAD 30-Day Rate 4-well combined 30-Day Rate of 56 MMcfe/d (21% liquids) 32 HENDERSHOT UNIT 30-Day Rate 1H: 16.3 MMcfe/d 2H: 18.1 MMcfe/d (29% liquids) HORNET UNIT 30-Day Rate 1H: 21.5 MMcfe/d 2H: 17.2 MMcfe/d (26% liquids) CARR UNIT 30-Day Rate 2H: 20.6 MMcfe/d (20% liquids) WAGNER PAD 30-Day Rate 4-well combined 30-Day Rate of 59 MMcfe/d (14% liquids)
  • 34. Antero’s Marcellus well performance has continued to improve over time with a tight statistical range of results across its entire acreage position PROLIFIC PREDICTABLE RESULTS ACROSS ENTIRE MARCELLUS POSITION 33 Marcellus PDP Locations (As of 12/31/2015) (1) 1. Source: IHS; 3rd party producing wells include Consol, EQT, Exxon/XTO, Noble, Ascent, PDC, Magnum Hunter, Statoil, Chesapeake/SWN. >1275 BTU 2.2 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral 10 SSL Wells 1200-1275 BTU 2.0 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral 116 SSL Wells 1100-1200 BTU 1.8 Bcfe/1,000’ Lateral 104 SSL Wells Average Antero Marcellus Well 2014 Actual 2015 Actual Target 30-Day Rate (MMcfe/d): 13.1 15.0 16.1 Gross EUR (Bcfe): 15.3 16.8 19.2 Gross Well Cost ($MM): $11.8 $11.1 $8.5 Lateral Length (Feet): 8,052 8,508 9,000 Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.89 $0.78 $0.52 Btu: 1195 1228 1250
  • 35. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 More - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0  Antero’s Marcellus average 30-day rates have increased by 55% over the past two years as the Company increased per well lateral lengths by 13% and shortened stage lengths by 33% compared to year-end 2013 INCREASING RECOVERIES AND LOW VARIANCE IN MARCELLUS 1. Processed rates converting C3+ NGLs and condensate at 6:1. Ethane rejected and sold in gas stream. Antero 30-Day Rates – 446 Marcellus Wells(1) 34 Antero SSL Reserves in Bcfe per 1,000’ of Lateral – 252 Marcellus Short Stage Length (SSL) Wells 2014 – 13.0 MMcfe/d 2013 – 9.4 MMcfe/d 2009–2012 – 8.0 MMcfe/d  SSL results have been highly consistent and predictable, with a standard deviation of only +/-0.3 around the 1.7 Bcf/1,000’ average (equates to 2.0 Bcfe/1,000’)  These wells provide the basis for AR’s undeveloped 3P reserve evaluations P10: 2.42 Bcfe/1,000’ P90: 1.39 Bcfe/1,000’ P10/P90: 1.7x StdDev: 0.3xP90 P10 2015 – 14.3 MMcfe/d  Antero 3P reserves are evaluated quarterly by AR engineers and audited annually by DeGolyer and MacNaughton – Proved reserves volume delta at YE2015: 0.9% – Probable/Possible volume delta at YE2015: 1.9% 2016 YTD 18.2 MMcfe/d
  • 36. 7,621 8,052 8,910 9,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 2013 2014 2015 2016 Forecast 34 29 24 21 15 20 25 30 35 2013 2014 2015 1Q 2016 913 1,237 1,675 2,116 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2013 2014 2015 1Q 2016 $1,530 $1,340 $1,180 $950 $300 $700 $1,100 $1,500 $1,900 2013 2014 2015 2016 Forecast MARCELLUS OPERATIONAL ADVANCES 35 Reduced Drilling Days Per Well 1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period. Increased Lateral Length per Well (1) Increased Lateral Feet Drilled per Day LateralFeet/Day DrillingDays/Well Reduced Well Cost/Lateral Length ($/Feet) WellCost/LateralLength($/Feet) AverageLateralLengthperWell(Feet)
  • 37. 1,194 1,128 1,117 990 1,031 1,016 958 956 1,084 1,126 1,274 1,304 1,337 1,418 1,480 1,500 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 2016 Plan ProppantPlaced(lbs/ft)MARCELLUS PROPPANT PLACEMENT 36 Increased Proppant Load by 50% While Increasing Proppant Placement to 98% Pilot testing demonstrated improved recoveries while maintaining well density
  • 38. Note: Antero acreage position reflects townships in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held. Antero 30-day rates in ethane rejection. 1. 30-day rate reflects restricted choke regime.  100% operated  Operating 1 drilling rig  148,000 net acres in the core rich gas/ condensate window (72% includes processable rich gas assuming an 1100 Btu cutoff) – 29% HBP with additional 60% not expiring for 5+ years  121 operated horizontal wells completed and online in Antero core areas − 100% drilling success rate  4 plants in-service at Seneca Processing Complex capable of processing 800 MMcf/d of rich gas − Over 500 MMcf/d being processed currently, including third party production  Net production of 526 MMcfe/d in 1Q 2016 including 21,600 Bbl/d of liquids  Fifth third-party compressor station went in- service September 2015 with a capacity of 120 MMcf/d  First AM compressor station went in-service November 2015  814 future gross drilling locations (551 or 68% are processable gas)  7.5 Tcfe of net 3P (15% liquids), includes 1.8 Tcfe of proved reserves (assuming ethane rejection) WORLD CLASS OHIO UTICA SHALE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 37 Cadiz Processing Plant NORMAN UNIT 30-Day Rate 2 wells average 16.8 MMcfe/d (15% liquids) RUBEL UNIT 30-Day Rate 3 wells average 17.2 MMcfe/d (20% liquids) Utica Core Area GARY UNIT 30-Day Rate 3 wells average 24.2 MMcfe/d (21% liquids) Highly-Rich/Cond 25,000 Net Acres 98 Gross Locations Highly-Rich Gas 16,000 Net Acres 108 Gross Locations Rich Gas 30,000 Net Acres 161 Gross Locations Dry Gas 41,000 Net Acres 263 Gross Locations NEUHART UNIT 3H 30-Day Rate 16.2 MMcfe/d (57% liquids) Condensate 36,000 Net Acres 184 Gross Locations DOLLISON UNIT 1H 30-Day Rate 19.8 MMcfe/d (40% liquids) MYRON UNIT 1H 30-Day Rate 26.8 MMcfe/d (52% liquids) Seneca Processing Complex LAW UNIT 30-Day Rate 2 wells average 16.1 MMcfe/d (50% liquids) SCHAFER UNIT 30-Day Rate(1) 2 wells average 14.2 MMcfe/d (49% liquids) URBAN PAD 30-Day Rate 4 wells average 18.8 MMcfe/d (15% liquids) GRAVES UNIT 500’ Density Pilot 30-Day Rate 4 wells average 15.5 MMcfe/d (24% liquids) FRANKLIN UNIT 30-Day Rate 3 wells average 17.6 MMcfe/d (16% liquids) FRAKES UNIT 30-Day Rate 2 wells average 18.6 MMcfe/d (42% liquids)
  • 39. 8,543 8,575 9,000 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 2014 2015 2016 Forecast 29 31 24 10 20 30 40 2014 2015 1Q 2016 1,216 1,406 1,606 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2014 2015 1Q 2016 $1,550 $1,360 $1,140 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500 $1,800 2014 2015 2016 Forecast Increased Lateral Length per Well (1) UTICA OPERATIONAL ADVANCES 38 Reduced Drilling Days Per Well 1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period. Increased Lateral Feet Drilled per Day LateralFeet/Day DrillingDays Reduced Well Cost / Lateral Length ($/Feet) AverageLateralLengthperWell(Feet) WellCost/LateralLength($/Feet)
  • 40. ANTERO’S FIRST UTICA DRY GAS WELL 39  Antero recently drilled and completed its first dry gas Utica well in Tyler County, WV (Rymer 4HD) − 11,409 Total Vertical Depth (TVD) − 6,620’ lateral length − 100% working interest − 20 MMcf/d restricted flow rate for first 90 days  Dry gas fairway extends from the Antero Utica acreage in eastern Ohio to the Antero Marcellus play acreage in northern West Virginia  190,000 net acres in West Virginia and Pennsylvania with net resource of 12.5 to 16 Tcf as of 9/30/2015 (not included in 37.1 Tcfe of net 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015) − 1,889 locations underlying current Marcellus Shale leasehold in West Virginia and Pennsylvania  41,000 net acres in Ohio with net 3P reserves of 2.3 Tcf as of 12/31/2015 − 263 locations in Ohio  In total, Antero has 231,000 net acres and 2,152 potential locations in the Point Pleasant high pressure, high porosity dry gas fairway in OH, WV and PA − 10,000’ to 14,500’ TVD − Density log porosity values average > 8.5% − 120’ to 130’ total thickness − 25 MMcf/d to 73 MMcf/d industry 24-hr IP flow rates − 1000 to 1040 BTU expected NOTE: Wellbore diagram for illustrative purposes only. Targeted Pay Zone IP / 1,000’ Lateral (MMcf/d) 5.0 – 10.0 10.0 – 15.0 15.0 – 25.0 Gulfport Irons #1-4H 5,714’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 5.3 MMcf/d Range Claysville SC #11H 5,420’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 10.9 MMcf/d CNX Gaut 4IH 5,840’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 10.4 MMcf/d EQT Scotts Run 3,221’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 22.6 MMcf/d Gastar Blake U-7H 6,617’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 5.6 MMcf/d Gastar Sims U-5H 4,447’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 6.6 MMcf/d Stone Energy Pribble 6HU 3,605’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 8.3 MMcf/d Magnum Hunter Stalder #3UH 5,050’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 6.4 MMcf/d Magnum Hunter Stewart Winland 1300U 5,280’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 8.8 MMcf/d Utica Dry Gas Fairway Antero Rymer 4HD 6,620’ Lateral IP 20.0 MMcf/d
  • 41. Keys to Execution Local Presence  Antero has more than 3,500 employees and contract personnel working full-time for Antero in West Virginia. 79% of these personnel are West Virginia residents.  District office in Marietta, OH  District office in Bridgeport, WV  227 (48%) of Antero’s 473 employees are located in West Virginia and Ohio Safety & Environmental  Five company safety representatives and 57 safety consultants cover all material field operations 24/7 including drilling, completion, construction and pipelining  37 person environmental staff plus outside consultants monitor all operations and perform baseline water well testing Central Fresh Water System & Water Recycling  Numerous sources of water – built central water system to source fresh water for completions  Antero recycled over 74% of its flowback and produced water through 2014  Building state of the art wastewater treatment facility in WV (60,000 Bbl/d) Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV)  Antero supported the first natural gas fueling station in West Virginia  Antero has 30 NGV trucks and plans to continue to convert its truck fleet to NGV Pad Impact Mitigation  Closed loop mud system – no mud pits  Protective liners or mats on all well pads in addition to berms Natural Gas Powered Drilling Rigs & Frac Equipment  6 of Antero’s contracted drilling rigs are currently running on natural gas  First natural gas powered clean fleet frac crew began operations summer 2014 Green Completion Units  All Antero well completions use green completion units for completion flowback, essentially eliminating methane emissions (full compliance with EPA 2015 requirements) LEED Gold Headquarters Building  Corporate headquarters in Denver, Colorado LEED Gold Certified HEALTH, SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT & COMMUNITY Antero Core Values: Protect Our People, Communities And The Environment Strong West Virginia Presence  79% of all Antero Marcellus employees and contract workers are West Virginia residents  Antero named Business of the Year for 2013 in Harrison County, West Virginia “For outstanding corporate citizenship and community involvement”  Antero representatives recently participated in a ribbon cutting with the Governor of West Virginia for the grand opening of the first natural gas fueling station in the state; Antero supported the station with volume commitments for its NGV truck fleet 40
  • 42. CLEAN FLEET & CNG TECHNOLOGY LEADER ● Antero has contracted for two clean completion fleets to enhance the economics of its completion operations and reduce the environmental impact ● Replaces diesel engines (for pressure pumping) with electric motors powered by natural gas-fired electric generators ● A clean fleet allows Antero to fuel part of its completion operations from field gas instead of more expensive diesel fuel. Benefits of using a clean fleet include: − Reduce fuel costs by up to 80% representing cost savings of up to $40,000/day − Reduces NOx and CO emissions by 99% − Eliminates 25 diesel truckloads from the roads for an average well completion − Reduces silica dust to levels 90% below OSHA permissible exposure limits resulting in a safer and cleaner work environment − Significantly reduces noise pollution from a well site − Is the most environmentally responsible completion solution in the oil and gas industry • Additionally, Antero utilizes compressed natural gas (CNG) to fuel its truck fleet in Appalachia − Antero supported the first natural gas fueling station in West Virginia − Antero has 30 NGV trucks and plans to continue to convert its truck fleet to NGV 41
  • 43. 42 Antero Midstream (NYSE: AM) Asset Overview
  • 44. Regional Gas Pipelines Miles Capacity In-Service Stonewall Gathering Pipeline(2) 50 1.4 Bcf/d Yes 1. Acquired by AM from AR for a $1.05 billion upfront payment and a $125 million earn out in each of 2019 and 2020. 2. AM holds option to purchase 15% of Stonewall pipeline at cost plus cost of carry. End Users End Users Gas Processing Y-Grade Pipeline Long-Haul Interstate Pipeline Inter Connect NGL Product Pipelines Fractionation Compression Low Pressure Gathering Well Pad Terminals and Storage (Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E Marcellus 106 114 Utica 55 56 Total 161 170 AM has option to participate in processing, fractionation, terminaling and storage projects offered to AR (Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E Marcellus 76 98 Utica 36 36 Total 112 134 (MMcf/d) YE 2015 YE 2016E Marcellus 700 940 Utica 120 120 Total 820 1,060 AM Owned Assets Condensate Gathering Stabilization (Miles) YE 2015 YE 2016E Utica 19 19 End Users AM Option Assets (Ethane, Propane, Butane, etc.) AM’S FULL VALUE CHAIN BUSINESS MODEL 43
  • 45. 1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance. 2. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital. 44 Utica Shale Marcellus Shale Projected Gathering and Compression Infrastructure(1) Marcellus Shale Utica Shale Total YE 2015 Cumulative Gathering/ Compression Capex ($MM) $981 $462 $1,443 Gathering Pipelines (Miles) 182 91 273 Compression Capacity (MMcf/d) 700 120 820 Condensate Gathering Pipelines (Miles) - 19 19 2016E Gathering/Compression Capex Budget ($MM)(2) $235 $20 $255 Gathering Pipelines (Miles) 30 1 31 Compression Capacity (MMcf/d) 240 - 240 Condensate Gathering Pipelines (Miles) - - - Gathering and Compression Assets ANTERO MIDSTREAM GATHERING AND COMPRESSION ASSET OVERVIEW • Gathering and compression assets in core of rapidly growing Marcellus and Utica Shale plays – Acreage dedication of ~442,000 net leasehold acres for gathering and compression services – Additional stacked pay potential with dedication on ~148,000 acres of Utica deep rights underlying the Marcellus in WV and PA – 100% fixed fee long term contracts • AR owns 62% of AM units (NYSE: AM)
  • 46. ANTERO MIDSTREAM WATER BUSINESS OVERVIEW 45 Note: Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are owned. 1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance. 2. All Antero water withdrawal sites are fully permitted under long-term state regulatory permits both in WV and OH. 3. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital. 4. Marcellus assumes fee of $3.685 per barrel subject to annual inflation and 250,000 barrels of water per well that utilize the fresh water delivery system based on 9,000 foot lateral. Operating margin excludes G&A. Utica assumes fee of $3.635 per barrel subject to annual inflation and 275,000 barrels of water per well that utilize the fresh water delivery system based on 9,000 foot lateral. Operating margin excludes G&A.  AM acquired AR’s integrated water business for $1.05 billion plus earn out payments of $125 million at year-end in each of 2019 and 2020 − The acquired business includes Antero’s Marcellus and Utica freshwater delivery business, the fully-contracted future advanced wastewater treatment complex and all fluid handling and disposal services for Antero Antero advanced wastewater treatment facility to be constructed – connects to Antero freshwater delivery system Projected Water Business Infrastructure(1) Marcellus Shale Utica Shale Total YE 2015 Cumulative Fresh Water Delivery Capex ($MM) $469 $62 $531 Water Pipelines (Miles) 184 75 259 Fresh Water Storage Impoundments 22 13 35 2016E Fresh Water Delivery Capex Budget ($MM)(3) $40 $10 $50 Water Pipelines (Miles) 20 9 29 Fresh Water Storage Impoundments 1 - 1 Cash Operating Margin per Well(4) $700k - $750k $775k - $825k 2016E Advanced Waste Water Treatment Budget ($MM) $130 2016E Total Water Business Budget ($MM) $180 Water Business Assets • Fresh water delivery assets provide fresh water to support Marcellus and Utica well completions – Year-round water supply sources: Clearwater Facility, Ohio River, local rivers & reservoirs(2) – 100% fixed fee long term contracts
  • 47. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Antero Clearwater Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Bbl/d) Produced/Flowback Volumes (Bbl/d) Illustrative Produced & Flowback Water VolumesAdvanced Wastewater Treatment Antero Produced Water Services and Freshwater Delivery Business Antero Advanced Wastewater Treatment 3rd Party Recycling and Well Disposal (Bbl/d) Advanced Wastewater Treatment Complex Estimated capital expenditures ($ million)(1) ~$275 Standalone EBITDA at 100% utilization(2) ~$55 – $65 Implied investment to standalone EBITDA build-out multiple ~4x – 5x Estimated per well savings to Antero Resources ~$150,000 Estimated in-service date Late 2017 Operating capacity (Bbl/d) 60,000 Operating agreement •Antero has contracted with Veolia to integrate an advanced wastewater treatment complex into its water business • Veolia will build and operate, and Antero will own largest advanced wastewater treatment complex in Appalachia − Will treat and recycle AR produced and flowback water − Creates additional year-round water source for completions − Will have capacity for third party business over first two years 1. Includes capital to construct pipeline to connect facility to freshwater delivery system. Includes $10 million that AR agreed to fund in the drop down transaction. 2. Standalone EBITDA projection assumes inter-company fixed fee for recycling of $4.00 per barrel and 60,000 barrels per day of capacity. Does not include potential sales of marketable byproducts. 20 Years, Extendable 46Integrated Water Business Antero Advanced Wastewater Treatment Freshwater delivery system Flowback and produced Water Well Pad Well Pad Completion Operations Producing Freshwater Salt Calcium Chloride Marketable byproduct Marketable byproduct used in oil and gas operations Freshwater delivery system ANTERO MIDSTREAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSET OVERVIEW
  • 48. 10 38 80 126 266 531 908 1,134 1,1971,216 1,195 1,222 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Utica Marcellus 108 216 281 331 386 531 738 935 965 1,038 1,124 1,303 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Utica Marcellus 26 31 40 36 41 116 222 358 454 435 478 606 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Utica Marcellus $1 $5 $7 $8 $11 $19 $28 $36 $41 $55 $83 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 Low Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d) Compression (MMcf/d) High Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d) EBITDA ($MM) 47 $313 Note: Y-O-Y growth based on 1Q’15 to 1Q’16. 1. Represents midpoint of 2016 guidance. HIGH GROWTH MIDSTREAM THROUGHPUT
  • 49. 0.0x 0.5x 1.0x 1.5x 2.0x 2.5x 3.0x 3.5x 4.0x 4.5x Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7 TotalDebt/LTMEBITDA • $1.5 billion revolver in place to fund future growth capital (5x Debt/EBITDA Cap) • Liquidity of $887 million at 12/31/2015 • Sponsor (NYSE: AR) has Ba2/BB corporate ratings AM Liquidity (12/31/2015) AM Peer Leverage Comparison(1) ($ in millions) Revolver Capacity $1,500 Less: Borrowings 620 Plus: Cash 7 Liquidity $887 1. As of 12/31/2015. Peers include TEP, EQM, WES, RMP, SHLX, DM, and CNNX. 2. AM includes full year EBITDA contribution from water business. Financial Flexibility SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY 48 (2)
  • 51. ($ in millions) 12/31/2015 Pro Forma for AM Unit Sale(4) Cash $23 $23 Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility 707 529 Midstream Bank Credit Facility 620 620 6.00% Senior Notes Due 2020 525 525 5.375% Senior Notes Due 2021 1,000 1,000 5.125% Senior Notes Due 2022 1,100 1,100 5.625% Senior Notes Due 2023 750 750 Net Unamortized Premium 7 7 Total Debt $4,709 $4,531 Net Debt $4,686 $4,508 Financial & Operating Statistics LTM EBITDAX(1) $1,221 $1,221 LTM Interest Expense(2) $237 $234 Proved Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 13,215 13,215 Proved Developed Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 5,838 5,838 Credit Statistics Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x 3.7x Net Debt / Net Book Capitalization 39% 38% Net Debt / Proved Developed Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.80 $0.77 Net Debt / Proved Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.35 $0.34 Liquidity Credit Facility Commitments(3) $5,500 $5,500 Less: Borrowings (1,327) (1,149) Less: Letters of Credit (702) (702) Plus: Cash 23 23 Liquidity (Credit Facility + Cash) $3,494 $3,672 ANTERO CAPITALIZATION – CONSOLIDATED 1. LTM and 12/31/2015 EBITDAX reconciliation provided below. 2. LTM interest expense adjusted for all capital market transactions since 1/1/2015. 3. AR lender commitments under the facility increased to $4.0 billion from $3.0 billion on 2/17/2015; borrowing base capacity increased to $4.5 billion from $4.0 billion on 10/26/2015. AM credit facility increased to $1.5 billion concurrent with water drop down on 9/23/2015. 4. Pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units for net proceeds of $178 million on 3/24/2016. 50
  • 52. ANTERO RESOURCES – 2016 GUIDANCE Key Variable 2016 Guidance Net Daily Production (MMcfe/d) 1,715 Net Residue Natural Gas Production (MMcf/d) 1,355 Net C3+ NGL Production (Bbl/d) 46,500 Net Ethane Production (Bbl/d) 10,000 Net Oil Production (Bbl/d) 3,500 Net Liquids Production (Bbl/d) 60,000 Natural Gas Realized Price Premium to NYMEX Henry Hub Before Hedging ($/Mcf)(1)(2) +$0.00 to $0.10 Oil Realized Price Differential to NYMEX WTI Oil Before Hedging ($/Bbl) $(10.00) - $(11.00) C3+ NGL Realized Price (% of NYMEX WTI)(1) 35% - 40% Ethane Realized Price (Differential to Mont Belvieu) ($/Gal) $0.00 Operating: Cash Production Expense ($/Mcfe)(3) $1.50 - $1.60 Marketing Expense, Net of Marketing Revenue ($/Mcfe) $0.15 - $0.20 G&A Expense ($/Mcfe) $0.20 - $0.25 Operated Wells Completed 110 Drilled Uncompleted Wells 70 Average Operated Drilling Rigs ≈ 7 Capital Expenditures ($MM): Drilling & Completion $1,300 Land $100 Total Capital Expenditures ($MM) $1,400 1. Based on current strip pricing as of December 31, 2015. 2. Includes Btu upgrade as Antero’s processed tailgate and unprocessed dry gas production is greater than 1000 Btu on average. 3. Includes lease operating expenses, gathering, compression and transportation expenses and production taxes. Key Operating & Financial Assumptions 51
  • 53. ANTERO MIDSTREAM – 2016 GUIDANCE Key Variable 2016 Guidance Financial: Adjusted EBITDA ($MM) $300 - $325 Distributable Cash Flow ($MM) $250 - $275 Year-over-Year Distribution Growth(1) 28% - 30% Operating: Low Pressure Pipeline Added (Miles) 9 High Pressure Pipeline Added (Miles) 22 Compression Capacity Added (MMcf/d) 240 Fresh Water Pipeline Added (Miles) 30 Capital Expenditures ($MM): Gathering and Compression Infrastructure $240 Fresh Water Infrastructure $40 Advanced Wastewater Treatment $130 Maintenance Capital $25 Total Capital Expenditures ($MM) $435 1. Reflects the expected distribution growth percentage associated with the fourth quarter 2016 over the fourth quarter 2015. Key Operating & Financial Assumptions 52
  • 54. 23% Common Units Held by AR 34% Common Units Held by Public 43% Subordinated Units Held by AR PRO FORMA IMPACT OF AM UNIT OFFERING Antero Midstream Pro Forma Ownership AR Consolidated Pro Forma Capitalization (12/31/15)Transaction Details  On 3/24/2016, AR priced the sale of 8 million units of AM at $22.40 per unit raising $178 million in net proceeds to repay AR bank debt  Pro forma the monetization, AR reduced its YE 2015 consolidated leverage from 3.8x to 3.7x, while still maintaining a 62% ownership in AM – Post transaction AM ownership value of $2.4 billion  Net proceeds of $178 million will fund a significant portion of the expected outspend in 2016 (excluding 1.2 million unit shoe exercise) Following the offering Antero Resources will maintain a 62% ownership of common and subordinated units in Antero Midstream As of 12/31/15 Pro Forma 43% Subordinated Units Held by AR 19% Common Units Held by AR 38% Common Units Held by Public 1. Net of offering costs. 2. Based on AR credit facility commitment of $4.0 billion and AM credit facility of $1.5 billion. 3. Based on AM closing price of $22.11 on 03/31/2016. Antero Antero Resources Resources $MM 12/31/2015 Adjustment Pro Forma Cash $23 $23 Credit facility (AR) $707 ($178) (1) $529 Credit facility (AM) 620 $620 6.00% senior notes due 2020 525 525 5.375% senior notes due 2021 1,000 1,000 5.125% senior notes due 2022 1,100 1,100 5.625% senior notes due 2023 750 750 Total Debt $4,702 ($178) (1) $4,524 Net Debt $4,679 ($178) $4,501 Financial Data LTM EBITDAX $1,221 $1,221 Credit Statistics Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x 3.7x Liquidity Cash $23 $23 Credit facility – commitments (2) $5,500 $5,500 Credit facility – drawn (1,327) 178 (1,149) Credit facility – letters of credit (702) (702) Total Liquidity $3,494 $178 $3,672 AM Common Units Owned by AR 40.9 (8.0) 32.9 AM Subordinated Units Owned by AR 75.9 75.9 Value of AR-Owned AM Units (3) $2,584 ($178) $2,407 53
  • 55. 522 1,007 1,493 1,758 1,715 2,058 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2013 2014 2015 1Q16 2016E 2017E MMcfe/d Actual Guidance/Target DELIVERING RECORD PRODUCTION VOLUMES  1Q 2016 net production of 1,758 MMcfe/d was 18% above 4Q 2015  Driven by excellent operational execution and strong new well results 54 118% 93% 48% 15% Guidance 20% Target 18%
  • 56. $1,300 $100 Drilling & Completion Land 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET By Area 55 $1.8 Billion – 2015(1) By Segment ($MM) $1,650 $160 Drilling & Completion Land 56% 44% Marcellus Utica By Area $1.4 Billion – 2016 By Segment ($MM)  Antero’s 2016 initial capital budget is $1.4 billion, a 23% decrease from 2015 capital expenditures of $1.8 billion and a 58% decline from 2014 capital expenditures 23% 131 Completions  50 DUCs 1. Excludes $39 million for leasehold acquisitions in 2015. DUCs are drilled but uncompleted wells at year-end. 110 Completions  70 DUCs 75% 25% Marcellus Utica
  • 57. 1.2x 0.0x 1.0x 2.0x 3.0x 4.0x 5.0x 6.0x AR Peer 6 Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 4 Peer 3 Peer 5 Peer 7 $3,117 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 AR Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7 Mark-to-Market Hedge Value ($MM) $941 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 AR Peer 2 Peer 1 Peer 3 Peer 6 Peer 7 Peer 5 Peer 4 E&P Debt (Net of Cash and M-T-M Hedge Value) ($MM)(1) 56 HEDGE BOOK SUPPORTS FINANCIAL PROFILE Note: Data presented as filed for the year ended December 31, 2015. Peer group comprised of Ba1 and Ba3 credit peers including APC, CLR, CXO, HES, MUR, NFX, RRC. 1. Represents total E&P debt less cash and mark-to-market hedge value. Antero exceeds closest credit peer by $2.3 billion AR net leverage maps with strong Baa credit peers Only credit peer with less than $1.0 billion of E&P debt Ba1 Credit Peer Ba3 Credit Peer E&P Debt (Net of Cash and M-T-M Hedge Value) / LTM EBITDAX (Exclud. Realized Hedging Revenue) ($MM)
  • 58. 90% 83% 80% 74% 69% 51% 46% 45% 39% 25% 15% 14% 11% 39% 22% 13% 44% 53% 2% 23% 22% 19% 1% 6% 80% 31% 14% 8% 5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% AR Peer 1 Peer2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7 Peer 8 Peer 9 Peer 10 Peer 11 Peer 12 Peer 13 Peer 14 Peer 15 2016 2017 2018 HIGHEST PROPORTION HEDGED AMONG E&P OPERATORS 57 Antero has substantially de-risked its cash flow profile and differentiated itself versus its peer group through its extensive hedge portfolio, with 100% of forecasted production hedged in 2016 and 2017 and 80% of consensus estimated production hedged in 2018 Source: Public filings. Projected production for peers based on consensus estimates. Projected production for AR based on 2016 guidance of 15% growth, 2017 target of 20% growth, and 2018 consensus estimates. Note: Peers include APC, CHK, CLR, COG, CXO, EOG, EQT, GPOR, NBL, NFX, PXD, RICE, RRC, SWN, WPX. 1. As of December 31, 2015. 0% - >0% - > 100%+ 2016 Average Peer Production Hedged: 43% 2017 Average Peer Production Hedged: 16% 2018 Average Peer Production Hedged: 4% Total Production Hedged (% of Forecasted / Consensus Production) • Antero has 3.5 Tcfe hedged at average price of $3.79/MMBtu and $3.1 Billion mark-to-market(1) • 94% hedged through 2018 at $3.81/MMBtu 0% - >0% - > Peer Group Average Production Hedged Through 2018: 20% Antero Production Hedged Through 2018: 94%
  • 59. 1,793 2,079 2,015 2,330 1,378 630 120 $3.91 $3.57 $3.91 $3.70 $3.66 $3.36 $3.24 $2.26 $2.77 $2.87 $2.93 $3.03 $3.17 $3.34 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Bal '16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 BBtu/d $/MMBtu $4 -$8 $5 $25 $34 $29 $28 $26 $12 $16 $17 $28 $29 $19 $25 $43 $80 $83 $59 $49 $48 $14 $47 $54 -$1 $1 $58 $78 $185 $196$206 $275 $324 ($2.00) ($1.00) $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 ($70.0) $0.0 $70.0 $140.0 $210.0 $280.0 $350.0 Quarterly Realized Gains/(Losses) 1Q '08 - 1Q '16 58 Average Index Hedge Price(1)Hedged Volume Current NYMEX Strip(2) COMMODITY HEDGE POSITION  ~$3.1 billion mark-to-market unrealized gain based on 3/31/2016 prices  3.6 Tcfe hedged from April 1, 2016 through year-end 2022 $832 MM $558 MM $740 MM $617 MM $291 MM $39 MM Mark-to-Market Value(2) LARGEST GAS HEDGE POSITION IN U.S. E&P ~ 100% of 2016 Guidance Hedged 581. Weighted average index price based on volumes hedged assuming 6:1 gas to liquids ratio; excludes impact of TCO basis hedges. 30,000 Bbl/d of propane hedged in 2016, 36,500 Bbl/d hedged in 2017 and 2,000 Bbl/d hedged in 2018. 2. As of 3/31/2016.  Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model due to the large, repeatable drilling inventory  Antero has realized $2.1 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2008 – Gains realized in 31 of last 33 quarters $MM $/Mcfe ($4) MM ~ 100% of 2017 Target Hedged
  • 60. 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.5 5.6 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Utica Marcellus Borrowing Base $4.5 Bn OUTSTANDING RESERVE GROWTH 1. 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 reserves assuming ethane rejection. 2015 SEC prices were $2.56/MMBtu for natural gas and $50.13/Bbl for oil on a weighted average Appalachian index basis. 59 3P RESERVES BY VOLUME – 2015(1)NET PDP RESERVES (Tcfe)(1) NET PROVED RESERVES (Tcfe)(1) 2015 RESERVE ADDITIONS • Proved reserves increased 4% to 13.2 Tcfe at 12/31/2015 with a pre-tax PV-10 of $6.7 billion at SEC pricing, including $3.1 billion of hedges − Proved PV-10 at strip pricing of $8.2 billion, including $2.5 billion of hedges • 3P reserves were 37.1 Tcfe at 12/31/2015 with a pre-tax PV-10 of $6.8 billion at SEC pricing, including $3.1 billion of hedges − 3P PV-10 at strip pricing of $13.7 billion, including $2.5 billion of hedges • All-in finding and development cost of $0.80/Mcfe for 2015 (includes land and all price and performance revisions) • Drill bit only finding and development cost of $0.71/Mcfe for 2015 • Only 69% of 3P Marcellus locations booked as SSL (1.7 Bcf/1,000’ type curve) at 12/31/2015 • Negligible Utica Shale WV/PA dry gas reserves booked – estimated net resource of 12.5 – 16 Tcf 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Marcellus Utica 0.7 2.8 4.3 7.6 12.7 (Tcfe) 13.2 13.2 Tcfe Proved 21.4 Tcfe Probable 2.5 Tcfe Possible Proved Probable Possible 37.1 Tcfe 3P 93% 2P Reserves (Tcfe) $Bn $550 MM
  • 61. Gas – 27.6 Tcf Oil – 92 MMBbls NGLs – 2,382 MMBbls Gas – 29.7 Tcf Oil – 92 MMBbls NGLs – 1,145 MMBbls CONSIDERABLE RESERVE BASE WITH ETHANE OPTIONALITY  27 year proved reserve life based on 2015 production annualized  Reserve base provides significant exposure to liquids-rich projects – 3P reserves of over 2.4 BBbl of NGLs and condensate in ethane recovery mode; 35% liquids 1. Ethane rejection occurs when ethane is left in the wellhead gas stream as the gas is processed, rather than being separated out and sold as a liquid after fractionation. When ethane is left in the gas stream, the BTU content of the residue gas at the outlet of the processing plant is higher. Producers will elect to “reject” ethane when the price received for the higher BTU residue gas is greater than the price received for the ethane being sold as a liquid after fractionation. When ethane is recovered, the BTU content of the residue gas is lower, but a producer is then able to recover the value of the ethane sold as a separate NGL product. 2. 1.1 Tcfe of ethane reserves (182 million barrels) was included in 12/31/2015 reserves from the Marcellus Shale as the first de-ethanizer was placed online at the MarkWest Sherwood facility in December 2015 and Antero’s first ethane sales contract is expected to commence in 2017 upon the completion of Mariner East 2. ETHANE REJECTION(1)(2) ETHANE RECOVERY(1) 60 Marcellus – 29.6 Tcfe Utica – 7.5 Tcfe 37.1 Tcfe Marcellus – 34.0 Tcfe Utica – 8.4 Tcfe 42.4 Tcfe 20% Liquids 35% Liquids
  • 62. LARGE UTICA SHALE DRY GAS POSITION 61  Antero has completed its first dry gas Utica well – a 6,620’ lateral in Tyler County, WV  Antero has 231,000 net acres of exposure to Utica dry gas play in OH, WV and PA  Other operators have reported strong Utica Shale dry gas results including the following wells: Chesapeake Hubbard BRK #3H 3,550’ Lateral IP 11.1 MMcf/d Hess Porterfield 1H-17 5,000’ Lateral IP 17.2 MMcf/d Gulfport Irons #1-4H 5,714’ Lateral IP 30.3 MMcf/d Eclipse Tippens #6H 5,858’ Lateral IP 23.2 MMcf/d Magnum Hunter Stalder #3UH 5,050’ Lateral IP 32.5 MMcf/d Well Operator 24-hr IP (MMcf/d) Lateral Length (Ft) 24-hr IP/1,000’ Lateral (MMcf/d) Scotts Run EQT 72.9 3,221 22.633 Gaut 4IH CNX 61.0 5,840 11.131 CSC #11H RRC 59.0 5,420 10.886 Stewart-Win 1300U MHR 46.5 5,289 8.792 Bigfoot 9H RICE 41.7 6,957 5.994 Blank U-7H GST 36.8 6,617 5.561 Stalder #3UH MHR 32.5 5,050 6.436 Irons #1-4H GPOR 30.3 5,714 5.303 Pribble 6HU SGY 30.0 3,605 8.322 Simms U-5H GST 29.4 4,447 6.611 Conner 6H CVX 25.0 6,451 3.875 Messenger 3H SWN 25.0 5,889 4.245 Tippens #6H ECR 23.2 5,858 3.960 Porterfield 1H-17 HESS 17.2 5,000 3.440 1. Antero acreage position reflects tax districts in which greater than 3,000 net acres are held in OH, WV and PA. 2. The Rymer 4HD has been flowing into the sales line for 90 days with an average choke-restricted flow rate of 20 MMcf/d. Magnum Hunter Stewart Winland 1300U 5,289’ Lateral IP 46.5 MMcf/d Range Claysville SC #11H 5,420’ Lateral IP 59.0 MMcf/d Chevron Conner 6H 6,451’ Lateral IP 25.0 MMcf/d Gastar Simms U-5H 4,447’ Lateral IP 29.4 MMcf/d Utica Shale Dry Gas Acreage in OH/WV/PA(1) Rice Bigfoot 9H 6,957’ Lateral IP 41.7 MMcf/d AR Utica Shale Dry Gas WV/PA Net Resource 12.5 to 16 Tcf 1,889 Gross Locations 190,000 Net Acres AR Utica Shale Dry Gas Ohio 3P Reserves 2.3 Tcf 263 Gross Locations 41,000 Net Acres AR Utica Shale Dry Gas Total OH/WV/PA Net Resource 14.8 to 18.3 Tcf 2,152 Gross Locations 231,000 Net Acres Stone Energy Pribble 6HU 3,605’ Lateral IP 30.0 MMcf/d Southwestern Messenger 3H 5,889’ Lateral IP 25.0 MMcf/d Rice Blue Thunder 10H, 12H ≈9,000’ Lateral Gastar Blake U-7H 6,617’ Lateral IP 36.8 MMcf/d EQT Scotts Run 3,221’ Lateral IP 72.9 MMcf/d CNX Gaut 4IH 5,840’ Lateral IP 61.0 MMcf/d Antero Rymer 4HD 6,620’ Lateral IP 20.0 MMcf/d (2)
  • 63. 626 971 553 755 63% 47% 24% 28% 35% 24% 10% 13% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR Total 3P Locations ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges MARCELLUS SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS – IN ETHANE REJECTION 62 DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS HIGHLY RICH GAS LOCATIONS Assumptions  Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip  Oil – 3/31/2016 strip  NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+ NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL(2) ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.26 $41 $16 2017 $2.77 $45 $21 2018 $2.87 $47 $24 2019 $2.93 $49 $25 2020 $3.03 $50 $26 2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27-$27 Marcellus Well Economics and Total Gross Locations(1) Classification Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Modeled BTU 1313 1250 1150 1050 EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 18.8 16.8 15.3 EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.6 % Liquids: 33% 24% 12% 0% Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Well Cost ($MM): $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 $8.5 Bcfe/1,000’: 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $0.48 $0.53 $0.60 $0.65 Direct Operating Expense ($/well/month): $1,498 $1,498 $1,498 $1,498 Direct Operating Expense ($/Mcf): $0.92 $0.92 $1.17 $0.70 Transportation Expense ($/Mcf): $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): $8.7 $5.3 $0.0 $1.0 Pre-Tax ROR: 35% 24% 10% 13% Payout (Years): 2.5 3.7 8.2 6.8 Gross 3P Locations in BTU Regime(3): 626 971 553 755 1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities. 2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship. 3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 2016 Drilling Plan
  • 64. 184 98 108 161 263 14% 48% 64% 56% 64% 9% 23% 24% 20% 24% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR Total 3P Locations ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 3/31/2016 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges UTICA SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS – IN ETHANE REJECTION 63 DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS HIGHLY RICH GAS LOCATIONS Utica Well Economics and Gross Locations(1) Classification Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Modeled BTU 1275 1235 1215 1175 1050 EUR (Bcfe): 9.4 17.0 25.3 23.8 21.4 EUR (MMBoe): 1.6 2.8 4.2 4.0 3.6 % Liquids 35% 26% 21% 14% 0% Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Well Cost ($MM): $10.0 $10.0 $10.25 $10.25 $10.25 Bcfe/1,000’: 1.0 1.9 2.8 2.7 2.4 Net F&D ($/Mcfe): $1.31 $0.73 $0.50 $0.53 $0.59 Fixed Operating Expense ($/well/month): $2,788 $2,788 $2,788 $2,788 $1,498 Direct Operating Expense ($/Mcf): $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.99 $0.50 Direct Operating Expense ($/Bbl): $2.73 $2.73 $2.73 - - Transportation Expense ($/Mcf): $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 Pre-Tax NPV10 ($MM): ($0.8) $4.8 $6.3 $4.5 $5.8 Pre-Tax ROR: 9% 23% 24% 20% 24% Payout (Years): 8.5 3.3 3.3 4.1 3.4 Gross 3P Locations in BTU Regime(3): 184 98 108 161 263 1. 3/31/2016 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 3/31/2016 natural gas and WTI strip pricing for 2016-2025, flat thereafter, NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI thereafter, and applicable firm transportation and operating costs including 50% of Antero Midstream fees. Well cost estimates include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities. 2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship. 3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 3P locations representative of BTU regime; EUR and economics within regime will vary based on BTU content. 2016 Drilling Plan Assumptions  Natural Gas – 3/31/2016 strip  Oil – 3/31/2016 strip  NGLs – 37.5% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+ NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL(2) ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.26 $41 $16 2017 $2.77 $45 $21 2018 $2.87 $47 $24 2019 $2.93 $49 $25 2020 $3.03 $50 $26 2021-25 $3.17-$3.80 $51-$53 $27-$27
  • 65. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2016 FT Portfolio and Projected Gas Sales Net Production Target (MMcfe/d) (1) 1,715 Net Gas Production Target (MMcf/d) (80% of Net Production) 1,372 Net Revenue Interest Gross-up 80% Gross Gas Production Target (MMcf/d) 1,715 BTU Upgrade (2) x1.100 Gross Gas Production Target (BBtu/d) 1,885 Firm Transportation / Firm Sales (BBtu/d) 3,525 Estimated % Utilization of FT/FS 53% Excess Firm Transportation 1,640 Marketable Firm Transport (BBtu/d) (3) 1,015 Unmarketable Firm Transportation 625 Estimated % Utilization of FT/FS Portfolio (Including Marketable FT) 82% 641. Based on 2016 net daily production guidance. 2. Assumes 1100 BTU residue sales gas. 3. Represents excess firm transportation that is deemed marketable to 3rd parties based on a positive differential between the receipt and delivery points of the FT capacity, less variable transport cost. • Antero projects firm transportation in excess of equity gas production of approximately 1,640 BBtu/d in 2016 • Expect to market or mitigate a portion of the cost of approximately 1,015 BBtu/d of the excess FT with 3rd party gas • Expect to fully utilize FT portfolio by 2019, based on five year development plan (excludes Appalachia based FT directed to unfavorable indices) (BBtu/d) 2016 Targeted Gross Gas Production(1) 1,885 BBtu/d Unmarketable Unutilized Firm Transport ~625 BBtu/d ($0.15 / MMBtu) Marketable Unutilized Firm Transport ~1,015 BBtu/d ($0.39 / MMBtu) Utilized Firm Transport / Firm Sales ~1,885 BBtu/d ($0.45 / MMBtu) Total Firm Transport 3,525 BBtu/d Excess Capacity Marketable / FT Segment (Location) (BBtu/d) Unmarketable Columbia / TGP (Marcellus) 550 Marketable ANR North / ANR South (Utica) 465 Marketable EQT / M3 (Marcellus) 625 Unmarketable Total Excess Firm Transport 1,640 2016 Firm Transport DecreasingCostofFT PORTFOLIO APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
  • 66. ($ in millions, except per unit amounts) Demand 2016E 2016E 2016E Fee Marketing Marketing Marketing ($ / MMBtu) Expenses Revenue Expenses, Net "Unmarketable" Firm Transport 625 BBtu/d of EQT / M3 Appalachia FT $0.15 $35 - $35 "Marketable" Firm Transport Capacity 550 BBtu/d of Columbia / TGP $0.49 $99 $43 - $72 $27 - $56 465 BBtu/d of ANR North / ANR South $0.24 42 $6 - $11 $31 - $36 Sub-Total $141 $49 - $83 $58 - $92 Grand Total - 2016 Marketing Expenses, Net $176 $49 - $83 ~$95 to $125 MM $ / Mcfe - 2016 Targeted Production (1) $0.28 $0.08 - $0.13 $0.15 - $0.20 65 NOTE: Analysis based on strip pricing as of 12/31/15. 1. Represents 2016 net production growth guidance of 15% to 1,715 MMcfe/d. 2. Spread for each respective “marketable” firm transport represents the difference between the gas price Antero would receive at the delivery point of each pipeline versus the price Antero would pay to buy gas at the receipt point of each piece of capacity, less the variable costs to transport on each segment of firm transportation. 2016 Projected Marketing Expenses: 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,600 (BBtu/d) 2016 Targeted Gross Gas Production 1,885 BBtu/d $0.06 / Mcfe of 2016E Production (2) $0.09 to $0.14 / Mcfe of 2016E Production (2) Utilized FT $0.45 / Mcfe of 2016E Production (2) 2016 FT and Marketing Expenses per Unit: 2016 Marketing Revenue Projection: Based on the 2016 guidance of 15% annual production growth, Antero projects net marketing expenses of $0.15 to $0.20 per Mcfe in 2016 Gathering & Transportation Costs Marketable Net Marketing Expense Unmarketable Net Marketing Expense Unmarketable (EQT / M3) ($/MMBtu) 2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Sold Gas) $1.56 2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Bought Gas) (1.56) Total Spread $0.00 Marketable (TCO / TGP) ($/MMBtu) 2016 TGP-500 Pricing (Sold Gas) $2.43 2016 TETCO M2 Pricing (Bought Gas) (1.56) Less: Variable FT Costs (0.15) Total Spread ("In the Money") $0.72 Illustrative Marketing Example: Positive Spread No Spread 2016E Marketing 2016E Marketing Revenue Spread Assuming % Volume Mitigated ($ / MMBtu) (2) 30% 50% "Marketable" Firm Transport Capacity 550 BBtu/d of Columbia / TGP $0.72 $43 $72 465 BBtu/d of ANR North / ANR South $0.12 6 11 Sub-Total $49 $83 $ / Mcfe - 2016E Targeted Production (1) $0.08 $0.13 FT MARKETING EXPENSE UPDATE
  • 67. $0.14 $0.17 $0.23 $0.33 $0.11 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 2013A 2014A 2015A 2016E ($/MMBtu) Wtd. Avg. FT Demand ($/MMBtu) Wtd. Avg. FT Commodity/Fuel ($/MMBtu) All-in Firm Transportation Costs(1) FIRM TRANSPORTATION REDUCES APPALACHIAN BASIS EXPOSURE Appalachia 49% Gulf Coast 51% 2013 Firm Transportation(1)(2) 2013 Firm Transportation – 647 MMcf/d Average All-in FT Cost $0.25/MMBtu 2016 Firm Transportation – 3.55 Bcf/d Average All-in FT Cost $0.46/MMBtu + $0.18/MMBtu  Antero’s firm transportation (FT) portfolio increases visibility on production growth and increases exposure to Gulf Coast and Midwest pricing, with little incremental cost per Mcf  Reduces weighted average basis by $0.35 per MMBtu compared to 2014 basis – while significantly reducing Appalachian basis exposure Utilized portion included in cash production expense (fixed cost) 1. Assumes full utilization of firm transportation capacity. 2. Represents accessible firm transportation and sales agreements. 3. Based on current strip pricing as at 03/31/2016. Included in cash production expense (variable cost) $0.25 $0.28 $0.35 $0.46 2016 Basis(3) TCO – $(0.14)/MMBtu DOM S – $(0.87)/MMBtu 2016 Basis(3) Chicago – $(0.03)/MMBtu 2016 Basis(3) CGTLA – $(0.06)/MMBtu 66 Appalachia 36% Midwest 21% Gulf Coast 43%
  • 68. $525 $1,000 $1,100 $750 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ($inMillions) $1,500 $887 ($620) $0 $7 $0 $250 $500 $750 $1,000 $1,250 $1,500 Credit Facility 12/31/2015 Bank Debt 12/31/2015 L/Cs Outstanding 12/31/2015 Cash 12/31/2015 Liquidity 12/31/2015 67 STRONG FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY AND DEBT TERM STRUCTURE 67 $4,000 $2,785 ($529) ($702) $16 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 Credit Facility 12/31/2015 Bank Debt 12/31/2015 L/Cs Outstanding 12/31/2015 Cash 12/31/2015 Liquidity 12/31/2015 AR LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)(1) AM LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)  Approximately $3.7 billion of combined AR and AM financial liquidity as of 12/31/2015 pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units on 3/24/2016  No leverage covenant in AR bank facility, only interest coverage and working capital covenants AR Credit Facility AR Senior Notes DEBT MATURITY PROFILE(1)  Recent credit facility increases and equity offerings have allowed Antero to reduce its cost of debt to 4.3% and significantly enhance liquidity with an average debt maturity is February 2021 AM Credit Facility $620 1. Pro forma for AR sale of 8.0 million AM units for net proceeds of $178 million on 3/24/2016.
  • 69. Moody's S&P POSITIVE RATINGS MOMENTUM Moody’s / S&P Historical Corporate Credit Ratings “Outlook Stable. The affirmation reflects our view that Antero will maintain funds from operations (FFO)/Debt above 20% in 2016, as it continues to invest and grow production in the Marcellus Shale. The company has very good hedges in place, which will limit exposure to commodity prices.” - S&P Credit Research, February 2016 “Moody’s confirmed Antero Resources’ rating, which reflects its strong hedge book through 2018 and good liquidity. Antero has $3.1 billion in unrealized hedge gains, $3 billion of availability under its $4 billion committed revolving credit facility and a 67% interest in Antero Midstream Partners LP. - Moody’s Credit Research, February 2016 Corporate Credit Rating (Moody’s / S&P) Ba3 / BB- B1 / B+ B2 / B B3 / B- 2/24/2011 10/21/2013 9/4/20145/31/13 Ba2 / BB Ba1 / BB+ Caa1 / CCC+ (1) 1. Represents corporate credit rating of Antero Resources Corporation / Antero Resources LLC. Baa3 / BBB- Moody’s Rating Rationale S&P Rating Rationale 68 3/31/2015 Ba2/BB 2/12/20169/1/2010 Ratings Affirmed February 2016  Antero’s corporate credit ratings were recently affirmed at Ba2/BB by Moody’s and S&P, respectively, despite the severe commodity price down cycle
  • 70. 69 LARGEST LIQUIDS-RICH CORE POSITION Source: Core outlines and peer net acreage positions based on investor presentations, news releases and 10-K/10-Qs. Rig information per RigData as of 4/1/2016. 1. Based on company filings and presentations. Peer group includes Ascent, CHK, CNX, CVX, ECR, EQT, GPOR, NBL, REX, RRC, STO, SWN. • Antero controls an estimated 37% of the NGLs in the liquids-rich core of the two plays • Antero has the largest core liquids- rich position in Appalachia with ≈377,000 net acres (> 1100 Btu) • Represents over 21% of core liquids- rich acreage in Marcellus and Utica plays combined  Antero has over 2,700 undeveloped rich gas locations with an average lateral length of 7,580’ in its 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015 0 100 200 300 400 (000s) Core Liquids-Rich Net Acres(1)
  • 71. LNG Exports 48% Mexico/Canada Exports 18% Power Generation 17% Transportation 1% Industrial 16% 20 BCF/D OF INCREMENTAL GAS DEMAND BY 2020  Significant demand growth expected for U.S. natural gas  More than 65% of the 20 Bcf/d in incremental gas demand forecast by 2020 is expected to be generated from exports: − LNG: 9.5 Bcf/d (~48%) − Mexico/Canada: 3.5 Bcf/d (~18%)  Of the 9.5 Bcf/d of expected incremental demand from LNG export projects, 6.7 Bcf/d (or 70%) of the projects have secured the necessary DOE and FERC permits 70 Incremental Demand Growth Through 2020 by Category Projected Incremental Natural Gas Demand Through 2020 Source: Simmons & Company International, “2015 US Natural Gas Outlook and Updated Long Term Demand Forecast,” September 2014. Sherwood 7 2 5 9 13 17 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Mexico/Canada Exports Power Generation Transportation Petrochem LNG Exports 9.5 Bcf/d of the 20 Bcf/d of incremental demand is expected to come from LNG exports (Bcf/d) LNG Exports Power Gen Petrochem
  • 72. LNG Exports by Project (in Bcf/d) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Sabine Pass 1 - 0.6 - - - - Sabine Pass 2 - 0.6 - - - - Sabine Pass 3 - - 0.6 - - - Sabine Pass 4 - - 0.6 - - - Sabine Pass 5 - - - - 0.6 - 3.0 Cove Point 1 - - 0.4 - - - Cove Point 2 - - - 0.4 - - 0.8 Cameron 1 - - - 0.6 - - Cameron 2 - - - 0.6 - - Cameron 3 - - - - 0.6 - 1.8 Freeport 1 - - - 0.5 - - Freeport 2 - - - - 0.5 - Freeport 3 - - - - 0.5 - Freeport 4 - - - - - 0.4 2.1 Corpus Christi 1 - - - - 0.6 - Corpus Christi 2 - - - - - 0.6 1.2 Lake Charles 1 - - - - - 0.6 0.6 LNG Incremental Exports - 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.9 1.7 LNG Cumulative Exports - 1.2 2.8 5.0 7.9 9.5 LNG EXPORTS BY PROJECT – EXPECTED START UP  Assuming 9.5 Bcf/d of LNG exports by 2020, the U.S. will be the world’s 3rd largest LNG exporter behind Qatar and Australia − 7.7 Bcf/d (81%) of the 9.5 Bcf/d of expected LNG exports have secured US DOE non-FTA (Free Trade Agreement) permit approval − 6.7 Bcf/d (four projects, 70%) have been awarded FERC construction permits  The first LNG export project, Sabine Pass LNG Train 1, is expected to commence operations in early 2016 − Antero has committed to 200 MMcf/d on Sabine Pass Trains 1-4  The second LNG export project, Cove Point LNG, is expected to commence operations in mid-2017 − Antero has committed to 330 MMcf/d on Cove Point 1 & 2 71 LNG Exports by Project Through 2020 Antero Supply Agreements for Portion of Capacity Source: Simmons & Company International, “2015 US Natural Gas Outlook and Updated Long Term Demand Forecast,” September 2014. Note: Data updated for recent announcements subsequent to Simmons report. Antero Supplied
  • 73. 2015 GLOBAL LPG DEMAND  Global LPG demand is 8.5 MMBbl/d and growing 72
  • 74. GLOBAL LPG DEMAND DRIVEN BY PETCHEM AND RES/COMM  Largest end-use sectors for LPG are residential/commercial, which tends to grow with population and improvement in living standards in the emerging markets − PIRA forecasting >1.0 MMBbl/d over next 5 years and >4.5 MMBbl/d of global LPG demand growth over next 20 years 731. PIRA NGL Study, September 2015. MMBbl/d 14.7 13.0 11.4 9.8 8.2 6.5 4.9 3.3 1.6