SlideShare a Scribd company logo
O
Scotia Howard Weil
2016 Energy Conference
March 21, 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.
WHY OWN ANTERO?
2
 $3.5 billion of consolidated liquidity available as of 12/31/15
 Ba2/BB corporate ratings affirmed in February 2016
 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 3.5 Tcfe hedge position as of 12/31/15
 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
 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
 Realized prices and EBITDAX margins lead Appalachian peers
 24% to 37% ROR at 12/31/15 strip prices and 52% to 85% 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
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
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
LEADERSHIP 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)
3
4th Largest
Appalachian
Producer
 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
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
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
$198
$341
$434
$649
$1,164
$1,347
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
$1,221
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
NGLs (C3+) Oil Ethane
5 246
6,436
23,051
48,298
60,000
24% Growth
Guidance
1. Represents Bloomberg street consensus estimates as of 3/17/2016.
1,715
2,058
0
600
1,200
1,800
2,400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E
Marcellus Utica Guidance
30 124
239
522
1,007
1,493
4
AVERAGE NET DAILY PRODUCTION (MMcfe/d)
0
50
100
150
200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E
Marcellus Utica Deferred Completions
19
38
60
114
177 181
131
110
180
GROWING THROUGH THE DOWN CYCLE
OPERATED GROSS WELLS COMPLETED
AVERAGE NET DAILY LIQUIDS PRODUCTION (Bbl/d)
15%
Growth
Guidance
20%
Growth
Target
 Antero is in the unique position of being able to sustain growth and value creation through the price down cycle
CONSOLIDATED EBITDAX ($MM)
Street
Consensus(1)
$1,300
$100
Drilling & Completion Land
2016 CAPITAL BUDGET DRIVES MOMENTUM
By Area
5
$1.8 Billion – 2015(1)
By Segment ($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 at YE
1. Excludes $39 million for leasehold acquisitions in 2015.
110 Completions
 70 DUCs at YE
75%
25%
Marcellus Utica
6
1. Revenues represent annual mark-to-market value based on 12/31/2015 strip pricing.
2. Consensus EBITDA as of 3/17/16.
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 $330
million less than the $1 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
LOW MAINTENANCE CAPITAL PROVIDES
FLEXIBILITY AND UPSIDE
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
$1,009MM(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
Consensus
EBITDAX
3Q 2015
$1.97
AR P3 P5 P4 P2 P1
$2.03
AR P3 P2 P1 P5 P4
$2.84
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
AR P5 P2 P3 P4 P1
$2.56
P2 AR P5 P3 P4 P1
$308
AR P5 P3 P2 P4 P1
$1.90
AR P3 P4 P2 P5 P1
$291
P5 AR P3 P2 P4 P1
$269
P5 AR P2 P3 P4 P1
$330
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
P5 P2 P4 AR P3 P1
$355
P5 P2 AR P4 P3 P1
HIGHEST EBITDAX & MARGINS AMONG PEERS
Quarterly Appalachian Peer Group EBITDAX Margin ($/Mcfe)(1)
Quarterly Appalachian Peer Group EBITDAX ($MM)(1)
4Q 2014 1Q 2015 2Q 2015
Note: AR and EQT EBITDAX margin excludes EBITDA from midstream MLP associated with noncontrolling interest. CNX excludes EBITDAX contribution from coal operations.
1. Source: Public data from form 10-Qs and 10-Ks. Peers include COG, CNX, EQT , RRC and SWN.
4Q 20154Q 2014 1Q 2015 2Q 2015
AR Peer Group Ranking – Top Tier
#1 #2 #1 #1 #1
AR Peer Group Ranking – Improving Over Time
#4 #3 #2 #2 #1
Y-O-Y AR:  $22MM
Peer Avg:  $129MM
NYMEX Gas: 43%
NYMEX Oil:  43%
Y-O-Y AR:  28%
Peer Avg:  43%
NYMEX Gas:  43%
NYMEX Oil:  43%
7
3Q 2015
For the first quarter AR has ranked first for the highest EBITDAX
and EBITDAX margin among Appalachian peers
4Q 2015
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
CREDIT QUALITY AFFIRMED
8
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
9
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 3/11/2016, per RigData.
DRILLING – MOST ACTIVE OPERATOR IN APPALACHIA
10
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%
4Q 2015 Net Production 1,497 MMcfe/d
- 4Q 2015 Net Liquids 54,750 Bbl/d
Net Acres(2) 569,000
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 147,000
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 422,000
Undrilled 3P Locations 2,905
WV/PA UTICA SHALE DRY GAS
Net Resource 12.5 to 16 Tcf
Net Acres 188,000
Undrilled Locations 1,889
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RigCount
Operators
Current SW Marcellus & Utica(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' (3)
1.4 1.6 TBD 14% 1.5 1.7 TBD 13%
Marcellus ShaleUtica Shale Ohio
DRILLING – CONTINUOUS OPERATING IMPROVEMENT
11
Operating Highlights
 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
 Piloting increased proppant loading
and shorter stages in certain areas in
the Marcellus
(2) (2)
1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period.
2. Represents improvement from 2014 to 2015.
3. Weighted average EUR based on wells drilled in each respective period.
DRILLING – PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF WELL COST
REDUCTIONS
12
Marcellus Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral (1)
NOTE: Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period.
1. Based on 9,000 ft. lateral and 200 ft. stage spacing.
2. Based on 9,000 ft. lateral and 175 ft. stage spacing.
$5.33 $4.62 $5.28 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70
$8.73
$7.77
$7.61 $7.11 $7.11
$5.55
$-
$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
$14.06
$12.40 $12.89
$11.81 $11.81
29% Reduction in
Utica well costs since
Q4 2014
Utica Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral (2)
$3.97 $3.81 $3.44 $3.16 $3.16 $3.11
$8.29
$7.34 $7.38 $7.02 $7.02
$5.39
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1
$MM
DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE
$12.26
$11.15 $10.80
$10.18 $10.18 $8.5
($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
$10.25
($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
3.8x
4.9x
0.6x
1.5x
3.0x
3.4x
3.9x
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
2015 Leverage 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 – PRUDENT GROWTH
13
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.
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%)
$3.7
$11.2 $13.9
$20.4
$26.7
$3.1
$2.5
$0.9
($0.3) ($1.6)
$3.0
$3.0 $3.0
$3.0
$3.0
$9.8
$16.7
$17.8
$23.0
$28.1
($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
COMMODITY PRICES
14
 As the most active operator in Appalachia, Antero has kept its workforce in tact 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 and
AM ownership, Per Share(3)
$47
$66
$85
Increase in pre-tax PV-
10 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
$43
Remaining
Undeveloped
3P Locations(1)
3,609
85%
Producing Wells
at YE 2015
540 wells producing
1.5 Bcfe/d net (13%)
2016 Well
Completions
110 (2%)
3. PV-10 of 3P reserves and hedges less $4.7 billion of net debt as of 12/31/15, plus market value of 116.9
million AM units owned by AR (as of 3/16/15).
(2)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
5
10
15
20
25
2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E
Average Rigs
Ability to triple rig count
from 2016 levels, as
demonstrated by
historical rig utilization
# of Antero Rigs MMcfe/d
AR Net
Production
2016 Guidance
2017 Target
($Bn)
29%
27%
24%
37%
28%
25%
13%
10% 11%
85% 82%
73% 70%
62%
52%
32%
27%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Utica Highly-
Rich Gas
Utica Dry Gas
- Ohio
Utica Rich Gas Marcellus
Highly-Rich
Gas/
Condensate
Utica Highly-
Rich Gas/
Condensate
Marcellus
Highly-Rich
Gas
Marcellus Dry
Gas
Marcellus Rich
Gas
Utica
Condensate
ROR
ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
2016 and 2017 Antero
Drilling Plan
ANTERO MARCELLUS & UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2)
108 263 161 626 98 971 755 553 184
1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assumes Antero will begin to
realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts begin to roll off during 2016.
2. ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing – After Hedges reflects 12/31/2015 well cost ROR methodology with the 12/31/2015 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2020 projected production volumes resulting in
blend of strip and hedge prices.
15
 At 12/31/2015 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations with well economics that exceed 20% rate of
return (excluding hedges)
– Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 52% to 85%
 Rates of return include pad, facilities, cash production expenses (including midstream and FT costs)
– See assumptions pages in appendix for further detail
2,227 “High
Grade” Drilling
Locations
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.50 $41 $15
2017 $2.79 $46 $23
2018 $2.91 $49 $25
2019 $3.03 $52 $26
2020 $3.18 $54 $27
2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28
12/31/15 Strip Pricing 12/31/15 Hedge Pricing
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
C3+ NGL
($/Bbl)
$4.19 $18
$3.72 $22
$3.70 $25
$3.60 $26
$3.38 $27
$3.31 - $3.88 $27-$28
$2.50 $2.79 $2.91 $3.03 $3.18
$4.19
$3.72 $3.70 $3.60 $3.38
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
12/31/15 NYMEX Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
12/31/15 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
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
16
1. Represents illustrative Antero production forecast, adjusted for residue gas BTU content of 1100 BTU.
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)
$3.94/Mcfe
$3.57/Mcfe
$3.91/Mcfe $3.87/Mcfe
$3.72/Mcfe
No Production Guidance
or Targets Disclosed
Beyond 2017
Antero Resources
Corporation (NYSE: AR)
$10.9 Billion Enterprise Value(1)
Ba2/BB Corporate Rating
Antero Midstream
Partners LP (NYSE: AM)
$5.1 Billion Enterprise Value
66% LP Interest
$3.0 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 3/16/2016 and includes subordinated units; balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015.
2. 3.5 Tcfe hedged at $3.79/Mcfe average price through 2022 with mark-to-market (MTM) value of $3.1 billion as of 12/31/2015.
3. 3P pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and
thereafter, respectively.
4. Based on 277.0 million AR shares outstanding and 176.2 million AM units outstanding.
17
Corporate Structure Overview
Market Valuation of AR Ownership in AM:
• AR ownership: 66% LP Interest = 116.9 million units
AM Price
per Unit
AM Units
Owned
by AR
(MM)
AR Value in
AM LP Units
($MMs)
Value Per
AR Share(4)
$23 117 $2,688 $10
$24 117 $2,805 $10
$25 117 $2,922 $11
$26 117 $3,039 $11
$27 117 $3,155 $11
$28 117 $3,272 $12
Water Infrastructure
Assets
MLP Benefits:
- Funding vehicle to expand midstream business
- Highlights value of Antero Midstream
- Liquid asset for Antero Resources
Public
34% 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. February 2016 and full year 2016 futures basis, respectively, provided by Intercontinental Exchange dated 12/31/2015. 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)
$0.25 /
$0.02
CGTLA(1)
$(0.07) /
$(0.06)
TCO(1)
$(0.16) /
$(0.18)
18
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
19
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
$MM
20
HEDGING – INTEGRAL TO BUSINESS MODEL
 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 $1.7 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 12/31/2015, the unrealized commodity derivative value is $3.1 billion
● Significant additional hedge capacity remains under the credit facility hedging covenant for 2018 – 2022 period
Quarterly Realized Hedge Gains / (Losses)
Realized Hedge Gains
Projected Hedge Gains
NYMEX Natural Gas
Historical Spot Prices
($/MMBtu)
NYMEX Natural Gas
Futures Prices 12/31/15
3.5 Tcfe Hedged at
average price of
$3.79/Mcfe
through 2022
Average Hedge Prices
($/Mcfe)
$3.48
$3.94
$3.57
$3.91 $3.87
$3.72
$3.30
$3.1 Billion on
Balance Sheet in
Hedge Gains
Through 2022Realized $1.7 Billion
in Hedge Gains
Since 2009
Liquid “non-E&P assets” of $6.1 Bn
significantly exceeds total debt of $4.1 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 $707
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 $4,082
Asset Type $MM
Commodity derivatives(1) $3,117
AM equity ownership(2) 2,960
Cash 16
Total $6,093
Asset Type $MM
Cash $16
Credit facility – commitments(3) 4,000
Credit facility – drawn (707)
Credit facility – letters of credit (702)
Total $2,607
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 $2.6 billion of liquidity at AR
plus an additional $3.0 billion of AM units
Approximately $900 million of liquidity
at AM
21
Only 41% of AM credit facility capacity drawn
Note: All balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015.
1. Mark-to-market as of 12/31/2015.
2. Based on AR ownership of AM units (116.9 million common and subordinated units) and AM’s closing price as of 3/16/2016.
3. AR credit facility commitments of $4.0 billion, borrowing base of $4.5 billion.
Region
4Q 2015
% Sales
Average
NYMEX Price
Average
Differential
Average
BTU Upgrade
Hedge
Effect
2015
Realized Gas
Price
NYMEX
Premium/
Discount
TCO 42% $2.27 $(0.32) $0.15 $0.25 $2.35 $0.08
Dom South/TETCO 26% $2.27 $(0.76) $0.10 $0.87 $2.48 $0.21
Gulf Coast 5% $2.27 $(0.17) $0.17 $1.15 $3.42 $1.15
Chicago/Michigan 27% $2.27 $0.12 $0.26 $0.00 $2.65 $0.38
Total Wtd. Avg. 100% $2.27 $(0.31) $0.17 $2.27 $4.40 $2.13
$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 $0.06 of midstream revenues; EBITDAX excludes AR’s midstream EBITDA not attributable to AR’s ownership.
22
REALIZATIONS – A LEADER IN REALIZATIONS & MARGINS
AMONG LARGE-CAP APPALACHIAN PEERS
4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations(1)(2) 4Q 2015 Price Realization & EBITDAX Margin vs F&D(2)(3)
($/Mcfe)
 Antero continues to be a leader in its peer group in price realizations and EBITDAX unit margins
4Q 2015 NYMEX
= $2.27/Mcf
4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations ($/Mcf)
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
$0.43
$0.40
$0.41
$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 (12/31/2015)
REALIZATIONS – NGL UPSIDE REFLECTS EXPORTS AND
PROPANE HEDGES
241. Based on 2016 NGL and WTI strip prices as of 12/31/2015.
2. As of 12/31/2015.
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)
− 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)
$82 MM $7 MM
($/Gal)
Mark-to-Market Value(2)
37%
2016 C3+ NGL pricing guidance
of 37% of WTI based on
12/31/15 strip pricing
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
$0.18
REALIZATIONS – POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR LONG-TERM NGL
MARKETS
Steady Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2035(1)
1. Source: PIRA NGL Study, September 2015.
2. Source: IHS, Waterborne, SK Gas Analysis; Wood Mackenzie; Wood Mackenzie; PDH C3 capacity based on 25 MBbl/d = 650 Mt/y.
Multiple Factors Driving Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2020(2)
MMBbl/d
0.0
0.33
0.67
 Forecast global LPG demand growth of 800 MBbl/d to 1 MMBbl/d by 2020 to be driven by petrochem projects in Asia and Middle East as well as
residential/commercial, alkylate and power generation demand
− Naphtha cracker conversion to LPG another potential demand driver that has not yet been factored into analyst estimates ≈1 MMBbl/d
China Korea
Haiwei (2016)
- 21 MBbl/d C3
SK Advanced (2016)
- 27 MBbl/d C3
Ningbo Fuji (2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Fujian Meide (2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Tianjin Bohua 2 (2018)
- 29 MBbl/d C3 United States
Fujian Meide 2 (2018)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Enterprise (3Q 2016)
- 29 MBbl/d C3
Oriental Tangshan (2019)
- 25 MBbl/d C3
Formosa (2017)
- 25 MBbl/d C3
Firm and Likely PDH Underway
(By 2020)
Total - 243 MBbl/d C3
Million Tons, Global PDH Capacity
1990 2000 2010 2020
20
10
0
25
14.7
13.0
11.4
9.8
8.2
6.5
4.9
3.3
1.7
U.S. Driven Global LPG Supply Through 2035(1)
MMBbl/d MMBbl/d
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.3
-0.3
26
Antero Midstream (NYSE: AM)
Asset Overview
1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance.
2. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital.
27
Utica
Shale
Marcellus
Shale
Projected Gathering and Compression Infrastructure(1)
Marcellus
Shale
Utica
Shale Total
YE 2015 Cumulative Gathering/
Compression Capex ($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 ~438,000 net leasehold
acres for gathering and compression services
– Additional stacked pay potential with dedication on
~147,000 acres of Utica deep rights underlying the
Marcellus in WV and PA
– 100% fixed fee long term contracts
• AR owns 66% of AM units (NYSE: AM)
ANTERO MIDSTREAM WATER BUSINESS OVERVIEW
28
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
$1
$5 $7 $8
$11
$19
$28
$36
$41
$55
$83
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
26 31 40 36 41
116
222
358
454 435
478
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800 Utica Marcellus
10 38 80 126
266
531
908
1,134 1,197 1,216 1,195
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800 Utica Marcellus
108
216
281 331 386
531
738
935 965
1,038
1,124
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800 Utica Marcellus
Low Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d)
Compression (MMcf/d)
High Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d)
EBITDA ($MM)
29
$313
HIGH GROWTH MIDSTREAM THROUGHPUT
Note: Y-O-Y growth based on 4Q’14 to 4Q’15.
1. Represents midpoint of 2016 guidance .
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 15% in 2016 and targeting 20% production growth in 2017 with
~100% hedged at $3.94/MMBtu and $3.57/MMBtu, 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
Q1 2016 well costs estimated to be over 15% lower than 2015 costs;
numerous completion enhancements recently implemented to potentially
increase EURs
Antero owns 66% 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
30
31
APPENDIX
31
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)
32
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
33
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%
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.
34
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
$550 MM
ANTERO’S FIRST UTICA DRY GAS WELL
35
 Antero recently drilled and completed its first dry gas Utica well in
Tyler County, WV (Rymer 4HD)
− 11,409 Total Vertical Depth (TVD)
− 6,620’ lateral length
− 100% working interest
− 20 MMcf/d restricted flow rate for first 90 days
 Dry gas fairway extends from the Antero Utica acreage in eastern
Ohio to the Antero Marcellus play acreage in northern West
Virginia
 188,000 net acres in West Virginia and Pennsylvania with net
resource of 12.5 to 16 Tcf as of 9/30/2015 (not included in 37.1
Tcfe of net 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015)
− 1,889 locations underlying current Marcellus Shale leasehold in
West Virginia and Pennsylvania
 41,000 net acres in Ohio with net 3P reserves of 2.3 Tcf as of
12/31/2015
− 263 locations in Ohio
 In total, Antero has 229,000 net acres and 2,152 potential
locations in the Point Pleasant high pressure, high porosity dry gas
fairway in OH, WV and PA
− 10,000’ to 14,500’ TVD
− Density log porosity values average > 8.5%
− 120’ to 130’ total thickness
− 25 MMcf/d to 73 MMcf/d industry 24-hr IP flow rates
− 1000 to 1040 BTU expected
NOTE: Wellbore diagram for illustrative purposes only.
Targeted Pay Zone
IP / 1,000’ Lateral (MMcf/d)
5.0 – 10.0
10.0 – 15.0
15.0 – 25.0
Gulfport
Irons #1-4H
5,714’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 5.3 MMcf/d
Range
Claysville SC #11H
5,420’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 10.9 MMcf/d
CNX
Gaut 4IH
5,840’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 10.4 MMcf/d
EQT
Scotts Run
3,221’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 22.6 MMcf/d
Gastar
Blake U-7H
6,617’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 5.6 MMcf/d
Gastar
Sims U-5H
4,447’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 6.6 MMcf/d
Stone Energy
Pribble 6HU
3,605’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 8.3 MMcf/d
Magnum Hunter
Stalder #3UH
5,050’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 6.4 MMcf/d
Magnum Hunter
Stewart Winland 1300U
5,280’ Lateral
IP/1,000’: 8.8 MMcf/d
Utica Dry Gas Fairway
Antero
Rymer 4HD
6,620’ Lateral
IP 20.0 MMcf/d
($ in millions) 12/31/2015
Cash $23
Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility 707
Midstream Bank Credit Facility 620
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
Net Unamortized Premium 7
Total Debt $4,709
Net Debt $4,686
Financial & Operating Statistics
LTM EBITDAX(1)
$1,221
LTM Interest Expense(2) $237
Proved Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 13,215
Proved Developed Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 5,838
Credit Statistics
Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x
Net Debt / Net Book Capitalization 39%
Net Debt / Proved Developed Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.80
Net Debt / Proved Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.35
Liquidity
Credit Facility Commitments(3) $5,500
Less: Borrowings (1,327)
Less: Letters of Credit (702)
Plus: Cash 23
Liquidity (Credit Facility + Cash) $3,494
ANTERO CAPITALIZATION – CONSOLIDATED
1. LTM and 12/31/2015 EBITDAX reconciliation provided on page 49.
2. LTM interest expense adjusted for all capital market transactions since 1/1/2015.
3. AR lender commitments are $4.0 billion and borrowing base capacity is $4.5 billion. AM credit facility is $1.5 billion.
36
ANTERO RESOURCES – 2016 GUIDANCE
Key Variable 2016 Guidance
Net Daily Production (MMcfe/d) 1,715
Net Natural Gas Production (MMcf/d) 1,355
Net C3+ NGL Production (Bbl/d) 46,500
Net Ethane Production (Bbl/d) 10,000
Net Oil Production (Bbl/d) 3,500
Net Liquids Production (Bbl/d) 60,000
Natural Gas Realized Price Premium to NYMEX Henry Hub Before Hedging ($/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) $1,400
1. Based on current strip pricing as of December 31, 2015.
2. Includes Btu upgrade as Antero’s processed tailgate and unprocessed dry gas production is greater than 1000 Btu on average.
3. Includes lease operating expenses, gathering, compression and transportation expenses and production taxes.
Key Operating & Financial Assumptions
37
ANTERO MIDSTREAM – 2016 GUIDANCE
Key Variable 2016 Guidance
Financial:
Adjusted EBITDA ($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
38
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%
ANTERO FT PORTFOLIO APPROPRIATELY
DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
391. 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
($0.45 / MMBtu)
Total Firm Transport
3,525 BBtu/d
Excess
Capacity Marketable /
FT Segment (Location) (BBtu/d) Unmarketable
Columbia / TGP (Marcellus) 550 Marketable
ANR North / ANR South (Utica) 465 Marketable
EQT / M3 (Marcellus) 625 Unmarketable
Total Excess Firm Transport 1,640
2016 Firm Transport
DecreasingCostofFT
($ 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
FT PORTFOLIO UPDATE
40
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 $0.13
626
971
553
755
70%
52%
27%
32%
37%
25%
10% 13%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
Total 3P Locations
ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
MARCELLUS SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS
– IN ETHANE REJECTION
41
DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS
HIGHLY
RICH GAS
LOCATIONS
Assumptions
 Natural Gas – 12/31/2015 strip
 Oil – 12/31/2015 strip
 NGLs – 37% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of
Oil Price 2017+
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL(2)
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.50 $41 $15
2017 $2.79 $46 $23
2018 $2.91 $49 $25
2019 $3.03 $52 $26
2020 $3.18 $54 $27
2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28
Marcellus Well Economics and Total Gross Locations(1)
Classification
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich
Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Modeled BTU 1313 1250 1150 1050
EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 18.8 16.8 15.3
EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.6
% Liquids: 33% 24% 12% 0%
Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Well Cost ($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): $9.5 $5.6 ($0.1) $0.8
Pre-Tax ROR: 37% 25% 10% 13%
Payout (Years): 2.4 3.6 8.3 7.1
Gross 3P Locations(3): 626 971 553 755
1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assume
Antero will begin to realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts
begin to roll off during 2016.
2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to
projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship.
3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015.
2016
Drilling
Plan
184
98
108
161 263
17%
62%
85%
73%
82%
11%
28% 29%
24% 27%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Total3PLocations
ROR
Total 3P Locations
ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges
ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges
UTICA SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS
– IN ETHANE REJECTION
42
DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS
HIGHLY
RICH GAS
LOCATIONS
Utica Well Economics and Gross Locations(1)
Classification Condensate
Highly-Rich Gas/
Condensate
Highly-Rich
Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas
Modeled BTU 1275 1235 1215 1175 1050
EUR (Bcfe): 9.4 17.0 25.3 23.8 21.4
EUR (MMBoe): 1.6 2.8 4.2 4.0 3.6
% Liquids 35% 26% 21% 14% 0%
Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Well Cost ($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): $0.0 $6.1 $7.8 $5.8 $6.6
Pre-Tax ROR: 11% 28% 29% 24% 27%
Payout (Years): 7.3 2.8 2.9 3.6 3.1
Gross 3P Locations(3): 184 98 108 161 263
1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assume
Antero will begin to realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts
begin to roll off during 2016.
2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to
projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship.
3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 3P locations representative of BTU regime; EUR and economics within regime will vary based on BTU content.
2016
Drilling
Plan
Assumptions
 Natural Gas – 12/31/2015 strip
 Oil – 12/31/2015 strip
 NGLs – 37% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of
Oil Price 2017+
NYMEX
($/MMBtu)
WTI
($/Bbl)
C3+ NGL(2)
($/Bbl)
2016 $2.50 $41 $15
2017 $2.79 $46 $23
2018 $2.91 $49 $25
2019 $3.03 $52 $26
2020 $3.18 $54 $27
2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28
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)
43
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
Europe
Mariner East II
Shipping
$0.25/Gal
NGL EXPORTS AND NETBACKS STEP-UP BY 2017
1. Source: Intercontinental exchange as of 12/31/2015.
2. Source of graphic: Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. research presentation dated June 16, 2015.
3. As an anchor shipper on Mariner East II, Antero has the right to expand its NGL commitment with
notice to operator.
4. Shipping rates based on benchmark Baltic shipping rate of $59.57/ton as of 12/31/15, adjusted
for number of shipping days to NWE.
5. Pipeline fee equal to $0.0725/gal, per Mariner East I tariff. Terminal fee equal to $0.12/gal, per
TPH report dated June 16, 2015.
 Upon in-service of Mariner East II, Antero will have the ability to market its propane and n-butane to
international buyers, which we expect will provide uplifts of $0.16/Gal and $0.18/Gal, respectively, to the
current netbacks received from propane and n-butane volumes shipped to Mont Belvieu today
− In the meantime, Antero has 30,000 Bbl/d of propane hedged at $0.59/Bbl in 2016
 Commitment to Mariner East II results in approximately $127 million in combined incremental annualized
cash flow from propane and n-butane sales (~$86 MM from propane and ~$41 MM from n-butane) based
on current product pricing
Pricing
Propane: $0.39/Gal
N-Butane: $0.56/Gal
Pricing
Propane: $0.56/Gal
N-Butane: $0.76/Gal
Mariner East II
61,500 Bbl/d AR
Commitment
(see table below) (3)
2017 In-Service
Shipping
Propane: $0.07/Gal
N-Butane: $0.08/Gal
AR Mariner East II Commitment (Bbl/d)
Product Base Option (3)
Total
Ethane (C2) 11,500 - 11,500
Propane (C3) 35,000 35,000 70,000
Butane (C4) 15,000 15,000 30,000
Total 61,500 50,000 111,500
44
Mont Belvieu Propane Netback ($/Gal)
Propane N-Butane
January Mont Belvieu Price (1)
: $0.39 $0.56
Less: Shipping Costs to Mont Belvieu (2)
: (0.25) (0.25)
Appalachia Propane Netback to AR: $0.14 $0.31
NWE Netback ($/Gal)
Propane N-Butane
January NWE Price (1)
: $0.56 $0.76
Less: Spot Freight (4)
: ($0.07) ($0.08)
FOB Margin at Marcus Hook: $0.49 $0.68
Less: Pipeline & Terminal Fee (5)
: (0.19) (0.19)
Appalachia Netback to AR: $0.30 $0.49
Upside to Appalachia Netback: $0.16 $0.18
$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
$274
($2.00)
($1.00)
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
($20.0)
$30.0
$80.0
$130.0
$180.0
$230.0
$280.0
Quarterly Realized Gains/(Losses)
1Q '08 - 4Q '15
1,793 2,073 2,015 1,960 1,288 480 10
$3.94
$3.57
$3.88 $3.89
$3.73
$3.50
$3.30
$2.50
$2.79 $2.91 $3.03 $3.18 $3.31
$3.46
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
45
Average Index Hedge Price(1)Hedged Volume Current NYMEX Strip(2)
COMMODITY HEDGE POSITION
 ~$3.1 billion mark-to-market unrealized gain based on 12/31/2015 prices
 3.5 Tcfe hedged from January 1, 2016 through year-end 2022
$1,009 MM $572 MM $711 MM $567 MM $232 MM $26 MM
Mark-to-Market Value(2)
LARGEST HEDGE POSITION IN U.S. E&P
~ 100% of 2016
Guidance Hedged
451. 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 12/31/2015.
 Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model due to the large, repeatable drilling inventory
 Antero has realized $1.7 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2008
– Gains realized in 30 of last 32 quarters
$MM
$/Mcfe
$0 MM
~ 100% of 2017
Target Hedged
$1,327
$525
$1,000
$1,100
$750
$0
$300
$600
$900
$1,200
$1,500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
($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
46
STRONG FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY AND DEBT TERM
STRUCTURE
46
$4,000
$2,607
($707)
($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) AM LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)
 Approximately $3.5 billion of combined AR and AM financial liquidity as of 12/31/2015
 No leverage covenant in AR bank facility, only interest coverage and working capital covenants
AR Credit Facility AR Senior Notes
DEBT MATURITY PROFILE
 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
$707
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 $4 billion
committed revolving credit facility and a 67% interest in Antero
Midstream Partners LP.
- Moody’s Credit Research, February 2016
Corporate Credit Rating
(Moody’s / S&P)
Ba3 / BB-
B1 / B+
B2 / B
B3 / B-
2/24/2011 10/21/2013 9/4/20145/31/13
Ba2 / BB
Ba1 / BB+
Caa1 / CCC+
(1)
1. Represents corporate credit rating of Antero Resources Corporation / Antero Resources LLC.
Baa3 / BBB-
Moody’s Rating Rationale S&P Rating Rationale
47
3/31/2015
Ba2/BB
2/12/20169/1/2010
Ratings Affirmed
February 2016
 Antero’s corporate credit ratings were recently affirmed at Ba2/BB by Moody’s and S&P, respectively, despite the severe
commodity price down cycle
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Antero Clearwater Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Bbl/d)
Produced/Flowback Volumes (Bbl/d)
Illustrative Produced & Flowback Water VolumesAdvanced Wastewater Treatment
Antero Produced Water Services and Freshwater Delivery Business
Antero Advanced
Wastewater Treatment
3rd Party Recycling
and Well Disposal
(Bbl/d)
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Complex
Estimated capital expenditures ($ 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 $4.00 per barrel and 60,000 barrels per day of capacity. Does not include potential sales of marketable byproducts.
20 Years, Extendable
48Integrated Water Business
Antero Advanced
Wastewater Treatment
Freshwater delivery system
Flowback and
produced
Water
Well Pad
Well Pad
Completion
Operations
Producing
Freshwater
Salt
Calcium Chloride
Marketable byproduct
Marketable byproduct used in oil
and gas operations
Freshwater delivery system
ANTERO MIDSTREAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT ASSET OVERVIEW
ANTERO RESOURCES EBITDAX RECONCILIATION
49
EBITDAX Reconciliation
($ in millions) Quarter Ended LTM Ended
12/31/2015 12/31/2015
EBITDAX:
Net income including noncontrolling interest $175.6 $980.0
Commodity derivative fair value (gains) (545.1) (2,381.5)
Net cash receipts on settled derivatives instruments 269.9 856.6
Interest expense 60.5 234.4
Income tax expense 77.2 575.9
Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion 162.2 711.4
Impairment of unproved properties 60.7 104.3
Exploration expense 0.8 3.8
Equity-based compensation expense 18.6 97.9
State franchise taxes (0.1) 0.1
Contract termination and rig stacking 27.6 38.5
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDAX $307.8 $1,221.4
ANTERO MIDSTREAM EBITDA AND DCF RECONCILIATION
50
EBITDA and DCF Reconciliation
$ in thousands
Three months ended
December 31,
2014 2015
Reconciliation of Net Income to Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow:
Net income $55,898 $49,008
Add:
Interest expense 2.062 2,892
Depreciation expense 17,290 23,152
Contingent acquisition consideration accretion - 3,333
Equity-based compensation 4,226 4,810
Adjusted EBITDA $79,476 $83,195
Less:
Pre-water acquisition net income attributed to parent (22,234) -
Pre-water acquisition depreciation expense attributed to parent (3,086) -
Pre-water acquisition equity-based compensation expense attributed to parent (654) -
Pre-water acquisition interest expense attributed to parent (359) -
Pre-IPO EBITDA (36,464) -
Adjusted EBITDA $16,679 83,195
Less:
Cash interest paid - attributable to Partnership (331) (2,934)
Income tax witholding upon vesting of Antero Midstream LP equity-based compensation awards - (4,806)
Maintenance capital expenditures attributable to Partnership (1,157) (3,096)
Distributable Cash Flow $15,191 $72,359
CAUTIONARY NOTE
The SEC permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved, probable and possible reserve estimates
(collectively, “3P”). Antero has provided internally generated estimates for proved, probable and possible reserves in this presentation in
accordance with SEC guidelines and definitions. The estimates of proved, probable and possible reserves as of December 31, 2015 included in
this presentation have been audited by Antero’s third-party engineers. Unless otherwise noted, reserve estimates as of December 31, 2015
assume ethane rejection and strip pricing.
Actual quantities that may be ultimately recovered from Antero’s interests may differ substantially from the estimates in this presentation. Factors
affecting ultimate recovery include the scope of Antero’s ongoing drilling program, which will be directly affected by commodity prices, the
availability of capital, drilling and production costs, availability of drilling services and equipment, drilling results, lease expirations, transportation
constraints, regulatory approvals and other factors; and actual drilling results, including geological and mechanical factors affecting recovery rates.
In this presentation:
 “3P reserves” refer to Antero’s estimated aggregate proved, probable and possible reserves as of December 31, 2015. The SEC prohibits
companies from aggregating proved, probable and possible reserves in filings with the SEC due to the different levels of certainty associated
with each reserve category.
 “EUR,” or “Estimated Ultimate Recovery,” refers to Antero’s internal estimates of per well hydrocarbon quantities that may be potentially
recovered from a hypothetical future well completed as a producer in the area. These quantities do not necessarily constitute or represent
reserves within the meaning of the Society of Petroleum Engineer’s Petroleum Resource Management System or the SEC’s oil and natural gas
disclosure rules.
 “Condensate” refers to gas having a heat content between 1250 BTU and 1300 BTU in the Utica Shale.
 “Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate” refers to gas having a heat content between 1275 BTU and 1350 BTU in the Marcellus Shale and 1225 BTU
and 1250 BTU in the Utica Shale.
 “Highly-Rich Gas” refers to gas having a heat content between 1200 BTU and 1275 BTU in the Marcellus Shale and 1200 BTU and 1225 BTU
in the Utica Shale.
 “Rich Gas” refers to gas having a heat content of between 1100 BTU and 1200 BTU.
 “Dry Gas” refers to gas containing insufficient quantities of hydrocarbons heavier than methane to allow their commercial extraction or to
require their removal in order to render the gas suitable for fuel use.
Regarding Hydrocarbon Quantities
51

More Related Content

What's hot

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 june 2016
Company website presentation   june 2016Company website presentation   june 2016
Company website presentation june 2016
AnteroResources
 
Jp morgan hy conference presentation february 2016 v-f
Jp morgan hy conference presentation   february 2016 v-fJp morgan hy conference presentation   february 2016 v-f
Jp morgan hy conference presentation february 2016 v-f
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 april 2016
Company website presentation   april 2016Company website presentation   april 2016
Company website presentation april 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 (b) september 2016
Company website presentation (b)   september 2016Company website presentation (b)   september 2016
Company website presentation (b) september 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
 
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 (a) february 2016
Company website presentation (a)   february 2016Company website presentation (a)   february 2016
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation march 2016
Company website presentation   march 2016Company website presentation   march 2016
Company website presentation march 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
Company website presentation (a)   september 2016Company website presentation (a)   september 2016
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation september 2016
Company website presentation   september 2016Company website presentation   september 2016
Company website presentation september 2016
AnteroResources
 
Goldman conference presentation v f-01.06.16
Goldman conference presentation   v f-01.06.16Goldman conference presentation   v f-01.06.16
Goldman conference presentation v f-01.06.16
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
 
Company website presentation (b) january 2016
Company website presentation (b)   january 2016Company website presentation (b)   january 2016
Company website presentation (b) january 2016
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (a) june 2016
Am website presentation (a)   june 2016Am website presentation (a)   june 2016
Am website presentation (a) june 2016
anteromidstream
 
Am website presentation june 2016
Am website presentation   june 2016Am website presentation   june 2016
Am website presentation june 2016
anteromidstream
 
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation 4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
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
 

What's hot (20)

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 june 2016
Company website presentation   june 2016Company website presentation   june 2016
Company website presentation june 2016
 
Jp morgan hy conference presentation february 2016 v-f
Jp morgan hy conference presentation   february 2016 v-fJp morgan hy conference presentation   february 2016 v-f
Jp morgan hy conference presentation february 2016 v-f
 
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 april 2016
Company website presentation   april 2016Company website presentation   april 2016
Company website presentation april 2016
 
Am website presentation february 2016
Am website presentation   february 2016Am website presentation   february 2016
Am website presentation february 2016
 
Company website presentation (b) september 2016
Company website presentation (b)   september 2016Company website presentation (b)   september 2016
Company website presentation (b) september 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
 
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 (a) february 2016
Company website presentation (a)   february 2016Company website presentation (a)   february 2016
Company website presentation (a) february 2016
 
Company website presentation march 2016
Company website presentation   march 2016Company website presentation   march 2016
Company website presentation march 2016
 
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
Company website presentation (a)   september 2016Company website presentation (a)   september 2016
Company website presentation (a) september 2016
 
Company website presentation september 2016
Company website presentation   september 2016Company website presentation   september 2016
Company website presentation september 2016
 
Goldman conference presentation v f-01.06.16
Goldman conference presentation   v f-01.06.16Goldman conference presentation   v f-01.06.16
Goldman conference presentation v f-01.06.16
 
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
Company website presentation (a)   january 2016Company website presentation (a)   january 2016
Company website presentation (a) january 2016
 
Company website presentation (b) january 2016
Company website presentation (b)   january 2016Company website presentation (b)   january 2016
Company website presentation (b) january 2016
 
Am website presentation (a) june 2016
Am website presentation (a)   june 2016Am website presentation (a)   june 2016
Am website presentation (a) june 2016
 
Am website presentation june 2016
Am website presentation   june 2016Am website presentation   june 2016
Am website presentation june 2016
 
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation 4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
4Q 2015 Earnings Call Presentation
 
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
Company website presentation (a)   february 2017Company website presentation (a)   february 2017
Company website presentation (a) february 2017
 

Viewers also liked

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
 
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
 
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation november 2015
Company website presentation   november 2015Company website presentation   november 2015
Company website presentation november 2015
AnteroResources
 
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)Mehdi Ziady
 
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïdTemporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
CARLOS BRETA
 
programa nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacionprograma nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacion
Adita Perez Perez
 
Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyPhoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyGailGuge
 
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
 
Design project two brief
Design project two   brief Design project two   brief
Design project two brief
Jonathan Lim
 
The Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy FrameworkThe Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy Framework
JISC infoNet
 
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
 
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
 
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEMPOST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
Rajendran
 
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
Company website presentation (a)   july 2016Company website presentation (a)   july 2016
Company website presentation (a) july 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
 

Viewers also liked (20)

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
 
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education AcademyIntroduction to the Higher Education Academy
Introduction to the Higher Education Academy
 
Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016Company website presentation April 2016
Company website presentation April 2016
 
Company website presentation november 2015
Company website presentation   november 2015Company website presentation   november 2015
Company website presentation november 2015
 
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
EUROHOLD_FR_(digital for email)
 
Euubc
EuubcEuubc
Euubc
 
Sweden
 Sweden Sweden
Sweden
 
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïdTemporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
Temporalidade política em daniel bensaïd
 
programa nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacionprograma nacional de la educacion
programa nacional de la educacion
 
Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case StudyPhoenix Motorcars Case Study
Phoenix Motorcars Case Study
 
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
 
Design project two brief
Design project two   brief Design project two   brief
Design project two brief
 
The Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy FrameworkThe Higher Education Academy Framework
The Higher Education Academy Framework
 
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
 
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...
 
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEMPOST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
POST’s CORRESPONDENCE PROBLEM
 
Company website presentation (a) july 2016
Company website presentation (a)   july 2016Company website presentation (a)   july 2016
Company website presentation (a) july 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
 

Similar to Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1

Company website presentation february 2017
Company website presentation   february 2017Company website presentation   february 2017
Company website presentation february 2017
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 (b) february 2017
Company website presentation (b)   february 2017Company website presentation (b)   february 2017
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
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
 
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy ConferenceGoldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
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
 
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
 
Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation (b) november 2015
Company website presentation (b)   november 2015Company website presentation (b)   november 2015
Company website presentation (b) november 2015
AnteroResources
 
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
 
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
Marcellus Drilling News
 
Company website presentation december 2016
Company website presentation   december 2016Company website presentation   december 2016
Company website presentation december 2016
AnteroResources
 
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation march 2017
Company website presentation   march 2017Company website presentation   march 2017
Company website presentation march 2017
AnteroResources
 
Company Overview - March 2015
Company Overview - March 2015Company Overview - March 2015
Company Overview - March 2015
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation april 2016
Am website presentation   april 2016Am website presentation   april 2016
Am website presentation april 2016
anteromidstream
 
Company website presentation july 2016
Company website presentation   july 2016Company website presentation   july 2016
Company website presentation july 2016
AnteroResources
 
Am website presentation (a) may 2016
Am website presentation (a)   may 2016Am website presentation (a)   may 2016
Am website presentation (a) may 2016
anteromidstream
 
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 Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1 (20)

Company website presentation february 2017
Company website presentation   february 2017Company website presentation   february 2017
Company website presentation february 2017
 
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 (b) february 2017
Company website presentation (b)   february 2017Company website presentation (b)   february 2017
Company website presentation (b) february 2017
 
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
Company website presentation (c)   february 2017Company website presentation (c)   february 2017
Company website presentation (c) february 2017
 
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy ConferenceGoldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference
 
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
 
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)
 
Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015Company website-presentation-october-2015
Company website-presentation-october-2015
 
Company website presentation (b) november 2015
Company website presentation (b)   november 2015Company website presentation (b)   november 2015
Company website presentation (b) november 2015
 
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
 
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
Antero Resources Company Overview - January 2016
 
Company website presentation december 2016
Company website presentation   december 2016Company website presentation   december 2016
Company website presentation december 2016
 
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
Antero Midstream Partnership Overview February 2017
 
Company website presentation march 2017
Company website presentation   march 2017Company website presentation   march 2017
Company website presentation march 2017
 
Company Overview - March 2015
Company Overview - March 2015Company Overview - March 2015
Company Overview - March 2015
 
Am website presentation april 2016
Am website presentation   april 2016Am website presentation   april 2016
Am website presentation april 2016
 
Company website presentation july 2016
Company website presentation   july 2016Company website presentation   july 2016
Company website presentation july 2016
 
Am website presentation (a) may 2016
Am website presentation (a)   may 2016Am website presentation (a)   may 2016
Am website presentation (a) may 2016
 
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
 
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 (b) october 2016
Company website presentation (b)   october 2016Company website presentation (b)   october 2016
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation october 2016
Company website presentation   october 2016Company website presentation   october 2016
Company website presentation october 2016
AnteroResources
 
Company website presentation august 2016
Company website presentation   august 2016Company website presentation   august 2016
Company website presentation august 2016
AnteroResources
 

More from AnteroResources (7)

Company website presentation april 2017
Company website presentation   april 2017Company website presentation   april 2017
Company website presentation april 2017
 
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 (b) october 2016
Company website presentation (b)   october 2016Company website presentation (b)   october 2016
Company website presentation (b) october 2016
 
Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016Company website presentation October 2016
Company website presentation October 2016
 
Company website presentation october 2016
Company website presentation   october 2016Company website presentation   october 2016
Company website presentation october 2016
 
Company website presentation august 2016
Company website presentation   august 2016Company website presentation   august 2016
Company website presentation august 2016
 

Recently uploaded

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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
CollectiveMining1
 

Recently uploaded (7)

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
 
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
 
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
 
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdfCorporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
Corporate Presentation Probe June 2024.pdf
 
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
Osisko Development - Investor Presentation - June 24
 
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
 
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
Collective Mining | Corporate Presentation - June 2024
 

Howard weil presentation 03.18.16 v_f1

  • 1. O Scotia Howard Weil 2016 Energy Conference March 21, 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. WHY OWN ANTERO? 2  $3.5 billion of consolidated liquidity available as of 12/31/15  Ba2/BB corporate ratings affirmed in February 2016  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 3.5 Tcfe hedge position as of 12/31/15  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  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  Realized prices and EBITDAX margins lead Appalachian peers  24% to 37% ROR at 12/31/15 strip prices and 52% to 85% 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. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 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 LEADERSHIP 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) 3 4th Largest Appalachian Producer  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 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 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
  • 5. $198 $341 $434 $649 $1,164 $1,347 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E $1,221 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E NGLs (C3+) Oil Ethane 5 246 6,436 23,051 48,298 60,000 24% Growth Guidance 1. Represents Bloomberg street consensus estimates as of 3/17/2016. 1,715 2,058 0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E Marcellus Utica Guidance 30 124 239 522 1,007 1,493 4 AVERAGE NET DAILY PRODUCTION (MMcfe/d) 0 50 100 150 200 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016E Marcellus Utica Deferred Completions 19 38 60 114 177 181 131 110 180 GROWING THROUGH THE DOWN CYCLE OPERATED GROSS WELLS COMPLETED AVERAGE NET DAILY LIQUIDS PRODUCTION (Bbl/d) 15% Growth Guidance 20% Growth Target  Antero is in the unique position of being able to sustain growth and value creation through the price down cycle CONSOLIDATED EBITDAX ($MM) Street Consensus(1)
  • 6. $1,300 $100 Drilling & Completion Land 2016 CAPITAL BUDGET DRIVES MOMENTUM By Area 5 $1.8 Billion – 2015(1) By Segment ($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 at YE 1. Excludes $39 million for leasehold acquisitions in 2015. 110 Completions  70 DUCs at YE 75% 25% Marcellus Utica
  • 7. 6 1. Revenues represent annual mark-to-market value based on 12/31/2015 strip pricing. 2. Consensus EBITDA as of 3/17/16. 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 $330 million less than the $1 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 LOW MAINTENANCE CAPITAL PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY AND UPSIDE 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 $1,009MM(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 Consensus EBITDAX
  • 8. 3Q 2015 $1.97 AR P3 P5 P4 P2 P1 $2.03 AR P3 P2 P1 P5 P4 $2.84 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 AR P5 P2 P3 P4 P1 $2.56 P2 AR P5 P3 P4 P1 $308 AR P5 P3 P2 P4 P1 $1.90 AR P3 P4 P2 P5 P1 $291 P5 AR P3 P2 P4 P1 $269 P5 AR P2 P3 P4 P1 $330 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 P5 P2 P4 AR P3 P1 $355 P5 P2 AR P4 P3 P1 HIGHEST EBITDAX & MARGINS AMONG PEERS Quarterly Appalachian Peer Group EBITDAX Margin ($/Mcfe)(1) Quarterly Appalachian Peer Group EBITDAX ($MM)(1) 4Q 2014 1Q 2015 2Q 2015 Note: AR and EQT EBITDAX margin excludes EBITDA from midstream MLP associated with noncontrolling interest. CNX excludes EBITDAX contribution from coal operations. 1. Source: Public data from form 10-Qs and 10-Ks. Peers include COG, CNX, EQT , RRC and SWN. 4Q 20154Q 2014 1Q 2015 2Q 2015 AR Peer Group Ranking – Top Tier #1 #2 #1 #1 #1 AR Peer Group Ranking – Improving Over Time #4 #3 #2 #2 #1 Y-O-Y AR:  $22MM Peer Avg:  $129MM NYMEX Gas: 43% NYMEX Oil:  43% Y-O-Y AR:  28% Peer Avg:  43% NYMEX Gas:  43% NYMEX Oil:  43% 7 3Q 2015 For the first quarter AR has ranked first for the highest EBITDAX and EBITDAX margin among Appalachian peers 4Q 2015
  • 9. 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 CREDIT QUALITY AFFIRMED 8 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
  • 10. 9 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
  • 11. 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 3/11/2016, per RigData. DRILLING – MOST ACTIVE OPERATOR IN APPALACHIA 10 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% 4Q 2015 Net Production 1,497 MMcfe/d - 4Q 2015 Net Liquids 54,750 Bbl/d Net Acres(2) 569,000 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 147,000 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 422,000 Undrilled 3P Locations 2,905 WV/PA UTICA SHALE DRY GAS Net Resource 12.5 to 16 Tcf Net Acres 188,000 Undrilled Locations 1,889 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RigCount Operators Current SW Marcellus & Utica(3)
  • 12. 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' (3) 1.4 1.6 TBD 14% 1.5 1.7 TBD 13% Marcellus ShaleUtica Shale Ohio DRILLING – CONTINUOUS OPERATING IMPROVEMENT 11 Operating Highlights  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  Piloting increased proppant loading and shorter stages in certain areas in the Marcellus (2) (2) 1. Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period. 2. Represents improvement from 2014 to 2015. 3. Weighted average EUR based on wells drilled in each respective period.
  • 13. DRILLING – PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF WELL COST REDUCTIONS 12 Marcellus Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral (1) NOTE: Based on statistics for drilled wells within each respective period. 1. Based on 9,000 ft. lateral and 200 ft. stage spacing. 2. Based on 9,000 ft. lateral and 175 ft. stage spacing. $5.33 $4.62 $5.28 $4.70 $4.70 $4.70 $8.73 $7.77 $7.61 $7.11 $7.11 $5.55 $- $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 $14.06 $12.40 $12.89 $11.81 $11.81 29% Reduction in Utica well costs since Q4 2014 Utica Well Cost Reductions for a 9,000’ Lateral (2) $3.97 $3.81 $3.44 $3.16 $3.16 $3.11 $8.29 $7.34 $7.38 $7.02 $7.02 $5.39 $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 $MM DRILLING AFE COMPLETION AFE $12.26 $11.15 $10.80 $10.18 $10.18 $8.5 ($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 $10.25 ($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
  • 14. 3.8x 4.9x 0.6x 1.5x 3.0x 3.4x 3.9x 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 2015 Leverage 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 – PRUDENT GROWTH 13 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. 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%)
  • 15. $3.7 $11.2 $13.9 $20.4 $26.7 $3.1 $2.5 $0.9 ($0.3) ($1.6) $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $9.8 $16.7 $17.8 $23.0 $28.1 ($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 COMMODITY PRICES 14  As the most active operator in Appalachia, Antero has kept its workforce in tact 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 and AM ownership, Per Share(3) $47 $66 $85 Increase in pre-tax PV- 10 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 $43 Remaining Undeveloped 3P Locations(1) 3,609 85% Producing Wells at YE 2015 540 wells producing 1.5 Bcfe/d net (13%) 2016 Well Completions 110 (2%) 3. PV-10 of 3P reserves and hedges less $4.7 billion of net debt as of 12/31/15, plus market value of 116.9 million AM units owned by AR (as of 3/16/15). (2) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 5 10 15 20 25 2013 2014 2015 2016E 2017E Average Rigs Ability to triple rig count from 2016 levels, as demonstrated by historical rig utilization # of Antero Rigs MMcfe/d AR Net Production 2016 Guidance 2017 Target ($Bn)
  • 16. 29% 27% 24% 37% 28% 25% 13% 10% 11% 85% 82% 73% 70% 62% 52% 32% 27% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Utica Highly- Rich Gas Utica Dry Gas - Ohio Utica Rich Gas Marcellus Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Utica Highly- Rich Gas/ Condensate Marcellus Highly-Rich Gas Marcellus Dry Gas Marcellus Rich Gas Utica Condensate ROR ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges 2016 and 2017 Antero Drilling Plan ANTERO MARCELLUS & UTICA WELL ECONOMICS(1)(2) 108 263 161 626 98 971 755 553 184 1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assumes Antero will begin to realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts begin to roll off during 2016. 2. ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing – After Hedges reflects 12/31/2015 well cost ROR methodology with the 12/31/2015 hedge value allocated based on 2016-2020 projected production volumes resulting in blend of strip and hedge prices. 15  At 12/31/2015 strip pricing, Antero has 2,227 locations with well economics that exceed 20% rate of return (excluding hedges) – Including hedges, these locations generate rates of return of approximately 52% to 85%  Rates of return include pad, facilities, cash production expenses (including midstream and FT costs) – See assumptions pages in appendix for further detail 2,227 “High Grade” Drilling Locations NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.50 $41 $15 2017 $2.79 $46 $23 2018 $2.91 $49 $25 2019 $3.03 $52 $26 2020 $3.18 $54 $27 2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28 12/31/15 Strip Pricing 12/31/15 Hedge Pricing NYMEX ($/MMBtu) C3+ NGL ($/Bbl) $4.19 $18 $3.72 $22 $3.70 $25 $3.60 $26 $3.38 $27 $3.31 - $3.88 $27-$28 $2.50 $2.79 $2.91 $3.03 $3.18 $4.19 $3.72 $3.70 $3.60 $3.38 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 12/31/15 NYMEX Strip Pricing - Before Hedges 12/31/15 Strip Pricing - After Hedges Locations WELL ECONOMICS – SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL
  • 17. 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 16 1. Represents illustrative Antero production forecast, adjusted for residue gas BTU content of 1100 BTU. 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) $3.94/Mcfe $3.57/Mcfe $3.91/Mcfe $3.87/Mcfe $3.72/Mcfe No Production Guidance or Targets Disclosed Beyond 2017
  • 18. Antero Resources Corporation (NYSE: AR) $10.9 Billion Enterprise Value(1) Ba2/BB Corporate Rating Antero Midstream Partners LP (NYSE: AM) $5.1 Billion Enterprise Value 66% LP Interest $3.0 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 3/16/2016 and includes subordinated units; balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015. 2. 3.5 Tcfe hedged at $3.79/Mcfe average price through 2022 with mark-to-market (MTM) value of $3.1 billion as of 12/31/2015. 3. 3P pre-tax PV-10 based on annual strip pricing for first 10-years and flat thereafter as of December 31, 2015. NGL pricing assumes 39%, 46% and 48% of WTI strip prices for 2016, 2017 and 2018 and thereafter, respectively. 4. Based on 277.0 million AR shares outstanding and 176.2 million AM units outstanding. 17 Corporate Structure Overview Market Valuation of AR Ownership in AM: • AR ownership: 66% LP Interest = 116.9 million units AM Price per Unit AM Units Owned by AR (MM) AR Value in AM LP Units ($MMs) Value Per AR Share(4) $23 117 $2,688 $10 $24 117 $2,805 $10 $25 117 $2,922 $11 $26 117 $3,039 $11 $27 117 $3,155 $11 $28 117 $3,272 $12 Water Infrastructure Assets MLP Benefits: - Funding vehicle to expand midstream business - Highlights value of Antero Midstream - Liquid asset for Antero Resources Public 34% LP Interest $1.5 Billion MV $3.1 Bn MTM Hedge Position(2)
  • 19. 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. February 2016 and full year 2016 futures basis, respectively, provided by Intercontinental Exchange dated 12/31/2015. 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) $0.25 / $0.02 CGTLA(1) $(0.07) / $(0.06) TCO(1) $(0.16) / $(0.18) 18 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)
  • 20. - 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 19 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
  • 21. $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $MM 20 HEDGING – INTEGRAL TO BUSINESS MODEL  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 $1.7 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 12/31/2015, the unrealized commodity derivative value is $3.1 billion ● Significant additional hedge capacity remains under the credit facility hedging covenant for 2018 – 2022 period Quarterly Realized Hedge Gains / (Losses) Realized Hedge Gains Projected Hedge Gains NYMEX Natural Gas Historical Spot Prices ($/MMBtu) NYMEX Natural Gas Futures Prices 12/31/15 3.5 Tcfe Hedged at average price of $3.79/Mcfe through 2022 Average Hedge Prices ($/Mcfe) $3.48 $3.94 $3.57 $3.91 $3.87 $3.72 $3.30 $3.1 Billion on Balance Sheet in Hedge Gains Through 2022Realized $1.7 Billion in Hedge Gains Since 2009
  • 22. Liquid “non-E&P assets” of $6.1 Bn significantly exceeds total debt of $4.1 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 $707 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 $4,082 Asset Type $MM Commodity derivatives(1) $3,117 AM equity ownership(2) 2,960 Cash 16 Total $6,093 Asset Type $MM Cash $16 Credit facility – commitments(3) 4,000 Credit facility – drawn (707) Credit facility – letters of credit (702) Total $2,607 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 $2.6 billion of liquidity at AR plus an additional $3.0 billion of AM units Approximately $900 million of liquidity at AM 21 Only 41% of AM credit facility capacity drawn Note: All balance sheet data as of 12/31/2015. 1. Mark-to-market as of 12/31/2015. 2. Based on AR ownership of AM units (116.9 million common and subordinated units) and AM’s closing price as of 3/16/2016. 3. AR credit facility commitments of $4.0 billion, borrowing base of $4.5 billion.
  • 23. Region 4Q 2015 % Sales Average NYMEX Price Average Differential Average BTU Upgrade Hedge Effect 2015 Realized Gas Price NYMEX Premium/ Discount TCO 42% $2.27 $(0.32) $0.15 $0.25 $2.35 $0.08 Dom South/TETCO 26% $2.27 $(0.76) $0.10 $0.87 $2.48 $0.21 Gulf Coast 5% $2.27 $(0.17) $0.17 $1.15 $3.42 $1.15 Chicago/Michigan 27% $2.27 $0.12 $0.26 $0.00 $2.65 $0.38 Total Wtd. Avg. 100% $2.27 $(0.31) $0.17 $2.27 $4.40 $2.13 $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 $0.06 of midstream revenues; EBITDAX excludes AR’s midstream EBITDA not attributable to AR’s ownership. 22 REALIZATIONS – A LEADER IN REALIZATIONS & MARGINS AMONG LARGE-CAP APPALACHIAN PEERS 4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations(1)(2) 4Q 2015 Price Realization & EBITDAX Margin vs F&D(2)(3) ($/Mcfe)  Antero continues to be a leader in its peer group in price realizations and EBITDAX unit margins 4Q 2015 NYMEX = $2.27/Mcf 4Q 2015 Natural Gas Realizations ($/Mcf)
  • 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 $0.43 $0.40 $0.41 $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 (12/31/2015) REALIZATIONS – NGL UPSIDE REFLECTS EXPORTS AND PROPANE HEDGES 241. Based on 2016 NGL and WTI strip prices as of 12/31/2015. 2. As of 12/31/2015. 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) − 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) $82 MM $7 MM ($/Gal) Mark-to-Market Value(2) 37% 2016 C3+ NGL pricing guidance of 37% of WTI based on 12/31/15 strip pricing 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 $0.18
  • 26. REALIZATIONS – POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR LONG-TERM NGL MARKETS Steady Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2035(1) 1. Source: PIRA NGL Study, September 2015. 2. Source: IHS, Waterborne, SK Gas Analysis; Wood Mackenzie; Wood Mackenzie; PDH C3 capacity based on 25 MBbl/d = 650 Mt/y. Multiple Factors Driving Global LPG Demand Growth Through 2020(2) MMBbl/d 0.0 0.33 0.67  Forecast global LPG demand growth of 800 MBbl/d to 1 MMBbl/d by 2020 to be driven by petrochem projects in Asia and Middle East as well as residential/commercial, alkylate and power generation demand − Naphtha cracker conversion to LPG another potential demand driver that has not yet been factored into analyst estimates ≈1 MMBbl/d China Korea Haiwei (2016) - 21 MBbl/d C3 SK Advanced (2016) - 27 MBbl/d C3 Ningbo Fuji (2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Fujian Meide (2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Tianjin Bohua 2 (2018) - 29 MBbl/d C3 United States Fujian Meide 2 (2018) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Enterprise (3Q 2016) - 29 MBbl/d C3 Oriental Tangshan (2019) - 25 MBbl/d C3 Formosa (2017) - 25 MBbl/d C3 Firm and Likely PDH Underway (By 2020) Total - 243 MBbl/d C3 Million Tons, Global PDH Capacity 1990 2000 2010 2020 20 10 0 25 14.7 13.0 11.4 9.8 8.2 6.5 4.9 3.3 1.7 U.S. Driven Global LPG Supply Through 2035(1) MMBbl/d MMBbl/d 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.3 -0.3
  • 27. 26 Antero Midstream (NYSE: AM) Asset Overview
  • 28. 1. Represents inception to date actuals as of 12/31/2015 and 2016 guidance. 2. Includes both expansion capital and maintenance capital. 27 Utica Shale Marcellus Shale Projected Gathering and Compression Infrastructure(1) Marcellus Shale Utica Shale Total YE 2015 Cumulative Gathering/ Compression Capex ($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 ~438,000 net leasehold acres for gathering and compression services – Additional stacked pay potential with dedication on ~147,000 acres of Utica deep rights underlying the Marcellus in WV and PA – 100% fixed fee long term contracts • AR owns 66% of AM units (NYSE: AM)
  • 29. ANTERO MIDSTREAM WATER BUSINESS OVERVIEW 28 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
  • 30. $1 $5 $7 $8 $11 $19 $28 $36 $41 $55 $83 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 26 31 40 36 41 116 222 358 454 435 478 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Utica Marcellus 10 38 80 126 266 531 908 1,134 1,197 1,216 1,195 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Utica Marcellus 108 216 281 331 386 531 738 935 965 1,038 1,124 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Utica Marcellus Low Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d) Compression (MMcf/d) High Pressure Gathering (MMcf/d) EBITDA ($MM) 29 $313 HIGH GROWTH MIDSTREAM THROUGHPUT Note: Y-O-Y growth based on 4Q’14 to 4Q’15. 1. Represents midpoint of 2016 guidance .
  • 31. 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 15% in 2016 and targeting 20% production growth in 2017 with ~100% hedged at $3.94/MMBtu and $3.57/MMBtu, 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 Q1 2016 well costs estimated to be over 15% lower than 2015 costs; numerous completion enhancements recently implemented to potentially increase EURs Antero owns 66% 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 30
  • 33. 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) 32 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)
  • 34. 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 33 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%
  • 35. 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. 34 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 $550 MM
  • 36. ANTERO’S FIRST UTICA DRY GAS WELL 35  Antero recently drilled and completed its first dry gas Utica well in Tyler County, WV (Rymer 4HD) − 11,409 Total Vertical Depth (TVD) − 6,620’ lateral length − 100% working interest − 20 MMcf/d restricted flow rate for first 90 days  Dry gas fairway extends from the Antero Utica acreage in eastern Ohio to the Antero Marcellus play acreage in northern West Virginia  188,000 net acres in West Virginia and Pennsylvania with net resource of 12.5 to 16 Tcf as of 9/30/2015 (not included in 37.1 Tcfe of net 3P reserves as of 12/31/2015) − 1,889 locations underlying current Marcellus Shale leasehold in West Virginia and Pennsylvania  41,000 net acres in Ohio with net 3P reserves of 2.3 Tcf as of 12/31/2015 − 263 locations in Ohio  In total, Antero has 229,000 net acres and 2,152 potential locations in the Point Pleasant high pressure, high porosity dry gas fairway in OH, WV and PA − 10,000’ to 14,500’ TVD − Density log porosity values average > 8.5% − 120’ to 130’ total thickness − 25 MMcf/d to 73 MMcf/d industry 24-hr IP flow rates − 1000 to 1040 BTU expected NOTE: Wellbore diagram for illustrative purposes only. Targeted Pay Zone IP / 1,000’ Lateral (MMcf/d) 5.0 – 10.0 10.0 – 15.0 15.0 – 25.0 Gulfport Irons #1-4H 5,714’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 5.3 MMcf/d Range Claysville SC #11H 5,420’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 10.9 MMcf/d CNX Gaut 4IH 5,840’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 10.4 MMcf/d EQT Scotts Run 3,221’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 22.6 MMcf/d Gastar Blake U-7H 6,617’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 5.6 MMcf/d Gastar Sims U-5H 4,447’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 6.6 MMcf/d Stone Energy Pribble 6HU 3,605’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 8.3 MMcf/d Magnum Hunter Stalder #3UH 5,050’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 6.4 MMcf/d Magnum Hunter Stewart Winland 1300U 5,280’ Lateral IP/1,000’: 8.8 MMcf/d Utica Dry Gas Fairway Antero Rymer 4HD 6,620’ Lateral IP 20.0 MMcf/d
  • 37. ($ in millions) 12/31/2015 Cash $23 Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility 707 Midstream Bank Credit Facility 620 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 Net Unamortized Premium 7 Total Debt $4,709 Net Debt $4,686 Financial & Operating Statistics LTM EBITDAX(1) $1,221 LTM Interest Expense(2) $237 Proved Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 13,215 Proved Developed Reserves (Bcfe) (12/31/2015) 5,838 Credit Statistics Net Debt / LTM EBITDAX 3.8x Net Debt / Net Book Capitalization 39% Net Debt / Proved Developed Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.80 Net Debt / Proved Reserves ($/Mcfe) $0.35 Liquidity Credit Facility Commitments(3) $5,500 Less: Borrowings (1,327) Less: Letters of Credit (702) Plus: Cash 23 Liquidity (Credit Facility + Cash) $3,494 ANTERO CAPITALIZATION – CONSOLIDATED 1. LTM and 12/31/2015 EBITDAX reconciliation provided on page 49. 2. LTM interest expense adjusted for all capital market transactions since 1/1/2015. 3. AR lender commitments are $4.0 billion and borrowing base capacity is $4.5 billion. AM credit facility is $1.5 billion. 36
  • 38. ANTERO RESOURCES – 2016 GUIDANCE Key Variable 2016 Guidance Net Daily Production (MMcfe/d) 1,715 Net Natural Gas Production (MMcf/d) 1,355 Net C3+ NGL Production (Bbl/d) 46,500 Net Ethane Production (Bbl/d) 10,000 Net Oil Production (Bbl/d) 3,500 Net Liquids Production (Bbl/d) 60,000 Natural Gas Realized Price Premium to NYMEX Henry Hub Before Hedging ($/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) $1,400 1. Based on current strip pricing as of December 31, 2015. 2. Includes Btu upgrade as Antero’s processed tailgate and unprocessed dry gas production is greater than 1000 Btu on average. 3. Includes lease operating expenses, gathering, compression and transportation expenses and production taxes. Key Operating & Financial Assumptions 37
  • 39. ANTERO MIDSTREAM – 2016 GUIDANCE Key Variable 2016 Guidance Financial: Adjusted EBITDA ($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 38
  • 40. 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% ANTERO FT PORTFOLIO APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH 391. 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 ($0.45 / MMBtu) Total Firm Transport 3,525 BBtu/d Excess Capacity Marketable / FT Segment (Location) (BBtu/d) Unmarketable Columbia / TGP (Marcellus) 550 Marketable ANR North / ANR South (Utica) 465 Marketable EQT / M3 (Marcellus) 625 Unmarketable Total Excess Firm Transport 1,640 2016 Firm Transport DecreasingCostofFT
  • 41. ($ 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 FT PORTFOLIO UPDATE 40 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 $0.13
  • 42. 626 971 553 755 70% 52% 27% 32% 37% 25% 10% 13% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR Total 3P Locations ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges MARCELLUS SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS – IN ETHANE REJECTION 41 DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS HIGHLY RICH GAS LOCATIONS Assumptions  Natural Gas – 12/31/2015 strip  Oil – 12/31/2015 strip  NGLs – 37% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+ NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL(2) ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.50 $41 $15 2017 $2.79 $46 $23 2018 $2.91 $49 $25 2019 $3.03 $52 $26 2020 $3.18 $54 $27 2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28 Marcellus Well Economics and Total Gross Locations(1) Classification Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Modeled BTU 1313 1250 1150 1050 EUR (Bcfe): 20.8 18.8 16.8 15.3 EUR (MMBoe): 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.6 % Liquids: 33% 24% 12% 0% Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Well Cost ($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): $9.5 $5.6 ($0.1) $0.8 Pre-Tax ROR: 37% 25% 10% 13% Payout (Years): 2.4 3.6 8.3 7.1 Gross 3P Locations(3): 626 971 553 755 1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assume Antero will begin to realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts begin to roll off during 2016. 2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship. 3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 2016 Drilling Plan
  • 43. 184 98 108 161 263 17% 62% 85% 73% 82% 11% 28% 29% 24% 27% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Total3PLocations ROR Total 3P Locations ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - After Hedges ROR @ 12/31/2015 Strip Pricing - Before Hedges UTICA SINGLE WELL ECONOMICS – IN ETHANE REJECTION 42 DRY GAS LOCATIONS RICH GAS LOCATIONS HIGHLY RICH GAS LOCATIONS Utica Well Economics and Gross Locations(1) Classification Condensate Highly-Rich Gas/ Condensate Highly-Rich Gas Rich Gas Dry Gas Modeled BTU 1275 1235 1215 1175 1050 EUR (Bcfe): 9.4 17.0 25.3 23.8 21.4 EUR (MMBoe): 1.6 2.8 4.2 4.0 3.6 % Liquids 35% 26% 21% 14% 0% Lateral Length (ft): 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Well Cost ($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): $0.0 $6.1 $7.8 $5.8 $6.6 Pre-Tax ROR: 11% 28% 29% 24% 27% Payout (Years): 7.3 2.8 2.9 3.6 3.1 Gross 3P Locations(3): 184 98 108 161 263 1. 12/31/2015 pre-tax well economics based on a 9,000’ lateral, 12/31/2015 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, which include $1.2 million for road, pad and production facilities, assume Antero will begin to realize lower well costs in 2016 as the company utilizes incremental completion crews for deferred completions beginning at year end 2015 and as existing drilling rig contracts begin to roll off during 2016. 2. Pricing for a 1225 BTU y-grade ethane rejection barrel. NGLs at 37.5% of WTI for 2016 and 50% of WTI for 2017 and thereafter. NGL prices are forecast to increase in 2017 relative to WTI due to projected in-service date of Mariner East 2 project allowing for a significant increase in AR NGL exports via ship. 3. Undeveloped well locations as of 12/31/2015. 3P locations representative of BTU regime; EUR and economics within regime will vary based on BTU content. 2016 Drilling Plan Assumptions  Natural Gas – 12/31/2015 strip  Oil – 12/31/2015 strip  NGLs – 37% of Oil Price 2016; 50% of Oil Price 2017+ NYMEX ($/MMBtu) WTI ($/Bbl) C3+ NGL(2) ($/Bbl) 2016 $2.50 $41 $15 2017 $2.79 $46 $23 2018 $2.91 $49 $25 2019 $3.03 $52 $26 2020 $3.18 $54 $27 2021-25 $3.31-$3.88 $55-$56 $27-$28
  • 44. 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) 43 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
  • 45. Europe Mariner East II Shipping $0.25/Gal NGL EXPORTS AND NETBACKS STEP-UP BY 2017 1. Source: Intercontinental exchange as of 12/31/2015. 2. Source of graphic: Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. research presentation dated June 16, 2015. 3. As an anchor shipper on Mariner East II, Antero has the right to expand its NGL commitment with notice to operator. 4. Shipping rates based on benchmark Baltic shipping rate of $59.57/ton as of 12/31/15, adjusted for number of shipping days to NWE. 5. Pipeline fee equal to $0.0725/gal, per Mariner East I tariff. Terminal fee equal to $0.12/gal, per TPH report dated June 16, 2015.  Upon in-service of Mariner East II, Antero will have the ability to market its propane and n-butane to international buyers, which we expect will provide uplifts of $0.16/Gal and $0.18/Gal, respectively, to the current netbacks received from propane and n-butane volumes shipped to Mont Belvieu today − In the meantime, Antero has 30,000 Bbl/d of propane hedged at $0.59/Bbl in 2016  Commitment to Mariner East II results in approximately $127 million in combined incremental annualized cash flow from propane and n-butane sales (~$86 MM from propane and ~$41 MM from n-butane) based on current product pricing Pricing Propane: $0.39/Gal N-Butane: $0.56/Gal Pricing Propane: $0.56/Gal N-Butane: $0.76/Gal Mariner East II 61,500 Bbl/d AR Commitment (see table below) (3) 2017 In-Service Shipping Propane: $0.07/Gal N-Butane: $0.08/Gal AR Mariner East II Commitment (Bbl/d) Product Base Option (3) Total Ethane (C2) 11,500 - 11,500 Propane (C3) 35,000 35,000 70,000 Butane (C4) 15,000 15,000 30,000 Total 61,500 50,000 111,500 44 Mont Belvieu Propane Netback ($/Gal) Propane N-Butane January Mont Belvieu Price (1) : $0.39 $0.56 Less: Shipping Costs to Mont Belvieu (2) : (0.25) (0.25) Appalachia Propane Netback to AR: $0.14 $0.31 NWE Netback ($/Gal) Propane N-Butane January NWE Price (1) : $0.56 $0.76 Less: Spot Freight (4) : ($0.07) ($0.08) FOB Margin at Marcus Hook: $0.49 $0.68 Less: Pipeline & Terminal Fee (5) : (0.19) (0.19) Appalachia Netback to AR: $0.30 $0.49 Upside to Appalachia Netback: $0.16 $0.18
  • 46. $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 $274 ($2.00) ($1.00) $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 ($20.0) $30.0 $80.0 $130.0 $180.0 $230.0 $280.0 Quarterly Realized Gains/(Losses) 1Q '08 - 4Q '15 1,793 2,073 2,015 1,960 1,288 480 10 $3.94 $3.57 $3.88 $3.89 $3.73 $3.50 $3.30 $2.50 $2.79 $2.91 $3.03 $3.18 $3.31 $3.46 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 45 Average Index Hedge Price(1)Hedged Volume Current NYMEX Strip(2) COMMODITY HEDGE POSITION  ~$3.1 billion mark-to-market unrealized gain based on 12/31/2015 prices  3.5 Tcfe hedged from January 1, 2016 through year-end 2022 $1,009 MM $572 MM $711 MM $567 MM $232 MM $26 MM Mark-to-Market Value(2) LARGEST HEDGE POSITION IN U.S. E&P ~ 100% of 2016 Guidance Hedged 451. 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 12/31/2015.  Hedging is a key component of Antero’s business model due to the large, repeatable drilling inventory  Antero has realized $1.7 billion of gains on commodity hedges since 2008 – Gains realized in 30 of last 32 quarters $MM $/Mcfe $0 MM ~ 100% of 2017 Target Hedged
  • 47. $1,327 $525 $1,000 $1,100 $750 $0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ($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 46 STRONG FINANCIAL LIQUIDITY AND DEBT TERM STRUCTURE 46 $4,000 $2,607 ($707) ($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) AM LIQUIDITY POSITION ($MM)  Approximately $3.5 billion of combined AR and AM financial liquidity as of 12/31/2015  No leverage covenant in AR bank facility, only interest coverage and working capital covenants AR Credit Facility AR Senior Notes DEBT MATURITY PROFILE  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 $707
  • 48. 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 $4 billion committed revolving credit facility and a 67% interest in Antero Midstream Partners LP. - Moody’s Credit Research, February 2016 Corporate Credit Rating (Moody’s / S&P) Ba3 / BB- B1 / B+ B2 / B B3 / B- 2/24/2011 10/21/2013 9/4/20145/31/13 Ba2 / BB Ba1 / BB+ Caa1 / CCC+ (1) 1. Represents corporate credit rating of Antero Resources Corporation / Antero Resources LLC. Baa3 / BBB- Moody’s Rating Rationale S&P Rating Rationale 47 3/31/2015 Ba2/BB 2/12/20169/1/2010 Ratings Affirmed February 2016  Antero’s corporate credit ratings were recently affirmed at Ba2/BB by Moody’s and S&P, respectively, despite the severe commodity price down cycle
  • 49. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Antero Clearwater Advanced Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Bbl/d) Produced/Flowback Volumes (Bbl/d) Illustrative Produced & Flowback Water VolumesAdvanced Wastewater Treatment Antero Produced Water Services and Freshwater Delivery Business Antero Advanced Wastewater Treatment 3rd Party Recycling and Well Disposal (Bbl/d) Advanced Wastewater Treatment Complex Estimated capital expenditures ($ 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 $4.00 per barrel and 60,000 barrels per day of capacity. Does not include potential sales of marketable byproducts. 20 Years, Extendable 48Integrated Water Business Antero Advanced Wastewater Treatment Freshwater delivery system Flowback and produced Water Well Pad Well Pad Completion Operations Producing Freshwater Salt Calcium Chloride Marketable byproduct Marketable byproduct used in oil and gas operations Freshwater delivery system ANTERO MIDSTREAM ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT ASSET OVERVIEW
  • 50. ANTERO RESOURCES EBITDAX RECONCILIATION 49 EBITDAX Reconciliation ($ in millions) Quarter Ended LTM Ended 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 EBITDAX: Net income including noncontrolling interest $175.6 $980.0 Commodity derivative fair value (gains) (545.1) (2,381.5) Net cash receipts on settled derivatives instruments 269.9 856.6 Interest expense 60.5 234.4 Income tax expense 77.2 575.9 Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion 162.2 711.4 Impairment of unproved properties 60.7 104.3 Exploration expense 0.8 3.8 Equity-based compensation expense 18.6 97.9 State franchise taxes (0.1) 0.1 Contract termination and rig stacking 27.6 38.5 Consolidated Adjusted EBITDAX $307.8 $1,221.4
  • 51. ANTERO MIDSTREAM EBITDA AND DCF RECONCILIATION 50 EBITDA and DCF Reconciliation $ in thousands Three months ended December 31, 2014 2015 Reconciliation of Net Income to Adjusted EBITDA and Distributable Cash Flow: Net income $55,898 $49,008 Add: Interest expense 2.062 2,892 Depreciation expense 17,290 23,152 Contingent acquisition consideration accretion - 3,333 Equity-based compensation 4,226 4,810 Adjusted EBITDA $79,476 $83,195 Less: Pre-water acquisition net income attributed to parent (22,234) - Pre-water acquisition depreciation expense attributed to parent (3,086) - Pre-water acquisition equity-based compensation expense attributed to parent (654) - Pre-water acquisition interest expense attributed to parent (359) - Pre-IPO EBITDA (36,464) - Adjusted EBITDA $16,679 83,195 Less: Cash interest paid - attributable to Partnership (331) (2,934) Income tax witholding upon vesting of Antero Midstream LP equity-based compensation awards - (4,806) Maintenance capital expenditures attributable to Partnership (1,157) (3,096) Distributable Cash Flow $15,191 $72,359
  • 52. CAUTIONARY NOTE The SEC permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved, probable and possible reserve estimates (collectively, “3P”). Antero has provided internally generated estimates for proved, probable and possible reserves in this presentation in accordance with SEC guidelines and definitions. The estimates of proved, probable and possible reserves as of December 31, 2015 included in this presentation have been audited by Antero’s third-party engineers. Unless otherwise noted, reserve estimates as of December 31, 2015 assume ethane rejection and strip pricing. Actual quantities that may be ultimately recovered from Antero’s interests may differ substantially from the estimates in this presentation. Factors affecting ultimate recovery include the scope of Antero’s ongoing drilling program, which will be directly affected by commodity prices, the availability of capital, drilling and production costs, availability of drilling services and equipment, drilling results, lease expirations, transportation constraints, regulatory approvals and other factors; and actual drilling results, including geological and mechanical factors affecting recovery rates. In this presentation:  “3P reserves” refer to Antero’s estimated aggregate proved, probable and possible reserves as of December 31, 2015. The SEC prohibits companies from aggregating proved, probable and possible reserves in filings with the SEC due to the different levels of certainty associated with each reserve category.  “EUR,” or “Estimated Ultimate Recovery,” refers to Antero’s internal estimates of per well hydrocarbon quantities that may be potentially recovered from a hypothetical future well completed as a producer in the area. These quantities do not necessarily constitute or represent reserves within the meaning of the Society of Petroleum Engineer’s Petroleum Resource Management System or the SEC’s oil and natural gas disclosure rules.  “Condensate” refers to gas having a heat content between 1250 BTU and 1300 BTU in the Utica Shale.  “Highly-Rich Gas/Condensate” refers to gas having a heat content between 1275 BTU and 1350 BTU in the Marcellus Shale and 1225 BTU and 1250 BTU in the Utica Shale.  “Highly-Rich Gas” refers to gas having a heat content between 1200 BTU and 1275 BTU in the Marcellus Shale and 1200 BTU and 1225 BTU in the Utica Shale.  “Rich Gas” refers to gas having a heat content of between 1100 BTU and 1200 BTU.  “Dry Gas” refers to gas containing insufficient quantities of hydrocarbons heavier than methane to allow their commercial extraction or to require their removal in order to render the gas suitable for fuel use. Regarding Hydrocarbon Quantities 51