Range Resources (RRC) Risk Analysis

There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved natural gas and oil reserves and their values, including many factors beyond our control. Estimates of proved reserves depend on many assumptions relating to current and future economic conditions and commodity prices as well as the projected productivity of our wells and infrastructure to gather, process, store and/or transport our products to market. To the extent we experience a sustained period of reduced commodity prices, there is a risk that a portion of our proved reserves could be deemed uneconomic and no longer be classified as proved. Although we utilize robust processes and procedures to evaluate and estimate our reserves, they are estimates and the actual production, revenues and costs to develop our estimated reserves will vary from estimates and these variances could be material and/or negative. Reserve estimation is a subjective process that involves estimating volumes to be recovered from underground accumulations of natural gas, NGLs and oil that cannot be directly measured. As a result, different petroleum engineers, each using industry-accepted geologic and engineering practices and scientific methods, may calculate different estimates of reserves and future net cash flows based on the same available data. Because of the subjective application of engineering principles to natural gas, NGLs and oil reserve estimates, each of the following items may differ materially from the amounts or other factors estimated: - the amount and timing of natural gas, NGLs and oil production;- the revenues and costs associated with that production;- the amount and timing of future development expenditures; and - future commodity prices. The discounted future net cash flows from our proved reserves included in this report are not the same as the market value of the reserves attributable to our properties. As required by United States generally accepted accounting principles ("U.S. GAAP"), the estimated discounted future net revenues from our proved reserves are based on a twelve month average price (first day of the month) while cost estimates are based on current year-end economic conditions. Actual future prices and costs may be materially higher or lower. In addition, the ten percent discount factor that is required to be used to calculate discounted future net cash flows for reporting purposes under U.S. GAAP is not necessarily the most appropriate discount factor based on the cost of capital, which varies from time to time, and risks associated with our business and the oil and gas industry in general.

Natural gas, NGLs, oil and other hydrocarbons, as well as our operations to produce these products, are subject to extensive laws, regulations, and ordinances at the federal, state and local level. Further, new legislation, proposed rulemaking and ordinance amendments affecting the industry are under constant review for more expansive requirements and rules on our products and operations. Compliance with new and expanding laws from numerous governmental departments and agencies often increases our cost of doing business, delays our operations and decreases our profitability. Certain potential legislation, such as a ban on hydraulic fracturing, could even preclude our ability to economically develop our reserves. Matters subject to laws and regulations affecting our business include, but are not limited to: the amount and types of substances and material that may be released into the environment, including GHGs; responding to unexpected releases of regulated substances or materials to the environment; the sourcing, transport and disposal of water used in the drilling and completions process; permits,performance rules and reporting obligations concerning drilling, completion and production operations; threatened or endangered species and waterway protection efforts; and climate related initiatives. Environmental regulations and pollution liability could expose us to significant costs and penalties. We may incur significant costs and liabilities in complying with existing or future environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies or initiatives. Some of these environmental laws and regulations may impose strict, joint and several liability regardless of fault or knowledge, which could subject us to liability for conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred, or conditions caused by prior owners or operators or which relate to third party sites where we have taken materials for recycling or disposal. Pennsylvania law also imposes criminal liability for certain releases of substances, regardless of fault or intent. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the occurrence of delays, cancellations or restrictions in permitting or performance of our projects or other operations and subject us to administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties, corrective actions and orders enjoining some or all of our operations. Our operations may be impacted by new and amended laws and regulations and reinterpretations of existing laws and regulations or increased government enforcement relating to environmental laws. For example, properly handled drilling fluids and produced water are currently exempt from regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA, and instead are regulated under RCRA's non-hazardous waste provisions. It is possible that the EPA may in the future propose rulemaking that designates such wastes as hazardous rather than non-hazardous, and a similar designation may be made at the state level. Should this occur at the federal and/or state level it could result in significant costs to attain and maintain compliance. We may also be exposed to liability and costs for handling of hydrocarbons, air emissions and wastewater or other fluid discharges related to our operations and waste disposal practices. Spills or other unauthorized releases of hazardous or regulated substances by us, our contractors or resulting from our operations could expose us to material losses, expenditures and liabilities, civil and criminal liabilities, under environmental laws and regulation and we are currently and have in the past been involved in such investigations, remediation and monitoring activities. The Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General has publicly announced investigations and charges generally related to our industry in Pennsylvania. Additionally, neighboring landowners and other third parties may assert claims or file lawsuits against us for personal injury and/or property damage allegedly caused by the release of substances into the environment, with or without evidence of an impact from our operations, all of which could also result in significant litigation or settlement costs as well as reputational harm. Laws and regulations pertaining to threatened and endangered species and protection of waterways could delay or restrict our operations and cause us to incur substantial costs. Various federal and state statutes prohibit actions or operations that adversely affect endangered or threatened species and their habitats. These statutes include the federal ESA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the CWA, CERCLA and similar state programs including under the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act and the Clean Streams Law and related regulations. For example, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state agencies may designate critical habitat and suitable habitat areas that it believes are necessary for survival of threatened or endangered species. A critical habitat or suitable habitat designation could result in material restrictions to land use and delay, restrict or even prevent our operations. For additional details, please refer to Governmental Regulation in Item 1, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters, specifically the Endangered Species Act section above. Similarly, operations may be impacted, delayed or even prevented by the existence of wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas based upon the scope of the CWA and its protection of waters of the United States as well as state laws such as the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and related regulations and permitting requirements. Climate related regulations and initiatives could expose us to significant costs and restrictions on operations. There is an ongoing public debate as to the extent to which our climate is changing, the potential causes of climate change and its potential impacts. As part of that debate, there is general belief that increased levels of GHGs, including carbon dioxide and methane, have contributed to and continue to contribute to climate change which has led to numerous regulatory, political, litigation and financial risks associated with the production of fossil fuels and emissions of GHGs. Our operations result in GHGs. Federal and state governments have from time to time considered legislation and regulations to reduce GHG emissions, including, but not limited to the implementation of GHG monitoring and reporting for the natural gas industry which includes certain of our operations. For additional details please refer to Government Regulation in Item 1, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Matters, specifically the Air emissions and Climate change sections above. There have also been a number of state and regional efforts that have emerged that seek to track and reduce GHG emissions by means of cap and trade programs where emitters would be required to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting GHGs. In September 2020, the PEQB approved a draft resolution to enter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI"), a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric power plants. However, in response to the PEQB's resolution to join the RGGI, the Pennsylvania General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 15, 2021, expressing its disapproval of the state's efforts to enroll in RGGI, stating that the RGGI would drive up energy costs and result in thousands of lost jobs. On January 10, 2022, former Governor Wolf vetoed the disapproval resolution. In April 2022, the Pennsylvania senate failed to override former Governor Wolf's veto and as a result, Pennsylvania officially joined the RGGI. However, in July 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an order blocking the state from participating in the RGGI until the court ruled on its constitutionality. On November 1, 2023, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that funds generated through the RGGI are an unconstitutional tax,effectively preventing the state from participating in RGGI. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro appealed that decision to the state's Supreme Court and that appeal remains pending. Moreover, in 2023, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro created the "RGGI Working Group" and tasked them with measuring RGGI or an alternative against a three-part test: protect and create energy jobs, take real action to address climate change, and ensure reliable, affordable power for consumers in the long-term. While the RGGI Working Group agreed that a cap-and-trade regulation would meet these goals, they did not conclude that RGGI is the correct program for Pennsylvania, citing wider concerns regarding increased energy costs and job loss. The RGGI Working Group gave Governor Shapiro a list of recommendations in a four-page memo, suggesting, among other things, Governor Shapiro explore a cap-and-trade program that includes Washington, D.C. and 13 states whose electric grids are run by PJM Interconnection, while encouraging the PJM-run states to reach consensus on carbon trading. As a result on March 13, 2024, Governor Shapiro announced a proposal to adopt a carbon-pricing program in the state similar to RGGI. As part of that announcement, Governor Shapiro said he would support legislation to make Pennsylvania's power plant owners pay for their greenhouse gas emissions and require utilities to buy more electricity from renewable sources. More recently, in September 2024, the Pennsylvania Senate voted in favor of a bill repealing the carbon tax portion of RGGI, but the bill was not considered in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives prior to the conclusion of the legislative session. The same legislation was reintroduced in 2025 and passed the Pennsylvania Senate in 2025. The reintroduced legislation awaits consideration in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. In the absence of participation in the RGGI, the DEP is evaluating other regulations to achieve the emissions reductions. We have initiated our own internal goals to reduce GHG emissions from our operations, such as us setting a goal of net zero Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 2025, which we expect to achieve. However, there are a variety of factors that may prevent us from meeting that goal, including but not limited to operational malfunctions, availability of equipment and services, engineering results, capital constraints and availability and success of carbon offsetting initiatives. We continue to evaluate a range of technology and other measures, such as carbon offsets, that could assist with meeting this goal. Failure or a perception (whether or not valid) of failure to meet our GHG emissions goals could damage our reputation and negatively impact our stock price. The outcome of federal, state and regional actions to address global climate change could result in a variety of new laws and regulations to control or restrict emissions including taxes or other charges to deter or restrict emissions of GHGs. This may also depend upon political outcomes as there have been certain candidates seeking election to various state and federal offices or their appointees, who have made pledges to restrict GHG emissions, ban hydraulic fracturing of oil and natural gas wells and ban new leases for production of natural gas, NGLs and oil on federal lands. Our reserves development is critically dependent upon the use of hydraulic fracturing and we cannot economically develop any of our reserves without using such technology (which we believe has been safely conducted for many decades) and a ban of such technology could result in severe economic harm to us. There are also increasing litigation risks associated with climate change concerns as a number of cities and local governments have initiated lawsuits against fossil fuel producers in state and federal court asserting claims for public nuisance and seeking damages for climate change impacts to roadways and infrastructure. Such lawsuits have also alleged that fossil fuel producers have been aware of the adverse effects of climate change and defrauded their investors by failing to adequately disclose those impacts. Financial risks exist for fossil fuel energy companies, including natural gas producers, as in recent years, stockholders and bondholders are concerned about the potential effects of fossil fuels on climate change and may elect to shift some or all of their investments away from fossil fuel based energy. Institutional lenders who provide financing to fossil fuel energy companies are at times under pressure from activists and are the subject of lobbying to not provide funding for fossil fuel production, although this trend has recently decreased. Also, in November 2021, the Federal Reserve issued a statement in support of the efforts of the Network of Greening the Financial System, of which the Federal Reserve is a member, to identify key issues and potential solutions for the climate-related challenges most relevant to central banks and supervisory authorities. In January 2025, the Federal Reserve issued a statement announcing it has withdrawn from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for the Greening of the Financial System. Some of these institutional lenders may elect not to provide funding for us which could result in restriction, delay or cancellation of drilling programs, development or production activities or impair our ability to operate economically. On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted rules that would require public companies to disclose extensive climate change-related information in certain of their SEC filings. However, on March 15, 2024, a federal appellate court imposed a temporary stay pending judicial review of such new rules, and in response, on April 4, 2024, the SEC issued an order staying any amendments to such rules pending the completion of judicial review of the federal appellate court petitions. On February 11, 2025, the acting chairman of the SEC released a statement that he has directed the SEC staff to request that the court not schedule the case for argument to provide time for the SEC to deliberate the appropriate next steps in litigation related to The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors rule. While the final form and substance of these rules are not yet known and the ultimate scope and impact on our business is uncertain, compliance with the rules may result in increased legal, accounting, operational, technology and financial compliance costs. Certain organizations that provide corporate governance and other corporate risk information to investors and stockholders have developed scores and ratings to evaluate companies and investment funds based on sustainability or environmental, social and governance ("ESG") metrics. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but the importance of sustainability evaluations is becoming more broadly accepted by investors and stockholders. A number of advocacy groups, both domestically and internationally, have campaigned for governmental and private action to promote change at public companies related to ESG matters, including through investment and voting practices of investment advisors, public pension funds, universities and other members of the investing community. As a result, many investment funds focus on positive ESG business practices and sustainability scores when making investments. Companies which do not adapt to or comply with investor or stockholder ESG expectations and standards or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately to the growing concern for ESG issues, regardless of whether there is a legal requirement to do so, may suffer from reputational damage and the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of such a company could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, we may from time-to-time create and publish voluntary disclosures regarding ESG matters. Many of the statements in those voluntary disclosures are based on hypothetical expectations and assumptions that may or may not be representative of current or actual risks or events or forecasts of expected risks or events, including the costs associated therewith. Such expectations and assumptions are necessarily uncertain and may be prone to error or subject to misinterpretation given the long timelines involved and the lack of an established single approach to identifying, measuring and reporting on many ESG matters. At this time, we cannot predict the potential impact of such laws, regulations, regional or international initiatives or compacts, litigation, ESG ratings or financing restrictions due to climate concerns on our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows; however, such impacts could be material and have material negative consequences to our business.

Like many oil and gas companies, we are involved in various legal proceedings, including threatened claims, such as title, royalty, and contractual disputes. The cost to settle legal proceedings (asserted or unasserted) or satisfy any resulting judgment against us in such proceedings could result in a substantial liability or the loss of interests, which could materially and adversely impact our cash flows, operating results and financial condition. Judgments and estimates to determine accruals or range of losses related to legal proceedings could change from one period to the next, and such changes could be material. Current accruals may be insufficient to satisfy any such judgments. Legal proceedings could also result in negative publicity about Range. In addition, legal proceedings distract management and other personnel from their primary responsibilities. At this time, based on the information available to management, there are no pending claims or litigation which appear likely to result in a material financial impact. However, management's assessment of pending claims and litigation could be inaccurate and subsequent events could result in material liabilities from such claims or litigation.

Legislation is periodically proposed that could make significant changes to United States federal income tax laws and could include the elimination of certain United States federal income tax benefits currently available to oil and gas exploration and production companies including, but not limited to, (i) the repeal of percentage depletion allowances for oil and natural gas properties; (ii) the elimination of current deductions for intangible drilling and development costs and; (iii) an extension of the amortization period for certain geological and geophysical expenditures. Additionally, legislation could be enacted that imposes new fees or increases the taxes on oil and natural gas extraction, which could result in increased operating costs and/or reduced consumer demand for our products. The passage of any such legislation or any other similar change in United States federal income tax law could increase costs or eliminate or postpone certain tax deductions that are currently available with respect to natural gas and oil exploration and development and any such changes could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In 2022, legislation commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law, which includes, among other things, a corporate alternative minimum tax (the "CAMT") and a one percent excise tax on corporate stock repurchases. The CAMT generally treats a corporation as an applicable corporation in any taxable year in which the average annual adjusted financial statement income for a three taxable-year period ending prior to such taxable year exceeds $1.0 billion. If we become subject to CAMT, our cash obligations for U.S. federal income taxes could be significantly accelerated. To the extent the 1% excise tax applies to repurchases of shares under our common stock repurchases program, the number of shares we repurchase and our cash flow may be affected. In 2012, Pennsylvania enacted legislation creating a tax referred to as the natural gas impact fee applicable to production in Pennsylvania, where essentially all of our acreage is located. The legislation imposes an annual fee on natural gas and oil operators for each well drilled for a period of fifteen years. Much like a severance tax, the fee is on a sliding scale set by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and is based on two factors: changes in the Consumer Price Index and the average NYMEX natural gas prices on the last day of each month. The impact fee increases the financial burden on our operations in the Marcellus Shale. There can be no assurance that the impact fee will remain as currently structured or that additional taxes will not be imposed. From time to time, the Pennsylvania Governor and various Pennsylvania state lawmakers have proposed legislation to enact a severance tax in substitution for, or as an addition to, the impact fee already in place. The structure of and ultimate effect of any additional tax burden cannot be estimated at this time but could be material.

Opposition toward oil and gas drilling and development activity has been growing over time. Companies in the oil and gas industry are often the target of activist efforts to delay or prevent oil and gas development from both individuals and non-governmental organizations who use safety, environmental compliance and business practices to support their opposition to oil and gas drilling. Anti-development activists are working to, among other things, reduce access to federal and state government lands, delay or cancel certain projects such as the development of oil and gas drilling or export facilities, as well as the pipeline infrastructure needed to transport and process oil and gas production. For example, environmental activists continue to advocate for increased regulations or bans on shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the United States, even in jurisdictions like Pennsylvania that are among the most stringent in their regulation of the industry. Such activist efforts could result in the following: - delay or denial of drilling permits or leases;- restrictions on or prevention of installation or operation of production, gathering or processing facilities;- restrictions on or prevention of the use of certain operating practices, such as hydraulic fracturing, or the disposal of related materials, such as hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water;- additional regulatory burdens;- increased severance and/or other taxes;- cyberattacks;- legal challenges or lawsuits;- negative publicity about our business or the oil and gas industry in general;- increased costs of doing business;- reduction in demand for our products; and - other adverse effects on our ability to develop our properties and expand production. We may incur significant costs associated with responding to these initiatives and such actions may materially adversely affect our financial results. Complying with any resulting additional legal or regulatory requirements that are substantial or prevent our activity could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Essentially 100% of our total estimated proved reserves are located in Pennsylvania. We are additionally vulnerable to processing and transportation constraints for our products in this area. We are more heavily exposed to the extensive and evolving regulatory environment in Pennsylvania which may lead to additional costs, delays or interruptions of construction, development and production from our wells. See also, below, The natural gas industry is subject to extensive regulation. Additionally, local governments in Pennsylvania are authorized to adopt and implement ordinances and impose certain restrictions regarding siting of well sites, tank pads and other related facilities. Approval from one or more local governmental bodies, some following a public hearing, may be required before commencing construction of facilities which can result in delay, increased expense or, in some cases, prevention of development. Moreover, new initiatives or regulations could propose new setback distances or further restrictions on our ability to conduct certain operations such as hydraulic fracturing or disposal of substances generated by our operations, including, but not limited to, produced water, drilling fluids and other wastes associated with our operations. For example, in January 2024, the DEP announced that it would implement a policy requiring natural gas well operators to disclose chemicals they use in drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations before the chemicals are used on-site. Further, in November 2024, Cecil Township, located in Washington County, Pennsylvania, increased the setback distance for oil and gas operations from 500 feet to 2,500 feet from protected structures like residences and businesses and 5,000 feet from schools and hospitals, and separately, the DEP received a citizen petition for rulemaking to expand setback distances from natural gas operations across Pennsylvania. Currently there are a few states that have elected to ban or severely limit hydraulic fracturing. Should Pennsylvania or the federal government ban hydraulic fracturing, it would preclude economic development of our Marcellus Shale reserves resulting in severe financial consequences to us.

The United States government has issued public warnings that indicate that energy assets might be specific targets of cybersecurity threats. As a natural gas, NGLs and oil producer, we face various security threats, including: - cybersecurity threats to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or to render data or computer systems unusable;- threats to the security or operations at our physical facilities and infrastructure or third-party facilities and infrastructure, such as processing plants and pipelines; or - threats from terrorist acts or other geopolitical events. Digital technologies are an integral part of our business and are used to support our exploration, development and production activities and our key accounting and financial reporting functions. We use these systems to analyze and store financial and operating data and to communicate internally and with outside business counterparties. Cyberattacks could compromise our core infrastructure and digital technologies and result in disruptions to our business operations or the loss of our data and proprietary information. In addition, digital technologies control oil and gas production, processing equipment, and distribution systems globally and are necessary to deliver our production to market. A cyberattack against these operating systems, or the networks and infrastructure on which they rely, could damage critical production, distribution and/or storage assets, delay or prevent delivery to markets, cause accidental discharge and/or make it difficult or impossible to accurately account for production and settle transactions. A cyberattack on a vendor or a service provider could result in supply chain disruptions, which could delay or halt development projects. A cyberattack on our accounting or human resources systems could expose us to liability if confidential and/or personal information is obtained. Furthermore, the shift to a hybrid systems model including on-premises and cloud environments has transformed how systems interconnect, how data is stored, how users interact with applications and what end user devices are utilized. This shift has resulted in additional cybersecurity risk. Security threats have subjected our operations to increased risks that could have a material adverse effect on our business. In particular, our implementation of various procedures and controls to monitor and mitigate security threats and to increase security for our personnel, information, facilities and infrastructure may result in increased capital and operating costs. Moreover, there can be no assurance that such procedures and controls will be sufficient to prevent security breaches from occurring. If any of these security breaches were to occur, they could lead to harm to our employees or losses of sensitive information, losses of critical infrastructure or capabilities essential to our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Attackers are becoming more sophisticated and both the frequency and magnitude of cyberattacks in particular are expected to increase and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, phishing, ransomware, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in critical systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information, and corruption of data. These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from unauthorized disbursement of funds, remedial actions, loss of business and/or potential liability. We may be unable to anticipate, detect or prevent future attacks, particularly as methodologies utilized by attackers change frequently and are not recognized until launched. Additionally, the continuing and evolving threat of cybersecurity attacks has resulted in evolving legal and compliance matters, including increased regulatory focus on prevention, which could require us to expend significant additional resources to meet such requirements. While we utilize extensive processes and procedures that we deem appropriate to counter cybersecurity risks and to date have not suffered any material losses relating to such attacks, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. Any losses, costs or liabilities directly or indirectly related to cyberattacks or similar incidents may not be covered by, or may exceed the coverage limits of, any of our insurance policies. Terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, whether domestic or foreign attacks, as well as military or other actions taken in response to these acts, could cause instability in the global financial and energy markets. Continued hostilities in areas around the world and the occurrence or threat of terrorist attacks in the United States, other countries or international waters could adversely affect the global economy in unpredictable ways, including the disruption of energy supplies and markets, increased volatility in commodity prices or the possibility that the infrastructure on which we rely could be a direct target or an indirect casualty of an act of terrorism and, in turn, could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Volatility in natural gas, NGLs and oil markets and the price we receive for our production is largely determined by various factors beyond our control. Production from natural gas and oil wells in some geographic areas of the United States has been or could be curtailed for considerable periods of time due to lack of local market demand and transportation and storage capacity. In the recent past, we have temporarily shut-in wells due to low commodity prices and it is possible that some of our wells may be shut-in in the future or sales terms may be less favorable than might otherwise be obtained should demand for our products decrease and/or prices decrease. Competition for markets has been vigorous and there remains uncertainty about prices purchasers will pay or the availability of sufficient storage, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, results of operations and financial position.