EQT Corporation (EQT) — Stock Analysis 2026 [4.3]

Analysis as of 4 September 2026. This is a point-in-time snapshot, not an evergreen guide. Fundamentals are from EQT’s fiscal-2025 Annual Report (10-K, year ended 31 December 2025) and its Q2 2026 results, released 21 July 2026; market data is as of the 1 September 2026 close and will move. Rating: ★★★★½, High quality — Overvalued (wide band) → great company, rich price: watch for a better entry. Price deck used in the valuation (fixed natural-gas grid): base Henry Hub US$3.00/MMBtu — the representative trailing average (the 3- and 6-month windows through August 2026 sit at ~US$2.93) on the fixed US$2.00–4.00 grid — with every grid price run as a scenario (deep bear US$2.00 to deep bull US$4.00) and the EIA’s US$3.49 (2027) forecast carried as a 0%-weight cross-check; realized price is Henry Hub less the ~US$0.37 Appalachian differential. 10% upstream discount rate, the E&P convention. Refreshed on each annual report and on material events. For information only, prepared with AI assistance — see the disclaimer at the end.

EQT is the only large-scale natural gas producer in the United States that owns the pipes its own gas flows through, and in 2025 that stopped being a slogan and started showing up in the accounts: transportation and processing expense fell from US$1,916 million to US$1,532 million while volumes grew, taking the unit cost from US$0.96 to US$0.64 per mcfe. The result is the best margin structure in Appalachia — total cash costs of US$1.06/mcfe and a fully-loaded margin of US$1.35/mcfe, both first among the six producers reviewed in this series. The thesis in one line: an exceptionally well-run integrated business whose share price already reflects the integration, trading at about 1.5× a net asset value that credits the reserves at the company’s own after-tax figure and the pipes at the contracted-infrastructure convention. Why look now: net debt is heading for roughly US$4.7 billion by year-end and Q2 guidance went up, not down. To screen EQT against every North American upstream name on production, cost, reserve life and free-cash-flow yield, go to Metal Pilot.

1. Snapshot & thesis

EQT Corporation (NYSE: EQT) is a senior, vertically integrated natural gas company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, operating in the Appalachian Basin across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. It is a producer/operator by archetype and an energy producer by sector, and it reports three segments — Upstream, Gathering and Transmission — a structure it re-established with the July 2024 Equitrans Midstream merger. It describes itself, accurately on the evidence here, as the only large-scale integrated natural gas producer in the United States. In FY2025 it sold 2,382 bcfe (6.53 billion cubic feet equivalent per day) at an average realized US$3.19/mcfe, from 4,264 gross (3,712 net) wells across 2.07 million net acres, with 1,523 employees. (mcf = thousand cubic feet; mcfe = thousand cubic feet equivalent, liquids converted at 6 mcf per barrel; bcfe = billion; Tcfe = trillion; MVP = Mountain Valley Pipeline.)

Figure 1. EQT Corporation in numbers

Figure data: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K (production, reserves, PV-10, unit costs); net debt and guidance per Q2 2026 results, 21 Jul 2026; market data and analyst consensus as of 1 Sep 2026. Rating per Section 9.

Table 1. EQT Corporation in numbers

Source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K for all operating and FY2025 financial figures; net debt, leverage and raised 2026 guidance per Q2 2026 results (21 Jul 2026); market data and share count (625.52 m) per stockanalysis.com as of 1 Sep 2026. EQT’s PV-10 is struck at a realized gas price of US$2.749/mcf including regional differentials, not at a NYMEX benchmark — an important comparability point addressed in Section 7.2. Cash costs comprise transportation and processing, production, operating and maintenance, and selling, general and administrative expense. Listed: Public (NYSE: EQT).

Thesis in brief. Bull: the integration works and it is measurable. Transportation and processing expense fell US$384 million in 2025 while production grew, taking total cash costs to US$1.06/mcfe — the lowest of the six producers in this series — and the fully-loaded margin to US$1.35/mcfe, the highest. On top of that sits 28.0 Tcfe of proved reserves (the largest here), 103% organic reserve replacement, a transmission franchise with 49.3% of the Mountain Valley Pipeline pointed at Southeast power and data-centre demand, a senior team with no transition risk, and senior notes cut from US$6.9 billion to US$5.2 billion in the first half of 2026 alone. Bear: it is the most expensive name in the peer group on the audited numbers — about 1.35× the discounted pre-tax value of its own reserves on its own strip case, and ~1.8× standardized measure per share — and the growth was bought with paper: weighted average shares rose 61% in two years, from 381 million in 2023 to 612 million in 2025, which is why ROIC of 9.7% is the lowest of the six despite the best margins. What tips it: the gas deck and the Blackstone claim on the midstream. Only the top grid price in Section 7 reaches today’s price, and only with the multiples expanding alongside it. The full rating and its rationale are in Section 9.

How to read this analysis: here for the verdict? The statcards above and the rating in Section 9 are the whole story. Want the evidence? Read Section 2 (the assets) through Section 7 (the valuation).

2. Assets & operations

EQT is the one company in this series for which the gas price is only half the revenue question. Henry Hub averaged US$2.78/MMBtu in August 2026 and closed at US$2.90 on 1 September, with the U.S. EIA forecasting US$3.67 for 2026 and US$3.49 for 2027 — but EQT also earns regulated and contracted midstream revenue that does not move with the commodity, and it captures the Appalachian differential internally rather than paying it away. For how gas is priced and how basis works, see the Natural Gas — A Complete Market Guide ; the crude complex that sets the small NGL strip is covered in the Oil guide . This section spends its words on the company. For how EQT compares with the other four large US gas producers on one construction — scale, cost, reserve value, balance sheet and the nine-point scorecard — see US Upstream Natural Gas Producers Compared .

2.1 Portfolio overview & map

EQT’s asset is one basin and one formation, wrapped in its own infrastructure. At 31 December 2025 it held 799,389 net developed and 1,269,608 net undeveloped acres — 2.07 million net acres — across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, and 93% of its total proved reserves, 91% of proved developed and over 99% of proved undeveloped sit in the Marcellus Shale. Around that upstream position sit the gathering and transmission systems acquired in the July 2024 Equitrans Midstream merger, plus equity interests in the Mountain Valley Pipeline system.

Table 2. Asset base, 31 December 2025

Source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K , segment and property disclosures at 31 Dec 2025. The Gathering and Transmission segments sit inside a midstream vehicle in which an affiliate of Blackstone Credit & Insurance holds a 40% noncontrolling equity interest, acquired for US$3.5 billion in December 2024; EQT’s economic share is therefore 60%. MVP interests are equity-method investments held outside that vehicle. The MVP joint-venture partners are NextEra Energy, Con Edison, AltaGas and RGC Resources. Listed: Public (NYSE: EQT).

The structural point is worth stating plainly, because it is what separates EQT from the other five companies in this series. Every peer treats midstream as a cost line; EQT treats it as a segment. Antero pays a US$2.27/mcfe toll to an affiliate it owns 29% of. Range pays US$1.50/mcfe to third parties. CNX owns its gathering but not transmission. EQT owns gathering, transmission and storage, holds 49.3% of a 2.0 bcf/d interstate pipeline, and sold 40% of the midstream vehicle to Blackstone for US$3.5 billion — which conveniently gives the market a hard price for what that infrastructure is worth.

2.2 Revenue split — by commodity & the cost stack

By commodity, EQT is very nearly a pure dry-gas play: liquids were about 6% of production in FY2025, from 22.2 million barrels of NGLs and 1.8 million barrels of oil against 2,238.7 bcf of natural gas. What makes the revenue mix distinctive is not the hydrocarbon split but the US$627 million of pipeline and other revenue — third-party midstream income that no other producer in this series reports at scale, and which grew from US$25 million in 2023 to US$288 million in 2024 to US$627 million in 2025 as Equitrans consolidated.

Figure 2. FY2025 operating revenue by source

The cost stack is where the integration argument is settled, and it is settled in EQT’s favour. Against a realized US$3.24/mcfe on hydrocarbon sales, FY2025 cash costs were transportation and processing US$0.64/mcfe, production US$0.16, operating and maintenance US$0.09 and selling, general and administrative US$0.16 — US$1.06/mcfe in total, the lowest of the six producers reviewed in this series. Add the US$0.26/mcfe of third-party pipeline revenue and the effective cash margin is about US$2.44/mcfe; after depletion of US$1.09/mcfe, the fully-loaded margin is US$1.35/mcfe — also the best of the six.

Figure 3. Where the US$3.24 goes — FY2025 unit economics

Figure data: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K , consolidated statements of operations divided by FY2025 sales volume of 2,382 bcfe. This figure substitutes for the standard by-asset revenue split, because EQT’s segments are functional rather than geographic — see Section 10.1.

The single most persuasive number in the filing is the direction of travel on that transport line. Transportation and processing expense fell from US$1,916 million in 2024 to US$1,532 million in 2025 — a US$384 million reduction — while sales volumes rose. On a unit basis it went from roughly US$0.96/mcfe to US$0.64/mcfe. That is the Equitrans merger doing precisely what was promised: converting a third-party toll into an intercompany transfer. For comparison, over the same period Antero’s equivalent line rose from US$2.16 to US$2.27/mcfe and Range’s from US$1.48 to US$1.50.

2.3 Upstream — the Marcellus core

The upstream business sold 2,382 bcfe in FY2025 at an average realized US$3.19/mcfe, from 4,264 gross (3,712 net) wells. Operating expense of US$0.09/mcfe on the production side is a function of the development model: EQT runs large-scale, multi-pad “combo-development” projects, drilling and completing many wells from shared surface locations, which compresses per-well fixed costs and reduces the incremental midstream needed to connect them.

The reserve position is the largest in this series. Proved reserves of 28,046 bcfe (28.0 Tcfe) rose 1,782 bcfe, or 7%, in 2025 — from extensions, discoveries and other additions of 2,445 bcfe, plus 1,768 bcfe acquired with Olympus Energy, offset by 2,382 bcfe of production, 27 bcfe of negative revisions and 22 bcfe divested. Stripping the acquisition out, organic additions of 2,445 bcfe against 2,382 bcfe of production is 103% organic replacement — the cleanest replacement figure among the six.

The offset is duration. At 28.0 Tcfe against 2,382 bcfe of annual production, the reserve life is 11.8 years — fourth of six, ahead of Expand’s 9.9 but well behind Range’s 22.2. And the concentration is total: 93% of proved reserves in a single formation, which is efficient when the Marcellus works and offers nowhere to hide when it does not.

2.4 Gathering, transmission and the Blackstone mark

The midstream half of EQT is easier to value than most, because someone recently bought a piece of it. In December 2024 an affiliate of Blackstone Credit & Insurance contributed US$3.5 billion for a 40% noncontrolling equity interest in the midstream vehicle holding the Gathering and Transmission segments — implying roughly US$8.75 billion for the whole vehicle and US$5.25 billion for EQT’s retained 60%. That is an arm’s-length, recent, third-party price for the infrastructure, which is a rare luxury in a sum-of-the-parts.

Two things have happened since that mark was struck. EQT has continued to invest — 2026 capital guidance allocates US$530–580 million to gathering infrastructure and US$20–30 million to transmission — so the asset base has grown. And the transmission franchise has advanced: EQT holds 49.3% of MVP Mainline (2.0 bcf/d nameplate, operating), 47.2% of MVP Southgate (0.55 bcf/d, development) and 49.3% of MVP Boost (0.6 bcf/d, development), alongside NextEra Energy, Con Edison, AltaGas and RGC Resources. In January 2026 EQT exercised a preferential buy-out right to acquire additional interests in MVP A and MVP C from Con Edison for approximately US$200.7 million and US$12.5 million respectively, of which about US$98.4 million is expected to be funded by the Blackstone affiliate; the transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2026.

Income from these investments was US$184 million in 2025, up from US$76 million. The strategic logic is that MVP and Southgate point at Southeast power demand, industrial load and data-centre development — the demand sources EQT names explicitly in its strategy — rather than at the saturated Appalachian market.

2.5 Production, guidance and the debt plan

FY2025 sales volume was 2,382 bcfe and the 10-K guided 2026 to 2,275–2,375 bcfe. At Q2 2026, released on 21 July, EQT raised that guidance by approximately 90 bcfe to 2,375–2,450 bcfe — a raise rather than a cut, delivered into a quarter where spot gas traded near US$2.89. Q2 adjusted EBITDA was US$1,203 million and free cash flow attributable to EQT US$330 million, against US$240 million a year earlier.

Capital discipline is codified. 2026 total capital expenditure is guided at US$2,650–2,850 million, of which US$1,630–1,710 million is reserve development, US$530–580 million gathering infrastructure, US$165–185 million land and lease, and US$580–640 million is identified as growth projects rather than maintenance. Alongside it sits the Debt Retirement Plan: a 2024 goal of reducing debt to US$7.5 billion by end-2025, updated in 2025 to a long-term goal of US$5.0 billion. Progress has been fast — US$1.4 billion of senior notes retired in 2025, and senior notes cut from US$6.9 billion to US$5.2 billion in the first half of 2026 with about US$2.1 billion repaid — with the company expecting to exit 2026 near US$4.7 billion of net debt at recent strip pricing.

Figure 4. Sales volume by fiscal year, FY2023–FY2026E

Chart source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K for FY2025 volume; FY2023 and FY2024 volumes are derived from the filing’s reserve-reconciliation production figures and are approximate; the 2026 bar is the midpoint of the raised 2,375–2,450 bcfe guidance per Q2 2026 results. Average realized price reached US$3.19/mcfe in 2025 (§2.3) and the Equitrans merger closed July 2024 — that second series and the merger marker are carried in the prose rather than overlaid.

2.6 Peer positioning

EQT completes the peer set used across this series for North American gas: Expand Energy (Nasdaq: EXE), the largest US gas producer by volume; Antero Resources (NYSE: AR), the liquids-rich Appalachian name; Range Resources (NYSE: RRC), the long-life southwest Pennsylvania operator; and CNX Resources (NYSE: CNX), the low-cost dry-gas counterpoint. With EQT analysed, the group’s PV-10 and cost comparisons are complete for the first time.

Table 3. Quality-metric peer positioning, mid-2026

Source: each company’s FY2025 Form 10-K and 2026 guidance. Cash-cost and margin definitions vary by filer and are constructed here on the closest comparable basis: cash costs exclude depletion; the fully-loaded margin is the realized price less cash costs and depletion. EQT’s margin includes third-party pipeline revenue of US$0.26/mcfe, which no peer earns at scale; CNX’s figures are for its Shale segment and are not fully comparable at group level. EQT’s 2026 guidance is stated in bcfe rather than bcfe/d because that is how the company reports it (2,375–2,450 bcfe).

Where EQT sits: first on reserves, first on cost, first on margin — and mid-pack on duration. It is the only company here that earns money moving other people’s gas, and the only one whose transport cost is falling rather than rising. Against that, its 11.8-year reserve life means it depends on continuous replacement, and its 93% Marcellus concentration means it has one geological story rather than three.

3. Financials & balance sheet

FY2025 was the first full year of the integrated company and the numbers reflect it. Sales of natural gas, NGLs and oil were US$7,727 million, with US$627 million of pipeline and other revenue and US$291 million of derivative gains taking total operating revenues to US$8,644 million. Operating income was US$3,250 million and net income attributable to EQT US$2,039 million (US$3.31 per diluted share), against US$231 million and US$0.45 in 2024. The company generated US$5.1 billion of operating cash flow.

Table 4. Three-year financial summary (US$ millions)

Source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K — consolidated statements of operations, the PV-10 reconciliation and the 2025 highlights. FY2023 and FY2024 sales volumes are derived and approximate. The Equitrans Midstream merger closed in July 2024 and the Olympus Energy acquisition in July 2025, so year-on-year comparisons are not organic; the share-count line shows why per-share figures moved differently from absolute ones. A five-year series is not shown because the filing presents three years and the pre-merger entity is not comparable; “—” marks figures not disclosed on a consistent basis. Operating cash flow is the company’s stated US$5.1 bn.

Two lines in that table carry the whole story. The first is transportation and processing, which fell from US$2,157 million to US$1,916 million to US$1,532 million across three years while volumes rose about 18% — the integration dividend, in cash. The second is weighted average diluted shares, which went from 413 million to 515 million to 616 million — a 61% increase in two years, because Equitrans and Olympus were paid for substantially in stock. EQT bought a better business and paid for it with ownership; both halves of that sentence are load-bearing.

The balance sheet is improving quickly from a high base. EQT retired US$1.4 billion of senior notes in 2025 and, per its Q2 2026 disclosure, cut senior notes from US$6.9 billion to US$5.2 billion in the first half of 2026, repaying about US$2.1 billion. Net debt of roughly US$5.54 billion puts debt to EBITDA at 0.84× with interest coverage of 10.4×, and the company expects to exit 2026 near US$4.7 billion against a long-term US$5.0 billion target — a target that has itself been revised once, from an earlier goal of US$7.5 billion by the end of 2025. It remains committed to investment-grade credit metrics, and its revolving facility requires total debt to total capitalisation no greater than 65%, with which it was compliant at year-end. In absolute terms this is still the largest debt load among the six.

Capital returns are dividend-led and share-count-diluted. FY2025 saw US$390 million of dividends paid and the quarterly base dividend raised 5% to US$0.165 (US$0.66 annualised) — a fourth consecutive year of growth, on a payout ratio near 15%. A US$2 billion share repurchase authorisation is in place, but the practical effect of the acquisitions is that the share count rose 5.93% year on year and the buyback yield is negative. Among the six companies in this series, EQT is the only one whose shareholders own materially less of the company than they did two years ago.

Hedging is option-based and light. As of 11 February 2026 the book comprised NYMEX short calls and long puts covering 228 MMDth in the first quarter of 2026 at average strikes of US$6.29 and US$4.25 per Dth respectively, scaling down to just 9 MMDth by the first quarter of 2027, plus basis hedges across delivery points. The structure gives near-term downside protection at US$4.25 while capping upside at US$6.29, and it thins out rapidly — so 2027 is largely unhedged. Oversight sits with a management-level Hedge and Financial Risk Committee.

Figure 5. Total operating revenues by fiscal year, FY2023–FY2025

Chart source: Table 4, this analysis; EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K . The two lines that carry the story — transportation & processing expense falling from 2,157 to 1,532 while volumes rose, and weighted-average diluted shares climbing from 413m to 616m — are read from Table 4 rather than overlaid as additional series.

4. Management, strategy & corporate structure

4.1 Management & governance

EQT is led by President and Chief Executive Officer Toby Z. Rice, previously a Partner at the Rice Investment Group, who has driven the company’s integrated, technology-led operating model. The senior team is Chief Financial Officer Jeremy T. Knop, Chief Legal and Policy Officer William E. Jordan and Chief Operating Officer J.E.B. Bolen. Unlike two of its peers, EQT enters 2026 with no leadership question outstanding.

Governance is more formalised here than anywhere else in this peer group, and the structures are named rather than gestured at. A management-level Enterprise Risk Committee oversees the identification and management of corporate-level risks using the COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework; a separate management-level Hedge and Financial Risk Committee governs the derivative programme; and the Audit Committee carries explicit responsibility for regular oversight of cybersecurity risk. For a company that has absorbed a midstream merger, sold 40% of the resulting vehicle to a private-credit affiliate and bought an upstream operator inside two years, that machinery is doing real work.

The governance question a reader should weigh is not competence but alignment of outcome. This management team has executed a genuinely impressive strategic repositioning — and it has done so while increasing the share count by 61% in two years. The strategy has clearly worked at the enterprise level; whether it has worked per share is the open question, and Section 7 is where it gets answered.

4.2 Strategy & capital allocation

The stated strategy is to be the leading low-cost producer of natural gas, generating durable free cash flow across price cycles through large-scale, multi-pad combo-development, and to serve growing sources of demand: power generation, industrial consumption, domestic data-centre development and LNG exports. On the evidence of the cost stack in Section 2.2, the low-cost claim is met.

The capital-allocation waterfall is explicit: responsibly develop the assets, position for organic growth, and return capital through debt retirement, a base dividend and opportunistic repurchases, while maintaining investment-grade credit metrics and executing the Debt Retirement Plan toward US$5.0 billion. The company also states that it creates value through mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures and energy-related investments — which is an accurate description of the last two years and, for a shareholder, the most important sentence in the strategy section, because it signals that further equity-funded transactions are within scope.

4.3 Ownership & corporate structure

Four structural events define the current entity, and all four are recent. The July 2024 Equitrans Midstream merger re-established vertical integration and created the Upstream, Gathering and Transmission segments, with Equitrans, L.P. and EQM Midstream Partners, LP as the material operating subsidiaries. The December 2024 Midstream Joint Venture Transaction saw an affiliate of Blackstone Credit & Insurance contribute US$3.5 billion for a 40% noncontrolling equity interest in the midstream vehicle — monetising infrastructure without losing control, and creating the noncontrolling-interest line that took US$286 million of 2025 net income before it reached EQT shareholders. The July 2025 Olympus Energy acquisition for approximately US$1.9 billion added roughly 90,000 net acres and 500 drilling locations. And in January 2026 EQT exercised a preferential buy-out right over additional MVP A and MVP C interests from Con Edison for about US$213.2 million, with roughly US$98.4 million expected to be funded by the Blackstone affiliate.

The consequence for a shareholder is a more valuable but more complicated claim. EQT consolidates a midstream business of which it owns 60%, holds equity-method interests in a pipeline system of which it owns roughly half, and reports 625.52 million shares outstanding against 381 million on a weighted average basis in 2023. The economics are good; the bridge from enterprise value to equity value has more steps than any peer’s, which is why Section 7 builds it explicitly.

5. ESG & sustainability

EQT’s environmental case rests on how it develops rather than on what it offsets, and that is a stronger position than it first appears. Two operating practices do the work. The first is electric hydraulic fracturing powered by natural gas, which displaces diesel-fired pressure pumping and cuts both emissions and fuel consumption at the pad. The second is combo-development — the multi-pad model described in Section 2.3 — which the company reports results in fewer well sites, reduced truck traffic, lower fuel consumption, shorter periods of surface disturbance and reduced incremental midstream construction. These are structural reductions in footprint per unit of production, achieved by changing the development method rather than by purchasing credits.

The social and workforce record is the most substantive in this peer group. EQT runs an equity-for-all programme, granting annual equity awards to every employee so that the workforce shares directly in financial performance — an unusual policy in the sector and a concrete one. It also provides subsidised health insurance, paid maternity and paternity leave, flexible working arrangements and a company match on employee donations to qualified non-profits. On disclosure, the framework emphasises continuous improvement in emissions performance, data quality and transparency.

The balanced read: EQT’s environmental advantage is real, operational and inseparable from the same efficiency that produces its cost lead — which makes it more durable than a certification. But it is also less independently verified than its two closest peers’. Range holds ‘A’-grade MiQ methane certification across all of its Pennsylvania production and Expand maintains 100% responsibly sourced gas certification; the EQT filing reviewed here discloses neither whole-portfolio third-party certification nor a dated net-zero target. The performance is credible and the mechanism is sound; the external attestation is thinner.

6. Risks

Table 5. Risk register

Source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K risk factors, MD&A, segment and hedge disclosures; Q2 2026 results for post-year-end figures. Likelihood and impact are the author’s assessment.

The through-line is that EQT’s risks are almost all financial rather than operational. The wells work, the costs are the lowest in the basin and falling, the reserve replacement is organic, the leadership is settled and the governance machinery is real. What a shareholder carries instead is the consequence of how the company got here: a 61% increase in the share count, the largest absolute debt load in the peer group, and US$5.25 billion of net asset value resting on a private-credit mark struck in December 2024.

The two risks that would actually break the thesis compound each other. Dilution and the gas deck. If gas settles at the strip, EQT’s per-share value is roughly US$43 against a US$52 price — and the reason it is not higher is that the numerator has been divided by 61% more shares. Another equity-funded acquisition, however good the assets, would repeat that arithmetic; the strategy section explicitly keeps the option open. The counterweight is that each transaction has demonstrably lowered the cost structure, which is the one variable that compounds in a producer’s favour. Which price regime arrives is a macro question rather than a company one; Commodities Across the Cycle sets out the regimes in which energy commodities lead and lag.

Figure 6. Risk heat-map

Figure data: this analysis; risks per the register above.

7. Valuation

Valuation as of 4 September 2026, in US dollars. Horizon: spot fair value. Price deck: base Henry Hub US$3.00/MMBtu — the representative trailing average snapped to the fixed US$2.00–4.00 grid (3-month US$2.94, 6-month US$2.93, 12-month US$3.59 with the January 2026 spike of US$7.72 inside it, so the shorter windows are the representative ones) — with every grid price run as a scenario (deep bear US$2.00 / bear US$2.50 / base US$3.00 / bull US$3.50 / deep bull US$4.00); the EIA’s US$3.49 (2027) forecast carried as a 0%-weight cross-check; no spot deck is carried, so the section does not age with the daily quote. Realized price = Henry Hub less the ~US$0.37 Appalachian differential (US$2.63/mcf at the base). Discount rate 10% on the upstream — the E&P convention’s single-basin, high-decline row (EQT is one basin, Appalachia, on a shale decline curve; the 8% large-cap row is the grid’s low case) — sensitised 8–12%; the after-tax standardized measure happens to be struck at the same 10%, which is a data point, not the reason; 8% on the contracted midstream. Share price US$55.59 (1 Sep 2026 close), 625.52 m shares, balance sheet as of 30 June 2026.

EQT is valued on the E&P producer archetype, run as a sum-of-the-parts because it is two businesses — an upstream reserve base and a consolidated midstream that Blackstone Credit holds a priority claim on. The method behind the numbers is set out in the How to Value Commodity Stocks guide; this section applies it to EQT. The headline is a deck-to-value map, not a single number: the blended fair value is US$30.29/share at the US$3.00 base price, US$17.60 at US$2.50 and US$43.29 at US$3.50, and each US$0.50/MMBtu of Henry Hub is worth about US$7.8 of NAV/share (US$15.6 per US$1.00) — the deck sensitivity in Table 11 lets a reader run the model at any gas price they hold. The tiered NAV frames the structure: the producing and operating businesses plus the bridge are worth US$33.81/share at the base price, the risked development and inventory tiers US$2.88 more. The section reads the current US$55.59 price against that map only at the end, in §7.6, where the price-relative rating and the flip prices are published.

7.1 Method selection

EQT is a producer, so the blend starts from the E&P-producer default set out in the valuation guide linked above (NAV/DCF 45% / EV/EBITDA 30% / a reserve- or flowing-unit read 25%). The third default method is available but is set aside as a stated deviation, not substituted for lack of data: the guide’s EV/2P anchor of US$10/boe is an oil-basis convention, and on EQT’s 28.0 Tcfe at the 6:1 energy conversion it reads US$1.67/mcfe against the US$0.72/mcfe the standardized measure itself puts on a proved unit — an anchor 2.3× the reserve report’s own value per unit, which would carry a 25% weight on a number the filing contradicts. It is therefore published in §7.5 as a 0% cross-check with that arithmetic, and the weight is moved to a cash-flow read built from disclosed lines — P/CF at the archetype’s own 4.5× anchor on attributable forward cash flow (EBITDA less cash interest, cash tax and the Blackstone distributions), rather than a FCF yield, because the guide publishes a P/CF anchor for this archetype and no FCF-yield anchor. That puts two methods in the cash-flow family, so they are held together at the 50% collinear ceiling and the NAV takes the balance: the published split is NAV/DCF 50% / EV/EBITDA 30% / P/CF 20%, a deviation from the default driven by the choice and the cap, and the same-family substitute pushes the blend to the collinear ceiling, said so. A gas-basis EV per unit anchor (a dated US$/mcfe-d or US$/mcfe dataset median) would let the asset-family method return at its default weight; it is logged as the data gap that would close in §7.6.

Table 6. Valuation method selection

Source: method-to-archetype mapping, anchors and the default weight set per The Commodity Investor, Part 11: How to Value Commodity Stocks , “The archetype is the unit of analysis” and “The valuation toolkit”; the E&P-producer default deviated to 50/30/20 — the oil-basis EV/2P read set aside as a stated deviation (§7.1, and the 0% read in §7.5) and the collinearity cap — per “Putting it together”. Archetype in Section 1; target multiples derived in §7.3 from the archetype anchors, not from a peer set. Input families: intrinsic 50% (single method), cash-flow 50% (two methods, at the collinear ceiling), asset & capacity 0% (the oil-basis anchor set aside — see §7.5 and the data gap in §7.6), transaction 0%.

7.2 Net asset value

Vehicle map. EQT’s value sits in one upstream entity and one consolidated midstream vehicle, plus two equity-method development series and the corporate bridge — each valued a different way so that nothing inside one line reappears as another.

Table 7. Vehicle map

Source: this analysis; ownership, the Midstream Joint Venture’s assets and the JV Agreement’s distribution terms per the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K , Note 9 (“The Midstream Joint Venture”) and Note 8 (“Investments in Unconsolidated Entities”); the post-period MVP A/MVP C buy-out from Con Edison (~US$213 m, of which US$98.4 m funded by Blackstone) closes in H1 2026 and adds ~3.9 points to the MVP A interest for roughly its modelled value — bridged as neutral.

Tax basis and asset-retirement obligations. The upstream is carried at the SEC after-tax standardized measure, so tax is inside the reserve figure by construction (basis 3, the disclosure’s own schedule): EQT’s US$3,472 m net deferred-tax liability and its loss pools (US$387 m of federal NOL deferred-tax assets, indefinite-lived) sit behind that after-tax number and are neither charged nor credited again. The gathering DCF and the capitalised G&A run at the statutory rate on cash margin with no shield (basis 1 — 21% federal plus Pennsylvania’s 8.49% stepping to 4.99% by 2031, blended ~25%); declining the pools there understates NAV by at most US$387 m ÷ 625.52 m = US$0.62/share, direction stated. The transmission and MVP A rows are pre-tax anchor multiples, the convention for a segment sale. Asset-retirement obligations (US$1,183 m of ARO-and-other liabilities on the balance sheet) are already deducted inside the standardized measure’s discounted cash flows (ASC 932 includes future plugging and abandonment), so the bridge’s reclamation line prints in rows; the midstream’s share of that balance is not split out in the provisions disclosure (n/d), direction NAV overstated, bounded by the whole US$1,183 m.

Stage risk is charged once, in the row. Only MVP B and MVP C are pre-production. Southgate is FERC-approved with precedent agreements signed and a mid-2028 in-service date — “FS, permitted, funding gap open” (0.55–0.75×), taken at the 0.75× ceiling because EQT funds its share from cash flow and the operator is EQT itself; Boost has applied to FERC but is not yet approved — “FS complete, unpermitted, unfunded” (0.45–0.65×), taken at 0.55× mid-band. Together they are 0.7% of enterprise NAV, so the target P/NAV and the discount rate carry no second charge and the funding test does not bite.

The per-asset NPV build. Every NPV the model carries is built here first, one block per asset, so the arithmetic arrives before the answer rather than after it. The upstream is EQT’s disclosed figure; the transmission, gathering and MVP A rows are built from the segment table and Note 8; only MVP A’s depreciation, the inventory factor and the gathering life are author terms — printed as terms, not totals.

Table 8. Per-asset NPV build — base case (US$3.00/MMBtu Henry Hub ≈ US$2.63/mcf realized, 10%)

Notes to Table 8

1. Also Note 17, “Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows”, 21,310,186 thousand · p.143 — the same figure at the statements’ scale.
2. 3.132 from the Item 1 strip sensitivity, p.13; 2.749 from Item 1, “Natural gas price ($/Mcf)”, p.13, repeated in Note 17, p.143.
3. The two disclosed points are interpolated linearly and extended below the SEC case; because the after-tax figure flattens as the tax shield is exhausted at high prices and undeveloped locations drop out at low ones, the straight line understates value at the US$3.50 grid prices and overstates it at the US$2.00 grid price — direction stated, not modelled.
4. Note 17 prints undiscounted future net cash flows of US$43,263 m against the US$21,310 m standardized measure (the “10% annual discount for estimated timing” of US$21,953 m) · p.143; a flat 15.8-year annuity reproduces that ratio and is the profile the rate rows of Figure 8 re-discount on: factor 1.130 at 8%, 0.892 at 12%, 0.802 at 14%.
5. Contract terms per Item 1, “Transmission Segment Assets and Operations”: ~95% of contracted firm capacity under negotiated-rate agreements; weighted-average remaining terms ~10 years (third party) and ~13 years (affiliate) · p.18.
6. Gathering revenue of US$1,301 m includes US$1,251 m from the Upstream segment (Note 2, “Pipeline and other” and the elimination column) — the same fees the upstream standardized measure deducts as future production costs, so booking them here restores value the reserve report nets out; the two lines are one contract seen from both sides.
7. The 2026 outlook’s growth allocation (US$580–640 m) matches the gathering-plus-transmission capital (US$550–610 m), so the disclosed split carries no midstream sustaining capital; direction: if part of that spend is in fact sustaining, this row is overstated by up to ~US$0.6 bn of PV.
8. MVP A’s summarized information (Note 8) prints revenue, operating income and net income but no depreciation; the 2.5% straight-line term is the FERC-pipeline convention on the disclosed asset base. Cross-check: EQT’s carrying value of MVP A is US$3,098 m, so the US$2,368 m carried sits below book.
9. MVP A sits inside the Midstream Joint Venture (Note 9: EQT contributed “its ownership interest in MVP A”), so it is valued here at 100% of EQT’s 49.3% and the Class B claim on it is charged in the bridge, once.
10. EQT books no probable or possible reserves (SEC basis), so the drilling inventory is the gas analogue of resource beyond the plan. The factor sits in the lower half of the band because the locations produce only after the proved plan is exhausted (a discount-timing factor of ~0.25 on its own) and because the 2025 organic replacement of 103% is the only conversion evidence; the same replacement record is not charged again in the target P/NAV.

Source: the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K , cited by the filing’s own Item and Note numbers with its printed labels quoted, so every figure can be found by searching the document; pages are those of the filed document. The filing reports in thousands; this table prints US$m. Row references are numbered within each block, not across the table. Filed marks a figure printed in the filing, Derived the arithmetic of rows above it, Estimate the author’s judgement and Input a parameter of this section. The value column is headed Value rather than US$m because a build that multiplies heterogeneous terms cannot hold one unit; the unit sits in the line item, and only the = rows are US$m. One relationship the table cannot express is the parametric form of the upstream line, which the sensitivity grid runs across the deck and the rate: upstream(HH, r) = [24,809 + 9,136 × ((HH − 0.37) − 3.132)] × AF(r, 15.8) ÷ AF(10%, 15.8); the inventory row scales with it.

The per-asset model. The build above resolves into one row per asset, with the stage, profile, cost, tax and discounting inputs the build does not carry.

Table 9. Per-asset model — base case (US$3.00/MMBtu Henry Hub ≈ US$2.63/mcf realized, 10%)

Source: this analysis; reserves, unit costs, contract terms, capacities, the MVP series and the acreage per the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K . Every NPV in the last column reproduces from its block in Table 8; this table adds the inputs behind those figures. One discount-rate treatment: the author-built rows (gathering, capitalised G&A, the inventory row through the upstream) move with the rate axis; the upstream disclosure is re-discounted on its Note 17 timing; the two anchor-multiple rows do not re-discount, and the grid’s notes say so.

Table 10. NAV build-up and equity bridge (base case — US$3.00/MMBtu Henry Hub, 10%)

Source: this analysis; net debt and share count per the Q2 2026 results and stockanalysis.com ; the hedge positions, working-capital, NCI and investment lines per the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K balance sheet (p.90), Note 2, Note 8 and Note 9. Bridge lines in the standard order, each printed even where empty on one of the five value-column states. The tiers sum to the published NAV/share: producing & operating US$33.81 + development US$0.38 + resource US$2.50 = US$36.70 on unrounded inputs (36.6979) — and the producing & operating tier alone sits 39% below the US$55.59 price, before either risked tier is counted.

Figure 7. Sum-of-the-parts NAV build-up

Figure data: Table 10. Equity net asset value of US$22,955 m equates to US$36.70 per share; the producing & operating tier alone is US$33.81. “Midstream” groups transmission (4,531), gathering (4,635) and MVP A (2,368); “G&A & other” groups capitalised G&A (−1,396), the hedge mark (+60), working capital (−258) and investments (+116).

Figure 8. NAV/share sensitivity — Henry Hub price × discount rate

Notes to Figure 8

1. Checksum — the bear column ($2.50) at the 10% base rate: upstream = 24,809 + 9,136 × ((2.50 − 0.37) − 3.132) = US$15,655 m; inventory = 43,426 × (15,655 ÷ 28,046) × 0.05 = US$1,212 m; + 4,531 + 4,635 + 2,368 + 238 = US$28,639 m gross; hedge mark at US$2.50 = [(3.72 − 2.50) × 108 + (3.30 − 2.50) × 9] × 0.75 = US$104 m; − 5,540 + 104 − 3,586 − 1,396 − 258 + 116 = US$18,078 m ÷ 625.52 m = US$28.90.
2. Rate rows — they move the author-built and disclosed-NPV rows only: the upstream re-discounts on its Note 17 timing (×1.130 at 8%, ×0.892 at 12%), the gathering DCF and the capitalised G&A step ±200 bp with it (gathering 6%/8%/10%), the inventory row follows the upstream; the transmission and MVP A rows are anchor multiples and are held down each column. The hedge mark moves with the deck, not the rate: US$148 m / 104 m / 60 m / 18 m / 0.0 across the five prices, the same in every rate row.
3. Cost — a +10% shock to the US$1.06/mcfe cash cost (+US$0.106/mcfe), run through the reserve report’s price sensitivity, takes NAV/share to US$35.03 (−4.5%); a +10% Henry Hub move to US$3.30 lifts it to US$41.38 (+12.8%) — the price line runs well ahead of the cost line.
4. FX — n/a, EQT reports and trades in US dollars.
5. Stage risk — n/a, the risked tranches (MVP B/C) are 0.7% of enterprise NAV, far below the 25% trigger for a one-band-lower line.
6. Schedule slip — n/a, no development asset reaches 10% of enterprise NAV (MVP B/C 0.7%), so a one-year slip of Southgate’s mid-2028 in-service date moves NAV/share by under US$0.05.

Figure data: this analysis’ SOTP model (Tables 8–10), every cell recomputed at that column’s Henry Hub price and that row’s rate, never scaled from the base cell. Price columns are the fixed natural-gas grid, grid version 2026-09 (US$2.00–4.00); base case US$3.00 at 10%. A one-step (US$0.50) Henry Hub move shifts NAV/share by US$7.80 (US$7.84 above the US$3.72 put strike, where the hedge floor runs out), or ~21%; the deck sensitivity is tabulated in Table 11.

Deck sensitivity — what one US$0.50 step of Henry Hub is worth. The grid above holds the recomputed values at each grid price; this table names the slope between them, so a reader who holds a different gas view can move the valuation themselves. Because the upstream enters on the reserve report’s own price sensitivity and the multiples are held at their targets, the per-step figures are linear between the US$2.50 and US$3.50 grid prices; below US$2.50 the cash-tax line reaches zero and the EV/EBITDA equity thins toward zero, and above US$3.50 the hedge book’s US$3.72 put floor runs out, so the outer steps are not quite the same size.

Table 11. Deck sensitivity — value per US$0.50/MMBtu step of Henry Hub (US$/share unless stated; base rate, target multiples held)

Source: this analysis, Tables 8–10 and 18. % of base is each line’s per-step move divided by its own base-price value — a leverage read, so a line with fixed claims ahead of it (EV/EBITDA) shows a larger figure than the NAV. Linear over is the Henry Hub range on which the slope holds: ¹ below US$2.50 the EV/EBITDA equity thins to US$2.41 at US$2.00 with the multiple held, and floors at 0.00 on the scenario ladder where the multiple also compresses; ² below US$2.50 the cash-tax line reaches zero, and FCF/share is negative below ~US$2.75; ³ the ladder blend steps 9.81 → 12.69 → 13.00 → 14.76 because the multiples move ×0.10 per step with the deck; ⁴ the hedge book (collars with a US$3.72 floor on Q4 2026, 9 MMDth in Q1 2027) is worth US$0.07/share per step below US$3.50 and nothing above it, so the NAV, SOTP, EV/EBITDA and blend steps are US$0.04–0.07 larger between US$3.50 and US$4.00 (NAV/share 7.84, blend 8.62). Every step is the difference between two recomputed grid prices of Figure 8, never a scaled figure. Forward consolidated EBITDA moves US$1,206.5 m per step (2,413 bcfe × US$0.50), cash tax US$301.6 m and attributable cash flow per share US$1.45. How to use it: start from the base-price values (NAV/share US$36.70, blended fair value US$30.29) and add or subtract the per-step figure for every US$0.50 of Henry Hub away from US$3.00 — a US$3.25 flat deck gives a NAV/share of ~US$40.6 and a held-multiple blend of ~US$34.6; for a reading that also lets the multiples move with the cycle, use the ladder columns of Table 18.

P/NAV ladder (unweighted). The NAV restated as a price map, straight off Figure 8’s base-rate row: for each of five fixed P/NAV levels — the same five in every analysis in this series — the share price it implies at every grid price, NAV/share at the deck × level, the base rate and the risk weights held. Read down a column for the deck you hold, across a row for the multiple you would pay; EQT’s own 0.94× target (derived in §7.3) sits between the 0.75× and 1.00× levels, and the market-implied deck in §7.5 (Table 17) says where the current price sits on the map.

Table 12. P/NAV ladder — share price implied by each P/NAV level at each grid price (US$/share)

Source: this analysis, solved on Tables 8–10: each cell is the Figure 8 base-rate NAV/share at that column’s Henry Hub price (21.10 / 28.90 / 36.70 / 44.50 / 52.34) × the row’s P/NAV. The levels are fixed for the series (0.50× to 1.50× in quarter steps), so two producers can be read column-for-column; the E&P archetype’s own trading band (0.60–1.00×) and its 0.80× anchor fall inside the map, and EQT’s 0.94× target (§7.3) reads US$34.50 at the base price, US$27.17 at US$2.50 and US$41.83 at US$3.50 — Table 18’s SOTP row differs from those only by the scenario flex of the multiple. Unweighted: it translates a multiple and a deck into a share price without reference to today’s quote, so the map stays readable as both move; parity at the base price is US$36.70.

7.3 Relative valuation

At US$55.59 and 625.52 million shares, EQT’s market capitalisation is ~US$34.8 billion and enterprise value ~US$40.3 billion. This section values EQT standalone: each target multiple is the fixed anchor for the E&P-producer archetype moved by the signed drivers this post’s own scorecard has already scored. No peer multiples are tabulated here — reading EQT against Expand, Antero, Range and CNX on observed reserve and cash-flow multiples is the job of the sector comparison , on one shared basis. Forward metrics are struck on the FY2026 guidance year at the base deck. Because the US$3.00 base sits 20% below Henry Hub’s five-year average (US$3.74, September 2021–August 2026) — inside the ±25% band that marks a cycle extreme — the subject is treated as near mid-cycle, and the scenarios in §7.6 flex both the deck and the multiples along the ladder.

Table 13. Target-multiple driver line (one line, applied to every multiple)

Source: this analysis; each term is tied to one scored dimension, capped at ±10%, and no fact is charged under two labels. The driver set is the module’s — asset quality, cost position, reserves and replacement, balance sheet and capital allocation; management, jurisdiction and ESG (Dims 7–9) are strong but sit outside the target-multiple driver set and are scored in Section 9. The integration term does the heaviest lifting: because a third of the NAV is contracted midstream rather than reserves, EQT’s target P/NAV sits near parity rather than at the 0.80× anchor a pure-upstream gas name would carry. The one line is applied, unchanged, to every anchor:

Target P/NAV = 0.80× anchor × 1.18 = 0.944 → 0.94× · Target EV/EBITDA = 5.0× anchor × 1.18 = 5.90 → 5.9× · Target P/CF = 4.5× anchor × 1.18 = 5.31 → 5.3×. Rounded figures are the ones used in every table below.

Table 14. Forward EBITDA build — FY2026 guidance year at the base deck

Source: this analysis; volumes, unit costs and the capital outlook per the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K and the Q2 2026 results. “Forward” is the next twelve months = the FY2026 guidance year; the volume ties to guidance with nothing added above it. Cost-basis reconciliation: the US$1.06/mcfe is the consolidated cash cost (SG&A and midstream O&M included); the NAV rows use the reserve report’s own production costs (upstream) and segment EBITDA (midstream), and the un-charged SG&A is capitalised in the bridge instead — a definition, not a gap.

Table 15. Relative valuation — implied value per share (base case)

Source: this analysis; archetype anchors (E&P: P/NAV 0.80×, EV/EBITDA 5.0×) per the valuation guide linked in §7, “The valuation toolkit”. The implied EV crosses the same claims as the NAV bridge — plus the ARO, which the standardized measure carries but EBITDA does not — so the two methods differ only in what they see, not in how they reach equity. Values computed on unrounded inputs (36.698 × 0.94 = 34.50; 25.030 → 25.03).

The relative read lands at US$25.03, US$9.47 below the NAV method’s US$34.50 — and the gap is the finding, not noise: a whole-company E&P multiple prices the midstream’s contracted cash flow at 5.9× when the NAV prices it at 9.5× and on a 13-year contract life. On the current run rate EQT trades at ~9.1× forward EV/EBITDA against the 5.9× target; the three turns of premium are what the integration and the data-centre-demand thesis are worth to the market.

7.4 Further weighted methods — P/CF support

The third weighted read is a cash-flow multiple on EQT’s attributable forward cash flow, built from disclosed lines and taken at the archetype’s own P/CF anchor.

Table 16. P/CF support build — FY2026 guidance year at the base deck

Source: this analysis; interest, tax, D&A and the Class B distributions per the EQT FY2025 Form 10-K cash-flow statement, Note 2 and Note 9.

The method lands at US$27.66, between the EV/EBITDA read (US$25.03) and the NAV (US$34.50), and confirms the direction of the multiple read rather than the NAV: a cash-flow multiple cannot see the inventory or the contract life, which is why the NAV anchors the blend. One caveat travels with it: the cash-flow line deducts the Class B distributions at the 2025 level, which is the attributable basis this section holds throughout; on a consolidated basis the read would be US$3.01/share higher.

7.5 Cross-checks (unweighted)

Nine diagnostics locate the blend; none carries weight.

Table 17. Cross-checks — reported, reconciled, never weighted

Source: this analysis; the market-implied and flip prices solved on the Tables 8–16 model; Henry Hub history per the U.S. EIA monthly series; consensus per stockanalysis.com , 1 Sep 2026.

7.6 Scenarios & fair value

Every weighted method is re-run in every column of the Henry Hub grid — the same five grid prices as Figure 8 and Table 11, so the whole section reads on one price axis. Each column is its own world, and Table 18 lists what changes in it above the values it produces: the deck moves one step at a time; because the base sits inside 25% of gas’s five-year average (§7.3) the subject is near mid-cycle, so the three target multiples step ×0.80 / ×0.90 / — / ×1.10 / ×1.20 with the deck; the upstream discount rate steps out to 12% and 14% on the downside and holds at the 10% convention on the upside — a rate below the industry’s own floor would price the reserves as safer than the industry treats them at any gas price. The last row shows the same blend with the multiples held at their targets, which is the linear version a reader can reproduce from Table 11’s slopes.

Table 18. Scenarios & fair value — inputs, value per method and the blend by grid price (US$/share)

Source: this analysis; weights per §7.1, scenario names by offset from the base price. Base blend on a calculator: 0.50 × 34.50 + 0.30 × 25.03 + 0.20 × 27.66 = 17.25 + 7.51 + 5.53 = US$30.29 (on unrounded values, 30.290). Inputs behind the rows, by column: the hedge mark +US$148 m / 104 m / 60 m / 18 m / 0.0 (the Q4 2026 collars at a US$3.72 floor and the 9 MMDth Q1 2027 strip, intrinsic against each column’s deck, after tax); gathering DCF rate 12% / 10% / 8% / 8% / 8%; MVP B / MVP C risk weights 0.65×·0.45× / 0.70×·0.50× / 0.75×·0.55× / 0.80×·0.60× / 0.85×·0.65×; the flexed targets 0.752× · 4.72× · 4.24× / 0.846× · 5.31× · 4.77× / 0.94× · 5.9× · 5.3× / 1.034× · 6.49× · 5.83× / 1.128× · 7.08× · 6.36×; forward consolidated EBITDA US$2,002 m / 3,208 m / 4,415 m / 5,621 m / 6,828 m; cash flow per share US$1.91 / 3.77 / 5.22 / 6.67 / 8.11. The transmission and MVP A anchor rows and the Class B claim are held in every column — contracted fees and a fixed-dollar claim carry no deck exposure. The deep-bear EV/EBITDA cell is floored at 0.00 (see Figure 9). The FCF/share memo row re-runs Table 16’s guidance-year bridge at each grid price — interest, maintenance and growth capital and the Class B distributions held, cash tax recomputed — so free cash flow turns positive only above ~US$2.75/MMBtu. Illustrative scenarios, not forecasts.

Figure 9. Value per share by method and scenario

Source: Table 18; data-level ranked 0–9 across the whole grid. In the deep-bear column the EV/EBITDA method returns negative equity (US$2,002 m × 4.72 = US$9,449 m of EV against US$10,304 m of claims ahead of the equity, the US$148 m hedge gain at US$2.00 already netted) and is floored at 0.00 rather than blended negative — at US$2.00 gas the equity is an option on the reserves struck at the debt and the Class B claim, and the NAV, which still carries the contracted midstream, is the read that holds. The bracketed figure under each value is its change against the same row’s base-case value.

Conclusion. The blended base-case fair value is US$30.29, inside a US$7.79 (Deep Bear, US$2.00) – US$58.05 (Deep Bull, US$4.00) range, against a US$55.59 price — an implied −45.5%, Overvalued, published as Overvalued “(wide band)” because the deep-bear blend sits 86% below the price. At the base price the guidance-year free cash flow of US$515 m is a 1.5% FCF yield on the US$34.8 bn market cap (3.2% before growth capital) — thin against the ~US$4.5 gas world the price discounts. Rating-flip prices: with the multiples held at their targets, the base blend crosses up into Modestly overvalued above ~US$3.50/MMBtu Henry Hub (+17% from the base price — the US$3.50 grid price exactly) and into Fairly valued only above ~US$4.15 (+38%); there is no band below Overvalued, so no downward flip exists. The one assumption that drives the downside is Henry Hub settling at the US$2.00–2.50 grid prices where it spent 2023–24, with the Class B claim and the debt still ahead of the equity. The three methods do not cluster: the NAV (US$34.50) sits US$9.47 above the EV/EBITDA read (US$25.03) because it prices the contracted midstream on its own convention and credits the inventory beyond the plan, while a whole-company E&P multiple sees neither — the NAV anchors the blend for exactly that reason, and the gap is explained rather than averaged away. The framing that matters is not that EQT is a poor business — on the operating evidence it is the best in its peer set, the cost lead is widening and the pipes are real — it is that the market has already capitalised the integration and the data-centre demand thesis, and then some: the producing and operating businesses plus the bridge are worth US$33.81/share, and a buyer at US$55.59 is paying a US$22 premium to that for a Henry Hub deck of ~US$4.5 held in perpetuity and full credit for the MVP expansions. The Street’s ~US$67.44 target underwrites more still. The path to closing the gap without a higher gas price runs through the unused US$2 billion buyback and the Base Return being paid down — after which 100% of the JV’s cash comes home — not through operations.

Assumptions box: valuation date 4 September 2026; balance sheet as of 30 June 2026 (net debt US$5,540 m; the working-capital and NCI lines at their 31 Dec 2025 values, the last in the source set; the hedge book marked per column on the 10-K’s 11 Feb 2026 position table, Q4 2026 and Q1 2027 only); horizon spot fair value. USD throughout — trading currency = model currency, no FX. Price decks: base Henry Hub US$3.00/MMBtu (the 3- and 6-month trailing averages, US$2.94 and US$2.93, snapped to the fixed grid, version 2026-09), run across the US$2.00–4.00 grid; the EIA’s US$3.49 (2027) forecast as a 0% cross-check — no spot deck is carried, so the section does not age with the daily quote; constant-price, unescalated deck and costs. Discount rates 10% upstream — the E&P convention’s single-basin, high-decline row (Appalachia only, shale decline), the 8% large-cap row carried as the grid’s low case; the standardized measure’s own 10% is a coincidence, not the reason — and 8% on the contracted gathering DCF; 12–14% / 10–12% on the downside, held on the upside; the transmission and MVP A anchor rows do not re-discount; jurisdiction premium +0% (Dim 8 ★★★★★, United States). Share basis 625.52 m (basic ≈ diluted); values per share to two decimals, multiples to two significant figures, on unrounded inputs. Cycle: base 20% below the five-year average (US$3.74, Sep 2021–Aug 2026), inside ±25%, so deck and multiples flex together on the ladder; anchors E&P P/NAV 0.80×, EV/EBITDA 5.0×, P/CF 4.5× and contracted infrastructure 9.5× per the valuation guide linked in §7, one driver line (×1.18); metric basis forward FY2026 (guidance year); EBITDA consolidated, before the Class B distributions and sustaining capital; net debt excludes operating leases; P/NAV form equity (market cap ÷ equity NAV); no peer multiples. Method weights NAV 50% / EV/EBITDA 30% / P/CF 20% — the E&P default deviated as §7.1 states. NAV provenance: EQT’s disclosed after-tax standardized measure (upstream, re-discounted on its Note 17 timing); author-built from segment disclosure (transmission and MVP A at the anchor, gathering DCF, capitalised G&A, inventory row); carrying value (MVP B/C); tax bases per Table 9, NOL pools declined (+US$0.62/share bound); rehabilitation provision inside the standardized measure. Primary value yardstick P/NAV (equity form). Stage risk in the row weights — MVP B 0.75×, MVP C 0.55× (§7.2); no second charge in the target P/NAV or the rate. Known data gaps: (1) own-multiple history n/d — the 2024 Equitrans merger breaks the series; (2) the 30 Jun 2026 working capital and NCI n/d (the Q2 10-Q is not in the source set) — carried at 31 Dec 2025, bound ±US$0.4/share together, closed by that 10-Q; the hedge book is marked on the 10-K’s 11 Feb 2026 positions, so collars added since are n/d (direction: a larger book raises the downside columns; bound ~US$0.1/share per 100 MMDth at the deep-bear price), closed by the same 10-Q; (3) the midstream share of the US$1,183 m ARO-and-other liability n/d — NAV overstated, bound the whole balance; (4) a gas-basis EV per unit anchor (US$/mcfe-d or US$/mcfe, a dated dataset median) n/d — the asset-family method is set aside as a stated deviation and its oil-basis read printed at 0% in §7.5; closed by a dated Metal Pilot upstream-gas dataset median; (5) MVP A depreciation and the JV’s sustaining capital are author terms, bounds in Table 8’s notes. None changes the rating. To run the same NAV and multiples across every North American upstream name, screen the sector on Metal Pilot.

8. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

EQT’s catalysts are unusually concrete, because most of them are already funded and several are contractual.

Table 19. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

Source: EQT Corporation FY2025 Form 10-K (capital guidance, Debt Retirement Plan, MVP interests, buyback authorisation, dividend) and Q2 2026 results. Timing reflects company guidance and is not guaranteed.

The common thread is that EQT does not need a higher gas price to execute any of this — the deleveraging, the cost reduction and the pipeline expansions are all funded from cash already being generated. What it does need a higher gas price for is to justify the current share price, which is a different question. The most shareholder-relevant catalyst on the list is the least discussed: actually using the US$2 billion repurchase authorisation, which is the only lever that directly addresses the dilution.

9. Rating & verdict

EQT is scored on the Metal Pilot Company Scorecard — the same nine dimensions, on the same ★1–5 scale, that every North American upstream name in the series is scored on. As a producer/operator it takes the full rubric with no dimension marked not-applicable. Each star is relative to the peer set declared in Section 2.6 and substantiated below.

Table 20. The EQT Corporation scorecard

Source: the Metal Pilot Company Scorecard; evidence in Sections 2–7. Peer basis: the North American gas producers named in Section 2.6 (Expand Energy, Antero Resources, Range Resources, CNX).

Weighted average = (0.75 + 0.75 + 0.60 + 0.3125 + 0.60 + 0.45 + 0.3125 + 0.3125 + 0.25) = 4.34/5 → rounds to the published ★★★★½, High quality. Weights follow the archetype-weighted scheme for the producer/operator archetype — dimensions 1/2/3/5/6 at 15% each, dimensions 4/7/8/9 at 6.25% each.

The two-axis verdict. Quality High (★★★★½) × Value Overvalued (wide band) → great company, rich price: watch for a better entry. Five dimensions score ★★★★★, and they are not independent — the integration that produces the cost lead is the same integration that produces the transmission franchise, the scale and the regulated revenue. On operating evidence EQT is the strongest company in this series. The single ★★★☆☆ is capital allocation, and it is the exception that explains the verdict: this excellent business was assembled by increasing the share count 61% in two years, which is why the best margins in the peer group coexist with the lowest return on invested capital.

The value axis is where that resolves. At US$55.59 the shares sit at 1.51× a US$36.70 NAV that credits the reserves at the company’s own after-tax figure, the pipes at the contracted-infrastructure convention and the drilling inventory beyond the proved plan — and that NAV is struck after the Blackstone Class B claim, which takes 60% of the midstream JV’s cash until a US$3.4 billion Base Return is paid. What tips the verdict from bear to bull is a combination, not a single variable: the Section 7 market-implied read reaches today’s price only at a ~US$4.5/MMBtu Henry Hub deck held in perpetuity — above the top of the fixed grid, and well above the US$3.00 base and the US$3.74 five-year average. Against that, the cost lead is widening, the debt is falling fast, and a US$2 billion repurchase authorisation sits unused — so the path to closing the gap without a higher gas price runs through buybacks and the Base Return being paid down, not through operations. The read carries a “(wide band)” qualifier because the deep-bear blend sits 86% below the price. This is an analytical read of quality and price, not a recommendation.

To go from this single-name view to the whole peer group — screening every North American upstream producer on production, cost, reserve life, net debt and free-cash-flow yield — explore Metal Pilot.

10. Sources, methodology & disclaimer

10.1 Sources, methodology & data vintage

Company fundamentals, reserves, PV-10 and the standardized-measure reconciliation, production, realized prices, segment revenues and unit costs, acreage, hedge positions, structure, management and risk factors are from EQT Corporation — 10-K Filing / Annual Report — 2025 (fiscal year ended 31 December 2025), including its 2025 highlights and outlook, reserve tables, the PV-10 reconciliation and five-year-strip sensitivity, consolidated statements of operations, segment disclosures and directors and officers sections. Reserves are SEC-basis proved reserves at 31 December 2025 struck at realized prices including regional differentials — US$2.749/mcf of gas, US$26.97/Bbl of NGLs and US$50.72/Bbl of oil — which differs from the NYMEX-benchmark basis used by several peers and is flagged wherever the comparison arises. PV-10 is the company’s disclosed pre-tax measure and the standardized measure its after-tax equivalent; neither purports to be fair market value. Post-year-end developments — the January 2026 MVP A and MVP C buy-out, Q2 2026 volumes and the raised 2026 guidance, senior notes reduced from US$6.9 billion to US$5.2 billion, and the ~US$4.7 billion year-end net-debt expectation — are from the filing’s subsequent-events disclosure and the company’s Q2 2026 results, released 21 July 2026.

Market data (share price US$55.59 at the 1 September 2026 close, 625.52 million shares, market capitalisation ~US$34.8 billion, net debt ~US$5.54 billion) and the 25-analyst Strong Buy consensus with its ~US$67.44 target are from stockanalysis.com , sourced from S&P Global Market Intelligence. Peer reserve and multiple comparisons are not carried in Section 7, which values EQT standalone on the module’s archetype anchors; the cross-company reserve-value read lives in the sector comparison , on one shared basis. The commodity context is from the U.S. EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook , July 2026.

Methodology and its limits. The net asset value is a sum-of-the-parts: the upstream at the company’s disclosed after-tax standardized measure, moved to the deck on the filing’s own price sensitivity and re-discounted on its Note 17 timing; the consolidated midstream — transmission and storage and the 49.3% MVP Mainline stake at the contracted-infrastructure convention, gathering on a 13-year contract-life DCF with its declining fee — valued at 100% and then bridged for the Blackstone Class B claim (60% of the Midstream Joint Venture’s available cash until a US$3.41 billion Base Return, Note 9), which is a priority entitlement rather than a 40% common stake; a risked row for the MVP Southgate and Boost projects; a risked row for the disclosed 30-year drilling inventory beyond the proved plan; less net debt, the Class B claim, capitalised un-charged G&A and working capital. The author terms — MVP A’s depreciation, the inventory factor, the gathering life and its sustaining capital — are printed as terms with their bounds, and together move roughly 15% of gross value. The blend is the E&P-producer default with one stated deviation — SOTP NAV at a scorecard-derived 0.94× target P/NAV (50%), EV/EBITDA at a 5.9× target on forward consolidated EBITDA bridged through every claim (30%) and P/CF at a 5.3× target on attributable cash flow (20%), the oil-basis EV/2P read set aside (it is printed at 0% in §7.5 with the arithmetic that shows the oil convention pricing a proved mcfe at 2.7× the reserve report’s own value) and the cash-flow pair held at the 50% collinear ceiling; target multiples are struck on the module’s archetype anchors moved by this post’s scorecard, not on a peer table. The NAV publishes a tiered NAV/share (producing & operating US$33.81, development US$0.38, resource US$2.50), bridges the asset-retirement obligation once inside the standardized measure, and the section adds a deck-sensitivity table, rating-flip prices and a guidance-year free-cash-flow bridge. Two structural caveats apply: the upstream reserve report deducts gathering fees that the gathering row books as revenue, so the two lines are one contract seen from both sides; and the 30 June 2026 working-capital and noncontrolling-interest balances are carried at their 31 December 2025 values (the hedge book is marked per grid price on the 10-K’s remaining Q4 2026 and Q1 2027 collars) because the Q2 2026 10-Q is not in the source set. Figure 8 sensitises the Henry Hub price on the fixed natural-gas grid (version 2026-09, US$2.00–4.00) against the discount rate, every cell recomputed from the model; the current share price is reached only above a ~US$4.5/MMBtu deck held in perpetuity (§7.5). Data vintage: the valuation section was re-run on 4 September 2026 on the re-centred gas grid and the 60/40 Base Return terms of the Midstream Joint Venture, replacing the 2 September run; the scorecard is unchanged. 5 September 2026 — after a playbook audit, §7.1 restates the third-method choice as a deviation from the default rather than a substitution for missing data, and §7.5 adds the oil-basis EV/2P read at 0% with its arithmetic; no number in the blend changed. Two sanctioned template adaptations are noted. First, because EQT’s segments are functional rather than geographic, the standard by-asset revenue split is replaced by a per-mcfe unit-economics figure (Figure 3), consistent with the treatment used elsewhere in this series. Second, the integrated-footprint asset map is omitted: a proportional/schematic map would not render legibly at this scale, so Table 2 and the §2.1 prose carry the Appalachian footprint and MVP routing instead. Every remaining figure is an inline HTML/CSS component. FY2023 and FY2024 sales volumes shown in Table 4 and Figure 4 are derived and approximate. Re-run log: 5 September 2026 — playbook audit corrections to Section 7: the hedge-book line is now a computed mark re-struck in every grid column on the 10-K’s remaining Q4 2026 / Q1 2027 collars (it had been the 31 December 2025 balance-sheet fair value, US$65 m, held flat), and the 10% upstream discount rate is justified on the convention’s single-basin, high-decline criterion rather than on the standardized measure’s disclosure rate. Net effect: NAV/share US$36.70 (from US$36.71), base blend US$30.29 (from US$30.30), the downside columns up by US$0.05–0.13/share, the value read unchanged at Overvalued (wide band) at −45.5%. Data as of 4 September 2026; refreshed on each annual report and on material events. Provenance: EQT Corporation — 10-K Filing — 2025.

10.2 Disclaimer & disclosure

This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice; do your own research or consult a licensed advisor. It is a point-in-time snapshot as of 4 September 2026 — share prices, multiples, analyst targets and the valuation read move, and reserve, production and net-asset-value figures are estimates as of the stated dates. PV-10 and standardized-measure figures are prepared under SEC pricing conventions and do not represent market value. The two-axis verdict is an analytical read of quality and price, not a personal buy or sell instruction. This report was prepared with AI assistance; figures were sourced from EQT’s filings, the U.S. EIA and market data and reviewed, but readers should verify before acting. The author holds no position in EQT Corporation as of the date of writing.