Range Resources (RRC) — Stock Analysis 2026 [4.5]

Analysis as of 6 September 2026. This is a point-in-time snapshot, not an evergreen guide. Fundamentals are from Range’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 4 September 2026 close and will move. Rating: ★★★★½, High quality — Overvalued (wide band) → the quality is real and the price already has it: you are buying duration at a US$4 gas deck. Price deck used in the valuation: base Henry Hub US$3.00/MMBtu — the representative trailing average (3-month US$2.94, 6-month US$2.93) snapped to the fixed US$2.00–4.00 natural-gas grid — with every grid price run as a scenario, from US$2.00 to US$4.00; the EIA’s US$3.49 (2027) forecast is a 0%-weight cross-check and no spot deck is carried, and the company’s own reserve report is struck at a US$3.39/mcf NYMEX benchmark. 10% discount rate, the E&P convention for a single-basin producer, sensitised at 8% and 12%. Refreshed on each annual report and on material events. For information only, prepared with AI assistance — see the disclaimer at the end.

Range Resources owns twenty-two years of reserves and is in no hurry to produce them. That single fact explains almost everything: why its free-cash-flow yield screens as the thinnest in the basin, why management holds capital flat and sends the difference to shareholders, and why — uniquely in this series — a net asset value built from its own audited reserves comes out above what a cash-flow multiple will pay. The thesis in one line: the best-capitalised, longest-lived and most independently-certified operator in Appalachia, at a price that now embeds a gas deck of about US$4.13 held flat for a generation. Why look now: net debt fell 28% in six months to US$881 million and the company just finished a US$850 million buyback with US$1.4 billion of fresh authorisation behind it — while the shares have risen 8% since July on a falling trailing gas price. To screen Range against every North American upstream name, go to Metal Pilot.

1. Snapshot & thesis

Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC) is an independent natural gas, NGLs and oil producer headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, operating almost entirely in the Marcellus Shale of southwest Pennsylvania. It is a producer/operator by archetype and an energy producer by sector. Unlike its two closest comparables it neither owns its midstream nor is captive to an affiliate: it contracts gathering, processing and fractionation from third parties and markets the NGLs into domestic and international channels. In FY2025 it produced 2.24 billion cubic feet equivalent per day (bcfe/d) from 1,579 gross (1,499 net) producing wells across approximately 879,000 gross (769,000 net) leased acres, at a 95% average working interest. (mcf = thousand cubic feet; mcfe = thousand cubic feet equivalent, liquids converted at 6 mcf per barrel; bcfe = billion; Tcfe = trillion; NGLs = natural gas liquids; TGP&C = transportation, gathering, processing and compression.)

Figure 1. Range Resources in numbers

Figure data: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K (production, reserves, the standardized measure, unit costs, capital returns); net debt per Q2 2026 results, 21 Jul 2026; market data and analyst consensus as of the 4 Sep 2026 close. Rating per Section 9; valuation read per Section 7. The reserve tile is the after-tax standardized measure, not the pre-tax PV-10 of US$11.57 bn — the equity stands behind the US$6.0 bn of future income tax the same disclosure deducts (Section 7.5).

Table 1. Range Resources in numbers

Source: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K for all operating and FY2025 financial figures; net debt per the company’s Q2 2026 results (21 Jul 2026); market data and share count (233.67 m) per stockanalysis.com as of the 4 Sep 2026 close. Enterprise value is market capitalisation plus the company’s own reported net debt. Free cash flow is operating cash flow (US$1,171 m) less all capital additions including acreage purchases (US$642 m); on an exploration-and-production-only basis it is US$587 m. Realized price is the company’s “including derivative settlements” measure, before third-party transportation deductions — see Section 2.2. Listed: Public (NYSE: RRC).

Thesis in brief. Bull: 18.1 Tcfe of proved reserves against 816 bcfe of annual production — a 22-year life, roughly seven years longer than any peer — inside a contiguous 769,000-net-acre Pennsylvania position with three stacked benches. It carries the lowest leverage in the basin at 0.73×, the highest returns on capital in the peer set (ROIC 17%), third-party MiQ ‘A’ methane certification across all production, and returned US$316 million in 2025 while cutting net debt 28%. It trades at 0.92× its own pre-tax PV-10 — the only Appalachian producer below one. Bear: that comparison is the wrong one — the same disclosure deducts US$6.0 billion of future income tax, and on the after-tax figure the enterprise is valued at 1.11× its reserves, not 0.92× (Section 7.5). The long life is also the flip side of deliberate slowness: production grew 2.5% in 2025, capital is pinned flat through 2027, and the free-cash-flow yield is the thinnest in the peer group — an investor is paid in duration rather than cash, and duration only pays if gas prices reward it. A US$278 million retained obligation from the 2020 North Louisiana sale runs to 2030 on contracts that return nothing. What tips it: the gas price, to which a 22-year book has more leverage than anything else in Appalachia. The full rating is 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

Range earns two prices from one wellbore, and the second is the interesting one: Henry Hub averaged US$2.94/MMBtu over the three months to August 2026, with the U.S. EIA forecasting US$3.49 for 2027, while roughly a third of production comes out as ethane, propane, butanes and condensate, priced off crude and international arbitrage. For how gas is priced and how the Appalachian basis discount works, see the Natural Gas guide ; the crude complex behind the NGL strip is in the Oil guide . For how Range 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

Range’s asset is a single, contiguous block: approximately 879,000 gross (769,000 net) leased acres at 31 December 2025, of which the Pennsylvania position alone is 870,835 gross (763,362 net), almost all operated at a 95% average working interest. Under that acreage sit three stacked targets — the Marcellus, the Utica/Point Pleasant beneath it and the Upper Devonian above — of which only the Marcellus is meaningfully developed.

Table 2. Asset base, 31 December 2025

Source: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K , properties and acreage tables at 31 Dec 2025. The Utica/Point Pleasant and Upper Devonian benches sit under the same leasehold and carry no booked proved reserves; the company describes them as “significant unbooked resource potential.” WI = working interest. Listed: Public (NYSE: RRC).

Concentration here is a feature rather than a bug, and Range says so: a single contiguous operating area supports “regional expertise, economies of scale and a low-cost structure.” The consequence is visible in the inventory — approximately 27 million lateral feet, which at roughly 60 wells a year is decades rather than years. The company is explicit that its proved reserves capture only the SEC’s five-year development horizon, and that a large portfolio sits beyond it.

2.2 Revenue split — by commodity & the cost stack

By commodity, FY2025 sales of US$2,816 million split roughly US$1,728 million natural gas (61.4%), US$979 million NGLs (34.8%) and US$106 million oil (3.8%), from realized prices of US$3.08/mcf for gas, US$24.15/Bbl for NGLs and US$53.68/Bbl for oil before derivatives. The liquids weighting — about 31% of production by volume — sits neatly between CNX’s dry-gas 8% and Antero’s 36%.

Figure 2. FY2025 hydrocarbon revenue by commodity

Figure data: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K ; derived from FY2025 volumes (560.9 bcf gas, 40.55 mmbbl NGLs, 1.98 mmbbl oil) and realized prices excluding derivative settlements, which reconcile to the reported US$2,816 m of natural gas, NGLs and oil sales to within 0.1%.

Range does something no peer in this series does: it publishes three realized-price measures, including one that nets out the transportation it pays. The three for FY2025 are US$3.45/mcfe excluding derivatives, US$3.60/mcfe including derivative settlements, and US$2.10/mcfe including derivatives and third-party transportation costs paid by Range. That last figure is the honest wellhead-equivalent number, and inside it sits the most striking disclosure in the filing: NGLs realize US$24.15 per barrel gross but US$9.67 per barrel after transport — the pipe takes 60% of the NGL price.

Figure 3. Where the US$3.60 goes — FY2025 unit economics

Figure data: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K , production and per-unit cost disclosures. Cash margin is derived as the realized price including derivative settlements less the four cash cost lines; the fully-loaded margin additionally deducts depletion, depreciation and amortisation of US$0.45/mcfe. This figure substitutes for the standard by-asset revenue split, because Range operates a single contiguous asset — see Section 10.1.

Read across the series, the cost stack is where Range earns its rating. Its TGP&C of US$1.50/mcfe sits between CNX’s US$0.54 and Antero’s US$2.27 — the right place for a producer that is a third liquids and uses third-party midstream. But its depletion charge of just US$0.45/mcfe is the lowest of the three, a function of a long-lived, largely-depreciated asset base and low finding costs. The result is that Range converts a mid-range realized price into the best fully-loaded margin in the group: US$1.26/mcfe, against CNX’s US$1.17 and Antero’s US$0.67. It is neither the cheapest operator nor the richest seller, and it ends up ahead of both.

2.3 The Marcellus — the producing asset

Everything Range owns of consequence is one play. FY2025 production was 816 bcfe: 560.9 bcf of natural gas, 40.55 million barrels of NGLs and 1.98 million barrels of oil — up 2.5% on 2024’s 796 bcfe and 4.5% on 2023’s 781 bcfe. That is maintenance-plus, by design. At year-end the company had 29 gross (28 net) wells drilling or completing and 53 gross (52 net) waiting on completion or pipelines, a modest inventory of work in progress consistent with a flat programme.

The cost discipline shows in the per-unit lines, which barely move: lease operating expense of US$0.13/mcfe (US$0.12 in both 2024 and 2023), taxes other than income of US$0.04/mcfe including the Pennsylvania impact fee, and general and administrative expense of US$0.22/mcfe, unchanged year on year. TGP&C rose slightly, from US$1.48 to US$1.50/mcfe, which the company attributes to higher electricity costs and FERC rate changes rather than to anything it controls.

The single most important asset-level risk is the one Range cannot fix from Pennsylvania: it depends on third-party gathering, processing and pipeline takeaway, and the price it receives for two-fifths of its molecules is set by how much of that capacity it must pay for. The offset is that, unlike a producer captive to an affiliate, Range can and does re-contract.

2.4 Reserves — the twenty-two-year book

Range’s reserve position is the reason this analysis rates it where it does. At 31 December 2025 proved reserves stood at 18,142 bcfe (18.1 Tcfe) — 11,716 bcf of natural gas, 1,038 million barrels of NGLs and 33 million barrels of oil, or 35% liquids — of which 12,801 bcfe, or 70.6%, was proved developed, up from 65.8% a year earlier. Against 816 bcfe of annual production that is a reserve life of 22.2 years.

Two features of that book deserve emphasis. First, reserves were essentially flat year on year — 18,131 bcfe to 18,142 bcfe — while the company produced 816 bcfe, which is a reserve-replacement ratio of roughly 100% achieved entirely through the drill bit and revisions, with no acquisition. Second, the PV-10 was US$11,566 million at the SEC benchmark of US$3.39/mcf NYMEX gas, with a standardized measure after tax of US$9,636 million — figures that more than doubled from 2024’s US$5,454 million and US$4,691 million on the strength of a US$1.26/mcf higher benchmark price. That sensitivity is the single most important number in the valuation, and Section 7 sensitises it.

Figure 4. Production by fiscal year, FY2023–FY2026E

Chart source: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K for FY2023–FY2025 volumes; the 2026 bar is derived from guidance of modest growth toward 913 bcfe exiting 2026 (Q2 2026 results) and is an estimate. Realized price including derivatives moved to US$3.32/mcfe (2024) and US$3.60 (2025) (Table 4) — that second series is carried in the table rather than overlaid.

2.5 Capital discipline & the North Louisiana tail

Range’s 2026 capital budget is US$650–700 million, mostly drilling, framed as achieving “modest growth in production relative to 2025.” Q2 2026 delivered 838 bcfe, up 4.5% year on year, with guidance of 913 bcfe exiting 2026 and 949 bcfe in 2027 on capital held flat across both years.

Two structural items sit behind the operating business. The US$3.0 billion borrowing-base bank credit facility underpins liquidity, which stood at approximately US$1.7 billion at year-end and about US$1.1 billion after the January 2026 note redemption. And a legacy tail: the August 2020 divestiture of the North Louisiana assets left Range with retained gathering, transportation and processing obligations running until 2030 — a diminishing but real drag disclosed separately from the main contractual-obligations table.

2.6 Peer positioning

Range’s peer set is this series’ Appalachian gas group: EQT (NYSE: EQT), the basin’s largest producer; Expand Energy (Nasdaq: EXE), the largest US gas producer by volume; Antero Resources (NYSE: AR), the liquids-rich comparable; and CNX Resources (NYSE: CNX), the low-cost dry-gas counterpoint. Every “vs. peers” claim here uses that set.

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

Source: company guidance and filings as reported — Range, Antero and CNX per their FY2025 Form 10-Ks and 2026 guidance; EQT Q2 2026 results ; Expand Energy Q2 2026 results . Leverage ratios are on each company’s own reported basis and are not strictly comparable. “n/d” = not disclosed on a comparable basis in the sources used. Figures should be refreshed at publish.

Where Range sits: mid-scale, mid-liquids, and first in the group on the two dimensions that compound — reserve life and balance-sheet strength. It produces a third of what EQT does and a little over half of Antero, yet holds nearly as many proved reserves as Antero on 45% less annual production and less than a third of its net debt — a distinctive profile in a basin where most operators have chosen either scale or yield.

3. Financials & balance sheet

FY2025 was Range’s strongest year since 2023, and the improvement came from price rather than volume: natural gas, NGLs and oil sales rose 27% to US$2,816 million on a 24% price increase and 2% more production, inside total revenues of US$3,116 million; net income was US$658.0 million (US$2.74 diluted) against US$266.3 million in 2024, and US$1,171 million of operating cash flow against US$642 million of all-in capital additions produced US$530 million of free cash flow.

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

Source: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K — consolidated statements of income and cash flows, the production and price history table, and the PV-10 disclosure. A five-year series is not shown because the FY2025 filing presents three years; “—” marks figures not disclosed on a consistent basis rather than mixing sources. Capital additions comprise natural gas, NGLs and oil properties, field service assets and acreage purchases; free cash flow is operating cash flow less that total. Total revenues include derivative fair value income and brokered gas and therefore swing more than the underlying sales line. Range pays a dividend and reports no adjusted-EBITDA figure in the filing.

The balance sheet is the strongest in the peer set, and it got stronger fast. Range ended 2025 with US$1.2 billion of total debt against essentially zero cash, having repaid US$606.5 million of notes at maturity in May. On 15 January 2026 it fully redeemed the US$600 million of 8.25% notes due 2029 from the credit facility, cutting its highest coupon but moving the fixed-to-floating mix from 90/10 to roughly 50/50. By 30 June 2026 net debt had fallen 28% to US$880.8 million, and leverage of 0.73× debt to EBITDA is the lowest in the group outside Expand.

Contractual obligations are the offsetting weight, and they are smaller than the comparable. At 31 December 2025 they totalled US$7.44 billion, of which US$5.86 billion was transportation and gathering commitments. That is a real fixed claim on future cash flow — but against 18.1 Tcfe of proved reserves it works out at roughly US$0.32 per mcfe, against US$0.43 for Antero: smaller in absolute terms and better covered by reserves.

Hedging: the lightest in the basin. At 31 December 2025 Range had hedged approximately 20% of projected 2026 production, including about 27% of gas — materially less than Antero or CNX. The book comprises gas swaps on 300,000 MMBtu/d, three-way collars on 137,123 MMBtu/d and basis swaps of 161,290,000 MMBtu locking NYMEX-to-Appalachia differentials. The posture is deliberate — protect a slice of near-term cash flow, keep the upside on the rest — and it leaves Range with the most spot exposure of the three.

Capital returns are the most complete in the group — the only company in this series doing dividend, buyback and deleveraging at once. FY2025 saw US$85.7 million of dividends and US$230.6 million of repurchases — US$316 million, about 60% of free cash flow — and the first half of 2026 completed a multi-year buyback of 35.9 million shares for US$850 million, with US$1.4 billion of authorisation remaining.

Figure 5. Free cash flow by fiscal year, FY2023–FY2025

Chart source: Table 4, this analysis; Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K and Q2 2026 results. Operating cash flow (US$978m → 945 → 1,171), capital returned to shareholders (US$96m → 142 → 316) and net debt (US$1.22 bn at year-end falling to US$881 m by mid-2026) are read from Table 4 and §3 rather than overlaid as additional series.

4. Management, strategy & corporate structure

4.1 Management & governance

Range is led by President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis L. Degner, who has more than 25 years in oil and gas including prior roles at Encana, Sierra Engineering and Halliburton. The finance seat is held by Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Mark S. Scucchi, and legal and governance by Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Erin W. McDowell. The board is chaired by Greg G. Maxwell, who oversees strategy, risk and capital allocation.

The governance emphasis in the filing matches the observable behaviour: safety, environmental protection, and alignment of employee incentives with stockholder interests through equity ownership. What distinguishes this team is that nothing about it is in transition — the same leadership held capital flat, cut net debt 28%, completed an US$850 million buyback and delivered guidance, in the period Antero changed chief executives and made the largest acquisition in its history. For a thesis resting on twenty-two years of patient development, that continuity is worth something.

The governance question a reader should weigh is alignment depth: insider ownership is 1.13%, against 97.21% institutional. The incentive structure points the right way; the personal capital behind it is thin.

4.2 Strategy & capital allocation

The stated strategy is unusually plain, and Range has followed it: consistent cash flow from a long-life reserve base with a low base decline, developed organically rather than by acquisition; a multi-year inventory of roughly 27 million lateral feet; and capital prioritised toward the budget, shareholder returns and a strong balance sheet. The filing states the posture directly — maintenance-level activity and returns rather than production growth for its own sake.

The 2026 allocation stack is concrete: a US$650–700 million budget — flat with 2025 and guided flat again into 2027 — targeting 913 bcfe exiting 2026 and 949 bcfe in 2027, with the residual cash split between the US$1.4 billion buyback authorisation, a growing dividend and further debt reduction. Range also markets to a deliberately wide set of domestic and international customers to maximise realisations and spread counterparty risk. There is no stated intention to acquire.

4.3 Ownership & corporate structure

Range’s structure is the simplest of the four companies in this series, and that simplicity is itself informative. There is no captive midstream affiliate, no drilling partnership, no noncontrolling interest and no joint venture of consequence — gathering, processing and fractionation are contracted from third parties on commercial terms, which is why the whole of the TGP&C line sits in operating expense rather than being split between a toll and an equity stake.

Three structural features shape the cash-flow profile: the US$3.0 billion borrowing-base credit facility, the liquidity backbone and, after January 2026, the source of roughly half the debt; the firm-transportation portfolio that lets Range manage Appalachian basis and which is the source of the US$5.86 billion of commitments; and the August 2020 North Louisiana divestiture, which left retained obligations running to 2030, disclosed outside the main obligations table.

On the equity side: 268,573,212 shares issued with 33,115,000 in treasury at 31 December 2025, leaving about 233.7 million outstanding by late July 2026 — a count down nearly 36 million over the life of the completed buyback.

5. ESG & sustainability

Range has the strongest environmental profile in this peer set, and — unusually — most of it is verified by someone other than Range. It reports net-zero Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, achieved through direct reductions complemented by verified carbon credits, and has expanded its ‘A’-grade MiQ methane certification to cover all Pennsylvania production — third-party attestation across the entire producing base rather than a self-reported intensity figure.

The water record is equally concrete: Range recycles approximately 100% of the flowback and produced water generated from its operations, which removes both freshwater demand and disposal volumes from the equation — the two water impacts that generate most of the local opposition to Appalachian development. On equipment, it has expanded the installation of compressed-air pneumatic controllers, replacing the natural-gas-driven devices that are the largest routine source of upstream methane venting. It publishes a Corporate Sustainability Report covering environmental, social and governance performance and targets.

The commercial logic matters as much as the environmental one: certified low-methane gas is increasingly a condition of access to LNG-linked and European buyers, so a whole-base ‘A’ rating is a marketable asset rather than a disclosure exercise. The balanced read is that this is the most externally-validated environmental position among the Appalachian names here, achieved on the operating side rather than purchased — with two caveats: net-zero Scope 1 and 2 depends in part on purchased carbon credits, and no amount of upstream certification changes the Scope 3 profile of the molecule.

6. Risks

Table 5. Risk register

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

The through-line is that Range has deliberately swapped near-term certainty for long-term optionality, and the risk register is the bill for that choice. It hedges less, grows slower and holds more reserve years than anyone else in the basin — the same decision from three angles: management would rather own the resource than monetise it quickly, and carry price risk on a strong balance sheet than pay away upside to remove it.

The two risks that would break the thesis are the gas price and the duration it is applied to. In a sustained sub-US$3.00 world the long life becomes a liability rather than an asset: the back half of the book is discounted more heavily, the light hedge coverage offers no shelter, and a free-cash-flow yield that already screens thinnest in the group compresses further. What makes that survivable rather than fatal is the balance sheet — at 0.73× leverage with no maturity before 2029, Range can simply wait, which is precisely what a 22-year reserve life is for. Which price regime arrives is a macro question; Commodities Across the Cycle sets out where energy commodities lead and lag.

Figure 6. Risk heat-map

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

7. Valuation

Valuation as of 6 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, all to end-August 2026 on the U.S. EIA monthly spot series, the twelve-month window carrying a January 2026 spike, 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 gas = Henry Hub less the US$0.36/Mcf differential the reserve report itself prints (NYMEX US$3.39 against a US$3.03 wellhead price); NGLs and oil are held at their FY2025 realisations, since neither tracks the gas deck. Discount rate 10%, the E&P convention for a single-basin producer, sensitised 8–12%. Share price US$42.00 (4 September 2026 close), 233.67 m shares, balance sheet as of 30 June 2026.

Range is valued on the E&P producer archetype, as a sum-of-the-parts over its two claims — the proved developed reserve base and the proved undeveloped tranche the reserve report funds. With no midstream, no joint venture and no third-party interest ahead of the common equity, it is the simplest structure in the series. The method is the How to Value Commodity Stocks guide’s. The headline is a deck-to-value map, not a single number: the blended fair value is US$25.78/share at the US$3.00 base price, US$15.09 at US$2.50 and US$36.42 at US$3.50, and each US$0.50/MMBtu of Henry Hub is worth about US$7.9 of NAV/share (US$15.7 per US$1.00) — 26.5% of NAV/share per step, the mildest deck leverage of the gas names here, because two-thirds of the book is gas rather than nine-tenths and the margin behind it is the thickest. Table 11 lets a reader run the model at any gas price they hold. The tiers frame the structure: the producing base plus the whole bridge is worth US$21.59/share and the proved undeveloped tranche US$8.11 more, with the resource tier empty because the filing sizes its inventory in lateral feet rather than locations or years. The section sets the current US$42.00 price against that map only in §7.6, where the rating and the flip prices are published.

7.1 Method selection

Range is a producer, so the blend starts from the E&P-producer default in the valuation guide linked above (NAV/DCF 45% / EV/EBITDA 30% / a reserve- or flowing-unit read 25%). The third default is not carried: the guide’s EV/2P anchor is struck on oil-equivalent barrels, and at 6:1 it implies US$1.67 per mcfe against the US$0.64 Range’s own audited PV-10 carries — which would price the reserves alone at US$30 billion against a US$10.7 billion enterprise value. It is set aside, reported unweighted in §7.5 and logged as a data gap. The substitute is P/CF at the archetype’s own 4.5× anchor — the guide publishes no yield anchor for this archetype — which puts two methods in the cash-flow family, held together at the 50% collinear ceiling with the NAV taking the balance: NAV/DCF 50% / EV/EBITDA 30% / P/CF 20%, a stated deviation driven by the substitution and the cap.

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 for the reserve-multiple substitution and the collinearity cap, per “Putting it together”. Archetype per Section 1; target multiples derived in §7.3 from the archetype anchors, not from the Section 2.6 peer set, which stays a quality comparator. Input families: intrinsic 50% (single method), cash-flow 50% (two methods, at the collinear ceiling), asset & capacity 0% (anchor not sourceable for gas — see §7.6), transaction 0%.

7.2 Net asset value

Vehicle map. Range holds everything directly — no listed subsidiary, no joint venture, no stream, no minority interest — so nothing inside one line reappears as another.

Table 7. Vehicle map

Source: this analysis; acreage, well counts, reserve categories, the inventory statement and the divestiture obligation per the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K , Item 1 (business strategy and inventory), Item 2 (properties and reserves), Note 15 (divestiture contract obligation) and Note 16 (supplemental oil and gas disclosures).

Tax basis, overhead and abandonment. The reserve base is carried at the SEC after-tax standardized measure, so tax is inside the figure by construction, with the balance sheet’s US$701.6 m deferred tax liability, the US$1.1 bn of federal net-operating-loss carryforwards that do not expire and the US$721.9 m of Pennsylvania state losses behind it — neither charged nor credited again. That schedule runs at 20.5% of pre-tax future net cash flows (US$6,000 m against US$29,295 m), while an incremental dollar of gas price is taxed at the 22.3% combined statutory rate (21.0% federal plus 1.3% state net of federal, FY2025 rate reconciliation) — the rate the deck adjustment uses. Two lines the bridge would normally carry sit inside the rows here, which is where Range’s disclosure differs from its peers’: the reserve report deducts administrative costs as well as production costs, so no corporate G&A is capitalised, and its development costs include US$425.6 m of undiscounted future abandonment, so the reclamation line prints in rows against the US$149.0 m on the balance sheet. The §7.3 relative legs still deduct abandonment, because EBITDA does not carry it.

Stage risk (n/a). No asset in the model is pre-production. The proved undeveloped tranche is a booked SEC category limited to the five-year plan, its US$2,282 m of development costs already charged inside the standardized measure, so it takes a 1.00 risk weight with no second charge in the target P/NAV or the rate. The point runs the other way: the filing records 616.5 Bcfe of proved undeveloped reserves removed in 2025 purely because they fall outside the five-year window, and says they can re-enter — inventory the NAV does not price, not risk it fails to charge.

The per-asset NPV build. Every NPV the model carries is built here first, one block per tranche — Range’s own disclosed figures apportioned on the filing’s own lines and moved to the deck. Only the deck term is an author construction.

Table 8. Per-asset NPV build — base case (US$3.00/MMBtu Henry Hub ≈ US$2.64/Mcf realized, 10%)

Notes to Table 8

1. The filing publishes the standardized measure in total only, and reserve volumes by category, so the after-tax figure is apportioned on the volume split with all of the development capital charged to the undeveloped tranche. The apportionment is exact by construction: 7,329 + 2,307 = US$9,636 m, the disclosed total. It assumes one discount profile across both tranches; because the undeveloped volumes produce later, the split overstates the undeveloped tier and understates the developed tier, while leaving the total unaffected.
2. Cross-check on the pre-tax step: 22,282 + 7,014 = US$29,295 m, the filing’s own future net cash flows before income taxes.
3. The same ratio implies a flat-equivalent life of 20.9 years for re-discounting — the annuity that reproduces 0.4137 at 10% — and that is the profile the rate rows of Figure 8 move both blocks on. It is the longest in this series and is what a 22.2-year reserve life looks like inside a discount factor.
4. The deck term: 11,715.9 Bcf of gas reserves × (1 − 1.17% taxes other than income, FY2025’s US$32.8 m against US$2,815.6 m of sales) × (1 − 22.3% combined statutory tax) × 0.4137 — the disclosure’s own discount ratio — gives US$3,722 m per US$1.00/Mcf, or US$0.205 per mcfe of reserves. Liquids (35% of reserves) are held at the report’s US$25.03/Bbl NGL and US$55.00/Bbl oil wellhead prices: the grid moves the headline gas benchmark only. The Pennsylvania impact fee is largely per-well rather than price-linked, so deducting it as a percentage of revenue is the conservative treatment.
5. All of the future development capital is charged against the undeveloped tranche, because that is what it is spent on: US$658 m of it converted 1,262 Bcfe of undeveloped reserves to developed in 2025 alone.
6. The 10-K sizes the inventory in lateral feet, and says the figure spans proved and unproved, but publishes neither the share already booked nor a recovery per foot — so the row that would price the gas analogue of resource beyond the plan cannot be built from disclosure and is printed n/d rather than proxied. The figure printed beside it, the balance sheet’s own US$832.8 m of unproved properties (US$3.56/share), is a carrying value — a book floor, not a fair-value bound: a proper value bound needs the inventory life in years and a recovery per foot, which only the company’s investor presentation carries. At US$3.56 it is about 12% of the US$29.69 net asset value per share, below the 15% load-bearing threshold, so the net asset value ships at its default weight; the presentation is the document that would replace the book floor with a value bound.

Source: the Range Resources 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. The filing reports in thousands; this table prints US$m. Filed marks a figure printed in the filing, Derived the arithmetic of rows above it, Input a parameter of this section. The value column is headed Value rather than US$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. The one relationship the table cannot express is the parametric form the sensitivity grid runs across the deck and the rate: reserves(HH, r) = [9,636 + 3,722 × (HH − 3.39)] × AF(r, 20.9) ÷ AF(10%, 20.9).

Table 9. Per-asset model — base case (US$3.00/MMBtu Henry Hub ≈ US$2.64/Mcf realized, 10%)

Source: this analysis, from the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K (Item 2 reserves and PV-10, Note 16 supplemental disclosures) and the FY2026 guidance reaffirmed with the Q2 2026 results. Every NPV in the last column reproduces from its block in Table 8; this table adds the reserve, cost, capital, tax and discounting inputs behind those figures. One discount-rate treatment: both blocks re-discount on the Note 16 timing, 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; the derivative, lease, working-capital, divestiture-obligation and asset-retirement lines per the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K balance sheet (p.F-6), Notes 8, 9, 15 and 16 and the contractual-obligations table; net debt per the Q2 2026 results (21 Jul 2026); share count and market data per stockanalysis.com , 4 Sep 2026 close. Bridge lines in the standard order, each printed even where empty on one of the five value-column states, with the divestiture obligation added as a named claim the standard list does not anticipate. The tiers sum to the published NAV/share: producing US$21.59 + development US$8.11 + resource US$0.00 = US$29.69 on unrounded inputs — and the producing tier alone sits 49% below the US$42.00 price, before the undeveloped tranche is counted. Values computed on unrounded inputs, printed to whole US$m and two decimals per share.

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

Figure data: Table 10. Equity net asset value of US$6,938 m equates to US$29.69 per share; the producing tier alone is US$21.59. “Hedge & wkg cap.” nets the re-marked hedge book (+46) against net working capital (−134).

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

Notes to Figure 8

1. Checksum — the bear column (US$2.50) at the 10% base rate: proved developed = 7,329 + 2,663 × (2.50 − 3.39) = US$4,959 m; proved undeveloped = 2,307 + 1,059 × (2.50 − 3.39) = US$1,364 m; enterprise US$6,324 m; − 881 + 68 (the hedge book re-marked at US$2.50) − 278 − 134 = US$5,099 m ÷ 233.67 m = US$21.82.
2. Rate rows — they move both reserve blocks on the 20.9-year flat-equivalent profile the standardized measure’s own discount ratio implies (×1.158 at 8%, ×0.875 at 12%); every balance-sheet claim, and the hedge book, are held down each column.
3. Cost — a +10% shock to the US$1.62/mcfe of direct operating and transportation cost (US$141 m/yr) takes NAV/share to US$25.65 (−13.6%); a +10% Henry Hub move to US$3.30 lifts it to US$34.41 (+15.9%), and with a 5% cost lag applied to that price move, US$32.39 (+9.1%). Transport is 92% of that cost line and is contracted rather than spot, which is why the cost shock is the milder of the two in both directions.
4. FX — n/a, Range reports and trades in US dollars.
5. Stage risk — n/a, no asset in the model is pre-production; the proved undeveloped tranche is a booked SEC category at a 1.00 weight (§7.2), so there is no risked tranche to step down a band.
6. Schedule slip — n/a, no development asset stands outside the reserve report’s own five-year schedule, and that schedule’s capital is already inside the standardized measure.

Figure data: this analysis’ 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$7.87, or ~27%; the deck sensitivity is tabulated in Table 11.

Deck sensitivity — what one US$0.50 step of Henry Hub is worth. The grid holds the recomputed values; this table names the slope between them. Range’s lines are the most nearly linear in this series: the cash-tax line never reaches zero inside the grid, no method floors, and the reserve blocks enter on a single disclosed price term.

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, which is why the EV/EBITDA leg, with fixed claims ahead of it, shows a larger figure than the NAV. Linear over is the Henry Hub range on which the slope holds: ¹ the hedge leg’s slope flattens above US$3.50, where the last disclosed collar floor goes out of the money, but the effect is under US$0.10/share a step; ² the cash-tax line stays positive down to ~US$1.88, below the grid, so both cash-flow slopes hold across it; ³ FCF/share crosses zero at ~US$2.56; ⁴ the scenario blend steps 7.96 → 10.69 → 10.64 → 12.09 because the multiples move ×0.10 per step with the deck. Every step is the difference between two recomputed grid prices of Figure 8, never a scaled figure. Forward EBITDA moves US$287 m per step (580.8 Bcf of gas volume, net of production taxes) and cash flow per share US$0.96. How to use it: start from the base-price values (NAV/share US$29.69, blended fair value US$25.78) 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$33.6 and a held-multiple blend of ~US$29.4; for a reading that also lets the multiples move with the cycle, use the scenario columns of Table 18.

The P/NAV price map (unweighted). The NAV restated as a price map, off Figure 8’s base-rate row: for each of the five fixed P/NAV levels this series uses for producers and E&Ps, the share price it implies at every grid price. Read down a column for the deck you hold, across a row for the multiple you would pay; where today’s quote sits is said once, by the market-implied deck in §7.5.

Table 12. P/NAV price map — 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 (13.95 / 21.82 / 29.69 / 37.56 / 45.44) × the row’s P/NAV level. The levels are fixed for the series (0.50× to 1.50× in quarter steps), so two producers can be read column-for-column; Range’s 0.98× target, derived in §7.3, reads US$29.10 at the base price, US$21.39 at US$2.50 and US$36.81 at US$3.50, just inside the parity row. 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$29.69, and parity at US$4.00 gas is US$45.44.

7.3 Relative valuation

At US$42.00 and 233.67 million shares, Range’s market capitalisation is ~US$9.81 billion and enterprise value ~US$10.70 billion on its own reported net debt. This section values Range standalone: each target multiple is the fixed anchor for the E&P-producer archetype moved by the signed drivers the scorecard has already scored. No peer multiples are tabulated — reading Range against EQT, Expand, Antero and CNX on observed multiples is the sector comparison ’s job. Forward metrics are struck on the FY2026 guidance year, and the US$3.00 base sits 20% below Henry Hub’s five-year average of US$3.74 (September 2021–August 2026) — inside the ±25% band that marks a cycle extreme, so the subject is near mid-cycle.

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 standard one — asset quality, cost position, reserves and replacement, balance sheet and capital allocation; management, jurisdiction and ESG (Dims 7–9) sit outside it and are scored in Section 9. The reserves term is the heaviest in this series, and it is the only one that can be: a 22-year book with a 101% replacement rate is what a premium to the archetype anchor is for. The one line is applied, unchanged, to every anchor:

Target P/NAV = 0.80× anchor × 1.23 = 0.984 → 0.98× · Target EV/EBITDA = 5.0× anchor × 1.23 = 6.150 → 6.2× · Target P/CF = 4.5× anchor × 1.23 = 5.535 → 5.5×. 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, the gas share and capital per the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K and the FY2026 guidance reaffirmed with the Q2 2026 results (2.35–2.40 Bcfe/d, liquids over 30%). “Forward” is the next twelve months = the FY2026 guidance year; the volume ties to guidance with nothing added above it. Brokered natural gas and marketing is excluded: FY2025 revenue of US$172.6 m against US$185.6 m of expense was a US$13.0 m loss, immaterial and not a producing margin. Reconciliation: run at the reserve report’s own US$3.39 benchmark this build gives US$1,345 m, or US$1.551/mcfe, against FY2025’s actual US$1,279 m on US$1.567/mcfe — a 1.0% difference, so the forward build reproduces the company’s reported margin. Cost-basis note: the NAV rows use the reserve report’s own US$1.75/mcfe of future production costs, which include administrative expense; this build states the four cash lines separately — 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 asset-retirement obligation, which the reserve report carries inside its development costs but EBITDA does not — and omits only the corporate overhead, which is already deducted inside the EBITDA build. Values computed on unrounded inputs. To run the same reserve and cash-flow multiples across every North American upstream name, screen the sector on Metal Pilot.

The two reads part company by US$5.34 — and this time the NAV is the higher one, the mirror image of what a short-life producer shows. A 6.2× multiple on one guidance year cannot see past about six years of cash flow; the reserve report runs 22.2 years and discounts every one. The gap is the back half of the book — the years that justify holding capital flat and letting the reserve life do the work — which is why the NAV anchors the blend rather than merely outvoting the multiple.

7.4 Further weighted methods — P/CF support

The third weighted read is a cash-flow multiple on Range’s 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 paid, income taxes paid, depletion and the loss carryforwards per the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K cash-flow statement, its supplemental disclosure (Note 12) and the income-tax note (Note 4); capital guidance per the same filing and the Q2 2026 results. Every trailing line sits on FY2025, the latest reported fiscal year. The cash-tax line is the section’s largest single conservatism: at the combined 22.3% rate the US$1.1 bn federal carryforward shelters roughly US$4.9 bn of pre-tax income and does not expire, so the near-term cash charge is likely far below US$144 m — worth up to US$0.57 of cash flow per share, or about US$3.1 per share at the target multiple.

The method lands at US$20.52, the lowest of the three, for the same reason the EV/EBITDA read sits below the NAV: a multiple on one year of cash flow prices a 22-year reserve book as though it were an eight-year one. The two cash-flow reads are one signal rather than two confirmations, which is why the family carries 50% between them. Read against the NAV, the three bracket the question this company poses: what is a decade of back-end reserve life worth today.

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; reserve, replacement, cost and F&D figures per the Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K (Item 2 reserves and PV-10, Note 16 reserve quantities and standardized measure) and the FY2024 capital additions in Table 4 of this analysis; Henry Hub history per the U.S. EIA monthly series, five-year window September 2021–August 2026; the trailing multiple and dividend-yield series, consensus and analyst count per stockanalysis.com , read 6 Sep 2026 on the 4 Sep close. The finding-and-development ratio is struck on a two-year average because the FY2025 filing presents reserve roll-forwards for two years only.

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. Table 18 lists what changes per column above the values it produces: the deck moves one step at a time; the three target multiples step ×0.80 / ×0.90 / — / ×1.10 / ×1.20 with it, because §7.3 puts the base inside 25% of gas’s five-year average; and the discount rate steps out to 12% and 14% on the downside while holding at the 10% convention on the upside — a rate below the industry’s own floor would price a 22-year gas book as safer than the industry treats it at any price. The hedge book is re-marked in every column on the disclosed collar floors, and the last memo row is the same blend with the multiples held.

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 × 29.10 + 0.30 × 23.76 + 0.20 × 20.52 = 14.55 + 7.13 + 4.10 = US$25.78 (on unrounded values, 25.781). Inputs behind the rows, by column: the flexed targets 0.784× · 4.96× · 4.40× / 0.882× · 5.58× · 4.95× / 0.98× · 6.2× · 5.5× / 1.078× · 6.82× · 6.05× / 1.176× · 7.44× · 6.60×; forward EBITDA US$547 m / 834 m / 1,121 m / 1,408 m / 1,695 m; cash flow per share US$1.82 / 2.78 / 3.73 / 4.69 / 5.64; cash tax US$16 m / 80 m / 144 m / 208 m / 272 m; the hedge book re-marked at US$90 m / 68 m / 46 m / 24 m / 5 m as the disclosed US$4.00 and US$3.50 collar floors move in and out of the money. Risk weights are 1.00 in every column — no tranche in the model is pre-production. No method returns negative equity in any column, so nothing is floored. Illustrative scenarios, not forecasts.

Figure 9. Value per share by method and scenario

Source: Table 18; each cell recomputed at its column’s deck, rate, hedge mark and multiple flex, never scaled; data-level ranked 0–9 across the whole grid. The three methods stay in the same order in every column — NAV highest, then the EBITDA multiple, then P/CF — which is unusual and is itself the finding: the ranking does not depend on the gas price, only on how many years of it each method is allowed to see. Current share price US$42.00 (4 Sep 2026); market-implied deck ~US$4.13/MMBtu. 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$25.78, inside a US$7.13 (Deep Bear) – US$48.51 (Deep Bull) range, against a US$42.00 price — an implied −38.6%, Overvalued, published as Overvalued “(wide band)” because the deep-bear blend sits 83% below the price. The guidance-year free cash flow of US$197 m is a 2.0% yield on the market capitalisation — thin, and thinner still for being struck on a statutory cash tax the loss pools mean Range is unlikely to pay. Rating-flip prices: with the multiples held, the base blend crosses up into Modestly overvalued above ~US$3.25/MMBtu (+8.3%) and into Fairly valued above ~US$3.84 (+28.0%); Overvalued is the bottom band, so no downward flip exists. The assumption driving the downside is Henry Hub settling back at the US$2.00–2.50 grid prices, with only a fifth of production hedged.

The three methods spread by US$8.58 and the ordering is the argument: the NAV is the highest read, not the lowest, because it alone reaches years fifteen through twenty-two of an audited reserve book — the opposite of what a short-life producer prints. It also corrects the familiar headline. Range does trade below its pre-tax PV-10, at 0.92× — but PV-10 is struck before the US$6.0 billion of future income tax the same disclosure deducts, and an equity holder stands behind it. On the after-tax measure the enterprise is valued at 1.11× the reserves behind it; move the deck to the US$3.00 trailing average and charge the retained US$278 million obligation, and the equity carries a 1.41× P/NAV. The producing tier plus the whole bridge is worth US$21.59/share and the booked undeveloped tranche US$8.11 more; a buyer at US$42.00 is paying a US$12 premium to the sum of the two — for Henry Hub at ~US$4.13 held flat, and for a drilling inventory the filing sizes in lateral feet but does not price. The business is not the question; the balance sheet means it can wait. What it is being asked to wait for is a gas price a dollar above the trailing average. This is an analytical read of price against value, not a recommendation.

Assumptions box: valuation date 6 September 2026; balance sheet as of 30 June 2026 for net debt and shares, 31 December 2025 for the derivative, working-capital, lease, divestiture-obligation and asset-retirement lines (the latest in the source set); 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; constant-price, unescalated deck and costs, matching the SEC reserve convention, so the 10% rate is real. Discount rate 10% — the E&P convention for a single-basin producer; the 22.2-year reserve life would argue the 8% end of the band, which is why the grid publishes it — sensitised 8–12% on both reserve blocks; no jurisdiction premium (Dim 8 ★★★★★, effectively 100% Pennsylvania, so the band is +0%). Share basis 233.67 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 of US$3.74 (Sep 2021–Aug 2026), inside ±25%, so deck and multiples flex together, one step per column; anchors E&P P/NAV 0.80×, EV/EBITDA 5.0×, P/CF 4.5× per the valuation guide linked in §7, one driver line (×1.23); metric basis forward FY2026 (guidance year); EBITDA before all capital and after G&A; net debt excludes operating leases; P/NAV form equity (market cap ÷ equity NAV); no peer multiples enter this section. Method weights NAV 50% / EV/EBITDA 30% / P/CF 20% — the E&P default deviated as §7.1 states. NAV provenance: Range’s own disclosed after-tax standardized measure, apportioned to the proved developed and undeveloped tranches on the filing’s own inflow, production-cost and development-cost lines and moved to the deck on a term built from the filing’s own gas volumes, production-tax ratio, tax reconciliation and discount ratio; tax basis the SEC schedule (basis 3), the US$1.1 bn federal loss pools inside it; asset-retirement obligation and corporate overhead inside the reserve report’s own costs. Primary value yardstick P/NAV (equity form). Stage-risk placement n/a — no pre-production asset; every row at a 1.00 weight. Known data gaps: (1) drilling inventory beyond proved reserves n/d — the 10-K sizes it at 27 million lateral feet but publishes neither the booked share nor a recovery per foot; NAV understated, floored (not fair-value-bounded) by the US$832.8 m carrying value of unproved properties on the balance sheet (US$3.56/share ≈ 12% of NAV/share, below the 15% load-bearing threshold, so the NAV ships at weight), closed by the company’s investor presentation’s inventory-in-years; (2) swap strikes n/d — the derivative note prints strikes for the collars but not the swaps, so the hedge line re-marks the collar floors by column and holds US$5.4 m of swap, basis and swaption marks, bound by the US$50.6 m of disclosed swap value; (3) the standardized measure by reserve category n/d — apportioned on the filed volume and cost lines, which overstates the undeveloped tier and understates the developed tier without changing the total; (4) the maintenance/growth capital split n/d — the whole US$675 m programme is treated as maintenance, which understates free cash flow before growth capital; (5) a gas-basis EV/reserve anchor n/d — the asset-family method is not carried (§7.1), closed by a dated upstream-gas dataset median; (6) liquids are a co-product — NGLs and oil are 44% of forward revenue (NGLs US$1,098 m + oil US$119 m of US$2,750 m) but are held at their FY2025 realisations rather than run on their own Mont Belvieu (NGL) and WTI (oil) decks with their own grid and a co-product deck-sensitivity row, because no liquids price series is in the source set — a secondary above the 30%-of-revenue threshold is a dual-deck case, so this is a stated limitation; direction indeterminate, bounded by the spread between the held FY2025 realisations and trailing liquids averages, closed by a Mont Belvieu and WTI series; (7) the working-capital, derivative, lease, divestiture-obligation and asset-retirement lines are struck at 31 December 2025 (the latest in the source set) while the Q2 2026 Form 10-Q carries all of them at 30 June 2026 — adding the 10-Q would re-strike those six lines and the collar hedge mark; direction indeterminate, closed by the Q2 2026 Form 10-Q. None changes the rating. To run the same net asset value and multiples across every North American upstream name, screen the sector on Metal Pilot.

8. Near-term catalysts (1–3 years)

Range’s catalysts are modest by design — this is a company whose plan is to do roughly the same thing for a very long time, more cheaply each year.

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

Source: Range Resources FY2025 Form 10-K (capital budget, buyback, dividend, debt structure, the divestiture obligation and the reserve-value history), Q2 2026 results (production targets, net debt, remaining authorisation) and the U.S. EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook . Reserve-value elasticity per Section 7.2. Timing reflects company guidance and is not guaranteed.

The common thread is that none of these requires Range to spend more, buy anything or take on risk. Growth to 949 bcfe comes on a flat budget; the buyback and dividend come from cash already being generated; the reserve report reprices itself with the strip. The swing factor is not execution — it is the gas price, and Range has arranged its balance sheet so that it does not have to guess.

9. Rating & verdict

Range is scored on the Metal Pilot Company Scorecard — the same nine dimensions and ★1–5 scale every North American upstream name in the series takes. As a producer/operator it takes the full rubric with no dimension not-applicable, scored against the Appalachian peer set declared in Section 2.6.

Table 20. The Range Resources scorecard

Σ(weight × score) = 0.60 + 0.60 + 0.75 + 0.75 + 0.75 + 0.1875 + 0.25 + 0.3125 + 0.3125 = 4.5125/5 → 4.5/5, the figure in the title and the Section 1 tile, and ★★★★½ on the half-star band the body publishes.

Source: the Metal Pilot Company Scorecard; evidence in Sections 2–7. Peer basis: the Appalachian gas producers named in Section 2.6 (EQT, Expand Energy, Antero Resources, CNX). Weighted by producer/operator archetype: dominant dimensions (asset quality, cost, reserves/life, balance sheet, capital allocation) at 15% each, remaining dimensions (growth, management, jurisdiction, ESG) at 6.25% each.

The two-axis verdict. Quality High (★★★★½) × Value Overvalued (wide band) → the quality is real and the price already has it: you are buying duration at a US$4 gas deck. Five dimensions score ★★★★★ — reserves, balance sheet, capital allocation, jurisdiction and ESG — and they are mutually reinforcing: a 22-year reserve life is what lets management hold capital flat, flat capital produces the free cash flow that funded a 28% net-debt cut and an US$850 million buyback in six months, and low leverage makes it safe to hedge only a fifth of production. The one ★★★ is growth, a consequence of the same choice rather than a failure of it.

The value axis has moved, and the reason is a definition rather than a downgrade: Range still trades below its pre-tax PV-10 but above the after-tax measure the same filing publishes, which Section 7.6 works through to a 1.41× P/NAV against a blended fair value of US$25.78. What tips the verdict is whether the back years arrive into a good gas market: at US$3.00 the NAV is US$29.69, at US$4.00 it is US$45 and rising steeply, and the price already assumes about US$4.13 held flat. What makes the bear case survivable is the balance sheet — at 0.73× leverage with no maturity before 2029, Range can wait out a bad decade, the entire point of owning a twenty-two-year asset. 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, production, realized prices, unit costs, acreage, hedge positions, contractual obligations, structure, management and risk factors are from Range Resources Corporation — 10-K Filing / Annual Report — 2025 (year ended 31 December 2025). Reserves are SEC-basis proved reserves at 31 December 2025 on the unweighted twelve-month average first-day-of-the-month prices — a US$3.39/mcf NYMEX benchmark and US$3.03/mcf wellhead realisation — held flat for the life of the reserves; neither PV-10 nor the standardized measure purports to be fair market value. Post-year-end developments — the January 2026 note redemption, Q2 2026 production, net debt at 30 June 2026, the completed buyback and the remaining authorisation — are from the Q2 2026 results, released 21 July 2026.

Market data (the US$42.00 close of 4 September 2026, the share count and market capitalisation, and the five-year trailing EV/EBITDA and dividend-yield series used in Section 7.5) and the 23-analyst Hold consensus are from stockanalysis.com , sourced from S&P Global Market Intelligence, read on 6 September 2026. Enterprise value is market capitalisation plus the company’s own reported net debt; the aggregator’s sits about US$135 million higher on a different debt basis. The Henry Hub trailing and five-year averages behind the deck are from the U.S. EIA monthly spot series; the 2027 forecast carried as a 0%-weight cross-check is from the Short-Term Energy Outlook .

Methodology and its limits. The net asset value starts from the disclosed after-tax standardized measure — not the pre-tax PV-10 — apportions it across the two proved tranches, moves it to the base deck and bridges to equity; the arithmetic is in Tables 8–10. Corporate overhead and future abandonment sit inside the reserve report’s own costs for this filer, while the US$278 million retained North Louisiana obligation is charged because the report does not carry it. One line is an author construction — the deck term of US$3,722 million per US$1.00/mcf — reconciling to the company’s own three-year price-and-value history within 5%. The drilling inventory beyond proved reserves is n/d rather than proxied, and the investor presentation would close that gap, along with a strike table for the gas swaps. The full data-gap register is in Section 7.6. Two sanctioned adaptations: the by-asset revenue split becomes a per-mcfe unit-economics figure (Figure 3), because Range operates one contiguous asset; and the asset-map figure is omitted, since a proportional-symbol map of the leasehold would not render legibly at this scale. Re-run log: 6 September 2026 — Section 7 rebuilt to the current valuation method: market layer refreshed to the 4 September close, the price axis restated as the fixed US$2.00–4.00 grid (version 2026-09), the hedge book re-marked at every grid price, and the deck-sensitivity table, P/NAV price map and guidance-year free-cash-flow bridge added. Net effect: NAV/share US$29.69, base blend US$25.78, implied return −38.6%, read unchanged at Overvalued (wide band). 7 September 2026 — corrections after a pre-launch audit, none moving a valuation figure: the scorecard is ordered by weight with its arithmetic printed unrounded (4.5125, unchanged at 4.5/5), and Figure 8’s rate-row factors are restated as ×1.158 and ×0.875, the ratios its own 20.9-year profile implies. 9 September 2026 — corrections after the valuation-section audit, none moving a valuation figure (the model and its 50% NAV / 30% EV-EBITDA / 20% P/CF weights were already the de-biased set): the rate sentence’s “standardized-measure” clause was struck in all three places; the unproved-property figure was relabelled a carrying-value floor rather than a fair-value bound and shown to sit at ~12% of NAV/share, below the load-bearing threshold; the investments line’s net was printed with its arithmetic instead of a bare 0.0; the capital-allocation driver was reworded to remove the deleveraging double-count (charged under the balance sheet); and liquids-co-product and Q2 10-Q gaps were flagged. Data as of 6 September 2026; refreshed on each annual report and on material events. Provenance: Range Resources 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 6 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 Range’s filings, the U.S. EIA and market data and reviewed, but readers should verify before acting. The author holds no position in Range Resources as of the date of writing.