Make March 26, 2019 Haynesville ETX Geological Great Again Society EXPO

Dave Thetford Blaine Stribling

NYSE:CRK This presentation includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements give our current expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements include estimates of future natural gas and oil reserves, expected natural gas and oil production and future expenses, assumptions regarding future natural gas and oil prices, budgeted capital expenditures and other anticipated cash outflows, as well as statements concerning anticipated cash flow and liquidity, business strategy and other plans and objectives for future operations. Our production forecasts are dependent upon many assumptions, including estimates of production decline rates from existing wells and the outcome of future drilling activity. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements herein include the timing and extent of changes in market prices for oil and gas, operating risks, liquidity risks, including risks relating to our debt, political and regulatory developments and legislation, and other risk factors and known trends and uncertainties as described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2017 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results and plans could differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements.

2 Discovery Haynesville Shale

Bossier – Haynesville Tests

Operator County Year Activity

Fina Panola Co 1973 Vert Test

EOG Sligo Fld 2005 Vert Test

PV Harrison 3/2006 Vert Test

EnCana Red River 4/2006 Vert Test

Samson Harrison 5/2007 1st Hz Test

KCS Elm Grove 2007? Vert Test

Comstock De Soto 2/2008 1st De Soto

CHK Caddo 3/2008 HZ Well

P’Hawk Elm Grove 9/2008 Hz Well

3 History of the Haynesville & Comstock

ECA drills for Deep CHK horizontally CRK vertically tests Massive land Rigs peaked in the Downturn in Bossier sands in Red drills and completes Robert Crews 1 and 3 acquisition happened Haynesville at 161 activity when River Parish. the SRLT 29-1 in in the Haynesville and widespread throughout rigs leases were HBP Vertically tests the Haynesville Bossier Shales the play and gas prices Haynesville and dropped Bossier Shale Plays

Late Mar 2008 2012 Apr Feb 2005 2007 to to 2008 2011 2009 2014

CRK begins new CRK implements CRK announces JV CRK drills their 1st CRK announces Haynesville Shale Gen 2 style with USG in 10,000’ lateral in the Jerry Jones program Gen 1 style completions (30’ Greenwood/Waskom Haynesville acquisition of completion (50’ cluster spacing and area Bakken assets for clusters, 2,800 #’s 3,800#’s/ft proppant) stock to fund prop/ft) and 7,500’ and stack/stagger Haynesville program lateral

Dec Nov Jan Jun Jun 2014 2016 2017 2017 2018

4 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Shales

• Haynesville and Mid-Bossier Shales are similar in composition and depocenters

• The more organic content occurring in De Soto Parish and in Nacogdoches Co.

• Dark gray, calcareous, organic-rich mudstone with non-organic mudstone out of depocenter

• Calcite filled horizontal fractures common in depocenters. Additional vertical fractures occurs in uplift and later re- activated areas, likely in U. Cretaceous ~150 • Common dispersed quartz, silt, forams, mya undifferentiated carbonate grains, with occasional pyrite and calcite concretions

• Bedded argillaceous dolomites, local burrowed zones with hummocky cross- laminations in Mid-Bossier

• Local mollusk shells, minor ammonites and Scolecodont fragments ( Core Lab ) Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Shales Technical Data (Play-Wide Averages) Mid-Bossier Haynesville • Depth range – 8,600’ – 15,480’ • Depth range – 9,500’ – 17,100’ • Thickness range – 100-305’ • Thickness range – 120-330’ • Reservoir pressure – 6,800 – 13,000 • Reservoir pressure – 7,000 – 16,000 • Pressure gradient – 0.7 – 0.95 • Pressure gradient – 0.7- 0.95 • Temperature – 260 - 340 • Temperature – 260 - 430 • TOC – 3.05% • TOC – 2.91% • Porosity – 7.59% • Porosity – 6.90% • Permeability – 18 nD • Permeability – 120 nD • Water saturation – 38.8% • Water saturation – 30.29% • Gas saturation – 58.7% • Gas saturation – 69% • Clastics – 32% • Clastics – 37% • Carbonate – 19% • Carbonate – 24% • Clay – 37% • Clay – 28% • Kerogen – 7% • Kerogen – 6% • Thermal maturity – 1.59% • Thermal maturity – 1.55%

6 Haynesville/Bossier Type Log

~149-151 MYA Geochronology Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Shelf Paleophysiography

Mod. from Cicero et al 2010 9 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

Mod. from Cicero et al 201010 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

Mod. from Cicero et al 201011 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

Mod. from Cicero et al 201012 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

( Core Lab ) Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

Middle Bossier Deposition

( Core Lab ) Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Gross Depositional Environment

Ursula Hammes MSRL Program 2011 17 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Depositional Environment Shelfward vs Basinward

( Hammes and Frebourg 2011) Haynesville Haynesville Type Log Haynesville Structure Map

21 Haynesville Play Net Thickness Map

GR N-D Por

10900

11000

11100

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700 12% Density Porosity Cutoff 22 Geo-hazards in the Haynesville/Bossier Faulting

23 Geo-hazards in the Haynesville/Bossier Haynesville CO2

Haynesville

24 Geo-hazards in the Haynesville/Bossier Haynesville H2S

25 Haynesville TOC

26 Haynesville V-Clay

27 Haynesville X-section (SW-NE)

28 Haynesville X-section (NW-SE)

29 Haynesville X-section (NW-S)

30 Mid-Bossier Mid-Bossier Type Log

MID-BOSSIER SHALE Mid-Bossier Net Pay Map

GR N-D Por

10900

11000

11100

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700

12% Density Porosity Cutoff 33 Mid-Bossier TOC

34 Mid-Bossier V-Clay

35 Mid-Bossier X-section (SW-NE)

36 Mid-Bossier X-section (NW-SE)

37 Mid-Bossier X-section (NW-SE)

38 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Corelab Consortium

39 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Core

Fractures Horizontal Vertical

• Horizontal tensile fractures caused by the development of overpressure and hydrocarbon generation.

• Vertical fractures are related to post-depositional local/regional uplift and subsequent reactivation. Possibly, vertical fractures may have been associated with hydrocarbon generation and overpressure.

• Two Types of petroleum inclusions are present in the horizontal calcite veins: high gravity light oil or condensate, and relatively dry gas.

• Vertical calcite veins appear mostly with high gravity light oil or condensate.

( Core Lab ) Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Core Haynesville Shale

Common Rock Types ( Core Lab )

41 Haynesville Shale Core Middle Bossier Shale

Common Rock Types ( Core Lab )

42 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Core

Minor Rock Types ( Core Lab )

43 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Targeting

44 Staggering wells in the Haynesville • Original wells targeted the upper part of HV • Newer wells will be drilled in lower part of HV 6 Wells/Section 400’ 880’880’ 880’ 880’ 880’ 400’

1 Mile (Section)

LOWER BOSSIER SHALE 200 200 FT. THICK HAYNESVILLE SHALE

SMACKOVER LIME

Gamma Ray Type Curve CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW

Target Definition Geological Structure Map

45 Haynesville Staggering Test Case CRK Halsey 14 HZ #1 • Tested Gen 2 completion on a well in between two vintage wells • The three wells are spaced 660’ apart • Halsey was placed in the lower section of the Haynesville GAMMA RAY • Older wells were landed in the upper section of the Haynesville • EUR on Halsey ~2.5 BCF/1000’ • EUR’s on older vintage wells are 1.5 BCF/1000’ and 2.1 BCF/1000’ • May be able to push locations in some areas to 8 wells/section

GEOSTEERING SOLUTION

“Bunny Ears”

Nearly All Early Development Wells Targeted in the Upper Haynesville

200 Ft.

“Ears” Haynesville

46 Haynesville / Mid-Bossier Activity

Haynesville Blue Mid-Bossier Orange HARRISON Active Rigs Yellow CADDO

BOSSIER

RUSK PANOLA RED RIVER SHELBY DE SOTO

NACOGDOCHES

SABINE

2007 – 2019 Haynesville 4,192 wells SABINE Mid-Bossier 385 wells Current Rigs 67 47 ANGELINA SAN AUGUSTINE CRK Acreage Position

Haynesville Cotton Shale Valley

Cotton Valley

Bossier Shale

Haynesville/Bossier Shale

Net Effective Acres 134,000* Resource Potential 8 + Tcf Average WI 78.7% Average NRI 80.5% Drilled 70 operated wells since 2015 with *87,000 net acres in Haynesville average IP of 25 MMcf/d 47,000 net acres in Bossier 48 Comstock Inventory

49 Haynesville – Well Spacing

Vintage Completion, 1000#’s/ft Gen 1 Completion, 2,800#’s/ft Gen 2 Completion, 3,800#’s/ft 8 Wells per Section 6 Wells per 1-1/2 Sections 6 Wells per 2 Sections 60’ clusters, 4600’ lateral 50’ clusters, 7500’ lateral 30’ clusters, 10000’ lateral

880’ spacing between wells

660’ spacing 880’ spacing between between wells wells 50 Evolution of Completions

51 Establishing a New Core Area

Normalized 3 year Gas Cum Map (Haynesville wells prior to 2015)

Original Haynesvillle Core Area

52 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback? 1. Great Location

Source – jokideco.com 53 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback? 2. Regional Natural Gas Price Advantage

North East Pipelines(2) -52¢

N. Louisiana Pipelines(1) -15¢

Henry Hub

Exports to Mexico LNG Exports +4 Bcf/d by 2020 +7 Bcf/d by 2020

Gulf Coast Industrial Demand +2.5 Bcf/d by 2020

(1) Based on Platt's monthly price guide LTM average basis for Columbia Gulf Mainline (2) Based on Platt's monthly price guide LTM average basis for Dominion South 54 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback? 3. Lots of Geo-pressure in reservoir

Source – imgur.com 55 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback?

• The Haynesville has one the highest pressure gradient of all of the US Shale plays • Pressures ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 psi/ft • In the deeper parts of the play as high as 0.95 psi/ft

56 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback? 3. Shallower declines than other shales

Source – quickmeme.com 57 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback?

Source – 2019 DUG Haynesville – Sun Trust

58 Why is Haynesville Making a Comeback? 4. Scalability and manufacturing mode

Source – pinterest.com 59 Haynesville Rig Count

180

160

140

120

100

0 2/1/2011 2/1/2012 2/1/2013 2/1/2014 2/1/2015 2/1/2016 2/1/2017 2/1/2018 2/1/2019

Source – Baker Hughes

60 Haynesville Rigs – March 2019 LA TX

Operator Rigs Parish Operator Rigs County Aethon 2 Bienville BP 5 Angelina 2 De Soto 1 Nacogdoches 1 Caddo XOM 3 San Augustine Indigo 2 De Soto 1 Panola 1 Red River 1 Shelby 1 Sabine Rockcliff 3 Panola

GEP 2 De Soto 1 Harrison

2 Red River Aethon 2 Nacogdoches CRK 2 De Soto Comstock 1 Panola 1 Caddo Covey Park 1 Harrison Vine 3 Sabine Tanos 1 Harrison Covey Park 1 Bossier CCI 1 Panola 1 De Soto

Sabine 1 Panola 1 Sabine

CHK 1 Caddo

1 De Soto

EXCO 1 Caddo

XOM 1 De Soto

Tellurian 1 De Soto

GDP 1 De Soto

Source – Drilling Info 61 Historical Gas Prices

Source – eia.gov

62 Shale Gas Production in US

Source – eia.gov

63 Haynesville Gas Production

200 Rig Count 150

100

0 2/1/2011 2/1/2012 2/1/2013 2/1/2014 2/1/2015 2/1/2016 2/1/2017 2/1/2018 2/1/2019

Source – Drilling Info 64 CRK HV/BSR Gas Production

MMCFD

65 Haynesville/Bossier Performance Gas Production (MMCFD) Production Gas

Day on Production

66 Normalized Cum Gas vs Time Logansport Area

1600 Harrison 30-31 (Gen 2)

Claybrook 15-2 (Gen 2)

1400 Halsey 14-1 (Gen 2)

James Pace 5-8 (Gen 2) 1200 Headrick 14-11-2 (Gen 2)

Headrick 14-23-1 (Gen 2) 1000 Nash 19-18-1 (Gen 2) 800 Nash 19-18-2 (Gen 2) Billingsley 25-24 (Gen 2) 600 Furlow 25-24 (Gen 2) Furlow 25-36 (Gen 2) 400 NT Powell Jr A 28-2 (Gen 2) Pace 8-17 (Gen 2)

Derrick 21-1HZ-2 (Gen 2)

Gas Produced/Completed Lateral Length (MCF/Ft) Length Lateral Produced/Completed Gas 200

Roberts 26-35-1 (Gen 2)

0 10K TC (SEC - 1.89 BCF/Ft)

1 10K TC (CD - 2.15 BCF/Ft) 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901

1001 1101 1201 1301 10K TC (CD - 2.48 BCF/Ft)

Day on Production

67 Normalized Cum Gas vs Time Logansport Area

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400

Gas Produced/Completed Lateral Length (MCF/Ft) Length Lateral Produced/Completed Gas 200 Day on Production 0 1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001110112011301

Avg Gen 1 (11 wells) Avg Gen 2 (14 wells) Avg Gen 3 (6 wells) 10K TC (SEC - 1.89 BCF/Ft) 10K TC (CD - 2.15 BCF/Ft) 10K TC (CD - 2.48 BCF/Ft)

68 Haynesville D&C Costs

69 Haynesville Drilling

Drilling CPX (2016-18) y = -0.0962x + 4565.8 $800 R² = 0.014 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300

Drilling CPX/MD ($/ft) CPX/MD Drilling $200 $100 1/7/2017 2/7/2017 3/7/2017 4/7/2017 5/7/2017 6/7/2017 7/7/2017 8/7/2017 9/7/2017 1/7/2018 2/7/2018 3/7/2018 4/7/2018 11/7/2016 12/7/2016 10/7/2017 11/7/2017 12/7/2017 CLL, ft

70 Haynesville Completions

y = 0.1521x - 5484.2 Completion CPX (2016-18) R² = 0.0359 $1,400 $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,000 $900 $800 Completion CPX/CLL ($/ft) CPX/CLL Completion $700 1/7/2017 2/7/2017 3/7/2017 4/7/2017 5/7/2017 6/7/2017 7/7/2017 8/7/2017 9/7/2017 1/7/2018 2/7/2018 3/7/2018 4/7/2018 11/7/2016 12/7/2016 10/7/2017 11/7/2017 12/7/2017 CLL, ft

71 Technology Improving IP30’s

Comstock Haynesville IP30/Lateral Length (MCFD/1000')

Vintage GEN 1 GEN 2 Avg- 1.60 Avg- 2.42 Avg- 2.94 5 4.5

3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5 1

0.5

0 11/1/2008 11/1/2009 11/1/2010 11/1/2011 11/1/2012 11/1/2013 11/1/2014 11/1/2015 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 11/1/2018

72 Technology Improving EUR’s

Comstock Haynesville EUR/1000'

4 Vintage GEN 1 GEN 2 3.5 Avg – 1.00 Avg- 2.17 Avg- 2.42

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 11/1/2008 11/1/2009 11/1/2010 11/1/2011 11/1/2012 11/1/2013 11/1/2014 11/1/2015 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 11/1/2018

73 Haynesville Well Economics

Gen 3 Completion Design - Refrac 4,500' L 7,500' L 10,000' L Estimated Well Costs ($ millions) $4.5 $7.0 $10.2 $11.9 24 Hr. IP (Mmcf per day) 12 16 21 24 Decline B Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Initial Decline (%) 72 70 63 58 Proppant (Pounds per lateral ft.) 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 EUR (Bcf) 7.8 11.2 18.6 24.8

Rate of Return Net Present Value at 10% (%) (Million $)

160% $30 $28 140% $26 $24 120% $22 $20 100% $18 $16 80% $14

% ROR % $12 60% $10 40% $8 $6 NPV @10 millions) (in 20% $4 $2 0% $0 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $/MCF $/MCF Refrac 4,500 ft. 7,500 ft. 10,000 ft. 74 75 CRK - Low Cost Structure

(Per Mcfe)

76 CRK – Comparison to Peers

77 2018-19 Drilling Program (Capex - $MM)

78 CRK Hedging Program

79 Haynesville - Liner Refrac Design

• QEP most prolific operator with liner Original Completion- refrac program 5-8 Clusters/Stage • Data was analyzed on 60-80’ Cluster Spacing 37 QEP wells that have 500-1,000 lbs/ft Sand had a liner refrac • 30 day IP uplift of 1.2 times original • EUR uplift of 1.7 times the original • IRR’s are comparable Liner Refrac Design- to newer vintage wells 5 Clusters/Stage 30’ Cluster Spacing • All older CRK wells are 3,800 lbs/ft Sand refrac candidates

80 The Future of the Haynesville/Bossier

• Drilling and Completion Optimization • Longer laterals • More proppant • Optimizing spacing/job size • Stacking/Staggering • Optimization of diverters • Use of dissolvable plugs • Use of local proppants and less mesh size sorting • More aggressive flowback with larger frac jobs • Continue developing the Bossier and optimizing drilling and completions. Will have more grass roots opportunities here. • Continue optimizing liner refracs. • Two laterals from one wellbore to capture both Haynesville and Bossier reserves. • Consolidation of operators

81 MAKE HAYNESVILLE Questions? GREAT AGAIN

NYSE:CRK