PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Disclaimer These materials have been prepared and are provided by Goldman Sachs on a confidential basis solely for the information and assistance of the Conflicts Committee of Board of Directors of Arkose GP LLC (the “Committee"), the general partner of Arkose GP LP (the "Company"), in connection with its consideration of the matters referred to herein. These materials and Goldman Sachs’ presentation relating to these materials (the “Confidential Information”) may not be disclosed to any third party or circulated or referred to publicly or used for or relied upon for any other purpose without the prior written consent of Goldman Sachs. The Confidential Information was not prepared with a view to public disclosure or to conform to any disclosure standards under any state, federal or international securities laws or other laws, rules or regulations, and Goldman Sachs does not take any responsibility for the use of the Confidential Information by persons other than those set forth above. Notwithstanding anything in this Confidential Information to the contrary, the Company may disclose to any person the US federal income and state income tax treatment and tax structure of any transaction described herein and all materials of any kind (including tax opinions and other tax analyses) that are provided to the Company relating to such tax treatment and tax structure, without Goldman Sachs imposing any limitation of any kind. The Confidential Information has been prepared by the Investment Banking Division of Goldman Sachs and is not a product of its research department. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates are engaged in advisory, underwriting and financing, principal investing, sales and trading, research, investment management and other financial and non-financial activities and services for various persons and entities. Goldman Sachs and its affiliates and employees, and funds or other entities they manage or in which they invest or have other economic interests or with which they co-invest, may at any time purchase, sell, hold or vote long or short positions and investments in securities, derivatives, loans, commodities, currencies, credit default swaps and other financial instruments of the Company, any other party to any transaction and any of their respective affiliates or any currency or commodity that may be involved in any transaction. Goldman Sachs’ investment banking division maintains regular, ordinary course client service dialogues with clients and potential clients to review events, opportunities, and conditions in particular sectors and industries and, in that connection, Goldman Sachs may make reference to the Company, but Goldman Sachs will not disclose any confidential information received from the Company. The Confidential Information has been prepared based on historical financial information, forecasts and other information obtained by Goldman Sachs from publicly available sources, the management of the Company or other sources (approved for our use by the Company in the case of information from management and non-public information). In preparing the Confidential Information, Goldman Sachs has relied upon and assumed, without assuming any responsibility for independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all of the financial, legal, regulatory, tax, accounting and other information provided to, discussed with or reviewed by us, and Goldman Sachs does not assume any liability for any such information. Goldman Sachs does not provide accounting, tax, legal or regulatory advice. Goldman Sachs has not made an independent evaluation or appraisal of the assets and liabilities (including any contingent, derivative or other off-balance sheet assets and liabilities) of the Company or any other party to any transaction or any of their respective affiliates and has no obligation to evaluate the solvency of the Company or any other party to any transaction under any state or federal laws relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or similar matters. The analyses contained in the Confidential Information do not purport to be appraisals nor do they necessarily reflect the prices at which businesses or securities actually may be sold or purchased. Goldman Sachs’ role in any due diligence review is limited solely to performing such a review as it shall deem necessary to support its own advice and analysis and shall not be on behalf of the Company. Analyses based upon forecasts of future results are not necessarily indicative of actual future results, which may be significantly more or less favorable than suggested by these analyses, and Goldman Sachs does not assume responsibility if future results are materially different from those forecast. The Confidential Information does not address the underlying business decision of the Company to engage in any transaction, or the relative merits of any transaction or strategic alternative referred to herein as compared to any other transaction or alternative that may be available to the Company. The Confidential Information is necessarily based on economic, monetary, market and other conditions as in effect on, and the information made available to Goldman Sachs as of, the date of such Confidential Information and Goldman Sachs assumes no responsibility for updating or revising the Confidential Information based on circumstances, developments or events occurring after such date. The Confidential Information does not constitute any opinion, nor does the Confidential Information constitute a recommendation to the Committee, any security holder of the Company or any other person as to how to vote or act with respect to any transaction or any other matter. The Confidential Information, including this disclaimer, is subject to, and governed by, any written agreement between the Company, and the Committee, on the one hand, and Goldman Sachs, on the other hand. 1

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Alerian Constituent Shareholders Have Widespread Distribution Cuts 4th Quarter 2017 vs. 1st Quarter 2014 LQA DPU Experienced - (0)%-(25)% 6 Filed for Bankruptcy³ Source: Company filings, Bloomberg, data as of Q4 2017 Note: Adjusted for the impact of stock market splits and merger transactions that have occurred since 20-Jun-2014 (release date of Alerian constituent list shown above). 1 Formerly Tesoro Logistics. 2 Formerly Exterran Partners. 3 Common unitholders’ equity either wiped out or entity has not emerged from bankruptcy. 5 Executive Summary Phillips 66 EQT Midstream MPLX Andeavor Logistics¹ Sunoco Logistics Magellan Western Gas Spectra Energy LP TC Pipelines Enterprise Buckeye Golar LNG EnLink AmeriGas DCP Midstream ONEOK Partners NuStar Energy Cheniere Partners Calumet Genesis Energy Energy Transfer Williams Partners MarkWest Alliance Targa Resources LP Regency NGL Energy Suburban Propane Enbridge Energy Ptnrs. Martin Midstream Atlas Pipeline ArchRock² Navios Maritime Plains Crestwood Midstream Legacy Reserves Kinder Energy Partners El Paso Pipeline Teekay LNG Ferrellgas Seadrill Natural Resource Ptnrs. EV Energy Teekay Offshore Atlas Resource Ptnrs. BreitBurn Linn Energy Memorial Production QR Energy Vanguard 147 % 109 % 85 % 69 % 63 % 50 % 47 % 33 % 23 % 20 % 15 % 11 % 8 % 8 % 5 % 2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % (7)% (9)% (10)% (16)% (17)% (26)% (27)% (29)% (31)% (36)% (37)% (42)% (47)% (52)% (52)% (60)% (75)% (78)% (80)% (80)% (80)% (80)% (87)% (90)% (98)% (100)% (100)% (100)% (100)% (100)% (100)% MLP Classification MidstreamMaritime UpstreamRefining Logistics Propane and Compression Median Distribution % Inc / (Dec) by Subgroup Frequency of DPU Inc / (Dec) + 51% and Above6 Alerian Median(27)%+ 26%-50%2 Midstream(9)+ 0%-25%10 Non-Upstream Median(8)-(26)%-(50)%8 - (51)% and Below18

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Midstream Last 5 Years Restructurings Have Also Increased Midstream Company Restructurings and Recapitalizations (Archrock Partners Holdings) Partners 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2 2 3 3 10 6 Restructurings IDR Recapitalization Parent-to-LP Merger LP Buy-In / LP Repurchase LP-to-LP Merger Announced Structural Review Source: Company press releases and Wall Street research Executive Summary 7 No. of No. of IPOs15145140 Key “Acquirer/Parent (Target)” or “MLP Recapitalizating” : Sunoco Logistics (Energy Transfer Partners) Energy Transfer Partners (PennTex ) WPT GP (World Point Terminals) Vitol / Buckeye (VTTI Partners) Williams Partners Archrock Partners) ONEOK (ONEOK Partners) USA Compression Andeavor Logistics Spectra Energy Access Midstream (Williams Partners) Targa Resources (Targa Resources Partners) Andeavor Logistics (Western Refining Logistics) NuStar (NuStar Tallgrass Energy Pioneer (Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners) Kinder Morgan (Kinder Morgan Partners) Crestwood (Crestwood Midstream) SemGroup (Rose Rock Midstream) Holly Energy Plains (Plains Natural Gas Storage) Kinder Morgan (El Paso Pipeline Partners) Energy Transfer Partners (Regency) Plains All American MPLX Arkose

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Types of Midstream Restructurings and Recapitalizations Primary Transaction Features An existing LP entity issues new LP units to its parent entity that holds incentive distribution rights (IDRs) — Newly issued LP units are compensation for the elimination of IDRs going forward Existing LP unitholders continue to hold LP units in same legal entity and exposed to same operational assets before and after transaction With limited exception, LP unitholders’ governance rights remained unchanged and limited Parent entity – either a 1099 or K-1 – merges with a controlled LP subsidiary in a mostly equity transaction; parent is typically surviving entity — Parent entity assets typically consist of IDR interests with substantial cash flow, LP interest in the underlying LPs, and may include limited stand-alone operating assets Surviving entity holds the operating assets and parent and LP equity holders own same securities post transaction For parents organized as taxable entities (1099), these transactions are taxable to the LP unitholders Parent entity acquires a controlled LP subsidiary in a mostly cash transaction, typically done in order to: — Simplify corporate structure of a previously acquired controlling interest in a public entity, or — Repurchase a poorly trading, extremely small, or stranded MLP Typically, LP unitholders are cashed out of their investment as a result of the transaction, and parent entity acquires the operating assets (but can also be done with parent equity at a much larger entity) Parent entity directs the merger of two affiliated LPs in an all equity transaction Transaction is typically effected in order to simplify corporate structure and/or reduce the combined cost of capital LPs in each entity continue to hold an LP interest and own a security with interests in the combined operating assets 8 Executive Summary LP-to-LP Merger LP Buy-In or LP Repurchase Parent-to-LP Merger IDR Recapitalizations

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Summary of Selected Restructuring, Recapitalization, and Simplification Transactions Remaining Midstream-Related Securities Pro Forma GP Shareholder Security Transaction Structure Pro Forma GP Shareholder Future Cash Flow Relevant Precedents 2 (GP and Midstream w/ no IDRs) Assets: Midstream assets 1099 (Unchanged) Many recent examples Taxes: GP remains cash taxpaying entityAssets: Midstream assets 1 (GP survives w/ no IDRs)Taxes: GP has expected reduction in near-term cash taxes — Long-term, will remain cash taxpaying entity 1099 (Unchanged) Many recent examplesMidstream entity likely will have some entity-level cash tax friction post transaction 1 (Midstream survives w/ no IDRs) K-1 (Changed) Markwest (2007)GP shareholder converted to pass-through treatment 1 (Midstream survives w/ IDRs)Assets: Upstream assets + IDRs 1099 N/ATaxes: Upstream cash tax profile 2 (GP and Midstream remain w/ IDRs) EQT’s pending separation of EQT MidstreamAssets: IDRs + Midstream units 1099 (Unchanged)Taxes: GP remains cash taxpaying entity 12 Executive Summary Inc’l. Upstream Midstream – GP Only Upstream Buys GP Upstream Spins-and-Merges Its 53% Interest in Midstream Into GP Midstream IDR Recapitalization GP Buys Midstream Midstream Buys GP

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Simplification Trends Have Tended to Reduce Exposure to MLPs/K-1s and Increase Exposure to C-Corp/1099 Markets Sizing the Total Universe There are ~100 publicly traded Energy MLPs Total market cap of Energy MLPs is $376bn 505 investors have positions in Alerian Index companies Top 20 Alerian Index Investors have a combined $2.2 trillion in equity AUMThere are ~85 Energy companies in the S&P 1500 (400, 500, 600 Indices) Total market cap of Energy companies in the S&P 1500 is $1.4 trillion 3,668 investors have positions in Energy companies in the S&P 1500 Top 20 investors of Energy companies have a combined $7.4 trillion in equity AUMShareholder Ownership Breakdown MLPs: Significant Insider and Retail Holdings C-Corp Energy: Greater Float and Institutional Holdings¹ Insider 2% Insider 17% Retail 16% Inst. 50% Retail 50% lnst. 84% Float 83% Float 98% Top 20 Alerian Index Investors Top 20 S&P 500 Energy Investors Depth in Largest Investors Pos. ($mm) Pos. ($mm) Pos. ($mm) Pos. ($mm) Investor Investor Investor Investor Invesco 6,072 OFI SteelPath 6,142 Cushing 1,723 Wellington 20,885 Capital World 20,875 Barrow, Hanley 5,667 Kayne Anderson 4,842 Neuberger Berman 1,454 GSAM 4,742 Eagle Global 1,197 Norges Bank 12,311 Franklin Advisers 5,474 T. Rowe Price 11,623 Capital International 5,179 Center Coast 2,776 OppenheimerFunds 839 JP Morgan AM 11,118 American Century 5,109 Dodge & Cox 10,191 First Eagle 5,033 Energy Income 2,382 MFS 720 Nuveen / TIAA-CREF 8,849 AllianceBernstein 4,853 Chickasaw Capital 2,200 Duff & Phelps 700 BlackRock (UK) 7,870 Boston Partners 4,542 Advisory Research 2,131 Westwood 634 Source: Bloomberg, Dealogic, Thomson Reuters as of 4Q 2017 Note: Blue shading denotes overlap between top MLP / Energy C-Corp investors ¹Includes average of Energy companies in the S&P 500. Executive Summary 13 ClearBridge 2,885 Miller/Howard 886 Capital Research 16,315 ClearBridge 5,585 Harvest Fund 5,529 Fidelity 1,634 Tortoise $ 9,286 Salient Capital $ 2,074 Fidelity $ 21,721 BlackRock $ 6,237 MLP C-CORP / UP-C

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY The Largest Midstream Equity Follow-On Offerings Have Been 1099 Entities $ 1,322 $ 1,050 $ 1,007 $ 936 $ 737 $ 721 $ 703 $ 680 $ 674 $ 666 Secondary Partners Date 20-Oct-14 26-Feb-15 14-Aug-17 1-May-14 13-May-14 11-Mar-15 27-Feb-14 1-Feb-18 25-Mar-15 12-Apr-17 Marketing Type Marketed Block Block Marketed Overnight Marketed Marketed Block Overnight Block % of Market Cap. 28.7 % 5.3 % 4.7 % 28.9 % 8.0 % 13.5 % 13.9 % 11.8 % 10.4 % 15.5 % $ 3,474 $ 2,366 $ 2,318 $ 2,168 $ 2,008 $ 1,725 $ 1,658 $ 1,497 $ 1,439 $ 1,371 Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Date 17-Jun-14 11-Oct-12 10-Aug-12 9-Jan-17 6-Jun-12 10-Nov-14 12-Dec-12 23-Feb-17 2-Dec-15 16-Jan-01 Marketing Type Marketed Block Block Overnight Block Marketed Marketed Block Overnight Marketed % of Market Cap. 8.2 % 9.8 % 9.4 % 9.1 % 7.8 % 11.4 % 7.9 % 33.8 % 20.6 % 8.0 % Source: Dealogic Note: Includes US listed midstream MLP and C-Corp follow-ons since 2000. Pattern faded filling denotes secondary offering. Executive Summary 15 Largest C-Corp Midstream Follow-Ons Largest MLP Follow-Ons

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY On a Simplified Basis, Tax Reform Has Tended to Narrow the MLP Tax Advantage Vs. C-Corp-Like Entities Illustrative Return Post Tax Reform Old Law Tax Reform Old Law Tax Reform MLP Tax Advantage @ Various Tax Shields 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Note: Analysis addresses federal taxes only (no state or local taxes reflected). Assumes 100% payout ratio. ¹ Includes 3.8% Medicare tax. Tax Reform scenario assumes 20% deduction on 37% tax rate. Analysis excludes tax shield benefit that results from the acquisition of MLP units (but not C-Corp stock), and recaptures taxes on sale of MLP units Executive Summary 16 Insensitive Individual Investor 6.4 % 5.1 % 3.8 % 2.6 % 1.3 % 0.0 % Tax Investor 21.0 % 16.8 % 12.6 % 8.4 % 4.2 % 0.0 % Assumes income fully taxable; any additional tax shield reduces MLPs’ relative tax advantage Tax Shield as % of PBT MLP Tax Advantage7.1 %6.4 %35.0 %21.0 % C-CorpMLP C-CorpMLPC-CorpMLP C-CorpMLP Profit Before Tax (PBT)$ 100$ 100 Less: Net Accelerated D&A--$ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100 ----$ 100$ 100 --Taxable Income$ 100$ 100 $ 100$ 100$ 100$ 100 $ 100$ 100 % Tax Shield0.0 %0.0 % Corporate Tax Rate35.0 %-Corporate Tax Paid$ 35-Shareholder Dividend$ 65$ 100 Shareholder Tax Rate¹23.8 %43.4 % Shareholder Tax Paid$ 15$ 43 0.0 %0.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 21.0 %-35.0 %-$ 21-$ 35-$ 79$ 100$ 65$ 100 23.8 %33.4 %0.0 %0.0 % $ 19$ 33$ 0$ 0 0.0 %0.0 % 21.0 %-$ 21-$ 79$ 100 0.0 %0.0 % $ 0$ 0 After Tax Proceeds$ 50$ 57 Total Tax Paid$ 50$ 43 $ 60$ 67$ 65$ 100 $ 40$ 33$ 35$ 0 $ 79$ 100 $ 21$ 0 Effective Tax Rate50.5 %43.4 % 39.8 %33.4 %35.0 %-21.0 %-Tax Insensitive Investor Individual Investor

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Arkose Midstream Outlook Is One of High Growth With No Forecast Equity Issuance 2018 – 2020 EBITDA CAGR 60 % Median: 17 % 31 % 29 % 27 % 27 % 23 % 21 % 20 % 14 % 6 % 5 % 13 % 13 % 6 % 12 % 4 %4 % 3 2018 – 2020 DCF CAGR 23 % 22 % 22 % 21 % 21 % Median: 12 % 9 % 7 % 7 % 8 % 7 % 5 % 4 % (1)% 2 % 2018 – 2020 DPU CAGR 29 % 28 % Median: 8 % 17 % 16 % 15 % 15 % 14 % 11 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 3 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 1 2 % 1 % Source: Projections provided by Arkose management on 09-Mar-2018 (“Arkose Projections”), IBES, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 17 Executive Summary Arkose Midstream² (Management) Dominion Midstream Dominion Midstream Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Targa Resources Noble Midstream Dominion Midstream Targa Resources BP Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Management) Noble Midstream CONE Midstream Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Arkose Midstream² (Management) BP Midstream Phillips 66 Partners Arkose Midstream² (IBES) EQT Midstream Hess Midstream Hess Midstream Hess Midstream CONE Midstream Noble Midstream Phillips 66 Partners Valero Energy CONE Midstream EQT Midstream Phillips 66 Partners DCP Midstream Valero Energy Andeavor Logistics EQT Midstream DCP Midstream Western Gas BP Midstream Western Gas Crestwood Summit Andeavor Logistics Enable Midstream Western Gas Summit Andeavor Logistics DCP Midstream EnLink Midstream Tallgrass Crestwood Crestwood Holly Energy Enable Midstream Targa Resources Summit Holly Energy Holly Energy Targa Resources EnLink Midstream Enable Midstream EnLink Midstream Tallgrass Tallgrass 21 %20 % % 15 %15 %14 %13 %12 %12 % 45 %38 % %

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Midstream’s Differentiated Growth Rate Does Not Appear To Translate Directly Into Differentiated Relative Valuation Distributable Cash Flow Per Unit / Share Distribution Per Unit / Share 6% 5% Phillips 66 Midstream - Midstream 6% e Midstream - Partners CNX 7% Targa Midstream 8% 8% e am - t Midstream Western Gas Midstream 9% Holly Energy Logistics 10% Midstream 10% 13% 12% 0% 10% 20% '18-20 DPU CAGR 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%25% 30% '18-20 LP DCF CAGR Source: Arkose Projections, IBES, Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 Note: Chart does not show Summit Midstream partners:, which has a 2018E 16% DCF yield / 9% CAGR and 16% DPU yield / 1% CAGR. Executive Summary 18 2018 DCF Yield 2018 DPU Yield Arkose EntityIllustrative Midstream Comparable Shell Phillips 66 BP MidstreamPartners Targa Arkose Arkos Valero Midstream - Midstre Partners CNX IBES Mgm PartnersDominion EQT Midstream Andeavor PartnersDCP EnableCrestwood EnLink Arkose PartnersShellIBES Midstream ValeroArkos MidstreamMgmt EQT Dominion Midstream Western Gas Partners DCP MidstreamCrestwood Andeavor Logistics Enable Holly Energy Partners Tallgrass Energy EnLink Memo: Aggregate ’18-20 Midstream Total DCF CAGR:32% (Mgmt)24% (Broker Median) GP Growth rate in distributions even higher: ~58% (both IBES and Mgmt)

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Improving FCF Generation and Ability to Return Capital Is An Area of Focus Across the E&P Sector Change in Aggregate FCF (2018E) by E&P Peer Group | (US$ in billions) $ : $ 20 $(1) Source: Bloomberg; Capital IQ; market data as of 20-Mar-2018 1 Majors includes BP, CVX, ENI, RDSA, REP, STL, TOTF, and XOM. 2 Large Cap includes APA, APC, CHK, CLR, COP, DVN, EOG, HES, MRO, NBL, OXY, and PXD. 3 Permian includes CDEV, CPE, CXO, EGN, FANG, JAG, LPI, PE, PXD, and RSPP. 4 Bakken includes OAS and WLL. 5 Appalachia includes AR, CNX, COG, EQT, GPOR and RRC. 6 Diversified includes CRZO, ECA, MUR, NFX, PDCE, QEP, WPX, and XEC. 22 Executive Summary Then Now $ Then Now $ 2018 Consensus Estimates WTI 52.25 15 % $ 60.00 HH 3.20 (4)% $ 3.06 $ 25 $ 9 $ 8 $ 1 $ 3 $ 1 $ 2 $ 1 $ 0 Total FCF From Peer Groups ($ Billions) 30-Sep-2017:$(2) Current:$ 34 $ 0 $ 5 Majors1 $(0) Bakken4 $(1) Diversified6 $(2) Large Cap2 $(2) Permian3 $(2) Appalachia5 Cash from Operations $ 180 $ 204 Capex (115) (116) $ 44 $ 57 (40) (43) $ 10 $ 14 (12) (15) $ 8 $ 10 (10) (9) $ 9 $ 12 (9) (11) $ 1 $ 2 (2) (2) FCF (Before Dividends) $ 65 $ 88 $ 4 $ 14 $(2) $(0) $(2) $ 1 $(1) $ 1 $(0) $ 0 Dividends (60) (63) (5) (6) (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) 0 0 30-Sep-2017 Current

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Cash Flow From Common Shareholders ($ in millions, except where noted) Midstream to GP Arkose Management Cash Flow Illustration 100% Membership Interests Management and Sponsors Midstream 2018E 2019E 2020E Public 67% LP Interest (-) Maintenance Capex, Interest Expense, and Reimbursement to Upstream Non-Economic General Partner Interest (33% LP Interest) Distributable Cash Flow 594 854 1,036 Series B (-) Cash Coverage Series B Units (Profits Interests) A Units Interests) LP Distributions IDR Distributions 320 143 414 236 533 355 IDR LLC IDRs From Midstream Cash Flow to Series B Cash Flow to Series A Non Economic General Partner Interest $ 143 7 136 $ 236 12 223 $ 355 20 336 100% Incentive Distribution Rights Public Common Units (47% LP interest) GP Series A Distributions 136 223 336 (-) G&A, Cash Taxes (25%), and 1.0 x Cash Coverage Source: Cash flows based on Arkose Projections. Organizational structure based on Arkose GP 424B4 filed 05-May-2017; public ownership of Arkose Midstream based on Midstream 2017 10-K; public interest in GP based on Arkose Management Presentation for Project Francis Due Diligence Meeting dated 14-Mar-2018. 25 Executive Summary Distributed Cash Flow $ 100 $ 165 $ 249 Arkose Midstream Partners (“Midstream”) Arkose IDR Holdings LLC (“IDR LLC”) Distributed Cash Flow $ 463 $ 649 $ 889 Arkose Midstream GP LLC (“GP”) Series (Capital Arkose Midstream Partners GP LLC (“AMP GP”) EBITDA $ 730 $ 989 $ 1,222 AMGP GP LLC (“General Partner”)

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Summary of Series B Units in Arkose IDR Holdings LLC Term DescriptionMembership interests in Arkose IDR Holdings LLC (the “Company”), are designated as “Units” and divided into two classes: “Series A” and “Series B”. The Series B Units are profit interests As of December 31, 2017, 98,600 Series B Units were issued and outstanding (representing all authorized Series B Units), and 32,875 of which are vested — 48,000 held by CEO Paul Rady; 32,000 held by CFO Glen Warren; and 4,000 held by Midstream SVP and CFO Michael Kennedy Series B Units are subject to transfer restrictions and ratably vest over a three-year period on the anniversary date of their issuance (December 2016/January 2017). Any Series B Unit that fail to vest will be forfeited and not be re-issued — Certain senior executives of Arkose Midstream are also entitled to accelerated vesting of Series B Units upon involuntary termination of employment without cause, death or disability or certain change-of-control events.Series B Units are entitled to receive up to 6% of all quarterly cash distributions in excess of $7.5mm paid by Arkose Midstream Partners LP (“Midstream”) on its incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”), subject to vesting conditions. — The Series A Units receive all other distributions (including the first $7.5mm in quarterly cash distributions made prior to distributions to Series B Units) Series B Units do not participate in distributions prior to vesting, but upon vesting are entitled to receive catch-up distribution in an amount equal to pro rata share of distributions made prior to vesting Series B Units may be converted by holders into common shares of Arkose Midstream GP LP (“GP”) with a value equal to the pro rata share of up to 6% of any increase in GP’s equity value in excess of $2.0bn GP common shares issued pursuant to conversion capped at 6% of the GP common shares Upon the earliest to occur of (i) December 31, 2026, (ii) a change of control of the Company or GP or (iii) a liquidation of the Company, GP may convert each outstanding Series B Unit into GP common shares, subject to certain limitations and in accordance with the conversion ratio described in the “Optional Conversion” section above Source: Arkose IDR Holdings LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement dated 31-Dec-2016 and Arkose GP 2017 10-K Executive Summary 26 Mandatory Conversion Optional Conversion Distributions Transfer and Vesting Restrictions General

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Conversion Calculation For Series B Units of Arkose IDR LLC Class B Conversion Into Status Quo GP Shares Conversion Into Pro Forma GP + Midstream Shares 20 Trading-Day GP VWAP $ 18.10 (x) Common Shares Outstanding 186 GP Market Cap $ 3,370 GP Market Cap $ 9,859 (-) $2.0bn Threshold (2,000) (-) $2.0bn Threshold (2,000) (x) Series B Take 6.0 % (x) Series B Take 6.0 % (x) Units Outstanding 100 % (x) Units Outstanding 100 % (x) Percent Vested 100 % (x) Percent Vested 100 % (/) Vested Units Outstanding 99 (/) Vested Units Outstanding 99 (x) Vested Units Redeemed 99 (x) Vested Units Redeemed 99 (/) 20 Day GP VWAP (as of Magement Presentation) $ 19.19 (/) 20 Day GP VWAP (Current) $ 18.10 Source: GP 424 B4 filing dated 05-May-2017 and GP IDR Holdings LLC Limited Liability Company Agreement dated 31-Dec-2016; Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 Note: 20-Trading Day VWAP based o 27 Executive Summary Conversion - Common Shares Issued25 Conversion - Common Shares Issued 5 Per Vested B Unit Entitlement$ 4.78 Per Vested B Unit Entitlement $ 0.83 Total Entitlement$ 472 Total Entitlement $ 82 Memo: illustrative assumption Equity Value Subject to Series B Take$ 7,859 Equity Value Subject to Series B Take $ 1,370 Illustrative Equity Value Used by Management in March 9, 2018 Presentation

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Ownership Impact and Share Price at Various Exchange Ratios (+) Shares Issued for Midstream Implied Midstream Unit Price Implied Premium to 1 Day Close Implied Premium to 30 day VWAP 262 $ 22.53 (11)% (16) 280 $ 24.14 (5)% (10) 299 $ 25.74 1 % (4) 318 $ 27.35 8 % 2 336 $ 28.96 14 % 8 355 $ 30.57 20 % 14 374 $ 32.18 27 % 19 393 $ 33.79 33 % 25 411 $ 35.40 39 % 31 Pro Forma Ownership with 25mm Series B Conversion1 Former Series B Shareholders Former Midstream Unit Holders Midstream Public Upstream 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 26 % 29 27 % 30 28 % 31 28 % 32 29 % 33 30 % 33 30 % 34 31 % 34 31 % 35 Total Shares Outstanding 472 491 510 529 547 566 585 603 622 Implied GP Share Price At Current Market Cap Illustrative Incremental Equity Value to Breakeven GP Share Price $ 16.56 (221) $ 15.93 80 $ 15.34 381 $ 14.80 682 $ 14.29 983 $ 13.82 1,283 $ 13.38 1,584 $ 12.97 1,885 $ 12.58 2,186 Pro Forma Ownership with 5mm Series B Conversion2 Former Series B Shareholders Former Midstream Unit Holders Midstream Public Upstream 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 % 31 28 % 31 29 % 32 29 % 33 30 % 34 31 % 34 31 % 35 32 % 36 32 % 36 Total Shares Outstanding 452 471 490 509 527 546 565 583 602 Implied GP Share Price At Current Market Cap Illustrative Incremental Equity Value to Breakeven GP Share Price $ 17.29 (543) $ 16.60 (242) $ 15.97 59 $ 15.38 359 $ 14.84 660 $ 14.33 961 $ 13.86 1,262 $ 13.41 1,563 $ 12.99 1,863 Source: Upstream, Midstream, and GP 2017 10-Ks and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 1 Assumes Series B convert into quantity of common shares as shown in the Arkose management presentation on 09-Mar-2018. 2 Assumes Series B convert based on current GP market cap. 30 Executive Summary Total Former Midstream Unitholders58 %60 %61 %62 %64 %65 %66 %67 %68 % GP Current Shareholders41 %40 %38 %37 %35 %34 %33 %32 %31 % Total Former Midstream Unitholders55 %57 %59 %60 %61 %63 %64 %65 %66 % GP Current Shareholders39 %38 %37 %35 %34 %33 %32 %31 %30 % Memo: GP Current Shares Outstanding 186mm Current GP Share Price: $16.09 Combined Equity Value: $7.8bn Illustrative Exchange Ratios (Midstream / GP)1.4 x1.5 x1.6 x1.7 x1.8 x1.9 x2.0 x2.1 x2.2 x

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Midstream + IBES Projections ($ in millions) GP Value Market Value Status Quo EV / EBITDA Metric Midstream GP 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 727 930 1,181 12.0 x 9.3 7.4 12.4 x 9.7 7.6 12.6 x 9.9 7.8 13.3 x 10.4 8.2 14.0 x 11.0 8.6 14.7 x 11.5 9.0 15.4 x 12.0 9.5 16.1 x 12.6 9.9 12.4 x 9.7 7.6 22.3 x 13.6 9.0 Price / DCF Metric 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 607 781 939 12.3 x 9.6 8.0 12.9 x 10.0 8.3 13.2 x 10.2 8.5 14.0 x 10.9 9.0 14.8 x 11.5 9.6 15.6 x 12.2 10.1 16.5 x 12.8 10.6 17.3 x 13.4 11.2 12.2 x 10.0 8.4 29.8 x 18.2 12.1 Total Dist. Metric 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 456 637 858 6.1 % 8.5 11.4 5.8 % 8.1 11.0 5.7 % 8.0 10.7 5.4 % 7.5 10.1 5.1 % 7.1 9.5 4.8 % 6.7 9.0 4.6 % 6.4 8.6 4.3 % 6.1 8.2 6.7 % 8.7 11.0 3.4 % 5.5 8.3 Source: Arkose Projections, IBES/Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 31 Executive Summary Memo: For illustrative purposes only. Does not adjust for shareholder reaction, potential tax synergies, or definitive agreement / deal structure. Enterprise Value $ 8,685 $ 9,008 $ 9,185 $ 9,685 $ 10,185 $ 10,685 $ 11,185 $ 11,685 Memo: Assumed Debt of $1.2bn Cash of $11mm Total Equity Value $ 7,500 $ 7,823 $ 8,000 $ 8,500 $ 9,000 $ 9,500 $ 10,000 $ 10,500

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Combined Shareholder Analysis Status Quo Illustrative Combination of Current Market Value Upstream / Sponsors / Insiders 53% Institutional (Active) 45% Top Active Holders % O/S Top Active Holders % O/S Alps 2.3 Retail 2% Institutional (Active) 39% Institutional (Passive) 2% Natixis Morgan Stanley Tinicum 2.0 1.9 1.8 Tinicum 1.5 FPR Partners Natixis Morgan Stanley 1.2 1.2 1.1 Retail 4% Institutional (Active) 36% Top Active Holders % O/S CIBC Atlantic Trust Eagle Global Alyeska 0.8 0.8 0.7 Upstream / Sponsors / Institutional FPR Partners 3.2 Alyeska 2.0 Sponsors / Insiders JP Morgan Eagle Global 1.4 1.4 Institutional (Passive) 59% 45% of Institutions TPH 0.3 Blue shading indicates dedicated midstream investors Source: Thomson ownership as of Q4 ’17 and subsequent 13D / G filings Note: Blue shading denotes MLP dedicated funds. 1 Includes assumed conversion of Series B units into $395 million of GP common shares based on shares issued per Arkose Management. Executive Summary 32 GP Common Shareholders Midstream Unitholders 1% Cushing Asset Mgmt1.4 Dedicated midstream: 16% of outstanding Yale University1.2 Cohen & Steers1.9 Tortoise3.1 Insiders¹(Passive) 58%1% Deutsche 0.7 Cohen & Steers 0.7 Cushing Asset Mgmt 0.6 Dedicated midstream: 56% of Institutions 23% of outstanding JP Morgan 0.6 Yale University 0.4 ClearBridge 0.4 Advisory Research 0.3 Dividend Assets Capital 0.3 OFI SteelPath3.9 % GSAM3.4 Kayne Anderson 0.9 Dedicated midstream: 62% of Institutions 30% of outstanding Chickasaw 1.5 Tortoise 4.3 % GSAM 4.1 OFI Steelpath 2.0 Harvest 2.0 Neuberger Berman 1.8 Salient 1.6 Tortoise5.6 % GSAM5.0 Alps3.9 Harvest3.3 Neuberger Berman3.1 Chickasaw2.5 Salient2.5

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Recent Commentary from Major Stakeholders on Multi-Class Share Structures A (i.e., S&P 500, MidCap 400, and SmallCap 600) B about company’s ability to continue as a going concern) C Source: Position papers, Company websites, public sources 33 Executive Summary Index Inclusion Criteria MSCIOn 31-Jan-2018, MSCI launched a public consultation on the treatment of unequal voting structures; current proposal suggests including stocks with unequal voting rights in the MSCI Equity Indexes, but adjusting the weights of these stocks to reflect both free float and company-level listed voting power — Weight adjustment would be calculated the same way for current and new index constituents. However, changes to the weights of current index constituents would be subject to a three-year grace period S&P Composite 1500New Constituent: Multi-share class structures no longer be added to index / component indicesExisting Constituent: Existing constituents grandfathered in (not affected) FTSE RussellNew Constituent: Requires >5% of voting rights (aggregated across all equity securities) in the hands of free-float shareholders as defined by FTSE RussellExisting Constituent: Above rule in effect beginning Sep-2022 (5-year grandfathering period allowing constituents to change capital structure if desired) Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)2018 U.S. proxy voting guidelines indicate that it will vote against creation of a new class of common stock unless: — The company discloses a compelling rationale (i.e., new class is transitory, auditor indicates substantial doubt — New class is intended for financing purposes with minimal dilution to current shareholders — New class is not designated to preserve or increase voting power for insiders SEC Commissioner Commentary “Perpetual dual-class ownership—forever shares—don’t just ask investors to trust a visionary founder. It asks them to trust that founder’s kids. And their kids’ kids. And their grandkid’s kids…It raises the prospect that control over our public companies, and ultimately of Main Street’s retirement savings, will be forever held by a small, elite group of corporate insiders—who will pass that power down to their heirs. I cannot see how to square that with our nation’s foundational ideas. In America, we don’t inherit power, and we don’t hold power forever…Now, our public markets aren’t our government, but our country’s spirit of democratic accountability has long animated how we think about economics” – Robert Jackson, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissioner, February 15, 2018

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY With Growing AUM and Influence, Passive Investors Are Shifting Focus to Governance Concerns Passive Investors Now Own ~40% of the Market Recent Commentary on Dual Class Structure ...2016 “BlackRock believes that shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. We believe that companies that look to add or already have dual or multiple class share structures should review these structures on a regular basis or as company circumstances change, and receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal on the company’s proxy. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.” – BlackRock’s 2018 Proxy Voting Guidelines for U.S. Securities Passive 40% Active 60% ...2006... Passive 18% Total AUM: $10.1tn “We are opposed to dual-class capitalization structures that provide disparate voting rights to different groups of shareholders with similar economic investments. We will oppose the creation of separate classes with different voting rights and will support the dissolution of such classes.” – Vanguard’s Proxy Voting Guidelines 1996... Passive 6% Active 82% Total AUM: $5.7tn “SSGA will not support proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of common stock with superior voting rights and will vote against new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights. In addition, SSGA will not support capitalization changes that add ‘blank check’ classes of stock (i.e., classes of stock with undefined voting rights) or classes that dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders…However, SSGA will support capitalization changes that eliminate other classes of stock and / or unequal voting rights.” – State Street Global: 2017 Proxy Voting and Engagement Guidelines Active 94% Total AUM: $1.3tn Source: Strategic Insight, Goldman Sachs, Thomson, FactSet, Company websites, public sources Note: AUM references US figures. 34 Executive Summary

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Transaction Rationale and Commentary Company Stated Rationale Related CommentaryCost of equity / IDR burden Inability to compete with third-parties Significant depreciation tax benefits for KMI from purchase and future capexRich Kinder (CEO): “…transitioning from four separately traded equity securities today to one security going forward, and by eliminating the incentive distribution rights and structural subordination of debt … KMI will be a valuable acquisition currency and have a significantly lower hurdle for accretive investments”Coverage ratio <1.0x Expense / fixed charge reduction No DPU growthMorgan Stanley: “While we believe today's selling was exacerbated by liquidity and technical factors, it is unclear to us how the pro-forma CEQP is materially different from CMLP yesterday (absent the IDRs) and see this largely as an execution story from here (where you should realize the benefit of the lack of IDRs)” LP coverage ratio <1.0x High leverage and deteriorating credit profile No DPU growthMorgan Stanley: “While the transaction should provide to the surviving TRGP, dividend coverage improvement, better debt coverage, and the benefit of no IDR burden going forward to weigh on returns, it does not directly address fundamental challenges pressuring the company and might not necessarily offer long-term relief if commodity markets remain challenged” No debt capacity or access to public equity markets No DPU growth Poor coverage ratio Inability to compete for and fund projectsMorgan Stanley: “Tax and upfront cash savings provide immediate tangible benefits to SEMG, while the leverage outlook at RRMS can be improved by tapping into SEMG's balance sheet capacity and excess coverage. Additionally, trading liquidity should be enhanced by the larger size and corporate structure … foregoes the dropdown strategy and ability to leverage any future growth at a purer-play GP holdco … unclear growth prospects in 2017 and beyond”Source: Company press releases and Wall Street research 36 Market Commentary on Simplifications, Arkose Family, and Governance

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Transaction Rationale and Commentary Company Stated Rationale Related CommentaryIncreased size of c-corp and improved ability to compete with larger peers Immediate dividend increase Poor LP coverage ratio and “IDR givebacks”BMO: “Corporate restructure, namely an MLP roll-up, was not fully appreciated by some investors, particularly in resolving the issue of looming cash taxes at OKE” Jefferies: “Prisoner's dilemma framework associated with these moves as asset-lite GPs with IDR-laden MLPs are put at increasingly disadvantaged competitive positions with each subsequent simplification transaction undertaken by a peer” Brad Childers (CEO: “Our increased retained cash flow will better position us to continue to invest in our robust opportunity set of growth projects and significantly reduce our need for equity capital.” J.P. Morgan: “The retained cash and pricing improvements should allow AROC to self-fund growth capex and de-lever, thereby eliminating capital markets dependency…. Those bullish, while not thrilled with the AROC equity valuation used, appreciated the alignment of interests, improved trading liquidity/cost of capital and removal of distractions from an otherwise attractive cyclical recovery story. APLP holders seemed to universally agree with the merger strategic rationale, but some income-oriented investors may reallocate capital to higher yielding securities…” Enhance cash coverage Improve credit profile Simplify capital structure Reduce cost of capital LP coverage ~0.7x No debt capacity or access to equity Transaction implied distribution cut, though distributions paid to GP entity remain largely intact pro formaBrad Baron (CEO): “Fundamental shift … in the makeup of the investor base for MLPs, which has tightened MLP equity markets and access to equity … paradigm shift in market sentiment away from strong growth fueled by continuous equity issuances to [one] that favors strong distribution coverage and rewards MLPs for low leverage, less dependency on the equity markets, and increased self-funding of capital projects” Source: Company press releases and Wall Street research 37 Market Commentary on Simplifications, Arkose Family, and Governance

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Additional Descriptions of IDR Recapitalizations Company Rationale Commentary Considerable prior capex spend De minimis historical EBITDA growth for several years No incremental debt capacity Overextended on recent asset acquisitions Declining / volatile Supply & Logistics earnings Poor cash coverage Accompanying DPU cutGreg Armstrong (CEO): “…[The] simplification transaction simplifies our capital structure, better aligns the interests of our equity stakeholders, streamlines our governance structure, improves PAA's overall credit profile, reduces PAA's cost of equity capital and improves its distribution coverage, while allowing us to maintain the tax efficient flexibility of our current organizational structure.” High IDR take Frequent, sizable IDR givebacks High cost of MLP equity capital No DPU growth No incremental debt capacity Ambitious growth capex plan Accompanying DPU cutAlan Armstrong (CEO): “…the uncertainty of the IDRs has been a detriment to the value of securities at both Williams and Williams Partners. The improvement of Williams Partners’ cost of capital and simplified organizational structure will better align GP and LP interests as well as solidify Williams Partners’ investment-grade credit ratings.”Goldman Sachs Research: “Overall, we believe this transaction is a rational move for HEP given that it would reduce its IDR burden. Despite the potential improvement in the cost of equity… HEP’s higher distribution yield implies a relative disadvantage to midstream peers … in competing for projects and 3rd party M&A.” No DPU growth Limited IDR growth No remaining drop downs High MLP cost of equity capitalHigh IDR take Limited DPU growth High MLP cost of equity capital No identified drop down assets Preference to simplify Enbridge family structureBill Yardley (President and Chairman of the Board of SEP): “Today’s transaction improves SEP’s long-term value proposition. With an improved cost of capital, we are even better positioned to improve and extend SEP’s distribution growth outlook through organic growth projects, potential future drop downs from Enbridge and third party acquisitions.” Source: Company press releases and Wall Street research 38 Market Commentary on Simplifications, Arkose Family, and Governance

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Notable Analyst Commentary Around Recent Arkose Events and Developments (1/2)Evercore, 15-Feb-2018: We see the market continuing to grapple with the (post 2020, unhedged, E&P standalone) outlook for growth and mar gins, while improved capital efficiency and a repeatable, predictable development plan are central to the bull case. We believe Upstream’s margins could see significant pressure due to higher-cost pipeline tariffs and excess firm transport (FT) capacity cannibalizing improved end market prices through 2018, unless the company can successfully release excess capacity or renegotiate terms wit h pipeline operators on volumes or price. (SunTrust, 14-Feb-2018) Goldman Sachs, 14-Feb-2018: We believe that while Upstream possesses an attractive hedge portfolio that provides cash flow/produ ction growth visibility through 2020, and its ability to meet long-term guidance (20% production growth through 2020; 15% production growth in 2021-22) at attractive capital efficiency will be key in what we expect to be a tougher environment for Appalachia gas in the early 2020s. Guggenheim, 14-Feb-2018: We think the most important update from the analyst day was the 2021-22 Midstream distribution growth guidance of 20%, which we believe was above expectations of 10-15%. The drilling schedule required to keep up such a growth rate has become a flashpoint and there is the possibility that growth in the out years does slow. However, we don't really believe at current levels that Midstream is getting full credit from investors for this growth anyway. BMO Capital Markets, 23-Jan-2018: As such, while 2018-19 are still transition years for E&P, the "clean" FCF and debt-adjusted production growth improves meaningfully in 2020E. We think demonstrating that E&P can achieve sustainable growth within cash flow is important to receiving full sum-of-the-parts value.SunTrust, 14-Feb-2018: Operational updates were positive with LOE and the WGL contract issues both expected to be in the rear-view mirror, and strong Utica well results further bolstering management's confidence in the formation; we would note CNX Resources' outperfor mance today is likely due to the proximity of its acreage. BMO Capital Markets, 23-Jan-2018: Upstream has been one of the better positive rate-of-change stories among natural gas E&Ps, as advanced completions have driven a significant improvement in lateral adjusted well productivity, while its acreage position allows fo r more capital efficient, longer laterals than West Virginia Marcellus peers. While 2017 for West Virginia isn’t available, we’d note that Upstream’s 2016 vintage well productivity increased by 30% and it now leads peers on a lateral adjusted basis. Baird, 26-Feb-2018: It appears the market is baking in a large Upstream sale of Midstream units…However we think the ultimate ri sk to Midstream proves low because a large Midstream unit sale would hurt, not help, Upstream's NAV by suppressing the pricing on Midstream units further. SunTrust, 11-Feb-2018: The company gave detailed guidance including a five year outlook at its recent analyst day, and as such we would expect minimal changes to plans. That being said, with the shift to FCF positive expected in the near-term, we anticipate a multitude of questions on the use of proceeds. Given the high hurdle rate of existing opportunities, we look for management to lean more towards acceleration (lik ely in the Marcellus, not Utica) and returning shareholder value (previously stated it has no plans to use its ATM) and away from acquisitions. Guggenheim, 1-Feb-2018: Upstream’s first analyst meeting since the IPO in 2013 tweaked some details but largely left the midstream-biased strategy intact. There was better capital efficiency in the long-term guide but upstream shareholders were unimpressed by a strategy that prioritized growth over free cash flows in an over-supplied basin. We believe the most direct and disruptive option is to reduce upstream growth from a current rate of 15 – 20% annually and return the cash to shareholders. But any significant adjustment would be a shock to midstream valuations and midstream distributions are a “third rail” that management and vested parties are reluctant to touch, in our view. Another option is to monetize a 53% ownership in Midstream and use some of the proceeds for a share buyback. Source: Wall Street research Market Commentary on Simplifications, Arkose Family, and Governance 39 Capital Allocation Operations Outlook

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Notable Analyst Commentary Around Recent Arkose Events and Developments (2/2)Scotia Howard Weil, 26-Feb-2018: While it is difficult to predict the possible outcomes of a transaction, we would note GP is still in its early days, having gone public in the 1H17. In 2017, Midstream payed out ~22% of its distributable cash flow to the GP in the form of IDRs. For comparison, EQGP receives 33% of EQM’s total distributions. Baird, 26-Feb-2018: If each entity has a real conflicts committee seeking its own interests, on structure, Upstream likely will find its options limited, Midstream will choose to stand pat (paying up for GP would be detrimental, as shown in our core distribution analysis (Link)) , and GP will choose to stand pat (no reason to dilute the growth plan by bringing on debt). Guggenheim, 1-Feb-2018: A broader corporate shift would be for Upstream to cut their drilling program, shed lower tier acreage a nd their FT commitments, and slow production growth. This would lead Midstream/GP to cut their distribution growth rate and cause a re -rate of both stocks, but we note that we don’t think Midstream is getting full credit for their growth anyway. An IDR restructuring would be easier to execute than a major slowdown in drilling and production because they could then maintain growth and not impact their FT/processing/fractionation commitmen ts and JVs.Evercore, 15-Feb-2018: Our sense is that management is attuned to investor calls to action and has highlighted Upstream equity ownership and shareholder-friendly compensation metrics. Beyond addressing structure and some of the perceived conflicts of interest we see ma rket skepticism around what tangible steps can be taken toward value unlock. Raymond James, 15-Feb-2018: Eliminating Midstream’s IDR’s would result in both Upstream and management owning a substantial amount of Midstream units and at least improve the perceived issue of alignment of GP/LP incentives between Upstream and management. Wells Fargo, 16-Feb-2018: We believe Midstream’s unit price decline [since the announcement of a strategic review] reflects investors’ concerns regarding the potential outcome of the strategic review. While there are many potential permutations, some of which may be ne ar-term dilutive to either Midstream or GP, our long-term positive outlook on the partnerships is unchanged. Midstream and GP remain well positioned to del iver industry leading distribution growth, driven by organic investments (without the need to access the equity capital market) in support of Upstream’s identified 5-year development plan. Raymond James, 15-Feb-2018: The Arkose franchise is both in a better current financial position and/or earlier in the life-cycle than most of the entities that have undergone a simplification of the GP/LP structure, when the GP burden has become significantly detrimental to the u nderlying LP cost of equity capital. In fact, Midstream’s best-in-class distribution/unit growth rate is the main reason this issue becomes noticeable over the next few years at all (i.e. based on the aforementioned Midstream distribution CAGR, Midstream’s cash flow to the GP accelerates from ~26% now to ~40% by 2020). MUFG, 19-Jan-2018: What we fear is the Upstream narrative is already played out. Upstream has already spun-off two entities that return capital to an investor: Midstream and GP. So, when faced with the option to invest in the Arkose story, the incremental investor has the optionality to expose themselves to the growth proposition in a security that returns capital. Source: Wall Street research Market Commentary on Simplifications, Arkose Family, and Governance 40 Relative Trading Conflicts / Governance Restructuring

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Relative Stock Price Performance Over Time Since GP IPO | 03-May-17 | GP and Midstream Versus GP Index and MLP Index Aug-2017: 10% Underperformance 5% 0% (5)% (10)% (15)% (20)% (25)% (30)% (35)% May-2017 Jun-2017 Aug-2017 Oct-2017 Dec-2017 Jan-2018 Mar-2018 Source: Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 Note: Companies that IPO during period included beginning on pricing date: Arkose GP IPO (priced 03-May-2017, $23.50 ), BPMP IPO (Priced 26-Oct-17, $18.00). ¹ GP Index includes TEGP, ENLC, ETE, EQGP and WGP 2 MLP Index includes BPMP, CNXM, DM, ENBL, ENLK, EQM, HESM, NBLX, PSXP, SHLX, VLP, WES, ANDX, CEQP, DCP, HEP, SMLP, TEP and TRGP Recent Arkose Family Trading and Market Context 45 Alerian MLP (22)% Midstream (25)% GP (32)% GP Index¹ (22)% MLP Index² (20)% Indexed Price Midstream Sector 13-Feb-2018 Q4 Earnings 26-Feb-2018 Special Committee Announcement 06-Sep-2017 $315mm selldown of Upstream held Midstream units 18-Jan-2018 Analyst Day 25-Jan-2018 Chapter IV Filing 29-Jan-2018 Sailingstone / Upstream Response

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Comparison of Financial Projections Arkose Management Projections versus IBES Median ($ in millions, except per share data) Management Plan Versus Wall Street Consensus 1 Management IBES / Wall Street Consensus 2017A 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E EBITDA % Growth # of Analysts LP DCF Per Unit % Growth # of Analysts DPU % Growth # of Analysts Capex # of Analysts Coverage Ratio Leverage $ 529 31.0 % $ 727 37 % 16 $ 2.08 29 % 9 $ 1.71 29 % 17 $ 657 4 $ 930 28 % 14 $ 2.55 22 % 9 $ 2.21 29 % 15 $ 738 4 $ 1,181 27 % 9 $ 3.04 20 % 6 $ 2.79 26 % 12 $ 761 2 $ 1,351 14 % 1 $ 3.48 14 % 3 $ 3.12 12 % 3 $ 330 1 $ 1,533 13 % 1 $ 3.89 12 % 3 $ 3.38 8 % 3 $ 265 1 $ 730 38 % $ 989 35 % $ 1,222 24 % $ 1,413 16 % $ 1,642 16 % $1.61 $ 2.07 28 % $ 2.76 33 % $ 3.24 18 % $ 3.75 15 % $ 4.29 14 % $ 1.33 29 % $ 1.72 29 % $ 2.21 29 % $ 2.85 29 % $ 3.42 20 % $ 4.10 20 % $ 646 $ 815 $ 719 $ 430 $ 352 1.3 x 2.3 1.3 x 2.2 1.2 x 2.2 1.1 x 2.1 1.1 x 2.0 EBITDA2 % Growth # of Analysts DPS2 % Growth # of Analysts Coverage Ratio Leverage $ 134 NA $ 221 65 % $ 334 51 % $ 434 30 % $ 554 28 % $ 134 NA 9 $ 0.54 164 % 11 $ 220 64 % 7 $ 0.88 64 % 10 $ 336 52 % 4 $ 1.34 51 % 8 $ 381 14 % 1 $ 1.47 10 % 2 $ 448 17 % 1 $ 1.80 23 % 1 NA $ 0.16 / 0.20 NA $ 0.54 $ 0.89 65 % $ 1.34 51 % $ 1.74 30 % $ 2.22 28 % 1.0 x 0.0 1.0 x 0.0 1.0 x 0.0 1.0 x 0.0 1.0 x 0.0 1.0 x 0.0 Source: Arkose Projections, IBES/Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 1 Projected LP DCF / unit calculated based on median of brokers who provide LP DCF and / or total DCF and LP units oustanding. 2 GP 2017A DPS reflect actual / pro forma for full year; 2018 growth rates calculated based on 2017PF numbers.GP 2017A EBITDA reflects actual reported EBITDA. Summary of Management Forecasts and Status Quo Midstream Trading 55 GP Midstream

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Key Resources Projection Assumptions Including Commodity Price and Hedging Impact Assumptions Source: Arkose Projections 56 Summary of Management Forecasts and Status Quo Midstream Trading Annual Production 2016A 2017A 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E Net Risked Gas (Bcf) 505 591 Net Risked NGL (Bbls) 20,279 25,507 Net Risked Ethane (Bbls) 6,396 10,539 Net Risked Oil (Bbls) 1,873 2,451 701 869 1,033 1,176 1,330 28,292 36,709 43,428 50,727 59,244 15,889 17,403 20,833 24,427 28,650 3,392 3,583 4,264 5,312 6,376 Net Risked Production (Bcfe) 676 822 986 1,215 1,444 1,659 1,896 Daily Net Risked Production (MMcfe/d) 1,847 2,253 Pricing Forecast 2016A 2017A 2,702 3,330 3,956 4,545 5,194 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E NYMEX Pricing Gas Price ($/MMBtu) $ 2.46 $ 3.11 Oil Price ($ / Bbl) 43.18 50.45 $ 2.83 $ 2.81 $ 2.82 $ 2.85 $ 2.89 59.57 56.18 53.76 52.29 51.67 Realized Pricing Realized Gas Price Post Hedging ($/Mcf) $ 4.49 $ 3.35 Memo: Realized Gas Price ($/Mcf) 2.50 2.99 Realized NGL (Y-Grade) Price ($/Bbl) $ 18.74 $ 30.48 Memo: % of WTI (Before ME2 Fees) 43.4 % 60.4 % Memo: % of WTI (Net of ME2 Fees) 43.4 60.4 Realized Ethane Price ($/Bbl) $ 8.28 $ 8.83 Realized Oil Price ($/Bbl) 32.74 44.14 $ 3.57 $ 3.52 $ 3.11 $ 2.95 $ 2.94 2.91 2.85 2.90 2.92 2.91 $ 39.28 $ 40.14 $ 38.47 $ 37.44 $ 36.95 65.9 % 71.4 % 71.6 % 71.6 % 71.5 % 61.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.3 $ 10.43 $ 11.61 $ 11.81 $ 11.72 $ 11.77 53.49 50.20 47.68 46.26 45.67 Realized All-In Sales Price w/o hedges ($/Mcfe) $ 2.60 $ 3.34 Realized All-In Price w/ hedges ($/Mcfe) 4.08 3.60 $ 3.55 $ 3.56 $ 3.54 $ 3.53 $ 3.53 4.02 4.05 3.70 3.56 3.55

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Basis of Resources Presentation Source: Arkose Projections 1 Includes gathering, compression, transportation and processing costs. 2 Includes D&C, AM Distributions and Water Drop Proceeds. Summary of Management Forecasts and Status Quo Midstream Trading 57 2016A2017A 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E Gas Revenues $ 1,261 $ 1,769 C3+ NGL Revenues 380 777 Ethane Revenues 53 93 Oil Revenues 61 108 Hedging Gain / (Loss) 1,003 214 $ 2,040 $ 2,477 $ 2,992 $ 3,432 $ 3,876 1,111 1,474 1,671 1,899 2,189 166 202 246 286 337 181 180 203 246 291 464 585 224 37 35 Total Revenues $ 2,758 $ 2,962 $ 3,962 $ 4,918 $ 5,336 $ 5,901 $ 6,728 Lease Operating Costs $ 50 $ 89 G&P Costs - 3rd Party¹ 855 1,057 Gathering/Compression Costs - AM 303 383 Production Taxes 42 91 Marketing Expenses, Net 106 108 G&A 109 119 $ 112 $ 119 $ 142 $ 163 $ 187 1,365 1,692 2,058 2,374 2,565 520 696 864 1,014 1,196 105 144 169 190 247 116 240 98 0 0 141 158 174 191 211 Total Expenses $ 1,465 $ 1,847 $ 2,357 $ 3,050 $ 3,505 $ 3,934 $ 4,405 AM LP Distributions to AR 112 135 170 219 282 338 405 EBITDAX (Including AM Distributions) $ 1,406 $ 1,250 $ 1,774 $ 2,086 $ 2,114 $ 2,305 $ 2,728 Exploration Expense $ 19 $(9) Other (1) (16) Interest Expense (243) (257) Change in Net Working Capital (130) 78 $(9) $(10) $(11) $(12) $(14) 0 0 0 0 0 (207) (204) (201) (190) (141) 34 16 1 (30) 4 Cash Flow from Operations $1,051 $1,047 $1,591 $1,888 $1,902 $2,072 $2,577 Capital Expenditures-drilling (Aries) - Consolidated (1,315) (1,268) Capital Expenditures-drilling (Aries) - Water 0 (170) Capital Expenditures-drilling (Change in AP) (149) (14) Divestiture / Water Drop Down / Hedge Restructuring 0 0 (1,304) (1,319) (1,303) (1,439) (1,660) (248) (312) (346) (382) (412) 42 43 (49) 74 66 0 260 125 0 0 Free Cash Flow² ($413) ($405) $80 $560 $329 $325 $571

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Basis of Midstream Presentation Source: Arkose Projections Summary of Management Forecasts and Status Quo Midstream Trading 58 2017A 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E EBITDA $ 529 $ 730 $ 989 $ 1,222 $ 1,413 $ 1,642 % YoY Growth (-) Interest expense $(46) (-) Maintenance capital (55) (-) Tax Witholding Reimbursement Paid to AR (6) $(63) $(90) $(117) $(139) $(150) (67) (39) (63) (44) (58) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) Distributable Cash Flow $421 $594 $854 $1,036 $1,225 $1,428 Coverage Ratio 1.3 x Distributions GP Distributions $ 70 LP Distributions 247 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.2 x 1.1 x 1.1 x $ 143 $ 236 $ 355 $ 462 $ 589 320 414 533 640 767 Total Distributions $ 317 $ 463 $ 649 $ 889 $ 1,102 $ 1,356 % Cash Flow to GP 22.0 % Growth Capex $(746) 30.8 % 36.3 % 40.0 % 41.9 % 43.4 % $(579) $(776) $(656) $(386) $(294) Net Free Cash Flow After Distributions $(641) $(448) $(571) $(508) $(264) $(223) Weighted Average LP Units Outstanding 185 187 187 187 187 187 DCF / Unit $ 2.27 LP DCF / Unit 1.61 LP Distributions Per Unit 1.33 $ 3.18 $ 4.56 $ 5.54 $ 6.54 $ 7.63 2.07 2.76 3.24 3.75 4.29 1.72 2.21 2.85 3.42 4.10 '18-'20 '20-'22 '18-'22 CAGR CAGR CAGR 29.4 % 15.9 % 22.5 % 32.1 17.4 24.5 38.5 23.6 30.8 28.9 19.9 24.3

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Basis GP of Presentation 2017A1 2018E 2019E 2020E 2021E 2022E Source: Arkose Projections and GP’s 424B4 filing on 05-May-2017 Note: Prior to vesting, cash flow attributable to unvested Series B units is retained to fund eventual make whole payments to the Series B unitholders. 1 2017A represents NTM projections through 30-Jun-2018. Summary of Management Forecasts and Status Quo Midstream Trading 59 Arkose IDR Holding LLC Cash Flow from Midstream $ 104 $ 143 $ 236 $ 355 $ 462 $ 589 Cash Flow to / Reserved for Series B Units (4) (7) (12) (20) (26) (34) Cash Flow Available to GP LP $ 100 $ 136 $ 223 $ 336 $ 436 $ 556 Arkose Midstream GP LP ("GP") Cash Flow Available to GP $ 100 G&A (2) Interest Expense 0 $ 136 $ 223 $ 336 $ 436 $ 556 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 0 0 0 0 0 Taxable Cash Flow to GP $98 $134 $221 $334 $434 $554 Cash Taxes (37) (34) (56) (85) (110) (140) Distributable Cash Flow to GP $60 $100 $165 $249 $324 $413 DCF Coverage Ratio 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x Total Distributions $ 60 $ 100 $ 165 $ 249 $ 324 $ 413 Shares Outstanding 186.2 186.2 186.2 186.2 186.2 Distributable Cash Flow Per Share $ 0.32 Distribution Per Share (DPS) 0.32 $ 0.54 $ 0.89 $ 1.34 $ 1.74 $ 2.22 0.54 0.89 1.34 1.74 2.22 '18-'20 '20-'22 '18-'22 CAGR CAGR CAGR 57.8 % 28.8 % 42.6 % 57.2 28.6 42.2 57.9 28.8 42.6 57.9 28.8 42.6

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY GP | Midstream Side-by-Side Analysis ($ in millions, except per share data) Source: Arkose Projections, Midstream and GP 2017 10-Ks, IBES/Wall Street Research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 1 Market value of IDRs includes illustrative value of IDR LLC Series B units. 2 Share/unit price / LP DCF, defined as distributable cash flow attributable to common share/unit holders assuming 1.0x coverage. 62 Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading GP Management IBES Midstream Management IBES Share / Unit Price $ 16.09 Shares / Units Outstanding 186 $ 25.43 187 Equity Value $ 2,996 $ 4,754 Market Implied Value of IDRs¹ 3,074 Adjusted Equity $ 2,996 $ 7,827 Debt 0 Cash 2 Net Debt (2) 1,196 8 1,188 Enterprise Value $ 2,993 $ 9,015 Metrics Implied Valuation EBITDA EV / EBITDA Mgmt. IBES Mgmt. IBES 2018E $ 136 $ 134 22.0 x 22.3 x 2019E 223 220 13.4 13.6 2020E 336 334 8.9 9.0 DCF Price / DCF2 (LP DCF) Mgmt. IBES 2018E $ 0.54 $ 0.54 30.0 x 29.8 x 2019E 0.89 0.88 18.1 18.2 2020E 1.34 1.34 12.0 12.1 DPS DPS (DPU) Mgmt. IBES 2018E $ 0.54 $ 0.54 3.3 % 3.4 % 2019E 0.89 0.88 5.5 5.5 2020E 1.34 1.34 8.3 8.3 Growth ('18E-'20E CAGR) EBITDA 57 % 58 % DCF (LP DCF) / Share (Unit) 58 57 DPS (DPU) 58 57 Metrics Implied Valuation EBITDA Mgmt. IBES Mgmt. IBES $ 730 $ 727 12.4 x 12.4 x 989 930 9.1 9.7 1,222 1,181 7.4 7.6 LP DCF Mgmt. IBES $ 2.07 $ 2.08 12.3 x 12.2 x 2.76 2.55 9.2 10.0 3.24 3.04 7.8 8.4 DPU Mgmt. IBES $ 1.72 $ 1.71 6.7 % 6.7 % 2.21 2.21 8.7 8.7 2.85 2.79 11.2 11.0 29 % 27 % 25 21 29 28

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Relative Valuation Metrics EV / EBITDA EV / 2018E EBITDA Median: 11.2 x 14.2x 13.1x 12.9x 12.4x 12.4x 12.2x 12.2x 11.9x11.8x 11.3x 11.0x 10.8x10.6x 10.5x 10.2x 10.0x 9.5x 9.2x 8.2x 7. 38 % 4 % 13 %27 % 29 % 5 % 21 %23 %13 % 6 % 31 %27 % 3 % 14 %20 % 6 % 4 % 60 %12 %45 % CAGR EV / 2019E EBITDA Median: 9.1 x 12.5x 10.9x 10.8x 10.7x 10.4x 10.3x 10.1x 9.7x 9.2x 9.2x 9.1x 9.1x 9.1x 9.1x 8.9x 8.4x 7.0x 7.8x EV / 2020E EBITDA Median: 8.0 x 12.1x 10.1x 10.1x 10.0x 9.2x 9.1x 9.0x 8.8x 8.3x 8.1x 7.9x 7.6x 7.5x 7.4x 7.1x 6.7x 6.6x 6.4x Source: Projections provided by Arkose management on 09-Mar-2018 (“Arkose Projections”), and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 Note: For entities with IDRs, MLP enterprise value is adjusted to account for the implied value of the IDRs. Public market valuations used where available; otherwise, market capit alization is grossed up by the percentage of cash flows attributable to the GP. 63 Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading Holly Energy BP Midstream Holly Energy Western Gas Holly Energy Western Gas BP Midstream Western Gas EnLink Midstream Arkose Midstream² (IBES) EnLink Midstream Tallgrass Arkose Midstream² (Management) Targa Resources Andeavor Logistics Andeavor Logistics Targa Resources Targa Resources Phillips 66 Partners EQT Midstream Crestwood Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Phillips 66 Partners Enable Midstream Andeavor Logistics Crestwood EQT Midstream DCP Midstream EnLink Midstream DCP Midstream EQT Midstream CONE Midstream Phillips 66 Partners Arkose Midstream² (Management) Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Hess Midstream Tallgrass Tallgrass BP Midstream Enable Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Management) DCP Midstream Hess Midstream Valero Energy Valero Energy Valero Energy Crestwood Hess Midstream CONE Midstream Enable Midstream Summit Dominion Midstream Summit CONE Midstream Dominion Midstream Summit Noble Midstream Noble Midstream Noble Midstream Dominion Midstream 6x 3.7x3. 9x 5.3x4. ’18-20 7x

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Relative Valuation Metrics Price / DCF Price / 2018E DCF1 Median: 11.0 x 15.7 x15.6 x 12.5 x12.3 x 12.3 x12.2 x12.1 x 11.7 x11.5 x 11.2 x 10.8 x 10.8 x 10.2 x 10.0 x 9.1 x 8.0 x 8.5 x 8.4 x 8.3 x 8 x 15 % 9 % 22 %21 % 13 %21 %23 %15 %14 % 7 % 12 % 4 % 7 % 12 %22 % 5 % 7 % 2 % (1)% 8 % CAGR Price / 2019E DCF1 Median: 9.2 x 13.6 x 13.2 x 10.7 x 10.3 x 10.3 x10.3 x 10.2 x 10.1 x10.0 x 9.3 x 9.2 x 9.2 x 9.0 x 8.4 x 8.3 x 8.2 x 7.6 x 7.4 x 7.3 x 5.1 x Price / 2020E DCF1 Median: 8.4 x 13.2 x 11.9 x 10.0 x 9.7 x 9.6 x 8.9 x 8.9 x 8.9 x 8.7 x 8.4 x 8.4 x 8.2 x 8.0 x 7.9 x 7.9 x 7.8 x 7.7 x 7.3 x 6.1 x 0 x Source: Arkose Projections, IBES and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 1 DCF reflects LP share of distributable cash flow assuming 1.0x coverage; calculated based on median of brokers who provide LP DCF and/or total DCF and LP units outstanding. 64 Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading Phillips 66 Partners Phillips 66 Partners BP Midstream Phillips 66 Partners BP Midstream BP Midstream CONE Midstream Targa Resources Holly Energy Arkose Midstream² (Management) Western Gas Holly Energy CONE Midstream CONE Midstream Hess Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Research) Targa Resources Hess Midstream Dominion Midstream Noble Midstream Noble Midstream Andeavor Logistics Western Gas Hess Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Research) EQT Midstream Noble Midstream Targa Resources Dominion Midstream Western Gas Arkose Midstream² (Research) Arkose Midstream² (Management) EQT Midstream Tallgrass EQT Midstream Holly Energy EnLink Midstream Andeavor Logistics Andeavor Logistics Dominion Midstream DCP Midstream DCP Midstream Enable Midstream DCP Midstream Valero Energy Arkose Midstream² (Management) EnLink Midstream Enable Midstream Enable Midstream Crestwood Crestwood EnLink Midstream Crestwood Valero Energy Valero Energy Tallgrass Tallgrass Summit Summit Summit 5. ’18-20 5.

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Relative DPU Yield Valuation Metrics 2018E DPU Yield Median: 8.0 % 16.8 % 11.6 % 10.6 % 9.5 % 9.7 % 9.3 % 9.4 % 9.5 % 20 %17 %11 % 14 %28 %29 %15 %15 %16 % 1 % 21 % 5 % 2 % 5 % 1 % 6 % 3 % 2 % 1 % 1 % CAGR 2019E DPU Yield Median: 9.0 % 16.8 % 11.6 % 10.9 % 9.3 % 8.7 % 8.7 % 8.9 % 9.1 % 8.3 % 8.5 % 7.8 % 7.8 % 7.3 % 6.8 % % 2020E DPU Yield Median: 10.0 % 17.2 % 11.7 % 11.9 % 10.3 % 10.4 % 10.4 % 9.5 % 9.6 % 9.7 % 9.8 % 9.5 % 8.7 % 7.9 % 8.0 % 8.1 % % Source: Arkose Projections, IBES, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 65 Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading Noble Midstream Noble Midstream Noble Midstream Phillips 66 Partners BP Midstream BP Midstream Targa Resources Phillips 66 Partners Phillips 66 Partners BP Midstream Valero Energy Valero Energy Targa Resources Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Valero Energy CONE Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Management) Western Gas CONE Midstream Hess Midstream CONE Midstream Arkose Midstream² (IBES) DCP Midstream Hess Midstream Arkose Midstream² (Management) Holly Energy EQT Midstream Hess Midstream EQT Midstream Targa Resources EQT Midstream Western Gas Dominion Midstream Enable Midstream DCP Midstream Western Gas Crestwood Holly Energy DCP Midstream Andeavor Logistics Crestwood Crestwood Arkose Midstream² (IBES) Dominion Midstream Holly Energy Enable Midstream Tallgrass Andeavor Logistics Arkose Midstream² (Management) Andeavor Logistics Enable Midstream EnLink Midstream Tallgrass Tallgrass Dominion Midstream EnLink Midstream EnLink Midstream Summit Summit Summit 7.0 10.6 % 11.0 % 11.0 % 11.2 % 5.8 9.8 %9.8 %9.9 %9.9 %10.1 % ’18-20 4.9 %6.0 %6.5 %6.7 %6.7 %6.7 %7.2 %7.4 %7.7 %7.8 %8.1 %8.5 %

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Public Company Trading Midstream Comparable Companies | ($ in millions, except per share values) % of 52 Week High Adj. Equity Market Cap GP Adj. Market Cap³ GP Adj. Enterprise Value 18E-20E EV / EBITDA Multiples EBITDA DPU Yield 18E-20E DPU CAGR 18E-20E DCFLTM CAGR Leverage Implied GP Value¹ Price / LP DCF Company 2018 2019 2020 CAGR 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 Andeavor Logistics BP Midstream CONE Midstream Crestwood DCP Midstream Dominion Midstream Enable Midstream EnLink Midstream EQT Midstream Hess Midstream Holly Energy Noble Midstream Phillips 66 Partners Summit Tallgrass Targa Resources Valero Energy Western Gas 78 % 81 79 87 78 51 76 71 73 71 74 78 84 55 69 77 69 73 $ 9,436 1,948 1,209 1,816 4,797 1,774 5,667 4,722 4,712 1,043 2,943 1,786 5,765 1,001 2,757 10,278 2,375 6,863 $ 0 0 177 0 1,669 567 0 1,311 4,575 25 0 0 3,570 72 2,365 0 1,141 5,172 $ 9,436 1,948 1,386 1,816 6,465 2,341 5,667 6,032 9,287 1,067 2,943 1,786 9,335 1,073 5,121 10,278 3,516 12,034 $ 14,721 1,948 1,797 4,094 11,537 3,292 9,486 11,283 10,452 1,019 4,534 1,856 12,841 2,428 7,335 16,006 4,296 15,482 11.8 x 10.3 x 9.2 x 13 % 38 31 6 14 60 4 6 21 27 4 45 23 12 3 5 20 13 9.5 % 6.0 7.2 9.4 9.3 8.1 9.7 11.6 7.7 7.4 9.5 4.9 6.5 16.8 10.6 7.8 6.7 8.5 10.1 % 6.8 8.3 9.8 9.3 9.9 9.9 11.6 8.9 8.5 9.8 5.8 7.3 16.8 10.9 7.8 7.8 9.1 10.6 % 8.1 9.5 10.4 9.6 11.9 10.4 11.7 10.3 9.8 9.7 7.0 7.9 17.2 11.0 8.0 8.7 9.5 6 % 17 15 5 2 21 3 1 16 15 1 20 11 1 2 1 14 5 10.2 x 9.0 x 8.9 x 7 % 9 13 7 12 23 5 2 12 15 4 14 15 8 (1) 22 22 7 4.3 0.0 3.0 3.8 7.8 0.6 3.7 4.0 1.7 NA 5.0 0.5 4.3 3.6 3.2 4.4 2.7 3.5 14.2 11.0 10.0 10.5 9.2 9.5 11.3 12.2 10.8 13.1 7.7 11.9 8.2 10.6 12.2 10.2 12.9 10.8 7.8 9.2 9.2 5.3 9.1 10.7 9.1 8.9 12.5 4.9 10.1 7.0 9.1 10.4 8.4 10.9 7.5 6.4 9.0 8.1 3.6 8.8 10.1 8.3 6.7 12.1 3.7 7.9 6.6 10.0 9.1 7.1 10.1 15.6 12.3 8.4 10.0 12.1 8.5 8.3 10.8 11.7 10.8 11.5 15.7 5.8 8.0 12.5 9.1 11.2 13.2 10.7 7.6 8.4 9.3 8.3 8.2 9.2 10.3 10.3 10.2 13.6 5.1 7.3 10.3 7.4 10.1 13.2 9.6 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.7 8.0 8.7 8.9 10.0 8.9 11.9 5.0 8.2 8.4 6.1 9.7 Sources: IBES, latest publicly available financial statements, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018. Projected EBITDA and DPS are based on IBES median estimates; projected LP DCF calculated based on median of brokers who provide LP DCF and/or total DCF and LP units outstanding. All research estimates have been calendarized to December. 1 Implied GP Value calculated based on market cap of LP and GP take for private GPs and as IDR value for MLPs with public GPs. 2 Source: Arkose Projections, latest publicly available financial statements, IBES/Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018. Projected EBITDA, LP DCF, and DPS are based on Arkose Projections in the Arkose management case; IBES case follows the same methodology as peers (defined in footnote 3). 3 GP Adjusted Market Cap calculated by adding Implied GP Value to Adjusted Equity Market Cap. Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading 66 High87 %$ 10,278$ 5,172$ 12,034$ 16,00614.2 %12.5 %12.1 %59.7 %16.8 %16.8 %17.2 %21 %15.7 x13.6 x13.2 x23 %7.8 x Mean743,9381,1475,0857,46711.09.18.0198.79.410.1910.79.48.7113.3 Median752,8501254,3195,93510.99.18.2148.39.29.7510.89.28.5103.6 Low511,00101,0671,0197.74.93.634.95.87.015.85.15.0(1)0.0 Arkose Midstream² (Management)72 %$ 4,754$ 3,074$ 7,827$ 9,01512.4 x9.1 x7.4 x29 %6.7 %8.7 %11.2 %29 %12.3 x9.2 x7.8 x21 %2.3 x Arkose Midstream² (IBES)724,7543,0747,8279,01512.49.77.6276.78.711.02812.210.08.4212.3

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Public Company Trading GP Comparable Companies | ($ in millions, except per share values) % of 52 Week Adj. Equity Market Cap1 18E-20E EBITDA 18E-20E DPU Adj. Enterprise Value1 EV / EBITDA Multiples DPU Yield Company High 2018 2019 2020 CAGR 2018 2019 2020 CAGR EnLink Midstream GP 74 % $ 2,659 $ 2,733 11.5 x 11.0 x 9.3 x 10 % 7.3 % 7.8 % 8.2 % 6 % EQT Midstream GP 69 5,850 5,850 23 22 19.0 15.2 12.6 5.2 6.7 7.7 Energy Transfer Equity 73 15,702 23,625 9 10 12.1 11.1 10.1 9.1 10.0 11.1 Tallgrass Energy GP 62 3,372 3,518 4 3 9.2 8.4 8.9 10.4 10.9 11.2 Western Gas Equity Partners 72 7,426 7,453 12 12 14.2 12.8 11.5 7.0 7.7 8.7 Sources: IBES, latest publicly available financial statements, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018. Projected EBITDA and DPS are based on IBES median estimates; projected LP DCF calculated based on median of brokers who provide LP DCF and/or total DCF and LP units outstanding. All research estimates have been calendarized to December. 1 Adjusted Market Cap based on diluted shares/units outstanding. Arkose GP adjusted equity value excludes Series B dilutive effect because EBITDA is calculated after the Series B units receive their portion of the IDR cash flow. 2 Source: Arkose Projections, latest publicly available financial statements, IBES/Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018. Projected EBITDA, LP DCF, and DPS are based on Arkose Projections in the Arkose management case; IBES case follows the same methodology as peers (defined in footnote 3). Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading 67 High 74 % $ 15,702 $ 23,625 19.0 x 15.2 x 12.6 x 23 % 10.4 % 10.9 % 11.2 % 22 % Mean 70 7,002 8,636 13.2 11.7 10.5 12 7.8 8.6 9.4 11 Median 72 5,850 5,850 12.1 11.1 10.1 10 7.3 7.8 8.7 10 Low 62 2,659 2,733 9.2 8.4 8.9 4 5.2 6.7 7.7 3 Arkose GP² (Management) 70 % $ 2,996 $ 2,993 22.4 x 13.5 x 9.0 x 58 % 3.3 % 5.5 % 8.3 % 58 % Arkose GP² (IBES) 70 2,996 2,993 22.3 13.6 9.0 58 3.4 5.5 8.3 57

PRELIMINARY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Illustrative Midstream + GP Value Management Projections ($ in millions) Market Value Status Quo EV / EBITDA Metric Midstream GP 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 730 989 1,222 11.9 x 8.8 7.1 12.3 x 9.1 7.4 12.6 x 9.3 7.5 13.3 x 9.8 7.9 14.0 x 10.3 8.3 14.6 x 10.8 8.7 15.3 x 11.3 9.2 16.0 x 11.8 9.6 12.4 x 9.1 7.4 22.0 x 13.4 8.9 Price / DCF Metric 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 594 854 1,036 12.6 x 8.8 7.2 13.2 x 9.2 7.5 13.5 x 9.4 7.7 14.3 x 10.0 8.2 15.2 x 10.5 8.7 16.0 x 11.1 9.2 16.8 x 11.7 9.6 17.7 x 12.3 10.1 12.3 x 9.2 7.8 30.0 x 18.1 12.0 Total Dist. Metric 2018E 2019E 2020E $ 463 649 889 6.2 % 8.7 11.8 5.9 % 8.3 11.4 5.8 % 8.1 11.1 5.4 % 7.6 10.5 5.1 % 7.2 9.9 4.9 % 6.8 9.4 4.6 % 6.5 8.9 4.4 % 6.2 8.5 6.7 % 8.7 11.2 3.3 % 5.5 8.3 Source: Arkose Projections, IBES/Wall Street research, and Bloomberg market data as of 20-Mar-2018 68 Arkose and Midstream Sector Relative Trading Memo: For illustrative purposes only. Does not adjust for shareholder reaction, potential tax synergies, or definitive agreement / deal structure. Enterprise Value $ 8,685 $ 9,008 $ 9,185 $ 9,685 $ 10,185 $ 10,685 $ 11,185 $ 11,685 Memo: Assumed Debt of $1.2bn Cash of $11mm Total Equity Value $ 7,500 $ 7,823 $ 8,000 $ 8,500 $ 9,000 $ 9,500 $ 10,000 $ 10,500