Table of Contents


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20162017
or
[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from             to             
Commission File Number: 1-12074
STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
Delaware   72-1235413
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)   (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
625 E. Kaliste Saloom Road
Lafayette, Louisiana
   70508
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (337) 237-0410
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class  Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, Par Value $.01 Per Share  New York Stock Exchange
Warrants to Purchase Common StockNYSE American
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  [   ] Yes  [X] No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  [   ] Yes  [X] No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   [X] Yes    [   ] No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).   [X] Yes [   ] No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    [X]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “smaller reporting“emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer [ ]¨ Accelerated filer [X]ý
Non-accelerated filer  [   ]
¨(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)Smaller reporting company [   ]¨
Emerging growth company¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).   [   ] Yes   [X] No


Table of Contents


The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $66.3$161.2 million as of June 30, 20162017 (based on the last reported sale price of such stock on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape on that day).
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court. Yes  ý  No  ¨
As of February 23, 2017,March 9, 2018, the registrant had outstanding 5,679,76519,998,701 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share.



Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Page No.
PART I
Item 1.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
 
PART II
   
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
 
PART III
   
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
 
PART IV
   
Item 15.
Item 16.
 
 



Table of Contents


PART I
This section highlights information that is discussed in more detail in the remainder of the document. Throughout this document, we make statements that are classified as “forward-looking.” Please refer to the “Forward-Looking Statements” section beginning on page 10 of this document for an explanation of these types of statements. We use the terms “Stone,” “Stone Energy,” “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” to refer to Stone Energy Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. Certain terms relating to the oil and gas industry are defined in “Glossary of Certain Industry Terms,” which begins on page G-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Form 10-K”).

ITEM 1.  BUSINESS
The Company
Stone Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and operation of oil and gas properties. We have been operating in the Gulf of Mexico (the "GOM"“GOM”) Basin since our incorporation in 1993 and have established a technical and operational expertise in this area. We have leveraged our experience in the GOM conventional shelf and expanded our reserve base into the more prolific basinsplays of the GOM deep water, Gulf Coast deep gas and the Marcellus and Utica shales in Appalachia. At December 31, 2016, we had producing properties and acreage in the Marcellus and Utica Shales in Appalachia. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we determined that a sale of the Appalachia Properties (as defined below) would be a beneficial way to maximize value for all stakeholders. We completed the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 27, 2017 for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. See “Reorganization and Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings” below for additional information. As of December 31, 2016,2017, our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves were approximately 53 MMBoe or 321 Bcfe. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell all of our Appalachia Properties (as defined in Reorganization and Chapter 11 Proceedings – Purchase and Sale Agreement below). We expect to close the sale of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions, after which we will no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia.32.5 MMBoe.
We were incorporated in 1993 as a Delaware corporation. Our corporate headquarters are located at 625 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508. We have an additional officesoffice in New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas and Morgantown, West Virginia.Louisiana.
Business Strategy
Our long-term strategy is to grow net asset value through acquiring, discovering, developing and operating a focused set of margin-advantaged properties while appropriately managing financial, exploration and operational risk. DuringOil and natural gas prices significantly declined in the second half of 2014, commodityand sustained lower prices began a substantial decline, which continued throughout 2015, 2016 and 2016.early 2017, with a modest recovery in late 2017. In response to that decline and the uncertainty regarding future commodity prices, we adjusted our near-term strategy to focusand focused on maintaining maximum liquidity. We structured a plan of reorganization to improve our financial position and liquidity which included reductionsand filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of Title 11 (“Chapter 11”) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) on December 14, 2016 (the “Petition Date”). On February 28, 2017, we emerged from bankruptcy, and in capital expendituresApril 2017, our board of directors retained a financial advisor to assist them in 2016determining the Company’s strategic direction. See “Strategic Review and Pending Combination with Talosbelow for additional details.
Strategic Review and Pending Combination with Talos

Following the shut-insuccessful completion of our Mary fieldfinancial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11 reorganization, our Board of Directors (the “Board”) retained a financial advisor in Appalachia from September 2015 until late June 2016. In March 2016, we retained financial and legal advisorsApril 2017 to assist the CompanyBoard in analyzingits determination of the Company’s strategic direction, including assessing its various strategic alternatives. Pursuant to such process, on November 21, 2017, Stone and considering financial, transactionalcertain of its subsidiaries entered into a series of related agreements pertaining to a business combination with Talos Energy LLC (“Talos Energy”) and strategic alternatives.its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Talos Production LLC (“Talos Production” and, together with Talos Energy, “Talos”). Talos Energy is controlled indirectly by entities controlled by Apollo Management VII, L.P. (“Apollo VII”), Apollo Commodities Management, L.P., with respect to Series I (together with Apollo VII, “Apollo Management”) and Riverstone Energy Partners V, L.P. (“Riverstone”).
Overview
Under the terms of a definitive agreement, Talos and Stone will both become wholly-owned subsidiaries of a new holding company, which at closing will become a publicly traded entity named Talos Energy, Inc. (“New Talos”). The lower commodity prices from mid-2014 through 2016 resulted in reduced revenue and cash flows and have negatively impacted our liquidity position. Additionally,combination involves an all-stock transaction pursuant to which holders of Stone common stock immediately prior to the levelcombination will collectively hold 37% of our indebtednessthe outstanding New Talos common stock and the current commodity price environment have presented challenges as they relateTalos stakeholders will hold 63% of the outstanding New Talos common stock. Outstanding warrants to our abilityacquire Stone common stock will become warrants to complyacquire New Talos common stock with the covenantsterms and conditions substantially identical to their existing terms and conditions. The combination is expected to close in the agreements governing our indebtedness. Assecond quarter of December 31, 2016, we had total indebtedness2018. We cannot provide any assurance that the combination will be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, or at all. For additional details on the Talos combination, see Part II. Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of $1,427.8 million, including $300 millionFinancial Condition and Results of 1¾% Senior Convertible Notes due in March 2017 (the "2017 Convertible Notes"), $775 million of 7½% Senior Notes due in 2022 (the "2022 Notes"), $341.5 million outstanding under our bank credit facility and $11.3 million outstanding under our 4.20% Building Loan (the "Building Loan")Operations. Additionally, we had $35.2 million of accrued interest payable on our outstanding indebtedness.
In response to the significant decline in commodity prices, we focused on managing our balance sheet during 2016 to preserve liquidity during this extended low commodity price environment by taking certain steps, including reductions in capital expenditures and the termination and renegotiation of various contracts, reductions in workforce and reductions in discretionary expenditures. Additionally, in March 2016, we retained financial and legal advisors to assist the Company in analyzing and considering financial, transactional and strategic alternatives. We engaged in negotiations with financial advisors for the holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes regarding the restructuring of the notes and with our banks regarding an amendment to our bank credit facility.
On March 10, 2016, we borrowed $385 million under our bank credit facility, which at the time, represented substantially all of the undrawn amount on our $500 million bank credit facility. On April 13, 2016, the borrowing base under our bank credit facility was reduced by the lenders from $500 million to $300 million. On that date, we had $457 million of outstanding borrowings and $18.3 million of outstanding letters of credit under the bank credit facility, resulting in a $175.3 million borrowing base

1

Table of Contents


deficiency. In June 2016, however, we entered into Amendment No. 3 (the "June Amendment") to our bank credit facility which, among other things, resulted in an increase of our borrowing base from $300 million to $360 million and relaxed certain financial covenants through December 31, 2016. In addition, the June Amendment required that we maintain minimum liquidity (as defined in the June Amendment) of $125.0 million through January 15, 2017, imposed limitations on capital expenditures from June to December 2016 and provided for anti-hoarding cash provisions for amounts in excess of $50.0 million beginning after December 10, 2016. Upon execution of the June Amendment, we repaid the balance of our borrowing base deficiency, resulting in approximately $360 million outstanding under the credit facility at that time. In December 2016, we reached agreements with the banks to extend the effective date of the anti-hoarding cash provisions to December 15, 2016.
In June 2016, we terminated our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco for total consideration of $20 million. Additionally, we entered into an interim Appalachian midstream contract with Williams at the Mary field in Appalachia, whereby we elected to resume production at the Mary field, which had been shut-in since September 2015. In August 2016, we paid $7.5 million for the early terminations of an Appalachian drilling rig contract and a contract with an offshore vessel provider.
As of September 30, 2016, we were in compliance with all covenants under the bank credit facility and the indentures governing our notes, however, we anticipated that the minimum liquidity requirement and other restrictions under the June Amendment would prevent us from being able to meet our interest payment obligation on the 2022 Notes in the fourth quarter of 2016 as well as the subsequent maturity of our 2017 Convertible Notes on March 1, 2017. As a result of these conditions, continued decreases in commodity prices and the significant level of our indebtedness, we continued to work with our financial and legal advisors throughout 2016 to structure a plan of reorganization to improve our financial position and liquidity and allow for growth and long-term success. On December 14, 2016, we filed for bankruptcy.
Reorganization and Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings

On December 14, 2016,the Petition Date, the Company and its subsidiaries Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. ("(“Stone Offshore"Offshore”) and Stone Energy Holding, L.L.C. (together with the Company, the "Debtors"“Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for reorganization (the "Bankruptcy Petitions"“Bankruptcy Petitions”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"“Bankruptcy Court”) seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 ("Chapter 11") of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code").Code. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the "Confirmation Order"“Confirmation Order”), confirming the Company's planSecond Amended Joint Prepackaged Plan of reorganizationReorganization of Stone Energy Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates, dated December 28, 2016 (the "Plan"“Plan”), as modified by the Confirmation Order. We expect the Plan to become effectiveOrder, and on February 28, 2017, at which pointthe Plan became effective (the “Effective Date”) and the Debtors would emergeemerged from bankruptcy, however, there can be no assurance that the effectiveness of the Plan will occur on such date, or at all.
During the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtorsare operating as "debtors-in-possession" in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court granted all first day motions filed by the Debtors, allowing the Company to operate its business in the ordinary course throughout the bankruptcy process. The first day motions included, among other things, a cash collateral motion, a motion maintaining the Company's existing cash management system and motions making various vendor payments, wage payments and tax payments in the ordinary course of business. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the Chapter 11 filings automatically stayed most judicial or administrative actions against the Debtors or their property to recover, collect or secure a pre-petition claim. This prohibits, for example, our lenders or noteholders from pursuing claims for defaults under our debt agreements.
Restructuring Support Agreement. Prior to filing the Bankruptcy Petitions, on October 20, 2016, the Debtors entered into a restructuring support agreement (the "Original RSA") with certain holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes (collectively, the "Notes" and the holders thereof, the "Noteholders") to support a restructuring on the terms of the Plan. On November 17, 2016, the Debtors commenced a solicitation to seek acceptance by a majority of those voting in each voting class of claims of the Company’s creditors under the Plan, including the lenders (the "Banks") under the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2014, as amended, modified, or otherwise supplemented from time to time (the "Credit Facility"), and the Noteholders. On December 14, 2016, the Debtors, the Noteholders holding approximately 79.7% of the aggregate principal amount of Notes and the Banks holding 100% of the aggregate principal amount owing under the Credit Facility entered into an Amended and Restated Restructuring Support Agreement (the "A&R RSA") that amended, superseded and restated in its entirety the Original RSA. In connection with entry into the A&R RSA and the commencement of the bankruptcy cases the Debtors amended the Plan. The solicitation period ended on December 16, 2016 and (i) of the 94.24% of Noteholders in aggregate outstanding principal amount that voted, 99.95% voted in favor of the Plan and .05% voted to reject the Plan, and (ii) 100% of the Banks voted to accept the Plan.
Additionally, on December 16, 2016, an ad hoc group of certain of the Company's stockholders (the "Stockholder Ad Hoc Group") filed a motion (the "Equity Committee Motion") to appoint an official committee of equity security holders in connection with the Debtors'then being closed by Final Decree Closing Chapter 11 proceedings. On December 21, 2016, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the Stockholder Ad Hoc Group (the "Settlement")Cases and on December 28, 2016, the Plan was amended.

2

Table of Contents


Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, as amended, to be consistent with the terms of the A&R RSA and the term sheet annexed to the A&R RSA (the "Term Sheet") and as amended pursuant to the Settlement, the Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of (a) $100 million of cash, (b) 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and (c) $225 million of new 7.5% second lien notes due 2022 (the "Second Lien Notes"). The Banks will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments and obligations under an amended credit agreement (the "Amended Credit Facility") on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash, as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25 million, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributions pursuant to the Plan and the PSA (as defined below). Existing common stockholders of Stone will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and warrants for ownership of up to 15% of reorganized Stone's common equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the new warrants, which may be exercised any time prior to the fourth anniversary of the Plan's effective date, unless terminated earlier by their terms upon the consummation of certain business combinations or sale transactions involving the Company. All claims of creditors with unsecured claims other than claimsTerminating Claims Agent Services entered by the Noteholders, including vendors, shall be unaltered and will be paid in full inBankruptcy Court on April 20, 2017.
Our restructuring included the ordinary course of business to the extent such claims are undisputed. Each of the foregoing common equity percentages in reorganized Stone is subject to dilution from the exercise of the new warrants described above and a management incentive plan. Assuming implementation of the Plan, Stone expects that it will eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt.
Purchase and Sale Agreement. The A&R RSA contained certain covenants on the part of the Company and the Noteholders and Banks who are signatories to the A&R RSA, including that such Noteholders and Banks would support the Company's sale of Stone'sStone’s producing properties and acreage, including approximately 86,000 net acres, in the Appalachia regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia (the "Appalachia Properties"“Appalachia Properties”) to TH Exploration III, LLC, an affiliate of Tug Hill, Inc. ("Tug Hill"), pursuant to the terms of a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 20, 2016, as amended on December 9, 2016 (the "Tug Hill PSA"), and otherwise facilitate the restructuring transaction, in each case subject to certain terms and conditions in the A&R RSA. The consummation of the Plan is subject to customary conditions and other requirements, as well as the sale by Stone of the Appalachia Properties, for a purchase price of at least $350 million and approval of the Bankruptcy Court.Pursuant to the terms of the Tug Hill PSA, Stone agreed to sell the Appalachia Properties to Tug Hill for $360 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders dated January 11, 2017 and January 31, 2017, two additional bidders were allowed to participate in competitive bidding on the Appalachia Properties. On January 18, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved certain bidding procedures (the "Bidding Procedures") in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties. In accordance with the Bidding Procedures, Stone conducted an auction for the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 8, 2017 and upon conclusion, selected the final bid submitted by EQT Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiary EQT Production Company ("EQT"(“EQT”), with a final purchase priceon February 27, 2017, for net cash consideration of $527 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, with an upward adjustment to the purchase price of up to $16 million in an amount equal to certain downward adjustments, as the prevailing bid.
On February 9, 2017, the Company entered into a purchase and sale agreement with EQT (the "EQT PSA"), reflecting the termsapproximately $522.5 million. A portion of the prevailing bid. Under the EQT PSA,consideration received from the sale of the Appalachia Properties has an effective datewas used to fund the Company’s cash payment obligations under the Plan. At December 31, 2016, the Appalachia Properties accounted for approximately 34% of June 1, 2016. the Predecessor Company’s (as defined below) total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves, on a volume equivalent basis. Upon closing of the sale on February 27, 2017, we no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia.
The EQT PSA contains customary representations, warrantiesvoluntary reorganization under Chapter 11 substantially reduced our indebtedness and covenants. Atrestructured our balance sheet. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we eliminated approximately $1.1 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt. For additional details on the close ofChapter 11 proceedings, the sale of the Appalachia Properties the Tug Hill PSA will terminate, and the Company will use a portionterms of the cash consideration received to pay Tug Hill a break-up fee of $10.8 million. On February 10, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered a sale order approving the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT. We expect to close the sale of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions.

For additional information on the bankruptcy proceedings, the A&R RSA, the Tug Hill PSA and the EQT PSA,Plan, see Part II. Item 7. Management'sManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Company adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 852, “Reorganizations”, which resulted in the Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes on the Effective Date. As a result of the adoption of fresh start accounting, the Company’s consolidated financial statements subsequent to February 28, 2017 will not be comparable to its financial statements prior to that date. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for further details on the impact of fresh start accounting on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. References to “Successor” or “Successor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to “Predecessor” or “Predecessor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.

Board of Director and Management Changes

Pursuant to the Plan, upon the Effective Date, Neal P. Goldman (Chairman of the Board), John “Brad” Juneau, David I. Rainey, Charles M. Sledge, James M. Trimble and David N. Weinstein were appointed as directors of the Board of the Successor Company. In addition, David H. Welch, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company at the time of the Effective Date, was reappointed to the Board pursuant to the Plan. Mr. Welch retired as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and as a member of the Board on April 28, 2017.

On April 28, 2017, the Board elected James M. Trimble, a member of the Board, to serve as the Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, and appointed Keith A. Seilhan, the Company’s Senior Vice President – Gulf of Mexico, to serve as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer.

Operational Overview
Gulf of Mexico Basin
Our GOM Basin properties accounted for approximately 66% of our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 2016 on a volume equivalent basis. We have properties in the deep water of the GOM, as well as limited exposure to GOM conventional shelf and deep gas properties. In 2014, we sold a majority of our GOM conventional shelf properties.
Gulf of Mexico — Deep Water.  We believe that the deep water of the GOM is an attractive area to acquire, explore, develop and operate with high-potential investment opportunities. We have made significant investments in seismic data and leasehold interests and have assembled a technical team with prior geological, geophysical, engineering and operational experience in the deep water arena to evaluate potential exploration, development and acquisition opportunities. Since 2006, we have made two

3

Table of Contents


significant acquisitions that included two deep water platforms, producing reserves and numerous leases. We have a portfolio of deep water projects ranging from lower risk development projects incorporating existing facilities to higher risk exploration

2

Table of Contents


prospects that would require a new production facility. We have utilized subsea tie-backs in the deep water on new drill wells,satellite discoveries close to existing facilities, which require less capital and time than new deep waterstand-alone facilities. We have higher risk exploration prospects that could expose the company to significant reserves, if successful. Projects in the deep water typically require substantially more time, planning, manpower and capital than an onshore project. Our deep water properties accounted for approximately 56%86% of our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 20162017, on a volume equivalent basis.
Gulf Coast — Conventional Shelf and Deep Gas.  We have historically focused on the GOM conventional shelf, but after the sale of a majority of our GOM conventional shelf properties in 2014, we have significantly reduced our exposure in this area to primarily two remaining fields, which provide production and cash flow. There are limited exploitation and exploration projects for us on our GOM conventional shelf properties. The Gulf Coast deep gas play (prospects below 15,000 feet) provides us with higher potential exploration opportunities with existing infrastructure nearby, which shortens the lead time to production. Our conventional shelf and deep gas properties accounted for approximately 10%14% of our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 20162017, on a volume equivalent basis.
Appalachia
In response to low commodity prices and high midstream costs in the area, we shut in our Mary field from September 2015 until late June 2016 and suspended completion operations on 25 drilled wells in Appalachia until commodity prices and margin improvements could be realized. In late June 2016, we entered into an interim Appalachian midstream contract that provided near-term relief by permitting us to resume profitable production and positive cash flow at the Mary field.
In connection with ourOur restructuring efforts, we determined that a sale of the Appalachia Properties would be a beneficial way to maximize value for all stakeholders. On February 9, 2017, we entered into the EQT PSA, and expect to close onincluded the sale of the Appalachia Properties byto EQT on February 28,27, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions.for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. At December 31, 2016, the Appalachia Properties accounted for approximately 34% of ourthe Predecessor Company’s total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves, on a volume equivalent basis. Upon closing of the sale on February 27, 2017, we will no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia. See Reorganization and Chapter 11 ProceedingsPurchase and Sale Agreement above.
Business Development
In prior years, the business development effort was focused on providing Stone with exposure to new or unproven plays that could add significant value to the Company if successful. Given the uncertainty regarding future commodity prices, we have only minimal capital allocated for onshore exploration projects or new venture opportunities.
Oil and Gas Marketing
Our oil and natural gas production is sold at current market prices under short-term contracts. Phillips 66 Company and Shell Trading (US) Company accounted for approximately 68%74% and 10%15%, respectively, of our oil and natural gas revenue generated during the year endedperiod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016.2017. We do not believe that the loss of any of our major purchasers would result in a material adverse effect on our ability to market future oil and natural gas production. From time to time, we may enter into transactions that hedge the price of oil and natural gas. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk – Commodity Price Risk.
Competition and Markets
Competition in the GOM Basin and other onshore plays is intense, particularly with respect to the acquisition of producing properties and undeveloped acreage. We compete with major oil and gas companies and other independent producers of varying sizes, all of which are engaged in the acquisition of properties and the exploration and development of such properties. Many of our competitors have financial resources and exploration and development budgets that are substantially greater than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to compete. See Item 1A. Risk Factors – Competition within our industry may adversely affect our operations.
The availability of a ready market for and the price of any hydrocarbons produced will depend on many factors beyond our control, including, but not limited to, the amount of domestic production and imports of foreign oil and exports of liquefied natural gas, the marketing of competitive fuels, the proximity and capacity of oil and natural gas pipelines, the availability of transportation and other market facilities, the demand for hydrocarbons, the effect of federal and state regulation of allowable rates of production, taxation and the conduct of drilling operations and federal regulation of oil and natural gas. All of these factors, together with

4

Table of Contents


economic factors in the marketing arena, generally may affect the supply of and/or demand for oil and natural gas and thus the prices available for sales of oil and natural gas.

Regulation
Our oil and gas operations are subject to various U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations.
Various aspects of our oil and natural gas operations are regulated by certain agencies of the federal government for our operations on federal leases. The jurisdictions in which we own or operate producing oil and natural gas properties have statutory provisions regulating the exploration for and production of oil and natural gas, including provisions requiring permits for the drilling of wells, maintaining bonding requirements in order to drill or operate wells, provisions relating to the location of wells, the method of drilling and casing wells, the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled and the abandonment of wells. Our operations are also subject to various conservation laws and regulations. These include the regulation of the size of drilling and spacing units or proration units, the number of wells that may be drilled in an area and the unitization or pooling of oil and natural gas properties. In this regard, some agencies can order the pooling or integration of tracts to facilitate exploration while others rely on voluntary pooling of lands and leases. In addition, certain conservation laws establish maximum

3

Table of Contents


rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose certain requirements regarding the ratability or fair apportionment of production from fields and individual wells.
Outer Continental Shelf Regulation. Our operations on federal oil and gas leases in the GOM are subject to regulation by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement ("BSEE"(“BSEE”) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ("BOEM"(“BOEM”). These leases contain relatively standardized terms and require compliance with detailed BSEE and BOEM regulations and orders issued pursuant to various federal laws, including the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. These laws and regulations are subject to change, and many new requirements, including those related to safety, permitting and performance, were imposed by the BSEE and BOEM subsequent to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. For offshore operations, lessees must obtain BOEM approval for exploration, development and production plans prior to the commencement of such operations. In addition to permits required from other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA"“EPA”), lessees must obtain a permit from the BSEE prior to the commencement of drilling and comply with regulations governing, among other things, engineering and construction specifications for production facilities, safety procedures, plugging and abandonment of wells on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"(“OCS”), calculation of royalty payments and the valuation of production for this purpose, and removal of facilities. These rules are frequently subject to change. For example, in April 2016, BSEE issued itspublished a final rule on well control regulations, effective July 2016, though some requirementsthat, among other things, imposes rigorous standards relating to the design, operation and maintenance of the rule have delayed compliance deadlines. The final rule addresses the full range of systems and equipment associated with well control operations, focusing on requirements for blowoutblow-out preventers, ("BOPs"), well design, well control casing, cementing, real-time monitoring of deepwater and subsea containment. Key featureshigh temperature, high pressure drilling activities, and enhanced reporting requirements. Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders dated March 28, 2017, and April 28, 2017 (the “Executive Orders”), respectively, BSEE initiated a review of the well control regulations include requirements for BOPs, double shear rams, third-party reviewsto determine whether the rules are consistent with the stated policy of equipment, real-time monitoring data,encouraging energy exploration and production, while ensuring that any such activity is safe drilling margins, centralizers, inspections and other reforms relatedenvironmentally responsible. On October 24, 2017, BSEE announced, in a report published by the Department of the Interior, that it is considering several revisions to well designthe regulations and control, casing, cementing and subsea containment. Separately, BOEM proposed new rulesthat it is in the process of determining the most effective way to engage stakeholders in the process.
Also, in April 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule that would update existing air emissions requirements relating to offshore oil and natural gas activity on federal OCS waters including in the Central Gulf of Mexico.OCS. BOEM regulates these air emissions in connection with its review of exploration and development plans, rights of way and right-of-use and right-of-wayrights of use and/or easement applications. The proposed rule would bolster existing air emission reportingemissions requirements by, among other things, requiring the reporting and tracking of the emissions of all pollutants defined by the EPA to affect human health and public welfare. Pursuant to the Executive Orders, BOEM is reviewing the proposed air quality rule. On October 24, 2017, the Department of the Interior announced that it is currently reviewing recommendations on how to proceed, including promulgating final rules for certain necessary provisions and issuing a new proposed rule that may withdraw certain provisions and seek additional input on others.

Compliance with new and future regulations could result in significant costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, and could adversely impact our business. In addition, under certain circumstances, the BSEE may require ourStone’s operations on federal leases to be suspended or terminated. Any such suspension or termination could adversely affect our financial condition and operations.
Additionally,
Furthermore, hurricanes in the GOM can have a significant impact on oil and natural gas operations on the OCS. The effects from past hurricanes have included structural damage to fixed production facilities, semi-submersibles and jack-up drilling rigs. BOEM and BSEE continue to be concerned about the loss of these facilities and rigs as well as the potential for catastrophic damage to key infrastructure and the resultant pollution from future storms. In an effort to reduce the potential for future damage, BOEM and BSEE have periodically issued guidance aimed at improving platform survivability by taking into account environmental and oceanic conditions in the design of platforms and related structures. It is possible that similar, if not more stringent, requirements will be issued by BOEM and BSEE for future hurricane seasons. New requirements, if any, could increase Stone’s operating costs and/or capital expenditures.

In addition, in order to cover the various decommissioning obligations of lessees on the OCS, BOEM generally requires that lessees post some form of acceptable financial assurances that such obligations will be met, such as surety bonds. Historically, we have been able to obtain an exemption from most bonding requirements based on our financial net worth. However, on March 21, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at that time. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurances relating to our abandonment obligations, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurances in favor of BOEM. On May 13, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM rescinding its demand for supplemental bonding with the understanding that we will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizing and implementing our long-term tailored plan. Currently, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $115 million in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third-party bonds, and letters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations.

In July 14, 2016, BOEM issued a new Noticenotice to Lessees ("NTL"lessees and operators (the “NTL”), with an effective date of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for the posting of additional financial assurance by offshore lessees. The NTL discontinues the policy of Supplemental Bonding Waivers and allows for the abilitydetails procedures to self-insure up to 10% of a company’s tangible net worth, where a company can demonstrate a certain level of financial strength. The NTL provides new procedures for how BOEM determines a lessee’s decommissioning obligations and, consistent with those procedures, BOEM has tentatively proposed an implementation timeline that offshore lessees will follow in providing additional financial assurance, including BOEM’s issuance of (i) “Self-Insurance” letters beginning September 12, 2016 (regarding a lessee’s ability to self-insure a portion of the additional financial assurance), (ii) “Proposal” letters beginning October 12, 2016 (outlining what amount of additional security a lessee will be required to provide), and (iii) “Order” letters beginning November 14, 2016 (triggering a lessee’s obligations (A) within 10 days of such letter to notify BOEM that it intends to pursue a “tailored plan” for posting additional security over a phased-in period of time, (B) within 60 days of such letter, provide additional security for “sole liability” properties (leases or grants for which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable for decommissioning obligations), and (C) within 120 days of such letter, provide additional security for any other properties and/or submit a tailored financial plan).

54

Table of Contents


determine a lessee’s ability to carry out its lease obligations (primarily the decommissioning of OCS facilities) and whether to require lessees to furnish additional financial assurances to meet BOEM’s estimate of the lessees decommissioning obligations. The NTL supersedes the agency’s prior practice of allowing operators of a certain net worth to waive the need for supplemental bonds and provides updated criteria for determining a lessee’s ability to self-insure only a small portion of its OCS liabilities based upon the lessee’s financial capacity and financial strength. The NTL also allows lessees to meet their additional financial security requirements pursuant to an individually approved tailored plan, whereby an operator and BOEM agree to set a timeframe for the posting of additional financial assurances.

We received a Self-Insuranceself-insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we arewere not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a Proposalproposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required,required. The September 30, 2016 self-insurance determination letter was rescinded by BOEM on March 24, 2017. BOEM has rescinded that order and we are continuingall other sole-liability orders (i.e., orders related to work with BOEM to adjust our previously submitted tailored planproperties for variances between our decommissioning estimates and that of BSEE's. which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable) until further notice.

In the first quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it willwould extend the implementation timeline for the newJuly 2016 NTL by an additional six months. The revised proposed plan we submittedFurthermore, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Interior to review the NTL to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure operator compliance with lease terms while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens. On June 22, 2017, BOEM may require approximately $7 million to $10 millionannounced that, pending its review of incremental financial assurance or bonding for sole liability properties and potentially an additional $30 million to $60 million of incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties by the end of 2017 or in 2018, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BSEE and any modifications toNTL, the NTL. Under the revised proposed plan, additional financial assuranceimplementation timeline would be required for subsequent years. There is no assuranceindefinitely extended, subject to certain exceptions. At this tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan. Additionally,time, it is uncertain at this time what impactwhen, or if, the new Trump administration may have on the current financial regulatory framework.July 2016 NTL will be implemented or whether a revised NTL might be proposed. Compliance with the NTL, or any other new rules, regulations, or legal initiatives by BOEM or other governmental authorities that impose more stringent requirements adversely affecting our offshore activities could delay or disrupt our operations, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit our activities in certain areas, cause us to incur penalties or fines or to shut-in production at one or more of our facilities, or result in the suspension or cancellation of leases.

If fully implemented, the newJuly 2016 NTL is likely to result in the loss of supplemental bonding waivers for a large number of operators on the OCS, which will in turn force these operators to seek additional surety bonds and could, consequently, challenge the surety bond market’s capacity for providing such additional financial assurance. Operators who have already leveraged their assets as a result of the declining oil market could face difficulty obtaining surety bonds because of concerns the surety companies may have about the priority of their lien on the operator'soperator’s collateral. All of these factors may make it more difficult for us to obtain the financial assurances required by BOEM to conduct operations on the OCS. These and other changes to BOEM bonding and financial assurance requirements could result in increased costs on our operations and consequently have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See Part II. Item 7. Management'sManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Natural Gas.  In 2005, the United States Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("(“EPAct 2005"2005”). Among other matters, EPAct 2005 amends the Natural Gas Act (the "NGA"“NGA”) to make it unlawful for “any entity”, including otherwise non-jurisdictional producers such as Stone Energy, to use any deceptive or manipulative device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the "FERC"“FERC”), in contravention of rules prescribed by the FERC. In 2006, the FERC issued rules implementing this provision. The rules make it unlawful in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC, or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC, for any entity, directly or indirectly, to use or employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud, to make any untrue statement of material fact or omit to make any such statement necessary to make the statements made not misleading or to engage in any act or practice that operates as a fraud or deceit upon any person. EPAct 2005 also gives the FERC authority to impose civil penalties for violations of the NGA up to $1 million per day per violation. The anti-manipulation rule does not apply to activities that relate only to intrastate or other non-jurisdictional sales or gathering but does apply to activities of otherwise non-jurisdictional entities to the extent the activities are conducted "in“in connection with"with” gas sales, purchases or transportation subject to FERC jurisdiction. It therefore reflects a significant expansion of the FERC’s enforcement authority. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC"“CFTC”) has similar authority with respect to energy futures commodity markets. Stone Energy does not anticipate it will be affected any differently by these requirements than other producers of natural gas.
Our sales of natural gas are affected by the availability, terms and cost of transportation. The price and terms for access to pipeline transportation are subject to extensive regulation. The FERC has undertaken various initiatives to increase competition within the natural gas industry, including requiring interstate pipelines to provide firm and interruptible transportation service on an open access basis that is equal for all natural gas supplies. In addition, the natural gas pipeline industry is also subject to state regulations, which may change from time to time in ways that affect the availability, terms and cost of transportation. However, we do not believe that any such changes would affect our business in a way that would be materially different from the way such changes would affect our competitors.

5

Table of Contents


Oil.  Effective November 4, 2009, pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"“FTC”) issued a rule prohibiting market manipulation in the petroleum industry. The FTC rule prohibits any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of crude oil, gasoline or petroleum distillates at wholesale, from knowingly engaging in any act, practice or course of business, including the making of any untrue statement of material fact, that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person or intentionally failing to state a material fact that under the circumstances renders a statement made by such person misleading, provided that such omission distorts or is likely to distort market conditions for any such product. A violation of this rule may result in civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation, in addition to any applicable penalty under the FTC Act.

6

Table of Contents


Our sales of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids ("NGL"(“NGL”s) are not currently regulated and are transacted at market prices. In a number of instances, however, the ability to transport and sell such products is dependent on pipelines whose rates, terms and conditions of service are subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act. The price we receive from the sale of oil and NGLs is affected by the cost of transporting those products to market. Interstate transportation rates for oil, NGLs and other products are regulated by the FERC. The FERC has established an indexing system for such transportation, which allows such pipelines to take an annual inflation-based rate increase.
In other instances, the ability to transport and sell such products is dependent on pipelines whose rates, terms and conditions of service are subject to regulation by state regulatory bodies under state statutes. As it relates to intrastate crude oil, condensate and NGL pipelines, state regulation is generally less rigorous than the federal regulation of interstate pipelines. State agencies have generally not investigated or challenged existing or proposed rates in the absence of shipper complaints or protests, which are infrequent and are usually resolved informally.
We do not believe that the regulatory decisions or activities relating to interstate or intrastate crude oil, condensate and NGL pipelines will affect us in a way that materially differs from the way it affects other crude oil, condensate and NGL producers or marketers.
Miscellaneous.  Additional proposals and proceedings that might affect the oil and gas industry are regularly considered by the United States Congress, state regulatory bodies, the BOEM, the BSEE, the FERC and other federal regulatory bodies and the courts. We cannot predict when or whether any such proposals may become effective. In the past, the oil and natural gas industry has been heavily regulated. We can give no assurance that the regulatory approach currently pursued by the BOEM, the BSEE, the FERC or any other state or federal agency will continue indefinitely.
Environmental Regulation
As a lessee and operator of offshore oil and gas properties in the United States, we are subject to stringent federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, worker health and safety, and natural resources, as well as controlling the manner in which various substances, including wastes generated in connection with oil and gas industry operations, are released into the environment. Compliance with these laws and regulations may require us to obtain permits authorizing air emissions and wastewater discharge from operations and can affect the location or size of wells and facilities, limit or prohibit the extent to which exploration and development may be allowed, and require proper closure of wells and restoration of properties that are being abandoned. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil or criminal penalties, imposition of remedial obligations, incurrence of capital costs to comply with governmental standards, and even injunctions that limit or prohibit exploration and production operations or the disposal of substances generated in connection with oil and gas industry operation. The following is a summary of some of the existing laws, rules and regulations to which our business is subject.
Hazardous Substances and Waste handling.Management.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (the "RCRA"“RCRA”) generally regulates the disposal of solid and comparable state statutes, regulatehazardous wastes and imposes certain environmental cleanup obligations. Although RCRA specifically excludes from the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanupdefinition of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Pursuant to regulatory guidance issued by the federal EPA, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Drillingwaste “drilling fluids, produced waters and most of the other wastes associated with the exploration, development andor production of crude oil, or natural gas are currently regulated under RCRA’s non-hazardous waste provisions. However, it is possible that certain oilor geothermal energy,” the EPA and natural gas exploration and productionstate agencies may regulate these wastes now classified as non-hazardous could be classified as hazardous wastes in the future. For example,solid wastes. In addition, in December 2016, the EPA and environmental groups entered into a consent decree to address the EPA’s alleged failure to timely assess its RCRA Subtitle D criteria regulations exempting certain exploration and production related oil and gas wastes from regulation as hazardous wastes under RCRA. The consent decree requires the EPA to propose a rulemaking no later than March 15, 2019 for revision of certain Subtitle D criteria regulations pertaining to oil and gas wastes or to sign a determination that revision of the regulations is not necessary. Any such changeIf the EPA proposes rulemaking for revised oil and gas regulations, the consent decree requires that the EPA take final action following notice and comment rulemaking no later than July 15, 2021. A loss of the RCRA exclusion for drilling fluids, produced waters and related wastes could result in an increase in our costs to manage and dispose of generated wastes, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial position. Also, in the course of our operations, we generate some amounts of ordinary industrial wastes, such as paint

6

Table of Contents


wastes, waste solvents, laboratory wastes and waste oils that may be regulated as hazardous wastes if such wastes have hazardous characteristics.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (the "CERCLA")“CERCLA”, also known asor the Superfund law, imposes joint“Superfund Law”) and severalcomparable state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on classes of persons whothat are considered to be responsible forhave contributed to the release of a hazardous substance“hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the owner or operator of the site where the release occurred, and anyone who disposed or arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance released at the site. Under CERCLA, such personsSuch “responsible persons” may be subject to joint and several liability under the Superfund Law for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment and for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. In addition,resources. Further, it is not uncommon for

7

Table of Contents


neighboring coastal landowners andor other third-partiesthird parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment.
We currently operate or lease, and have in the past operated or leased, a number of properties that for many years have been used in operations related to the exploration and production of oil and gas. Although we have utilized operating and disposal practices that were standard in the industry at the time, hydrocarbons or wastes may have been disposed of or released on or under the properties operated or leased by us or on or under other locations where such substances have been taken for recycling or disposal. In addition, many of these properties have been operated by third parties whose storage, treatment and disposal or release of hydrocarbons or wastes was not under our control. These properties and the hydrocarbons and wastes disposed thereon may be subject to laws and regulations imposing strict, joint and several liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, that could require us to remove or remediate previously disposed wastes or environmental contamination, or to perform remedial plugging or pit closure to prevent future contamination.
Oil Pollution Act.  The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the "OPA"(“OPA”) holds owners and regulations adopted pursuant thereto impose a varietyoperators of requirements related tooffshore oil production or handling facilities, including the preventionlessee or permittee of and response tothe area where an offshore facility is located, strictly liable for the costs of removing oil spillsdischarged into waters of the United States including the OCS. Theand for certain damages from such spills. OPA subjects owners of oil handling facilities to strict,assigns joint and several strict liability, without regard to fault, to each liable party for all containment and cleanupoil removal costs and certain othera variety of public and private damages arising from a spill, including, but not limited to, the costs of responding to a release of oil, to surface waters and natural resource damages.damages and economic damages suffered by persons adversely affected by an oil spill. Although defenses exist to the liability imposed by the OPA, they are limited. TheIn addition, BOEM has finalized rules raising OPA’s damages liability cap from $75 million to $134 million. OPA also requires owners and operators of offshore oil production facilitiesresponsible parties to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility to cover costs that could be incurred in responding to an oil spill. Theprescribed amounts. OPA currently requires a minimum financial responsibility demonstration of between $35 million to $150 million for companies operating on the OCS, although the Secretary of the InteriorBOEM may increase this amount up to $150 million in certain situations. In addition,From time to time, the BOEMUnited States Congress has finalized rules that raise OPA’s damages liability cap from $75 millionproposed amendments to $133.65 million.OPA raising the financial responsibility requirements. If OPA is amended to increase the minimum level of financial responsibility, we may experience difficulty in providing financial assurances sufficient to comply with this requirement. We cannot predict at this time whether the OPA will be amended further or whether the level of financial responsibility required for companies operating on the OCS will be increased. In any event, if an oil discharge or substantial threat of discharge were to occur, we couldmay be liable for costs and damages, which costs and liabilities could be material to our results of operations and financial position.
National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, to consider the impacts their actions have on the human environment, and to prepare detailed statements for major federal actions having the potential to significantly impact the environment. These requirements can lead to additional costs and delays in permitting for operators as the Department of the Interior or its bureaus may need to prepare Environmental Assessments (“EA”) and more detailed Environmental Impact Statements (“EIS”) in support of its leasing and other activities that have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment. If the EA indicates that no significant impact is likely, then the agency can release a finding of no significant impact and carry on with the proposed action. Otherwise, the agency must then conduct a full-scale EIS. The NEPA process involves public input through comment. These comments, as well as the agency’s analysis of the proposed project, can result in changes to the nature of a proposed project, such as by limiting the scope of the project or requiring resource-specific mitigation. The adequacy of the agency’s NEPA process can be challenged in federal court by process participants. This process may result in delaying the permitting and development of projects, and result in increased costs.

Climate Change.  From time to time, the United States Congress has considered a variety of tax, energy-related or environmental market-based mechanisms to promote or induce the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) by several commercial or industrial sectors. In addition, more than one half of the states already have begun implementing legal measures such as renewable energy requirements or cap and trade programs to reduce emissions of GHGs.
Additionally, the United States is one of almost 200 nations that, in December 2015, agreed to the Paris Agreement, an international climate change agreement in Paris, France that calls for countries to set their own GHG emissions targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its GHG emissions targets. The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. In June 2017, President Trump stated that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement,

7

Table of Contents


but may enter into a future international agreement related to GHGs. The Paris Agreement provides for a four-year exit process beginning when it took effect in November 2016, which would result in an effective exit date of November 2020. The United States’ adherence to the exit process is uncertain and/or the terms on which the United States may reenter the Paris Agreement or a separately negotiated agreement are unclear at this time.

In addition, the EPA has determined that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other "greenhouse gases"GHGs present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases contribute to warming of the Earth’searth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA began adopting and implementing regulations to restrict emissions of greenhouse gasesGHGs under existing provisions of the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"(the “CAA”). The EPA adopted two sets of rules regulating greenhouse gasGHG emissions under the CAA, one of which requires a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and the other of which regulates emissions of greenhouse gasesGHGs from certain large stationary sources through preconstruction and operating permit requirements.
The EPA has also adopted rules requiring the reporting of greenhouse gasGHG emissions from specified large greenhouse gasGHG emission sources in the United States, on an annual basis.

Recent regulation of emissions of greenhouse gasesGHGs has focused on fugitive methane emissions. For example, in June 2016, the EPA finalized rules that establishestablished new air emission controls for emissions of methane from certain equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas source category, including production, processing, transmission and storage activities. The EPA’s rule package includes first-time standards to address emissions of methane from equipment and processes across the source category, including hydraulically fractured oil and natural gas well completions. However, in a March 28, 2017 executive order, President Trump directed the EPA to review the 2016 regulations and, if appropriate, to initiate a rulemaking to rescind or revise them consistent with the stated policy of promoting clean and safe development of the nation’s energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production. On June 16, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to stay for two years certain requirements of the 2016 regulations, including fugitive emission requirements. The regulations will remain in effect unless revised or repealed by separate EPA rulemaking in the future, which is likely to be challenged in court.
In addition, while the United States Congress has not taken any legislative action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, many states have established greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. Most of these cap and trade programs work by requiring major sources of emissions, such as electric power plants, or major producers of fuels, such as refineries and gas processing plants, to acquire and surrender emission allowances. The number of allowances available for purchase is reduced each year in an effort to achieve the overall greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.
The adoption of legislation or regulatory programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems, to acquire emissions allowances or to comply with new regulatory or reporting requirements. Substantial limitations on greenhouse gas emissions could also adversely affect demand for the oil and natural gas we produce and lower the value of our reserves. Consequently, legislation and regulatory programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasesGHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods and other climatic events. Our offshore operations are particularly at risk from severe climatic events. If any such climate changes were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

8

Table of Contents


At However, at this time, we have not yet developed a comprehensive planare unable to addressdetermine the legal, economic, social, or physical impacts ofextent to which climate change onmay lead to increased storm or weather hazards affecting our operations.
Water discharges.  TheStone’s discharges into waters of the United States are limited by the federal Clean Water Pollution Control Act (the "Clean Water Act"(“CWA”) and analogous state laws, impose restrictions and strict controls with respect to the monitoring andlaws. The CWA prohibits any discharge of pollutants, including spills and leaks of oil and other substances, into waters of the United States. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited,States, except in accordancecompliance with permits issued by federal and state governmental agencies. These discharge permits also include monitoring and reporting obligations. Failure to comply with the termsCWA, including discharge limits set by permits issued pursuant to the CWA, may also result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement actions. Violations of a permit issued by the EPA,CWA can result in suspension, debarment or an analogous state agency. In addition,the imposition of statutory disability, each of which prevents companies and individuals from participating in government contracts and receiving some non-procurement government benefits. The CWA also requires the preparation of oil spill response plans and spill prevention, control and countermeasure requirements under federal law require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank spill, rupture or leak. Federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with discharge permits or other requirements of the Clean Water Act and analogous state laws and regulations.plans.
Air emissions.  The CAA and comparable state laws regulate emissionsstatutes restrict the emission of various air pollutants through air emissions permitting programs and the imposition of other requirements. Federalaffect both onshore and state regulatory agenciesoffshore oil and natural gas operations. New facilities may be required to obtain separate construction and operating permits before construction work can impose administrative, civilbegin or operations may start, and criminal penalties for non-compliance with air permits or other requirements of the CAA and associated state laws and regulations. In addition,existing facilities may be required to incur capital costs in order to remain in compliance. Also, the EPA has developed, and continues to develop, more stringent regulations governing emissions of toxic air pollutants, at specified sources, as well asand is considering the emissionregulation of otheradditional air pollutants that the agency has determined pose a threat to the public health and welfare.
air pollutant parameters. For example, in October 2015, the EPA lowered the National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"(“NAAQS”) for ozone from 75 to 70 parts per billion. State implementation of the revised NAAQS could result in stricter permitting requirements, for our operations that have the potential to affect state air quality, delay or prohibit our ability to obtain such permits, and result in increased expenditures for pollution control equipment, the costs of which could be significant.
Worker Health and Safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) and comparable state statutes regulate the protection of the health and safety of workers. The OSHA hazard communication standard requires maintenance of information

8

Table of Contents


about hazardous materials used or produced in operations and provision of such information to employees. Other OSHA standards regulate specific worker safety aspects of our operations. Failure to comply with OSHA requirements can lead to the imposition of penalties.

Endangered Species. Executive Order 13158, issued in May 2000, directs federal agencies to safeguard existing Marine Protected Areas ("MPAs"The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) inrestricts activities that may affect federally identified endangered and threatened species or their habitats. Additionally, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and establish new MPAs.certain other nations for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, the taking, killing or possessing of migratory birds is unlawful without a permit, though, in December 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “USFWS”) provided guidance limiting the reach of the MBTA. The order requires federal agencies to avoid harm to MPAs to the extent permitted by law and to the maximum extent practicable. This order has the potential to adversely affect our operations by restricting areas in which we may carry out future development and exploration projects and/or causing us to incur increased operating expenses. Federal Lease Stipulations include regulations regardingMarine Mammal Protection Act similarly prohibits the taking of protected marine species (sea turtles, marine mammals Gulf sturgeonwithout authorization. We conduct operations on oil and natural gas leases in areas where certain species that are listed as threatened or endangered are known to exist and where other species that potentially could be listed marine species).as threatened or endangered under the ESA may exist. Historically, our compliance costs for the protection of marine species have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations; however, there can be no assurance that such costs will not be material in the future. Certain flora and faunaThe USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service may designate critical habitat that have been officially classified as "threatened" or "endangered" are protected by the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). This law prohibits any activities that could “take”it believes is necessary for survival of a protected plant or animal or reduce or degrade its habitat area. We conduct operations on leases in areas where certain species that are listed as threatened or endangered are knownspecies. A critical habitat designation could result in further material restrictions to exist and where other species that potentially could be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may exist.
Other statutes that provide protection to animal and plant species and which may apply to our operations include, but are not necessarily limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of a permit or other authorization before construction or drilling commencesfederal land use and may limitmaterially delay or prohibit construction, drilling and other activities on certain lands lying within designatedaccess to protected areas wildernessfor oil and natural gas development. These statutes may result in operating restrictions or wetlands. These and other protected areas may require certain mitigation measures to avoid harm to wildlife, and such laws and regulations may impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations. The permits required for our various operations are subject to revocation, modification and renewal by issuing authorities.a temporary, seasonal or permanent ban in affected areas.
We have made, and will continue to make, expenditures on a regular basis relating to environmental compliance. Although we maintain pollution insurance to cover a portion of the costs of cleanup operations, public liability and physical damage, there is no assurance that such insurance will be adequate to cover all such costs or that such insurance will continue to be available in our effort to comply with environmental laws and regulations. We do notthe future. To date, we believe that our expenditures related to compliance with applicableexisting environmental laws and regulations will haverequirements has not had a material adverse impacteffect on us.our results of operations or financial condition. However, we also believe that it is reasonably likely that the historical trend in environmental legislation and regulation will continue toward stricter standards and, thus, we cannot give any assurance that wematerial costs and liabilities will not be adversely affectedincurred in the future. Such costs may result in increased costs of operations and acquisitions and decreased production, and may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
We have established internal guidelines to be followed in order to comply with environmental laws and regulations in the United States. We employ a safety, environmental and regulatory department whose responsibilities include providing assurance that our operations are carried out in accordance with applicable environmental guidelines and safety precautions and track regulatory developments applicable to our operations, such as the ones described in the paragraphs above. Although we maintain pollution insurance to cover a portion of the costs of cleanup operations, public liability and physical damage, there is no assurance that such insurance will be adequate to cover all such costs or that such insurance will continue to be available in the future. To

9

Table of Contents


date, we believe that compliance with existing requirements of such governmental bodies has not had a material effect on our operations.

Employees
On February 23, 2017,March 9, 2018, we had 241158 full-time employees. We believe that our relationships with our employees are satisfactory. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We utilize the services of independent contractors to perform various daily operational duties.
Available Information
We make available free of charge on our Internet website (www.stoneenergy.com) our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other filings pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"“Exchange Act”), and amendments to such filings, as soon as reasonably practicable after each are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"(“SEC”). We also make available on our Internet website our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines and Audit, Compensation, Nominating & Governance, Reserves and Nominating and GovernanceSafety Committee Charters, which have been approved by our board of directors.Board. Copies of these documents are also available free of charge by writing to us at: Chief Financial Officer, Stone Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 52807, Lafayette, LA 70505. The annual CEO certification required by Section 303A.12 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual was submitted on June 9, 2016.
Information related to the Bankruptcy Petitions is available at a website administered by our claims agent, Epiq Systems, at http://dm.epiq11.com/StoneEnergy.December 14, 2017.
Financial Information
Our financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements and the related notes beginning on page F-1.


9

Table of Contents


Forward-Looking Statements
The information in this Form 10-K includes "forward-looking statements"“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"“Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. All statements, other than statements of historical or current facts, that address activities, events, outcomes and other matters that we plan, expect, intend, assume, believe, budget, predict, forecast, project, estimate or anticipate (and other similar expressions) will, should or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current belief, based on currently available information, as to the outcome and timing of future events. When considering forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other cautionary statements in this Form 10-K.
Forward-looking statements may appear in a number of places in this Form 10-K and include statements with respect to, among other things:
expected results from risk-weighted drilling success;activities;
estimates of our future oil and natural gas production, including estimates of any increases in oil and natural gas production;
planned capital expenditures and the availability of capital resources to fund capital expenditures;
our outlook on oil and natural gas prices;
estimates of our oil and natural gas reserves;
any estimates of future earnings growth;
the impact of political and regulatory developments;
our outlook on the resolution of pending litigation and government inquiry;
estimates of the impact of new accounting pronouncements on earnings in future periods;
our future financial condition or results of operations and our future revenues and expenses;
the outcome of restructuring efforts and asset sales;
the amount, nature and timing of any potential acquisition or divestiture transactions;
any expected results or benefits associated with our acquisitions;
our access to capital and our anticipated liquidity;
estimates of future income taxes; and
our business strategy and other plans and objectives for future operations.operations, including the Board’s assessment of the Company’s strategic direction;

our ability to consummate our proposed combination transaction with Talos; and
10

Tablethe timing of Contents

the consummation of the proposed combination transaction with Talos.

We caution you that these forward-looking statements are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control, incident to the exploration for and development, production and marketing of oil and natural gas. These risks include, among other things:
our ability to consummate the Plan in accordance with the terms of the A&R RSA, or alternative restructuring transaction;
risks attendant to the bankruptcy process, including the effects thereof on the Company’s business and on the interests of various constituents;
the length of time that the Company might be required to operate in bankruptcy and the continued availability of operating capital during the pendency of such proceedings;
risks associated with third party motions in any bankruptcy case, which may interfere with the ability to consummate the Plan;
potential adverse effects of bankruptcy proceedings and emergence from bankruptcy on the Company’s liquidity or results of operations;
increased costs to execute a reorganization;
effects of bankruptcy proceedings and emergence from bankruptcy on the market price of the Company’s common stock and on the Company’s ability to access the capital markets;
our ability to maintain our listing on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE");
commodity price volatility, including further or sustained declines in the prices we receive for our oil and natural gas production;
domestic and worldwide economic conditions, which may adversely affect the demand for and supply of oil and natural gas;
the availability of capital on economic terms to fund our operations, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other obligations;
our future level of indebtedness, liquidity and compliance with debt covenants and our ability to continue as a going concern;covenants;
our future financial condition, results of operations, revenues, cash flows and expenses;
the potential need to sell certain assets or raise additional capital;
our ability to post additional collateral for current bonds or comply with new supplemental bonding requirements imposed by BOEM;
declines in the value of our oil and gas properties resulting in a decrease in ourthe borrowing base under our current bank credit facility or future bank credit facilities and impairments;
our ability to develop, explore for, acquire and replace oil and natural gas reserves and sustain production;
the impact of a financial crisis on our business operations, financial condition and ability to raise capital;
the ability of financial counterparties to perform or fulfill their obligations under existing agreements;
third-party interruption of sales to market;
inflation;
lack of availability and cost of goods and services;
market conditions relating to potential acquisition and divestiture transactions;
regulatory and environmental risks associated with drilling and production activities;

10

Table of Contents


our ability to establish operations or production on our acreage prior to the expiration of related leaseholds;
availability of drilling and production equipment, facilities, field service providers, gathering, processing and transportation;
competition in the oil and gas industry;
our inability to retain and attract key personnel;
drilling and other operating risks, including the consequences of a catastrophic event;
unsuccessful exploration and development drilling activities;
hurricanes and other weather conditions;
availability, cost and adequacy of insurance coverage;
adverse effects of changes in applicable tax, environmental, derivatives, permitting, bonding and other regulatory requirements and legislation, as well as agency interpretation and enforcement and judicial decisions regarding the foregoing;
uncertainty inherent in estimating proved oil and natural gas reserves and in projecting future rates of production and timing of development expenditures; and
other risks described in this Form 10-K.
Should one or more of the risks or uncertainties described above or elsewhere in this Form 10-K occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results and plans could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. We specifically disclaim all responsibility to publicly update any information contained in a forward-looking statement

11

Table of Contents


or any forward-looking statement in its entirety and therefore disclaim any resulting liability for potentially related damages. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS
Our business is subject to a number of risks including, but not limited to, those described below:
Risks Relating to Chapter the Pending Talos Combination
The Transactions may not be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, or at all, and failure to complete the Transactions may result in material adverse consequences to our business and operations.
The transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”), dated as of November 21, 2017, among Stone, certain of Stone’s subsidiaries, Talos Energy, and Talos Production (the “Transactions”) are subject to several closing conditions, including, among others, the following:
receipt of the approval of our shareholders;
receipt of clearances and approvals under the rules of antitrust and competition law authorities in the United States;
the absence of any law or order prohibiting the consummation of the Transactions;
receipt of governmental consents and approvals;
the effectiveness of the registration statement on Form S-4, and any amendment thereof, filed in connection with the Talos combination, and there being no pending or threatened stop order relating thereto;
approval for listing on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) of the shares of New Talos common stock issuable pursuant to the Transaction Agreement;
the satisfaction of closing conditions of the Debt Exchange Agreement, dated as of November 21, 2017, by and among Talos Production, Talos Production Finance Inc., Stone, New Talos and the lenders and noteholders listed on the schedules thereto, including the ability to contemporaneously close such transactions with the other transactions to occur at closing;
the consummation of a tender offer and consent solicitation pursuant to which the holders of a majority of the Company’s 7 ½% Senior Second Lien Notes due 2022 (the “2022 Second Lien Notes”) (excluding the 2022 Second Lien Notes held by Franklin Advisers, Inc. (“Franklin”) and MacKay Shields LLC (“MacKay Shields”) on behalf of their clients and managed funds) will have been tendered for the consideration offered thereunder and the effectiveness of a supplemental indenture to the indenture governing the 2022 Second Lien Notes that eliminates substantially all of the restrictive covenants in such indenture; and
the satisfaction of closing conditions of the Support Agreement, dated as of November 21, 2017, by and among Stone, New Talos, Apollo Management and Riverstone, and the ability to contemporaneously close such transactions with the other transactions to occur at closing.



11 Proceedings

Table of Contents


If any one of these conditions is not satisfied or waived, the Transactions may not be completed. There is no assurance that the Transactions will be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, or at all.
Governmental or regulatory agencies could impose conditions on the completion of the Transactions or require changes to the terms of the Transaction Agreement or other agreements to be entered into in connection with the Transactions. Such conditions or changes could have the effect of delaying or impeding the completion of the Transactions. If these approvals are not received, then neither Stone nor Talos Energy will be obligated to complete the Transactions.
If our stockholders do not adopt the Transaction Agreement or if the Transactions are not completed for any other reason, we would be subject to a number of risks, including the following:
we will be required to pay our costs related to the Transactions, such as legal, accounting, financial advisory, and printing fees, whether or not the Transactions are completed;
our management has committed time and resources to matters relating to the Transactions that otherwise could have been devoted to pursuing other beneficial opportunities;
we and our stockholders would not realize the anticipated strategic benefits of the Transactions;
we may be required to pay a termination fee and to reimburse transaction expenses to Talos Energy if the Transaction Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances;
the potential occurrence of litigation related to any failure to complete the Transactions;
if the Transaction Agreement is terminated and our Board seeks another business combination, our stockholders cannot be certain that we will be able to find a party willing to enter into a transaction agreement on terms equivalent to or more attractive than the terms in the Transaction Agreement; and
the trading price of our common stock may decline or experience increased volatility to the extent that the current market prices reflect a market assumption that the Transactions will be completed.

The occurrence of any of these events individually or in combination could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or the trading price of our common stock. We are also exposed to general competitive pressures and risks, which may be increased if the Transactions are not completed.
We will be subject to business uncertainties and contractual restrictions while the risks and uncertainties associated withTransactions are pending that could adversely affect us.
Uncertainty about the Chapter 11 proceedings.
As a consequence of our filing for relief under Chapter 11effect of the Bankruptcy Code,Transactions on our operationsemployees and our business relationships may have an adverse effect on us, regardless of whether the Transactions are eventually completed. These uncertainties may impair our ability to developattract, retain and executemotivate key personnel until the Transactions are completed, or the Transaction Agreement is terminated, and for a period of time thereafter, and could cause customers, suppliers and others that deal with us to seek to change existing business relationships with Stone or to delay or defer certain business decisions.
The pursuit of the Transactions and the preparation for our potential integration with Talos Energy have placed, and will continue to place, a significant burden on the management and internal resources of Stone. There is a significant degree of difficulty and management distraction inherent in the process of closing the Transactions and integrating Stone and Talos Energy, which could cause an interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the activities of our existing business, regardless of whether the Transactions are eventually completed. Before and immediately following closing, our management team will be required to devote considerable amounts of time to this integration process, which will decrease the time they will have to manage our existing business. One potential consequence of such distractions could be the failure of management to realize other opportunities that could be beneficial to Stone. If our management is not able to effectively manage the process leading up to and immediately following closing, or if any significant business activities are interrupted as a result of the integration process, our business plan, and our continuation as a going concern, will becould suffer.
Under the terms of the Transaction Agreement, we are subject to certain restrictions on the risks and uncertainties associated with bankruptcy. These risks includeconduct of our business until the following:
earlier of the effective time of the combination or the termination of the Transaction Agreement, which may adversely affect our ability to execute and consummate the Plan or another plancertain of reorganization with respect to the Chapter 11 proceedings;
the high costs of bankruptcy proceedings and related fees;
our ability to obtain sufficient financing to allow us to emerge from bankruptcy and execute our business plan post-emergence;
our ability to maintain our relationships with our suppliers, service providers, customers, employees and other third parties;
our ability to maintain contracts that are critical to our operations;
our ability to execute our business plan in the current depressed commodity price environment;
strategies, including the ability in certain cases to attract, motivate and retain key employees;
the abilityenter into contracts, acquire or dispose of third parties to seek and obtain court approval to terminate contracts and other agreements with us;
the ability of third parties to seek and obtain court approval to convert the Chapter 11 proceedings to Chapter 7 proceedings; and
the actions and decisions of our creditors and other third parties who have interests in our Chapter 11 proceedings that may be inconsistent with our plans.

As of December 31, 2016, we had totalassets, incur indebtedness of $1,427 million. Our 2017 Convertible Notes mature on March 1, 2017, and the majority of our other outstanding indebtedness will mature within the next six years. While we anticipate substantially all of our $1,427 million of indebtedness will be discharged upon emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, there is no assurance that the effectiveness of the Plan will occur on February 28, 2017or incur capital expenditures, as expected, or at all.
These risks and uncertaintiesapplicable. Such limitations could negatively affect our business and operations prior to the completion of the Transactions.

12

Table of Contents


The Transaction Agreement contains provisions that may discourage other companies from trying to acquire Stone.
The Transaction Agreement contains provisions that may discourage third parties from submitting business combination proposals to Stone that might result in various ways. For example, negative events associatedgreater value to our stockholders than the Transactions. The Transaction Agreement generally prohibits us from soliciting any competing proposal. In addition, if the Transaction Agreement is terminated by us in circumstances that obligate us to pay a termination fee and to reimburse transaction expenses to Talos Energy, our financial condition may be adversely affected as a result of the payment of the termination fee and reimbursement of transaction expenses, which might deter third parties from proposing alternative business combination proposals.
Completion of the Transactions may trigger change in control or other provisions in certain agreements to which Stone is a party.
The completion of the Transactions may trigger change in control or other provisions in certain agreements to which Stone is a party. If we are unable to negotiate waivers of those provisions, the counterparties may exercise their rights and remedies under the agreements, potentially terminating the agreements or seeking monetary damages. Even if we are able to negotiate waivers, the counterparties may require a fee for such waivers or seek to renegotiate the agreements on terms less favorable to Stone.
Risks Relating to our Reorganization
The Plan was based in large part upon assumptions and analyses developed by us. Our actual financial results may vary materially from the projections that we filed in connection with the Plan. If these assumptions and analyses prove to be incorrect, the Plan may be unsuccessful in its execution.

The Plan affected both our Chapter 11capital structure and the ownership, structure and operation of our business and reflected assumptions and analyses based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that we considered appropriate under the circumstances. In addition, the Plan relied upon financial projections, including with respect to revenues, EBITDA, capital expenditures, debt service and cash flow. The financial projections were prepared solely for the purpose of the bankruptcy proceedings and have not been, and will not be, updated on an ongoing basis and should not be relied upon by investors. Financial forecasts are necessarily speculative, and it is likely that one or more of the assumptions and estimates that were the basis of these financial forecasts will not be accurate. In our case, the forecasts were even more speculative than normal, because they involved fundamental changes in the nature of our capital structure. Accordingly, we expect that our actual financial condition and results of operations will differ, perhaps materially, from what we have anticipated. Consequently, there can be no assurance that the results or developments contemplated by the Plan will occur or, even if they do occur, that they will have the anticipated effects on us and our subsidiaries or our business or operations. The failure of any such results or developments to materialize as anticipated could materially adversely affect our relationships with our suppliers, service providers, customers, employees and other third parties, which in turn could adversely affect our operations and financial condition. Also, we need the prior approvalsuccessful execution of the Bankruptcy Court for transactions outside the ordinary course of business, which may limit our ability to respond timely to certain events or take advantage of certain opportunities. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with our Chapter 11 proceedings, we cannot accurately predict or quantify the ultimate impact of events that occur during our Chapter 11 proceedings that may be inconsistent with our plans.Plan.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, our
Our historical financial information may not be indicative of our future financial performance.
Our capital structure will be significantly altered under the Plan. Under fresh start reporting rules that may apply to us upon
On February 28, 2017, the effective date of the Plan (or any alternative plan of reorganization),our emergence from bankruptcy, we adopted fresh start accounting and consequently, our assets and liabilities would bewere adjusted to fair values and our accumulated deficit would bewas restated to zero. Accordingly, if fresh start reporting rules apply, our financial condition and results of operations following our emergence from Chapter 11 wouldwill not be comparable to the financial condition and results of operations reflected in our historical financial statements. Further, a plan of reorganization could materially change the amounts and classifications reported in our consolidated historical financial statements, which do not give effect to any adjustments to the carrying value of assets or amounts of liabilities that might be necessary as a consequence of confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

12

Table of Contents


The pursuit of the A&R RSA has consumed, and the Chapter 11 proceedings will continue to consume, a substantial portion of the time and attention of our management, which may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations, and we may face increased levels of employee attrition.
Although the Plan is designed to minimize the length of our Chapter 11 proceedings, it is impossible to predict with certainty the amount of time that we may spend in bankruptcy. The Chapter 11 proceedings will involve additional expense and our management will be required to spend a significant amount of time and effort focusing on the proceedings. This diversion of attention may materially adversely affect the conduct of our business, and, as a result our financial condition and results of operations, particularly if the Chapter 11 proceedings are protracted.
During the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceedings, our employees will face considerable distraction and uncertainty, and we may experience increased levels of employee attrition. A loss of key personnel or material erosion of employee morale could have a material adverse effect on our ability to effectively, efficiently and safely conduct our business, and could impair our ability to execute our strategy and implement operational initiatives, thereby having a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Trading in our securities is highly speculative and poses substantial risks. Under the Plan, following effectivenessimplementation of the Plan and the holderstransactions contemplated thereby, our historical financial information may not be indicative of our existing common stock will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the common stock in the reorganized Company and warrants for up to 15% of the post-petition equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the proposed new warrants, which interests could be further diluted by the warrants and the management incentive plan contemplated by the Plan.future financial performance.
The Plan, as contemplated in the A&R RSA, provides that upon the Company's emergence from Chapter 11, Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of (a) $100 million of cash, (b) 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and (c) $225 million of Second Lien Notes and that the holders of the existing common stock of the Company will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the common stock in the reorganized Company and warrants for up to 15% of the post-petition equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the proposed new warrants. Issuances of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock) under the management incentive plan and any exercises of the warrants for shares of common stock will dilute the voting power of the outstanding common stock and may adversely affect the trading price of such common stock.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the composition of our board of directors will change significantly.
Under the Plan, the composition of our board of directors will change significantly. Upon emergence, the board will be made up of seven directors selected by the Noteholders, one of which will be our Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, six of our seven board members will be new to the Company. Any new directors are likely to have different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives from those individuals who previously served on the board and, thus, may have different views on the issues that will determine the future of the Company. As a result, the future strategy and plans of the Company may differ materially from those of the past.
There may be circumstances in which the interests of our significant stockholders could be in conflict with the interests of our other stockholders.
Assuming the Plan were effective as of the date hereof, it is estimated that
Funds advised by two bondholders whosignificant stockholders currently hold a majority of the Notes would own a majorityapproximately 36% and 20%, respectively, of our post-reorganization common stock. Circumstances may arise in which these stockholders may have an interest in pursuing or preventing acquisitions, divestitures or other transactions, including the issuance of additional shares or debt, that, in their judgment, could enhance their investment in us or another company in which they invest. Such transactions might adversely affect us or other holders of our common stock. In addition, our significant concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common shares because investors may perceive disadvantages in owning shares in companies with significant stockholders.
The Plan and any other plan of reorganization that we may implement will be based in large part upon assumptions and analyses developed by us. If these assumptions and analyses prove to be incorrect, our Plan may be unsuccessful in its execution.
The Plan and any other plan of reorganization that we may implement could affect both our capital structure and the ownership, structure and operation of our business and will reflect assumptions and analyses based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors that we consider appropriate under the circumstances. Whether actual future results and developments will be consistent with our expectations and assumptions depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to (i) our ability to change substantially our capital structure; (ii) our ability to obtain adequate liquidity and financing sources; (iii) our ability to maintain customers’ confidence in our viability as a

13

Table of Contents


continuing entity and to attract and retain sufficient business from them; (iv) our ability to retain key employees, and (v) the overall strength and stability of general economic conditions of the financial and oil and gas industries, both in the U.S. and in global markets. The failure of any of these factors could materially adversely affect the successful reorganization of our businesses.
In addition, the Plan and any other plan of reorganization will rely upon financial projections, including with respect to revenues, EBITDA, capital expenditures, debt service and cash flow. Financial forecasts are necessarily speculative, and it is likely that one or more of the assumptions and estimates that are the basis of these financial forecasts will not be accurate. In our case, the forecasts will be even more speculative than normal, because they may involve fundamental changes in the nature of our capital structure. Accordingly, we expect that our actual financial condition and results of operations will differ, perhaps materially, from what we have anticipated. Consequently, there can be no assurance that the results or developments contemplated by any plan of reorganization we may implement will occur or, even if they do occur, that they will have the anticipated effects on us and our subsidiaries or our business or operations. The failure of any such results or developments to materialize as anticipated could materially adversely affect the successful execution of any plan of reorganization.
We may be subject to claims that will not be discharged in our Chapter 11 proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The Bankruptcy Code provides that the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization discharges a debtor from substantially all debts arising prior to confirmation. With few exceptions, all claims that arose prior to confirmation of the plan of reorganization (i) would be subject to compromise and/or treatment under the plan of reorganization and (ii) would be discharged in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code and the terms of the plan of reorganization. Any claims not ultimately discharged through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization could be asserted against the reorganized entities and may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations on a post-reorganization basis.
Even if a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization is consummated, we may not be able to achieve our stated goals and continue as a going concern.
Even if the Plan or any other Chapter 11 plan of reorganization is consummated, we will continue to face a number of risks, including further deterioration in commodity prices or other changes in economic conditions, changes in our industry, changes in demand for our oil and gas and increasing expenses. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that the Plan or any other Chapter 11 plan of reorganization will achieve our stated goals.
Furthermore, even if our debts are reduced or discharged through the Plan, we may need to raise additional funds through public or private debt or equity financing or other various means to fund our business after the completion of our Chapter 11 proceedings. Our access to additional financing is, and for the foreseeable future will likely continue to be, extremely limited, if it is available at all. Therefore, adequate funds may not be available when needed or may not be available on favorable terms, if they are available at all.
Our ability to continue as a going concern in the long-term is dependent upon our ability to raise additional capital. As a result, we cannot give any assurance of our ability to continue as a going concern in the long-term, even if the Plan is consummated.
Transfers or issuances of our equity, before or in connection with our Chapter 11 proceedings, may impair our ability to utilize our federal income tax net operating loss carryforwards in future years.
Under U.S. federal income tax law, a corporation is generally permitted to deduct from taxable income net operating losses carried forward from prior years. We had net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $599 million as of December 31, 2016. We believe that our consolidated group will generate additional net operating losses for the 2017 tax year. Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income and to reduce our U.S. federal income tax liability is subject to certain requirements and restrictions. If we experience an "ownership change", as defined in section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, our ability to use our pre-emergence net operating loss carryforwards may be substantially limited, which could have a negative impact on our financial position and results of operations. Generally, there is an "ownership change" if one or more stockholders owning 5% or more of a corporation's common stock have aggregate increases in their ownership of such stock of more than 50 percentage points over the prior three-year period. Under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, absent an applicable exception, if a corporation undergoes an "ownership change", the amount of its net operating losses that may be utilized to offset future taxable income generally is subject to an annual limitation. Even if the net operating loss carryforwards are subject to limitation under Section 382, the net operating losses can be further reduced by the amount of discharge of indebtedness arising in a Chapter 11 case under Section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code.
We requested that the Bankruptcy Court approve restrictions on certain transfers of our stock to limit the risk of an "ownership change" prior to our restructuring in our Chapter 11 proceedings. Following the implementation of our Plan, it is likely that an "ownership change" will be deemed to occur and our net operating losses will nonetheless be subject to annual limitation.

14

Table of Contents


Business Risks
Oil and natural gas prices are volatile. Significant declines in commodity prices have adversely affected, and in the future may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, cash flows, access to the capital markets, and ability to grow.
Our revenues, cash flows, profitability and future rate of growth substantially depend upon the market prices of oil and natural gas. Prices affect our cash flows available for capital expenditures and our ability to access funds under our bank credit facility and through the capital markets. The amount available for borrowing under our bank credit facility is subject to a borrowing base, which is determined by the lenders taking into account our estimated proved reserves, and is subject to periodic redeterminations based on pricing models determined by the lenders at such time. The significant decline in oilOil and natural gas prices significantly declined in the second half of 2014, continuingand sustained lower prices continued throughout 2015, 2016 and 2016 has materially adversely impactedearly 2017. Despite a modest recovery in late 2017, commodity prices could remain suppressed or decline further, which will likely have material adverse effects on the value of our estimated proved reserves and in turn, the market value used by the lenders to determine our borrowing base. If commodity prices remain suppressed or continue to decline in the future, it will likely have material adverse effects on our reserves and borrowing base. Further, because we use the full cost method of accounting for our oil and gas operations, we perform a ceiling test each quarter, which is impacted by declining prices. Significant price declines could cause us to take additional ceiling test write-downs, which would be reflected as non-cash charges against current earnings. See “—Lower oil and natural gas prices and other factors have resulted, and in the future may result, in ceiling test write-downs and other impairments of our asset carrying values.”
In addition, significant or extended price declines may also adversely affect the amount of oil and natural gas that we can produce economically. For example, in response to low commodity prices and the high cost of midstream gathering, processing, and marketing, we shut in production at our Mary field in Appalachia from September 1, 2015 until June 2016. A reduction in production could result in a shortfall in our expected cash flows and require us to reduce our capital spending or borrow funds to cover any such shortfall. Any of these factors could negatively impact our ability to replace our production and our future rate of growth.
The markets for oil and natural gas have been volatile historically and are likely to remain volatile in the future. For example, during the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") crude oil price per Bbl ranged from a low of $26.21 to a high of $110.53, and the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") natural gas price per MMBtu ranged from a low of $1.64 to a high of $6.15. The prices we receive for our oil and natural gas depend upon many factors beyond our control, including, among others:
changes in the supply of and demand for oil and natural gas;
market uncertainty;
level of consumer product demands;
hurricanes and other weather conditions;
domestic and foreign governmental regulations and taxes;
price and availability of alternative fuels;
political and economic conditions in oil-producing countries, particularly those in the Middle East, Russia, South America and Africa;
actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries;
U.S. and foreign supply of oil and natural gas;
price and quantity of oil and natural gas imports;imports and exports;
the level of global oil and natural gas exploration and production;
the level of global oil and natural gas inventories;
localized supply and demand fundamentals and transportation availability;
speculation as to the future price of oil and the speculative trading of oil and natural gas futures contracts;
price and availability of competitors’ supplies of oil and natural gas;
technological advances affecting energy consumption; and
overall domestic and foreign economic conditions.
These factors make it very difficult to predict future commodity price movements with any certainty. Substantially all of our oil and natural gas sales are made in the spot market or pursuant to contracts based on spot market prices and are not long-term fixed price contracts. Further, oil prices and natural gas prices do not necessarily fluctuate in direct relation to each other.

14

Table of Contents


Our debt level and the covenants in the current and any future agreements governing our debt including the Amended Credit Facility and the indenture for the Second Lien Notes, could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects. Our failure to comply with these covenants could result in the acceleration of our outstanding indebtedness.
The terms of the current agreements governing our debt impose significant restrictions on our ability to take a number of actions that we may otherwise desire to take, including:
incurring additional debt;
paying dividends on stock, redeeming stock or redeeming subordinated debt;
making investments;
creating liens on our assets;

15

Table of Contents


selling assets;
guaranteeing other indebtedness;
entering into agreements that restrict dividends from our subsidiary to us;
merging, consolidating or transferring all or substantially all of our assets;
hedging future production; and
entering into transactions with affiliates.
Our level of indebtedness, and the covenants contained in current and future agreements governing our debt including the Amended Credit Facility and the indenture for the Second Lien Notes, could have important consequences on our operations, including:
making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations under the indentures or other debt and increasing the risk that we may default on our debt obligations;
requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operating activities to required payments on debt, thereby reducing the availability of cash flow for working capital, capital expenditures and other general business activities;
limiting our ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other general business activities;
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;
detracting from our ability to successfully withstand a downturn in our business or the economy generally;
placing us at a competitive disadvantage against other less leveraged competitors; and
making us vulnerable to increases in interest rates because debt under our bank credit facility is at variable rates.
We may be required to repay all or a portion of our debt on an accelerated basis in certain circumstances. If we fail to comply with the covenants and other restrictions in the agreements governing our debt, it could lead to an event of default and the acceleration of our repayment of outstanding debt. Our ability to comply with these covenants and other restrictions may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic and financial conditions. Lower commodity prices have negatively impacted our revenues, earnings and cash flows, and sustained low oil and natural gas prices will have a material and adverse effect on our liquidity position.  Our cash flow is highly dependent on the prices we receive for oil and natural gas, which declined significantly since mid-2014.
We depend on our bank credit facility for a portion of our future capital needs. We are required to comply with certain debt covenants and ratios under our bank credit facility.  Our borrowing base under our bank credit facility, which is redetermined semi-annually, is based on an amount established by the lenders after their evaluation of our proved oil and natural gas reserve values. If, due to a redetermination of our borrowing base, our outstanding bank credit facility borrowings plus our outstanding letters of credit exceed our redetermined borrowing base (referred to as a borrowing base deficiency), we could be required to repay such borrowing base deficiency. Our current agreement with the banks allows us to cure a borrowing base deficiency through any combination of the following actions: (1) repay amounts outstanding sufficient to cure the borrowing base deficiency within 10 days after our written election to do so; (2) add additional oil and gas properties acceptable to the banks to the borrowing base and take such actions necessary to grant the banks a mortgage in such oil and gas properties within 30 days after our written election to do so and/or (3)  pay the deficiency in six equal monthly installments.
We may not have sufficient funds to make such repayments. If we do not repay our debt out of cash on hand, we could attempt to restructure or refinance such debt, sell assets or repay such debt with the proceeds from an equity offering. We cannot assure you that we will be able to generate sufficient cash flows from operating activities to pay the interest on our debt or that future borrowings, equity financings or proceeds from the sale of assets will be available to pay or refinance such debt. The terms of our debt, including our bank credit facility and our indentures,the indenture governing the 2022 Second Lien Notes, may also prohibit us from taking such actions. Factors that will affect our ability to raise cash through offerings of our capital stock, a refinancing of

15

Table of Contents


our debt or a sale of assets include financial market conditions and our market value and operating performance at the time of such offerings, refinancing or sale of assets. We cannot assure you that any such offerings, restructuring, refinancing or sale of assets will be successfully completed.
We filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on December 14, 2016 pursuant to the Plan. The terms of the Amended Credit Facility under the Plan are substantially consistent with the pre-petition facility, except, the borrowing base will be reduced to $200 million (subject to a $150 million borrowing cap until the first redetermination of the borrowing base scheduled for November 1, 2017), subject to decrease under certain circumstances. See Bank Credit Facility below. There can be no assurance that we will emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017 as expected. See Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources for additional information on our current credit facility and the Amended Credit Facility effective upon emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

16

Table of Contents


Regulatory requirements and permitting procedures imposed by the BOEM and BSEE could significantly delay our ability to obtain permits to drill new wells in offshore waters.
Subsequent to the Deepwater Horizon incident in the GOM in April 2010, the BOEM issued a series of NTLs imposing regulatory requirements and BSEE have imposed new and more stringent permitting procedures and regulatory safety and performance requirements for new wells to be drilled in federal waters of the OCS. These regulatory requirements include the following:
the Environmental NTL, which imposes newwaters. Compliance with these added and more stringent regulatory requirements for documentingand with existing environmental and spill regulations, together with uncertainties or inconsistencies in decisions and rulings by governmental agencies and delays in the environmental impacts potentially associated with the drilling of a new offshore wellprocessing and significantly increases oil spill response requirements;
the Compliance and Review NTL, which imposes requirements for operators to secure independent reviews of well design, construction and flow intervention processes and also requires certifications of compliance from senior corporate officers;
the Drilling Safety Rule, which prescribes tighter cementing and casing practices, imposes standards for the useapproval of drilling fluidspermits and exploration, development, oil spill-response, and decommissioning plans and possible additional regulatory initiatives could result in difficult and more costly actions and adversely affect or delay new drilling and ongoing development efforts. Moreover, these governmental agencies are continuing to maintain well bore integrity and stiffens oversight requirements relating to blowout preventers and their components, including shear and pipe rams; and
the Workplace Safety Rule, which requires operators to employ a comprehensiveevaluate aspects of safety and environmental management system ("SEMS") to reduce human and organizational errors as root causes of work-related accidents and offshore spills, develop protocols as to whom at the facility has the ultimate operational safety and decision-making authority, establish procedures to provide all personnel with "stop work" authority, and to have their SEMS periodically audited by an independent third party auditor approved by the BSEE.
Since the adoption of these new regulatory requirements, the BOEM has been taking longer to review and approve permits for new wells than was common prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident. The rules also increase the cost of preparing each permit application and increase the cost of each new well, particularly for wells drilled in deeper waters of the OCS. We could become subject to fines, penalties or orders requiring us to modify or suspend our operationsperformance in the GOM if we failand, as a result, are continuing to comply with the BOEM’s NTLs or other regulatorydevelop and implement new, more restrictive requirements. Additional federal action is likely. For example, in April 2016, BSEE issued itspublished a final rule on well control regulations, effective July 2016, though some requirementsthat, among other things, imposes rigorous standards relating to the design, operation and maintenance of the rule have delayed compliance deadlines. The final rule addresses the full range of systems and equipment associated with well control operations, focusing on requirements for blowoutblow-out preventers, ("BOPs"), well design, well control casing, cementing, real-time monitoring of deepwater and subsea containment. Key featureshigh temperature, high pressure drilling activities, and enhanced reporting requirements. Pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Orders dated March 28, 2017, and April 28, 2017 (the “Executive Orders”), respectively, BSEE initiated a review of the well control regulations include requirements for BOPs, double shear rams, third-party reviewsto determine whether the rules are consistent with the stated policy of equipment, real-time monitoring data,encouraging energy exploration and production, while ensuring that any such activity is safe drilling margins, centralizers, inspections and other reforms relatedenvironmentally responsible. On October 24, 2017, BSEE announced, in a report published by the Department of the Interior, that it is considering several revisions to well designthe regulations and control, casing, cementing and subsea containment. Separately, BOEM proposed new rulesthat it is in the process of determining the most effective way to engage stakeholders in the process.
Also, in April 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule that would update existing air emissions requirements relating to offshore oil and natural gas activity on federal OCS waters including in the Central Gulf of Mexico.OCS. BOEM regulates these air emissions in connection with its review of exploration and development plans, rights of way and right-of-use and right-of-wayrights of use, and/or easement applications. The proposed rule would bolster existing air emission reportingemissions requirements by, among other things, requiring the reporting and tracking of the emissions of all pollutants defined by the EPA to affect human health and public welfare. Pursuant to the Executive Orders, BOEM is reviewing the proposed air quality rule. On October 24, 2017, the Department of the Interior announced that it is currently reviewing recommendations on how to proceed, including promulgating final rules for certain necessary provisions and issuing a new proposed rule that may withdraw certain provisions and seek additional input on others.
Compliance with new and future regulations could result in significant costs, including increased capital expenditures and operating costs, and could adversely impact our business. In addition, under certain circumstances, the BSEE may requireFurthermore, among other adverse impacts, new regulatory requirements could delay operations, disrupt our operations or increase the risk of leases expiring before exploration and development efforts have been completed due to the time required to develop new technology. This would result in increased financial assurance requirements and incurrence of associated added costs, limit operational activities in certain areas, or cause us to incur penalties or shut-in production at one or more of our facilities. If material spill incidents were to occur in the future, the United States or other countries where such an event may occur could elect to issue directives to temporarily cease drilling activities and, in any event, may from time to time issue further safety and environmental laws and regulations regarding offshore oil and natural gas exploration and development, any of which could have a material adverse effect on federal leasesour business. We cannot predict with any certainty the full impact of any new laws or regulations on our drilling operations or on the cost or availability of insurance to be suspendedcover some or terminated. Anyall of the risks associated with such suspension or termination could adversely affect our financial condition and operations.
New guidelines recently issued by BOEM related to financial assurance requirements to cover decommissioning obligations for operations on the outer continental shelfOCS may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
BOEM requires all operators in federal waters to provide financial assurances to cover the cost of plugging and abandoning wells and decommissioning offshore facilities. Historically, we and many other operators have been able to obtain an exemption from most bonding obligationsrequirements based on our financial net worth. On March 21, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at that time. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurances relating to our abandonment obligations, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurances in favor of BOEM. On May 13, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM rescinding its demand for supplemental bonding with the understanding that we will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizing and implementing our long-term tailored plan. Currently, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $118$115 million in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third party bonds and letters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations. A global update of the GOM decommissioning estimates was made on August 29, 2016, and BOEM requested that we resubmit our tailored plan to reflect the updated decommissioning estimates.

1716

Table of Contents


In July 2016, BOEM issued a new NTL, with an effective date of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for the posting of additional financial assurance by offshore lessees. The NTL discontinues the policy of Supplemental Bonding Waivers and allows for thedetails procedures to determine a lessee’s ability to self-insure upcarry out its lease obligations (primarily the decommissioning of OCS facilities) and whether to 10%require lessees to furnish additional financial assurances to meet BOEM’s estimate of the lessees decommissioning obligations. The NTL supersedes the agency’s prior practice of allowing operators of a company’s tangiblecertain net worth where a company can demonstrate a certain level of financial strength. The NTLto waive the need for supplemental bonds and provides new proceduresupdated criteria for how BOEM determines a lessee’s decommissioning obligations and, consistent with those procedures, BOEM has tentatively proposed an implementation timeline that offshore lessees will follow in providing additional financial assurance, including BOEM’s issuance of (i) Self-Insurance letters beginning September 12, 2016 (regardingdetermining a lessee’s ability to self-insure only a small portion of its OCS liabilities based upon the lessee’s financial capacity and financial strength. The NTL also allows lessees to meet their additional financial assurance), (ii) Proposal letters beginning October 12, 2016 (outlining what amountsecurity requirements pursuant to an individually approved tailored plan, whereby an operator and BOEM agree to set a timeframe for the posting of additional security a lessee will be required to provide), and (iii) Order letters beginning November 14, 2016 (triggering a lessee’s obligations (A) within 10 days of such letter to notify BOEM that it intends to pursue a tailored plan for posting additional security over a phased-in period of time, (B) within 60 days of such letter, provide additional security for sole liability properties (leases or grants for which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable for decommissioning obligations), and (C) within 120 days of such letter, provide additional security for any other properties and/or submit a tailored financial plan).assurances.
We received a Self-Insuranceself-insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we arewere not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a Proposalproposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required,required. The September 30, 2016 self-insurance determination letter was rescinded by BOEM on March 24, 2017. BOEM has rescinded that order and we are continuingall other sole-liability orders (i.e., orders related to work with BOEM to adjust our previously submitted tailored planproperties for variances between our decommissioning estimates and that of BSEE's. which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable) until further notice.
In the first quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it willwould extend the implementation timeline for the newJuly 2016 NTL by an additional six months. The revised proposed plan may require approximately $7 millionFurthermore, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Interior to $10 millionreview the NTL to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure operator compliance with lease terms while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens. On June 22, 2017, BOEM announced that, pending its review of incremental financial assurance or bonding for sole liability properties and potentially an additional $30 million to $60 million of incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties by the end of 2017 or in 2018, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BSEE and any modifications toNTL, the NTL. Under the revised proposed plan, additional financial assuranceimplementation timeline would be required for subsequent years. There is no assuranceindefinitely extended, subject to certain exceptions. At this tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan. Additionally,time, it is uncertain at this time what impactwhen, or if, the new Trump administration may have on the current financial regulatory framework.July 2016 NTL will be implemented or whether a revised NTL might be proposed. Compliance with the NTL, or any other new rules, regulations or legal initiatives by BOEM or other governmental authorities that impose more stringent requirements adversely affecting our offshore activities could delay or disrupt our operations, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit our activities in certain areas, cause us to incur penalties or fines or to shut-in production at one or more of our facilities, or result in the suspension or cancellation of leases.
In addition, if fully implemented, the newJuly 2016 NTL is likely to result in the loss of supplemental bonding waivers for a large number of operators on the OCS, which will in turn force these operators to seek additional surety bonds and could, consequently, challenge the surety bond market’s capacity for providing such additional financial assurance. Operators who have already leveraged their assets as a result of the declining oil market could face difficulty obtaining surety bonds because of concerns the surety companies may have about the priority of their lien on the operator’s collateral. Moreover, depressed oil prices could result in sureties seeking additional collateral to support existing bonds, such as cash or letters of credit, and Stone cannot provide assurance that it will be able to satisfy collateral demands for future bonds to comply with supplemental bonding requirements of BOEM. If we are required to provide collateral in the form of cash or letters of credit, our liquidity position could be negatively impacted and may require us to seek alternative financing. To the extent we are unable to secure adequate financing, we may be forced to reduce our capital expenditures. All of these factors may make it more difficult for us to obtain the financial assurances required by BOEM to conduct operations on the OCS. These and other changes to BOEM bonding and financial assurance requirements could result in increased costs on our operations and consequently have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
A financial crisis may impact our business and financial condition and may adversely impact our ability to obtain funding under our current bank credit facility or in the capital markets.
Historically, we have used our cash flows from operating activities and borrowings under our bank credit facility to fund our capital expenditures and have relied on the capital markets and asset monetization transactions to provide us with additional capital for large or exceptional transactions. In the future, we may not be able to access adequate funding under our bank credit facility as a result of (i) a decrease in our borrowing base due to the outcome of a borrowing base redetermination or a breach or default under our bank credit facility, including a breach of a financial covenant or (ii) an unwillingness or inability on the part of our lending counterparties to meet their funding obligations. In addition, we may face limitations on our ability to access the debt and equity capital markets and complete asset sales, an increased counterparty credit risk on our derivatives contracts and the requirement by contractual counterparties of us to post collateral guaranteeing performance.
We require substantial capital expenditures to conduct our operations and replace our production, and we may be unable to obtain needed financing on satisfactory terms necessary to fund our planned capital expenditures.
We spend and will continue to spend a substantial amount of capital for the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and production of oil and natural gas reserves. We fund our capital expenditures primarily through operating cash flows, cash on hand and borrowings under our credit facility, if necessary. The actual amount and timing of our future capital expenditures may differ materially from our estimates as a result of, among other things, oil and natural gas prices, actual drilling

17

Table of Contents


results, the availability of drilling rigs and other services and equipment, and regulatory, technological and competitive developments. A further reduction in commodity prices may result in a further decrease in our actual capital expenditures, which would negatively impact our ability to grow production.
Our cash flow from operations and access to capital are subject to a number of variables, including:
our proved reserves;
the level of hydrocarbons we are able to produce from our wells;
the prices at which our production is sold;
our ability to acquire, locate and produce new reserves; and
our ability to borrow under our credit facility.

If low oil and natural gas prices, operating difficulties, declines in reserves or other factors, many of which are beyond our control, cause our revenues, and cash flows from operating activities and the borrowing base under our credit facility to decrease, we may be limited in our ability to fund the capital necessary to complete our capital expenditure program. After utilizing our available sources of financing, we may be forced to raise additional debt or equity proceeds to fund such capital expenditures. We cannot be sure that additional debt or equity financing will be available or cash flows provided by operations will be sufficient to meet these requirements. For

18

Table of Contents


example, the ability of oil and gas companies to access the equity and high yield debt markets has been significantly limited since the significant decline in commodity prices since mid-2014.
Following the disposition of the Appalachia Properties, ourOur production, revenue and cash flow from operating activities will beare derived from assets that are concentrated in a single geographic area, making us vulnerable to risks associated with operating in one geographic area.
Following the disposition of the Appalachia Properties, ourOur production, revenue and cash flow from operating activities will beare derived from assets that are concentrated in a single geographic area in the GOM. Unlike other entities that are geographically diversified, we may not have the resources to effectively diversify our operations or benefit from the possible spreading of risks or offsetting of losses. Our lack of diversification may subject us to numerous economic, competitive and regulatory developments, any or all of which may have an adverse impact upon the particular industry in which we operate and result in our dependency upon a single or limited number of hydrocarbon basins. In addition, the geographic concentration of our properties in the GOM and the U.S. Gulf Coast will meanmeans that some or all of the properties could be affected should the region experience:
severe weather, such as hurricanes and other adverse weather conditions;
delays or decreases in production, the availability of equipment, facilities or services;
delays or decreases in the availability or capacity to transport, gather or process production;
changes in the status of pipelines that we depend on for transportation of our production to the marketplace;
extensive governmental regulation (including regulations that may, in certain circumstances, impose strict liability for pollution damage or require posting substantial bonds to address decommissioning and plugging and abandonment costs and interruption or termination of operations by governmental authorities based on environmental, safety, or other considerations; and/or
changes in the regulatory environment such as the new guidelines recently issued by BOEM related to financial assurance requirements to cover decommissioning obligations for operations on the OCS.

Because all or a number of our properties could experience many of the same conditions at the same time, these conditions have a relatively greater impact on our results of operations than they might have on other producers who have properties over a wider geographic area.

We may experience significant shut-ins and losses of production due to the effects of hurricanes in the GOM.
Following the sale of the Appalachia Properties, ourOur production will beis exclusively associated with our properties in the GOM and the U.S. Gulf Coast. Accordingly, if the level of production from these properties substantially declines, it could have a material adverse effect on our overall production level and our revenue. We are particularly vulnerable to significant risk from hurricanes and tropical storms in the GOM. In past years, we have experienced shut-ins and losses of production due to the effects of hurricanes in the GOM. We are unable to predict what impact future hurricanes and tropical storms might have on our future results of operations and production. In accordance with industry practice, we maintain insurance against some, but not all, of these risks and losses.

18

Table of Contents


A significant part of our production and estimated proved reserves are concentrated in one field.
As of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately 65% of our estimated proved reserves and 53% of our production on a volume equivalent basis, respectively, were derived from our Pompano properties. Accordingly, if the level of production from these properties substantially declines, or is affected by a pipeline shut-in, it could have a material adverse effect on our overall production level and our revenue. If the actual reserves associated with these properties are less than our estimated reserves, such a reduction of reserves could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are not insured against all of the operating risks to which our business is exposed.
In accordance with industry practice, we maintain insurance against some, but not all, of the operating risks to which our business is exposed. We insure some, but not all, of our properties from operational loss-related events. We currently have insurance policies that include coverage for general liability, physical damage to our oil and gas properties, operational control of well, oil pollution, construction all risk, workers’ compensation and employers’ liability and other coverage. Our insurance coverage includes deductibles that must be met prior to recovery, as well as sub-limits or self-insurance. Additionally, our insurance is subject to exclusions and limitations, and there is no assurance that such coverage will adequately protect us against liability from all potential consequences, damages or losses.
Currently, we have general liability insurance coverage with an annual aggregate limit of $825$837.5 million on a 100% working interest basis. We no longer purchase physical damage insurance coverage for our platforms for losses resulting from named windstorms. Additionally, we now purchase physical damage insurance coverage for losses resulting from operational activities for only our Amberjack and Pompano platforms. We have continued purchasing physical damage insurance coverage for operational losses for a selected group of pipelines, including the majority of the pipelines and umbilicals associated with our Amberjack and Pompano facilities.
Our operational control of well coverage provides limits that vary by well location and depth and range from a combined single limit of $20 million to $500 million per occurrence. Exploratory deep water wells have a control of well coverage limit of up to $600 million per occurrence. Additionally, we currently maintain $150$70 million in oil pollution liability coverage. Our operational control of well and physical damage policy limits are scaled proportionately to our working interests. Our general liability program utilizes a combination of for assureds interest and scalable limits. All of our policies described above are subject to deductibles, sub-limits or self-insurance. Under our service agreements, including drilling contracts, generally we are indemnified for injuries and death of the service provider’s employees as well as contractors and subcontractors hired by the service provider.

19

Tableprovider, subject to the application of Contents


various states’ laws.
An operational or hurricane-related event may cause damage or liability in excess of our coverage that might severely impact our financial position. We may be liable for damages from an event relating to a project in which we own a non-operating working interest. Such events may also cause a significant interruption to our business, which might also severely impact our financial position. In past years, we have experienced production interruptions for which we had no production interruption insurance.
We reevaluate the purchase of insurance, policy limits and terms annually in May through July. Future insurance coverage for our industry could increase in cost and may include higher deductibles or retentions. In addition, some forms of insurance may become unavailable in the future or unavailable on terms that we believe are economically acceptable. No assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain insurance in the future at rates that we consider reasonable, and we may elect to maintain minimal or no insurance coverage. We may not be able to secure additional insurance or bonding that might be required by new governmental regulations. This may cause us to restrict our operations in the GOM, which might severely impact our financial position. The occurrence of a significant event, not fully insured against, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Lower oil and natural gas prices and other factors have resulted, and in the future may result, in ceiling test write-downs and other impairments of our asset carrying values.
We use the full cost method of accounting for our oil and gas operations. Accordingly, we capitalize the costs to acquire, explore for and develop oil and gas properties. Under the full cost method of accounting, we compare, at the end of each financial reporting period for each cost center, the present value of estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves (based on a trailing twelve-month average, hedge-adjusted commodity price and excluding cash flows related to estimated abandonment costs), to the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties, net of related deferred taxes. We refer to this comparison as a ceiling test. If the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties exceed the estimated discounted future net cash flows from proved reserves, we are required to write down the value of our oil and gas properties to the value of the estimated discounted future net

19

Table of Contents


cash flows. A write-down of oil and gas properties does not impact cash flows from operating activities, but does reduce net income. The risk that we will be required to write down the carrying value of oil and gas properties increases when oil and natural gas prices are low or volatile. In addition, write-downs may occur if we experience substantial downward adjustments to our estimated proved reserves or our undeveloped property values, or if estimated future development costs increase. For example, oil and natural gas prices significantly declined significantly duringin the second half of 2014, continuingand sustained lower prices continued throughout 2015, 2016 and 2016.early 2017, with a modest recovery in late 2017. We recorded non-cash ceiling test write-downs of approximately $351 million, $1,362 million and $357 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively.respectively, and $256 million during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Volatility in commodity prices, poor conditions in the global economic markets and other factors could cause us to record additional write-downs of our oil and natural gas properties and other assets in the future and incur additional charges against future earnings. Any required write-downs or impairments could materially affect the quantities and present value of our reserves, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our oil and gas operations are subject to various U.S. federal, state and local governmental regulations that materially affect our operations.
Our oil and gas operations are subject to various U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations may be changed in response to economic or political conditions. Regulated matters include: permits for exploration, development and production operations; limitations on our drilling activities in environmentally sensitive areas, such as marine habitats, and restrictions on the way we can release materials into the environment; bonds or other financial responsibility requirements to cover drilling contingencies and well plugging and abandonment and other decommissioning costs; reports concerning operations, the spacing of wells and unitization and pooling of properties; regulations regarding the rate, terms and conditions of transportation service or the price, terms and conditions related to the purchase and sale of natural gas or crude oil; and taxation. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations can result in the assessment of administrative, civil or criminal penalties, the issuance of remedial obligations and the imposition of injunctions limiting or prohibiting certain of our operations. At various times, regulatory agencies have imposed price controls and limitations on oil and gas production. In order to conserve supplies of oil and natural gas, these agencies have restricted the rates of flow of oil and natural gas wells below actual production capacity.
In addition, the OPA requires operators of offshore facilities such as us to prove that they have the financial capability to respond to costs that may be incurred in connection with potential oil spills. Under the OPA and other environmental statutes such as CERCLA and RCRA and analogous state laws, owners and operators of certain defined onshore and offshore facilities are strictly liable for spills of oil and other regulated substances, subject to certain limitations. Consequently, a substantial spill from one of our facilities subject to laws such as the OPA, CERCLA and RCRA could require the expenditure of additional, and potentially significant, amounts of capital, or could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, results of operations, competitive position or financial condition. Federal, state and local laws regulate production, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of oil and natural gas, by-products from oil and natural gas and other substances, and materials produced or used in connection with oil and gas operations. We cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance with these requirements or their impact on our earnings, operations or competitive position.

20

Table of Contents


The closing market price of our common stock has recently declined significantly.  On April 29 and May 17, 2016, we were notified by the NYSE that our common stock was not in compliance with NYSE listing standards. If we are unable to cure the market capitalization deficiency, our common stock could be delisted from the NYSE or trading could be suspended.
Our common stock is currently listed on the NYSE. In order for our common stock to continue to be listed on the NYSE, we are required to comply with various listing standards, including the maintenance of a minimum average closing price of at least $1.00 per share during a consecutive 30 trading-day period. In addition to the minimum average closing price criteria, we are considered to be below compliance if our average market capitalization over a consecutive 30 day-trading period is less than $50 million and, at the same time, our stockholders’ equity is less than $50 million.
On April 29, 2016, we were notified by the NYSE that the average closing price of our shares of common stock had fallen below $1.00 per share over a period of 30 consecutive trading days. On May 17, 2016, we were notified by the NYSE that our average global market capitalization had been less than $50 million over a consecutive 30 trading-day period at the same time that our stockholders' equity was less than $50 million.
On June 10, 2016, we completed a 1-for-10 reverse stock split with respect to our common stock in order to increase the per share trading price of our common stock in order to regain compliance with the NYSE’s minimum share price requirement. We were notified on July 1, 2016 that we cured the minimum share price deficiency and that we were no longer considered non-compliant with the $1.00 per share average closing price requirement. We remain non-compliant with the $50 million average market capitalization and stockholders’ equity requirements.
On June 30, 2016, we submitted our 18-month business plan for curing the average market capitalization and stockholders’ equity deficiencies to the NYSE. After our submission of the business plan, the NYSE had 45 calendar days to review the plan to determine whether we have made reasonable demonstration of our ability to come into conformity with the relevant standards within the 18-month period. The NYSE accepted the plan on August 4, 2016 and will continue to review the Company on a quarterly basis for compliance with the plan. Upon acceptance of the plan by the NYSE, and after two consecutive quarters of sustained market capitalization above $50 million, we would no longer be non-compliant with the market capitalization and stockholders' equity requirements. During the 18-month cure period, our shares of common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE, unless we experience other circumstances that subject us to delisting. If we fail to meet the material aspects of the plan or any of the quarterly milestones, the NYSE will review the circumstances causing the variance, and determine whether such variance warrants commencement of suspension and delisting procedures. Additionally, under Section 802.01D of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, if a company that is below a continued listing standard files or announces an intent to file for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the company is subject to immediate suspension and delisting. However, if we are profitable or have positive cash flow, or if we are demonstrably in sound financial health despite the bankruptcy proceedings, the NYSE may evaluate our plan in light of the filing without immediate suspension and delisting of our common stock. To date, and throughout the Chapter 11 filing period, we have continued to trade on the NYSE.
On September 20, 2016, we submitted our quarterly update to the business plan for the second of quarter 2016, and the NYSE notified us that it accepted the quarterly update on September 22, 2016. On December 22, 2016, we submitted our quarterly update to the business plan for the third quarter of 2016, and the NYSE notified us that it accepted the quarterly update on January 5, 2017.
In addition to potentially commencing suspension or delisting procedures in respect of our common stock if we fail to meet the material aspects of the plan or any of the quarterly milestones or if we file for bankruptcy and do not have positive cash flow or are not in sound financial health, our common stock could be delisted pursuant to Section 802.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual if the trading price of our common stock on the NYSE is abnormally low, which has generally been interpreted to mean at levels below $0.16 per share, and our common stock could also be delisted pursuant to Section 802.01 if our average market capitalization over a consecutive 30 day-trading period is less than $15 million. In these events, we would not have an opportunity to cure the market capitalization deficiency, and our shares would be delisted immediately and suspended from trading on the NYSE.
The commencement of suspension or delisting procedures by an exchange remains, at all times, at the discretion of such exchange and would be publicly announced by the exchange. If a suspension or delisting were to occur, there would be significantly less liquidity in the suspended or delisted securities. In addition, our ability to raise additional necessary capital through equity or debt financing, and attract and retain personnel by means of equity compensation, would be greatly impaired. Furthermore, with respect to any suspended or delisted securities, we would expect decreases in institutional and other investor demand, analyst coverage, market making activity and information available concerning trading prices and volume, and fewer broker-dealers would be willing to execute trades with respect to such securities. A suspension or delisting would likely decrease the attractiveness of our common stock to investors and cause the trading volume of our common stock to decline, which could result in a further decline in the market price of our common stock.

21

Table of Contents


Additional issuances of equity securities by us would dilute the ownership of our existing stockholders and could reduce our earnings per share.
The Plan provides, among other things, that upon emergence from bankruptcy, our existing common stock will be cancelled and (i) the Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and (ii) existing holders of common stock in Stone will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the common stock in reorganized Stone, plus warrants for ownership of up to 15% of reorganized Stone's common equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the proposed new warrants. Each of the foregoing common equity percentages in reorganized Stone is subject to dilution from the exercise of the new warrants described above and a management incentive plan.
Additionally, we may issue equity in the future in connection with capital raisings, debt exchanges, acquisitions, strategic transactions or for other purposes. To the extent we issue substantial additional equity securities, the ownership of our existing stockholders would be diluted, and our earnings per share could be reduced.
We may not be able to replace production with new reserves.
In general, the volume of production from oil and gas properties declines as reserves are depleted. The decline rates depend on reservoir characteristics. GOM reservoirs tend to be recovered quickly through production with associated steep declines, while declines in other regions after initial flush production tend to be relatively low. Our reserves will decline as they are produced unless we acquire properties with proved reserves or conduct successful development and exploration drilling activities. Our future oil and natural gas production is highly dependent upon our level of success in finding or acquiring additional reserves at a unit cost that is sustainable at prevailing commodity prices.
Exploring for, developing or acquiring reserves is capital intensive and uncertain. We may not be able to economically find, develop or acquire additional reserves or make the necessary capital investments if our cash flows from operations decline or external sources of capital become limited or unavailable. We cannot assure you that our future exploitation, exploration, development and acquisition activities will result in additional proved reserves or that we will be able to drill productive wells at acceptable costs. Further, current market conditions have adversely impacted our ability to obtain financing to fund acquisitions, and they have lowered the level of activity and depressed values in the oil and natural gas property sales market.
Production periods or reserve lives for GOM properties may subject us to higher reserve replacement needs and may impair our ability to reduce production during periods of low oil and natural gas prices.
High production rates generally result in recovery of a relatively higher percentage of reserves from properties in the GOM during the initial few years when compared to other regions in the United States. Typically, 50% of the reserves of properties in the GOM are depleted within three to four years with natural gas wells having a higher rate of depletion than oil wells. Due to high initial production rates, production of reserves from reservoirs in the GOM generally decline more rapidly than from other producing reservoirs. Following the sale of the Appalachia Properties, our existingOur current operations will beare exclusively in the GOM. As a result, our reserve replacement needs from new prospects may be greater than those of other oil and gas companies with longer-life reserves in other producing areas. Also, our

20

Table of Contents


expected revenues and return on capital will depend on prices prevailing during these relatively short production periods. Our need to generate revenues to fund ongoing capital commitments or repay debt may limit our ability to slow or shut-in production from producing wells during periods of low prices for oil and natural gas.
Our actual recovery of reserves may substantially differ from our proved reserve estimates.
This Form 10-K contains estimates of our proved oil and natural gas reserves and the estimated future net cash flows from such reserves. These estimates are based upon various assumptions, including assumptions required by the SEC relating to oil and natural gas prices, drilling and operating expenses, capital expenditures, taxes and availability of funds. The process of estimating oil and natural gas reserves is complex. This process requires significant decisions and assumptions in the evaluation of available geological, geophysical, engineering and economic data for each reservoir and is therefore inherently imprecise. Additionally, our interpretations of the rules governing the estimation of proved reserves could differ from the interpretation of staff members of regulatory authorities resulting in estimates that could be challenged by these authorities.
Actual future production, oil and natural gas prices, revenues, taxes, development expenditures, operating expenses and quantities of recoverable oil and natural gas reserves will most likely vary from those estimated. Any significant variance could materially affect the estimated quantities and present value of reserves set forth in this Form 10-K and the information incorporated by reference. Our properties may also be susceptible to hydrocarbon drainage from production by other operators on adjacent properties. In addition, we may adjust estimates of proved reserves to reflect production history, results of exploration and development, prevailing oil and natural gas prices and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

22

Table of Contents


You should not assume that any present value of future net cash flows from our proved reserves contained in this Form 10-K represents the market value of our estimated oil and natural gas reserves. We base the estimated discounted future net cash flows from our proved reserves at December 31, 20162017 on historical twelve-month average prices and costs as of the date of the estimate. Actual future prices and costs may be materially higher or lower. Further, actual future net revenues will be affected by factors such as as:
the amount and timing of actual development expenditures and decommissioning costs;
the rate and timing of production and production;
changes in governmental regulations or taxes. taxation;
volume, pricing and duration of our oil and natural gas hedging contracts;
supply of and demand for oil and natural gas;
actual prices we receive for oil and natural gas; and
our actual operating costs in producing oil and natural gas.
At December 31, 2016,2017, approximately 20%13% of our estimated proved reserves (by volume) were undeveloped.undeveloped and approximately 26% were non-producing. Any or all of our proved undeveloped or proved developed non-producing reserves may not be ultimately developed or produced. Furthermore, any or all of our undeveloped and developed non-producing reserves may not be ultimately produced during the time periods we plan or at the costs we budget, which could result in the write-off of previously recognized reserves. Recovery of undeveloped reserves generally requires significant capital expenditures and successful drilling operations. Our reserve estimates include the assumptions that we will incur capital expenditures to develop these undeveloped reserves and the actual costs and results associated with these properties may not be as estimated. In addition, the 10% discount factor that we use to calculate the net present value of future net revenues and cash flows may not necessarily be the most appropriate discount factor based on our cost of capital in effect from time to time and the risks associated with our business and the oil and gas industry in general. Any material inaccuracies in these reserve estimates or underlying assumptions will materially affect the quantities and present value of our reserves, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Three-dimensional seismic interpretation does not guarantee that hydrocarbons are present or if present will produce in economic quantities.
We rely on 3D seismic data to assist us with assessing prospective drilling opportunities on our properties, as well as on properties that we may acquire. Such seismic studies are merely an interpretive tool and do not necessarily guarantee that hydrocarbons are present or if present will produce in economic quantities, and seismic indications of hydrocarbon saturation may not be reliable indicators of productive reservoir rock. These limitations of 3D seismic data may impact our drilling and operational results, and consequently our financial condition.

21

Table of Contents


SEC rules could limit our ability to book additional proved undeveloped reserves (“PUDs”) in the future.
SEC rules require that, subject to limited exceptions, PUDs may only be booked if they relate to wells scheduled to be drilled within five years after the date of booking. This requirement may limit our ability to book additional PUDs as we pursue our drilling program. Moreover, we may be required to write-down our proved undeveloped reserves if we do not drill those wells within the required five-year time frame.
Our acreage must be drilled before lease expiration in order to hold the acreage by production. If commodity prices become depressed for an extended period of time, it might not be economical for us to drill sufficient wells in order to hold acreage, which could result in the expiry of a portion of our acreage, which could have an adverse effect on our business.
Unless production is established withinas required by the spacing unitsleases covering theour undeveloped acres, on which some of the locations are identified, the leases for such acreage may expire. We have leases on 18,77717,280 gross acres (9,970(17,280 net) that could potentially expire during fiscal year 2017.2018. See Item 2. Properties – Productive Well and Acreage Data.
Our drilling plans for areas not currently held by production are subject to change based upon various factors. Many of these factors are beyond our control, including drilling results, oil and natural gas prices, the availability and cost of capital, drilling and production costs, availability of drilling services and equipment, gathering system and pipeline transportation constraints, and regulatory approvals. On our acreage that we do not operate, we have less control over the timing of drilling, therefore there is additional risk of expirations occurring in those sections.
The marketability of our production depends mostly upon the availability, proximity and capacity of oil and natural gas gathering systems, pipelines and processing facilities.
The marketability of our production depends upon the availability, proximity, operation and capacity of oil and natural gas gathering systems, pipelines and processing facilities. The lack of availability or capacity of these gathering systems, pipelines and processing facilities could result in the shut-in of producing wells or the delay or discontinuance of development plans for properties. The disruption of these gathering systems, pipelines and processing facilities due to maintenance and/or weather could negatively impact our ability to market and deliver our products. Federal, state and local regulation of oil and gas production and transportation, general economic conditions and changes in supply and demand could adversely affect our ability to produce and market our oil and natural gas. If market factors changed dramatically, the financial impact on us could be substantial. The availability of markets and the volatility of product prices are beyond our control and represent a significant risk.
Our actual production could differ materially from our forecasts.
From time to time, we provide forecasts of expected quantities of future oil and natural gas production. These forecasts are based on a number of estimates, including expectations of production from existing wells. In addition, our forecasts may assume that none of the risks associated with our oil and natural gas operations summarized in this Item 1A occur, such as facility or equipment malfunctions, adverse weather effects, or significant declines in commodity prices or material increases in costs, which could make certain production uneconomical.
Our operations are subject to numerous risks of oil and gas drilling and production activities.
Oil and gas drilling and production activities are subject to numerous risks, including the risk that no commercially productive oil or natural gas reserves will be found. The cost of drilling and completing wells is often uncertain. To the extent we drill additional wells in the GOM deep water and/or in the Gulf Coast deep gas, our drilling activities could become more expensive. In addition, the geological complexity of GOM deep water, Gulf Coast deep gas and various onshore formations may make it more difficult for us to sustain our historical rates of drilling success. Oil and gas drilling and production activities may be shortened, delayed or cancelled as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:
unexpected drilling conditions;
pressure or irregularities in formations;
equipment failures or accidents;
hurricanes and other weather conditions;

23

Table of Contents


shortages in experienced labor; and
shortages or delays in the delivery of equipment.
The prevailing prices of oil and natural gas also affect the cost of and the demand for drilling rigs, production equipment and related services. We cannot assure you that the wells we drill will be productive or that we will recover all or any portion of

22

Table of Contents


our investment. Drilling for oil and natural gas may be unprofitable. Drilling activities can result in dry wells and wells that are productive but do not produce sufficient cash flows to recoup drilling costs.
Our industry experiences numerous operating risks.
The exploration, development and production of oil and gas properties involves a variety of operating risks including the risk of fire, explosions, blowouts, pipe failure, abnormally pressured formations and environmental hazards. Environmental hazards include oil spills, gas leaks, pipeline ruptures or discharges of toxic gases. We aremay also be involved in drilling operations that utilize hydraulic fracturing, which may potentially present additional operational and environmental risks. Additionally, our offshore operations are subject to the additional hazards of marine operations, such as capsizing, collision and adverse weather and sea conditions, including the effects of hurricanes.
In addition, an oil spill on or related to our properties and operations could expose us to joint and several strict liability, without regard to fault, under applicable law for containment and oil removal costs and a variety of public and private damages, including, but not limited to, the costs of responding to a release of oil, natural resource damages and economic damages suffered by persons adversely affected by an oil spill. If an oil discharge or substantial threat of discharge were to occur, we may be liable for costs and damages, which costs and damages could be material to our results of operations and financial position.
We explore for oil and natural gas in the deep waters of the GOM (water depths greater than 2,000 feet). Exploration for oil or natural gas in the deepwater of the GOM generally involves greater operational and financial risks than exploration on the GOM conventional shelf. Deepwater drilling generally requires more time and more advanced drilling technologies, involving a higher risk of technological failure and usually higher drilling costs. For example, the drilling of deepwater wells requires specific types of drilling rigs with significantly higher day rates and limited availability as compared to the rigs used in shallower waters. Deepwater wells often use subsea completion techniques with subsea trees tied back to host production facilities with flow lines. The installation of these subsea trees and flow lines requires substantial time and the use of advanced remote installation mechanics. These operations may encounter mechanical difficulties and equipment failures that could result in cost overruns. Furthermore, the deepwater operations generally lack the physical and oilfield service infrastructure present on the GOM conventional shelf. As a result, a considerable amount of time may elapse between a deepwater discovery and the marketing of the associated oil or natural gas, increasing both the financial and operational risk involved with these operations. Because of the lack and high cost of infrastructure, some reserve discoveries in the deepwater may never be produced economically.
If any of these industry operating risks occur, we could have substantial losses. Substantial losses may be caused by injury or loss of life, severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment, pollution or other environmental damage, clean-up responsibilities, regulatory investigation and penalties, and suspension of operations and production and repairs to resume operations. Any of these industry operating risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our business could be negatively affected by security threats, including cybersecurity threats, and other disruptions.
As an oil and gas producer, we face various security threats, including cybersecurity threats to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or to render data or systems unusable, threats to the security of our facilities and infrastructure or third party facilities and infrastructure, such as processing plants and pipelines, and threats from terrorist acts. The potential for such security threats has subjected our operations to increased risks that could have a material adverse effect on our business. In particular, the implementation of various procedures and controls to monitor and mitigate security threats and to increase security for our information, facilities and infrastructure may result in increased capital and operating costs. Moreover, there can be no assurance that such procedures and controls will be sufficient to prevent security breaches from occurring. If any of these security breaches were to occur, they could lead to losses of sensitive information, critical infrastructure or capabilities essential to our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Cybersecurity attacks in particular are becoming more sophisticated and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data and systems, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in critical systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information, and corruption of data. These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from remedial actions, loss of business or potential liability.
Our estimates of future asset retirement obligations may vary significantly from period to period and unanticipated decommissioning costs could materially adversely affect our future financial position and results of operations.
We are required to record a liability for the discounted present value of our asset retirement obligations to plug and abandon inactive, non-producing wells, to remove inactive or damaged platforms, facilities and equipment, and to restore the land or seabed at the end of oil and natural gas operations. These costs are typically considerably more expensive for offshore operations as compared to most land-based operations due to increased regulatory scrutiny and the logistical issues associated with working

23

Table of Contents


in waters of various depths. Estimating future restoration and removal costs in the GOM is especially difficult because most of the removal obligations may be many years in the future, regulatory requirements are subject to change or more restrictive interpretation, and asset removal technologies are constantly evolving, which may result in additional or increased or decreased costs. As a result, we may make significant increases or decreases to our estimated asset retirement obligations in future periods. For example, because we operate in the GOM, platforms, facilities and equipment are subject to damage or destruction as a result of hurricanes.

24

Tablehurricanes and other adverse weather conditions. Also, the sustained lower commodity price environment may cause our non-operator partners to be unable to pay their share of Contents


costs, which may require us to pay our proportionate share of the defaulting party’s share of costs.
The estimated costs to plug and abandon a well or dismantle a platform can change dramatically if the host platform from which the work was anticipated to be performed is damaged or toppled, rather than structurally intact. Accordingly, our estimates of future asset retirement obligations could differ dramatically from what we may ultimately incur as a result of damage from a hurricane.
Moreover, the timing for pursuing restoration and removal activities has accelerated for operators in the GOM following BSEE’s issuance of an NTL that established a more stringent regimen for the timely decommissioning of what is known as "idle iron"“idle iron” wells, which are platforms and pipelines that are no longer producing or serving exploration or support functions with respect to an operator’s lease in the GOM. The idle iron NTL requires decommissioning of any well that has not been used during the past five years for exploration or production on active leases and is no longer capable of producing in paying quantities, which must then be permanently plugged or temporarily abandoned within three years’ time. Similarly, platforms or other facilities no longer useful for operations must be removed within five years of the cessation of operations. We may have to draw on funds from other sources to satisfy decommissioning costs. The use of other funds to satisfy such decommissioning costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Moreover, as a result of the implementation of the idle iron NTL, there is expected to be increased demand for salvage contractors and equipment operating in the GOM, resulting in increased estimates of plugging, abandonment and removal costs and associated increases in operators’ asset retirement obligations.
In addition, we could become responsible for decommissioning liabilities related to offshore facilities we no longer own or operate. Federal regulations allow the government to call upon predecessors-in-interest of oil and gas leases to pay for plugging and abandonment, restoration, and decommissioning obligations if the current operator fails to fulfill those obligations, the costs of which could be significant. Moreover, several onshore and offshore exploration and production companies have sought bankruptcy protection over the past several years. The government may seek to impose a bankrupt entity’s plugging and abandonment obligations on Stone or other predecessors-in-interest, which could be significant and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We may not receive payment for a portion of our future production.
We may not receive payment for a portion of our future production. We have attempted to diversify our sales and obtain credit protections, such as parental guarantees, from certain of our purchasers. The tightening of credit in the financial markets may make it more difficult for customers to obtain financing and, depending on the degree to which this occurs, there may be a material increase in the nonpayment and nonperformance by customers. We are unable to predict what impact the financial difficulties of certain purchasers may have on our future results of operations and liquidity.
There are uncertainties in successfully integrating our acquisitions.
Integrating acquired businesses and properties involves a number of special risks. These risks include the possibility that management may be distracted from regular business concerns by the need to integrate operations and that unforeseen difficulties can arise in integrating operations and systems and in retaining and assimilating employees. Any of these or other similar risks could lead to potential adverse short-term or long-term effects on our operating results.
Competition within our industry may adversely affect our operations.
Competition within our industry is intense, particularly with respect to the acquisition of producing properties and undeveloped acreage. We compete with major oil and gas companies and other independent producers of varying sizes, all of which are engaged in the acquisition of properties and the exploration and development of such properties. Many of our competitors have financial resources and exploration and development budgets that are substantially greater than ours, which may adversely affect our ability to compete. We actively compete with other companies when acquiring new leases or oil and gas properties. For example, new leases acquired from the BOEM are acquired through a "sealed bid"“sealed bid” process and are generally awarded to the highest bidder. These additional resources can be particularly important in reviewing prospects and purchasing properties. The competitors may also have a greater ability to continue drilling activities during periods of low oil and gas prices, such as the

24

Table of Contents


current decline in oil prices, and to absorb the burden of current and future governmental regulations and taxation. Competitors may be able to evaluate, bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and prospects than our financial or personnel resources permit. Competitors may also be able to pay more for productive oil and gas properties and exploratory prospects than we are able or willing to pay. Further, our competitors may be able to expend greater resources on the existing and changing technologies that we believe will impact attaining success in the industry. If we are unable to compete successfully in these areas in the future, our future revenues and growth may be diminished or restricted.
The loss of key personnel could adversely affect our ability to operate.
Our operations are dependent upon key management and technical personnel. We cannot assure you that individuals will remain with us for the immediate or foreseeable future. The unexpected loss of the services of one or more of these individuals could have an adverse effect on us and our operations.

25

Table of Contents


Our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws and the Delaware General Corporation Law have provisions that, alone or in combination with each other, discourage corporate takeovers and could prevent stockholders from realizing a premium on their investment.
Certain provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws and the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law may encourage persons considering unsolicited tender offers or other unilateral takeover proposals to negotiate with our board of directorsBoard rather than pursue non-negotiated takeover attempts. Our Certificate of Incorporation authorizes our board of directorsBoard to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval and to set the rights, preferences and other designations, including voting rights of those shares, as our board of directorsBoard may determine. Additional provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and of the Delaware General Corporation Law, alone or in combination with each other, include restrictions on business combinations and the availability of authorized but unissued common stock. These provisions, alone or in combination with each other, may discourage transactions involving actual or potential changes of control, including transactions that otherwise could involve payment of a premium over prevailing market prices to stockholders for their common stock.
We may issue shares of preferred stock with greater rights than our common stock.
Our Certificate of Incorporation authorizes our board of directorsBoard to issue one or more series of preferred stock and set the terms of the preferred stock without seeking any further approval from our stockholders. Any preferred stock that is issued may rank ahead of our common stock in terms of dividends, liquidation rights or voting rights. If we issue preferred stock, it may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Resolution of litigation could materially affect our financial position and results of operations.
We have been named as a defendant in certain lawsuits. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings. In some of these suits, our liability for potential loss upon resolution may be mitigated by insurance coverage. To the extent that potential exposure to liability is not covered by insurance or insurance coverage is inadequate, we could incur losses that could be material to our financial position or results of operations in future periods. We may also become involved in litigation over certain issues related to the Plan, including the proposed treatment of certain claims thereunder. The outcome of such litigation could have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations in future periods. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings for additional information.
Certain U.S.Tax laws and regulations may change over time, including the elimination of federal income tax deductions currently available with respect to natural gas and oil exploration and development may be eliminated as a result of future legislation.
In past years, legislation has been proposed that would, if enacted into law, make significant changes to U.S. tax laws, including to certain key U.S. federal income tax provisions currently available to oil and gas companies. Such legislative changes have included, but not been limitedexploration and development.
Tax laws and regulations are highly complex and subject to (i)interpretation, and the repealtax laws and regulations to which we are subject may change over time. Our tax filings are based upon our interpretation of the percentage depletion allowance for oiltax laws in effect in various jurisdictions at the time that the filings were made. If these laws or regulations change, or if the taxing authorities do not agree with our interpretation of the effects of such laws and gas properties,regulations, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
On December 22, 2017, the President signed into law Public Law No. 115-97, a comprehensive tax reform bill commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) that significantly reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Among other changes, the Tax Act (i) permanently reduces the U.S. corporate income tax rate, (ii) repeals the elimination of current deductions for intangible drilling and development costs,corporate alternative minimum tax, (iii) the elimination ofeliminates the deduction for certain domestic production activities, (iv) imposes new limitations on the utilization of net operating losses generated after 2017 and (iv) an extension of the amortization period(v) provides for certain geological and geophysical expenditures.  Congress could consider, and could include, some or all of these proposals as part of tax reform legislation, to accompany lower federal income tax rates. Moreover, other more general featureschanges to the taxation of tax reform legislation,corporations, including changes to cost recovery rules and to the deductibility of interest expense, which may be developed that also would changeimpact the taxation of oil and gas companies. ItThe Tax Act is unclear whether these or similarcomplex and far-reaching and we have not yet had enough time to complete a full analysis of the impact of all changes willunder the Tax Act. The ultimate impact of the Tax Act may differ from our estimates due to changes in interpretations and assumptions made by us as well as additional regulatory guidance that may be enactedissued, and if enacted, how soon any such changes could take effect. The passage of any legislation as a result of these proposalsin our interpretations or any similar changes in U.S. federal income tax laws could eliminate or postpone certain tax deductions that currently are available with respect to oil and gas development, or increase costs, and any such changesassumptions could have an adverse effect on the Company’sour financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

25

Table of Contents


Climate change legislation or regulations restricting emissions of "greenhouse gases"“greenhouse gases” could result in increased operating costs and reduced demand for the crude oil and natural gas that we produce.
The EPA has determined that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other "greenhouse gases"“greenhouse gases” present an endangerment to public health and the environment because emissions of such gases contribute to warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. Based on these findings, the EPA began adopting and implementing regulations to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases under existing provisions of the CAA. The EPA adopted two sets of rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA, one of which requires a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and the other of which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases from certain large stationary sources through preconstruction and operating permit requirements.
The EPA has also adopted rules requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified large greenhouse gas emission sources in the United States, on an annual basis. Recent regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases has focused on fugitive methane emissions. For example, in June 2016, the EPA finalized rules that establish new air emission controls for emissions of methane from certain equipment and processes in the oil and natural gas source category, including production,

26

Table of Contents


processing, transmission and storage activities. The EPA’s rule package includes first-time standards to address emissions of methane from equipment and processes across the source category, including hydraulically fractured oil and natural gas well completions. However, in a March 28, 2017 executive order, President Trump directed the EPA to review the 2016 regulations and, if appropriate, to initiate a rulemaking to rescind or revise them consistent with the stated policy of promoting clean and safe development of the nation’s energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production. On June 16, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to stay for two years certain requirements of the 2016 regulations, including fugitive emission requirements. The regulations will remain in effect unless revised or repealed by separate EPA rulemaking in the future, which is likely to be challenged in court.
In addition, while the United States Congress has not taken any legislative action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, many states have established greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. Most of these cap and trade programs work by requiring major sources of emissions, such as electric power plants, or major producers of fuels, such as refineries and gas processing plants, to acquire and surrender emission allowances. The number of allowances available for purchase is reduced each year in an effort to achieve the overall greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.
Additionally, the United States is one of almost 200 nations that, in December 2015, agreed to the Paris Agreement, an international climate change agreement in Paris, France that calls for countries to set their own greenhouse gas emissions targets and be transparent about the measures each country will use to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets. The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. In June 2017, President Trump stated that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but may enter into a future international agreement related to greenhouse gases. The Paris Agreement provides for a four-year exit process beginning when it took effect in November 2016, which would result in an effective exit date of November 2020. The United States’ adherence to the exit process is uncertain and/or the terms on which the United States may reenter the Paris Agreement or a separately negotiated agreement are unclear at this time. Furthermore, in response to President Trump’s announcement, many state and local leaders have stated their intent to intensify efforts to uphold the commitments set forth in the international accord.
The adoption of legislation or regulatory programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems, to acquire emissions allowances or to comply with new regulatory or reporting requirements. Substantial limitations on greenhouse gas emissions could also adversely affect demand for the oil and natural gas we produce and lower the value of our reserves. Consequently, legislation and regulatory programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that greenhouse gas emissions from oil and natural gas operations constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law. As a result, private individuals or public entities may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury, property damage, or other liabilities. While our business is not a party to any such litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could significantly impact our operations and could have an adverse impact on our financial condition.
Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods and other climatic events. Our offshore operations arewill be particularly at risk from severe climatic events. If any such climate changes were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of

26

Table of Contents


operations. AtHowever, at this time, we have not yet developed a comprehensive planare unable to addressdetermine the legal, economic, social, or physical impacts ofextent to which climate change onmay lead to increased storm or weather hazards affecting our operations.
The enactment of derivatives legislation could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the effect of commodity price, interest rate and other risks associated with our business.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Act"“Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, established federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The Act requires the CFTC and the SEC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the Act. Although the CFTC has finalized certain regulations, others remain to be finalized or implemented and it is not possible at this time to predict when this will be accomplished.
In one of its rulemaking proceedings still pending under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC issued on December 5, 2016, re-proposed rules imposing position limits for certain futures and option contracts in various commodities (including oil and gas) and for swaps that are their economic equivalents. Under the proposed rules on position limits, certain types of hedging transactions are exempt from these limits on the size of positions that may be held, provided that such hedging transactions satisfy the CFTC’s requirements for certain enumerated "bona“bona fide hedging"hedging” transactions or positions. As these new position limit rules are not yet final, the impact of those provisions on us is uncertain at this time.

The CFTC has designated certain interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for mandatory clearing and the associated rules also will require us, in connection with covered derivative activities, to comply with clearing and trade-execution requirements or to take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements. Although we expect to qualify for the end-user exception from the mandatory clearing requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks, the application of the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging. In addition, certain banking regulators and the CFTC have recently adopted final rules establishing minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps. Although we expect to qualify for the end-user exception from such margin requirements for swaps entered into to hedge our commercial risks, the application of such requirements to other market participants, such as swap dealers, may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use for hedging.  If any of our swaps do not qualify for the commercial end-user exception, posting of collateral could impact liquidity and reduce cash available to us for capital expenditures, therefore reducing our ability to execute hedges to reduce risk and protect cash flows.

The full impact of the Act and related regulatory requirements upon our business will not be known until the regulations are implemented and the market for derivatives contracts has adjusted. The Act and any new regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, or reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Act and regulations implementing the Act, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Finally, the Act was intended, in part, to reduce the volatility of oil and gas prices, which some legislators attributed to speculative trading in derivatives and commodity instruments related to oil and natural gas. Our revenues could therefore be adversely affected if a

27

Table of Contents


consequence of the Act and implementing regulations is to lower commodity prices. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on us, our financial condition and our results of operations.
In addition, the European Union and other non-U.S. jurisdictions are implementinghave implemented and continue to implement new regulations with respect to the derivatives market. To the extent we transact with counterparties in foreign jurisdictions, we may become directly subject to such regulations and in any event the global derivatives market will be affected to the extent that foreign counterparties are affected by such regulations. At this time, the impact of such regulations is not clear.
Hedging transactions may limit our potential gains or become ineffective.gains.
In order to manage our exposure to price risks in the marketing of our oil and natural gas, we periodically enter into oil and natural gas price hedging arrangements with respect to a portion of our expected production. Our hedging policy provides that without prior approval of our board of directors, generally not more than 60% of our estimated production quantities maycan be hedged for any given year. These arrangements may include futures contracts onmonth without the NYMEX orconsent of the Intercontinental Exchange.Board. Additionally, a minimum of 25% of each month’s production will not be committed to any hedge contract regardless of the price available. While intended to reduce the effects of volatile oil and natural gas prices, such transactions, depending on the hedging instrument used, may limit our potential gains if oil and natural gas prices were to rise substantially over the price established by the hedge. In addition, such transactions may expose us to the risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including instances in which:
our production is less than expected or is shut-in for extended periods due to hurricanes or other factors;

27

Table of Contents


there is a widening of price differentials between delivery points for our production and the delivery point assumed in the hedge arrangement;
the counterparties to our futures contracts fail to perform the contracts;
a sudden, unexpected event materially impacts oil or natural gas prices; or
we are unable to market our production in a manner contemplated when entering into the hedge contract.
Currently, all of our outstanding commodity derivative instruments are with certain lenders or affiliates of the lenders under our bank credit facility. Our existing derivative agreements with the lenders are secured by the security documents executed by the parties under our bank credit facility. Future collateral requirements for our commodity hedging activities are uncertain and will depend on the arrangements we negotiate with the counterparty and the volatility of oil and natural gas prices and market conditions.
Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities could adversely affect our business.
The U.S. government has issued warnings that U.S. energy assets may be the future targets of terrorist organizations. These developments have subjected our operations to increased risks. Any future terrorist attack at our facilities, or those of our purchasers, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operations.

ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES
As of December 31, 2016,2017, our property portfolio consisted primarily of eight active properties and 6834 primary term leases in the GOM Basin, three active properties in the Appalachia region and inactive undeveloped acreage in the Rocky Mountain region.Basin. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell the Appalachia Properties. We expect to close the sale ofsold the Appalachia Properties byon February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions, after which we will27, 2017. We no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia. See Item 1. Business – Operational Overview. The properties that we currently operate accounted for 93%94% of our year-end 20162017 estimated proved reserves. This high operating percentage allows us to better control the timing, selection and costs of our drilling and production activities. Information on our significant properties is included below.
Oil and Natural Gas Reserves
Our Reserves Committee Charter provides that the reserves committee has the sole authority to recommend to our board of directorsBoard appointments or replacements of one or more firms of independent reservoir engineers and geoscientists. The reserves committee reviews annually the arrangements of the independent reservoir engineers and geoscientists with management, including the scope and general extent of the examination of our reserves, the reports to be rendered, the services and fees and consideration of the independence of such independent reservoir engineers and geoscientists. The reserves committee may consult with management but may not delegate these responsibilities. The reserves committee provides oversight in regards to the reserve

28

Table of Contents


estimation process but not the actual determination of estimated proved reserves. Our Reserves Committee Charter provides that it is the duty of management and not the duty of the reserves committee to plan or conduct reviews or to determine that our reserve estimates are complete and accurate and are in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards and applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. Our Vice President - Planning, Marketing & Midstream– Exploration and Business Development is the in-house person designated as primarily responsible for the process of reserve preparation. He is a petroleum engineer with over 20 years of experience in reservoir engineering and analysis. His duties include oversight of the preparation of quarterly reserve estimates and coordination with the outside engineering consultants on the preparation of year-end reserve estimates. The year-end reserve estimates prepared by our outside engineering firm are independent of any oversight of the Vice President - Planning, Marketing & Midstream– Exploration and Business Development or the reserves committee.
Estimates of our proved reserves at December 31, 20162017 were independently prepared by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. ("NSAI"(“NSAI”), a worldwide leader of petroleum property analysis for industry and financial organizations and government agencies. NSAI was founded in 1961 and performs consulting petroleum engineering services under the Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration No. F-2699. Within NSAI, the technical persons primarily responsible for preparing the estimates set forth in the NSAI letter, which is filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-K, were Lily W. Cheung, Vice President and Team Leader, and Edward C. Roy III, Vice President. Ms. Cheung is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas (License No. 107207). Ms. Cheung joined NSAI in 2007 after serving as an Engineer at ExxonMobil Production Company. Ms. Cheung’s areas of specific expertise include estimation of oil and gas reserves, drilling and workover prospect evaluation, and economic evaluations. Ms. Cheung received an MBA degree from University of Texas at Austin in 2007 and a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003. Mr. Roy is a Registered Professional Geoscientist in the State of Texas (License No. 2364). Mr. Roy joined NSAI in 2008 after serving as a Senior Geologist at Marathon Oil Company. Mr. Roy’s areas of specific

28

Table of Contents


expertise include deep-water stratigraphy, seismic interpretation and attribute analysis, volumetric reserve estimation, and probabilistic analysis. Mr. Roy received a MS degree in Geology from Texas A&M University in 1998 and a BS degree in Geology from Texas Christian University in 1992. Ms. Cheung and Mr. Roy both meet or exceed the education, training and experience requirements set forth in the Standards Pertaining to the Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserves Information promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers; they are proficient in judiciously applying industry standard practices to engineering and geoscience evaluations as well as applying SEC and other industry reserve definitions and guidelines.
The following table sets forth our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves (approximately 66%(all of which are located in the GOM and 34% in the Appalachia region)GOM) as of December 31, 2016.2017 (Successor). The 20162017 average twelve-month oil and natural gas prices, net of differentials, were $40.15$50.05 per Bbl of oil, $9.46$22.90 per Bbl of NGLs and $1.71$2.34 per Mcf of natural gas.
Summary of Oil, Natural Gas and NGL Reserves as of
December 31, 2016
Oil
(MBbls)
 
NGLs
(MBbls)
 
Natural Gas
(MMcf)
 
Oil, Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MMcfe)
Oil
(MBbls)
 
NGLs
(MBbls)
 
Natural Gas
(MMcf)
 
Oil, Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MBoe)
Reserves Category:              
PROVED              
Developed18,269
 9,255
 90,741
 255,884
20,275
 1,689
 37,946
 28,288
Undeveloped5,011
 1,374
 26,579
 64,889
1,601
 616
 12,170
 4,245
TOTAL PROVED23,280
 10,629
 117,320
 320,773
21,876
 2,305
 50,116
 32,533

At December 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), we reported estimated proved undeveloped reserves ("PUDs")PUDs of 64.9 Bcfe,4.2 MMBoe, which accounted for 20%13% of our total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves. This figure tiesreserves, tied to a projected fourtwo new wells (60.2 Bcfe) andwells. Drilling was in progress at December 31, 2017 on one sidetrack well from an existing wellbore (4.7 Bcfe). The timetable for drilling this sidetrack well is totally dependent on the life of the currently producing zone. Afternew PUD wells, and the current zone has been depleted, we would utilize the existing wellbore to sidetrack to the PUD objective. Regarding the remaining four PUD locations, we project three wellsother is projected to be drilled in 2017 (52.1 Bcfe) and one well in 2018 (8.1 Bcfe). None2018. SEC rules require that, subject to limited exceptions, PUDs may only be booked if they relate to wells scheduled to be drilled within five years after the date of booking. Neither of these fourtwo PUD wells will have been on our books in excess of five years at the time of their scheduled drilling. The following table discloses our progress toward the conversion of PUDs during 2016.

29

Table of Contents


2017.
Oil, Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MMcfe)
 
Future
Development
Costs
(in thousands)
Oil, Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MBoe)
 
Future
Development
Costs
(in thousands)
PUDs beginning of year92,894
 $181,954
PUDs beginning of year (Predecessor)10,815
 $128,972
Revisions of previous estimates(11,051) (15,216)(5,282) (78,701)
Conversions to proved developed reserves(16,954) (37,766)(1,288) (19,641)
Additional PUDs added
 

 
PUDs end of year64,889
 $128,972
PUDs end of year (Successor)4,245
 $30,630
During 2016,2017, we invested approximately $37.8$19.6 million to convert 17.0 Bcfe1.3 MMBoe of PUDs to proved developed reserves in the GOM. AsThe revisions of December 31, 2016, we had no PUDsprevious estimates reflected in the Appalachia region.table above were primarily related to the reclassification of one PUD well as a result of the five year limitation based on changes to the development plan for this well subsequent to our emergence from bankruptcy.
The following represents additional information ontable includes production and estimated proved reserves associated with our significant properties:
      December 31, 2016  
    2016 Estimated  
Field Name Location 
Production
(MMcfe)
 
Proved Reserves
(MMcfe)
 
Nature of
Interest
Pompano (1) GOM Deep Water 32,629
 142,302
 Working
Mary (2) Appalachia 20,850
 101,227
 Working
Mississippi Canyon Block 109 GOM Deep Water 6,386
 37,641
 Working
Bayou Hebert Gulf Coast Deep Gas 3,916
 14,064
 Working
Main Pass Block 288 GOM Shelf 3,554
 10,533
 Working
Ship Shoal Block 113 GOM Shelf 4,668
 6,821
 Working
Heather (2) Appalachia 7,169
 5,931
 Working
      December 31, 2017  
    2017 Estimated  
Field Name Location 
Production
(MBoe)
 
Proved Reserves
(MBoe)
 
Nature of
Interest
Pompano (1) GOM Deep Water 4,211
 21,074
 Working
Mississippi Canyon Block 109 GOM Deep Water 995
 6,828
 Working
(1)Production volumes and estimated proved reserves include the Pompano and Cardona and Amethyst fields, allboth of which tie back to the Pompano platform. Estimated proved reserves include the Pompano and Cardona fields. The Amethyst well was shut-in during late April 2016 to allow for a technical evaluation. Intervention operations were unsuccessful and there were no estimated proved reserves booked at December 31, 2016. We expect to begin temporary abandonment operations on the well in late February 2017, and we will evaluate the well for potential sidetrack operations in the second half of 2017. The estimated proved reserves associated with the Amethyst well at year-end 2015 were approximately 78,870 MMcfe.
(2)At December 31, 2015, all of our Mary field reserves were removed from proved reserves due to the effect of reduced commodity prices. In late June 2016, we entered into an interim Appalachian midstream contract whereby we elected to resume production at the Mary field.
There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved reserves and in projecting future rates of production and the timing of development expenditures, including many factors beyond the control of the producer. The reserve data set forth herein only represents estimates. Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating underground accumulations

29

Table of Contents


of oil and natural gas that cannot be measured in an exact way. The accuracy of any reserve estimate depends on the quality of available data and the interpretation of that data by geological engineers. In addition, the results of drilling, testing and production activities may justify revisions of estimates that were made previously. If significant, these revisions would change the schedule of any further production and development drilling. Accordingly, reserve estimates are generally different from the quantities of oil and natural gas that are ultimately recovered. Further, the estimated future net revenues from proved reserves and the present value thereof are based upon certain assumptions, including geological success, prices, future production levels, operating costs, development costs and income taxes that may not prove to be correct. Predictions about prices and future production levels are subject to great uncertainty, and the meaningfulness of these estimates depends on the accuracy of the assumptions upon which they are based.
As an operator of domestic oil and gas properties, we have filed U.S. Department of Energy Form EIA-23, "Annual“Annual Survey of Oil and Gas Reserves," as required by Public Law 93-275. There are differences between the reserves as reported on Form EIA-23 and as reported herein. The differences are attributable to the fact that Form EIA-23 requires that an operator report the total reserves attributable to wells that it operates, without regard to percentage ownership (i.e., reserves are reported on a gross operated basis, rather than on a net interest basis) or non-operated wells in which it owns an interest.

30

Table of Contents


Acquisition, Production and Drilling Activity
Acquisition and Development Costs.  The following table sets forth certain information regarding the costs incurred in our acquisition, developmentexploratory and exploratorydevelopment activities in the United States and Canada during the periods indicated.indicated (in thousands).
Year Ended December 31,Successor  Predecessor
2016 2015 2014Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
(In thousands)  2016 2015
Acquisition costs, net of sales of unevaluated properties$3,425
 $(17,020) $51,590
$(8,371)  $(324) $3,425
 $(17,020)
Exploratory costs20,059
 112,936
 289,890
12,079
  2,055
 20,059
 112,936
Development costs (1)102,665
 266,982
 438,334
33,356
  12,547
 102,665
 266,982
Subtotal126,149
 362,898
 779,814
37,064
  14,278
 126,149
 362,898
Capitalized salaries, general and administrative costs and interest, net of fees and reimbursements47,866
 68,410
 76,363
10,418
  5,500
 47,866
 68,410
Total additions to oil and gas properties, net$174,015
 $431,308
 $856,177
$47,482
  $19,778
 $174,015
 $431,308
(1)Includes net changes in capitalized asset retirement costs of ($17,446), $0, ($4,461), and ($43,901) for the period March 1, 2017 through December��31, 2017 (Successor), the period January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and ($20,305) for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and 2014,(Predecessor), respectively.

30

Table of Contents


Production Volumes, Sales Price and Cost Data.  The following table sets forth certain information regarding our production volumes, sales prices and average production costs for the periods indicated.
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014  2016 2015
Production:             
Oil (MBbls)6,308
 5,991
 5,568
4,169
  908
 6,308
 5,991
Natural gas (MMcf)29,441
 36,457
 47,426
7,616
  5,037
 29,441
 36,457
NGLs (MBbls)2,183
 2,401
 2,114
403
  408
 2,183
 2,401
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)80,387
 86,809
 93,518
Average sales prices:     
Prior to the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts     
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)5,841
  2,156
 13,398
 14,468
Average sales prices: (1)
        
Oil (per Bbl)$40.82
 $46.88
 $91.27
$50.80
  $50.48
 $44.59
 $69.52
Natural gas (per Mcf)1.80
 1.90
 3.67
2.48
  2.68
 2.19
 2.29
NGLs (per Bbl)13.23
 13.46
 40.51
23.85
  21.34
 13.23
 13.46
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)4.22
 4.40
 8.21
Including the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts     
Oil (per Bbl)$44.59
 $69.52
 $92.69
Natural gas (per Mcf)2.19
 2.29
 3.51
NGLs (per Bbl)13.23
 13.46
 40.51
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)4.66
 6.13
 8.21
Expenses (per Mcfe):     
Lease operating expenses (1)$0.99
 $1.15
 $1.89
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Boe)41.14
  31.55
 27.97
 36.79
Expenses (per Boe):        
Lease operating expenses (2)$8.53
  $4.09
 $5.94
 $6.92
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses0.35
 0.68
 0.69
0.70
  3.22
 2.07
 4.07
(1)Prices for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 include the realized impact of derivative instrument settlements, which increased the price of oil by $3.77 per Bbl and $22.64 per Bbl, respectively, and increased the price of gas by $0.39 per Mcf for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
(2)Includes oil and gas operating costs and major maintenance expense and excludes production taxes.

31

Table of Contents


Production Volumes, Sales Price and Cost Data for Individually Significant Fields. The following tables set forth certain information regarding our oil, natural gas and NGL production volumes, sales prices and average production costs for the periods indicated for any field(s) containing 15% or more of our total estimated proved reserves at December 31, 2016.2017.
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
FIELD: Pompano (1)2016 2015 2014   2016 2015
Production:             
Oil (MBbls)3,858
 2,994
 1,311
2,649
  547
 3,858
 2,994
Natural gas (MMcf)7,882
 3,466
 2,894
3,531
  689
 7,882
 3,466
NGLs (MBbls)267
 245
 151
267
  44
 267
 245
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)32,629
 22,902
 11,666
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)3,505
  706
 5,439
 3,817
Average sales prices:             
Oil (per Bbl)$41.86
 $49.18
 $92.53
$51.60
  $52.11
 $41.86
 $49.18
Natural gas (per Mcf)2.15
 2.17
 3.10
2.47
  2.46
 2.15
 2.17
NGLs (per Bbl)12.46
 15.28
 41.27
22.24
  24.60
 12.46
 15.28
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)5.57
 6.92
 11.70
Expenses (per Mcfe):     
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Boe)43.18
  44.33
 33.43
 41.53
Expenses (per Boe):        
Lease operating expenses (2)$0.78
 $0.91
 $2.75
$4.48
  $2.31
 $4.69
 $5.47
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses0.10
 0.07
 0.13
0.37
  0.49
 0.58
 0.44
(1)Includes the Pompano and Cardona and Amethyst fields, allboth of which tie back to the Pompano platform.
(2)Includes oil Amounts for 2015 and gas operating costs2016 include production and major maintenance expenseexpenses for the Amethyst well which also tied back to the Pompano platform. The Amethyst well was shut-in in April 2016, and excludes production taxes.
 Year Ended December 31,
FIELD: Mary (1)2016 2015 2014
Production:     
Oil (MBbls)278
 464
 525
Natural gas (MMcf)10,012
 16,764
 17,974
NGLs (MBbls)1,528
 1,583
 1,247
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)20,850
 29,050
 28,605
Average sales prices:     
Oil (per Bbl)$32.91
 $26.35
 $51.72
Natural gas (per Mcf)1.61
 1.77
 3.55
NGLs (per Bbl)11.99
 11.04
 38.86
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)2.09
 2.05
 4.88
Expenses (per Mcfe):     
Lease operating expenses (2)$0.47
 $0.48
 $0.55
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses0.86
 1.35
 1.50
(1)The Mary fieldthe lease was shut in from September 2015 through June 2016.ultimately surrendered during the second quarter of 2017.
(2)Includes oil and gas operating costs and major maintenance expense and excludes production taxes.


3231

Table of Contents


 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
FIELD: Mississippi Canyon Block 109   2016 2015
Production:        
Oil (MBbls)665
  143
 861
 861
Natural gas (MMcf)809
  175
 1,087
 1,267
NGLs (MBbls)19
  4
 22
 42
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)819
  176
 1,064
 1,114
Average sales prices:        
Oil (per Bbl)$49.18
  $49.21
 $39.22
 $47.75
Natural gas (per Mcf)1.37
  1.51
 1.20
 1.41
NGLs (per Bbl)30.88
  32.33
 23.79
 24.78
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Boe)42.00
  42.23
 33.47
 39.43
Expenses (per Boe):        
Lease operating expenses (1)$13.36
  $9.43
 $9.94
 $9.94
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses (2)0.27
  1.81
 (2.62) 0.32
(1)Includes oil and gas operating costs and major maintenance expense and excludes production taxes.
(2)The year ended December 31, 2016 includes the recoupment of prior period expenses against federal royalties.

Drilling Activity.  The following table sets forth our drilling activity for the periods indicated.
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 20142017 2016 2015
Gross Net Gross Net Gross NetGross Net Gross Net Gross Net
Exploratory Wells:                      
Productive
 
 2
 0.25
 5
 4.31
1
 0.40
 
 
 2
 0.25
Dry
 
 2
 0.42
 2
 0.90

 
 
 
 2
 0.42
Development Wells:                      
Productive1
 0.65
 7
 5.81
 38
 33.35

 
 1
 0.65
 7
 5.81
Dry
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
During the period from January 1, 2018 through March 9, 2018, we drilled one successful development well in which we own a 100% working interest.

32

Table of Contents


Productive Well and Acreage Data.  The following table sets forth certain statistics regarding the number of productive wells as of December 31, 2016.2017.
Gross NetGross Net
Productive Wells:      
Oil (1):      
Deep Water48
 43
48
 43
Deep Gas
 

 
Conventional Shelf27
 27
28
 28
Appalachia
 
75
 70
76
 71
Gas:      
Deep Water1
 1
2
 2
Deep Gas4
 1
2
 1
Conventional Shelf6
 5
6
 5
Appalachia138
 98
149
 105
10
 8
Total productive wells224
 175
86
 79
   
(1) Five gross wells each have dual completions.

 The following table sets forth certain statistics regarding developed and undeveloped acres as of December 31, 2016.2017.
Gross NetGross Net
Developed Acres:      
Deep Water97,920
 61,907
86,400
 50,891
Deep Gas24,729
 1,702
23,797
 1,576
Conventional Shelf72,657
 50,334
67,789
 47,029
Appalachia48,822
 40,084
Other8,356
 2,642
6,427
 2,250
252,484
 156,669
184,413
 101,746
Undeveloped Acres (2):   
Undeveloped Acres:   
Deep Water325,440
 206,376
201,600
 118,376
Deep Gas6,062
 2,924
7,971
 3,884
Conventional Shelf5,132
 5,113

 
Appalachia55,999
 43,689
Other4,309
 1,104
160
 160
396,942
 259,206
209,731
 122,420
Total developed and undeveloped acres649,426
 415,875
394,144
 224,166

33

Table of Contents


(1) 5 gross wells each have dual completions.
(2) Leases covering approximately 5%16% of our undeveloped gross acreage will expire in 2017, 36% in 2018, 21%25% in 2019, 12%14% in 2020, 5%9% in 2021, 8%14% in 2022, 16% in 2023, and 7%3% in 2023.

2024. As of December 31, 2016,2017, none of our PUDs were assigned to locations that are currently scheduled to be drilled after lease expiration.

The acreage statistics above include both producing and non-producing acres. Of the producing acres, 49,788 gross acres (20,280 net) are producing acres of third parties that Stone has deep rights interest in only.
Title to Properties
We believe that we have satisfactory title to substantially all of our active properties in accordance with standards generally accepted in the oil and gas industry. Our properties are subject to customary royalty interests, liens for current taxes and other burdens, which we believe do not materially interfere with the use of or affect the value of such properties. Prior to acquiring undeveloped properties, we perform a title investigation that is thorough but less vigorous than that conducted prior to drilling, which is consistent with standard practice in the oil and gas industry. Before we commence drilling operations, we conduct a thorough title examination and perform curative work with respect to significant defects before proceeding with operations. We have performed a thorough title examination with respect to substantially all of our active properties.


33

Table of Contents


ITEM 3.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We are named as a party in certain lawsuits and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not expect that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
On November 11, 2013, two lawsuits were filed, and on November 12, 2013, a third lawsuit was filed, against Stone and other named co-defendants, by the Parish of Jefferson ("(“Jefferson Parish"Parish”), on behalf of Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana, in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, alleging violations of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, as amended, and the applicable regulations, rules, orders and ordinances thereunder (collectively, "the CRMA"“the CRMA”), relating to certain of the defendants’ alleged oil and gas operations in Jefferson Parish, and seeking to recover alleged unspecified damages to the Jefferson Parish Coastal Zone and remedies, including unspecified monetary damages and declaratory relief, restoration of the Jefferson Parish Coastal Zone and related costs and attorney’s fees. In March and April 2016, the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, respectively, intervened in the three lawsuits. On November 10, 2016, a decision dismissing a Jefferson Parish Coastal Zone Management ("CZM") test case failure to exhaust administrative remedies was reversed. Defendants in the test case are seeking appellate review. Shortly after Stone filed a suggestionIn connection with Stone’s filing of bankruptcy in December 2016, Jefferson Parish dismissed its claims against Stone in two of itsthe three CZM suits against StoneJefferson Parish Coastal Zone Management lawsuits without prejudice to refiling.refiling; the claims of the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources were not similarly dismissed. Stone emerged from bankruptcy effective February 28, 2017, and the bankruptcy cases were closed by order of the Bankruptcy Court on April 20, 2017.
In addition, on November 8, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against Stone and other named co-defendants by the Parish of Plaquemines ("(“Plaquemines Parish"Parish”), on behalf of Plaquemines Parish and the State of Louisiana, in the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana, alleging violations of the CRMA, relating to certain of the defendants’ alleged oil and gas operations in Plaquemines Parish, and seeking to recover alleged unspecified damages to the Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone and remedies, including unspecified monetary damages and declaratory relief, restoration of the Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone, and related costs and attorney’s fees. On November 12, 2015, the Plaquemines Parish Council passed a resolution instructing its attorneys to dismiss all 21 CZM suits filed by the Plaquemines Parish. In March and April 2016, the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, respectively, intervened in the lawsuit. Shortly after Stone filed a suggestionIn connection with Stone’s filing of bankruptcy in December 2016, Plaquemines Parish dismissed its CZM suitclaims against Stone without prejudice to refiling.refiling; the claims of the Louisiana Attorney General and the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources were not similarly dismissed. Stone emerged from bankruptcy effective February 28, 2017, and the bankruptcy cases were closed by order of the Bankruptcy Court on April 20, 2017.
On November 17, 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("PADEP"(“PADEP”) issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Stone alleging releases of production fluid and an improper closure of a drill cuttings pit at Stone’s Loomis No. 1 well site in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Prior to this, in September 2014, Stone had transferred ownership of the Loomis No. 1 well site to Southwestern Energy Company ("Southwestern"(“Southwestern”). PADEP approved the transfer on November 24, 2014, after issuing the NOV to Stone. Stone investigated the allegations found in the NOV and responded to PADEP on January 5, 2015. Reclamation of the site by Southwestern, with the participation of the PADEP and Stone, is now complete.was completed. The PADEP may impose a penalty in this matter, but the amount of such penalty cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
On each of January 4, February 4, 2016, ICO Marcellus I, LLC ("ICO")2, and B&R Holdings, Inc. ("B&R")February 8, 2018, separate lawsuits were filed a lawsuit against Stone Energy Corporation, the individual directors of the board of directors of Stone Energy Corporation and other named co-defendants by stockholders of Stone Energy Corporation. Two of the lawsuits were filed in Wetzel County, West Virginia, alleging that Stone breached the applicable joint venture agreementU.S. District Court of Delaware and joint operating agreement between the parties. On November 17, 2016, thethird lawsuit was dismissed based uponfiled in the parties’ resolutionU.S. District Court for the Western District Louisiana. The three lawsuits allege violations of all claims. Stone made a cash payment toSections 14(a), and was assigned certain interests from ICO and B&R as part20(a) of the settlement.

34

TableSecurities Exchange Act of Contents

1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on December 29, 2017, was materially incomplete because it omitted material information concerning the transactions contemplated by that certain Transaction Agreement, dated November 21, 2017, by and among Stone Energy Corporation, certain wholly-owned, direct and indirect, subsidiaries of Stone Energy Corporation, Talos Energy LLC and Talos Production LLC. The three lawsuits also seek certification as class actions. These lawsuits were recently filed and are in the preliminary stages of defense and assessment. The defendants believe that the allegations contained in the matters described above are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised.

Legal proceedings are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues relating to the litigation. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of some of these matters and may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses or any minimum loss from such matters.

Chapter 11 Proceedings
On December 14, 2016, the Debtorsfiled Bankruptcy Petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed certain actions against the Company, including actions to collect pre-petition liabilities or to exercise control over the property of the Debtors. The Plan in our Chapter 11 proceedings provides for the treatment of pre-petition liabilities that have not otherwise been satisfied or addressed during the Chapter 11 cases. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Company's plan of reorganization. We expect the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, at which point the Debtors would emerge from bankruptcy, however, there can be no assurance that the effectiveness of the Plan will occur on such date, or at all. For additional information on the bankruptcy proceedings, see Part II. Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
ITEM 4.    MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.


35
34

Table of Contents


PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
SinceFrom July 9, 1993 through February 28, 2017, our Predecessor Company common stock has beenwas listed on the NYSE under the symbol "SGY." “SGY.” Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all existing shares of Predecessor Company common stock were cancelled and the Successor Company issued an aggregate of 20.0 million shares of New Common Stock which were listed on the NYSE and began trading on March 1, 2017 under the symbol “SGY”.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our Predecessor and Successor common stock. All Predecessor share prices reflect the 1-for-10 reverse stock split with respect to ourthe Predecessor common stock which we completed on June 10, 2016 in order to increase the per share trading price of our common stock in order to regain compliance with the NYSE's minimum share price requirement.2016.
High LowHigh Low
2015   
First Quarter$189.80
 $120.70
Second Quarter196.50
 123.30
Third Quarter125.00
 37.40
Fourth Quarter98.40
 30.60
Predecessor Company   
2016      
First Quarter$46.60
 $6.80
$46.60
 $6.80
Second Quarter13.50
 2.70
13.50
 2.70
Third Quarter25.50
 8.42
25.50
 8.42
Fourth Quarter12.50
 3.69
12.50
 3.69
2017      
First Quarter (through February 21, 2017)$9.95
 $6.25
Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 20179.95
 5.95
Successor Company   
2017   
Period from March 1, 2017 through March 31, 201732.39
 16.50
Second Quarter26.03
 16.76
Third Quarter30.92
 18.37
Fourth Quarter35.83
 23.58
2018   
First Quarter (through March 7, 2018)39.70
 29.18
On February 21, 2017,March 7, 2018, the last reported sales price of our common stock on the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE Composite Tape was $6.62$31.31 per share. As of that date, there were 336317 holders of record of our common stock.
Dividend Restrictions
In the past, we have not paid cash dividends on our common stock, and we do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain earnings, if any, for the future operation and development of our business. The restrictions on our present or future ability to pay dividends are included in the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and in certain restrictive provisions in the indenturesindenture executed in connection with our 2017 Convertible Notes and ourthe 2022 Second Lien Notes. In addition, our bank credit facilitythe Amended Credit Agreement contains provisions that prohibit the payment of dividends. We expect that the Amended Credit Facility and the indenture for the Second Lien Notes also will contain limitations or prohibitions on the payment of dividends.

36

Table of Contents


Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
On September 24, 2007,Shares of our board of directors authorized a share repurchase program for an aggregate amount of up to $100 million. The shares may be repurchased from time to time in the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program is subject to business and market conditions and may be suspended or discontinued at any time. Additionally, sharescommon stock are sometimes withheld from certain employees and nonemployee directors to pay taxes associated with the granting of stock awards and the vesting of restricted stock or granting of stock awards.stock. These withheld shares are not issued or considered common stock repurchases under ourany authorized share repurchase program. The following table sets forth information regarding our repurchasesWe had no shares withheld from employees or acquisitions of our common stocknonemployee directors during the fourth quarter of 2016:three months ended December 31, 2017.
Period 
Total Number
of Shares
Purchased (1)
 
Average Price
Paid per Share
 
Total Number of
Shares Purchased
as Part of Publicly
Announced Plans
or Programs (2)
 
Approximate Dollar
Value of Shares that
May Yet be Purchased
Under the Plans or
Programs
October 1 – October 31, 2016 804
 $4.10
   
November 1 – November 30, 2016 1,619
 4.03
   
December 1 – December 31, 2016     
  2,423
 $4.05
  $92,928,632
(1)Amount includes shares of our common stock withheld from employees and nonemployee directors upon the vesting of restricted stock or granting of stock awards in order to satisfy the required tax withholding obligations.
(2)There were no repurchases of our common stock under our share repurchase program during the fourth quarter of 2016.

Equity Compensation Plan Information
Please refer to Item 1212. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters of this Form 10-K for information concerning securities authorized under our equity compensation plan.

3735

Table of Contents


Stock Performance Graph
As required by applicable rules
The following graph and table compare the cumulative return to our stockholders on our Successor common stock beginning March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, relative to the cumulative total returns of the SEC,Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index (the “S&P 500 Index”) and the Peer Group (as defined below) for the same period. The comparison assumes an investment of $100 (with dividends re-invested on the ex-dividend dates) was made in our Successor common stock, in the S&P 500 Index and in the Peer Group on March 1, 2017, and relative performance graph shown below was preparedis tracked through December 31, 2017. Peer Group investment is weighted based upon the following assumptions:market capitalization of each individual company within the Peer Group at the beginning of the period.
1.$100 was invested in the Company’s common stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index ("S&P 500 Index") and the Peer Group (as defined below) on December 30, 2011 at $26.38 per share for the Company’s common stock and at the closing price of the stocks comprising the S&P 500 Index and the Peer Group, respectively, on such date.
2.Peer Group investment is weighted based upon the market capitalization of each individual company within the Peer Group at the beginning of the period.
3.Dividends are reinvested on the ex-dividend dates.

  Measurement Period
  (Fiscal Year Covered)
 SGY 2016 Peer
Group
 
S&P 500
Index
12/31/2012 77.79
 91.93
 116.00
12/31/2013 131.12
 121.45
 153.57
12/31/2014 63.99
 81.23
 174.60
12/31/2015 16.26
 48.42
 177.01
12/31/2016 2.71
 68.01
 198.18
Value of Initial $100 Investment         
  March 1, 20172017 Month-End
  MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.
Stone Energy $100
$83.97
$80.51
$83.43
$70.67
$82.97
$93.04
$111.73
$113.11
$97.42
$123.64
S&P 500 Index 100
98.75
99.76
101.17
101.80
103.89
104.21
106.36
108.84
112.18
113.43
Peer Group 100
97.10
90.76
82.87
78.75
78.92
72.99
82.64
84.43
85.83
88.71
The companies that comprised our Peer Group in 20162017 were: Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Callon Petroleum Company, Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., Cimarex Energy Company, Comstock Resources, Inc., Contango Oil & Gas Company, Denbury Resources Inc., Energy XXI Ltd., Exco Resources, Inc., Newfield Exploration Company, PDC Energy, PetroQuest Energy, Inc., Range Resources Corporation, SandRidge Energy, Inc., Silverbow Resources, Inc. (formerly Swift Energy), SM Energy Company, Swift Energy Company, Ultra Petroleum Corporation, W&T Offshore, Inc. and Whiting Petroleum Corporation. The 2016 Peer Group was the same as our 2015 peer group.
The information in this Form 10-K appearing under the heading "Stock“Stock Performance Graph"Graph” is being "furnished"“furnished” pursuant to Item 2.01(e)201(e) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act and shall not be deemed to be "soliciting material"“soliciting material” or "filed"“filed” with the SEC or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C, other than as provided in Item 2.01(e)201(e) of Regulation S-K, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act.

3836

Table of Contents


ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table sets forthAs a summary of selected historical financial information for eachresult of the years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2016. This information is derived fromadoption of fresh start accounting, our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. Certainsubsequent to February 28, 2017 will not be comparable to our financial statements prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation.that date. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.The following tables set forth, as of the dates and for the periods indicated, our selected financial information, which is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements for the respective periods (in thousands, except per share amounts). Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation.
 Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Income Statement Data:(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Operating revenue:         
Oil production$281,246
 $416,497
 $516,104
 $715,104
 $761,304
Natural gas production64,601
 83,509
 166,494
 190,580
 134,739
Natural gas liquids production28,888
 32,322
 85,642
 60,687
 48,498
Other operational income2,657
 4,369
 7,951
 7,808
 3,520
Derivative income, net
 7,952
 19,351
 
 3,428
Total operating revenue377,392
 544,649
 795,542
 974,179
 951,489
Operating expenses:
         
Lease operating expenses79,650
 100,139
 176,495
 201,153
 215,003
Transportation, processing, gathering expenses27,760
 58,847
 64,951
 42,172
 21,782
Production taxes3,148
 6,877
 12,151
 15,029
 10,015
Depreciation, depletion and amortization220,079
 281,688
 340,006
 350,574
 344,365
Write-down of oil and gas properties357,431
 1,362,447
 351,192
 
 
Accretion expense40,229
 25,988
 28,411
 33,575
 33,331
Salaries, general and administrative expenses58,928
 69,384
 66,451
 59,524
 54,648
Franchise tax settlement
 
 
 12,590
 
Incentive compensation expense13,475
 2,242
 10,361
 15,340
 8,113
Restructuring fees29,597
 
 
 
 
Other operational expenses55,453
 2,360
 862
 151
 267
Derivative expense, net810
 
 
 2,090
 
Total operating expenses886,560
 1,909,972
 1,050,880
 732,198
 687,524
Income (loss) from operations(509,168) (1,365,323) (255,338) 241,981
 263,965
Other (income) expenses:         
Interest expense64,458
 43,928
 38,855
 32,837
 30,375
Interest income(550) (580) (574) (1,695) (600)
Other income(1,439) (1,783) (2,332) (2,799) (1,805)
Other expense596
 434
 274
 
 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
 
 
 27,279
 1,972
Reorganization items10,947
 
 
 
 
Total other expenses74,012
 41,999
 36,223
 55,622
 29,942
Income (loss) before income taxes(583,180) (1,407,322) (291,561) 186,359
 234,023
Income tax provision (benefit)7,406
 (316,407) (102,018) 68,725
 84,597
Net income (loss)$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543) $117,634
 $149,426
Basic earnings (loss) per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95) $23.58
 $30.31
Diluted earnings (loss) per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95) $23.56
 $30.28
Cash dividends declared per share
 
 
 
 
Cash Flow Data:         
Net cash provided by operating activities$78,588
 $247,474
 $401,141
 $594,205
 $509,749
Net cash used in investing activities(238,172) (321,290) (872,587) (623,036) (568,688)
Net cash provided by financing activities339,415
 10,161
 215,446
 80,594
 300,014
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period):         
Working capital (deficit)$132,409
 $(8,803) $226,805
 $181,255
 $300,348
Oil and gas properties, net811,514
 1,211,986
 2,414,002
 2,619,696
 2,182,095
Total assets1,139,483
 1,410,169
 3,009,857
 3,238,117
 2,750,987
Long-term debt, less current portion (1)352,376
 1,060,955
 1,032,281
 1,016,645
 888,682
Stockholders’ equity(637,282) (39,789) 1,101,603
 970,286
 872,133
(1) Reduction in long-term debt is due to the reclassification of the Company's 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes to liabilities subject to compromise.
 Successor  Predecessor 
 Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017  Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 Year Ended December 31, 
    2016 2015 2014 2013 
Operating revenue:             
Oil production$211,792
  $45,837
 $281,246
 $416,497
 $516,104
 $715,104
 
Natural gas production18,874
  13,476
 64,601
 83,509
 166,494
 190,580
 
Natural gas liquids production9,610
  8,706
 28,888
 32,322
 85,642
 60,687
 
Other operational income10,008
  903
 2,657
 4,369
 7,951
 7,808
 
Derivative income, net
  
 
 7,952
 19,351
 
 
Total operating revenue250,284
  68,922
 377,392
 544,649
 795,542
 974,179
 
Operating expenses:
             
Lease operating expenses49,800
  8,820
 79,650
 100,139
 176,495
 201,153
 
Transportation, processing, gathering exp.4,084
  6,933
 27,760
 58,847
 64,951
 42,172
 
Production taxes629
  682
 3,148
 6,877
 12,151
 15,029
 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization99,890
  37,429
 220,079
 281,688
 340,006
 350,574
 
Write-down of oil and gas properties256,435
  
 357,431
 1,362,447
 351,192
 
 
Accretion expense21,151
  5,447
 40,229
 25,988
 28,411
 33,575
 
Salaries, general and administrative exp.47,817
  9,629
 58,928
 69,384
 66,451
 59,524
 
Franchise tax settlement
  
 
 
 
 12,590
 
Incentive compensation expense8,045
  2,008
 13,475
 2,242
 10,361
 15,340
 
Restructuring fees739
  
 29,597
 
 
 
 
Other operational expenses3,359
  530
 55,453
 2,360
 862
 151
 
Derivative expense, net13,388
  1,778
 810
 
 
 2,090
 
Total operating expenses505,337
  73,256
 886,560
 1,909,972
 1,050,880
 732,198
 
Gain (loss) on Appalachia Prop. divestiture(105)  213,453
 
 
 
 
 
Income (loss) from operations(255,158)  209,119
 (509,168) (1,365,323) (255,338) 241,981
 
Other (income) expense:             
Interest expense11,744
  
 64,458
 43,928
 38,855
 32,837
 
Interest income(998)  (45) (550) (580) (574) (1,695) 
Other income(1,156)  (315) (1,439) (1,783) (2,332) (2,799) 
Other expense1,230
  13,336
 596
 434
 274
 
 
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
  
 
 
 
 27,279
 
Reorganization items
  (437,744) 10,947
 
 
 
 
Total other (income) expense10,820
  (424,768) 74,012
 41,999
 36,223
 55,622
 
Income (loss) before income taxes(265,978)  633,887
 (583,180) (1,407,322) (291,561) 186,359
 
Income tax provision (benefit)(18,339)  3,570
 7,406
 (316,407) (102,018) 68,725
 
Net income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543) $117,634
 
Basic earnings (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95) $23.58
 
Diluted earnings (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95) $23.56
 
Cash dividends declared per share
  
 
 
 
 
 
Cash Flow Data:             
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities$89,076
  $(5,884) $78,588
 $247,474
 $401,141
 $594,205
 
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities11,993
  421,021
 (238,172) (321,290) (872,587) (623,036) 
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities(540)  (442,752) 339,415
 10,161
 215,446
 80,594
 

3937

Table of Contents



 Successor  Predecessor
 As of  As of December 31,
 December 31, 2017  2016 2015 2014 2013
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period):          
Working capital (deficit)$193,446
  $132,409
 $(8,803) $226,805
 $181,255
Oil and gas properties, net461,882
  811,514
 1,211,986
 2,414,002
 2,619,696
Total assets858,773
  1,139,483
 1,410,169
 3,009,857
 3,238,117
Long-term debt, less current portion (1)235,502
  352,376
 1,060,955
 1,032,281
 1,016,645
Stockholders’ equity308,168
  (637,282) (39,789) 1,101,603
 970,286
(1) Reduction in long-term debt in 2016 is due to the reclassification of the Company’s 1 ¾% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017 (the “2017 Convertible Notes”) and 7 ½% Senior Notes due 2022 (the “2022 Notes”) to liabilities subject to compromise.

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion and analysis is intended to assist in understanding our financial positioncondition and results of operations for eachoperations. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with other sections of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. Ourthis report, including: Item 1. Business, Item 1A. Risk Factors and our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto which are found elsewhere in this Form 10-K, contain detailed information that should be referred to in conjunction with the following discussion. See Item 1A. Risk Factors and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data – Note 1..
Executive Overview
We are an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and operation of oil and gas properties. We have been operating in the GOM Basin since our incorporation in 1993 and have established a technical and operational expertise in this area. We have leveraged our experience in the GOM conventional shelf and expanded our reserve base into the more prolific basinsplays of the GOM deep water, Gulf Coast deep gas and the Marcellus and Utica shales in Appalachia. At December 31, 2016, we had producing properties and acreage in the Marcellus and Utica Shales in Appalachia. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we entered intodetermined that a purchase and sale agreementof the Appalachia Properties would be a beneficial way to sellmaximize value for all of our Appalachia Properties.stakeholders. We expect to closecompleted the sale of the Appalachia Properties byto EQT on February 28,27, 2017 subject to customary closing conditions, after which we will no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia.for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. See Item 1. Business – Operational Overview.Reorganization and Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings” below for additional information of the sale of the Appalachia Properties.
2016 OverviewStrategic Review and Pending Combination with Talos
The lower commodity prices from mid-2014 through 2016 resulted in reduced revenue and cash flows and have negatively impacted our liquidity position. Additionally,
Following the levelsuccessful completion of our indebtednessfinancial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11 reorganization, the Board retained a financial advisor in April 2017 to assist the Board in its determination of the Company’s strategic direction, including assessing its various strategic alternatives, and on November 21, 2017, Stone and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a series of related agreements pertaining to a business combination with Talos.

Stone, Sailfish Energy Holdings Corporation (“New Talos”), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Stone, and Sailfish Merger Sub Corporation, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Talos, entered into the Transaction Agreement with Talos on November 21, 2017, which contemplates the Transactions occurring on the date of closing of the Transaction Agreement (the “Closing”) that will result in such business combination. Stone and Talos will become wholly owned subsidiaries of New Talos. At the time of the Closing, the parties intend that New Talos will become a publicly traded entity named Talos Energy, Inc. The Transactions include (i) the contribution of 100% of the equity interests in Talos Production to New Talos in exchange for shares of New Talos common stock, (ii) the contribution by entities controlled by or affiliated with Apollo Management (the “Apollo Funds”) and Riverstone (the “Riverstone Funds”) of $102 million in aggregate principal amount of 9.75% Senior Notes due 2022 issued by Talos Production and Talos Production Finance Inc. (together, the “the Talos Issuers”) to New Talos in exchange for shares of New Talos common stock, (iii) the exchange of the second lien bridge loans due 2022 issued by the Talos Issuers for newly issued 11% second lien notes issued by the Talos Issuers, and (iv) the exchange of the 2022 Second Lien Notes issued by Stone for newly issued 11% second lien notes issued by the Talos Issuers.

Under the terms of the Transaction Agreement, each outstanding share of Stone common stock will be exchanged for one share of New Talos common stock and the current commodity price environment have presented challenges as they relate to our ability to comply withTalos stakeholders (including the covenants in the agreements governing our indebtedness. As of December 31, 2016, we had total indebtedness of $1,427.8 million, including $300 million of 2017 Convertible Notes, $775 million of 2022 Notes, $341.5 million outstanding under our bank credit facility and $11.3 million outstanding under our Building Loan. In response to the significant decline in commodity prices, we focused on managing our balance sheet during 2016 to preserve liquidity during this extended low commodity price environment by taking certain steps, including reductions in capital expendituresApollo Funds and the termination and renegotiation of various contracts, reductions in workforce and reductions in discretionary expenditures. Additionally, in March 2016, we retained financial and legal advisors to assist the Company in analyzing and considering financial, transactional and strategic alternatives. We engaged in negotiations with financial advisors for the holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes regarding the restructuring of the notes and with our banks regarding an amendment to our bank credit facility.
On March 10, 2016, we borrowed $385 million under our bank credit facility, which at the time, represented substantially all of the undrawn amount on our $500 million bank credit facility. On April 13, 2016, the borrowing base under our bank credit facility was reduced by the lenders from $500 million to $300 million. On that date, we had $457 million of outstanding borrowings and $18.3 million of outstanding letters of credit under the bank credit facility, resulting in a $175.3 million borrowing base deficiency. In June 2016, however, we entered into the June Amendment to our bank credit facility, which among other things, resulted in an increase of our borrowing base from $300 million to $360 million and relaxed certain financial covenants through December 31, 2016. Upon execution of the June Amendment, we repaid the balance of our borrowing base deficiency, resulting in approximately $360 million outstanding under the credit facility at that time.
In June 2016, we terminated our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco for total consideration of $20 million. Additionally, we entered into an interim Appalachian midstream contract with Williams at the Mary field in Appalachia, whereby we elected to resume production at the Mary field, which had been shut-in since September 2015. In August 2016, we paid $7.5 million for the early terminations of an Appalachian drilling rig contract and a contract with an offshore vessel provider.
Production from our deep water Amethyst well was shut-in in April 2016 to allow for a technical evaluation.  During the first week of November, we initiated acid stimulation work and intermittently flowed the well during the month of November at a rate of 10 – 15 million cubic feet of gas per day, while observing and evaluating the well’s performance. On November 30, 2016, we performed a routine shut-in of the well to record pressures and determined that pressure communication existed between the production tubing and production casing strings, resulting from a suspected tubing leak. Intervention operations were unsuccessful. There were no estimated proved reserve quantities booked at December 31, 2016 for the Amethyst well. We expect to begin temporary abandonment operations on the well in late February 2017, and weRiverstone Funds) will evaluate the well for potential sidetrack operations in the second half of 2017. As of December 31, 2015, Amethyst represented approximately 23% and 26% of our estimated proved reserves quantities and standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows, respectively. 
As of September 30, 2016, we were in compliance with all covenants under the bank credit facility and the indentures governing our notes, however, we anticipated that the minimum liquidity requirement and other restrictions under the June Amendment would prevent us from being able to meet our interest payment obligation on the 2022 Notes in the fourth quarter of

4038

Table of Contents


2016be issued an aggregate of approximately 34.1 million common shares of New Talos. After the completion of the Transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement, holders of Stone common stock immediately prior to the combination will collectively hold 37% of the outstanding New Talos common stock and Talos Energy stakeholders will hold 63% of the outstanding New Talos common stock. Outstanding warrants to acquire Stone common stock will become warrants to acquire New Talos common stock with terms and conditions substantially identical to their existing terms and conditions.

The combination was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of Stone and Talos Energy. Completion of the combination is subject to the approval of Stone shareholders, the consummation of a tender offer and consent solicitation for Stone’s 2022 Second Lien Notes, certain regulatory approvals and other customary conditions. Franklin and MacKay Shields, as wellinvestment managers for approximately 53% of the outstanding common shares of Stone as of September 30, 2017, entered into voting agreements to vote in favor of the subsequent maturitycombination, subject to certain conditions. The Transaction Agreement contains certain termination rights for Stone and Talos Energy. Stone may be required to pay a termination fee and to reimburse transaction expenses to Talos Energy if the Transaction Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances. The combination is expected to close in the second quarter of our2018. We cannot provide any assurance that the combination will be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, or at all. The above is a summary of the material terms of the Transactions and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Sailfish Energy Holdings Corporation Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on December 29, 2017, Convertible Notesas amended on March 1, 2017. As a result of these conditions, continued decreases in commodity prices and the significant level of our indebtedness, we continued to work with our financial and legal advisors throughout 2016 to structure a plan of reorganization to improve our financial position and liquidity and allow for growth and long-term success. See Liquidity and Capital Resources.February 8, 2018.

Reorganization and Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings

On December 14, 2016, the Debtorswe filed the Bankruptcy Petitions seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.Code to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization to address our liquidity and capital structure. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtorsare operating as "debtors-in-possession" in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court granted all first day motions filed by the Debtors, allowing the Company to operate its business in the ordinary course throughout the bankruptcy process. The first day motions included, among other things, a cash collateral motion, a motion maintaining the Company's existing cash management systemPlan, and motions making various vendor payments, wage payments and tax payments in the ordinary course of business. Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the Chapter 11 filings automatically stayed most judicial or administrative actions against the Debtors or their property to recover, collect or secure a pre-petition claim. This prohibits, for example, our lenders or noteholders from pursuing claims for defaults under our debt agreements. We expect the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, at which point the Debtors would emergePlan became effective and we emerged from bankruptcy.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, however, there can be no assurance that the effectivenessCompany adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of ASC 852, “Reorganizations”, which resulted in the Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes on the Effective Date. As a result of the Planadoption of fresh start accounting, the Company’s consolidated financial statements subsequent to February 28, 2017 will occurnot be comparable to its financial statements prior to that date. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for further details on such date,the impact of fresh start accounting on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. References to “Successor” or at all.“Successor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to “Predecessor” or “Predecessor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.
Restructuring Support
In connection with our reorganization, we entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement
Prior to filing the Bankruptcy Petitions, on dated October 20, 2016, as amended on December 9, 2016 (the “Tug Hill PSA”), with TH Exploration III, LLC, an affiliate of Tug Hill, Inc. (“Tug Hill”), to sell the Debtors entered into the Original RSA with the NoteholdersAppalachia Properties to support a restructuringTug Hill for $360 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders in January 2017, two additional bidders were allowed to participate in competitive bidding on the termsAppalachia Properties, and on February 8, 2017, Stone conducted an auction for the sale of the Plan. On November 17, 2016, the Debtors commenced a solicitation to seek acceptance by a majority of those voting in each voting class of claimsAppalachia Properties. Upon conclusion of the auction, Stone selected the final bid submitted by EQT. We completed the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT on February 27, 2017 for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. At the close of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Tug Hill PSA was terminated, and the Company used a portion of the cash consideration received to pay Tug Hill a break-up fee and expense reimbursements totaling approximately $11.5 million. Additionally, a portion of the consideration received from the sale of the Appalachia Properties was used to fund the Company’s creditorscash payment obligations under the Plan. The solicitation period ended onAt December 16,31, 2016, and (i)the Appalachia Properties accounted for approximately 34% of the 94.24% of Noteholders in aggregate outstanding principal amount that voted, 99.95% voted in favorPredecessor Company’s total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves, on a volume equivalent basis. Upon closing of the Plan and .05% voted to rejectsale on February 27, 2017, we no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia. See Note 4 – Divestiture for additional information on the Plan, and (ii) 100%sale of the Banks voted to accept the Plan.
On December 14, 2016, the Debtors, the Noteholders holding approximately 79.7% of the aggregate principal amount of Notes and the Banks holding 100% of the aggregate principal amount owing under the Credit Facility entered into the A&R RSA that amended, superseded and restated in its entirety the Original RSA. In connection with entry into the A&R RSA and the commencement of the bankruptcy cases, the Debtors amended the Plan. Additionally, on December 16, 2016, the Stockholder Ad Hoc Group filed the Equity Committee Motion to appoint an official committee of equity security holders in connection with the Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings. On December 21, 2016, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the Stockholder Ad Hoc Group and on December 28, 2016, the Plan was amended.Appalachia Properties.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, by the Debtors, and pursuant to the terms of the Plan, as amended, Noteholders, Banksthe following significant transactions occurred:
Shares of the Predecessor Company’s issued and other interest holders will receive treatment underoutstanding common stock immediately prior to the Plan, summarized as follows:Effective Date were cancelled, and on the Effective Date, reorganized Stone issued an aggregate of 20.0 million shares of new common stock (the “New Common Stock”).
The Noteholders will receivePredecessor Company’s 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes were cancelled and the holders of such notes received their pro rata share of (a) $100 million of cash, (b) 19.0 million shares of the New Common Stock, representing 95% of the common stock in reorganized StoneNew Common Stock, and (c) $225 million of 2022 Second Lien Notes.

Existing
39

Table of Contents


The Predecessor Company’s common stockholders of Stone will receivereceived their pro rata share of 1.0 million shares of the New Common Stock, representing 5% of the common stock in reorganized StoneNew Common Stock, and warrants for ownershipto purchase approximately 3.5 million shares of up to 15% of reorganized Stone's common equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the proposed new warrants.New Common Stock. The warrants will have an exercise price equal toof $42.04 per share and a total equity valueterm of the reorganized Company that implies a 100% recovery of outstanding principal to the Company’s noteholders plus accrued interest through the Plan’s effective date less the face amount of the Second Lien Notes and the Prepetition Notes Cash (as defined in the Plan). The warrants may be exercised any time prior to the fourth anniversary of the Plan’s effective date,four years, unless terminated earlier by their terms upon the consummation of certain business combinations or sale transactions involving the Company.

Banks signatoryThe Predecessor Company’s Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2014, as amended, modified, or otherwise supplemented from time to time (the “Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement”) was amended and restated as the Fifth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Amended Credit Agreement”). The obligations owed to the A&R RSA will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments andlenders under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement were converted to obligations under the Amended Credit Facility on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash, as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25 million, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributions pursuant to the Plan and the PSA.Agreement.

All claims of creditors with unsecured claims, other than the claims by the Noteholders,holders of the 2022 Notes and 2017 Convertible Notes, including vendors, shall bewere unaltered and will be paid in full in the ordinary course of business to the extent suchthe claims arewere undisputed.


41

Table of Contents

See Liquidity and Capital Resources below for additional information on the Successor Company’s debt instruments.

EachOperational Update

In June 2017, we initiated drilling operations on our Rampart Deep prospect in Mississippi Canyon Block 116, and in September 2017, the well encountered approximately 107 net vertical feet of liquids-rich natural gas pay in three primary zones, as interpreted by Stone. In addition to the reserve potential of Rampart Deep, this well also provided critical information that reduces the exploration risk of our Derbio prospect. Completion of the foregoing common equity percentagesRampart Deep well was deferred while the partners analyze the well data, and will be further evaluated in reorganizedconjunction with Derbio drilling results, which may impact sanctioning of the project. The Derbio well spud in February 2018, with results expected in the second quarter of 2018. If successful, the Rampart Deep/Derbio project could be a multi-well tie back to the Pompano platform, which is owned 100% by Stone, with first production expected by late 2019. Stone has a 40% working interest in the Rampart Deep and Derbio wells.

We also spud the Mt. Providence development well, located in Mississippi Canyon Block 28, in December 2017. In January 2018, the well encountered approximately 153 net feet of high quality, primarily oil pay in one Miocene interval, with no visible water level, which exceeded our pre-drill expectations. Completion operations will commence in the second quarter of 2018, with first production expected in the third quarter of 2018. The well will be tied back to the Pompano platform through existing subsea infrastructure. Stone has a 100% working interest in the Mt. Providence well.

2018 Outlook

In January 2018, the Board authorized a 2018 capital expenditure budget of up to $212 million, which excludes acquisitions and capitalized salaries, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and interest, and does not give effect to the potential Talos combination. The budget is spread across Stone’s major areas of investment with approximately 36% allocated to exploration, 27% to development and 37% to plugging and abandonment expenditures. The allocation of capital across the various areas is subject to dilution from the exercise of the new warrants described abovechange based on several factors, including permitting times, rig availability, non-operator decisions, farm-in opportunities, and a management incentive plan. Assuming implementation of the Plan, Stone expects that it will eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt.
Purchase and Sale Agreement
The A&R RSA contained certain covenants on the part of the Company and the Noteholders and Banks who are signatories to the A&R RSA, including that such Noteholders and Banks would support the sale of the Appalachia Properties to Tug Hill, pursuant to the terms of the Tug Hill PSA, and otherwise facilitate the restructuring transaction, in each case subject to certain terms and conditions in the A&R RSA. The consummation of the Plan is subject to customary conditions and other requirements, as well as the sale by Stone of the Appalachia Properties for a purchase price of at least $350 million and approval of the Bankruptcy Court.Pursuant to the terms of the Tug Hill PSA, Stone agreed to sell the Appalachia Properties to Tug Hill for $360 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders dated January 11, 2017 and January 31, 2017, two additional bidders were allowed to participate in competitive bidding on the Appalachia Properties. On January 18, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Bidding Procedures in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties. In accordance with the Bidding Procedures, Stone conducted an auction for the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 8, 2017 and upon conclusion, selected the final bid submitted by EQT, with a final purchase price of $527 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, with an upward adjustment to the purchase price of up to $16 million in an amount equal to certain downward adjustments, as the prevailing bid.
On February 9, 2017, the Company entered into the EQT PSA with EQT, reflecting the terms of the prevailing bid. Under the EQT PSA, the sale of the Appalachia Properties has an effective date of June 1, 2016. The EQT PSA contains customary representations, warranties and covenants. From and after the closing of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Company and EQT, respectively, have agreed to indemnify each other and their respective affiliates against certain losses resulting from any breach of their representations, warranties or covenants contained in the EQT PSA, subject to certain customary limitations and survival periods. Additionally, from and after closing of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Company has agreed to indemnify EQT for certain identified retained liabilities related to the Appalachia Properties, subject to certain survival periods, and EQT has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain assumed obligations related to the Appalachia Properties. The EQT PSA may be terminated, subject to certain exceptions, (i) upon mutual written consent, (ii) if the closing has not occurred by March 1, 2017, (iii) for certain material breaches of representations and warranties or covenants that remain uncured and (iv) upon the occurrence of certain other events specified in the EQT PSA.commodity pricing.

At the closeBased on our current outlook of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Tug Hill PSA will terminate,commodity prices and the Company will use a portion of the cash consideration received to pay Tug Hill a break-up fee of $10.8 million. On February 10, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered a sale order approving the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT. We expect to close the sale of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions. Upon closing of the sale, Stone will no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia. The Appalachia Properties accounted for approximately 34% of our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves on a volume equivalent basis at December 31, 2016.


42

Table of Contents


2017 Outlook
Upon emergence from bankruptcy,production for 2018, we expect that we will eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt, resulting in remaining debt outstanding of approximately $236 million, consisting of the $225 million of Second Lien Notes and $11 million outstanding under the Building Loan. We expect our cash and cash equivalents to total approximately $150 million at emergence. Additionally, we will have $75 million of cash held in a restricted account to satisfy near-term plugging and abandonment liabilities, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Credit Facility. Although our capital expenditure budget for 2017 has not yet been approved by the board of directors and is dependent on the outcome of our Chapter 11 proceedings and the related reorganization of the Company, the financial projections prepared in connection with our restructuring efforts included estimated preliminary capital expenditures of approximately $200 million for 2017. The projected capital expenditures of $200 million included approximately $86 million of plugging and abandonment costs. In early 2017, we reinstated development drilling operations using a platform rig at Pompano. While management believes the Company's expected cash flows from operating activities, cash on hand and availability under the Amended Credit FacilityAgreement will be adequate to meet the current 2018 operating and capital expenditure needs of the post-reorganized Company, there are no assurances that our Chapter 11 Plan, which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on February 15, 2017, will become effective on February 28, 2017 as expected, or at all. Our projected 2017 capital expenditures exclude material acquisitions and capitalized salaries, general and administrative ("SG&A") expenses and interest.
Historically, we have funded our capital expenditures primarily through cash on hand, expected cash flows from operating activities and borrowings under the bank credit facility. Although we have no current plans to access the public or private equity or debt markets for purposes of capital, we may consider such funding sources to provide additional capital.
In January and February 2017, we entered into various fixed-price swaps and put contracts for a portion of our expected 2017 and 2018 oil production from the Gulf Coast Basin (see note 7 to the consolidated financial statements). In an effort to mitigate some commodity price risk, we continue to monitor the marketplace for additional hedges. Pursuant to requirements under the Plan, we expect to hedge approximately 50% of our estimated production from estimated proved producing reserves for each of 2017 and 2018.Company.

Known Trends and Uncertainties
Fresh Start Accounting Non-designation of Commodity Derivatives We may be requiredWith respect to adopt fresh startour 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting upon emergence (the "fresh start reporting date") from Chapter 11. The guidancepurposes. Accordingly, these derivative instruments are accounted for on a mark-to-market basis with changes in fresh start accounting resultsfair value recognized currently in earnings through derivative income (expense) in the allocationstatement of the reorganization valueoperations. As a result of these mark-to-market adjustments, we will likely experience volatility in earnings from time to individual assets based on their estimated fair values. The enterprise value of the equity of the Company at emergence will be based on several assumptions and inputs contemplated in the Plan that are subjecttime due to significant uncertainties. We currently cannot estimate the potential impact of fresh start accounting on our consolidated financial statements upon emergence from bankruptcy, although we would expect to recognize material adjustments upon implementation of fresh start accounting guidance.
Write-down of Oil and Gas Properties – We experienced significant declines in oil, natural gas and NGL prices during the second half of 2014, with lower prices continuing throughout 2015 and 2016, resulting in reduced revenue and cash flows and causing us to reduce our planned capital expenditures for 2015 and 2016. Additionally, the low commodity prices have adversely affected the estimated value and quantities of our proved oil, natural gas and NGL reserves, which contributed to ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016, we recognized ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties of $351 million, $1,362 million and $357 million, respectively.
If NYMEX commodity prices remain at current levels (approximately $54.00 per Bbl of oil and $2.55 per MMBtu of natural gas), we would expect an increase in the twelve-month average price used in estimating the present value of estimated future net cash flows of our proved reserves. However, we expect that the pricing differences between the trailing twelve-month average pricing assumption required by Regulation S-X, Rule 4-10 and ASC 932 used in calculating the ceiling test and the forward looking prices required by fresh start accounting to estimate the fair value of our oil and natural gas properties on the fresh start reporting date may result in an additional write-down of our oil and gas properties during the first quarter of 2017. Additionally, significant evaluations or impairments of unevaluated costs or other well performance-related revisions affecting proved reserve quantities could cause us to recognize further write-downs.
Bank Credit Facility Throughout 2016, the level of our indebtedness and the depressed commodity price environment presented challenges as they related to our ability to comply with the covenants in the current agreements governing our indebtedness. In connection with our restructuring and pursuant to the Plan, we expect to eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt upon emergence from bankruptcy, however, there can be no assurance that we will emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017 as expected, or at all.
Additionally, the significant decline in commodity prices has materially adversely impacted the value of our estimated proved reserves and, in turn, the market value used by the lenders to determine our borrowing base. The borrowing base under our bank

43

Table of Contents


credit facility as of February 23, 2017 was $360 million, a reduction from the borrowing base of $500 million as of April 12, 2016. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the borrowing base would be further reduced under the Amended Credit Facility to $200 million, subject to a $150 million borrowing cap until the first redetermination of the borrowing base scheduled for November 1, 2017, and subject to decrease under certain circumstances.volatility. See Liquidity and Capital ResourcesResults of Operations. Continued low commodity prices or further declines in commodity prices could have a further adverse impact on the estimated value and quantities of our proved reserves and could result in additional reductions of our borrowing base under our bank credit facility. below for more information.
BOEM Financial Assurance Requirements –BOEM requires all operators in federal waters to provide financial assurances to cover the cost of plugging and abandoning wells and decommissioning offshore facilities. Historically, we and many other operators have been able to obtain an exemption from most bonding obligations based on financial net worth.

40

Table of Contents


On March 21, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at thatsuch time. BOEM's notice letters indicated the amount of Stone's supplemental bonding needs could be as much as $565 million. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurances relating to our abandonment obligations, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurances in favor of BOEM. On May 13, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM rescinding its demand for supplemental bonding with the understanding that we will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizing and implementing our long-term tailored plan. Currently, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $118 million in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third party bonds and letters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations. A global update of the GOM decommissioning estimates was made on August 29, 2016, and BOEM requested that we resubmit our tailored plan to reflect the updated decommissioning estimates.
In July 2016, BOEM issued a new NTL, with an effective date of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for the posting of additional financial assuranceassurances by offshore lessees. The NTL discontinues the policy of Supplemental Bonding Waivers and allows for thedetails procedures to determine a lessee’s ability to self-insure upcarry out its lease obligations (primarily the decommissioning of OCS facilities) and whether to 10%require lessees to furnish additional financial assurances to meet BOEM’s estimate of the lessees decommissioning obligations. The NTL supersedes the agency’s prior practice of allowing operators of a company’s tangiblecertain net worth where a company can demonstrate a certain level of financial strength. The NTLto waive the need for supplemental bonds and provides new proceduresupdated criteria for how BOEM determines a lessee’s decommissioning obligations and, consistent with those procedures, BOEM has tentatively proposed an implementation timeline that offshore lessees will follow in providing additional financial assurance, including BOEM’s issuance of (i) Self-Insurance letters beginning September 12, 2016 (regardingdetermining a lessee’s ability to self-insure only a small portion of its OCS liabilities based upon the lessee’s financial capacity and financial strength. The NTL also allows lessees to meet their additional financial assurance), (ii) Proposal letters beginning October 12, 2016 (outlining what amountsecurity requirements pursuant to an individually approved tailored plan, whereby an operator and BOEM agree to set a timeframe for the posting of additional security a lessee will be required to provide), and (iii) Order letters beginning November 14, 2016 (triggering a lessee’s obligations (A) within 10 days of such letter to notify BOEM that it intends to pursue a tailored plan for posting additional security over a phased-in period of time, (B) within 60 days of such letter, provide additional security for sole liability properties (leases or grants for which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable for decommissioning obligations), and (C) within 120 days of such letter, provide additional security for any other properties and/or submit a tailored financial plan).assurances.

We received a Self-Insuranceself-insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we arewere not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a Proposalproposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required, and we are continuing to work withrequired. The September 30, 2016 self-insurance determination letter was rescinded by BOEM to adjust our previously submitted tailored plan for variances between our decommissioning estimates and that of BSEE's. on March 24, 2017.

In the first quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it willwould extend the implementation timeline for the newJuly 2016 NTL by an additional six months. The revised proposed plan we submittedFurthermore, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Interior to review the NTL to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure operator compliance with lease terms while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens. On June 22, 2017, BOEM may require approximately $7 million to $10 millionannounced that, pending its review of incremental financial assurance or bonding for sole liability properties and potentially an additional $30 million to $60 million of incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties by the end of 2017 or in 2018, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BSEE and any modifications toNTL, the NTL. Under the revised proposed plan, additional financial assuranceimplementation timeline would be required for subsequent years. There is no assuranceindefinitely extended, subject to certain exceptions. At this tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan. Additionally,time, it is uncertain at this time what impactwhen, or if, the new Trump administration may have on the current financial regulatory framework.July 2016 NTL will be implemented or whether a revised NTL might be proposed. Compliance with the NTL, or any other new rules, regulations, or legal initiatives by BOEM or other governmental authorities that impose more stringent requirements adversely affecting our offshore activities could delay or disrupt our operations, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit our activities in certain areas, cause us to incur penalties or fines or to shut-in production at one or more of our facilities, or result in the suspension or cancellation of leases.
In addition, if fully implemented, the new NTL is likely to result
Currently, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $115 million in the loss of supplemental bonding waivers for a large number of operators on the OCS, which will in turn force these operators to seek additional surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third party bonds and could, consequently, challengeletters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations. The bonds represent guarantees by the surety bond market’s capacity for providing such additional financial assurance. Operators who have already leveraged their assets as a result of the declining oil market could face difficulty obtaining surety bonds because of concerns the suretyinsurance companies may have about the priority of their lien on the operator's collateral. All of these factors may make it more difficult for us to obtain the financial assurances required by BOEM to conduct operations on the OCS. These and other changes to BOEM bonding and financial assurance requirements could result in increased costs on our operations and consequently have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

44

Table of Contents


Although the surety companies have not historically required collateral from us to back our surety bonds, we recently provided some cash collateral on a portion of our existing surety bonds and may be required to provide additional cash collateral on existing and/or new surety bonds required by BOEM to satisfy financial assurance requirements.We cannot provide assurance that we will operate in accordance with applicable rules and regulations and perform certain plugging and abandonment obligations as specified by applicable working interest purchase and sale agreements. There is no assurance that our current tailored plan will be ableapproved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to satisfy collateral demandsour plan. A revised tailored plan may require incremental financial assurance or bonding for current bonds or for additional bondsnon-sole liability properties, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BOEM and BSEE and any modifications to comply with supplemental bonding requirements of the BOEM. This need to obtain additional surety bonds, or some other form of financial assurances, could impact our liquidity. proposed NTL.

Hurricanes – Since a large portion of our production originates infrom a concentrated area of the GOM, we are particularly vulnerable to the effects of hurricanes on production. Additionally, affordable and practical insurance coverage for property damage to our facilities for hurricanes has been difficult to obtain for some time so we have eliminated our hurricane insurance coverage. Significant hurricane impacts could include reductions and/or deferrals of future oil and natural gas production and revenues, increased lease operating expenses for evacuations and repairs and possible increases to and/or acceleration of plugging and abandonment costs, all of which could also affect our ability to remain in compliance with the covenants under our current bank credit facility.Amended Credit Agreement.
Deep Water Operations We are currently operating two significant properties in the deep water of the GOM and engage in deep water drilling operations. Operations in the deep water involve high operational risks. Despite technological advances over the last several years, liabilities for environmental losses, personal injury and loss of life and significant regulatory fines in the event of a disasteran incident could be well in excess of insured amounts and result in significant losses on our statement of operations as well as going concern issues.

41

Table of Contents


Liquidity and Capital Resources
Overview
The lower commodity prices from mid-2014 through 2016 resulted in reduced revenue and cash flows and have negatively impacted our liquidity position. Additionally, the level of our indebtedness and the current commodity price environment have presented challenges as they relate to our ability to comply with the covenants in the agreements governing our indebtedness. As of December 31, 2016, our cash and cash equivalents totaled approximately $191 million, and we had total indebtedness of $1,427.8 million, including $300 million of 2017 Convertible Notes, $775 million of 2022 Notes, $341.5 million outstanding under our bank credit facility and $11.3 million outstanding under our Building Loan. Additionally, we had $35.2 million of accrued interest payable on our outstanding indebtedness.
In response to the significant decline in commodity prices, we focused on managing our balance sheet during 2016 to preserve liquidity during this extended low commodity price environment by taking certain steps, including reductions in capital expenditures and the termination and renegotiation of various contracts, reductions in workforce and reductions in discretionary expenditures. On June 24, 2016, our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco was terminated for total consideration of $20 million, approximately $5 million of which was a deposit previously provided to Ensco pursuant to the drilling services contract. To further reduce capital expenditures for 2016, we elected to temporarily stack the Pompano platform drilling rig in place. In addition, during the third quarter of 2016 we terminated an offshore vessel contract and Appalachian rig contract.
In June 2016, we entered into an interim Appalachian midstream contract with Williams at the Mary field in Appalachia, which had been shut-in since September 2015. The interim agreement provided near-term relief by permitting Stone to resume profitable production and positive cash flow at the Mary field. The initial term of the interim agreement was through August 31, 2016 and it continues on a month to month basis until the sale of the Appalachia Properties is completed. See "Purchase and Sale Agreement" above.

On April 13, 2016, the borrowing base under our bank credit facility was reduced from $500 million to $300 million. On that date, we had $457 million of outstanding borrowings and $18.3 million of outstanding letters of credit under the bank credit facility, resulting in a $175.3 million borrowing base deficiency. At the time, we elected to pay the deficiency in six equal installments, making the first two payments of $29.2 million in May and June 2016. On June 14, 2016, we entered into the June Amendment to, among other things, increase the borrowing base to $360 million, and on that date, we repaid $56.8 million in borrowings, which eliminated the borrowing base deficiency and brought the total borrowings and letters of credit outstanding under the bank credit facility in conformity with the borrowing base limitation. See "Bank Credit Facility" below.
We have $300 million of 2017 Convertible Notes that we need to restructure or repay by March 1, 2017. Additionally, we had an interest obligation under our 2022 Notes of approximately $29.2 million due on November 15, 2016 (see "Senior Notes" below). The indenture governing the 2022 Notes provides a 30-day grace period that extended the latest date for making this cash interest payment to December 15, 2016 before an event of default occurs under the indenture. Although we had sufficient liquidity to make the interest payment by the due date, we elected to not make this interest payment and utilized the 30-day grace period provided by the indenture before entering into the Chapter 11 proceedings.

45

Table of Contents


As of September 30, 2016, we were in compliance with all covenants under the bank credit facility and the indentures governing our notes, however, we anticipated that the minimum liquidity requirement and other restrictions under the June Amendment would prevent us from being able to meet our interest payment obligation on the 2022 Notes in the fourth quarter of 2016 as well as the subsequent maturity of our 2017 Convertible Notes on March 1, 2017. As a result of these conditions, continued decreases in commodity prices and the significant level of our indebtedness, we continued to work with our financial and legal advisors throughout 2016 to structure a plan of reorganization to improve our financial position and liquidity and allow for growth and long-term success.
In connection with our restructuring efforts, we determined that a sale of the Appalachia Properties would be a beneficial way to maximize value for all stakeholders. On February 9, 2017, we entered into the EQT PSA to sell all ofsold our Appalachia Properties on February 27, 2017 for net cash consideration of $527 million, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. On February 10, 2017,approximately $522.5 million. A portion of the Bankruptcy Court entered a sale order approvingconsideration received from the sale of the Appalachia Properties was used to EQT. We expect to closefund the sale ofCompany’s cash payment obligations under the Appalachia Properties byPlan. Upon emergence from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions.
On December 14, 2016, the Debtors, the Noteholders holdingwe eliminated approximately 79.7% of the aggregate$1.1 billion in principal amount of Notesoutstanding debt. For additional details, see “Reorganization and the Banks holding 100%Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings” above. These significant transactions improved our financial position and liquidity.
As of the aggregate principal amount owing under the Credit Facility entered into the A&R RSA, pursuant to which (1) the Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of (a) $100March 9, 2018, we had approximately $283 million of cash (b) 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stoneon hand and (c) $225approximately $3 million of Second Lien Notes,cash held in a restricted account to satisfy near-term plugging and (2) the Banks will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments and obligations under the Amended Credit Facility on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash, as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25 million, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributionsabandonment liabilities, pursuant to the Plan and the PSA. The terms of the Amended Credit FacilityAgreement, and $235.8 million in total debt outstanding, including $225 million of 2022 Second Lien Notes and $10.8 million outstanding under the Plan are substantially consistent with4.20% Building Loan (the “Building Loan”). Our available borrowings under the pre-petition facility, except,Amended Credit Agreement were initially set at $150 million until the first borrowing base redetermination in November 2017. On November 8, 2017, the borrowing base will be reducedunder the Amended Credit Agreement was redetermined to $200 million, subject to a $150 million borrowing cap until the first redetermination of the borrowing base scheduled for November 1, 2017,$100 million. On March 9, 2018, we had no outstanding borrowings and subject to decrease under certain circumstances. See Bank Credit Facility below.
The Debtors filed the Bankruptcy Petitions on December 14, 2016, and on February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan. We expect the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, at which point the Debtors would emerge from bankruptcy. While we anticipate most of our $1,427$12.6 million of indebtedness will be discharged upon emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, there is no assurance thatoutstanding letters of credit, leaving $87.4 million of availability under the effectivenessAmended Credit Agreement.
As of December 31, 2017, we had a current income tax receivable of $36.3 million, of which $20.1 million was received in January 2018.
In January 2018, the Plan will occur on February 28, 2017, or at all. The filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company's obligations under all of its outstanding debt instruments, resulting in the principal and interest due thereunder immediately due and payable. However, any efforts to enforce such payment obligations were automatically stayed asBoard authorized a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, and the creditors' rights of enforcement in respect of the debt instruments were subject to the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.
Although our2018 capital expenditure budget of up to $212 million, which excludes acquisitions and capitalized SG&A and interest, and does not give effect to the potential Talos combination. Based on our current outlook of commodity prices and our estimated production for 2017 has not yet been approved by the board of directors and is dependent on the outcome of our Chapter 11 proceedings and the related reorganization of the Company, the financial projections prepared in connection with our restructuring efforts included estimated preliminary capital expenditures of approximately $200 million for 2017. The projected capital expenditures of $200 million included approximately $86 million of plugging and abandonment costs. In early 2017,2018, we reinstated development drilling operations using a platform rig at Pompano. We expect that cash flows from operating activities, cash on hand and availability under the Amended Credit Facility for 2017Agreement will be adequate to meet the current 2018 operating and capital expenditure needs of the reorganized Company; however, thereCompany. We are no assurances that we will emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017 as expected, or at all.currently evaluating various acquisition opportunities, which, if successful, may increase the capital requirements of the Company for 2018.
Historically,
Currently, we have been able to obtainposted an exemption from supplemental bonding requirements on our offshore leases for abandonment obligations based on financial net worth, however, on March 21, 2016, we received noticeaggregate of approximately $115 million in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third party bonds and letters from BOEM stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at that time. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurancesof credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurances in favor of BOEM. On May 13, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM rescinding its demand for supplemental bonding with the understanding that we will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizing and implementing our long-term tailored plan. A global update of the GOM decommissioning estimates was made on August 29, 2016, and BOEM requested that we resubmit our tailored plan to reflect the updated decommissioning estimates.
In July 2016, BOEM issued a new NTL, with an effective date of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for the posting of additional financial assurance by offshore lessees. The NTL discontinues the policy of Supplemental Bonding Waivers and allows for the ability to self-insure up to 10% of a company’s tangible net worth, where a company can demonstrate a certain level of financial strength.

46

Table of Contents


We received a Self-Insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we are not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a Proposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required, and we are continuing to work with BOEM to adjust our previously submitted tailored plan for variances between our decommissioning estimates and that of BSEE's. In the first quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it will extend the implementation timeline for the new NTL by an additional six months. The revised proposed plan we submitted to BOEM may require approximately $7 million to $10 million of incremental financial assurance or bonding for sole liability properties and potentially an additional $30 million to $60 million of incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties by the end of 2017 or in 2018, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BSEE and any modifications to the NTL. Under the revised proposed plan, additional financial assurance would be required for subsequent years. There is no assurance this tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan. Additionally, it is uncertain at this time what impact the new Trump administration may have on the current financial regulatory framework. Compliance with the NTL, or any other new rules, regulations or legal initiatives by BOEM or other governmental authorities that impose more stringent requirements adversely affecting our offshore activities could delay or disrupt our operations, result in increased supplemental bonding and costs, limit our activities in certain areas, cause us to incur penalties or fines or to shut-in production at one or more of our facilities, or result in the suspension or cancellation of leases.
Although the surety companies have not historically required collateral from us to back our surety bonds, we recentlyhave provided some cash collateral on aan immaterial portion of our existing surety bonds and may be required to provide additional cash collateral on existing and/or new surety bonds required by BOEM to satisfy financial assurance requirements. This need to obtain additional surety bonds or some other form of financial assurance could impact our liquidity. See Known Trends and Uncertainties.” above.

Indebtedness
Successor Bank Credit Facility – On June 24, 2014, we entered intothe Effective Date, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Predecessor Company’s Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement was amended and restated as the Amended Credit Agreement, and the obligations owed to the lenders under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement were converted to obligations under the Amended Credit Agreement. The Amended Credit Agreement provides for a reserve-based revolving credit facility with commitments totaling $900and matures on February 28, 2021.
The Company’s available borrowings under the Amended Credit Agreement were initially set at $150 million (subject tountil the first borrowing base limitations) through a syndicated bank group, replacing our previous facility.redetermination in November 2017. On November 8, 2017, the borrowing base under the Amended Credit Agreement was redetermined to $100 million. On March 9, 2018, the Company had no outstanding borrowings and $12.6 million of outstanding letters of credit, leaving $87.4 million of availability under the Amended Credit Agreement. Interest on loans under the Amended Credit Agreement is calculated using the London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”) or the base rate, at the election of the Company, plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The bank credit facility maturesapplicable margin is determined based on July 1, 2019borrowing base utilization and is guaranteed by Stone Offshore. ranges from 2.00% to 3.00% per annum for base rate loans and 3.00% to 4.00% per annum for LIBOR loans.
The borrowing base under the bank credit facilityAmended Credit Agreement is redetermined semi-annually, typically in May and November, by the lenders, taking into consideration the estimated loan value of our oil and gas properties and those of our subsidiaries that guarantee the bank facility in accordance with the lenders’ customary practices for oil and gas loans. In addition, we and the lenders each have discretion at any time, but not more than two additional times each in any calendar year, to have the borrowing base redetermined. On April 13, 2016, we received notice that our borrowing base underSubject to certain exceptions, the bank credit facility was reduced from $500 millionAmended Credit Agreement is required to $300 million. On that date, we had $457 million of outstanding borrowings and $18.3 million of outstanding letters of credit, or $175.3 million in excessbe guaranteed by all of the redetermined borrowing base (referred to as a borrowing base deficiency). Our agreement with the banks provides that within 30 days after notification of a borrowing base deficiency, we must elect to cure the borrowing base deficiency through any combinationmaterial domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries of the following actions: (1) repay amounts outstanding sufficient to cure the deficiency within 10 days after our written election to do so; (2) add additional oil and gas properties acceptable to the banks to the borrowing base and take such actions necessary to grant the banks a mortgage in the properties within 30 days after our written election to do so; and/or (3) arrange to pay the deficiency in six equal monthly installments. At that time, we elected to pay the deficiency in six equal monthly installments, making the first two paymentsCompany. As of $29.2 million in May and June 2016.
On June 14, 2016, we entered into the June Amendment to the bank credit facility to (i) increase the borrowing base to $360 million from $300 million, (ii) provide for no redetermination of the borrowing base by the lenders until January 15, 2017, other than an automatic reduction upon the sale of certain of our properties, (iii) permit second lien indebtedness to refinance the existing 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes, (iv) revise the maximum Consolidated Funded Leverage financial covenant to be 5.25 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2016, 6.50 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2016, 9.50 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2016 and 3.75 to 1 thereafter, (v) require minimum liquidity (as defined in2017, the June Amendment) of at least $125.0 million until January 15, 2017, (vi) impose limitations on capital expenditures from June through December 2016, (vii) grant the lenders a perfected security interest in all deposit accounts and (viii) provide for anti-hoarding cash provisions for amounts in excess of $50.0 million to apply after December 10, 2016. Upon execution of the June Amendment, we repaid $56.8 million in borrowings under the credit facility, bringing total borrowings and letters of credit outstanding under the bank credit facility in conformity with the borrowing base limitation under the credit facility at that time. In December 2016, we reached agreements with the banks to extend the effective date of the anti-hoarding cash provisions to December 15, 2016. On February 23, 2017, we had $341.5 million of outstanding borrowings and $12.5 million of outstanding letters of credit, leaving $6.0 million of availability under the bank credit facility.
Amended Credit Agreement is guaranteed by Stone Offshore. The bank credit facilityAmended Credit Agreement is collateralizedsecured by substantially all of our assetsthe Company’s and the assets of our material subsidiaries. We are required to mortgage and grant a security interest in our oil and natural gas reserves representing at least 86% of the discounted present value of the future net cash flows from our proved oil and natural gas reserves reviewed in determining the borrowing base. Low commodity prices and negative price differentials have had a material adverse impact on the value of our estimated proved reserves and, in turn, the market value used by the lenders to determine our borrowing base. Continued low commodityits subsidiaries’ assets.

4742

Table of Contents


prices or further declines in commodity prices will likely have a further material adverse impactThe Amended Credit Agreement provides for customary optional and mandatory prepayments, affirmative and negative covenants and events of default, including limitations on the valueincurrence of our estimated proved reserves.
Interestdebt, liens, restrictive agreements, mergers, asset sales, dividends, investments, affiliate transactions and restrictions on loanscommodity hedging. During the continuance of certain events of default, the lenders may take a number of actions, including declaring the entire amount then outstanding under the bank credit facility is calculated usingAmended Credit Agreement due and payable (in the LIBOR rate orevent of certain insolvency-related events, the base rate, at our election.entire amount then outstanding under the Amended Credit Agreement will become automatically due and payable). The margin for loans at the LIBOR rate is determined based on borrowing base utilization and ranges from 1.500%Amended Credit Agreement also requires maintenance of certain financial covenants, including (i) a consolidated funded debt to 2.500%. In addition to the covenants discussed above, the bank credit facility provides that we must maintain aEBITDA ratio of consolidated EBITDA to consolidated Net Interest Expense, as defined in the Credit Facility,not more than 2.75x for the preceding four quarterlytest period ending March 31, 2017, 2.50x for the test period ending June 30, 2017, 3.00x for the test period ending September 30, 2017, 2.75x for the test period ending December 31, 2017, 2.50x for the test periods ending March 31, 2018, June 30, 2018, September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2018, respectively, 2.75x for the test period ending March 31, 2019, 3.00x for the test period ending June 30, 2019, 3.50x for the test periods ending September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019, respectively, 3.00x for the test period ending March 31, 2020, 2.75x for the test periods ending June 30, 2020 and September 30, 2020, respectively, and 2.50x for the test periods ending December 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021, respectively, (ii) a consolidated interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.52.75 to 1. As1.00, and (iii) a requirement to maintain minimum liquidity of December 31, 2016, our Consolidated Funded Debt to consolidated EBITDA ratio was 6.90 to 1 and our consolidated EBITDA to consolidated Net Interest Expense ratio was approximately 3.24 to 1. The bank credit facility also includes certain customary restrictions or requirementsat least 20% of the borrowing base. We were in compliance with respect to disposition of properties, incurrence of additional debt, change of control and reporting responsibilities. Theseall covenants may limit or prohibit us from paying cash dividends but do allow for limited stock repurchases. These covenants also restrict our ability to prepay other indebtedness under certain circumstances.
As discussed above, on February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Company's Plan, and the Debtors expect to emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017. Upon emergence, the Banks will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments and obligations under the Amended Credit Facility on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash,Agreement as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25 million, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributions pursuant to the Plan and the PSA. The terms of the Amended Credit Facility under the Plan are substantially consistent with the pre-petition facility, except, the borrowing base will be reduced to $200 million, subject to a $150 million borrowing cap until the first redetermination of the borrowing base scheduled for November 1, 2017, and subject to decrease under certain circumstances. Additionally, (i) the margin for loans at the LIBOR rate will be increased to a range of 3.00% to 4.00% and (ii) our ability to pay cash dividends, prepay other indebtedness and make investments has been curtailed. Under the Amended Credit Facility we must maintain the following financial covenants: (i) a ratio of consolidated funded indebtedness to EBITDA of not greater than 3.50 to 1.00 to 2.50 to 1.00 (depending on the quarter tested); (ii) a ratio of EBITDA to net interest expense of less than 2.75 to 1.00; and (iii) liquidity (including undrawn amounts under the Amended Credit Facility) equal to 20% of the then-current borrowing base. We are required to mortgage and grant a security interest in our oil and natural gas reserves representing at least 95% of the discounted present value of the future net cash flows from our proved oil and natural gas reserves reviewed in determining the borrowing base. The Amended Credit Facility will be a four-year facility.
Senior Notes – At December 31, 2016, our senior notes consisted of $300 million of 2017 Convertible Notes and $775 million of 2022 Notes. The 2017 Convertible Notes are due on March 1, 2017. As discussed above, on February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Company's Plan, and the Debtors expect to emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017. Upon emergence, the $300 million and $775 million of debt related to the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes, respectively, will be cancelled and the Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of (a) $100 million of cash, (b) 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and (c) $225 million of Second Lien Notes.
2022 Second Lien Notes – On the Effective Date, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Successor Company entered into an indenture by and among the Company, Stone Offshore, as guarantor (the “Guarantor”), and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee and collateral agent (the “2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture”), and issued $225.0 million of the Company’s 2022 Second Lien Notes pursuant thereto.
Interest on the 2022 Second Lien Notes will accrue at a rate of 7.50% per annum payable semi-annually in arrears on May 31 and November 30 of each year in cash, beginning November 30, 2017. At December 31, 2017, $1.4 million had been accrued in connection with the May 31, 2018 interest payment. The 2022 Second Lien Notes are secured on a second lien priority basis by the same collateral that secures the Amended Credit Agreement, including the Company’s oil and natural gas properties, and are guaranteed by the Guarantor. The 2022 Second Lien Notes mature on May 31, 2022. Pursuant to the terms of the Intercreditor Agreement (as defined in Note 13 – Debt), the security interest in those assets that secure the 2022 Second Lien Notes and the related guarantee are contractually subordinated to liens thereon that secure the Company’s Amended Credit Agreement and certain other permitted obligations as set forth in the 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture. Consequently, the 2022 Second Lien Notes and the related guarantee are effectively subordinated to the Amended Credit Agreement and such other permitted secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of such assets.
At any time prior to May 31, 2020, the Company may, at its option, on any one or more occasions redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes issued under the 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture at a redemption price of 107.5% of the principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption date, with an amount of cash equal to the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings; provided that at least 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes as of the Effective Date remains outstanding after each such redemption. On or after May 31, 2020, the Company may redeem all or part of the 2022 Second Lien Notes at redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) equal to (i) 105.625% for the twelve-month period beginning on May 31, 2020; (ii) 105.625% for the twelve-month period beginning on May 31, 2021; and (iii) 100.000% for the twelve-month period beginning May 31, 2022 and at any time thereafter, in each case, plus accrued and unpaid interest at the redemption date. In addition, at any time prior to May 31, 2020, the Company may redeem all or a part of the 2022 Second Lien Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes to be issued under the Plan will be secured by second-priority liens (junior in priorityredeemed plus a make-whole premium, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the liens securing the obligations under the Amended Credit Facility) on the same assets securing the obligations under the Amended Credit Facility. They will bear interest at a rate of 7.5% per annum, payable in cash, with a maturity of May 31, 2022. redemption date.

The 2022 Second Lien Notes will be redeemable atIndenture contains covenants that restrict the Company’s ability and the ability of certain of its subsidiaries to: (i) incur additional debt and issue preferred stock; (ii) make payments or distributions on account of the Company’s or its restricted subsidiaries’ capital stock; (iii) sell assets; (iv) restrict dividends or other payments of the Company’s restricted subsidiaries; (v) create liens that secure debt; (vi) enter into transactions with affiliates, and (vii) merge or consolidate with another company. These covenants are subject to a number of important exceptions and qualifications. At any time subject towhen the following make whole amounts: (1) if the Company prepays the2022 Second Lien Notes prior toare rated investment grade by both Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and no Default (as defined in the third anniversary of issuance, the prepayment amount shall be at par, plus accrued interest, plus a make whole payment equal to the spread over a comparable treasury note plus 50 basis points, (2) if the Company prepays the2022 Second Lien Notes after the third anniversary, but prior to the fifth anniversary,Indenture) has occurred and is continuing, many of issuance, the prepayment amount shall be at 105.625% of par, plus accrued interest and (3) if the Company prepays the Second Lien Notes on or after the fifth anniversary of issuance, the prepayment amount shall be at par plus accrued interest.these covenants will terminate.

Building Loan On November 20, 2015, we entered into an approximately $11.8 million term loan agreement, the Building Loan, maturing on DecemberNovember 20, 2030. We received $11.8 million in cash, net of debt issuance costs relatedThere were no changes to the terms of the Building Loan.Loan pursuant to the Plan. The Building Loan bears interest at a rate of 4.20% per annum and is to be repaid in 180 equal monthly installments of approximately $73,000 commencing on December 20, 2015. As of December 31, 2017, the outstanding balance under the Building Loan totaled $10.9 million. The Building Loan is collateralized by our two Lafayette, Louisiana office buildings. Under the financial covenants of

43

Table of Contents


the Building Loan, we must maintain a ratio of EBITDA to Net Interest Expense of not less than 2.00 to 1.00. As of December 31, 2016, our EBITDA to Net Interest Expense ratio was 3.24 to 1. In addition, the Building Loan contains certain customary restrictions or requirements with respect to change of control and reporting responsibilities. There will be no changes to the terms ofWe were in compliance with all covenants under the Building Loan pursuant to the Plan.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we expect that we will eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amountas of outstanding debt, resulting in remaining debt outstanding of approximately $236 million, consisting of the $225 million of Second Lien Notes and $11 million outstanding under the Building Loan.December 31, 2017.

48

Table of Contents


Cash Flow and Working Capital
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities totaled $89.1 million during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and $(5.9) million during the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), compared to $78.6 million and $247.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), respectively. Operating cash flows were positively impacted during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) by a federal royalty refund and decreases in lease operating expenses, restructuring fees and incentive compensation expenses. Increases in the prices we received for our oil, natural gas and NGL production during 2017 were offset by decreases in oil, natural gas and NGL production volumes. Included in operating cash flows for the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) is the payment to Tug Hill of approximately $11.5 million for a break-up fee and expense reimbursements upon termination of the Tug Hill PSA. Included in operating cash flows for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) is approximately $6.2 million of transaction costs related to the pending Talos combination. Operating cash flows during the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to $247.5 million and $401.1 million during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease from 2015 to 2016 was primarily due to the decline(Predecessor) were negatively impacted by declines in our hedge-effected oil, natural gas and NGLcommodity prices, the decline in natural gas and NGL production volumes, restructuring fees, rig subsidy and stacking expenses and drillingcharges, rig contract and offshore vessel contract termination fees, partially offset by a declinecharges, and restructuring and reorganization charges incurred in lease operating and transportation, processing and gathering ("TP&G") expenses. The decrease from 2014 to 2015 was primarily due to the decline in oil, natural gas and NGL prices, partially offset by a decline in lease operating expenses.connection with our bankruptcy filings. See Results of Operations below for additional information relative to commodity prices, production and operating expense variances.
Net cash provided by investing activities totaled $12.0 million during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), which primarily represents the release of $56.8 million of previously restricted funds for near-term plugging and abandonment liabilities and $20.6 million of net proceeds from the sale of the Appalachia Properties, partially offset by $65.3 million of our investment in oil and gas properties. Net cash provided by investing activities totaled $421.0 million during the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), which primarily represents $505.4 million of net proceeds from the sale of the Appalachia Properties, partially offset by $75.5 million of funds restricted for near-term plugging and abandonment liabilities and $8.8 million of our investment in oil and gas properties. Net cash used in investing activities totaled $238.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), which primarily represents our investment in oil and gas properties of $238.0 million. Net cash used in investing activities totaled $321.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), which primarily represents our investment in oil and gas properties of $522.0 million, partially offset by $179.5 million of previously restricted proceeds from the sale of oil and gas properties ofand $22.8 million of proceeds from the sale of oil and gas properties.
Net cash used in investingfinancing activities during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) totaled $0.5 million. Net cash used in financing activities totaled $872.6$442.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2014,period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), which primarily represents $341.5 million in repayments of borrowings under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement and $100.0 million of payments to the holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes in connection with our investment in oil and gas properties of $927.2 million and our investment in fixed and other assets of $10.2 million, offset by unrestricted proceeds from the sale of oil and gas properties of $64.8 million.
restructuring. Net cash provided by financing activities totaled $339.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), which primarily represents $477.0 million in borrowings under our bank credit facilitythe Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement less $135.5 million in repayments of borrowings under our bank credit facility.the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement. Net cash provided by financing activities totaled $10.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), which primarily represents $11.8 million of net proceeds from our Building Loan, partially offset by net payments for share-based compensation of approximately $3.1 million. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we had $5.0 million in borrowings and $5.0 million in repayments of borrowings under our bank credit facility. Net cash provided by financing activities totaled $215.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, which primarily represents net proceeds from the sale of common stock of approximately $226.0 million, offset by net payments for share-based compensation of approximately $7.2 million and deferred financing costs of approximately $3.4 million associated with our bank credit facility.
We had working capital of $132.4$193.4 million at December 31, 2016. The $300 million of 2017 Convertible Notes due on March 1, 2017 are classified as liabilities subject to compromise at December 31, 2016 in our consolidated balance sheet. See Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.2017.
Capital Expenditures
During the year endedperiod of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), net additions to oil and gas property costsproperties of $174.0$47.5 million included $3.3 million of lease and property acquisition costs, $21.2$6.5 million of capitalized SG&A expenses, (inclusive$3.9 million of incentive compensation)capitalized interest and $26.6$17.4 million of downward revisions of estimates of asset retirement obligations. During the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), net additions to oil and gas properties of $19.8 million included $3.0 million of capitalized SG&A expenses and $2.5 million of capitalized interest. These investments were financed with cash on hand and cash flows from operating activities. These additions to oil and borrowings under our bank credit facility.
Share Repurchase Program
On September 24, 2007, our boardgas property costs exclude plugging and abandonment expenditures for the period of directors authorized a share repurchase program for an aggregate amount of up to $100 million. The shares may be repurchased from time to time in the open market orMarch 1, 2017 through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program is subject to business and market conditions and may be suspended or discontinued at any time. Through December 31, 2016, 30,000 shares had been repurchased under this program at a total cost2017 (Successor) and the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) of approximately $7.1$80.7 million or an average priceand $3.6 million, respectively, which are recorded as reductions of $235.70 per share (after the effectiveness of the reverse stock split of 1-for-10). No shares were repurchased during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 or 2014.asset retirement obligations.
Hedging
See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk – Commodity Price Risk.

44

Table of Contents


Safety Performance
Historically, we have measured our safety performance based on the total recordable incident rate ("TRIR"(“TRIR”), which is the number of safety incidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for employees and certain contractors. For fiscal 2015 and 2016, we broadened our safety performance measures, using a new factor called our Health, Safety and Environmental ("HSE"(“HSE”) factor. The HSE factor includes not onlyincluded personal safety, as reflected by the TRIR, but also environmental safety as(as measured by reported spills of hydrocarbons,hydrocarbons) and compliance safety as(as measured by fines or penalties paid to state or federal regulatory agencies. agencies). For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2016, our HSE goal was set at 0.30, and our actual HSE performance for those years was 0.14 and 0.28, respectively.

For fiscal 2017, we expanded our measure of safety performance using a Safety and Environmental Compliance matrix, which goes beyond the traditional measure of TRIR to incorporate other safety related factors such as “Days Away from Work” as well as environmental and compliance factors. The target for 2017 was set to require a Safety and Compliance score below 0.25 and a Relative Incident of Non-Compliance (INC) to Component Ratio of 1.0. For 2017, we achieved a Safety and Compliance score of 0.22 and a Relative INC to Component Ratio of 0.60.

All onshore safety incidents are reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"(“OSHA”) and are tracked on OSHA Form

49

Table of Contents


301. All offshore safety incidents are reported to the BOEM. Our TRIR is provided to the BOEM as part of a voluntary program for safety monitoring in the GOM. The HSE factor for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the TRIR for the year ended December 31, 2014 were as follows:
Year Ended December 31, Safety Performance Safety Goal
2016 0.28 0.30
2015 0.14 0.30
2014 0.00 0.50
Our safety initiative includes formal programs for observation and reporting of at-risk and safe behavior in and away from the work place, employee awards for results and observations, employee participation in training programs and internal safety audits. We have an annual cash incentive compensation plan that includes a safety component based on our annual HSE factor.Safety and Environmental Compliance score.

5045

Table of Contents


Reorganization Items
The Debtors have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs associated with the reorganization and Chapter 11 process. These costs, which are being expensed as incurred, significantly impact the Company's results of operations. Reorganization items includes professional fees and other expenses incurred in the Chapter 11 Cases, and the write-off of the remaining unamortized deferred financing costs, premiums and discounts associated with debt classified as liabilities subject to compromise. For the year ended December 31, 2016, reorganization items totaled $10.9 million. See Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further details.
Results of Operations
20162017 Periods Compared to 20152016. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our oil and gas operations and summary information with respect to our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves. See Item 2. Properties – Oil and Natural Gas Reserves.
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
2016 2015 Variance % Change  
Production:             
Oil (MBbls)6,308
 5,991
 317
 5 %4,169
  908
 6,308
Natural gas (MMcf)29,441
 36,457
 (7,016) (19)%7,616
  5,037
 29,441
NGLs (MBbls)2,183
 2,401
 (218) (9)%403
  408
 2,183
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)80,387
 86,809
 (6,422) (7)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)5,841
  2,156
 13,398
Revenue data (in thousands): (1)
             
Oil revenue$281,246
 $416,497
 $(135,251) (32)%$211,792
  $45,837
 $281,246
Natural gas revenue64,601
 83,509
 (18,908) (23)%18,874
  13,476
 64,601
NGLs revenue28,888
 32,322
 (3,434) (11)%9,610
  8,706
 28,888
Total oil, natural gas and NGL revenue$374,735
 $532,328
 $(157,593) (30)%$240,276
  $68,019
 $374,735
Average prices:       
Prior to the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts       
Average prices: (2)
      
Oil (per Bbl)$40.82
 $46.88
 $(6.06) (13)%$50.80
  $50.48
 $44.59
Natural gas (per Mcf)1.80
 1.90
 (0.10) (5)%$2.48
  $2.68
 $2.19
NGLs (per Bbl)13.23
 13.46
 (0.23) (2)%$23.85
  $21.34
 $13.23
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)4.22
 4.40
 (0.18) (4)%
Including the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts       
Oil (per Bbl)$44.59
 $69.52
 $(24.93) (36)%
Natural gas (per Mcf)2.19
 2.29
 (0.10) (4)%
NGLs (per Bbl)13.23
 13.46
 (0.23) (2)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)4.66
 6.13
 (1.47) (24)%
Expenses (per Mcfe):       
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Boe)$41.14
  $31.55
 $27.97
Expenses (in thousands):      
Lease operating expenses$49,800
  $8,820
 $79,650
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses$4,084
  $6,933
 $27,760
Salaries, general and administrative expenses (3)$47,817
  $9,629
 $58,928
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties$97,027
  $36,751
 $215,738
Expenses (per Boe):      
Lease operating expenses$0.99
 $1.15
 $(0.16) (14)%$8.53
  $4.09
 $5.94
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses0.35
 0.68
 (0.33) (49)%$0.70
  $3.22
 $2.07
Salaries, general and administrative expenses (2)(3)0.73
 0.80
 (0.07) (9)%$8.19
  $4.47
 $4.40
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties2.68
 3.19
 (0.51) (16)%$16.61
  $17.05
 $16.10
Estimated Proved Reserves at December 31:       
Estimated Proved Reserves at period end:      
Oil (MBbls)23,280
 30,276
 (6,996) (23)%21,876
  22,276
 23,280
Natural gas (MMcf)117,320
 121,858
 (4,538) (4)%50,116
  60,533
 117,320
NGLs (MBbls)10,629
 6,458
 4,171
 65 %2,305
  2,802
 10,629
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)320,773
 342,260
 (21,487) (6)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)32,533
  35,166
 53,462
(1)Includes the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts for the year ended December 31, 2016. With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges, and accordingly, cash settlements of our derivative contracts for periods subsequent to January 1, 2017 are reflected in derivative income (expense).
(2)Prices for the year ended December 31, 2016 include the realized impact of derivative instrument settlements, which increased the price of oil by $3.77 per Bbl and increased the price of natural gas by $0.39 per Mcf.
(3)Excludes incentive compensation expense.
Net Income/Loss.  During the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we reported a net loss totaling $247.6 million, or $12.38 per share. During the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we reported net income totaling $630.3 million, or $110.99 per share. For the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we reported a net loss of $590.6 million, or $105.63 per share. All per share amounts are on a diluted basis.

46

Table of Contents


Write-down of oil and gas properties – We follow the full cost method of accounting for oil and gas properties. During the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we recognized a ceiling test write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties totaling $256.4 million. During the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we recognized ceiling test write-downs of our U.S. and Canadian oil and gas properties totaling $357.4 million. The write-downs did not impact our cash flows from operating activities but did reduce net income and decrease stockholders’ equity.
The Successor period write-down of oil and gas properties was primarily due to differences between the trailing twelve-month average pricing assumption used in calculating the ceiling test and the forward prices used in fresh start accounting to estimate the fair value of our oil and gas properties on the fresh start reporting date of February 28, 2017.
Sale of Appalachia Properties – During the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we recognized a $213.5 million gain on the sale of the Appalachia Properties, representing the excess of the proceeds from the sale over the carrying amount attributed to the oil and gas properties sold, adjusted for transaction costs and other items. See Note 4 – Divestiture for additional details.
Reorganization items – During the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we recognized a net gain of $437.7 million for reorganization items. The net gain was primarily due to the gain on the discharge of debt and fresh start adjustments upon emergence from bankruptcy.
Restructuring fees – During the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), restructuring fees totaled $0.7 million and $29.6 million, respectively. These fees, incurred subsequent and prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, related to our restructuring efforts, including legal and financial advisory costs for Stone, our bank group and the Predecessor Company’s noteholders.
Other expense – In connection with the termination of the Tug Hill PSA, we paid a break-up fee and expense reimbursements totaling $11.5 million, which is recognized as other expense during the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor).
Other operational income – During the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we recognized $9.6 million of other operational income related to the receipt of a multi-year federal royalty refund.
Production.  During the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), total production volumes were 5,841 MBoe, 2,156 MBoe and 13,398 MBoe, respectively. Oil production during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), totaled approximately 4,169 MBbls, 908 MBbls and 6,308 MBbls, respectively. Natural gas production totaled 7.6 Bcf, 5.0 Bcf and 29.4 Bcf during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), respectively. NGL production during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), totaled approximately 403 MBbls, 408 MBbls and 2,183 MBbls, respectively.
Production from our deep water Amethyst well was shut-in in April 2016 to allow for a technical evaluation. On November 30, 2016, we performed a routine shut-in of the well to record pressures and determined that pressure communication existed between the production tubing and production casing strings, resulting from a suspected tubing leak. In late April 2017, we completed temporary abandonment operations. The lease expired and was surrendered during the second quarter of 2017. We experienced production declines during the third quarter of 2017 as a result of planned downtime at the Pompano platform for a rig demobilization and reinstallation of living quarters. Production volumes during the fourth quarter of 2017 included five full days of downtime from Hurricane Nate and a ten day planned shut-in of the Pompano platform to replace a compressor engine.
The Mary field in Appalachia was shut-in from September 2015 through late June 2016. On February 27, 2017, we completed the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT. For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 27, 2017, total production volumes attributable to the Appalachia Properties were 965 MBoe, comprised of 3.5 Bcf of natural gas, 57 MBbls of oil and 330 MBbls of NGLs. For the year ended December 31, 2016, total production volumes attributable to the Appalachia Properties were approximately 4,724 MBoe, comprised of 16.1 Bcf of natural gas, 281 MBbls of oil and 1,753 MBbls of NGLs.
Prices.  Prices realized during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) averaged $50.80 per Bbl of oil, $2.48 per Mcf of natural gas and $23.85 per Bbl of NGLs. Prices realized during the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) averaged $50.48 per Bbl of oil, $2.68 per Mcf of natural gas and $21.34 per Bbl of NGLs. Prices realized during the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) averaged $44.59 per Bbl of oil, $2.19 per Mcf of natural gas and

47

Table of Contents


$13.23 per Bbl of NGLs. The unit pricing amounts for the year ended December 31, 2016 include the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts.
We enter into various derivative contracts in order to reduce our exposure to the possibility of declining oil and natural gas prices. During the year ended December 31, 2016, effective hedging transactions increased our average realized natural gas price by $0.39 per Mcf and increased our average realized oil price by $3.77 per Bbl. With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 derivative contracts, we elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes, and accordingly, settlements of our derivative contracts are now recognized in earnings through derivative income (expense). See “Known Trends and Uncertainties”.
Revenue.  Oil, natural gas and NGL revenue was $240.3 million, $68.0 million and $374.7 million for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), respectively. The decrease in total revenue in 2017 was primarily due to a decrease in oil, natural gas and NGL production volumes partially offset by an increase in average realized commodity prices. For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 27, 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2016, total oil, natural gas and NGL revenues attributable to the Appalachia Properties were $18.6 million and $56.7 million, respectively.
Derivative Income/Expense.  Net derivative expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) totaled $0.8 million, comprised of $0.7 million of income from cash settlements and $1.5 million of non-cash expense resulting from changes in the fair value of unsettled derivative instruments.
With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the net changes in the mark-to-market valuations and the monthly settlements of these derivative contracts are recorded in earnings in derivative income (expense). Net derivative expense for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) totaled $13.4 million, comprised of $2.1 million of income from cash settlements and $15.5 million of non-cash expense resulting from changes in the fair value of derivative instruments. Net derivative expense for the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) totaled $1.8 million, comprised of non-cash expense resulting from changes in the fair value of derivative instruments.
Expenses.  Lease operating expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) totaled $49.8 million, $8.8 million and $79.7 million, respectively. The decrease in lease operating expenses in 2017 was primarily attributable to operating efficiencies, the implementation of cost-savings measures and the sale of the Appalachia Properties. Additionally, during the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), lease operating expenses were decreased by $4.5 million related to the receipt of a multi-year federal royalty refund. Partially offsetting these decreases were expenses incurred during this period for planned major maintenance projects. For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 27, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), lease operating expenses attributable to the Appalachia Properties totaled $2.3 million and $11.6 million, respectively. On a unit of production basis, lease operating expenses were $8.53 per Boe, $4.09 per Boe and $5.94 per Boe for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), respectively. For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the higher per unit lease operating expense was the result of the sale of the lower-cost Appalachia Properties combined with lower production volumes from our GOM properties.
For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), transportation, processing and gathering (“TP&G”) expenses totaled $4.1 million, $6.9 million and $27.8 million, respectively, or $0.70 per Boe, $3.22 per Boe and $2.07 per Boe, respectively. TP&G expenses for the Predecessor periods primarily related to the Appalachia Properties that were sold on February 27, 2017. TP&G expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) included a $7.9 million recoupment of previously paid transportation costs allocable to the federal government’s portion of certain of our deep water production. For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 27, 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2016, TP&G expenses attributable to the Appalachia Properties totaled $6.8 million and $28.1 million, respectively.
For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), depreciation, depletion and amortization (“DD&A”) expense on oil and gas properties totaled $97.0 million, $36.8 million and $215.7 million, respectively. For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), DD&A expense on a unit of production basis was $16.61 per Boe, $17.05 per Boe and $16.10 per Boe, respectively.

48

Table of Contents


For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), other operational expenses totaled $3.4 million, $0.5 million and $55.5 million, respectively. Other operational expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) included $2.1 million of stacking charges for the Pompano platform rig. Included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 are $9.9 million in charges for offshore vessel and Appalachian drilling rig contract terminations, a $20.0 million charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco in June 2016, approximately $17.7 million of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, the Appalachian drilling rig and the platform rig at Pompano, and a $6.1 million cumulative foreign currency translation loss on the substantial liquidation of our foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada ULC, which was reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income.
For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), SG&A expenses (exclusive of incentive compensation) totaled $47.8 million, $9.6 million and $58.9 million, respectively. For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), SG&A expenses on a unit of production basis were $8.19 per Boe, $4.47 per Boe and $4.40 per Boe, respectively. The decline in production volumes in 2017 resulted in an increase in SG&A expenses on a unit of production basis.
SG&A expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) included a $5.7 million charge incurred in connection with workforce reductions, consisting primarily of severance payments to affected employees and payment of related employer payroll taxes, and $3.0 million of severance costs related to the sale of the Appalachia Properties and the retirement of the prior chief executive officer of the Company. Also included in SG&A expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) is a $3.9 million success-based consulting fee paid in connection with a federal royalty refund and approximately $6.2 million of costs related to the Board-requested strategic review of the Company and the pending Talos combination. The charges for the workforce reductions, severance payments and costs associated with the pending Talos combination offset the overall reductions in SG&A expense that we realized in 2017 as a result of staff and other cost reductions in connection with our restructuring.
For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), incentive compensation expense totaled $2.0 million and represented payments made to the Company’s executives pursuant to the Key Executive Incentive Plan (the “KEIP”). For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), incentive compensation expense totaled $8.0 million. This amount consisted of $7.0 million of expense related to incentive compensation bonuses accrued pursuant to the 2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2017 Annual Incentive Plan”), calculated based on the Company’s performance in certain 2017 fiscal year performance areas, and $1.0 million of expense related to the accrual of estimated retention awards. Incentive compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) totaled $13.5 million and related to incentive compensation bonuses that were calculated based on the achievement of certain strategic objectives for each quarter of 2016. Portions of the 2016 incentive cash bonuses replaced amounts previously awarded to employees as stock-based compensation, reflected in SG&A expenses, resulting in higher incentive compensation expense in the year ended December 31, 2016 as compared to the 2017 periods.
Interest expense for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), totaled $11.7 million, net of $3.9 million of capitalized interest, and included interest expense associated with the 2022 Second Lien Notes. We recorded no interest expense for the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) subsequent to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), totaled $64.5 million, net of $26.6 million of capitalized interest, and included interest expense associated with borrowings under our Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement and the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions. Upon emergence from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes were cancelled and outstanding borrowings under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement were paid in full.
For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we recorded an income tax benefit of $18.3 million primarily related to an income tax receivable recorded related to the carryback of specified liability losses generated during the period. For the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we recorded an income tax provision of $3.6 million and $7.4 million, respectively. As a result of the significant declines in commodity prices and the resulting ceiling test write-downs and net losses incurred, we determined in the third quarter of 2015 that it was more likely than not that a portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized in the future. Accordingly, we established a valuation allowance against a portion of our deferred tax assets. We also established a valuation allowance against a portion of our deferred tax assets upon emergence from bankruptcy as part of fresh start accounting, and the subsequent change in the valuation allowance was recorded as an adjustment to the income tax provision. See Note 12 – Income Taxes in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

49

Table of Contents


2016 Compared to 2015(Predecessor Company). The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our oil and gas operations and summary information with respect to our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves. See Item 2. Properties – Oil and Natural Gas Reserves.
 Predecessor
 Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015
Production:   
Oil (MBbls)6,308
 5,991
Natural gas (MMcf)29,441
 36,457
NGLs (MBbls)2,183
 2,401
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)13,398
 14,468
Revenue data (in thousands): (1)
   
Oil revenue$281,246
 $416,497
Natural gas revenue64,601
 83,509
NGL revenue28,888
 32,322
Total oil, natural gas and NGL revenue$374,735
 $532,328
Average prices: (2)
   
Oil (per Bbl)$44.59
 $69.52
Natural gas (per Mcf)$2.19
 $2.29
NGLs (per Bbl)$13.23
 $13.46
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Boe)$27.97
 $36.79
Expenses (in thousands):   
Lease operating expenses$79,650
 $100,139
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses$27,760
 $58,847
Salaries, general and administrative expenses (3)$58,928
 $69,384
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties$215,738
 $277,088
Expenses (per Boe):   
Lease operating expenses$5.94
 $6.92
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses$2.07
 $4.07
Salaries, general and administrative expenses (3)$4.40
 $4.80
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties$16.10
 $19.15
Estimated Proved Reserves at December 31:   
Oil (MBbls)23,280
 30,276
Natural gas (MMcf)117,320
 121,858
NGLs (MBbls)10,629
 6,458
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MBoe)53,462
 57,043
(1)Includes the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts.
(2)Prices include the realized impact of derivative instrument settlements which increased the price of oil by $3.77 per Bbl and increased the price of natural gas by $0.39 per Mcf for the year ended December 31, 2016, and which increased the price of oil by $22.64 per Bbl and increased the price of natural gas by $0.39 per Mcf for the year ended December 31, 2015.
(3)Excludes incentive compensation expense.

51

Table of Contents


Net Loss.  For the year ended December 31, 2016, we reported a net loss totaling $590.6 million, or $105.63 per share, compared to a net loss for the year ended December 31, 2015 of $1,090.9 million, or $197.45 per share. All per share amounts are on a diluted basis.
Write-down of oil and gas propertiesWe follow the full cost method of accounting for oil and gas properties. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized write-downs of our U.S. and Canadian oil and gas properties totaling $357.4 million. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we recognized write-downs of our U.S. and Canadian oil and gas properties totaling $1,362.4 million. The write-downs did not impact our cash flows from operating activities but did increasereduce net lossincome and decrease stockholders’ equity.
The variance in annual results was also due
50

Table of Contents


Restructuring fees – During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized a charge of $29.6 million for restructuring fees. These fees, incurred prior to the following components:filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, related to expenses supporting our restructuring effort, including legal and financial advisory costs for Stone, our bank group and the Predecessor Company’s noteholders.
Reorganization items – During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized a charge of $10.9 million for reorganization items, representing professional fees and other expenses incurred subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, prior to emergence.
Production.  During the year ended December 31, 2016, total production volumes decreased to 80.4 Bcfe13,398 MBoe compared to 86.8 Bcfe14,468 MBoe produced during the comparable 2015 period, representing a 7%decrease. Oil production during the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled approximately 6,308 MBbls compared to 5,991 MBbls produced during the year ended December 31, 2015. Natural gas production totaled 29.4 Bcf during the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to 36.5 Bcf produced during the comparable 2015 period. NGL production during the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled approximately 2,183 MBbls compared to 2,401 MBbls produced during the comparable 2015 period.
The decreases in natural gas and NGL production volumes during the year ended December 31, 2016 were primarily attributable to the shut-in of production at ourthe Mary field from September 2015 until late June 2016. Additionally, in April 2016, production from our deep water Amethyst well was shut in to allow for a technical evaluation.  During the first week of November 2016, we initiated acid stimulation work, and on November 30, 2016, we performed a routine shut in of the well to record pressures and determined that pressure communication existed between the production tubing and production casing strings, resulting from a suspected tubing leak. Intervention operations were unsuccessful.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, total production volumes attributable to the Appalachia Properties were approximately 28.3 Bcfe,4,724 MBoe, comprised of 16.1 Bcf of natural gas, 281 MBbls of oil and 1,753 MBbls of NGLs.
Prices.  Prices realized during the year ended December 31, 2016 averaged $44.59 per Bbl of oil, $2.19 per Mcf of natural gas and $13.23 per Bbl of NGLs, or 24% lower, on an Mcfea Boe basis, than 2015 average realized prices of $69.52 per Bbl of oil, $2.29 per Mcf of natural gas and $13.46 per Bbl of NGLs. All unit pricing amounts include the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts.
We enter into various derivative contracts in order to reduce our exposure to the possibility of declining oil and natural gas prices. During the year ended December 31, 2016, effective hedging transactions increased our average realized natural gas price by $0.39 per Mcf and increased our average realized oil price by $3.77 per Bbl. During the year ended December 31, 2015, effective hedging transactions increased our average realized natural gas price by $0.39 per Mcf and increased our average realized oil price by $22.64 per Bbl.
Revenue.  Oil, natural gas and NGL revenue decreased 30% to $374.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $532.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016 was lower primarily due to a 7% decrease in production volumes and a 24% decrease in average realized prices on an equivalent basis from the comparable period of 2015. For the year ended December 31, 2016, total oil, natural gas and NGL revenue attributable to the Appalachia Properties was $56.7 million.
Derivative Income/Expense. Net derivative expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled $0.8 million, comprised of $0.7 million of income from cash settlements and $1.5 million of non-cash expense resulting from changes in the fair value of unsettled derivative instruments. For the year ended December 31, 2015, net derivative income totaled $8.0 million, comprised of $24.4 million of income from cash settlements and $16.4 million of non-cash expenseincome resulting from changes in the fair value of unsettled derivative instruments.
Expenses.  Lease operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 totaled $79.7 million and $100.1 million, respectively. On a unit of production basis, lease operating expenses were $0.99$5.94 per McfeBoe and $1.15$6.92 per McfeBoe for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The decrease in lease operating expenses in 2016 was primarily attributable to service cost reductions, the implementation of cost-savings measures, operating efficiencies and the shut-in of production at ourthe Mary field from September 2015 until late June 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2016, lease operating expenses attributable to the Appalachia Properties were $11.6 million.
TP&G expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled $27.8 million, which included a $7.9 million recoupment of prior period expenses against Federalfederal royalties, compared to $58.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, or $0.35$2.07 per

52

Table of Contents


Mcfe Boe and $0.68$4.07 per Mcfe,Boe, respectively. The decrease in TP&G expenses during the year ended December 31, 2016 was primarily attributable to the shut-in of production at ourthe Mary field from September 2015 until late June 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2016, TP&G expenses attributable to the Appalachia Properties were $28.1 million.
Depreciation, depletion and amortization ("
51

Table of Contents


DD&A")&A expense on oil and gas properties for the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled $215.7 million, or $2.68$16.10 per Mcfe,Boe, compared to DD&A expense of $277.1 million, or $3.19$19.15 per Mcfe,Boe, for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease in DD&A from 2015 was primarily due to the ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties.
Other operational expenses for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 totaled $55.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively. Included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 arewere $9.9 million in charges related to the terminations of anoffshore vessel and Appalachian drilling rig contract and contracts with two GOM vendors,terminations, a $20.0 million charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco in June 2016, approximately $17.7 million of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, the Appalachian drilling rig and the platform rig at Pompano, and a $6.1 million cumulative foreign currency translation loss on the substantial liquidation of our foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada ULC, which was reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income.
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, SG&A expenses (exclusive of incentive compensation) totaled $58.9 million and $69.4 million, respectively. On a unit of production basis, SG&A expenses were $0.73$4.40 per McfeBoe and $0.80$4.80 per McfeBoe for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The decrease in SG&A expenses in 2016 was primarily attributable to staff and other cost reductions. SG&A expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 included $2.1 million of lease termination charges associated with the early termination of an office lease.
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, incentive compensation expense totaled $13.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively. The 2016 incentive compensation cash bonuses arewere calculated based on the achievement of certain strategic objectives for each quarter of 2016. Portions of the 2016 incentive cash bonuses replaced amounts previously awarded to employees as stock-based compensation, reflected in SG&A expenses, resulting in higher incentive compensation expense in the year ended December 31, 2016 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2015.
For the year ended December 31, 2016, restructuring fees totaled $29.6 million. These fees, incurred prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, related to expenses supporting our restructuring effort including legal and financial advisory costs for Stone, our bank group and our noteholders.
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2016 totaled $64.5 million, net of $26.6 million of capitalized interest, compared to interest expense of $43.9 million, net of $41.3 million of capitalized interest, for the year ended December 31, 2015. The increase in interest expense was primarily the result of interest expense associated with the increased borrowings under our bank credit facilityPre-Emergence Credit Agreement and a decrease in the amount of interest capitalized to oil and gas properties.
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we recorded an income tax provision (benefit) of $7.4 million and ($316.4) million, respectively. The income tax benefit recorded for the year ended December 31, 2015 was a result of our loss before income taxes attributable to the ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties. As a result of the significant declines in commodity prices and the resulting ceiling test write-downs and net losses incurred, we determined in the third quarter of 2015 that it was more likely than not that a portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized in the future. Accordingly, we established a valuation allowance against a portion of our deferred tax assets. The change in the valuation allowance was recorded as an adjustment to income tax expense.

53

Table of Contents


2015 Compared to 2014. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our oil and gas operations and summary information with respect to our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves. See Item 2. Properties – Oil and Natural Gas Reserves.
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 Variance % Change
Production:       
Oil (MBbls)5,991
 5,568
 423
 8 %
Natural gas (MMcf)36,457
 47,426
 (10,969) (23)%
NGLs (MBbls)2,401
 2,114
 287
 14 %
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)86,809
 93,518
 (6,709) (7)%
Revenue data (in thousands): (1)
       
Oil revenue$416,497
 $516,104
 $(99,607) (19)%
Natural gas revenue83,509
 166,494
 (82,985) (50)%
NGL revenue32,322
 85,642
 (53,320) (62)%
Total oil, natural gas and NGL revenue$532,328
 $768,240
 $(235,912) (31)%
Average prices:       
Prior to the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts       
Oil (per Bbl)$46.88
 $91.27
 $(44.39) (49)%
Natural gas (per Mcf)1.90
 3.67
 (1.77) (48)%
NGLs (per Bbl)13.46
 40.51
 (27.05) (67)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)4.40
 8.21
 (3.81) (46)%
Including the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts       
Oil (per Bbl)$69.52
 $92.69
 $(23.17) (25)%
Natural gas (per Mcf)2.29
 3.51
 (1.22) (35)%
NGLs (per Bbl)13.46
 40.51
 (27.05) (67)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (per Mcfe)6.13
 8.21
 (2.08) (25)%
Expenses (per Mcfe):       
Lease operating expenses$1.15
 $1.89
 $(0.74) (39)%
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses0.68
 0.69
 (0.01) (1)%
Salaries, general and administrative expenses (2)0.80
 0.71
 0.09
 13 %
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties3.19
 3.59
 (0.40) (11)%
Estimated Proved Reserves at December 31:       
Oil (MBbls)30,276
 42,397
 (12,121) (29)%
Natural gas (MMcf)121,858
 493,843
 (371,985) (75)%
NGLs (MBbls)6,458
 27,817
 (21,359) (77)%
Oil, natural gas and NGLs (MMcfe)342,260
 915,124
 (572,864) (63)%
(1)Includes the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts.
(2)Excludes incentive compensation expense.
Net Loss.  For the year ended December 31, 2015, we reported a net loss totaling $1,090.9 million, or $197.45 per share, compared to a net loss for the year ended December 31, 2014 of $189.5 million, or $35.95 per share. All per share amounts are on a diluted basis.
We follow the full cost method of accounting for oil and gas properties. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we recognized write-downs of our U.S. oil and gas properties totaling $1,362.4 million. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we recognized write-downs of our U.S. oil and gas properties totaling $351.2 million. The write-downs did not impact our cash flows from operating activities but did increase net loss and decrease stockholders’ equity.
The variance in annual results was due to the following components:

54

Table of Contents


Production.  During the year ended December 31, 2015, total production volumes decreased to 86.8 Bcfe compared to 93.5 Bcfe produced during the comparable 2014 period, representing a 7% decrease. Oil production during the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled approximately 5,991 MBbls compared to 5,568 MBbls produced during the year ended December 31, 2014. Natural gas production totaled 36.5 Bcf during the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to 47.4 Bcf produced during the comparable 2014 period. NGL production during the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled approximately 2,401 MBbls compared to 2,114 MBbls produced during the comparable 2014 period.
During the three months ended June 30, 2015, we realized increases to our net revenue and working interests in multiple wells in the Mary field in Appalachia resulting from the finalization of participation elections made by partners and potential partners in certain units. Although we recognized approximately 1.7 Bcfe of incremental production volumes in 2015 associated with the increased interests, net operating income for the affected wells was only minimally impacted due to depressed commodity prices. The increase in oil volumes during the year ended December 31, 2015 was attributable to production from our deep water Cardona wells, which began producing late in the fourth quarter of 2014. These increases in production were partially offset by decreases in production resulting from the divestitures of certain of our non-core GOM conventional shelf properties during 2014. Production volumes for the year ended December 31, 2015 were also negatively impacted by the September 1, 2015 shut-in of the Mary field in Appalachia.
Prices.  Prices realized during the year ended December 31, 2015 averaged $69.52 per Bbl of oil, $2.29 per Mcf of natural gas and $13.46 per Bbl of NGLs, or 25% lower, on an Mcfe basis, than 2014 average realized prices of $92.69 per Bbl of oil, $3.51 per Mcf of natural gas and $40.51 per Bbl of NGLs. All unit pricing amounts include the cash settlement of effective hedging contracts.
We enter into various derivative contracts in order to reduce our exposure to the possibility of declining oil and natural gas prices. During the year ended December 31, 2015, effective hedging transactions increased our average realized natural gas price by $0.39 per Mcf and increased our average realized oil price by $22.64 per Bbl. During the year ended December 31, 2014, effective hedging transactions decreased our average realized natural gas price by $0.16 per Mcf and increased our average realized oil price by $1.42 per Bbl.
Revenue.  Oil, natural gas and NGL revenue decreased 31% to $532.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 from $768.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015 was lower partially due to a 25% decrease in average realized prices. The decrease was also attributable to the divestiture of certain non-core GOM conventional shelf properties during 2014.
Derivative Income/Expense. Net derivative income for the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled $8.0 million, comprised of $24.4 million of income from cash settlements and $16.4 million of non-cash expense resulting from changes in the fair value of unsettled derivative instruments. For the year ended December 31, 2014, net derivative income totaled $19.4 million, comprised of $1.4 million of income from cash settlements and $18.0 million of non-cash income resulting from changes in the fair value of unsettled derivative instruments.
Expenses.  Lease operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $100.1 million and $176.5 million, respectively. On a unit of production basis, lease operating expenses were $1.15 per Mcfe and $1.89 per Mcfe for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The decrease in lease operating expenses in 2015 was primarily attributable to the divestitures of certain non-core GOM conventional shelf properties during 2014 as well as service cost reductions and operating efficiencies.
TP&G expenses for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $58.8 million and $65.0 million, respectively, or $0.68 per Mcfe and $0.69 per Mcfe, respectively. The decrease was primarily attributable to the shut-in of production at our Mary field on September 1, 2015. The expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 included a $3.2 million accrual for a potential liability associated with an ongoing regulatory examination relating to processing fees for our GOM production.
DD&A expense on oil and gas properties for the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled $277.1 million, or $3.19 per Mcfe, compared to DD&A expense of $336.0 million, or $3.59 per Mcfe, for the year ended December 31, 2014. The decrease in DD&A from 2014 was primarily due to the ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties.
For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, SG&A expenses (exclusive of incentive compensation) totaled $69.4 million and $66.5 million, respectively. The increase in SG&A expenses in 2015 related primarily to $3.7 million in severance payments made in conjunction with a reduction of our workforce and $2.1 million of lease termination charges associated with the early termination of an office lease.

55

Table of Contents


For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, incentive compensation expense totaled $2.2 million and $10.4 million, respectively. These amounts related to incentive compensation bonuses calculated based on the achievement of certain strategic objectives for each fiscal year.
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled $43.9 million, net of $41.3 million of capitalized interest, compared to interest expense of $38.9 million, net of $45.7 million of capitalized interest, for the year ended December 31, 2014. The increase in interest expense was primarily the result of a decrease in the amount of interest capitalized to oil and gas properties.
For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recorded income tax benefits of $316.4 million and $102.0 million, respectively. The income tax benefits recorded in 2015 and 2014 were a result of our losses before income taxes attributable to the ceiling test write-downs. The income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2015 was partially offset by the establishment of a valuation allowance against a portion of our deferred tax assets. The 2015 current income tax benefit of $44.1 million represented expected income tax refunds from the carryback of net operating losses to prior tax years.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements.

52

Table of Contents


Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments
The following table summarizes our significant contractual obligations and commitments, other than derivative contracts, by maturity as of December 31, 20162017 (Successor) (in thousands). The table does not reflect any potential changes to our contractual obligations and other commitments that may result from the Chapter 11 process and activities contemplated by the Plan. For example, the Plan contemplates that approximately $1.1 billion of our debt obligations reflected in the table below would be cancelled and exchanged for equity. Additionally, other contractual obligations or commitments may be amended, including our bank credit facility. The table below does not include contractual interest payment obligations that would have been required for the original term of the debt instruments that are classified as liabilities subject to compromise on our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016. The Bankruptcy Petitions constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company's obligations under all of its outstanding debt instruments, resulting in the principal and interest due thereunder immediately due and payable. However, any efforts to enforce such payment obligations were automatically stayed as a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions. See note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information on the bankruptcy proceedings.

Payments Due By PeriodPayments Due By Period
Total 
Less
than
1 Year
 1-3
Years
 
3-5
Years
 
More than
5 Years
Total 
Less
than
1 Year
 1-3
Years
 
3-5
Years
 
More than
5 Years
Contractual Obligations and Commitments:                  
1 34% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017
$300,000
 $300,000
 $
 $
 $
7 12% Senior Notes due 2022
775,000
 
 
 
 775,000
Revolving Credit Facility341,500
 
 341,500
 
 
7.50% Second Lien Notes due 2022$225,000
 $
 $
 $225,000
 $
4.20% Building Loan11,379
 408
 868
 944
 9,159
10,972
 425
 906
 985
 8,656
Interest and commitment fees (1)32,092
 11,456
 17,320
 811
 2,505
80,988
 18,040
 36,027
 24,792
 2,129
Asset retirement obligations including accretion664,674
 127,260
 70,349
 36,176
 430,889
482,008
 80,400
 53,574
 43,411
 304,623
Rig commitments (2)12,650
 12,650
 
 
 
800
 800
 
 
 
Seismic data commitments15,380
 7,690
 7,690
 
 
8,565
 7,690
 875
 
 
Operating lease obligations2,508
 877
 1,065
 566
 
261
 261
 
 
 
Total Contractual Obligations and Commitments$2,155,183
 $460,341
 $438,792
 $38,497
 $1,217,553
$808,594
 $107,616
 $91,382
 $294,188
 $315,408

(1)Includes interest payable on the bank credit facility and Building Loan. Assumes 0.50% fee on unused commitments under the bank credit facility.
(2)
(1) Includes interest payable on the 2022 Second Lien Notes and the Building Loan. Assumes 0.375% fee on unused commitments under the Amended Credit Agreement.
(2) Represents minimum committed future expenditures for drilling rig services.

56

Table of Contents


Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the statements set forth under this item and elsewhere in this Form 10-K are forward-looking and are based upon assumptions and anticipated results that are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. See Item 1. Business — Forward-Looking Statements and Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Accounting Matters and Critical Accounting Estimates
Presentation.Reorganization and Fresh Start Accounting. Subsequent to filing the Bankruptcy Petitions, we have prepared our consolidated financial statements in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC")ASC 852, "Reorganizations"Reorganizations”. ASC 852 requires that the financial statements, for periods subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business. Accordingly, professional fees and other expenses incurred in the Chapter 11 Cases,cases, and the write-off of remaining unamortized deferred financingdebt issuance costs, premiums and discounts associated with debt classified as liabilities subject to compromise, have been recorded as reorganization items on the consolidated statement of operations. In addition, pre-petition obligations that may behave been impacted by the Chapter 11 process have beenwere classified on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016 as liabilities subject to compromise. These liabilities are reported at the amounts
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Company expects will bequalified for and adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of ASC 852, “Reorganizations” as (i) the holders of existing voting shares of the Predecessor Company received less than 50% of the voting shares of the Successor Company and (ii) the reorganization value of the Company’s assets immediately prior to confirmation of the Plan was less than the post-petition liabilities and allowed byclaims. The Company applied fresh start accounting as of February 28, 2017. Fresh start accounting required the Bankruptcy Court, evenCompany to present its assets, liabilities and equity as if they may be settled for lesser amounts.it were a new entity upon emergence from bankruptcy, with no beginning retained earnings or deficit as of the fresh start reporting date. The new entity is referred to as Successor or Successor Company, and includes the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to Predecessor or Predecessor Company relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.

Fair Value Measurements.  U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"(“GAAP”), as codified, establish a framework for measuring fair value and require certain disclosures about fair value measurements. There is an established fair value hierarchy that has three levels based on the reliability of the inputs used to determine the fair value. These levels include: Level 1, defined as inputs such as unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities; Level 2, defined as inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs for use when little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions.

53

Table of Contents


As of December 31, 20162017 and 2015,2016, we held certain financial assets and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis, including our commodity derivative instruments and our investments in marketable securities.
On February 28, 2017, we emerged from bankruptcy and adopted fresh start accounting, at which time our assets and liabilities were recorded at fair value. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for a detailed description of the fair value approaches used.
Asset Retirement Obligations.  We are required to record our estimate of the fair value of liabilities related to future asset retirement obligations in the period the obligation is incurred. Asset retirement obligations relate to the removal of facilities and tangible equipment at the end of an oil and gas property’s useful life. The guidance regarding asset retirement obligations requires the use of management’s estimates with respect to future abandonment costs, inflation, market risk premiums, useful lifetiming of abandonment and cost of capital. Our estimate of our asset retirement obligations does not give consideration to the value the related assets could have to other parties.
Full Cost Method.  We follow the full cost method of accounting for our oil and gas properties. Under this method, all acquisition, exploration, development and estimated abandonment costs, including certain related employee and general and administrative costs (less any reimbursements for such costs) and interest incurred for the purpose of acquiring and finding oil and gas are capitalized. Unevaluated property costs are excluded from the amortization base until we have made a determination as to the existence of proved reserves on the respective property or impairment. We review our unevaluated properties at the end of each quarter to determine whether the costs should be reclassified to proved oil and gas properties and thereby subject to DD&A. Sales of oil and gas properties are accounted for as adjustments to net proved oil and gas properties with no gain or loss recognized, unless the adjustment would significantly alter the relationship between capitalized costs and proved reserves.
We amortize our investment in oil and gas properties through DD&A expense using the units of production (the "UOP"“UOP”) method. Under the UOP method, the quarterly provision for DD&A expense is computed by dividing production volumes for the period by the total proved reserves as of the beginning of the period (beginning of period reserves being determined by adding production to the end of period reserves), and applying the respective rate to the net cost of proved oil and gas properties, including future development costs.
We capitalize a portion of the interest costs incurred on our debt based upon the balance of our unevaluated property costs and our weighted-average borrowing rate. We also capitalize the portion of SG&A expenses that are attributable to our acquisition, exploration and development activities.
U.S. GAAP allows the option of two acceptable methods for accounting for oil and gas properties. The successful efforts method is the allowable alternative to the full cost method. The primary differences between the two methods are in the treatment of exploration costs, the computation of DD&A expense and the assessment of impairment of oil and gas properties. Under the full cost method, all exploratory costs are capitalized while under the successful efforts method, exploratory costs associated with unsuccessful exploratory wells and all geological and geophysical costs are expensed. Under the full cost method, DD&A expense is computed on cost centers represented by entire countries, while under the successful efforts method, cost centers are represented

57

Table of Contents


by properties, or some reasonable aggregation of properties with common geological structural features or stratigraphic condition, such as fields or reservoirs. Under the full cost method, oil and gas properties are subject to the ceiling test as discussed below while under the successful efforts method oil and gas properties are assessed for impairment in accordance with ASC 360.
Under the full cost method, we compare, at the end of each financial reporting period, the present value of estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves (adjusted for hedges and excluding cash flows related to estimated abandonment costs), to the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties, net of related deferred taxes. We refer to this comparison as a ceiling test. If the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties exceed the estimated discounted future net cash flows from proved reserves, we are required to write down the value of our oil and gas properties to the value of the discounted cash flows. Estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves are calculated based on a trailing twelve-month average pricing assumption.
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.  The nature of a derivative instrument must be evaluated to determine if it qualifiesAll derivatives are recognized as a hedging instrument. Ifassets or liabilities on the instrument qualifies as a hedging instrument, it is recorded as either an asset or liabilitybalance sheet and are measured at fair value andvalue. At the end of each quarterly period, these derivatives are marked-to-market. If the derivative does not qualify or is not designated as a cash flow hedge, subsequent changes in the derivative’s fair value of the derivative are recognized in earnings through derivative income (expense) in the statement of operations. If the derivative qualifies and is designated as a cash flow hedge, subsequent changes in the fair value of the derivative are recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss), net of related taxes, to the extent the hedge is considered effective. Monthly settlements of effective cash flow hedges are reflected in revenue from oil and natural gas productionproduction. Monthly settlements of ineffective hedges and derivatives not designated or that do not qualify for hedge accounting are recognized in earnings through derivative income (expense). The resulting cash flows from all monthly settlements are reported as cash flows from operating activities. Instruments not qualifying

54

Table of Contents


Through December 31, 2016, we designated our commodity derivatives as hedging instruments arecash flow hedges for accounting purposes upon entering into the contracts. Accordingly, the contracts were recorded in our balance sheetas either an asset or liability measured at fair value and subsequent changes in the derivative’s fair value arewere recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss), net of related taxes, to the extent the hedge was considered effective. Monthly settlements of effective hedges were reflected in revenue from oil and natural gas production. With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the net changes in the mark-to-market valuations and the monthly settlements of these derivative contracts will be recorded in earnings through derivative expense (income)income (expense). Monthly settlements of ineffective hedges and derivative instruments not qualifying as hedging instruments are recognized in earnings through derivative expense (income) and cash flows from operating activities.
Use of Estimates.  The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Our most significant estimates are:
remaining proved oil and natural gas reserve volumes and the timing of their production;
estimated costs to develop and produce proved oil and natural gas reserves;
accruals of exploration costs, development costs, operating costs and production revenue;
timing and future costs to abandon our oil and gas properties;
effectiveness and estimated fair value of derivative positions;
classification of unevaluated property costs;
capitalized general and administrative costs and interest;
estimates of fair value in business combinations;
estimates of reorganization value and enterprise value;
fair value of assets and liabilities recorded as a result of the adoption of fresh start accounting;
current and deferred income taxes;
liabilities subject to compromise vs. not subject to compromise; and
contingencies.
For a more complete discussion of our accounting policies and procedures see our “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” beginning on page F-8.
Recent Accounting Developments
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"(“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU"(“ASU”) 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers"Customers” to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue and to develop a common revenue standard and disclosure requirements. Under the new standard, revenue is recognized when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. Additional disclosures will be required to describe the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows from contracts with customers including the disaggregation of revenue and remaining performance obligations. The standard may be applied retrospectively or using a modified retrospective approach, with the cumulative effect of initially applying ASU 2014-09 recognized at the date of initial application. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, deferring the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. As a result, the standardapplication, and is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2017.
We expect to applyadopted this new standard on January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective approach uponapproach. The adoption of this standard. Although we are still evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements and related disclosures, we dodid not anticipate that the implementation of this new standard will have a material effect.
In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, "Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40)". The guidance requires management to evaluate whether there are conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the financial statements are issued on both an interim and annual basis. Additionally, management is required to provide certain footnote disclosures if it concludes that substantial doubt exists or when it concludes its plans alleviate substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. ASU 2014-15 became effective for us on December 15, 2016. The standard impacted our disclosures but had no effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

58

Tableflows, but will result in increased disclosures related to revenue recognition policies and disaggregation of Contents


In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, "Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes" to simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes. The guidance allows for the presentation of all deferred tax assets and liabilities, along with any related valuation allowance, to be classified as noncurrent on the balance sheet. We early adopted ASU 2015-17, on a retrospective basis, which affected our disclosures of deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, but had no effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.revenues.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)" to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. The standard is effective for public entitiescompanies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, with earlier application permitted. Upon adoption the lessee will apply the new standard retrospectively to all periods presented or retrospectively using a cumulative effect adjustment in the year of adoption. We are currently evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements.statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, "Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718)" to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and forfeitures, as well as classification in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 became effective for us on January 1, 2017. Under ASU 2016-09, we elected to not apply a forfeiture estimate and will recognize a credit in compensation expense to the extent awards are forfeited. The implementation of this new standard did not have a material effect on our financial statements or related disclosures.


55

Table of Contents


In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815)” to improve the financial reporting of hedging relationships to better reflect an entity’s hedging strategies. The standard expands an entity’s ability to apply hedge accounting for both non-financial and financial risk components and amends the presentation and disclosure requirements. Additionally, ASU 2017-12 eliminates the need to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and generally requires the entire change in fair value of a hedging instrument to be recorded in the same income statement line as the earnings effect of the hedged item. The standard is effective for public entitiescompanies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016,2018 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for any entity in any interim or annual period. An entity that elects early adoptionpermitted. The standard must adopt allbe adopted by applying a modified retrospective approach to existing designated hedging relationships as of the amendments in ASU 2016-09 inadoption date, with a cumulative effect adjustment recorded to opening retained earnings as of the same period.initial adoption date. We are currently evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements but we do not anticipate the implementation of this new standard will have a material effect.and related disclosures.


ITEM 7A.    QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Commodity Price Risk.  Our major market risk exposure continues to be the pricing applicable to our oil and natural gas production. Our revenues, profitability and future rate of growth depend substantially upon the market prices of oil and natural gas, which fluctuate widely. Oil and natural gas price declines and volatility could adversely affect our revenues, cash flows and profitability. Price volatility is expected to continue. For the year ended December 31, 2016,2017, a 10% fluctuationdecrease in realized oil and natural gas prices, including the effects of hedging contracts, would have hadresulted in an approximate $26.4$23.7 million impact ondecrease in our revenues. Excluding the effects of hedging contracts,cash flows from operating activities, while a 10% fluctuation in realized oil and natural gas pricesincrease would have hadresulted in an approximate $33.9$26.2 million impact onincrease in our revenues.cash flows from operating activities. In order to manage our exposure to oil and natural gas price declines, we enter into oil and natural gas price hedging arrangements to secure a price for a portion of our expected future production.
Our hedging policy currently provides that not more than 60% of our estimated production quantities can be hedged for any given yearmonth without the consent of the boardBoard. Additionally, a minimum of directors.25% of each month’s production will not be committed to any hedge contract regardless of the price available. We believe that our outstanding hedging positions as of February 23, 2017March 9, 2018 have hedged approximately 7% of our estimated 2017 production from estimated proved reserves and 6%52% of our estimated 2018 production from estimated proved producing reserves and 47% of our estimated 2019 production from estimated proved producing reserves. We continue to monitor the market placemarketplace for additional hedges we deem acceptable. Pursuant to requirements under the Plan, we expect to hedge approximately 50% of our estimated production from estimated proved producing reserves for each of 2017 and 2018. See Note 79 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities to the accompanying consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a detailed discussion of hedges in place to manage our exposure to oil and natural gas price declines.
Interest Rate Risk.  We had total debt outstanding of $1,427.8$235.9 million at December 31, 2016,2017, all of which $1,086.3 million, or 76%, bears interest at fixed rates. The $1,086.3$235.9 million of fixed-rate debt is comprised of $300 million face value of the 2017 Convertible Notes, $775$225 million of the 2022 Second Lien Notes and $11.3$10.9 million of the Building Loan. At December 31, 2016, the remaining $341.5 million of our outstanding debt bears interest at
Our Amended Credit Agreement is subject to an adjustable rate and consists of borrowings outstanding under our bank credit facility.interest rate. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources. BorrowingsAt March 9, 2018, we had no outstanding borrowings under our bank credit facilityAmended Credit Agreement. If we borrow funds under our Amended Credit Agreement, we may be subject us to increased sensitivity to interest rate movements. At February 23, 2017, we had $341.5 million of borrowings outstanding under our bank credit facility. We currently have no interest rate hedge positions in place to reduce our exposure to changes in interest rates. At December 31, 2016, the weighted average interest rate under our bank credit facility was approximately 3.2% per annum.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we expect that we will eliminate approximately $1.2 billion in principal amount of outstanding debt, resulting in remaining debt outstanding of approximately $236 million, consisting of the $225 million of Second Lien Notes which will bear interest at a fixed rate and $11 million outstanding under the Building Loan bearing interest at a fixed rate.


59

Table of Contents


ITEM 8.    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Information concerning this Item begins on Page F-1.
ITEM 9.  CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
There have been no disagreements with our independent registered public accounting firm on our accounting or financial reporting that would require our independent registered public accounting firm to qualify or disclaim its report on our financial statements or otherwise require disclosure in this Form 10-K.

56

Table of Contents


ITEM 9A.  CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As required by Rule 13a-15(b) of the Exchange Act, we have evaluated, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Form 10-K. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. Based upon the evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 20162017 at the reasonable assurance level.
Changes in Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
There has not been any change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 20162017 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined by the Exchange Act. Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016.2017. In making this assessment, we used the criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) (2013 framework). Based on our evaluation, we have concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2016.2017. Ernst and Young LLP, an independent public accounting firm, has issued its report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016.2017.

6057

Table of Contents


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Stone Energy Corporation
Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited Stone Energy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016,2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) (the COSO criteria). In our opinion, Stone Energy Corporation’sCorporation (the Company) maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2016 (Predecessor), the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the period March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), and the related notes and our report dated March 9, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Overover Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Stone Energy Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on the COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Stone Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and changes in stockholders’ equity for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016 and our report dated February 23, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon that included an explanatory paragraph regarding Stone Energy Corporation's ability to continue as a going concern.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
February 23, 2017March 9, 2018

6158

Table of Contents


ITEM 9B.  OTHER INFORMATION
None.The following information is being disclosed under Item 9B. of this Form 10-K in lieu of providing such disclosure in Item 5.02 of a Current Report on Form 8-K.
Amendment to Trimble Term Sheet
As previously disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K that was filed by the Company with the SEC on May 1, 2017, the Company entered into a compensation term sheet with James Trimble, the Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, effective April 28, 2017 (the “Term Sheet”), in connection with his appointment to such positions. On March 6, 2018, the Board and the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) approved an amendment to the Term Sheet (the “Amendment”). Pursuant to the Amendment, notwithstanding anything in the Term Sheet to the contrary, in the event of a change in control event or the termination of Mr. Trimble’s employment by the Company without “cause” (as defined in the Term Sheet) or by him for “good reason” (as defined in the Term Sheet), in each case, occurring prior to December 31, 2018, he will be paid his target bonus (120% of his annual base salary), prorated for the period from January 1, 2018, through the date of such event, which payment will be made in a lump sum in 2018, subject to his execution, delivery and irrevocability of a release of claims no later than the sixtieth (60th) day following such event. Other than the foregoing change, the Term Sheet remains in full force and effect.


59

Table of Contents


PART III
ITEM 10.  DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Emergence from Bankruptcy: Confirmation of Board of Directors
On December 14, 2016, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan and on February 28, 2017, the Plan became effective in accordance with its terms and the Company and its subsidiaries emerged from the Chapter 11 cases.
Pursuant to the Plan, upon the Effective Date, Neal P. Goldman (Chairman of the Board), John “Brad” Juneau, David I. Rainey, Charles M. Sledge, James M. Trimble and David N. Weinstein were appointed as directors of the Company. In addition, David H. Welch, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company at the time of the Effective Date, was reappointed to the Board pursuant to the Plan. Mr. Welch retired as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and as a member of the Board on April 28, 2017.
Identification of Directors
Set forth below is biographical information regarding each of our current directors.directors as of March 9, 2018. There are no family relationships between any of our directors and executive officers. In addition, there are no arrangements or understandings between any of our directors or executive officers or directors and any other person pursuant to which any person was selected as a director or an executive officer, respectively.

The Plan filed by the Company with the Bankruptcy Court provides that upon emergence from bankruptcy, the term of each of the current board members will expire, and the post-emergence Company's new board will consist of seven directors, including six new directors appointed by the Noteholders, and our chief executive officer, David H. Welch.

George R. Christmas,Neal P. Goldman, age 77,48, Director since 2003,February 2017, Chairman of the Compensation Committee and Member of the Nominating & Governance Committee. Retired Lt. General George R. Christmas retired in 2011 as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, which directly supports the historical programs of the Marine Corps, preserves the history, traditions and culture of the Marine Corps, and educates Americans in its virtues. Retired Lt. Gen. Christmas graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor of arts degree and then from Shippensburg University with a master of public administration degree. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1962 to 1996, originally commissioned as a second lieutenant and rising to Brigadier General in 1988, Major General in 1991, and Lieutenant General in 1993 as Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California. Lt. General Christmas’s personal decorations and medals include the Navy Cross, Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Navy Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal and three gold stars in lieu of consecutive awards, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with palm. He previously served as a consultant or advisor to various entities, including Wexford Group International, Northrup Gruman Space & Mission Systems Corporation, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, RAND Corporation and HARRIS Corporation. Retired Lt. General Christmas presently serves as an advisor to the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation; as Member, Advisory Board, to the Florence & Robert A. Rosen Family Wellness Center for Law Enforcement and Military; as Chairman, Board of Directors for Center House Association; as Marine Corps Senior Advisor for the Department of Defense Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War; as Witness to the War Advisory Board; as Member of the Stafford County Virginia Armed Services Memorial Commission; and as Trustee of the Stafford Hospital Foundation.

B.J. Duplantis, age 77, Director since 1993, Chairman of the Nominating & Governance Committee and Member of the Compensation and Reserve Committees.Committee. Mr. DuplantisGoldman is currently the Managing Member of SAGE Capital Investments, LLC, a senior partner with the lawconsulting firm specializing in independent board of Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, having joined the firmdirector services, turnaround consulting, strategic planning, and special situation investments. Mr. Goldman was a Managing Director at Och Ziff Capital Management, L.P. from 2014 to 2016 and a Founding Partner of Brigade Capital Management, LLC from 2007 to 2012, which he helped build to over $12 billion in 1982, with a practice focused on the oil and gas industry.assets under management. Prior to joining the law firm,this, Mr. Duplantis servedGoldman was a Portfolio Manager at MacKay Shields, LLC and also held various positions at Salomon Brothers Inc., both as a mergers and acquisitions banker and as an investor in the legal departmenthigh yield trading group. Throughout his career, Mr. Goldman has held numerous board representations including roles as an independent member of The Superior Oil Company from 1979 to 1982the boards of directors of Lightsquared, Inc., Pimco Income Strategy Fund I & II, and previously was employed by Shell Oil Company, where he served in various engineering and management capacities over 10 years in Louisiana, Texas, California and New York, and alsoCatalyst Paper Corporation, as well as a member of its legal department from 1971 to 1978.the boards of directors of Jacuzzi Brands and NII Holdings, Inc. Mr. Duplantis graduated from Louisiana State University with a bachelor of science degree in petroleum chemical engineering and from Loyola University with a Juris Doctor degree. In addition to his several professional affiliations, Mr. DuplantisGoldman has served on the Louisiana State Officeboards of Conservation Intrastate Pipelines Ad Hoc Committee,directors of Midstates Petroleum Company, Inc. since October 2016, Walter Investment Management Corp. since January 2017, and Ultra Petroleum Corp. since April 2017. Mr. Goldman received a BA from the Louisiana State OfficeUniversity of Conservation CommitteeMichigan and an MBA from the University of Illinois. Based upon Mr. Goldman’s involvement in strategic planning and oversight of liability management efforts and his experience on Revision of Rules of Procedure, and the Advisory Committee for the Louisiana State Commissioner’s Office of Conservation, andmultiple boards, we believe that Mr. Goldman is a former boardvaluable member of Holy Cross College, New Orleans, Louisiana.the Board.

Peter D. Kinnear,John “Brad” Juneau, age 70,58, Director since 2008,February 2017, Chairman of the Reserves Committee and Member of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating & Governance Committees. Mr. Kinnear held numerous management, operationsJuneau is the co-founder of Contango ORE, Inc., a publicly traded gold exploration company, and marketing roles with FMC Technologies, Inc. and FMC Corporation, both leading providers of technology services to the energy industry, starting in 1971 and retiring from FMC Technologies, Inc. in 2011. Mr. Kinnearhas served as President, Chief Executive Officer from March 2007 through February 2011and a director of FMC Technologies,Contango ORE, Inc., since August 2012 and previously as President from March 2006 through April 2010, and Chief Operating Officer from March 2006 through March 2007. Mr. Kinnear received a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Vanderbilt University and an MBA from the UniversityChairman of Chicago. Mr. Kinnear presently serves on the board of directors of Superior Energy Services,Contango ORE, Inc. (membersince 2013. Mr. Juneau is the sole manager of the auditgeneral partner of Juneau Exploration, L.P., a company involved in the exploration and corporate governance committees). In additionproduction of oil and natural gas. Prior to servingforming Juneau Exploration in 1998, Mr. Juneau served as trusteeSenior Vice President of exploration for Zilkha Energy Company from 1987 to 1998. Prior to joining Zilkha Energy Company, Mr. Juneau served as a Staff Petroleum Engineer with Texas International Company for three years, where his principal responsibilities included reservoir engineering, as well as acquisitions and evaluations. Prior to that, he was a Production Engineer with Enserch Corporation in Oklahoma City. Mr. Juneau holds a BS in Petroleum Engineering from Louisiana State University. We believe that Mr. Juneau’s extensive energy industry background, particularly his expertise in reservoir engineering and involvement with exploration and production companies, makes him a valuable member of the Board.
David I. Rainey, age 63, Director since February 2017, Chairman of the Safety Committee and Member of the Audit and Reserves Committees. Dr. Rainey previously served as the President Petroleum Exploration of BHP Billiton, a publicly traded mining, metals and petroleum company, from June 2011 until January 2016 and as Chief Geoscientist from February 2014 until November 2016. From 1980 to 2011, he served in various positions at BP, a publicly traded integrated oil and gas company, including as Vice President Science, Technology, Environment and Regulatory Affairs from 2010 to 2011 and Vice President Gulf of Mexico Exploration and Deputy Chair of BP’s Global Exploration Forum from 2005 to 2010. While at BP, Dr. Rainey worked in or directorled exploration teams in the North Sea, the North Atlantic, the Gulf of various non-public entities, including The Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association,Mexico, Brazil, North Alaska, Canada, Kurdistan, India, the Business Council,Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Australia, South Africa, Trinidad and Spindletop International, Mr.Tobago, and Barbados. Dr. Rainey has served on

6260

Table of Contents


Kinnearthe boards of directors of BP Exploration and Production Inc. and multiple BHP Billiton subsidiaries. Dr. Rainey received a BSc and Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Edinburgh and has completed executive education programs at MIT Sloan School of Business, Stanford University Graduate School of Business and Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management. With more than 35 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, Dr. Rainey has extensive industry and management experience and expertise, which we believe brings valuable skills and expertise to the Board.
Charles M. Sledge, age 52, Director since February 2017, Chairman of the Audit Committee and Member of the Safety Committee. Mr. Sledge previously served as the Chief Financial Officer of Cameron International Corporation, an oilfield services company, from 2008 until 2016. Prior to that, Mr. Sledge served as the Corporate Controller of Cameron International Corporation from 2001 until 2008. Mr. Sledge has served on the boardboards of directors of Tronox Incorporated from November 2005 to December 2010,Templar Energy LLC since January 2017 and Vine Resources, Inc. since April 2017. We believe that Mr. Sledge’s strong financial background, including his 20 years of experience as FMC Technologies, Inc.’sa financial executive, makes him a valuable member of the Board.
David N. Weinstein, age 58, Director since February 2017, Chairman of the Board from October 2008 through October 2011.

David T. Lawrence, age 61, Director since 2013,Compensation Committee and Member of the Audit Nominating & Governance, Reserves and Special Committees. Committee. Mr. LawrenceWeinstein has extensive global experience across the upstream energy business. He currently is Chairman and CEO of Lawrence Energy Group LLC. Hebeen a business consultant specializing in reorganization activities since September 2008. From March 2007 to August 2008, Mr. Weinstein served as Executive Vice President ExplorationManaging Director and CommercialGroup Head, Debt Capital Markets-High Yield and Leverage Finance at Calyon Securities, a global provider of commercial and investment banking products and services for Shell Upstream Americascorporations and Functional Head of Global Exploration for Shell worldwide from June 2009 until retiring from this position in April 2013. His responsibilities included exploration, acquisitions, divestments, new business development, LNG, Gasinstitutional clients. From September 2004 to Liquids and wind energy in the Americas. Prior roles included Executive Vice President Global Exploration and Executive Vice President Investor Relations for Royal Dutch Shell based in The Hague and London, respectively, and Vice President Exploration and Development for Shell Exploration and Production Company in the United States. In his 29 years with Shell,February 2007, Mr. Lawrence conducted business in more than 40 countries around the globe. Mr. Lawrence currently serves as a Trustee Associate of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Foundation, and he has served as Chairman of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute External Advisory Board and on the National Ocean Industry Association as Membership Chair and as a past commissioner on the Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change. HeWeinstein was a member of the American Petroleum Institute Upstream Committee, where he helped lead efforts to establish the Center for Offshore Safetyconsultant specializing in business reorganization and was the Chairman of the European Association of Geologists and Engineers (EAGE) Annual Meeting in Amsterdam in 2008. Mr. Lawrence is the author of numerous technical and business articles, is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Award from the American Petroleum Institute, and received the Wallace Pratt Memorial Award for best paper in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists bulletin. Mr. Lawrence received his Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale University in 1984 and his B.A. in Geology from Lawrence University in 1977.

Robert S. Murley, age 67, Director since 2011, Member of the Audit, Compensation, Nominating & Governance and Special Committees. Mr. Murley is a Senior Advisor to Credit Suisse, LLC, having been employed by Credit Suisse and its predecessors from 1975 to April 2012. In 2005, he was appointed Chairman of Investment Banking in the Americas, serving in that position until April 2012.capital markets activities. Prior to that, time, Mr. Murley headed the Global Industrial and Services Group within the Investment Banking Division, as well as the Chicago investment banking office. HeWeinstein was named a Managing Director in 1984 and appointed a Vice Chairman in 1998. Mr. Murley received a bachelorHead of arts degree from Princeton University, an MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of ManagementHigh Yield Capital Markets at BNP Paribas, BancBoston Securities and a master of science degree in International Economics from the London School of Economics. Mr. Murley has been a director of Apollo Education Group since June 2011 (ChairmanChase Securities, Inc. and head of the audit and finance committees, and member of the nominating and governance committee), a director of Health Insurance Innovations since November 2013 and Brown Advisory Group since January 2016. He also serves as an Emeritus Trustee of Princeton University, is a Trustee and past Chairman of the Board of the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, New Jersey, is Vice Chairman of the Board of the Ann & Robert Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, is Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the UCLA Anderson School of Management and is a Trustee of the Museum of Science & Industry in Chicago, Illinois.

Richard A. Pattarozzi, age 73, Director since 2000, Lead Independent Director, Member of the Nominating & Governance and Reserves Committees. Mr. Pattarozzi served as Vice President of Shell Oil Company from March 1999 until his retirement in January 2000, having worked for Shell Oil Company for over 33 years, from 1966 to 2000,capital markets group in the United States, both onshore and in the Gulf of Mexico. He also served as President and Chief Executive Officer for both Shell Deepwater Development, Inc. and Shell Deepwater Production, Inc. from 1995 until 1999, and previously was appointed General Manager of Shell’s Deepwater Production Division in April 1991 and General Manager of Shell’s Deepwater Exploration and Production Division in October 1991.High Yield Department at Lehman Brothers. Mr. Pattarozzi graduated from the University of Illinois with a civil engineering degree. Mr. Pattarozzi presently serves on the board of directors of FMC Technologies, Inc., Lead Director and (member of the compensation committee and Chair of the nominating and governance committee) and Tidewater Inc. (“Tidewater”) (as independent Chairman of the Board and a member of the compensation and nominating and governance committees), both of which are public companies. Mr. PattarozziWeinstein has previously served on the boards of Superior Energy Services,directors of Pioneer Companies, Inc., York Research Corp., Horizon Lines, Interstate Bakeries Corporation and Global Industries, Ltd., which merged with Technip in December 2011.Deep Ocean Group Holdings. In addition, Mr. Pattarozzi also servesWeinstein has served on the boardboards of trusteesdirectors of the U.S. Army War College FoundationOneida Group since June 2015, TORM Plc since July 2015 and isSeadrill Limited since January 2017. Mr. Weinstein earned a past TrusteeBA from Brandeis University and a JD from Columbia University School of Law. We believe that Mr. Weinstein’s experience in evaluating financial and strategic options and his experience on multiple boards make him a valuable member of the National World War II Museum, Inc. and past Chairman of the Offshore Energy Center and also of the United Way in New Orleans, Louisiana.Board.

Donald E. Powell,James M. Trimble, age 75,69, Director since 2008, Member of the Audit, Nominating & Governance and Special Committees.February 2017. Mr. PowellTrimble has served as the Federal CoordinatorInterim Chief Executive Officer and President of Gulf Coast Rebuildingthe Company since April 2017. Mr. Trimble previously served as Chief Executive Officer and President of PDC Energy, Inc., a publicly traded independent natural gas and oil company, from November2011 until 2015. From 2005 until March 2008,2010, Mr. Trimble was Managing Director of Grand Gulf Energy, Limited, a public company traded on the Australian Securities Exchange, and he received the Presidential Citizens Medal in 2008 from President George W. Bush. Mr. Powell was the 18th Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, where he served from August 2001 until November 2005. Mr. Powell previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Grand Gulf’s U.S. subsidiary Grand Gulf Energy Company LLC, an exploration and development company focused primarily on drilling in mature basins in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. From 2000 through 2004, Mr. Trimble served as Chief Executive Officer of Elysium Energy and then TexCal Energy LLC, both of which were privately held oil and gas companies that he managed through workouts. Prior to this, he was Senior Vice President of Exploration and Production for Cabot Oil and Gas, a publicly traded independent energy company. Mr. Trimble was hired in July 2002 as Chief Executive Officer of TexCal (formerly Tri-Union Development) to manage a distressed oil and gas company through bankruptcy. Mr. Trimble previously served on the First National Bankboards of Amarillo, where he started his banking careerdirectors of Blue Dolphin Energy, an independent oil and gas company with operations in 1971.the Gulf of Mexico, from November 2002 until May 2006, Seisgen Exploration LLC, a small private exploration and production company operating in southern Texas, from 2008 to 2015, Grand Gulf Energy LTD from 2009 to 2012, PDC Energy from 2009 until June 2016 and C&J Energy Services LTD from March 2016 to January 2017 to assist with its Chapter 11 process. Mr. Powell graduated from WestTrimble has served on the boards of directors of Callon Petroleum Company since 2014 and Crestone Peak Resources LLC (a private company operating in the DJ Basin of Colorado) since December 2016. Mr. Trimble was an officer of PDC Energy in September 2013, when each of the twelve partnerships for which the company was the managing general partner filed for bankruptcy in the federal bankruptcy court, Northern District of Texas, State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in economicsDallas Division, and is a graduate of The Southwestern Graduate School of Banking at Southern Methodist University. Mr. Powell presently serveswas on the board of directorsC&J Energy Services LTD when it filed for bankruptcy in the court of T.D. Williamson,the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in July 2016. Mr. Trimble is a privately held company.Registered Professional Engineer. Based upon Mr. Powell previously servedTrimble’s many years of oil and gas industry executive management experience, including experience as a directorchief executive officer, and knowledge of QR Energy, LP (member ofcurrent developments and best practices in the auditindustry, we believe Mr. Trimble brings valuable skills and compensationexpertise to the Board.


63
61

Table of Contents


committees and Chairman of the conflicts committee prior to resigning in connection with the acquisition of QR Energy, LP by Breitburn Energy Partners LP in November 2014) and as a director of Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch International (United Kingdom) (retiring in May 2013 from both). He has also served on the boards of several non-public, civic and charitable organizations, including as chairman of the Board of Regents of the Texas A&M University System, Advisory Board Member of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service and Chairman of the Amarillo Chamber of Commerce, the City of Amarillo Housing Board and the High Plains Baptist Hospital and Harrington Regional Medical Center in Amarillo, Texas.

Kay G. Priestly, age 61, Director since 2006, Chairman of the Audit Committee, Member of the Nominating & Governance, Reserves and Special Committees. Ms. Priestly was formerly the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd., an international mining company focused on copper, gold and coal in the Asia Pacific region, retiring therefrom as of December 31, 2014. From 2008 until her appointment as CEO of Turquoise Hill in 2012, she was Chief Financial Officer of Rio Tinto Copper (a division of the Rio Tinto Group - Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited). From 2006 to 2008, she was Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Rio Tinto’s Kennecott Utah Copper operations. Ms. Priestly served as Vice President, Risk Management and General Auditor for Entergy Corporation, an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations, from 2004 to 2006. Ms. Priestly previously spent over 24 years with global professional services firm Arthur Andersen, where she provided tax, consulting and mergers & acquisitions services to global companies across many industries, including energy, mining, manufacturing and services. While at Andersen, she was a member of the global energy team, served as managing partner of the New Orleans office from 1997 to 2000, and was a member of Andersen’s global executive team from 2001 to 2002 where she had overall responsibility for the firm’s human resources strategy. Ms. Priestly also serves on the board of directors for New Gold, Inc. and for Technip FMC. She formerly served as Chairman of the board of directors of SouthGobi Resources Ltd., from September 2012 through December 2014, retiring therefrom as of December 31, 2014, and formerly served as a director of Palabora Mining Company Limited from January 2009 through May 2010.

Phyllis M. Taylor, age 75, Director since 2012, Chairman of the Reserves Committee, Member of the Compensation and Nominating & Governance Committees. Ms. Taylor is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Taylor Energy Company LLC. Ms. Taylor is a graduate of Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, and she served as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Louisiana and subsequently served as in-house counsel for private energy companies. Ms. Taylor also serves as Chairman and President of the Patrick F. Taylor Foundation and on the Iberia Bank Advisory Board. Ms. Taylor is involved in numerous civic activities, including serving on the New Orleans Business Council, Catholic Leadership Institute National Advisory Board and the Tulane University Board of Trustees.

David H. Welch, age 68, Director since 2004, Chairman of the Board. Mr. Welch has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Stone since April 2004 and has served as Chairman of the Board since May 2012. Prior to joining our company in 2004, he worked for BP Amoco or its predecessors for 26 years, where his final role was Senior Vice President, BP America Inc. Mr. Welch has an engineering degree from Louisiana State University and a doctoral degree in engineering and economics from Tulane University. He has completed the Harvard Business School advanced management program and executive development programs at Stanford Business School and at Cambridge University. Mr. Welch serves as a director of Iberia Bank (member of the Investment Committee, Enterprise Risk Committee and Trust Oversight Committee). Mr. Welch has served as Chairman of the Offshore Energy Center, Chairman of the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce and 2011 Chairman of the United Way in Acadiana. He currently serves as Vice Chairman of the National Ocean Industries Association, a trustee of The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana, a director of the Offshore Energy Center, a director of Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, a director of the Upper Lafayette Economic Development Foundation, Acadiana Symphony Orchestra and on the Lafayette Central Park board.

Identification of Executive Officers
The following table sets forth information regarding the names, ages (as of February 23, 2017)March 9, 2018) and positions held by each of our executive officers, followed by biographies describing the business experience of our executive officers for at least the past five years. Our executive officers serve at the discretion of our Board.

64

Table of Contents


 
Name Age Position
David H. WelchJames M. Trimble 6869 Chairman of the Board, President andInterim Chief Executive Officer and President
Kenneth H. Beer 5960 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Keith A. Seilhan51Chief Operating Officer
Lisa S. Jaubert 6162 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
John J. Leonard57Senior Vice President - Exploration and Business Development
E. J. Louviere68Senior Vice President - Land
Thomas L. Messonnier 5556 Vice President - Planning, Marketing & Midstream
Keith A. Seilhan50Senior Vice President - Gulf of Mexico
Richard L. Toothman, Jr.53Senior Vice President - Appalachia– Exploration and Business Development
Florence M. Ziegler 5657 Senior Vice President - Human Resources Communications and Administration
For Mr. Welch’sTrimble’s biographical information, see “Identification of Directors” above.
Kenneth H. Beer was named Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in January 2011. Previously, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since August 2005. Prior to joining Stone, he served as a director of research and a senior energy analyst at the investment banking firm of Johnson Rice & Company. Prior to joining Johnson Rice & Company in 1992, he was an energy analyst and investment banker at Howard Weil Incorporated.
Lisa S. Jaubert was named Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in May 2013. She previously served as Assistant General Counsel since joining Stone in July 2012. Prior to joining Stone, she worked as Counsel with Latham & Watkins, LLP where she was a specialist in M&A, finance and other energy related transactions. Mrs. Jaubert also served over five years as Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary for Mariner Energy, was a founding shareholder of Schully Roberts Slattery Jaubert & Marino PLC, and also served as an outsourced general counsel for many smaller E&P companies and was partner or associate in two other energy law firms.
John J. Leonard was named Senior Vice President-Exploration and Business Development in January 2015 and Senior Vice President-Exploration in December 2014. He previously was appointed Vice President-Exploration in January 2014, General Manager of Deepwater Development from February 2013 through January 2014, Director of Reservoir Engineering from January 2012 through February 2013, Asset Manager Conventional Shelf from July 2011 through January 2012, Asset Manager GOM Shelf East from January 2010 through July 2011, Eastern GOM Asset Manager from January 2007 through January 2010, Chief Reservoir Engineer from February 2006 through January 2007, and also Reservoir Engineer from August 2005 through February 2006. Prior to joining Stone in August 2005, he was employed by Object Reservoir as a Project Manager and Service Engineer, by Expro Americas as an Engineering Manager, and by Pro Tech and Production Wireline Services as an Engineering Manager.
E. J. Louviere was named Senior Vice President-Land in April 2004. Previously, he served as Vice President-Land since June 1995. He has been employed by Stone since its inception in 1993.
Thomas L. Messonnier was named Vice President-Planning, Marketing & Midstream in May 2015. He previously served as Director of Strategic Planning from January 2009 through May 2015, Exploitation Manager for the Gulf of Mexico and Rockies from February 2006 through January 2009, Reserves Engineering Manager from April 2005 through February 2006, and as a Reservoir Engineer from June 2004 through January 2005. Prior to joining Stone, he was employed by ARCO Oil and Gas Company where he served in various engineering functions from June 1985 through January 1997 and as President of T&T Pipeline and Construction Company from January 1997 until joining Stone in June of 2004.
Keith A. Seilhan was named Chief Operating Officer in April 2017. Previously, he served as Senior Vice President-GulfPresident – Gulf of Mexico infrom January 2015 through April 2017, Vice President – Deep Water from February 2013 through January 2015 and Vice President-Deep Water in February 2013. He previously served as Deep Water Projects Manager sincefrom July 2012 through February 2013. Prior to joining Stone in July 2012. Prior to joining Stone,2012, Mr. Seilhan filled various senior leadership roles for Amoco and BP over his 21 year career with them. In his final year with BP, he filled the role as BP’s Incident Commander on the Deepwater Horizon Incident in 2010, and thereafter worked as an Emergency Response Consultant with The Response Group for 11/2 years. While with Amoco and BP, he served, among other roles, as an Asset Manager and an Operations Manager for Deep Water assets, Operations Director for Gulf of Mexico and the Organizational Capability Manager. Pursuant to a settlement between the SEC and Mr. Seilhan, in April 2014, (i) the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S.United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that Mr. Seilhan sold securities while in possession of material nonpublic information and in breach of duties owed to BP and its shareholders, in violation of federal securities laws and (ii) without admitting or denying any allegations, Mr. Seilhan consented to the entry of a final judgment therein permanently enjoining him from future violations of such federal securities laws, and agreeing to a disgorgement and payment of interest and a civil penalty.

65

Table of Contents


Richard L. Toothman, Jr.Lisa S. Jaubert was named Senior Vice President-Appalachia in February 2013President, General Counsel and Vice President-AppalachiaSecretary in May 2010.2013. She previously served as Assistant General Counsel since joining Stone in July 2012. Prior to joining Stone, she worked as Counsel with Latham & Watkins, LLP where she was a specialist in mergers and acquisitions, finance and other energy related transactions. Ms. Jaubert also served over five years as Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary for Mariner Energy, was a founding shareholder of Schully Roberts Slattery Jaubert & Marino PLC, and also served as an outsourced general counsel for many smaller exploration and production companies and was partner or associate in two other energy law firms.
Thomas L. Messonnier was named Vice President-Exploration and Business Development in June 2017. Previously, he served as Vice President-Planning, Marketing and Midstream from May 2015 through June 2017, Director of Strategic Planning from January 2009 through May 2015, Exploitation Manager for the Gulf of Mexico and Rockies from February 2006 through January 2009, Reserves Engineering Manager from April 2005 through February 2006, and a Reservoir Engineer from June 2004 through January 2005. Prior to joining Stone in May 2010, heJune 2004, Mr. Messonnier was employed as President of T&T Pipeline and Construction Company from January 1997 through June 2004 and by CNXARCO Oil and Gas Company in Bluefield, Virginia since August 2005 where he held two executive positions, VP Engineering and Technical Services and VP International Business. He also worked for Consol Energy and Conocoserved in prior years.various engineering functions from June 1985 through January 1997.
Florence M. Ziegler was named Vice President – Human Resources and Administration in June 2017. Previously, she served as Senior Vice President-HumanPresident – Human Resources, Communications and Administration infrom February 2014 through June 2017 and Vice President-HumanPresident – Human Resources, Communications and Administration infrom September 2005.2005 through February 2014. She has been employed by Stone since its inception in 1993 and served as the Director of Human Resources from 1997 to 2004.

62

Table of Contents


Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and related regulations require our Section 16 officers and directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC and the NYSE. Section 16 officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners are also required by SEC regulation to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

Based solely on our review of copies of such forms we received and written representations by our directors and officers, we believe that, during the fiscal year ended December December��31, 2016,2017, our Section 16 officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners timely complied with all applicable filing requirements of Section 16(a).

Corporate Governance
The Board of Directors of Stone (the "Board") has adopted several governance documents to guide the operation and direction of the Board and its committees, which include Corporate Governance Guidelines, a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (which applies to all directors, officers and employees, including our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officerprincipal executive, financial and Principal Accounting Officer)accounting officers) and charters for the Audit, Compensation, Nominating & Governance, Reserves and ReservesSafety Committees. Each of these documents is available on our website (www.stoneenergy.com), and stockholders may obtain a printed copy, free of charge, by sending a written request to Stone Energy Corporation, Attention: Secretary, 625 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508, facsimile number (337) 521-9845.521-2072. We will also promptly post on our website any amendments to these documents and any waivers from the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for our directors and principal executive, financial and accounting officers.

Audit Committee Report
The Audit Committee of the Board assists the Board in monitoring (1) the integrity of the financial statements of Stone; (2) the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, independence and performance; (3) the effectiveness and performance of Stone’s internal audit function and independent public accountants; and (4) the compliance by Stone with legal and regulatory requirements.
The Board has determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee satisfies the standards of independence established under the SEC's rules and regulations and listing standards of the NYSE. The Board has further determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee is financially literate and that each of Ms. Priestly and Messrs. Kinnear, Murley and Powell is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the rules and regulations of the SEC.
In connection with our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, the Audit Committee has:
reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements contained in Stone’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 with management;
approved the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP to serve as Stone’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017;
discussed with Stone’s independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 16; and
received the written disclosures and the letter from Ernst & Young LLP as required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and discussed with Ernst & Young LLP its independence from Stone and its management.


66

Table of Contents


Based on the review and discussions with Stone’s management and independent registered public accounting firm, as set forth above, the Audit Committee recommended to Stone’s Board that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, for filing with the SEC.
Audit Committee,
Kay G. Priestly - Chairman
Peter D. Kinnear
David T. Lawrence
Robert S. Murley
Donald E. Powell

ITEM 11.  EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Summary of Our Compensation Program

The Compensation Committee of our Board (the "Compensation Committee") oversees our executive compensation program. The cornerstoneAn element of our program is "pay-for-performance,"“pay-for-performance,” aligning the interests of our Named Executive Officers ("NEOs"(“NEOs”) with those of our stockholders. We pay our employees for delivering value to our stockholders, while reducing overall compensation levels if we do not achieve our performance goals. The Compensation Committee is responsible for ensuring that our program supports the Company’s strategies and objectives in a manner consistent with these principles.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis ("(“CD&A"&A”) provides important information on our executive compensation program and explains the compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee for our NEOs for fiscal 2016.year 2017. For 2016,2017, our NEOs were:
Name Principal Position
James M. TrimbleInterim Chief Executive Officer and President
David H. Welch Former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Kenneth H. Beer Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Keith A. SeilhanChief Operating Officer
Lisa S. Jaubert Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Keith A. SeilhanThomas L. Messonnier Senior Vice President-Gulf of MexicoPresident – Exploration and Business Development
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. Former Senior Vice President-AppalachiaPresident – Appalachia

20162017 Overview and 2017 Update
Emergence from Voluntary Reorganization under Chapter 11 Proceedings
As an oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and operationFollowing a period of oil and gas properties, we have experienced significant declinesdecline in oil, natural gas and NGLnatural gas liquids prices since the beginning of the second half of 2014 resultingthat resulted in reduced revenue and cash flows, causing us to reduce our planned capital expenditures and adversely affecting the estimated value and quantities of our proved oil, natural gas and NGL reserves. Effective June 13, 2016, we implemented a 1-for-10 reverse stock split, pursuant to which every 10 shares of our issued and outstanding common stock were converted into one share of common stock. In October 2016, we entered into the Original RSA, and in December 2016, we entered into the A&R RSA, with the Noteholders and Banks to support a restructuring on the terms of a prepackaged plan of reorganization. We also entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell our approximately 86,000 net acres in the Appalachia regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia in connection with the Original RSA. As contemplated by the A&R RSA, we filed for voluntary relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on December 14, 2016, and following a successful auction process forwe filed the foregoing Appalachia assets, our prepackaged joint plan of reorganization Chapter 11 Cases. On February 15, 2017, the Planwas confirmed and, on February 15, 2017. We are targeting February 28, 2017, as the date by which we will have completed all necessary requirements to effectuate the plan of reorganization, and emerge a stronger, more competitive company, although we can make no assurances as to when, or ultimately if, the plan of reorganization will become effective.
Despite the very difficult market conditions, we had several significant achievementsPlan became effective in 2016 and early 2017,accordance with its terms and we believe our executive compensation program plays a significant role in driving our operational and financial results. For a complete discussion of 2016 results and our 2017 outlook, please see Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financialemerged from bankruptcy.

6763

Table of Contents


ConditionTransition of Management
Following our emergence from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017, there were changes in the Company’s executive management. Effective April 28, 2017, Mr. Welch retired as the President and ResultsChief Executive Officer of Operations, wherethe Company and, on May 11, 2017, he resigned from the Board and entered into a separation agreement and general release with the Company. Effective April 28, 2017, the Board appointed Mr. Trimble, then a non-employee member of the Board, to serve as the Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President and entered into a compensation term sheet with him in connection with his appointment. In addition, effective April 28, 2017, the Board appointed Mr. Seilhan, who was the Company’s Senior Vice President – Gulf of Mexico, to serve as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer.

In connection with the bankruptcy sale of the Company’s oil and gas business in the Appalachia regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the employment of Mr. Toothman, the Company’s Senior Vice President – Appalachia, was terminated, effective April 30, 2017.

Talos Transaction

Following our emergence from bankruptcy, the independent members of the Board met and discussed the limitations and risks associated with the Company continuing as a standalone entity, including the risks associated with the Company’s declining asset base, the risks associated with being an undersized operator in the oil and gas business in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater, and the impact of these factors on the Company’s ability to fund its drilling operations and to fully exploit and develop its oil and gas assets. Following that discussion, those directors determined that it would be appropriate for the Board to evaluate all potential available alternatives for the Company. As part of that determination, the independent members of the Board agreed that the Company should engage a financial advisor for the Board and to advise the Board and the Company on the Company’s industry positioning, as well as to advise the Board in identifying, assessing, and possibly implementing one or more tactical or strategic alternatives.

Pursuant to the process undertaken by the Board and the Company to evaluate tactical and strategic alternatives, on November 21, 2017, we have detailedentered into a series of related agreements relating to a business combination with Talos (the “Talos Transaction”). The Company and certain of its subsidiaries entered into the Transaction Agreement with Talos on such date, which contemplates a series of transactions occurring on the date of the closing under the Transaction Agreement (the “Closing”) that will result in such business combination.

In connection with the its evaluation of tactical and strategic alternatives, the Company granted retention awards and, thereafter, in connection with the Talos Transaction, the Company granted transaction bonuses, to certain executive officers and employees, including certain of our full financialNEOs, as further described below under “Other Program Components – Retention Awards” and operating results for fiscal 2016“Other Program Components – Transaction Bonuses,” and amended the terms of our outlook for fiscal 2017.Executive Severance Plan (the “Executive Severance Plan”) under which certain of our executives officers, including certain of our NEOs, are entitled to severance payments and benefits in connection with a qualifying termination of employment, as further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Executive Severance Plan.” In addition, in connection with the Talos Transaction, except as described below, we do not anticipate making any changes to our executive compensation plans and arrangements or entering into new executive compensation plans and arrangements in 2018.
2016
2017 Compensation Decisions and Actions
As in prior years,
Following our emergence from bankruptcy, the Compensation Committee engaged Pearl Meyer,Lyons, Benenson & Company Inc., an independent compensation consultant (referred to herein as "Pearl Meyer"“Lyons Benenson” or the "Compensation Consultant"“Compensation Consultant”), to replace Pearl Meyer, who previously served as the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, to assess the Company’s existing executive compensation arrangements and to assist in the development of short- and long-term incentive arrangements applicable to key executives and managers of the Company and to review the overall competitiveness of the Company’s executive compensation program for 2016, with continued focus on ensuring the alignment of management compensation with performance. Although the Compensation Committee determined not to change our overall compensation philosophy for 2016, the Compensation Committee determined to break from its historic approach to focus our NEOs and other employees on achieving short-term objectives that the Compensation Committee and the Board believed to be necessary in order to preserve longer-term value.2017. In that regard, the Compensation Committee decided to make the following changes and decisions with respect to our compensation program for 2016:2017:

Salaries Remained Frozen:Salary Increases: DueThe Company increased the annual base salary payable to three of our NEOs in 2017 in connection with the transition in the position and responsibilities of two such NEOs and to address pay equity considerations among the Company’s executive officers and to align compensation payable to one such NEO to the continued commodity price uncertainty, nonecompensation payable to executives in comparable positions amongst our peer companies. The Company did not otherwise increase the annual base salary payable to any of the NEOs received a base salary increase for 2016, which remained frozen at the same level as their respective 2015 base salaries, except for Mr. Seilhan whose base salary was increased effective July 1, 2016, in recognition of the additional duties and responsibilities he assumed at that time. As our CEO and CFO salaries were also not increased in 2015 either, their salaries have remained the same since 2014.2017.

Traditional Long-Term and Short-Term Incentive Programs Suspended: Although our historical practice has been to make long-term equity incentive awards (usually in the form of restricted stock) in the first quarter of year as the final piece of Total Direct Compensation ("TDC") for our NEOs for performance for the prior year, we decided not to award any long-term equity incentive awards in 2016 for 2015 performance and to suspend the historical annual cash incentive compensation award and long-term equity incentive compensation programs for 2016, in recognition of the challenges to the Company from continued low commodity prices and market volatility, limitations on share availability in our Stock Incentive Plan and other forward looking-considerations. In place of these suspended programs, we implemented the 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (the "2016 Incentive Plan") described below.

Target TDC Opportunities Remain Significantly Reduced: For 2015, actual TDC for our NEOs was comprised only of base salary and annual cash incentive compensation paid out at 20% of target. With no long-term equity incentive award grants for 2015 performance (which would have been awarded in early 2016), this result placed us below the 25th percentile of our Peer Group for TDC. This posture was significantly below our standing at the 42.5th percentile versus our Peer Group in terms of relative Total Stockholder Return ("TSR") over the prior one-year and three-year periods. In a normal year we would have targeted 2015 TDC at a level comparable with this level of TSR performance. TDC for the NEOs and other executives for 2016 was set at a level such that target performance under the 2016 Incentive Plan would produce 25th percentile TDC for the year as compared to our peers.

Single Incentive Compensation Program for 2016 Performance: In place of our traditional programs, we implemented the 2016 Incentive Plan, a short-term performance cash incentive plan designed to incentivize our NEOs and other employees to meet critical short-term liquidity and capital expenditure goals in order to promote sustainable stockholder value over the long-term and preserve our longer-term prospects. As part of this program, each NEO had a single incentive opportunity that could be earned throughout the year in return for hitting challenging performance targets. Despite the absence of long-term equity incentive grants for our NEOs in 2016, our entire executive management team remained closely aligned with stockholder interests through compliance with the Company’s existing stock ownership and retention guidelines, prior-year equity incentive grants that continued to vest over the remaining applicable vesting periods, and an emphasis on near-term measures designed to focus our NEOs on preserving stockholder value.

In connection with the A&R RSA and our bankruptcy filing, on December 13, 2016, our executive officers, including the NEOs, and the Company entered into the Executive Claims Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties agreed, among other things, to modify the executives’ existing change in control and severance arrangements, the Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Deferred Compensation Plan") and the employment agreements with certain NEOs on the terms and subject to the conditions of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and our executive officers agreed that the officers would waive their claims related to the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016 and any annual true-up in exchange for participation in the Company’s Key Executive Incentive Plan ("KEIP"), which will become effective upon our emergence from bankruptcy. Please see "-2017 Compensation Arrangements" below for additional information regarding the Settlement Agreement and the compensation of our NEOs for 2017.


6864

Table of Contents


Such increases in annual base salaries are further described below under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Base Salary.”

Say-on-Pay Advisory VotesShort-Term Incentive Program Implemented: We implemented our 2017 Annual Incentive Plan on July 25, 2017, which is a performance-based short-term cash incentive program that replaced our 2005 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2005 Annual Incentive Plan”) and our 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2016 Annual Incentive Plan”). The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan provides certain of our NEOs with award opportunities based on the Company’s annual performance (as opposed to quarterly performance) against certain performance measures.

In addition, on April 24, 2017 and May 30, 2017(unless otherwise provided for in an NEO’s separation agreement), all of our NEOs (other than Mr. Trimble) received payments under the Company’s Key Executive Incentive Plan (the “KEIP”) that was implemented in connection with the bankruptcy.

Our BoardThe 2017 Annual Incentive Plan and the KEIP are further described below under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation Committee take stockholder support– Performance Incentive Compensation.”

Long-Term Incentive Program Implemented: We implemented our 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2017 LTIP”) on February 28, 2017, which replaced our 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (the “2009 Stock Incentive Plan”), which was terminated in connection with the bankruptcy. However, in 2017, we did not make any grants to any of our NEOs in their capacity as an NEO under the 2017 LTIP due to the impending Talos Transaction. We did, however, award restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP to our non-employee directors on March 1, 2017, including to Mr. Trimble, who was subsequently appointed as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, effective April 28, 2017, as described above.

The 2017 LTIP and the grant of restricted stock units to non-employee directors are further described below under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Long-Term Incentive Compensation” and “Elements of Director Compensation – Annual Grant of Restricted Stock Units,” respectively.

In accordance with the terms of the Plan, all shares of restricted stock held by certain of our executive compensation program very seriously, and we aspire to achieve the full supportofficers, including certain of our stockholders. OverNEOs, under the past several years we have engaged2009 Stock Incentive Plan on the Effective Date were cancelled and, in robust stockholder outreach efforts regardingexchange for such shares, such individuals received shares of new common stock and warrants on the designsame basis as all other holders of common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases, but such shares of new common stock and warrants were subject to the vesting provisions set forth in the agreements granting the restricted shares of common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and the terms of the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan.

Grant of Retention Awards: In connection with the Talos Transaction, on July 25, 2017, the Board approved retention awards for certain of our executive compensation program. The advisory voteofficers and other employees, including certain of our NEOs, which provide for a lump sum cash payment to be made on executive compensation at our 2016 annual meeting reflected strong support, with over 93%June 1, 2018 (or, if earlier, a qualifying termination of employment of the votes castaward recipient or a “change in favor. Becausecontrol”).

The retention awards are further described below under “Other Program Components – Retention Awards.”

Grant of Transaction Bonuses: In connection with the Talos Transaction and in lieu of granting equity-based awards for 2017, on November 21, 2017, the Board approved transaction bonusesfor certain of our executive officers and other employees, including certain of our NEOs, which provide for a lump sum cash payment on the occurrence of a “change in control” (or, if earlier, a qualifying termination of employment of the bonus recipient).

The transaction bonuses are further described below under “Other Program Components – Transaction Bonuses.”

Implementation of Executive Severance Plan: On July 25, 2017, the Board approvedthe Executive Severance Plan, which provides for severance payments and benefits to certain of our NEOs in the event of a qualifying termination of employment and which replaced our Executive Severance Plan implemented December 13, 2016 (the “Prior Executive Severance Plan”). The Executive Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the Talos Transaction.

The Executive Severance Plan is further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Executive Severance Plan.”

65

Table of Contents



Entering into New Employment or Severance Arrangements: We entered into a term sheet with Mr. Trimble in connection with his appointment as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President on April 28, 2017, which agreement was amended on March 6, 2018, as discussed above in Part II, Item 9B. Other Information.On May 11, 2017, we doentered into a separation agreement and general release with Mr. Welch, in connection with his retirement. In addition, on April 27, 2017, we entered into a severance agreement and release of claims with Mr. Toothman, our former Senior Vice President – Appalachia, in connection with the termination of his employment.

The term sheet with Mr. Trimble is further described above in Part II, Item 9B. Other Information, and also below in this Part III, Item 11. Executive Compensation, under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Compensation – Trimble Bonus,” “2018 Summary Compensation Arrangements,” “Narrative Disclosure of Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan Based Awards Table – Employment and Separation and Severance Agreements,” and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Term Sheet with Mr. Trimble.” The separation or severance agreements with Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman are further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”

Say-on-Pay Advisory Vote

Pursuant to the Plan, we did not expect to hold an annual meeting during fiscal year 2017, our nextand, as a result, we did not have an advisory votesvote on executive compensation (which have historically occurred on an annual basis) and on the frequency of future say-on-pay votes likely willduring 2017. In connection with the Talos Transaction, we also do not occur during 2017; however we intend to hold such advisory votes when next required by SEC rules.
The Board and the Compensation Committee reviewed the results of the advisory vote on executive compensation from the 2016anticipate holding an annual meeting and determined not to make any material changes to our 2016 program based on the results of that vote. However, the Compensation Committee and the Board, with the assistance of Pearl Meyer, did undertake a review of the Company’s compensation program and the compensation programs of industry peers and made changes for 2016 as discussed herein.during fiscal year 2018.
Our Compensation Philosophy
The Compensation Committee and our Board believe that the most effective executive compensation program is one based on two factors, market competitiveness and pay-for-performance, both of which are aligned with the interests of stockholders.
MARKET COMPETITIVENESSWe seek to provide competitive total During 2017, the Compensation Committee and Board emphasized aligning the compensation opportunities that attract, retain and motivate the executive talent needed to operate and grow a successful business and respond to competitive market forces.
PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCEWe promote alignment of interests between stockholders and our NEOs by linking a significant portion of pay to incentives that reward:
Achievement of positive annual performance, both on an absolute and relative basis; and
Creation of long-term stockholder value.
In support of these two guiding principles, we have historically taken the following approach to establishing pay levels:
Base Salary Below Market Median: We target base salaries below the market median and generally at the 25th percentile of the market.

Emphasis on Incentive Compensation: We have historically provided the opportunity (through annual incentives and long-term incentives) for our NEOs to realize pay that may range anywhere between the 10th percentile and the 90th percentile of the TDC reported in market data, depending on performance. For 2016, we provided the opportunity for our NEOs to realize pay targeted at the 25th percentile of the market TDC of our peers to account for current circumstances.

TDC Commensurate with our Performance: The TDC of our NEOs is generally intended to be reflectiveexecutive officers with the interests of our relative TSR performance. Unless otherwise noted, when our TSR performance is discussedstockholders through the process of reviewing, analyzing and pursuing tactical and strategic alternatives that resulted in this CD&A it refersthe Company entering into the Transaction Agreement and continuing to work towards the average of our one-year and three-year TSR performance (weighted equally) and is considered relative (on a percentile basis) to the same TSR calculation for our Peer Group companies.
Historically we have defined TDC as the sum of the following components:
Base Salary (fixed pay)Closing.

Incentive Compensation (variable pay), which includes:

1.For years prior to 2016, both (a) annual cash incentive compensation rewarding performance over the short-term (current year) through a combination of formulaic and qualitative assessments covering both absolute and relative company performance metrics, and (b) long-term incentive compensation, generally in the form of restricted stock awards, rewarding the creation of long-term (multi-year) growth in value and ensuring alignment between our NEOs and our stockholders; and
2.For 2016, compensation awarded under the 2016 Incentive Plan to incentivize achievement of critical short-term liquidity and capital expenditure goals to promote sustainable stockholder value over the long-term.

6966

Table of Contents


Elements of Our 20162017 Executive Compensation Program
The purposes and characteristics of each element of our executive compensation program for 2016,2017, including base salary and awards under the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan, (which are the two components that comprise TDC for 2016), are summarized below:
Form Purpose/Terms
Base Salary Fixed compensation that is reviewed annually and adjusted, if and whenas appropriate
Generally targeted at the 25th percentile of market data
  Reflects each NEO’s level of responsibility, leadership, tenure, qualifications and contribution to the success and profitability of the companyCompany and the competitive marketplace for executive talent specific to our industry
2016 Performance2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Awards

*Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into in December 2016, executives waived fourth quarter 2016 payments under the 2016 Incentive Plan in exchange for participation in the KEIP. See “-2017 Compensation Arrangements.”
 Variable incentive awards tied to performance metrics that are intended to focus on near-term achievements, which are settled in cash (with a 10% portion of the CEO’s award settled in shares)
 MotivatesMotivate our NEOs to achieve our short-term financial and operating objectives that are critical to preservation of our longer-term prospects, which reinforces the link between the interests of our NEOs and our stockholders
 Participation by all companyCompany employees encourages consistent behavior across the company
Awards are set at a level such that target performance will produce 25th percentile TDC for 2016
Capped at 150% of the targeted awardCompany
 Performance goals are measured and payouts are designed to be made both on a quarterly andan annual basis to drive performance to address current liquidity and business needs
KEIPPerformance-based cash incentive program related to 2017 Company performance through the date of our emergence from bankruptcy and not payable until after emergence from bankruptcy
Designed to motivate our senior executives to achieve short-term target goals to assist in the Company’s reorganization and emergence from bankruptcy
401(k) Plan Provides for pre-tax employee deferrals up to IRS approved limitlimits and discretionary match
  In 2016,2017, the Board approved a 50% match
Deferred Compensation Plan Provides for pre-tax employee deferrals for eligible employees, including certain of our NEOs, to accumulate additional retirement savings
Health and Welfare Benefits NEOs are eligible to participate in the same health and welfare benefits available to all salaried employees
Perquisites Limited perquisites including club memberships for certain NEOs responsible for business development and employee recruitment
Executive Severance and Change in ControlPlan Benefits Provide for involuntary severance and change in control protection to certain of our NEOs
Retention AwardsProvide for lump sum cash payments intended to retainencourage the retention of certain of our executive officers and employees, including certain of our NEOs, and to minimize distractionuntil June 1, 2018, in the eventanticipation of a corporate transaction
*Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into in December 2016, the executives’ existing change in control and severance arrangements and the employment agreements were modified and we adopted a new Executive Severance Plan. See “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change of Control.”Transaction Bonuses Provide for lump sum cash payments intended to reward certain of our executive officers and employees, including certain of our NEOs, for creating incremental shareholder value in connection with the Talos Transaction, and made in lieu of grants under the 2017 LTIP

Rationale for Fiscal 2016 Compensation
Historically, TDC for our NEOs has been targeted at or near the percentile of the average of our one-year and three-year TSR performance relative to our Peer Group. For example, if the average of our one-year and three-year TSR (weighted equally) through the end of a given year is at the 40th percentile relative to our Peer Group, the targeted TDC of our executive officers, including the NEOs, for that year will generally be set at or near the 40th percentile of the market data.
The "market data" used for these purposes consists of the combination of compensation data provided by the Effective Compensation, Inc. ("ECI") Annual Oil & Gas E&P Industry Compensation Survey for the given year and Peer Group proxy statement data. ECI Annual Oil & Gas E&P Industry Compensation Survey and Peer Group proxy statement data are combined (with the Peer Group data weighted 60% and the ECI Annual Oil & Gas E&P Industry Compensation Survey data weighted 40%)

70

Table of Contents


to create the "market data" or "marketplace" referred to throughout our CD&A. Please read "-Alignment of Pay and Performance-Peer Group for Assessing Pay and Performance" below for more information. Where TDC is used in reference to market data, the timing of payment of incentive compensation by our peers may not always align perfectly with our timing; however, we believe TDC provides an accurate representation of market data for purposes of aligning the compensation of our NEOs with our performance relative to the performance of other companies within our industry with which we compete for talent.
In establishing the applicable target TDC percentile for the NEOs for a given year, in addition to relative TSR performance, the Compensation Committee may also consider in its discretion absolute company performance on various financial and operating metrics and other strategic milestones, including without limitation growing reserves, positive results in hedging activity, changes in absolute stock performance, risk mitigation, managing lease operating expenses, acreage acquisitions and divestitures, changes in net asset value and new field discoveries. In addition, the Compensation Committee retains the discretion to consider competitive pressures, retention concerns, emerging industry trends, and individual executive performance in order to ensure our compensation program remains flexible and reactive to a volatile marketplace.
Once the target TDC percentile is established for our NEOs for a given year, TDC has historically (for years prior to 2016) been allocated among three TDC components (base salary, annual cash incentive compensation and long-term equity incentive awards) as follows:
OfficerBase Salary
Annual
Incentive
Award
Long-Term Incentive Award
CEO25th percentile of market data0-2.4x base salaryTDC minus Base Salary minus Annual Incentive Award paid
Other NEOs25th percentile of market data0-2.0x base salaryTDC minus Base Salary minus Annual Incentive Award paid
The Compensation Committee assesses each NEO’s performance and contribution in terms of TDC relative to the marketplace and then has historically set the grant date value of the actual long-term equity incentive awards. In years past, the annual incentive award is actually paid, and the long-term equity incentive award has then historically been granted, early in the year immediately following the relevant performance year.
For 2015, in response to the challenges to the Company from continued low commodity prices and market volatility, our enhanced focus on near-term performance objectives with the goal of creating sustainable, long-term value, and the dramatic reduction in available equity in our Stock Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee used its discretion not to make long-term incentive grants of time-vested restricted shares in 2016 for 2015 performance, which normally would have been included in our NEOs’ TDC for 2015. As a result, our NEOs’ TDC for 2015, as we historically have measured it, was below the 25th percentile of our Peer Group, which was well below our level of relative TSR performance (42.5th percentile) for 2015.

For 2016, the Compensation Committee suspended the historical annual cash incentive compensation award and long-term equity incentive compensation programs and instead implemented the 2016 Incentive Plan. In connection with that decision, the Compensation Committee used its discretion and determined, based on the Company’s then-current circumstances, that TDC for the NEOs and other executives for 2016 should be set at a level such that target performance under the 2016 Incentive Plan would produce 25th percentile TDC for the year as compared to our peers.

Alignment of Pay and Performance

Peer Group for Assessing Pay and Performance

In 2016,2017, after our emergence from bankruptcy, the Compensation Committee, on the recommendation of the Compensation Consultant, used the following Peer Group, along with the ECI Annual Oil & Gas E&P Industry Compensation Survey for 2016 (the "ECI 2016 Survey"),peer group in determining the percentile targets for pay elements of TDC fortotal cash compensation paid to our NEOs. Where references are made throughout the CD&A to our peers or our Peer Group, including to our TSR Performance relative to our peers or our Peer Group, it is the collection of peer companies below that constitutes those peers.

71

Table of Contents


Compensation Peer Group
Cabot Oil & Gas CorporationEnergy XXI (Bermuda) LimitedDenbury Resources Inc.SandRidgePDC Energy, Inc.
Callon Petroleum CompanyExco ResourcesDiamondback Energy, Inc.SMPetroQuest Energy, CompanyInc.
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.Newfield Exploration CompanyLaredo Petroleum, Inc.SwiftSandRidge Energy, CompanyInc.
Cimarex Energy CompanyPDC EnergyMatador Resources CompanyUltra Petroleum CorporationSM Energy Company
Comstock Resources, Inc.PetroQuest Energy, Inc.Newfield Exploration CompanyW&T Offshore,SRC Energy, Inc.
Contango Oil & Gas CompanyRange Resources CorporationParsley Energy, Inc.Whiting Petroleum Corporation
Denbury ResourcesW&T Offshore, Inc.

67

Table of Contents


Our Peer Group iswas developed by the Compensation Consultant taking into consideration peer company metrics such as asset size, revenues and enterprise value, similar strategies, comparability of asset portfolio and basins and availability of compensation data. Our Peer Group consists of companies:
With whom we compete in our industry for executive talent and stockholder investment;

Similar to us in terms of size, scope and nature of business operations, including geographic footprint and operational focus, with some larger and some smaller in size and scope; and

That (for the most part) participate in the ECI 2016 Survey used to determine the target TDC of the competitive marketplace.
The Peer Group is periodically reviewed and updated by Pearl Meyer to ensure that the group is reasonable and remains appropriate for us and our compensation program. Decisions on any changes to the Peer Group are recommended by the Compensation Consultant and our CEO to the Compensation Committee before receiving final approval by the Board. In making compensation decisions at the beginning of 2016 and in light of the Company’s circumstances at the time, the Compensation Committee considered peer data with respect to the same Peer Group companies that comprised the 2015 Peer Group (which companies are listed above), for purposes of establishing TDC.
The Compensation Committee, our Board and our management understand the inherent limitations in using any peer group or data set. For example, there are fluctuations in survey participation from year to year, and we compete for executive talent with peers that are, in some cases, significantly larger than us. However, we believe we have established a sound review process that seeks to mitigate these limitations, including taking into consideration differences and similarities between us and the companies in our Peer Group when referencing benchmarks for NEO compensation. In connection with the Compensation Committee’s determinations of 20162017 compensation for our NEOs, the Compensation Consultant provided the Compensation Committee with an analysis of prevailing compensation levels in the marketplace, including our industry peers, which analysis was adjusted for relative company size and revenue.
ECI 2016Willis Towers Watson Survey Data for Assessing Pay and Performance
The ECI 2016 Survey utilized by the Compensation Committee provided data for over 357 jobs found in exploration and production firms in the United States. While participation varies from year to year, there were 92 participants in ECI’s 2016 Survey, and 11 of the 20 companies in our 2016 Peer Group, including us, participated in the ECI 2016 Survey.
The data collected from the ECI 2016 Survey is intended to reflect pay rates for positions in the market that have responsibilities similar to those of our NEOs. To the extent possible for each position, we attempt to collect data from the Independent Public Company category in the ECI Survey for the Peer Group.

We believeThe Compensation Consultant considered survey data produced by Willis Towers Watson to augment the ECI 2016 Survey provides us withpeer group data that was developed. The peer group data and the survey data, taken together, constituted a meaningful market reference pointbasis for those companies with whom we most closely compete forbenchmarking the Company’s 2017 executive talent and, consequently, with sufficient information on competitive employment market dynamics, to fashion a competitive compensation program designed to attract and retain those highly capable employees necessary for us to bethe competitive marketplace.  Many factors were taken into consideration in our industry.establishing compensation levels with great weight, but not total reliance, placed upon the market data.

Role of Compensation Committee and Management
The Compensation Committee is responsible for determining, with Board review, the approval and adoption of all compensation decisions for each of the NEOs. The Compensation Committee’s approach is not formulaic but consists of both subjective and objective considerations. The Compensation Committee considers our overall performance, including absolute operational and financial performance, and the overall performance of the executive officer team, including the role and relative contribution of each of its members. Each NEO’s impact during the year, and his or her overall value to the Company, is assessed through evaluating long-term and current performance in the officer’s primary area of responsibility, strategic initiatives, leadership,

72

Table of Contents


market competition for the officer’s position and the officer’s role in succession planning and development and other intangible qualities that contribute to corporate and individual success.
In making compensation decisions for the NEOs, the Compensation Committee relies, in part, on input from the CEO and our Senior Vice President-Human Resources, Communications and Administration ("SVPHR"),Interim Chief Executive Officer, who provideprovides information and makemakes recommendations, as appropriate, concerning executive compensation. Input from management typically includes the following:
The CEO proposes base salary amounts for executives other than himself based on his evaluation of individual performance and expected future contributions, a review of market data to ensure competitive compensation against the external market, including the Peer Group, and current industry conditions, and comparison of the base salaries of the executive officers who report directly to the CEO to ensure that each officer’s salary level accurately reflects that officer’s relative skills, responsibilities, experiences and contributions.

The CEO alsoInterim Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee relating to our performance measures, targets and similar items that affect incentive compensation.

The CEOInterim Chief Executive Officer typically attends a portion of each Compensation Committee meeting to review and discuss executive compensation matters but does not participate in deliberations relative to his own pay.

The SVPHR submits compensation data to, and collects data from, industry-specific compensation survey sources described above, coordinates the flow of information between the Compensation Consultant and the Compensation Committee as directed by the Compensation Committee, and provides to the Compensation Committee recommendations for appropriate position matches for each NEO.
While the Compensation Committee considers it important to receive information and recommendations from the CEO, the SVPHRInterim Chief Executive Officer and the Compensation Consultant, it does not delegate these compensation decisions to the CEO, the SVPHR,Interim Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Consultant or any other party.
Role of the Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee may solicit input from an independent compensation consultant from time to time in making executive compensation decisions. In general, the role of our outside compensation consultant is to assist the Compensation Committee in analyzing executive pay packages and understanding our financial measures relating to compensation, but the Compensation Committee is under no obligation to follow the advice or recommendations of any compensation consultant.

The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to hire independent compensation consultants and, for 2016,2017, following our emergence from bankruptcy, the Compensation Committee engaged Lyons Benenson directly as its independent compensation consultant. In prior years, the Compensation Committee engaged Pearl Meyer directly as itsan independent compensation consultant. consultant to review the overall competitiveness of the executive compensation program. The Compensation Committee chose to engage Lyons Benenson in 2017 due to Lyons Benenson’s extensive experience advising companies undergoing a restructuring and to gain a fresh perspective on our executive compensation program.


68

Table of Contents


The Compensation Committee solicited input from Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson regarding compensation practices within our Peer Group, within the oil and gas marketplace and within the broader general industry marketplace for the United States. Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson also assists the Compensation Committee by preparing reports regarding TDC withincompiling and analyzing data on competitive executive and director compensation levels and practices, assisting in the marketplace,development of compensation programs aimed at motivating executives and TSR both with respectmanagers to achieve and sustain significant improvements in performance, assisting in the negotiation of employment agreements, developing special compensation programs to address specific needs as they arise, providing general advice and counsel to the performance of our stock andCompensation Committee on all matters that come before the stock of our Peer Group,Compensation Committee as well as reviewson the governance of executive and recommendations regarding pay practicesDirector compensation.  Lyons Benenson reports orally and programs for executives and directors.in writing to the Compensation Committee on all matters it undertakes.    

The Compensation Committee regularly reviews the services provided by its outside consultant and believes that Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson is independent under applicable SEC rules in providing executive compensation consulting services. In making this determination, the Compensation Committee noted that during fiscal 2016:year 2017:
Pearl Meyer
Lyons Benenson did not provide any services to the Company or our management other than services requested by or with the approval of the Compensation Committee, which were limited to executive and director compensation consulting;

Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson maintains a conflicts policy, which was provided to the Compensation Committee, with specific policies and procedures designed to ensure independence;

We have been advised by Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson that the fees we paid to Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson in 2016 ($47,356.39)2017 of $91,821 were less than 1%2% of Pearl Meyer’sLyons Benenson’s total revenue;

Lyons Benenson has an ongoing business relationship with Mr. Goldman, a member of the Compensation Committee, which is expected to continue through 2018. During 2017, Lyons Benenson served as compensation consultants to Midstates Petroleum Company and Walter Investment Management Corp., both of which Mr. Goldman is a member of the Board of Directors. None of the Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson consultants working on our matters had any other business or personal relationship with any Compensation Committee members;


73

Table of Contents


None of the Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson consultants working on our matters had any business or personal relationship with any of our executive officers; and

None of the Pearl MeyerLyons Benenson consultants working on our matters owns our stock.
The Compensation Committee continues to monitor the independence of the Compensation Consultant on a periodic basis.
Components of 20162017 Executive Compensation

Base Salary
While the
The Compensation Committee believes it is crucialimportant to provide salaries within a competitive market range in order to attract and retain personnel who are highly talented, the Compensation Committee has historically adhered to a philosophy of generally providing more conservative base salaries, as compared to the competitive market, in combination with more aggressive incentive compensation opportunities in order to strongly emphasize pay-for-performance. This approach has generally resulted in salaries for our NEOs targeted at the 25th percentile of our market data.
talented. Base salaries are primarily based on job responsibilities and individual contributions. We identify analogous base salary levels of executives in the market data based on each officer’s level of responsibility, leadership role, tenure and contribution to our success and profitability. The Compensation Committee reviews base salaries on an annual basis and adjusts them if they deviate substantiallymaterially from the market data or other changes or circumstances warrant a revision. These base salary levels are also reviewed by the Compensation Committee in determining severance and change in control benefits.
Considering
Upon the recommendationsapproval of the CEO (as to executives other than himself) and as approved by the Compensation Committee, on July 1, 2016, the Board, approved and adopted the base salaries of our NEOs for the remainder of the 2016 year as set forth in the table below. Of the NEOs, only Mr. Seilhan received a base salary increase for 2016, which was effective July 1, 2016, and 2016 base salaries for the other NEOs remained frozen at the same level as their respective 2015 base salaries due to the continuous commodity price uncertainty. Messrs. Welch and Beer's salaries have not been increased since 2014.(1) Mr. Seilhan’s annual base salary was increased from $320,000 to $400,000, effective April 28, 2017, in 2016connection with his appointment as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, (2) Ms. Jaubert’s annual base salary was increased from $300,000 to reflect$375,000, effective May 31, 2017, to address pay equity considerations among the additional dutiesCompany’s executive officers and to align compensation payable to her to the compensation payable to executives in comparable positions amongst our peer companies, and (3) Mr. Messonnier’s annual base salary was increased from $253,000 to $295,000, effective July 25, 2017, in recognition of changes in the responsibilities he assumed in connection with certain workforce reductions andJune 2017 when his position changed from Vice President – Planning, Midstream & Marketing to Vice President – Exploration & Business Development. The Company did not otherwise increase the annual base salary payable to any of the other increased efforts byNEOs in 2017. The annual base salary payable to each of our NEOs in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 is set forth below. Mr. Seilhan to supportTrimble commenced employment with the Company in fiscal year 2017 and so was not entitled to receive any base salary from the current circumstances.Company in fiscal year 2016.

69

Table of Contents



 2016 Base Salary 2017 Base Salary
Officer 2015 Base Salary 2016 Base Salary ($) ($)
James M. Trimble N/A 650,000
David H. Welch $650,000
 No change
 650,000 No change
Kenneth H. Beer 380,000
 No change
 380,000 No change
Keith A. Seilhan 320,000 400,000
Lisa S. Jaubert 300,000
 No change
 300,000 375,000
Keith A. Seilhan 290,000
 320,000
Thomas L. Messonnier 253,000 295,000
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 300,000
 No change
 300,000 No change

Performance Incentive Compensation
2017 Annual Incentive Plan
The Compensation Committee and the Board determined that, following the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy, it was in the best long-term interest of the Company to suspendreturn to the Company’s historichistorical annual cash incentive compensation program for 2016. As a result, no annual cash incentive compensation awards were made under our 2005 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan ("Annual Incentive Plan") to any NEO for 2016 performance. In place of our traditional programs, our NEOs received awards under2017. On July 25, 2017, the 2016 Incentive Plan for 2016, which are described in greater detail below.
The Board, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee, adopted the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan, which is an annual performance-based incentive program for the 2017 fiscal year for all salaried employees of the Company, including all of our NEOs other than Mr. Trimble and the NEOs whose employment was terminated during 2017.

The Company’s annual incentive plan in March 2016.place for fiscal year 2016, the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan, had been terminated as part of the Plan. The 2016 Annual Incentive Plan is intended to motivatehad been adopted in anticipation of the Company’s employees,restructuring and had been structured as a quarterly bonus plan in light of such anticipated restructuring. Then, in connection with our bankruptcy filing, on December 13, 2016, certain of our executive officers, including certain of the NEOs, and the Company entered into the Executive Claims Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to make extraordinary efforts to achieve short-term target goals crucial towhich the Company and such executive officers agreed that the officers would waive their claims related to the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016 comprisedand any potential additional amounts at the entire incentive-based compensation opportunityend of fiscal year 2016 based on performance over the full year (the “annual true-up”) in exchange for participants. Allparticipation in the KEIP. As a result, none of our employees, not just the NEOs and other executives, were eligiblewas entitled to participate inany payments with respect to the 2016 fourth quarterly period or to any annual true-up payment pursuant to the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan, thereby encouraging consistent behavior acrosswhich 2016 Annual Incentive Plan was terminated pursuant to the Company.Plan, and instead received payments under the KEIP in 2017, following our emergence from bankruptcy, which payments were intended to incentivize key executive performance during our restructuring.

Under the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan, the extent to which award opportunities may bewere earned iswas based on performance achieved for each fiscal quarter of 2016, (each, a "Quarterly Period"), with the opportunity to earn additional amounts at the end of fiscal year 2016 (the "Annual Period")annual true-up based on full-year 2016 performance. In contrast, the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan does not provide for quarterly payments and instead is an annual cash incentive award program similar to the program that the Company had in place prior to 2016 under the 2005 Annual Incentive Plan and is consistent with similar annual incentive compensation plans of other companies in our Peer Group.

The purpose of the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan is to attract, motivate and retain management and other designated employees by providing a financial incentive to employment with the Company for calendar year 2017 and is intended to reward the participants for exemplary performance overin line with increasing shareholder value. The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan provides award opportunities based on the fullCompany’s annual performance in six performance measures: (1) production, (2) lease operating expense, (3) EBITDA, (4) 2017 fourth quarter actual Salaries, General and Administrative expense (“SG&A (4Q)”), (5) reserves/resource enhancement, and (6) safety and environmental compliance.

The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee, and the plan and any award under the plan is subject to Compensation Committee and Board discretion. The Compensation Committee is responsible for determining the plan participants and determining the total dollar amount available to be awarded to the participants in the plan for the year (the "Annual True-Up")(which in no case may exceed twice the aggregate base salaries of the employees of the Company in 2017).
For each NEO, the
The Compensation Committee determined a threshold, target and maximum award opportunity expressed as a percentage of base salary for each Quarterly Period andNEO participating in the 2017 Annual Period. In light of the near-term focus of the 2016 Incentive Plan, we cappedwhich was 100% of base salary. Under the potential2017 Annual Incentive Plan, the maximum payout of the NEOs’ award opportunity under thatto any plan atparticipant is 150% of the targetedtarget award as comparedopportunity.


7470

Table of Contents


to our historical approach of having a maximum 200% of target payout under the Annual Incentive Plan. The award opportunities for each NEO under the 2016 Incentive Plan are set forth in the table below:
  Quarterly Period Award Opportunity Annual Period Award Opportunity
Officer Target Percentage of Base Salary 
Threshold
(50%)
 
Target
(100%)
 
Maximum
(150%)
 
Threshold
(50%)
 
Target
(100%)
 
Maximum
(150%)
David H. Welch 450% $365,625
 $731,250
 $1,096,875
 $1,462,500
 $2,925,000
 $4,387,500
Kenneth H. Beer 300% 142,500
 285,000
 427,500
 570,000
 1,140,000
 1,710,000
Lisa S. Jaubert 275% 103,125
 206,250
 309,375
 412,500
 825,000
 1,237,500
Keith A. Seilhan 197% 78,750
 157,500
 236,250
 315,000
 630,000
 945,000
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 190% 71,250
 142,500
 213,750
 285,000
 570,000
 855,000
The Compensation Committee also approved the following 2017 performance measures set forth in the table below for the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan along with their relative weightings (expressed in terms of allocated points for threshold, target and maximumstretch performance). In implementing the 2016 Incentive Plan, we eliminated any discretionary component, which was a feature of the annual cash incentive compensation program for 2015, as well as the one-year and their relative TSR component.
Performance Measures Potential Points
 Threshold Target Maximum
EBITDA ($ millions)
EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depletion and amortization) is calculated as pre-tax income plus (1) interest expense, (2) depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion, (3) rig expenses (shifted to capital spending), and (4) non-recurring items.
 25 50 75
Capital Expenditures ($ millions)
The Capital Expenditures factor is calculated as capital expenditures plus rig expenses (shifted from EBITDA).
 20 40 60
Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Performance
The HSE factor includes personal safety (weighted 50%), environmental safety (weighted 30%) and compliance safety (weighted 20%). Personal safety is measured based on total recordable incident rate (TRIR) performance for employees and certain contractors, environmental safety is measured by reported spills of hydrocarbons, and compliance safety is measured by fines or penalties paid to state or federal regulatory agencies. HSE is included as a performance measure because maintaining a healthy workforce is critical to ensuring execution of our business plan. There is also a strong correlation between positive long-term business performance and solid safety performance. We also believe it is in the interest of stockholders to prevent accidents, protect the environment and comply with applicable laws and regulations.
 5 10 15
TOTAL POINTS 50 100 150
weighting. The Compensation Committee also established minimum, target and maximumstretch goals for each performance measure with respect to each Quarterly Periodmeasure. For the production, lease operating expense, EBITDA and SG&A (4Q) performance measures, the Annual Period. Thesethreshold and stretch targets were set at 10% above and below the measurable forecasted targets. All of the performance goals were subject to adjustment by the Compensation Committee in accordance with the terms of the Company’s Stock2017 Annual Incentive Plan. The performance measures and goals implemented in connection with the 2016 Incentive Plan differ in certain respects from the performances measures and associated goals utilized under the Company’s annual cash incentive compensation program for 2015. However, weWe believe these goals maintainedmaintain the same rigor and level of difficulty as the prior year goals under the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan and the 2005 Annual Incentive Plan in light of changing market conditions. Further, these goals and the quarterly and annual payout design were intended to drive immediate short-term financial and operating performance to address our current liquidity and business needs, which the Compensation Committee and the Board believed to be necessary in order to preserve longer-term value. The performance goals for the Annual Periodsix performance measures are reflected in the following table withtable.
Performance Measure Weighting at Target Performance Performance Metric – Threshold Performance Metric – Target Performance Metric – Stretch Actual Performance Weighting at Actual Performance
Production (mboed)
 15% 16.7
 18.5
 20.4
 19.1
 17.5%
Lease Operating Expense ($ millions)
 15% 77
 70
 63
 59
 22.5%
EBITDA ($ millions)
 20% 152
 169
 186
 200
 30%
SG&A (4Q) ($ millions)
 15% 12.6
 11.5
 10.4
 9.7
 22.5%
Reserves/Resources Enhancement (Events)
 15% 1
 2
 3
 5
 22.5%
Safety/Environmental Compliance (Matrix)
 20% Blue
 Green
 Brown
 Green
 20%

With respect to the foregoing performance measures, the performance goals for each were determined as follows:

Production (mboed): The production goals were set based on production forecasts presented to the Board in March 2017 and included four months of production in 2017 from the Company’s Mt. Providence well, 10 days of hurricane downtime and 4.7% overall downtime. These forecasts were generated by the Company on a well-by-well basis and were also used in the Company’s 2017 budgeting and capital planning processes following emergence from bankruptcy.
Lease Operating Expense ($ millions): The lease operating expense goals were set based on budget forecasts as presented to the Board in March 2017. Lease operating expense included field operations expenses, expense wellwork as well as major maintenance and expense repairs.
EBITDA ($ millions): The EBITDA goals were set based on an updated pricing and production view as of July 2017, as presented to the Board.
SG&A(4Q) ($ millions): The SG&A (4Q) goals were based on the Company’s budget forecasts as of July 2017 for salaries, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), as presented to the Board. These goals were set for fourth quarter 2017 SG&A expense in light of the Company reductions in force and other SG&A reductions occurring in the second and third quarters of 2017.
Reserves/Resources Enhancement (Events): The goals for this measure were based on the Company’s execution in 2017 of events to add reserves or exposure to reserves such as joint venture drilling transactions, acquisition transactions and commercial success on drilling project.
Safety/Environmental Compliance (Matrix): The Safety and Environmental goals were based on a matrix adopted by the Company that went beyond the traditional measure of “Total Recordable Incident Rate” to incorporate other safety related factors such as “Days Away from Work” and environmental and compliance factors. The target for 2017 was set to require a Safety and Environmental Compliance score below 0.25 and a Relative Incident of Non-Compliance to Component Ratio of 1.0.
Following the end of the 2017 fiscal year, on March 1, 2018, the Compensation Committee determined the level of achievement on the performance resultsmeasures and the extent to which award opportunities had been earned. The actual 2017 annual incentive compensation payment received by each NEO who participated in the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan was greater than the potential target opportunity as a result of the Compensation Committee’s determination that we earned a total of 135 points (out of the target total 100 potential points) (1) due to the Company’s aggregate actual performance being above target for specific Quarterly Periods set forth below.the combined six objective performance measures, and (2) the Compensation Committee’s assessment of current economic and financial conditions and the exercise of its discretion under the plan. The full amount of the 2017 annual incentive compensation award is disclosed within the Summary Compensation Table as “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” for 2017.

7571

Table of Contents


Based on the Compensation Committee’s determinations, which were approved and adopted by the Board, the annual incentive compensation awards for the participating NEOs based on fiscal year 2017 performance were as follows compared against their target annual incentive compensation opportunity:
Performance Measure Annual Period Performance Goals
 Threshold Target Maximum
EBITDA ($ millions) $117.30
 $138.00
 $158.70
Capital Expenditures ($ millions) $215.00
 $195.00
 $175.00
HSE Score 0.37
 0.27
 0.17
Officer   2017 Target Incentive Opportunity  
 2017 Annual Salary (as of December 31, 2017) Percentage of Annual Salary Dollar Amount Actual Annual Incentive Award
 ($)  ($) ($)
Kenneth H. Beer 380,000
 100% 380,000
 513,000
Keith A. Seilhan 400,000
 100% 400,000
 540,000
Lisa S. Jaubert 375,000
 100% 375,000
 506,250
Thomas L. Messonnier 295,000
 100% 295,000
 398,250
FollowingNeither Mr. Welch nor Mr. Toothman participated in the end2017 Annual Incentive Plan because the employment of each applicable period, the Compensation Committee determined the level of achievementwas terminated prior to adoption of the performance goals andplan in July 2017. In addition, Mr. Trimble is not a participant in the extent to which the award opportunities had been earned, and earned amounts are payable as soon as practicable thereafter but in no event later than March 15, 2017. The 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan, provides that, followingbut is eligible to receive an annual bonus payment pursuant to the endterms of his term sheet with the 2016 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee will determine the level of achievement of the performance goals for the Annual Period and the extent to which any Annual True-Up payment was earned. For these purposes, an Annual True-Up payment is calculatedCompany, as the difference, if any, between the award opportunity the Compensation Committee determines is earned for the Annual Period and the sum of the award opportunities earned and paid for all Quarterly Periods.discussed below.
All earned amounts are paid in a cash lump sum, subject to applicable withholding and any compensation recovery or "clawback"“clawback” policy of the Company in effect at the time of payment. Subject
Trimble Bonus
Under his term sheet, Mr. Trimble is eligible to sharesreceive an annual bonus with a target equal to 120% of stock being availablehis annual base salary (the “Target Bonus”), contingent on the achievement of qualitative and quantitative performance goals approved by the Board; provided, that, Mr. Trimble’s annual bonus for issuance under2017 would not be less than his Target Bonus, prorated from April 28, 2017. In August 2017, the StockBoard approved using the same performance measures for Mr. Trimble as provided for in the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan, 10%Plan. As a result, Mr. Trimble’s annual bonus for 2017, prorated from April 28, 2017, was $715,463 as compared against his Target Bonus opportunity, prorated from April 28, 2017, of $526,500. The term sheet also provides Mr. Trimble with certain protections in the event of a change of control event of the CEO’s earned award opportunities are payable in the formCompany or his qualifying termination of fully vested shares of the Company’s common stock,employment as a means of continuing to link his compensation directly to our stock price and to stockholder interests. The number of shares paid equals the number determined by dividing (i) the dollar amount of 10% of the earned amount, by (ii) the average closing price of the Company’s common stock for the Quarterly Period (or, in the case of any Annual True-Up, the average closing price for the month of December 2016), subject to applicable withholding.
Asfurther described in greater detail below under "–2017 Compensation Arrangements," pursuant“Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Term Sheet with Mr. Trimble.”
KEIP
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company and thecertain of our NEOs agreed in December 2016 that the NEOs would waivewaived their claims related to the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan for the fourth Quarterly Period (including the Annual True-Up)quarter of 2016, including any annual true-up payment, in exchange for participation in the Company’s KEIP, which will become effective upon our emergence from bankruptcy. As a result, nonesubject to the terms of the KEIP.

The KEIP was intended to enable us to efficiently restructure our business operations and retain the services of our essential executives. The KEIP offered carefully crafted and narrowly tailored incentives to certain of our NEOs, was entitledwho were in positions that were most integral to any payments with respectour restructuring process, including right-sizing our capital structure as well as improving operational and financial performance, to encourage and motivate them to maximize creditor recoveries and achieve our restructuring objectives. Payments under the KEIP were market-based and resulted in aggregate savings to us of over $1 million compared to what the executives could have potentially received under the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan for the fourth Quarterly Period orquarter of 2016 (plus the annual true-up). We believe the reduced performance bonuses under the KEIP properly incentivized the participating NEOs, who possessed the leadership skills and expertise critical to any Annual True-Up payment pursuantour ability to generate value for our stakeholders during the 2016 Incentive Plan.restructuring.
The tables below reflect, for
We structured the first three Quarterly PeriodsKEIP to incentivize improvements to operational performance in the Gulf of fiscal year 2016: (i)Mexico related to production while also incentivizing efficient management of lease operating costs related to that production and compliance with health, safety, and regulatory regulations. By linking the applicableparticipating NEOs’ compensation opportunities to these important operational goals, the KEIP was intended to align our interests with the interests of our stakeholders. Specifically, the performance measures and the goals establishedand weightings for each performance measure and (ii)under the actual performance attained by the CompanyKEIP were as of the end of the applicable period. Achieving or exceeding the "maximum" performance goal for a measure earns the maximum points ascribed to such measure, with the sum of the maximum points that may be earned for achieving the maximum performance goal on all measures equaling 150 points. The Compensation Committee believes the maximum performance goal for each measure should be difficult but highly advantageous for us to achieve. No points are earned for a performance measure if less than the minimum performance goal for such measure is achieved. Results achieved between the minimum and target performance goals and the target and maximum performance goals are linearly interpolated between points. To the extent that performance goals are met, points are earned and awarded, as determined by the Compensation Committee, towards the total award opportunity for the applicable Quarterly Period. In other words, each point reflected in the table below effectively represents one percentage point of the target award opportunity for the applicable Quarterly Period.follows:


7672

Table of Contents


Performance Measure First Quarterly Period Performance Goals Actual Performance Earned Points
 Threshold Target Maximum 
EBITDA ($ millions) $22.19
 $26.10
 $30.02
 $42.29
 75
Capital Expenditures ($ millions) $92.35
 $83.65
 $75.18
 $86.73
 33
HSE Score 0.37
 0.27
 0.17
 0.02
 15
First Quarterly Period Points:         123
           
Performance Measure Second Quarterly Period Performance Goals Actual Performance Earned Points
 Threshold Target Maximum 
EBITDA ($ millions) $29.83
 $35.10
 $40.36
 $38.69
 67
Capital Expenditures ($ millions) $46.61
 $42.32
 $37.94
 $43.08
 36
HSE Score 0.37
 0.27
 0.17
 0.16
 15
Second Quarterly Period Points:         118
           
Performance Measure Third Quarterly Period Performance Goals Actual Performance Earned Points
 Threshold Target Maximum 
EBITDA ($ millions) $31.96
 $37.60
 $43.24
 $48.70
 50*
Capital Expenditures ($ millions) $33.51
 $30.42
 $27.27
 $43.50
 0
HSE Score 0.37
 0.27
 0.17
 0.27
 10
Third Quarterly Period Points:         60
Performance Measure Weighting Goal -Threshold (50%) Goal - Target (100%) Goal - Maximum (200%)
Average Monthly Production 40% 80
 100
 140
Calculated as Average Net Gulf of Mexico production rate in thousand cubic feet equivalent ("MCFE") per day, disregarding any production from the Company’s Amethyst well, for the period January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017, the effective date of the Plan    
Average Monthly Lease Operating Expense (LOE) (expressed in $millions) 40% 
$4.23
 
$3.73
 
$3.23
Calculated as Average Net Gulf of Mexico monthly LOE, calculated by including production handling agreement fees and excluding major maintenance expenditures, from January 1, 2017 through February 2017 (the end of the month in which the effective date of the Plan occurred)    
Safety, Environmental and Compliance (SEC) Factor 20% 0.37
 0.27
 0.17
Determined based upon the number of relevant Gulf of Mexico occurrences occurring in the areas of safety, environmental and compliance during a rolling 12-month period ending on February 28, 2017    
* Actual performance with respectUnder the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan, certain of the executive officers, including certain of the NEOs, would have been entitled to award opportunities for the fourth quarter of 2016 that could have totaled as much as $3,012,638. Pursuant to the EBITDA measureterms of the Settlement Agreement and the executives’ waiver of these amounts, the aggregate incentive bonus for these individuals for the third Quarterly Periodfourth quarter of 2016 was reduced to $0.
Under the KEIP, the aggregate bonus amount that could be paid to the executives was limited to $2,008,426, which was an amount equal to the aggregate target award opportunities the executives would have resulted inbeen eligible to receive for the full 75 points being earned; however,fourth quarter of 2016 under the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan.

On April 18, 2017, the Compensation Committee approved only 50determined the level of achievement on the performance goals under the KEIP and the extent to which the award opportunities had been earned under the KEIP. The actual points consideringearned for each respective goal under the entiretyKEIP was (i) 61 points for Average Monthly Production based on actual production of 121MCFE/day, (ii) 48 points for Average Monthly Lease Operating Expense based on Average Monthly Lease Operating Expense of $3.63 million, and (iii) 20 points for the Safety, Environmental and Compliance Factor based on Safety, Environmental and Compliance Factor of 0.27, for a total of 129 points out of a target total of 100 points.

Notwithstanding that the Company’s actual performance on the performance measures under the KEIP exceeded target performance, in accordance with the terms of the circumstances.KEIP, the actual KEIP payment received by each NEO who participated in the KEIP was paid out at target. Under the KEIP, payments to the participating NEOs were made in the following aggregate amounts: (1) Mr. Welch--$731,250, (2) Mr. Beer--$285,000, (3) Mr. Seilhan--$157,500, (4) Ms. Jaubert--$206,250, (5) Mr. Messonnier-- $120,176, and (6) Mr. Toothman--$142,500.

Payments under the KEIP were made in cash, in two installments with 50% of the award paid on April 25, 2017 and 50% of the award paid on May 30, 2017 (unless otherwise provided for under a participating NEO’s separation or severance agreement). A participant generally needed to be employed by us on the applicable payment date to receive payment under the KEIP; however, if the employment of the participant in the KEIP was terminated by us without “cause” or by the participant for “good reason” (both as defined in the Prior Executive Severance Plan), or by reason of death, such participant was entitled to receive both the first and second payments.

The aggregate amount paid to each participating NEO with respect to the first three Quarterly Periods under the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan isand the KEIP are disclosed within the Summary Compensation Table as "Non-Equity“Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation"Compensation” for 2016, except that the portion of such amount paid to Mr. Welch in the form of shares of our common stock is disclosed in the "Stock Awards" column for 2016.2017.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

The Compensation Committee andBoard adopted the Board determined2017 LTIP, which is an omnibus equity incentive plan that it was inreplaced the best long-term interest of the Company to suspend the Company’s historic long-term2009 Stock Incentive Plan, under which equity incentive compensation program for 2015 and 2016. As a result, no long-term incentive compensation awards were made to any NEO for 2015 performance or 2016 performance. In place of our traditional programs, our NEOs received awards under the 2016 Incentive Plan for 2016. Please see "-Components of 2016 Executive Compensation-Performance Incentive Compensation" above for additional information.
Historically, awards of long-term incentive compensation have been intended to provide a substantial forward-looking incentive to our NEOs that:
Emphasizes long-term value creation;

Aligns the long-term interests of our NEOs with those of our stockholders by directly linking rewards to stockholder return;previously granted. The 2017 LTIP became effective on February 28, 2017 and

Fosters meaningful levels of long-term stock ownership by our NEOs.

Long-term incentive awards with respect to a given year’s performance have typically been granted to our NEOs in the first quarter of the following year. In determining the value of long-term incentive compensation awards for each of our NEOs for prior years, the Compensation Committee has historically determined and approved (1) the target TDC percentile based on the average of our one- and three-year TSR performance (weighted equally, and relative (on a percentile basis) is substantially similar to the same TSR calculation for our Peer Group companies (as previously described under “Rationale for Fiscal 2016 Compensation”)), (2) the TDC2009 Stock Incentive Plan. The 2017 LTIP permits us to grant a variety of equity-based and base salary rate for each of our NEOs and (3) the total points and dollar value awarded for each NEO’s annual incentive compensation award for the applicable year in accordance with the Compensation Committee’s determination. The grant date value for each NEO’s long-term incentive compensation award was then determined by subtracting the NEO’s base salary rate and annual incentive compensation award from the NEO’s TDC amount. In addition, in establishing the grant date value of each NEO’s long-term incentive compensation, the Compensation Committee also considered other subjective factors, including an individual’s performance against strategic milestones such as positive results in growing reserves, hedging activity, liquidity, risk mitigation,

7773

Table of Contents


health, safety, environmental and regulatory targets, acreage acquisition, new field discoveries, and major field acquisitions,incentive compensation awards to align the interests of eligible individuals, including the NEOs, with the interests of our shareholders. However, in light of the process undertaken by the Board and the Company following emergence from bankruptcy to evaluate tactical and strategic alternatives, resulting in the impending Talos Transaction, no awards were granted to any of the NEOs, in their capacity as an NEO, under the 2017 LTIP and, instead, certain of our executives, including certain of our NEOs, received transaction bonus awards as further described under “Other Program Components – Transaction Bonuses.” Awards of restricted stock units were granted to the Company’s non-employee directors on March 1, 2017, including Mr. Trimble, prior to his appointment as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President.

The 2017 LTIP is administered by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee could adjusthas broad authority under the grant date value2017 LTIP to, among other things: (1) determine participants in the 2017 LTIP; (2) determine the types of awards that participants are to receive and the number of shares that are to be subject to such awards; and (3) establish the terms and conditions of awards, in its discretion, withincluding the Board retainingprice (if any) to be paid for the authorityshares or the award.

Persons eligible to suspend or eliminatereceive awards under the program, which it did for2017 LTIP include non-employee directors of the 2015 performance yearCompany and employees of the 2016 performance year.Company or any of its affiliates. The types of awards that may be granted under the 2017 LTIP include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, dividend equivalents and other forms of awards granted or denominated in shares of common stock, as well as certain cash-based awards.
We have historically made
The maximum number of shares of common stock that may be issued or transferred pursuant to awards under the 2017 LTIP is 2,614,379. Shares of common stock subject to an award that expires or is cancelled, forfeited, exchanged, settled in cash or otherwise terminated without the actual delivery of shares (awards of restricted stock shall not be considered “delivered shares” for this purpose), will again be available for awards under the 2017 LTIP. However, shares (1) tendered or withheld in payment of any exercise or purchase price of an award or taxes relating to employees under our Stock Incentive Planan award, (2) shares that vest in equal annual installments over three years from the year of grant. Although these awards historically included solely time-based vesting conditions, the determinationwere subject to an option or stock appreciation right but were not issued or delivered as a result of the sizenet settlement or net exercise of such award, and (3) shares repurchased on the award initially granted was tied to our relative TSR performance overopen market with the one- and three- year periods precedingproceeds of an option’s exercise price, will not, in each case, be available for awards under the grant, as described above. The three year vesting schedule supports our retention strategy by mitigating swings2017 LTIP.

As is customary in incentive values during periodsplans of high commodity price volatility. During 2016,this nature, each share limit and the NEOs continued to hold restricted stocknumber and kind of shares available under the 2017 LTIP and any outstanding awards, previously granted to them in 2013 (for 2012 performance), 2014 (for 2013 performance) and 2015 (for 2014 performance). Please see "Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End" and "Options Exercised and Stock Vested" below for more information about these awards. All then outstanding stock-basedas well as the exercise or purchase prices of awards, and performance targets under certain types of performance-based awards, are subject to adjustment in the share limitationsevent of certain recapitalizations, reorganizations, mergers, consolidations, combinations, split-ups, split-offs, spin-offs, exchanges or other relevant changes in capitalization or distributions (other than ordinary dividends) to the Stock Incentive Plan were adjusted in June 2016 to reflect our 1-for-10 reverseholders of common stock split.occurring after an award is granted.

Stock Ownership and Retention Guidelines and Prohibition on Hedging

The BoardCompany has adopted Stock Ownership Guidelines applicable to our executives designed to further align the interests of our executive officers and directors with those of our stockholders.stockholders, and the Board adopted Director Stock Ownership Guidelines on March 1, 2017, also to ensure alignment of the interests of our non-employee directors with our stockholders’ interests. Executives are required to meet the following ownership levels set forth in the table below by the later of May 23, 2017 or within five years of being promoted or appointed to their position. Until the applicable guideline multiple of salary is attained, an individual is required to retain, and not sell or otherwise dispose of, at least 75% of his or her net shares (shares that remain after shares are sold or netted to pay the exercise price of stock options and withholding taxes) acquired through long-term incentive awards. All of the NEOs still employed by the Company, and all other executive officers, are in compliance with the Stock Ownership Guidelines.Guidelines or have retained at least 75% of his or her net shares acquired through long-term incentive awards.
Individual Multiple of Salary(1)
Chief Executive Officer 5x base salary
Executive Vice President 4x base salary
Senior Vice President 3x base salary
Vice President 2x base salary
(1)In effect on January 1 of the applicable year.
Among other terms, the guidelinesStock Ownership Guidelines provide that (1) restricted stock will be included in determining the stock ownership of an individual, and (2) until the applicable guideline multiple of salary is attained, an individual is required to retain, and not sell or otherwise dispose of, at least 75% of his or her net shares (after tax withholding) acquired through long-term incentive awards.individual. For each officer, thethese guidelines will be reduced 15% per year beginning on the 61st anniversary of the birth date of the officer, such that the officer need comply with only 85% of the guidelines after age 61, 70% after age 62, 55% after age 63, 40% after age 64, and 25% after age 65 and thereafter until retirement or other termination of employment. The value of our stock used in determining the number of shares needed to comply with thethese guidelines in a given year will be

74

Table of Contents


the average price of our stock during AugustJanuary of that same calendar year. The Board may amend or terminate the Stock Ownership Guidelines in its sole discretion.

For the description of the Stock Ownership Guidelines applicable to directors, please read "Director Compensation"“Director Compensation” below.

The Board has adopted a policy prohibiting any executive officer of the Company, including the NEOs, from hedging company stock.

Clawback Policy

The Board has adopted a clawback policy under which the Board, or a committee of the Board, has the right to cause the reimbursement by an executive officer of the Company of certain incentive compensation if the compensation was predicated upon the achievement of certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a required restatement of the Company’s financial statements and the executive officer engaged in fraudulent or intentional illegal conduct that caused the need for the restatement.

Other Program Components

The NEOs also participate in a variety of retirement, health and welfare, and paid time-off benefits that are available to all our salaried employees generally on a non-discriminatory basis. These benefits are designed to enable us to attract and retain our workforce in a competitive marketplace and to ensure that we have a productive and focused workforce. These benefit plans, and the limited perquisites we provide to our executive officers, are described in greater detail below.

78

Table of Contents


Perquisites and Other Benefits

Perquisites and other personal benefits represent a small part of our overall compensation package. These benefits help us attract and retain senior level executives and are reviewed periodically to ensure that they are competitive with industry norms. We sponsor membership in golf or social clubs for certain senior executives who have responsibility for entertainment deemed necessary or desirable to conduct business and recruit employees.

401(k) Plan

To provide employees with retirement savings in a tax efficient manner, under our 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan ("(“401(k) Plan"Plan”), in 2016,2017, eligible employees were permitted to defer receipt of up to 60% of their eligible compensation, plus an additional catch-up amount for employees age 50 or over of up to $6,000 (subject to certain limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"“Code”)). The 401(k) Plan provides that a discretionary match of employee deferrals, before catch-up amounts, may be made by us, at our discretion and as determined by the Board, in cash or shares of our stock. During the year ended December 31, 2016,2017, and since the inception of the 401(k) Plan, the Board has approved, and we have made, annual matching contributions of $1.00 for every $2.00 contributed by an employee up to the maximum deferral amount permitted by the Code, excluding catch-up contributions.

Deferred Compensation Plan

To provide certain executives and other highly compensated individuals with additional retirement savings opportunities, the Stone Energy Corporationour Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Deferred“Deferred Compensation Plan"Plan”) is a non-qualified deferred compensation plan that provides eligible individuals with the option to defer up to 100% of their eligible compensation for a calendar year. The Compensation Committee may, at its discretion, match all or a portion of a participant’s deferrals based upon a percentage determined byamended the Board. In addition,Deferred Compensation Plan in December 2016 to eliminate the Company’s ability to make matching contributions under the plan. We believe this amendment supports our cost-cutting initiatives and overarching restructuring objectives; however, we have not historically made matching contributions under the plan. The Board may still elect to make discretionary profit sharing contributions to the plan. During the year ended December 31, 2016,2017, and since the inception of the Deferred Compensation Plan, there were no matching or profit sharing contributions made by us. In December 2016,under the Company took action to amend the terms of the Deferred Compensation Plan to eliminate the Company’s ability to make matching contributions thereunder. Please see "-2017 Compensation Arrangements" below for additional information.plan. The amounts held under the Deferred Compensation Plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each participant, which are identicalsimilar to the investment options available to participants in our 401(k) Plan. The "Nonqualified“Nonqualified Deferred Compensation"Compensation” section below contains additional details regarding the Deferred Compensation Plan and each NEO’s account in such plan.

Severance Plan and Change ofin Control Benefits

We provide severance and change ofin control benefits to certain of our executive officers, including certain of our NEOs, which are designed to facilitate our ability to attract and retain executives as we compete for talented employees in a marketplace where such protections are commonly offered. We believe that providing consistent, competitive levels of severance protection

75

Table of Contents


helps minimize distraction during times of uncertainty and helps to retain our senior people. Our severance arrangements provide benefits to ease an employee’s transition in the event of an unexpected employment termination due to ongoing changes in our employment needs. The Compensation Committee is responsible for administering these arrangements. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in December 2016, the Company took action to terminate or otherwise modify certain existing severance and change of control arrangements with its NEOs and adopted

The Board approved the Executive Severance Plan. Please see "-2017 Compensation Arrangements"Plan on July 25, 2017, to replace the Prior Executive Severance Plan, with the Executive Severance Plan providing for severance payments and benefits in the event of the executive’s qualifying termination of employment. The Executive Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the Talos Transaction to provide, among other things, that if a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve-month period immediately following the Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year. In addition, the Company has entered into separation and severance agreements with certain of our NEOs that provided for the payment of severance payments and benefits in connection with such executive’s termination of employment.

The Executive Severance Plan and the separation and severance agreements are further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”

Retention Awards

On July 25, 2017, the Board approved retention awards for additional information. certain executives and employees, including Messrs. Beer, Seilhan and Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert, equal to one-half of the executive officer’s base salary to be paid in a lump sum cash payment within 30 days of the earliest to occur of (1) the first anniversary of the effective date (June 1, 2017) of the retention award agreement subject to the executive officer’s continued employment on such date, (2) a “change in control” of the Company (as defined in the retention award agreements) or (3) a termination of the executive officer’s employment (a) due to death, (b) by the Company without “cause” (as defined below) (including due to disability) or (c) by the executive officer for “good reason” (as defined below). The retention awards were awarded in connection with the Company’s evaluation of tactical and strategic alternatives and to encourage the retention of the retention award recipients for a period of time following grant.

For a detailed description of potential payments that could be made to certain of our NEOs pursuant to these arrangements,the retention award agreements, please see the "PotentialPotential Payment Upon Termination or Change of Control" tableControl Table below.

Transaction Bonuses

On November 21, 2017, the Board approved transaction bonuses and the form of transaction bonus agreement and authorized the Company to enter into transaction bonus agreements with certain of our executive officers, including certain of our NEOs. The transaction bonus agreements provide for the payment of a transaction bonus to each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert equal to $300,000, $375,000, $120,000 and $202,500, respectively, payable in a lump sum cash payment within 30 days of a “change in control” (as defined in the transaction bonus agreement) if the executive officer remains employed with the Company through the date of the “change in control” or is terminated prior to the change in control (i) due to death, (ii) by the Company without “cause” (as defined below) (including due to disability), or (iii) by the executive officer for “good reason” (as defined below). The transaction bonuses were awarded as compensation for incremental shareholder value creation in connection with the Talos Transaction and were in lieu of an award of long-term equity incentives in 2017.

For a detailed description of potential payments that could be made to certain of our NEOs pursuant to the transaction bonus agreements, please see the Potential Payment Upon Termination or Change of Control Table below.
2018 Compensation Arrangements
On December 14, 2016, we filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11In light of the United States Bankruptcy Code in United States Bankruptcy Court. In connection with our bankruptcy filing, on December 13, 2016, following approval by the Compensation Committee and the Board, we entered into the Settlement Agreement with nine of our senior executives and managers,Talos Transaction, including our NEOs. On December 14, 2016 we filed a motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s approvalcertain of the Settlement Agreement and of our assumption of certain amended employment agreements and the Deferred Compensation Plan, as provided in the Settlement Agreement. On January 11, 2017 the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the motion. Pursuant torestrictions imposed under the terms of the SettlementTransaction Agreement allwith respect to changing our existing compensation arrangements and entering into new compensation arrangements, the Company does not anticipate making any changes to existing compensation arrangements for, or entering into new arrangements with, our executives in 2018, except amending Mr. Trimble’s term sheet to provide that in the event of his qualifying termination of employment or the occurrence of a change of control event, in each case occurring prior to December 31, 2018 (as opposed to December 31, 2017, as describedset forth in more detail below:
The NEOs waived their claims relatedhis term sheet prior to the 2016 Incentive Planamendment), he is entitled to receive his target annual bonus amount, prorated for the fourth quarterperiod from January 1, 2018 through the date of 2016 including any Annual True-Upsuch event, which payment will be made in a lump sum, in 2018, subject to Mr. Trimble’s execution, delivery and non-revocation of a release of claims. The amendment to Mr. Trimble’s term sheet is also discussed above in exchange therefor, we adopted the KEIP (described below);Part II, Item 9B. Other Information.


7976

Table of Contents


NEOs who previously participated in the Company’s Executive Change of Control and Severance Plan (the "COC/Severance Plan") waived their right to receive certain change of control payments under such plan that could have been triggered upon consummation of the plan of reorganization, and in exchange therefor, we adopted the Executive Severance Plan, in which such NEOs became participants;

We terminated Mr. Beer’s employment agreement and entered into an amended employment agreement with Mr. Welch. As a result, Mr. Welch and Mr. Beer became participants in the Executive Severance Plan instead of being entitled to the individual severance benefits set forth in their prior agreements;

We amended Mr. Toothman’s employment agreement to reduce the severance benefits that would have been payable upon his termination of employment following a sale of our Appalachia properties from 2.99 times his base salary to 2 times his base salary. These benefits will offset any benefits provided to Mr. Toothman pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan and are not in addition to any Executive Severance Plan benefits to which he may become entitled; and

We amended the Deferred Compensation Plan to discontinue the Company’s ability to provide company matching contributions thereunder.

We determined that the revised compensation arrangements with our NEOs authorized by the Settlement Agreement are in our best interest because (1) the NEOs agreed to significant concessions that will benefit us and maximize value for all stakeholders, (2) the terms of the Settlement Agreement will result in substantially lower incentive-based compensation and severance benefits for the NEOs relative to what they otherwise could receive, thereby preserving greater liquidity for the Company, and (3) approval of the Settlement Agreement provides certainty with respect to the pool of unsecured claims and administrative expense liabilities, as the NEOs have agreed to waive significant claims that they otherwise would be entitled to assert against us in the bankruptcy.
Additionally, we have adopted the Stone Energy Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "2017 LTIP"), which is an omnibus equity compensation plan that will replace the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan and will become effective upon our emergence from bankruptcy following approval by the Bankruptcy Court. To date in 2017, no awards have been authorized under the Stock Incentive Plan (or pursuant to the 2017 LTIP which is to be effective upon the Company's emergence from bankruptcy) and the base salary rates of the NEOs have not been changed and remain at the same 2016 levels.
Stone Energy Corporation Key Executive Incentive Plan (KEIP)
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the NEOs waived their claims related to the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016, including any Annual True-Up payment, in exchange for participation in the KEIP, subject to the terms of the KEIP.
The KEIP is intended to enable us to efficiently restructure our business operations and retain the services of our essential executives. The KEIP offers carefully crafted and narrowly tailored incentives to the NEOs that will encourage and motivate them to maximize creditor recoveries and achieve our restructuring objectives. Payments under the KEIP are market-based and will result in aggregate savings to us of over $1 million compared to what the executives could have potentially received under the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016 (plus the Annual True-Up). We believe the reduced performance bonuses under the KEIP will properly incentivize our NEOs, who possess the leadership skills and expertise critical to our ability to generate value for our stakeholders. The NEOs are in positions that are most integral to our restructuring process, including right-sizing our capital structure as well as improving operational and financial performance.
We have structured the KEIP to incentivize improvements to operational performance in the Gulf of Mexico related to production while also incentivizing management of lease operating costs related to that production and compliance with health, safety, and regulatory regulations. By linking the NEOs’ compensation opportunities to these important operational goals, the KEIP is intended to align our interests with the interests of the NEOs and our stakeholders. Specifically, the performance measures, goals and the weightings for each under the KEIP are as follows:

80

Table of Contents


Performance Measure Weighting Performance Goals
 
Threshold
(50%)
 
Target
(100%)
 
Maximum
(200%)
Average Monthly Production
Calculated as Average Net Gulf of Mexico production rate in thousand cubic feet equivalent ("MCFE") per day, disregarding any production at Amethyst, for the period January 1, 2017 through the effective date of our plan of reorganization
 40% 80
 100
 140
Average Monthly Lease Operating Expense (LOE)
Calculated as Average Net Gulf of Mexico monthly LOE, calculated by including PHA fees and excluding major maintenance expenditures, from January 1, 2017 through the end of the month in which the effective date of our plan of reorganization occurs (or the prior month)
 40% $4.23
 $3.73
 $3.23
Safety, Environmental and Compliance (SEC) Factor
Determined based upon the number of relevant Gulf of Mexico occurrences occurring in the areas of safety, environmental and compliance during a rolling 12 month period ending on the effective date of our plan of reorganization.
 20% 0.37
 0.27
 0.17

Under the 2016 Incentive Plan, the executive officers, including the NEOs, would have been entitled to award opportunities for the fourth quarter of 2016 that could have totaled as much as $3,012,638. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the executives’ waiver of these amounts, the aggregate incentive bonus for these individuals for the fourth quarter of 2016 was reduced to $0. Under the KEIP, the aggregate bonus amount that may become payable to the executives is limited to $2,008,425, which is equal to the aggregate target award opportunities the executives would have been eligible to receive for the fourth quarter of 2016 under the 2016 Incentive Plan. Payouts to the NEOs under the KEIP may not exceed the following target award opportunities: (i) Mr. Welch--$731,250, (ii) Mr. Beer--$285,000, (iii) Mrs. Jaubert--$206,250, (iv) Mr. Seilhan--$157,500, and (v) Mr. Toothman--$142,500.

Payments under the KEIP will generally be paid in cash in two installments with 50% of the award being paid as soon as practicable, but not later than 75 days following the effective date of the consummation of the plan of reorganization, and 50% paid on the 90th day following the effective date of the plan of reorganization. A participant must generally be employed by us on the applicable payment date to receive payment under the KEIP. These payment terms notwithstanding, if a participant in the KEIP is terminated without “cause” or for “good reason” (both as defined in the Executive Severance Plan), or by reason of death, such participant will be entitled to receive both the first and second payments.

Executive Severance Plan and Employment Agreements
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, (i) the COC/Severance Plan and Mr. Beer’s employment agreement were terminated, (ii) the employment agreements with Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman were amended, and (iii) the Company adopted the Executive Severance Plan and each NEO became a participant therein as provided in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. As a result, the potential aggregate claims that the senior executives could assert pursuant such agreements have been significantly reduced. We have structured the reduced severance payments under the Executive Severance Plan to provide the senior executives with peace of mind during the uncertain restructuring process, but not provide them with substantial payments as a result of any change in control pursuant to the restructuring plan or any future change in control.
We have historically maintained employment agreements with Messrs. Welch, Beer and Toothman regarding their employment with us. After a thorough review process by the Compensation Committee, our advisors, and the Board, Mr. Beer’s agreement was terminated in its entirety and we amended our agreements with Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman to provide for lessened potential benefits payable upon separation from service with us. As a result of the changes to their employment agreements, these three NEOs became participants in the Executive Severance Plan and ceased to be entitled to any severance benefits set forth in their individual agreements, except that Mr. Toothman remains eligible to receive special severance benefits if he incurs a qualifying termination of employment in connection with a disposition of our Appalachian properties. In addition, Messrs. Welch and Beer have agreed to the elimination of all rights to any potential Section 4999 gross-up payments.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Severance Plan, upon a participant’s "involuntary termination" (as defined in the Executive Severance Plan), such participant would be eligible to receive (i) any earned but unpaid portion of the participant’s annual salary, (ii) a lump sum cash severance payment equal to a multiple (between 1.0 and 1.5 depending on the participant) of the participant’s then-current base salary, (iii) for Mr. Welch and Mr. Beer, an additional lump sum cash payment equal to a multiple of 1.0 x their respective accrued bonus, (iv) six months of COBRA at a cost that is equal to the cost for an active employee for

81

Table of Contents


similar coverage, (v) accelerated vesting of the next tranche of any unvested, time-based equity award held by the participant, and (vi) outplacement services pursuant to our prevailing practices at the time of termination, but the cost of such services shall not exceed 5% of the participant’s annual salary. Payments and benefits under the Executive Severance Plan (except for earned, but unpaid salary) are subject to the participant’s execution and non-revocation of a release of claims agreement in our favor.
For additional information regarding the Executive Severance Plan, the amended employment agreements with Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman, and the amounts that could become payable to our NEOs under the applicable arrangements, please see "Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control" below.
Non-Qualified Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan
In connection with our entry into the Settlement Agreement, we adopted an amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan that removed our ability to make matching contributions under the Deferred Compensation Plan. We believe this amendment supports our cost-cutting initiatives and overarching restructuring objectives; however, we have not historically made matching contributions under the plan. We expect to continue to maintain the Deferred Compensation Plan following our emergence from bankruptcy.
Stone Energy Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan
We have adopted the 2017 LTIP to be effective upon our emergence from bankruptcy following approval by the Bankruptcy Court. The 2017 LTIP is substantially similar to the Stock Incentive Plan in all material respects except that, pursuant to the terms of the 2017 LTIP, the maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued with respect to awards under the 2017 LTIP will be equal to 10% of our authorized shares of common stock as of our emergence from bankruptcy. The 2017 LTIP will permit us to grant a variety of equity-based and other incentive compensation awards to align the interests of eligible individuals, including the NEOs, with the interests of our shareholders. However, no award determinations have been made to date.

Tax and Accounting Considerations

The Compensation Committee considers the expected tax treatment to our companythe Company and its executive officers as one of the factors in determining compensation matters. Code Section 162(m) of the Code generally limits the deductibility of certainannual compensation expensespaid to a “covered employee” in excess of $1.0 million, unless certain exceptions are met, such as the exception for qualified performance-based compensation. Pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”), as of January 1, 2018, the exception under Code Section 162(m) for qualified performance-based compensation was eliminated and the definition of “covered employee” was expanded to include the chief financial officer of a company. The Tax Act includes a transition rule under which the changes to Code Section 162(m) will not apply to compensation payable pursuant to a "covered employee"written binding contract that was in any fiscal year, although certain qualifying performance-based compensationeffect on November 2, 2017, and is not subjectmaterially modified after that date. The Company intends to rely on this transition rule, to the limits on deductibility. For these purposes, "covered employees" consist of our CEO and the three most highly compensated executive officers other than our CEO and our Chief Financial Officer.extent applicable. The Compensation Committee currently considers the deductibility under Code Section 162(m) of the Code of compensation awarded to its executives to the extent reasonably practical and consistent with our objectives, but the Compensation Committee may nonetheless approve compensation that does not fall within these requirements and may authorize compensation that results in non-deductible amounts above the limits if it determines that such compensation is in our best interests. Payments under the 2016 Incentive Plan are intended to qualify for deduction under Section 162(m).
We have historically provided Messrs. Welch and Beer with certain tax protection in the form of
As a potential gross-up payment to reimburse them for excise taxes that might be incurred under Section 4999 of the Code, as well as any additional income taxes resulting from such reimbursement. However, if the total to be paid to Mr. Welch or Mr. Beer did not exceed 110% of the greatest amount (the "Reduced Amount") that could be paid to the executive such that the receipt of the total would not give rise to any excise tax, then no gross-up payment would be made and the total payments to the executive in the aggregate would be reduced to the Reduced Amount. At the time these provisions were put in place, they reflected typical market practice and they provided a valuable executive retention tool. Pursuant to the termsresult of the Settlement Agreement, Messrs. Welch and Beer have agreed to eliminate all rights to any potential Section 4999 gross-up payments in favor of a reduction of payments and/or benefits to each officer in whole or in part to the extent the officer’s net after-tax benefit will exceed such officer’s net after-tax benefit if such reductions are not made. Please see "-2017 Compensation Arrangements" above for additional information. Upon our emergence from bankruptcy, we anticipate that none of our NEOs or other employees will have the right to any gross-up payments in connection with Section 4999 gross-up paymentsof the Code and we do not expect to enter into any such arrangements in the future. Under the Executive Severance Plan, payments and benefits to participants in the plan are subject to a “best-net” provision such that the payments and/or benefits will be cut back to avoid triggering any excise tax under Section 4999 of the Code or any related interest or penalties or will be paid in full, whichever is better for the participant on a net after-tax basis, as further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Executive Severance Plan.”

We are accounting for stock-based payments in accordance with the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 718.

Risks Arising from Compensation Policies and Practices

The Compensation Committee, with the assistance of the Compensation Consultant, has assessed the risks related to our compensation programs, including our executive compensation program. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee believes that the design and governance of our executive compensation program do not encourage our NEOs to take excessive or

82

Table of Contents


inappropriate risks and that the risks arising from the design of the programs are not reasonably likely to affect the Company in a material adverse manner.

The Compensation Committee believes that our executive compensation program is consistent with the highest standards of risk management. Rather than determining incentive compensation awards based on a single metric, the Compensation Committee considers a balanced set of performance measures that it believes collectively best indicate successful management of our assets and strategy in light of current circumstances. In addition to establishing measurable targets, the Compensation Committee applies its informed judgment to compensation decisions, taking into account factors such as quality and sustainability of earnings, successful implementation of strategic initiatives and adherence to core values. The Compensation Committee believes that the Company’s historic practice of granting long-term incentive awards of restricted stock, vesting over three years, aligns our executive officers’ interests with the interests of our stockholders and discourages short-term risk taking. The Compensation Committee, however, determined it was prudent, and reflected a better alignment with long-term interests of our stockholders, to suspend long-term incentive awards for 2015 and 2016 performance in light of the challenges facing the Company from the extended low commodity price environment and the importance of a focus on successful execution of shorter-term performance goals designed to enhance the Company’s liquidity and strengthen its balance sheet. In addition, essentiallyEssentially all of our employees participate in our compensation programs thereby encouraging consistent behavior across the company.Company. We have also adopted a clawback policy that permits us to recoup certain incentive compensation based on inaccurate financial results. Together, the features of our executive compensation program are intended to ensure that our compensation opportunities do not encourage excessive risk taking and to focus our NEOs on managing ourthe Company toward long-term sustainable value for our stockholders.

77

Table of Contents


COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Compensation Committee does hereby state that:
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the foregoing "Compensation“Compensation Discussion and Analysis"Analysis” required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management; and

Based on the review and discussions with management, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the "Compensation“Compensation Discussion and Analysis"Analysis” be included in Stone Energy Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.2017.

  Compensation Committee,  
     
  George R. ChristmasDavid N. Weinstein - Chairman  
  B. J. DuplantisNeal P. Goldman  
  Peter D. Kinnear
Robert S. Murley
Phyllis M. TaylorJohn B. Juneau  

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
No member of the Compensation Committee is now, or at any time since the beginning of 20162017 has been, employed by or served as an officer of the Company or any of its subsidiaries or had any relationships requiring disclosure with the Company or any of its subsidiaries. None of our executive officers is now, or at any time has been, since the beginning of 2016,2017, a member of the compensation committee or board of directors of another entity one of whose executive officers has been a member of our Board or Compensation Committee.

83

Table of Contents


EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES
Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth the compensation earned by the NEOs for services rendered in all capacities to our Company and its subsidiaries for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, as applicable. Mr. Welch served as our President and 2014.Chief Executive Officer until his retirement, effective April 28, 2017, at which time Mr. Trimble assumed the role of our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President. Between February 28, 2017 and April 28, 2017, Mr. Trimble only served as a non-employee member of our Board and received compensation for such services during such portion of 2017 as described further below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with Mr. Trimble” and “Elements of Director Compensation – Current Board Compensation Arrangements.” He did not receive any compensation from the Company prior to fiscal year 2017. In addition, Mr. Toothman served as our Senior Vice President – Appalachia until the termination of his employment, effective April 30, 2017, and Mr. Seilhan served as our Senior Vice President – Gulf of Mexico until his appointment, effective April 28, 2017, to serve as our Chief Operating Officer. The NEOs include Mr. Welch as he served as our Chief Executive Officer during a period of time in 2017 and Mr. Toothman as he would have been considered one of our three most highly compensated executive officers other than any individual serving as our Chief Executive Officer or our Chief Financial Officer during 2017 but for the fact that he was no longer serving as an executive officer of the Company as of December 31, 2017.


78

Table of Contents


Name and Principal Position Year 
Salary
($)
 Stock Awards ($)(1) 
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(2)
 All Other Compensa-tion ($)(3) 
Total
 ($)
 
TDC
($)(4)
David H. Welch 2016 $650,000
 $168,258
 $1,980,968
 $20,919
 $2,820,145
 $2,799,226
Chairman of the Board, 2015 650,000
 3,910,250
 130,000
 21,289
 4,711,539
 780,000
President and Chief 2014 645,833
 4,432,516
 689,750
 20,987
 5,789,086
 5,250,000
Executive Officer              
Kenneth H. Beer 2016 380,000
 
 857,850
 9,000
 1,246,850
 1,237,850
Executive Vice President 2015 380,000
 1,282,542
 76,000
 9,000
 1,747,542
 456,000
and Chief Financial 2014 379,167
 1,659,997
 337,458
 8,750
 2,385,372
 2,000,000
Officer              
Lisa S. Jaubert 2016 300,000
 
 620,813
 9,000
 929,813
 920,813
Senior Vice President, 2015 298,333
 747,092
 59,667
 9,000
 1,114,092
 359,667
General Counsel and 2014 284,167
 749,996
 252,908
 8,750
 1,295,821
 1,290,000
Secretary              
Keith A. Seilhan 2016 305,000
 
 449,783
 9,000
 763,783
 754,783
Senior Vice President- 2015 288,333
 665,992
 57,667
 66,000
 1,077,992
 347,667
Gulf of Mexico 2014 274,167
 554,985
 244,008
 31,100
 1,104,260
 1,190,000
               
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 2016 300,000
 
 428,925
 9,000
 737,925
 728,925
Senior Vice President- 2015 298,333
 644,125
 59,667
 9,300
 1,011,425
 359,667
Appalachia 2014 287,500
 639,984
 255,875
 8,750
 1,192,109
 1,190,000
Name and Principal Position Year 
Salary
($)(1)
 Stock Awards ($)(2) 
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(3)
 All Other Compensation ($)(4) 
Total
($)
James M. Trimble 2017 $427,500
 $264,406
 $715,463
 $65,854
 $1,473,223
Interim Chief Executive           

Officer and President           

             
David H. Welch 2017 225,000
 
 731,250
 1,358,671
 2,314,921
Former Chairman of the Board, 2016 650,000
 168,258
 1,980,968
 20,919
 2,820,145
President and Chief Executive Officer 2015 650,000
 3,910,250
 130,000
 21,289
 4,711,539
             
Kenneth H. Beer 2017 380,000
 
 798,000
 9,000
 1,187,000
Executive Vice President 2016 380,000
 
 857,850
 9,000
 1,246,850
and Chief Financial Officer 2015 380,000
 1,282,542
 76,000
 9,000
 1,747,542
             
Keith A. Seilhan 2017 372,615
 
 697,500
 9,000
 1,079,115
Chief Operating Officer 2016 305,000
 
 449,783
 9,000
 763,783
  2015 288,333
 665,992
 57,667
 66,000
 1,077,992
             
Lisa S. Jaubert 2017 342,692
 
 712,500
 
 1,055,192
Senior Vice President, General 2016 300,000
 
 620,813
 9,000
 929,813
Counsel and Secretary 2015 298,333
 747,092
 59,667
 9,000
 1,114,092
             
Thomas L. Messonnier 2017 272,385
 
 518,426
 9,000
 799,811
Vice President – Exploration 2016 253,000
 
 361,727
 9,000
 623,727
and Business Development 2015 249,495
 196,995
 49,899
 9,000
 505,389
             
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 2017 103,846
 
 142,500
 644,402
 890,748
Former Senior Vice 2016 300,000
 
 428,925
 9,000
 737,925
President – Appalachia 2015 298,333
 644,125
 59,667
 9,300
 1,011,425
             

(1)The annual base salary payable to Mr. Trimble during 2017 is prorated from April 28, 2017, the date he commenced employment with the Company until December 31, 2017. The annual base salary payable to each of Messrs. Welch and Toothman during 2017 is prorated from January 1, 2017 until his termination of employment with the Company, effective April 28, 2017 (for Mr. Welch) or April 30, 2017 (for Mr. Toothman). In addition, Mr. Seilhan’s annual base salary was increased from $320,000 to $400,000, effective April 28, 2017, Ms. Jaubert’s annual base salary was increased from $300,000 to $375,000, effective May 31, 2017, and Mr. Messonnier’s annual base salary was increased from $253,000 to $295,000, effective July 25, 2017.

(2)Stock awards reflected in this column were made pursuant to our 2009 Stock Incentive Plan.Plan or 2017 LTIP, as applicable. The values shown in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of restricted stock, restricted stock units or other awards granted in the given year, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, determined without regard to possible forfeitures. The value ultimately received by the executive officer may or may not be equal to the values reflected above. See Note 1316 to our audited financial statements included herein for the year ended December 31, 20162017 for a complete description of the valuation, including the assumptions used.

The value reported for Mr. WelchTrimble in 20162017 represents the 10% portiongrant of Mr. Welch’s earned award opportunity9,811 restricted stock units made to him under the 2016 Incentive Plan for the first, second2017 LTIP on March 1, 2017 in connection with his service as a non-employee director on our Board and third Quarterly Periods thatprior to his appointment as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President. The grant of such restricted stock units was payablenot made to him in the form of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Stock Incentive Plan. The number of shares paid equals the number determined by dividing (i) the dollar amount of the applicable 10% portion, by (ii) the average closing price of the Company’s common stock for the Quarterly Period, subject to applicable withholding. The shares of stock were delivered to Mr. Welch: (a) with respect to the first Quarterly Period, on May 6, 2016, when the price of our common stock was $7.35 (as adjusted to reflect our 1-for-10 reverse stock split), (b) with respect to the second Quarterly Period, on August 5, 2016, when the price of our common stock was $10.23,his capacity as Interim Chief Executive Officer and (c) with respect to the third Quarterly Period, on November 7, 2016, when the price of our common stock was $4.03. The cash portion of Mr. Welch’s earned award opportunity is reflected in the "Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation" column for 2016. Please see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-Components of 2016 Executive Compensation-Performance Incentive Compensation" for additional information.President.
(2)The amounts reflected in this column for 2016 relate to awards granted by the Compensation Committee pursuant to the 2016 Incentive Plan. The NEOs received cash payouts under the 2016 Incentive Plan for the first, second and third Quarterly Periods. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and the NEOs agreed in December 2016 that the NEOs would waive their claims related to the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth Quarterly Period in exchange for participation in the Company’s KEIP. As a result, none of the NEOs was entitled to any payments with respect the fourth Quarterly Period or to any Annual True-Up payment pursuant to the 2016 Incentive Plan. Please see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-Components of 2016 Executive Compensation-Performance Incentive Compensation" and "-2017 Compensation Arrangements" for additional information.

(3)
The following table provides detailamounts in this column represent the aggregate payments made to our NEOs, except for Messrs. Trimble, Welch and Toothman, during 2017 under the All OtherKEIP and the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan. As set forth above under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation column for each– Performance Incentive Compensation – KEIP,” the payments to our NEO’s, except Messrs. Trimble, Welch and Toothman, under the KEIP were as follows:(1) Mr. Beer--$285,000, (2) Mr. Seilhan--$157,500, (3) Ms. Jaubert--$206,250, and (4) Mr. Messonnier--$120,176. As set forth above under “Components of the NEOs for 2016. Please see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-Other Program Components" for a brief discussion of these items.

8479

Table of Contents


 Mr. Welch Mr. Beer Ms. Jaubert Mr. Seilhan Mr. Toothman
Company 401(k) match$9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
Annual dues for club memberships11,919
 
 
 
 
 $20,919
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Compensation – 2017 Annual Incentive Plan,” the payments to our NEO’s, except Messrs. Trimble, Welch and Toothman, under the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan were as follows:(1) Mr. Beer--$513,000, (2) Mr. Seilhan--$540,000, (3) Ms. Jaubert--$506,250, and (4) Mr. Messonnier--$398,250. For Mr. Trimble, the amount in this column represents the annual bonus payment made to him under the terms of his term sheet, as more fully discussed above under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Compensation – Trimble Bonus.” For each of Messrs. Welch and Toothman, the amounts in this column represent the payment made to each under the KEIP prior to his termination of employment. Each of Messrs. Welch and Toothman received a second KEIP payment in connection with his termination of employment from the Company that is included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table. See “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation - Performance Incentive Compensation” for additional information.

(4)The amounts reflected in this column are supplemental and are not required byrepresent the SEC’s compensation disclosure rules. As described in the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis," TDC represents total direct compensation awarded by our Compensation Committee for service with respect to a given fiscal year. TDC reported in this column includes, for each NEO, (a) the annual base salary rate for the given year, (b) the amount in the "Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation" column for the given year, and (c) the grant date fair valueaggregate of the long-term incentive award of restricted stock granted in the following fiscal year for performance in the given year. Because we suspended our long-term incentive award program for 2015 and 2016, there were no annual restricted stock or other long-term incentive awards granted in 2016 with respect to 2015 performance or to date in 2017 with respect to 2016 performance. Hence, the TDC column for 2016 reflects only base salary and payments under the 2016 Incentive Plan, including payments made thereunder to, or on behalf of, our NEOs during 2017: (i) Company matching contributions to its 401(k) Plan as described further under “Other Program Components – 401(k) Plan;” (ii) severance payments and benefits and earned time off payouts in connection with the termination of Mr. Welch’s and Mr. Toothman’s employment as described further under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control;” (iii) Company-provided housing for Mr. Trimble; (iv) the payment of country club membership dues for Mr. Trimble; and (v) the payment of director fees for Mr. Trimble when he was a non-employee director, prior to his appointment as Interim Chief Executive Officer and President on April 28, 2017. While serving on our Board, Mr. Welch indid not receive any additional compensation for his services as a director. The following table provides detail of such payments to each of the form of shares of our common stock. We believe TDC more accurately represents the compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee with respect to performanceNEOs for a given fiscal year.2017.
 Mr. Trimble Mr. Welch Mr. Beer Mr. Seilhan Ms. Jaubert Mr. Messonnier Mr. Toothman
Company 401(k) match$
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $
 $9,000
 $
Severance Payments and Benefits:             
Severance payment
 1,235,000
 
 
 
 
 600,000
COBRA benefit
 8,215
 
 
 
 
 4,123
Outplacement services
 
 
 
 
 
 1,000
Equity award acceleration
 31,456
 
 
 
 
 4,664
Earned time off payout
 75,000
 
 
 
 
 34,615
Company-provided housing44,858
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country club membership dues4,329
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fees for services as non-employee director16,667
 
 
 
 
   
 $65,854
 $1,358,671
 $9,000
 $9,000
 $
 $9,000
 $644,402

Grants of Plan Based Awards

There were no grants of any plan based equity awards in fiscal 2017 to any of the NEOs under the 2017 LTIP or the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan, other than the grant of restricted stock units to Mr. Trimble on March 1, 2017 under the 2017 LTIP upon his appointment as a non-employee member of our Board on February 28, 2017, which was prior to his appointment as Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, effective April 28, 2017.

In accordance with the terms of the Plan, all shares of restricted stock held by certain of our executive officers, including certain of our NEOs, under the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan on the Effective Date were cancelled and, in exchange for such shares, such individuals received shares of new common stock and warrants on the same basis as all other holders of common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases, but such shares of new common stock and warrants were subject to the vesting provisions set forth in the agreements granting the restricted shares of common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and the terms of the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan.

The following table discloses information concerning each grant of awards in 2016 under the Stock Incentive Plan to the NEOs. It also discloses the potentialestimated possible cash payouts under our 2016the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan (referred to in the chart below as the “2017 AIP”) and the KEIP to certain of our NEOs with respect to awards granted in 2016. For more information about these awards, please read2017 and to Mr. Trimble pursuant to the section above titled "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-Componentsterms of 2016 Executive Compensation-Performancehis term sheet (referred to in the chart below as the “Term Sheet”), as determined on the date of grant. Neither Mr. Welch nor Mr. Toothman was eligible to receive an award under the 2017 Annual Incentive Compensation."Plan because each terminated employment with the Company prior to the date the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan was adopted. In addition, Mr. Trimble
GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS TABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
    
Estimated Possible Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)
 All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units(#)(3) Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards($)(4)
Name Grant Date Threshold($) Target ($) Maximum($)  
David H. Welch 05/06/16
 
 
 
 3,944
 $28,988
  08/05/16
 
 
 
 12,256
 125,318
  11/07/16
 
 
 
 3,462
 13,952
    1,316,250(2)
 2,632,500(2)
 3,948,750(2)
 
 
             
Kenneth H. Beer 
 570,000
 1,140,000
 1,710,000
 
 
             
Lisa S. Jaubert 
 412,500
 825,000
 1,237,500
 
 
             
Keith A. Seilhan 
 315,000
 630,000
 945,000
 
 
             
Richard Toothman, Jr. 
 285,000
 570,000
 855,000
 
 

(1)These columns show the range of possible Annual Period award opportunities granted by the Compensation Committee pursuant to the 2016 Incentive Plan, as discussed above in the section entitled "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-Components of 2016 Executive Compensation-Performance Incentive Compensation." Award opportunities for each Quarterly Period are equal to 25% of the Annual Period award opportunity for each NEO. If the Company’s performance does not meet the threshold performance hurdle for a Quarterly Period, then the payout for that Quarterly Period will be zero. The amounts shown in the "Threshold" column reflect a payout of 50% of the target Annual Period award opportunity; the amounts shown in the "Target" column reflect a payout of 100% of the target Annual Period award opportunity; and the amounts shown in the "Maximum" column reflect the highest possible payout of 150% of target Annual Period award opportunity. The Compensation Committee determined that the Company’s performance with respect to the applicable performance goals exceeded the minimum performance level for the first, second and third Quarterly Periods and, consequently, the actual payouts made under the 2016 Incentive Plan with respect to those Quarterly Periods are reflected in the "Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation" and "Stock Awards" columns of the Summary Compensation Table for 2016, as applicable. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and the NEOs agreed in December 2016 that the NEOs would waive their claims related to the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth Quarterly Period in exchange for participation in the Company’s KEIP. As a result, none of the NEOs was entitled to any payments with respect the fourth Quarterly Period or to any Annual True-Up

8580

Table of Contents


payment pursuantwas also not eligible to participate in the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan. Please see "Compensation DiscussionPlan and Analysis-Componentsinstead was eligible to receive an award under the terms of 2016his term sheet. For more information on these awards, read the section above titled “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation-PerformanceCompensation – Performance Incentive Compensation" and "-2017 Compensation Arrangements" for additional information.Compensation.”

    Estimated Possible Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)
 All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) (2) All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#) Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/sh) Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($) (3)
Name Grant Date Plan Threshold ($) Target ($) Maximum($)    
James M. Trimble 3/1/2017 
 
 
 
 9,811
 
 
 264,406
    Term Sheet
 39,488
 526,500
 789,750
 
 
 
 
David H. Welch                  
   KEIP
 7,313
 731,250
 
 
 
 
 
                   
Kenneth H. Beer   KEIP
 28,500
 285,000
 
 
 
 
 
    2017 AIP
 28,500
 380,000
 570,000
 
 
 
 
                   
Keith A. Seilhan   KEIP
 15,750
 157,500
 
 
 
 
 
    2017 AIP
 30,000
 400,000
 600,000
 
 
 
 
                   
Lisa S. Jaubert   KEIP
 20,625
 206,250
 
 
 
 
 
    2017 AIP
 28,125
 375,000
 562,500
 
 
 
 
                   
Thomas L. Messonnier   KEIP
 12,018
 120,176
 
 
 
 
 
    2017 AIP
 22,125
 295,000
 442,500
 
 
 
 
Richard L. Toothman, Jr.                  
   KEIP
 14,250
 142,500
 
 
 
 
 

(1)The amounts in these columns represent the range of possible payouts of the annual incentive awards granted under the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan for our NEOs, other than Messrs. Trimble, Welch and Toothman, the incentive awards under the KEIP for our NEOs, other than Mr. Trimble, and the annual incentive award under the terms of his term sheet for Mr. Trimble, as of the date of grant. The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan is a performance-based incentive program that provides award opportunities based on the Company’s achievement of qualitative and quantitative performance goals approved by the Board. The annual incentive award payable to Mr. Trimble under his term sheet is determined based on the same performance goals as provided under the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan. For 2017, achieving the target goals for each of the six measures under the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan would have resulted in a targeted annual incentive opportunity of 100% of the applicable participating NEO’s annual base salary or, in the case of Mr. Trimble, 120% of his annual base salary, prorated for the period between April 28, 2017 and December 31, 2017. For the 2017 Annual Incentive Plan, the amounts shown in the “Threshold” column reflect the lowest possible payout of 7.5% of the targeted annual incentive opportunity; the amounts shown in the “Target” column reflect a payout of 100% of the targeted annual incentive opportunity; and the amounts shown in the “Maximum” column reflect the highest possible payout of 150% of the targeted annual incentive opportunity. For Mr. Trimble, the amount shown in the “Target” column reflects a payout of 100% of his targeted annual incentive opportunity, prorated for the period between April 28, 2017 and December 31, 2017; the amount shown in the “Threshold” column reflects the lowest possible payout of 7.5% of his target annual incentive opportunity prorated for the period between April 28, 2017 and December 31, 2017; and the amount shown in the “Maximum” column reflects the highest possible payout of 150% of Mr. Trimble’s target annual incentive opportunity prorated for the period between April 28, 2017 and December 31, 2017. The KEIP was a performance-based incentive plan that provided award opportunities based on performance goals related to the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy. Each of the NEOs, except for Mr. Trimble, was entitled to receive “Threshold” and “Target” incentive awards under the KEIP. No “Maximum” incentive award was provided under the KEIP in excess of the “Target” incentive award. The amounts shown in the “Threshold” column reflect the lowest possible payout of 10% of the targeted incentive opportunity; and the amounts shown in the “Target” column reflect the highest possible payout of 100%

81

Table of Contents


of the targeted incentive opportunity.

(2)Represents 90%The award in this column for Mr. Trimble represents the grant of Mr. Welch’s total possible threshold, target and maximum Annual Period award opportunities9,811 restricted stock units made to him under the 2016 Incentive Plan.2017 LTIP on March 1, 2017 in connection with his service as a non-employee director on our Board and prior to his appointment as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President. The remaining 10%grant of Mr. Welch’s earned award opportunities under the 2016 Incentive Plan were payablesuch restricted stock units was not made to him in shares of the Company’s common stock issued under the Stock Incentive Plan, which are reported in the "Stock Awards" column of the Summary Compensation Tablehis capacity as Interim Chief Executive Officer and in the last two columns of this table.President.

(3)Reflects the actual shares of stock issued under the Stock Incentive PlanThe value in payment of the 10% portion ofthis column for Mr. Welch’s earned award opportunities under the 2016 Incentive Plan for the first, second and third Quarterly Periods, as adjusted for our 1-for-10 reverse stock split (with respect to the shares of stock issued on May 6, 2016).
(4)CalculatedTrimble is calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, determined without regard to possible forfeitures, as describeddiscussed in footnote 12 to the Summary Compensation Table.

Narrative Disclosure to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan Based Awards Table
The following narrative provides additional information about the various compensation plans, programs and policies reflected in the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan Based Awards Table for the year ended December 31, 2016.2017.
Employment-RelatedEmployment and Separation and Severance Agreements with NEOs
Certain terms governing the employment and compensation of Messrs. Welch, Beer and Toothman during 2016 were set forth in individual employment agreements. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we terminated Mr. Beer’s employment agreement and entered into amended employment agreements with Messrs. Welch and Toothman. Please see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis-2017 Compensation Arrangements" and "Potential Payments Upon Involuntary Termination or Change of Control" for additional information. We do not maintain employment agreements with any otherof our NEOs. However, we entered into a term sheet with Mr. Trimble, effective April 28, 2017, which was amended on March 6, 2018 as discussed above in Part II, Item 9B. Other Information. The term sheet provides that Mr. Trimble’s employment is at-will and may be terminated by him or the Company on 30 days’ advance written notice. In addition, under the term sheet, Mr. Trimble is entitled to (1) an annual base salary equal to $650,000, (2) an annual target bonus opportunity equal to 120% of his annual base salary, as discussed above, and (3) the option to participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans available to senior executives of the Company. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the term sheet, Mr. Trimble is subject to (1) a 12-month post-termination non-competition obligation relating to the business of the Company, (2) a 12-month post-termination non-solicitation obligation applying to employees, consultants, customers and similar business relationships of the Company, (3) a perpetual confidentiality obligation, and (4) a perpetual non-disparagement obligation. Mr. Trimble is also entitled to certain protections with respect to his annual bonus in connection with a change of control event or a qualifying termination of employment as further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Term Sheet with Mr. Trimble.”
Salary
In addition, we have entered into a separation or severance agreement with Mr. Welch and Annual IncentiveMr. Toothman that provided each executive with severance payments and benefits in connection with his termination of employment as further described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control.”
Short-Term Performance-Based Compensation in Proportion to Total CompensationPlans
Because we suspended the historicalWe maintain a performance-based annual cash incentive compensation award and long-term equity incentive compensation programs for 2016 and instead implemented inplan, the 20162017 Annual Incentive Plan, actual TDC for our NEOs was comprised onlyunder which Messrs. Beer, Seilhan and Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert received annual bonus awards as further described above under “Components of base salary2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Compensation – 2017 Annual Incentive Plan.” In addition, Mr. Trimble is eligible to receive an annual bonus pursuant to the terms of his term sheet as further described above under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Compensation – Trimble Bonus.” Each of Messrs. Welch, Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and earned award opportunities paid out for the first, secondToothman and third Quarterly PeriodsMs. Jaubert received payments under the 2016KEIP, which was a performance-based cash incentive plan as further described above under “Components of 2017 Executive Compensation – Performance Incentive Plan, including the 10% portion of such earned amounts that were paid to Mr. Welch in the form of shares of our common stock (which is reported in the “Stock Awards” column of the Summary Compensation Table for 2016).– KEIP.”


8682

Table of Contents


Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The following table contains information concerning all outstanding equity awards held by each of the number and value of outstanding and unexercised options as well as the number and value of unvested restricted stock awardsNEOs as of December 31, 2016, which have been adjusted2017. None of the awards granted to Messrs. Welch and Toothman remained outstanding as applicableof December 31, 2017. All outstanding stock options held by the NEOs on February 28, 2017 were cancelled pursuant to reflect our 1-for-10 reverse stock split that occurred in June 2016.the Plan.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT DECEMBER 31, 2016
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT DECEMBER 31, 2017OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT DECEMBER 31, 2017
 Option Awards Stock Awards Stock Awards
Name Option Grant Date Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable(1) Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable Option Exercise Price($) Option Expiration Date Stock Award Grant Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(#) Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested($)(2) Stock Award Grant Date Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested
Name  (#) (1) ($) (2)
 3/1/2017
 9,811
 315,522
David H. Welch 1/9/2007
 1,500
 
 331.90
 1/9/2017
   
 
 
 1/15/2008
 2,500
 
 446.70
 1/15/2018
  
 1/15/2009
 2,000
 
 100.50
 1/15/2019
  
 2/17/2009
 2,947
 
 69.70
 2/17/2019
  
           3/1/2014 4,111 (3) 29,394
           3/1/2015 16,725 (4) 119,584
Kenneth H. Beer 1/9/2007
 1,000
 
 331.90
 1/9/2017
   3/1/2015
 445 (4)
 14,311
 1/15/2008
 1,500
 
 446.70
 1/15/2018
  
 1/15/2009
 1,500
 
 100.50
 1/15/2019
  
           3/1/2014 1,539 (3) 11,004
           3/1/2015 5,047 (4) 36,086
Keith A. Seilhan 3/1/2015
 231 (4)
 7,429
Lisa S. Jaubert 
 
 
 
 
   3/1/2015
 259 (4)
 8,329
           3/1/2014 695 (3) 4,969
           3/1/2015 2,940 (4) 21,021
Keith A. Seilhan 
 
 
 
 
  
           3/1/2014 515 (3) 3,682
           3/1/2015 2,621 (4) 18,740
Thomas L. Messonnier 3/1/2015
 68 (4)
 2,187
Richard L. Toothman, Jr.Richard L. Toothman, Jr.
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
           3/1/2014  593(3) 4,240
           3/1/2015 2,535(4) 18,125

(1)All outstanding stock options were fully vested asIn accordance with the terms of December 31, 2016. Generally, stock options vested in substantially equal annual installments over a five-year period.
(2)The market value shown was determined by multiplying the number of unvestedPlan, all shares of restricted stock held by $7.15, which wasour NEOs, except for Mr. Trimble, under the closing market price2009 Stock Incentive Plan on the Effective Date were cancelled and, in exchange for such shares, such individuals received shares of ournew common stock and warrants on December 30, 2016 (which was the last trading daysame basis as all other holders of fiscal 2016).
(3)common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases, but such shares of new common stock and warrants were subject to the vesting provisions set forth in the agreements granting the restricted shares of common stock of the debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases and the terms of the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan. The restrictions on the total number of such restricted shares of restricted stock granted on March 1, 2014 lapsed or will lapse as follows: (a) with respect to one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2015, (b) with respect to one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2016, and (c) with respect to the remaining one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2017.
(4)The restrictions on the total number of shares of restricted stock granted on March 1, 2015 lapsed or will lapse as follows: (a) with respect to one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2016, (b) with respect to one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2017, and (c) with respect to the remaining one-third of the total shares on January 15, 2018. The restricted shares vested in full on January 15, 2018.

(2)The market value shown was determined by multiplying the number of unvested shares of stock by $32.16, which was the closing market price of our common stock on December 29, 2017 (which was the last trading day of fiscal 2017).

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table sets forth information regarding the number of stock awards vested, and the related value received, during 20162017 for the NEOs. There were no stock option exercises during 2016.2017 due to the fact that all outstanding stock options were cancelled pursuant to the terms of the Plan. All values realized were calculated by using the market value of our stock on the vesting date for the award, which was the average of the high and low price of our stock on the vesting date (or, if the vesting date was not a trading day, on the last trading day preceding the vesting date), and reflect applicable adjustments dueadjusted to take into account the 1-for-10 reverse stock split that occurred in June 2016.

87

Tableeffect of Contents


the 2016 reverse-stock split.
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED TABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
 Stock Awards
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED TABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED TABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017
Name Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting(#) Value Realized on Vesting($) Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting(#) Value Realized on Vesting($)
James M. Trimble 
 
David H. Welch 37,313
 $651,485
 13,946
 113,823
Kenneth H. Beer 6,066
 166,068
 4,062
 26,824
Keith A. Seilhan 1,825
 12,052
Lisa S. Jaubert 2,465
 67,504
 2,164
 14,290
Keith A. Seilhan 2,517
 68,941
Thomas L. Messonnier 609
 4,022
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 2,388
 65,391
 2,083
 16,947

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
The following table sets forth information regarding nonqualified deferred compensation during 20162017 for the NEOs.

83

Table of Contents


NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
Name Executive Contributions in Last FY($) Aggregate Earnings (Loss) in Last FY($) Aggregate Balance at Last FYE($)(1) Executive Contributions in Last FY($) Aggregate Earnings (Loss) in Last FY($) Aggregate Withdrawals/Distributions ($) Aggregate Balance at Last FYE ($)(1)
James M. Trimble 
 
 
 
David H. Welch 
 $200,281
 $4,148,673
 
 259,318
 (4,390,669) 17,322
Kenneth H. Beer 
 77,439
 1,167,029
 
 258,752
 
 1,425,781
Keith A. Seilhan 
 
 
 
Lisa S. Jaubert 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Keith A. Seilhan 
 
 
Thomas L. Messonnier 
 73,736
 
 477,900
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(1)The following portions of the aggregate balance amounts for each of the NEOs were reported as compensation to the officer in the Summary Compensation Table in previous fiscal years: Mr. Welch -$526,420- $526,420 for the year ended December 31, 2010 and $208,391 for the year ended December 31, 2009; and Mr. Beer -$35,333- $35,333 for the year ended December 31, 2009 and $168,729 for the year ended December 31, 2014.2015.

Our Deferred Compensation Plan provides eligible executives and other highly compensated individuals with the option to defer up to 100% of their base salary and 100% of their annual incentive award for a given calendar year. Deferral elections are made separately for salary and bonus not later than December 31 for amounts to be earned in the following year. Currently, Messrs. WelchBeer and BeerMessonnier are the only NEOs, who are still employed by the Company, that participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan and neither elected to defer any amounts to the plan for 2016. We expect to continue to maintain the Deferred Compensation Plan following our emergence from bankruptcy.2017.

The Deferred Compensation Plan previously provided that the Compensation Committee may, at its discretion, match all or a portion of the participant’s deferral based upon a percentage determined by the Board. In addition, the Board may elect to make discretionary profit sharing contributions to participants in the Deferred Compensation Plan. Since the inception of the Deferred Compensation Plan, we have not made matching or profit sharing contributions. In connection with our entry into the Settlement Agreement, we adopted an amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan that removed our ability to make matching contributions under the Deferred Compensation Plan.

All participant contributions to the Deferred Compensation Plan and investment returns on those contributions are fully vested. Distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan are only made upon a separation of service and will be made as a lump-sum cash payment or in monthly installments over up to ten years, based on the participant’s election and subject to the six-month delay of distributions imposed on certain of our key employees by Section 409A of the Code. The amounts held under the Deferred Compensation Plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each participant. Investment options under the plan are identicalsimilar to the investment options available to participants in our 401(k) Plan. Both the Deferred Compensation Plan and the 401(k) Plan utilize a mutual fund investment window that enables participants to elect a wide variety of mutual funds. Participants may change their investment elections daily. The investment funds and rate of return for the year ended December 31, 20162017 for the investment options elected by the NEOs who participated in the Deferred Compensation Plan during 20162017 are as follows:

David H. Welch - Stock investments included Fidelity International Discovery, Fidelity Retirement Money Market Fund, Fidelity Retirement Government Money Market Fund and Fidelity New Markets, Inc., with a combined rate of return of 5.1%9% for the year ended December 31, 2016.


88

Table of Contents

2017.

Kenneth H. Beer - Stock investments included Fidelity Leveraged Co. Stock Fund, Fidelity Diversified International Fund, Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund, Fidelity 500 Index PR, Fidelity Emerging Asia Fund and Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund, with a combined rate of return of 7.1%22% for the year ended December 31, 2016.2017.

Thomas L. Messonnier - Stock investments included Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund, Fidelity International Discovery, Fidelity Focused High Inc., Fidelity US Bond Index PR, Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund, Fidelity Ext Mkt Index PR, Fidelity 500 Index PR, Fidelity Select Energy, Fidelity Real Estate Investments, Fidelity International Real Estate and Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund, with a combined rate of return of 18% for the year ended December 31, 2017.

In connection with the termination of his employment, Mr. Welch received a lump sum distribution of a portion of his account balance on November 1, 2017, in an amount equal to approximately $4,390,373 and an additional distribution of a portion of his account balance on December 1,2017 in an amount equal to approximately $296. As of December 31, 2017, $17,322 remained in his account to be distributed in equal monthly installments until October 1, 2022.


84

Table of Contents


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

As described above in the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis," pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in December 2016, we took action to terminate or otherwise modify certain existing severance and change of control arrangements with our NEOs and adopted a new Executive Severance Plan. Because the arrangements adopted and entered into in December 2016 have been approved by the Bankruptcy Court and have become effective, we describe and quantify the payments and benefits thereunder below.

Employment Agreements
We currently have employment agreements with two of our NEOs, Messrs. Welch and Toothman. We do not maintain employment agreements with any other NEOs, as Mr. Beer’s employment agreement was terminated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
On January 12, 2006, we initially entered into an employment agreement with Mr. David H. Welch (the "Welch Agreement"). The Welch Agreement was amended effective as of December 2, 2008 to comply with Section 409A of the Code and was further amended on December 13, 2016 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement to remove certain provisions regarding bonus, equity vesting, severance and tax gross-up payments. As a result of the termination of Mr. Beer’s agreement and the amendment to Mr. Welch’s agreement, Messrs. Welch and Beer have agreed to the elimination of all rights to any potential Section 4999 gross-up payments, and none of our NEOs currently is entitled to any potential gross up payment. Under the Welch Agreement, as amended, Mr. Welch is eligible to participate in the Executive Severance Plan pursuant to its terms, as described below.
On August 10, 2016, we entered into a letter agreement with Mr. Richard L. Toothman, Jr. (the "Toothman Agreement"). The Toothman Agreement was amended on December 13, 2016 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement to provide that Mr. Toothman will also be a participant in the Executive Severance Plan. In addition, the Toothman Agreement was amended to reduce the severance benefits payable upon his "Qualifying Termination" of employment following an "Appalachian Disposition" from 2.99 times his base salary to 2 times his base salary. These benefits will offset any benefits provided to Mr. Toothman pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan and are not in addition to any Executive Severance Plan benefits to which he may become entitled. For purposes of the Toothman Agreement:
An "Appalachia Disposition" generally means the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the Company’s oil and gas business in the Appalachia regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia (subject to certain exclusions).

A "Qualifying Termination" means:

any termination of Mr. Toothman’s employment by us during the one year period following an Appalachia Disposition (the "Qualifying Termination Period") other than for "cause", and

any termination of Mr. Toothman’s employment by him during the Qualifying Termination Period for "good reason." However, in order for a termination of employment to be for "good reason," Mr. Toothman must first give us written notice of the "good reason" event within 30 days of the initial existence of the "good reason" event, and we shall then have 30 days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the event. If we fail to timely remedy the event, then Mr. Toothman may terminate his employment for "good reason" in the seven day period following our failure to remedy the event. A termination of employment by Mr. Toothman for "good reason" will be deemed to be within the Qualifying Termination Period if the initial existence of the "good reason" event occurs within the applicable Qualifying Termination Period.
Executive Severance Plan
The Executive Severance Plan was established to provide financial security to our executives, including our NEOs, upon certain terminations of employment. The Compensation Committee is responsible for administering the Executive Severance Plan. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all of the NEOs are participants in the Executive Severance Plan. Our NEOs who previously participated in the Company’s Executive Change of Control and Severance Plan (the "COC/Severance Plan") waived their right to receive change of control payments under such plan that could have been triggered upon consummation of the plan of reorganization (and such plan was terminated), and in exchange therefor, became participants in the Executive Severance Plan pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

89

Table of Contents


Pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan, if an executive, including a NEO, incurs an "involuntary termination"in the event that the employment of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier or Ms. Jaubert is terminated by the Company without “cause” (as defined below) of employment,or by the executive will receivedue to “good reason” (as defined below), the following:
Any earned but unpaid portion of base salary upexecutive is entitled to the datepayments and benefits described below, subject to the executive officer’s timely execution, delivery, and non-revocation of termination.a release of claims:

Cash Severance.A lump sum cash severance payment of: (i)in an aggregate amount equal to 1.5 times annual base salary plus 1.0 times accrued bonus (for Mr. Welch), (ii) 1.25 times annual base salary plus 1.0 times accrued bonus (for Mr. Beer), and (iii) 1.0 timesthe annual base salary for all other NEOs.

Outplacement services, the durationMessrs. Beer and costs for which are to be determined by the then prevailing practice of the Human Resources DepartmentSeilhan and which, in no event, may exceed the amount equal to 5% ofMs. Jaubert or 1 times the annual base salary of the executive;for Mr. Messonnier.

Prorated Bonus. A lump sum cash severance payment equal to 100% of the executive officer’s annual bonus opportunity, at target, for the calendar year in which the termination occurs, prorated by the number of days that have elapsed from January 1 of that calendar year through the date of termination; provided that if such termination occurs during the 12-month period immediately following Closing, the target bonus will be deemed to be no less than the executive officer’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year.

Other Termination Benefits. The following additional benefits:

continuation of health benefit coverageinsurance benefits for the executive officer and, where applicable, his or herthe executive officer’s eligible dependents, for the six-month periodup to six months following the datesuch termination of the "involuntary termination,"employment at a cost to the executive officer that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage.coverage;

Acceleratedaccelerated vesting as specified in any long-term incentive award agreement between the executive officer and the Company for such a termination;

reasonable outplacement services up to 5% of the next trancheannual base salary of the executive officer; and

without regard to the release requirement, any unvested, time-based equity award heldunpaid portion of the executive officer’s earned annual base salary as of the date of the termination.

If any payment, distribution, or benefit pursuant to the terms of the Executive Severance Plan, when aggregated with any other payment, distribution, or benefit outside of the Executive Severance Plan, would be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code, or any interest or penalties with respect to such excise tax, then, under the terms of the Executive Severance Plan, any such payment, distribution, or benefit would be reduced to the extent such reduction would result in a greater net after-tax amount being retained by the executive that would otherwise have vested but for the "involuntary termination."officer.
Retention Awards
The Executive Severance Plan may not be amended or terminated inCompany entered into a manner which adversely affectsretention award agreement with each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert on August 2, 2017, effective on June 1, 2017, as further described above under “Other Program Components – Retention Awards.”
Transaction Bonuses
The Company entered into transaction bonus agreements with each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert on November 21, 2017, as further described above under “Other Program Components – Transaction Bonuses.”
Term Sheet with Mr. Trimble
Under the benefits or potential rights to benefitsterms of any executive without such executive’s consentMr. Trimble’s term sheet prior to its amendment on March 6, 2018 as discussed above in Part II, Item 9B. Other Information, and as in effect during fiscal year 2017, in the adoptionevent of the occurrence of a replacement plan. The Executive Severance Plan also requires that an executive sign a general releasechange of claims within 45 days of an "involuntary termination"control event or if his employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” or by him for “good reason” (each as defined below) in order2017, he is entitled to receive the applicable paymentsprorated Target Bonus for the period from April 28, 2017 through December 31, 2017, subject to the execution and benefits.irrevocability of a release of claims.

For purposes of the Executive Severance Plan, the retention award agreements, the transaction bonus agreements and as applicable the employment agreementsterm sheet with Mr. Trimble:


85

Table of Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman:Contents
An "involuntary termination"

“cause” means any termination of an executive’s employment by us other than for "cause" or a termination by the executive for a "good reason."

"cause" means any termination of an executive’s employment by reason of the executive’sexecutive’s: (1) willful and continued failure to perform substantially theirhis or her duties (other than any such failure resulting from his or her incapacity due to physical or mental illness) after written notice of such failure has been given to him or her specifying in detail such failure and the executive has had a reasonable period (not to exceed 30 days) to correct such failure; (2) conviction (or plea of nolo contendere) for any felony or any other crime which involves moral turpitude; (3) gross negligence or willful misconduct in the willful engagingperformance of his or her duties; provided, however, that no act or failure to act on the part of the executive shall be considered “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct” if done or omitted to be done by the executive in conductgood faith and in the reasonable belief that such act or failure to act was in the best interest of the Company or its affiliate; (4) breach or violation of any material provision of any material policy of the Company or its affiliate that is materially injuriousreasonably likely to result in material harm to the Company, monetarilywhich, if capable of being remedied, remains unremedied by the executive for more than 10 days after written notice thereof is given to the executive by the Company or otherwise.its affiliate; or (5) theft, fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or material acts of dishonesty against the Company or an affiliate.

"good reason"reason” means the occurrence (without anthe executive’s express written consent), of any one of the following acts by us:the Company: (1) a material reduction in the executive’s annual base salary; (2) a material diminution in the authority, duties or responsibilities of the executive; provided, that, a change resulting from the Company’s no longer being a public company shall not be a basis for a “good reason” termination; or (3) a requirement that the executive transfer to a work location that is more than 50 miles from such executive’s principal work location and that materially increases the executive’s commute.

a material reduction in the executive’s annual base salary (except for certain across-the-board salary reductions);

Separation Agreement with Mr. Welch
a material diminution in the authority, duties or responsibilities of the executive (except for a change resulting from our no longer being a public company);

a requirement that the executive transfer to a work location that is more than 50 miles from such executive’s principal work location that materially increases the executive’s commute; or

failure to adopt a new severance plan replacing the Executive Severance Plan within 180 days after the effective date of our plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
TheOn May 11, 2017, Mr. Welch entered into a separation agreement and general release with the Company. Pursuant to the separation agreement, Mr. Welch resigned from the Board effective May 11, 2017 and his separation from employment became effective April 28, 2017. In exchange for entering into the separation agreement, Mr. Welch was entitled to receive the payments, rights and benefits he was entitled to under the Prior Executive Severance Plan, provides thatwhich were: (1) his outstanding wages and accrued vacation and sick pay in the executive’s rightamount of $100,000, (2) a lump sum severance payment in the amount of 18 months of base salary, equal to terminate$975,000, and a lump sum bonus payment of $260,000, equal to the prorated portion of his annual bonus opportunity of 120% of his annual base salary through April 28, 2017, (3) a payment equal to $365,625, which was the amount owed to him under the KEIP, (4) Company payment of medical insurance premiums under COBRA for him and his eligible dependents for up to six months after his termination of employment, and (5) reimbursement for “good reason” shall not be affectedoutplacement services up to $32,500. In addition, under the separation agreement, the next tranche of unvested warrants and restricted stock held by Mr. Welch, consisting of 5,201 warrants and 1,473 shares of restricted stock, fully vested as of the executive’s incapacitydate provided for under the terms of the separation agreement. In the separation agreement, Mr. Welch provided a customary general release to the Company and agreed to remain subject to certain perpetual confidentiality and non-disparagement covenants.
Severance Agreement with Mr. Toothman
On April 27, 2017, we entered into a severance agreement and release of claims with Mr. Toothman. Under his severance agreement, Mr. Toothman was entitled to receive the following severance payments and benefits: (1) a lump sum cash payment equal to $600,000, (2) six months of COBRA payments equal to $790.26 a month, and (3) his remaining KEIP payment. In the severance agreement, Mr. Toothman provided a customary general release to the Company and agreed to remain subject to certain perpetual confidentiality and non-disparagement covenants.
Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with Mr. Trimble
On March 1, 2017, Mr. Trimble was awarded 9,811 restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP in connection with his service as a non-employee director prior to his appointment as Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company pursuant to the terms of an award agreement. Under the award agreement, the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders in May 2018, subject to: (i) the director’s continued service on the Board through the vesting date, and (ii) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to physicaldeath or mental illness.removal from the Board without cause.

Payments Made Upon Termination Generally
Regardless of the manner in which an executive’s (including a NEO) employment terminates, he or she is entitled to receive amounts earned during his or her employment. These amounts include:
non-equity compensation earned during the fiscal year;

amounts contributed pursuant to our Deferred Compensation Plan;


9086

Table of Contents


annual base salary or wages earned during the fiscal year but unpaid at the time of termination;
amounts contributed pursuant to our Deferred Compensation Plan;
unused vacation pay; and

amounts accrued and vested through our 401(k) Plan.

Quantification of Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

The table below reflects the amount of compensation to each of the NEOs in the event of termination of such executive’s employment, or a change in control, as applicable. The amount of compensation payable to each NEO upon the occurrence of a change in control or the executive’s termination by the Company without “cause,” due to the executive’s death or disability or by the executive due to “good reason” is shown below, or, if the NEO’s employment actually terminated, the amount paid to the NEO in connection with such termination.

The following assumptions were used in determining the amounts below in the Potential Payment Upon Termination or Change of Control Table:

All terminations would be effective as of December 31, 2017 (except with respect to Messrs. Welch and Toothman whose employment was terminated on April 28, 2017 and April 30, 2017, respectively).

Severance payments are calculated pursuant to the terms of the Executive Severance Plan or the terms of the applicable severance or separation agreement or, in the case of Mr. Trimble, his term sheet.

Retention and transaction bonus payments are calculated pursuant to the terms of the applicable retention or transaction bonus agreement.

Mr. Trimble’s term sheet requires us to provide him with 30 days’ advance written notice in order to terminate his employment. The amounts reported in the table below do not include any compensation or benefits that would be paid or provided to Mr. Trimble during the 30-day period from the date notice of termination of his employment was provided to the date of such termination.

The closing share price of our common stock as of December 29, 2017 (the last trading day of fiscal year 2017) was $32.16, and this is the price used to determine the market value shown in the table for “Equity Awards – Accelerated Vesting.”

The actual amounts to be paid can only be determined at the time of such executive’s actual separation from employment.

Outplacement services are not to exceed an amount equal to 5% of the annual base salary of the executive.

Vacation pay assumes the executive has not used any vacation days and is being paid for all unused days.

In addition, upon termination in the event of death or disability, our executives, including our NEOs, receive the same benefits as are provided to our employees generally on a nondiscriminatory basis (including 401(k) matching contributions for the year of death or disability, group term life insurance benefits and long-term disability benefits). However, the maximum benefit provided under our long-term disability policy to our NEOs (and other executives) is $15,000 per month (or 66 2⁄3% of salary if less). This monthly maximum is higher than the monthly maximum established for other employees.
Quantification of Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control
The table below reflects the amount of compensation to each of the NEOs in the event of termination of such executive’s employment, or a Change of Control, as applicable. The amount of compensation payable to each NEO upon an “involuntary termination” is shown below, with additional amounts shown for Mr. Toothman upon a Qualifying Termination following an Appalachia Disposition as provided in the Toothman Agreement.
The following assumptions were used in determining the amounts below in the Potential Payment Upon Termination or Change of Control Table:
All terminations (including the Appalachia Disposition, as applicable) would be effective as of December 31, 2016.

Payments are calculated pursuant to the terms of the Executive Severance Plan and the modifications to the employment agreements established pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in December 2016.

Mr. Welch’s employment agreement requires us to provide him with one year’s prior written notice in order to terminate his employment. The amounts reported in the table below does not include any compensation or benefits that would be paid or provided to Mr. Welch during the one-year period from the date notice of termination of his employment was provided to the date of such termination.

The closing share price of our common stock as of December 30, 2016 (the last trading day of fiscal 2016) was $7.15.

The actual amounts to be paid can only be determined at the time of such executive’s actual separation from employment. The accrued bonus, for example (as applicable to Mr. Welch and Mr. Beer), is a pro rata share of the Annual Period award opportunity under the 2016 Incentive Plan up to the date of termination at the then projected year-end rate of payout in an amount, if any, as determined by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion.

Outplacement services are not to exceed an amount equal to 5% of the annual base salary of the executive.

Vacation pay assumes the executive has not used any vacation days and is being paid for all unused days.

9187

Table of Contents


POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE OF CONTROL TABLE
Name(1) Benefit Involuntary Termination Involuntary Termination Occurring Following an Appalachia Disposition Benefit Termination without Cause or Due to Good Reason Termination due to Death or Disability Change in Control
David H. Welch Severance (1) $975,000
 
James M. Trimble Prorated annual bonus payment (3) $526,500
 $
 $526,500
 Equity awards - accelerated vesting (8) 315,522
 315,522
 315,522
 Vacation /Sick pay (9) 75,000
 75,000
 
 Total $917,022
 $390,522
 $842,022
      
Kenneth H. Beer Severance (2) $570,000
 $
 $
 Pro rata incentive compensation (2) 2,149,226
 
 Prorated annual bonus payment (3) 380,000
 
 
 Outplacement (3) 32,500
 
 Transaction bonus (4) 300,000
 300,000
 300,000
 Health and welfare benefits (4) 8,626
 
 Retention award (5) 190,000
 190,000
 190,000
 Stock options and restricted stock - accelerated vesting (5) 148,970
 
 Outplacement (6) 19,000
 
 
 Vacation /Sick pay (6) 75,000
 
 Health and welfare benefits (7) 8,008
 
 
 Total $3,389,322
 
 Equity awards - accelerated vesting (8) 
 14,311
 
     Vacation /Sick pay (9) 43,846
 43,846
 
     Total $1,510,854
 $548,157
 $490,000
Kenneth H. Beer Severance (1) $475,000
 
      
Keith A. Seilhan Severance (2) $600,000
 $
 $
 Prorated annual bonus payment (3) 400,000
 
 
 Pro rata incentive compensation (2) 857,850
 
 Transaction bonus (4) 375,000
 375,000
 375,000
 Outplacement (3) 19,000
 
 Retention award (5) 200,000
 200,000
 200,000
 Health and welfare benefits (4) 8,626
 
 Outplacement (6) 20,000
 
 
 Stock options and restricted stock - accelerated vesting (5) 47,083
 
 Health and welfare benefits (7) 11,060
 
 
 Vacation /Sick pay (6) 43,846
 
 Equity awards - accelerated vesting (8) 
 7,429
 
 Total $1,451,405
 
 Vacation /Sick pay (9) 46,154
 46,154
 
     Total $1,652,214
 $628,583
 $575,000
          
Lisa S. Jaubert Severance (1) $300,000
 
 Severance (2) $562,500
 $
 $
 Outplacement (3) 15,000
 
 Prorated annual bonus payment (3) 375,000
 
 
 Health and welfare benefits (4) 8,626
 
 Transaction bonus (4) 202,500
 202,500
 202,500
 Stock options and restricted stock - accelerated vesting (5) 25,983
 
 Retention award (5) 187,500
 187,500
 187,500
 Vacation/Sick pay (6) 34,615
 
 Outplacement (6) 18,750
 
 
 Total $384,224
 
 Health and welfare benefits (7) 8,008
 
 
     Equity awards - accelerated vesting (8) 
 8,329
 
     Vacation /Sick pay (9) 43,269
 43,269
 
Keith A. Seilhan Severance (1) $320,000
 
 Total $1,397,527
 $441,598
 $390,000
      
Thomas L. Messonnier Severance (2) $295,000
 $
 $
 Outplacement (3) 16,000
 
 Prorated annual bonus payment (3) 295,000
 
 
 Health and welfare benefits (4) 12,942
 
 Transaction bonus (4) 120,000
 120,000
 120,000
 Stock options and restricted stock - accelerated vesting (5) 22,408
 
 Retention award (5) 147,500
 147,500
 147,500
 Vacation/Sick pay (6) 36,923
 
 Outplacement (6) 14,750
 
 
 Total $408,273
   Health and welfare benefits (7) 11,060
 
 
     Equity awards - accelerated vesting (8) 
 2,187
 
     Vacation /Sick pay (9) 34,038
 34,038
 
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. Severance (1) $300,000
 $600,000
 Outplacement (3) 15,000
 15,000
 Total $917,348
 $303,725
 $267,500
 Health and welfare benefits (4) 8,626
 8,626
 Stock options and restricted stock - accelerated vesting (5) 22,365
 22,365
 Vacation/Sick pay (6) 34,615
 34,615
 Total $380,606
 $680,606
    

(1)Severance amounts are calculated by multiplying (a) Mr. Welch’s base salary by 1.5, (b) Mr. Beer’s salary by 1.25 and (c) the other NEOs’ base salaries by 1.0. For 2016, Mr. Welch’s base salary was $650,000, Mr. Beer’s base salary was $380,000, Ms. Jaubert’s base salary was $300,000, Mr. Seilhan’s base salary was $320,000 and Mr. Toothman’s base salary was $300,000.


9288

Table of Contents


For Mr. Toothman’s severance following an Appalachian Disposition, the severance amount was calculated by multiplying Mr. Toothman’s base salary by 2.0.
(1)
Mr. Welch, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, terminated employment with the Company, effective April 28, 2017, and entered into a separation agreement with the Company on May 11, 2017. In addition, Mr. Toothman, our former Senior Vice President – Appalachia, terminated employment with the Company, effective April 30, 2017, and entered into severance agreement with the Company on April 27, 2017. Pursuant to his separation or severance agreement, each of Messrs. Welch and Toothman received the payments and benefits described above under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Separation Agreement with Mr. Welch” and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control – Severance Agreement with Mr. Toothman” and quantified abovein the table in the footnote to the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table as “Severance Payments and Benefits” and “Earned Time Off Payout.” In addition, in connection with their termination of employment, each of Messrs. Welch and Toothman received payments under the KEIP in an amount equal to $365,625 and $71,250, respectively.

(2)TheseThe amounts reflect the total amount actually paid to each NEO for 2016 performancelump sum severance payments payable under the 2016 Incentive Plan prior to such plan’s termination, which we believe is reflective of the projected year-end rate of payout as of December 31, 2016. These amountsExecutive Severance Plan. Severance payments are also reported for 2016 in the "Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation" column of the Summary Compensation Tablecalculated by multiplying (a) Messrs. Beer’s and in the case ofSeilhan’s and Ms. Jaubert’s annual base salary by 1.5 and (b) Mr. Welch, also in the "Stock Awards" column of the Summary Compensation Table.Messonnier’s annual base salary by 1.0. For 2017, Mr. Beer’s annual base salary was $380,000, Mr. Seilhan’s annual base salary was $400,000, Ms. Jaubert’s annual base salary was $375,000 and Mr. Messonnier’s annual base salary was $295,000.

(3)These amounts reflect lump sum prorated annual bonus payments to Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert under the Executive Severance Plan and to Mr. Trimble under his term sheet. For each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan and Messonier and Ms. Jaubert, the prorated annual bonus payment is equal to 100% of the executive’s annual target bonus opportunity for 2017. Each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonier and Ms. Jaubert’s annual target bonus opportunity for 2017 was 100% of the executive’s annual base salary. For Mr. Trimble, the prorated annual bonus payment is equal to 100% of his annual target bonus opportunity for 2017, prorated from April 28, 2017. Mr. Trimble’s annual target bonus opportunity for 2017 was 120% of his annual base salary of $650,000.

(4)The amounts reportedreflect transaction bonuses for each executive’sof Messrs. Beer, Mr. Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert, pursuant to transaction bonus agreements entered into on November 21, 2017, as further described above under “Other Program Components - Transaction Bonuses.

(5)The amounts reflect retention awards for each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert, pursuant to retention award agreements entered into on August 2, 2017, effective on June 1, 2017, as further described above under “Other Program Components - Retention Awards.”

(6)The amounts reflect estimates of the cost of outplacement services for each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert under the Executive Severance Plan and assume that the maximum amount of 5% of salary was paid.

(4)(7)
The amounts reported above representreflect estimates of the cost of continuation of health insurance benefits for each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert and, where applicable, the executive’s eligible dependents for six months under the Executive Severance Plan. This amount is calculated as the portion of employee health insurance premiums covered by us for each NEOexecutive per month at a cost to the executive that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage multiplied by 6 months..

(5)(8)The amounts reported above reflect accelerated vesting of the tranche of unvested stock options and restricted stock that would next vest followinggranted to each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan, Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert and the date of termination. None ofrestricted stock units granted to Mr. Trimble, each as described above in the NEOs held unvested stock options as ofOutstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2016.2017 Table. The restricted stock portion of the amounts above are calculated by multiplying the number of shares of restricted stock (or restricted stock units in the case of Mr. Trimble) that would vest on the next vesting date afteroccurrence of the events described below on December 31, 20162017 by the fair market valueclosing share price of theour common stock onas of December 30, 201629, 2017 (the last trading day of 2016)fiscal year 2017), which was $7.15.$32.16. The number of shares of restricted sharesstock or restricted stock units that would next vest for each NEO following a terminationexecutive on the occurrence of such an event on December 31, 2016 was2017 is as follows:

Mr. WelchTrimble - 20,8369,811 shares,
Mr. Beer - 6,586445 shares,
Mr. Seilhan - 231 shares,
Ms. Jaubert - 3,635 shares,
Mr. Seilhan - 3,136259 shares, and
Mr. Toothman -3,128Messonnier - 68 shares.


89

Table of Contents


The restricted stock granted to each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan and Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert vested in full on January 15, 2018. Each of Messrs. Beer, Seilhan and Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert also holds warrants that vested in full on January 15, 2018; however, the exercise price with respect to these warrants exceeded the fair market value of the stock on December 29, 2017.

The Executive Severance Plan provides that in the event of the executive’s termination without cause or due to good reason, the executive will be entitled to accelerated equity as specified in the long-term incentive award agreement for such a termination. Under the restricted stock agreement applicable to each of the NEOs other than Mr. Trimble, awards are forfeited on termination of employment unless the termination is due to death or disability. In the event of a termination due to death or disability, the restrictions on such awards of restricted stock lapse.

The vesting of the restricted stock units granted to Mr. Trimble accelerates only on a change in control or in connection with his termination from service without cause or due to death.

(6)(9)The amounts reported above forreflect vacation and sick pay for each of Messrs. Trimble, Beer, Seilhan and Messonnier and Ms. Jaubert and were calculated by using the NEO’sexecutive’s base salary divided by 2080 hours, multiplied by 240 hours.

20162017 PAY RATIO

As required by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information about the relationship of the annual total compensation of our employees and the annual total compensation of Mr. Trimble, our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President (referred to in this sub-part only as our “Interim CEO”):

For 2017, our last completed fiscal year:

the median of the annual total compensation of all our employees (other than our Interim CEO) was $148,542; and

the annual total compensation of our Interim CEO was $2,067,466.

Based on this information, for 2017, the ratio of the annual total compensation of Mr. Trimble, our Interim CEO, to the median of the annual total compensation of all employees was 13.9 to 1.

We selected December 31, 2017 (the “determination date”), which is within the last three months of 2017, as the date upon which we would identify the “median employee.”
We identified the median employee by examining the total earnings, as reported on the Form W-2 for 2017, of each individual other than the Interim CEO who was employed by us on the determination date. We included all employees, whether employed on a full-time, part-time, or seasonal basis. We did not make any assumptions, adjustments, or estimates with respect to total W-2 earnings, and we did not annualize the compensation for any full-time employees other than the Interim CEO, as described below, that were not employed by us for all of 2017. We believe the use of total W-2 earnings for all employees is a consistently applied compensation measure because it includes most of the elements of compensation and earnings received by our employees, including our Interim CEO, and because we did not award equity incentive compensation to any of our employees in 2017 in their capacity as employees.

Once we identified our median employee, we combined all of the elements of such employee’s compensation for 2017 in accordance with the requirements of Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K, resulting in annual total compensation of $148,542. These elements included the median employee’s base salary or wages, the annual bonus earned by the median employee with respect to the 2017 fiscal year and a discretionary 401(k) matching contribution approved by the Board.

During 2017, we had two principal executive officers, as described above under “2017 Overview – Transition of Management.” As permitted under Item 402(u), we calculated the pay ratio using the total annual compensation of Mr. Trimble, who was our Interim CEO on the determination date, as reported in the “Total” column of our Summary Compensation Table included in this Form 10-K, and annualized components of that amount that were reasonably annualized (specifically, his annual base salary, his non-equity incentive compensation plan entitlement and the housing and country club membership benefits he received from the Company during 2017 in his capacity as Interim CEO). Consequently, the amount reported in the “Total” column of our Summary Compensation Table with respect to Mr. Trimble is different from the amount reported as his annual

90

Table of Contents


total compensation above because the amount listed above includes the annualized equivalent of the amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table with respect to his annual base salary, his non-equity incentive plan entitlement and his housing and country club membership benefits.

2017 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Elements of Director Compensation
EachDirector Compensation Arrangements
Prior to our emergence from bankruptcy, between January 1, 2017 and February 28, 2017, the directors on our Board who were not officers or employees of our directors who is not an officer or employee of ourthe Company or any of its subsidiaries (a "nonemployee director"(“non-employee directors”) were as follows: Richard A. Pattarozzi, Kay G. Priestly, Donald E. Powell, Robert S. Murley, B.J. Duplantis, George R. Christmas, Peter D. Kinnear, Phyllis M. Taylor and David T. Lawrence (collectively, the “prior board”).
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, on February 28, 2017, pursuant to the Plan, the previous members of the Board ceased to serve on the Board and the following individuals were appointed to serve as non-employee directors on the Board: Neal P. Goldman, John B. Juneau, David I. Rainey, Charles M. Sledge, James M. Trimble (who subsequently was appointed as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President) and David N. Weinstein (collectively, the “current board”). The following summarizes the material terms of the compensation payable to the prior board and to the current board.
Prior Board Compensation Arrangements
Each of the non-employee directors who served on the prior board was paid, an annual retainer of $195,000 forin 2017, (a) $43,875 with respect to their service in the fourth quarter of 2016, in lieurepresenting the fourth quarterly payment of fees based on the number of meetings attended. The2016 annual retainer, was paidand (b) $29,250 with respect to their service in four equal2017, representing the first quarterly paymentspayment of $48,750 each, with $43,875 payable in cash and $4,875, or 10%, to be paid in stock under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.2017 annual retainer, prorated for January 1, 2017, through February 28, 2017. Additionally, the individuals serving in the following roles received an additional annual cash retainer, alsoretainers, paid on a quarterly basis:in 2017, for their service in the fourth quarter of 2016, in the following amounts: (i) the Lead Director, received $25,000,$6,250, (ii) the Audit Committee Chairman, received $15,000,$3,750, (iii) the Compensation Committee Chairman, received $10,000,$2,500, (iv) the Nominating & Governance Committee Chairman, received $9,000,$2,250, and (v) the Reserves Committee Chairman, $2,250. And, further, additionally, the individuals serving in the following roles received $9,000.additional cash retainers for their service in the first quarter of 2017, prorated for January 1, 2017, through February 28, 2017, in the following amounts: (i) the Lead Director, $4,167, (ii) the Audit Committee Chairman, $2,500, (iii) the Compensation Committee Chairman, $1,667, (iv) the Nominating & Governance Committee Chairman, $1,500, and (v) the Reserves Committee Chairman, $1,500. The Board hasprior board also reserved the right, in its sole discretion, to provide additional compensation at a rate of not more than $1,500 per additional meeting to nonemployeenon-employee directors who attend more than five meetings of the Boardprior board or more than five meetings of each committee on which he or she servesserved during a calendar year. The Boardprior board did not exercise this right in fiscal 2016.year 2017.
ForCurrent Board Compensation Arrangements
In connection with the 10% stock portionappointment of the 2016 annual retainer, each director was awardednon-employee directors to the current board, on March 1, 2017, the Board approved the following shares of stock pursuant to the Stock Incentive Plan as follows: (i) 213 sharescompensation arrangements for the first quarter, (ii) 692 shares for the second quarter, (iii) 384 shares for the third quarter, and (iv) 697 shares for the fourth quarter, which shares are fully vested at the time of grant. The number of shares of stock granted was calculated by dividing $4,875 by the average closing share price of the Company's common stock for each quarter, subject to applicable withholding, and rounding up to the next whole share.
In April 2016, the independentnon-employee directors of the Board appointed Mr. Lawrence as a Special LiaisonCompany:

annual cash retainers of $50,000 for each of the independentnon-employee directors of the Company, payable in advance on a quarterly basis;

an annual cash fee of $15,000 for the Chairman of the Audit Committee, payable in advance on quarterly basis;

a monthly retainer of $12,500 for each member of the Transaction Committee other than the Chairman of the Transaction Committee or a monthly retainer of $17,500 for the Chairman of the Transaction Committee; and

annual grants of restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP with grant date values of $150,000 for each non-employee director other than the Chairman of the Board and $200,000 for the Chairman of the Board, to workbe made on the date of the annual meeting of the stockholders each year; provided however, that the initial 2017 award service period commenced March 1, 2017, to run until the date prior to the first annual meeting in May 2017, with managementthe initial award of restricted stock units having been increased pro rata to reflect this extended service period. Such restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in assessing strategic and restructuring alternatives. Mr. Lawrence received additional fees during 2016 for his role as Special Liaison, which are reflectedfull on the date prior to the annual meeting of stockholders in the "Directoryear following the grant and will be subject to: (1) the director’s continued service on the Board through the vesting date, (2) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to death or removal from the

91

Table of Contents


Board without cause, and (3) such other terms as set forth in the award agreements. Upon vesting, the restricted stock units will be settled partly in shares of the Company’s common stock and partly in cash to provide funds to pay any income taxes due upon settlement (based on the highest federal tax rate).

Annual Grant of Restricted Stock Units

On March 1, 2017, the Board approved the initial annual grant of restricted stock units to the non-employee directors, which were adjusted to grant date values of $182,100 for the non-employee directors other than the Chairman of the Board and $242,800 for the Chairman of the Board to reflect the extended service period commencing on March 1, 2017 until the annual meeting of stockholders in May 2018. Accordingly, on March 1, 2017, Messrs. Juneau, Rainey, Sledge, Trimble and Weinstein were awarded 9,811 restricted stock units and Mr. Goldman was awarded 13,082 restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP pursuant to an award agreement. Under the award agreement, each of the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders in May 2018, subject to: (1) the director’s continued service on the Board through the vesting date, and (2) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to death or removal from the Board without cause.
Deferred Compensation Table" below.Plan
On March 1, 2017, the Board also approved our Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (“DCP”) under which the non-employee directors of the Company are given the opportunity to elect to defer receipt (and taxation) of vested restricted stock units until either (1) the third anniversary of the vesting date, or (2) the non-employee director’s separation from service on the Board. If deferral is elected, the payment of the deferred amounts is automatically accelerated upon a non-employee director’s death or separation from service on the Board, or upon the occurrence of a change of control event.

Stock Ownership and Retention Guidelines and Certain Prohibitions Related to Our Securities

The Board has adopted Director Stock Ownership Guidelines that apply to our nonemployeethe non-employee directors whoon the current board. Under these guidelines, a non-employee director must own “qualifying shares” with a market value equal to $200,000. The non-employee directors are required to meet the followingthis ownership level by the later of May 23, 2017 or within fivetwo years of being elected to their position. All nonemployeenon-employee directors on the current board are in compliance with the Director Stock Ownership Guidelines. Mr. Welch is subject to the Stock Ownership Guidelines applicable to our executive officers, which are described in greater detail in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above.

93

Table of Contents


IndividualMultiple of Annual Retainer(1)
Nonemployee Director5x annual retainer

(1)In effect on January 1 of the applicable year.

Among other terms, theThe guidelines provide that “qualifying shares” include (1) stock granted underpurchased on the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan will be includedopen market, (2) vested and unvested restricted stock units, (3) restricted stock units deferred pursuant to the DCP, and (4) stock beneficially owned in determining the stock ownership of an individual, and (2) untila trust, by a spouse and/or a minor child. Until the applicable guideline is attained, in general, an individual is required to retain, and not sell or otherwise dispose of, at least 75%any shares of his or her net shares (after taxes) acquired through long-term incentive awards.our common stock. The value of our stock used in determining the number of shares needed to complycompliance with the guidelines in a given year will beis the volume-weighted average price of our stock during Augustover the 30 trading days prior to the date of that same calendar year.determination. The Board may amend or terminate the Director Stock Ownership Guidelines in its sole discretion.

The Board has adopted a policy prohibiting any nonemployeenon-employee director of the Company from hedging company stock.


92

Table of Contents


Director Compensation Table
The following table discloses the cash, equity awards and other compensation earned, paid or awarded, to each of our non-employee directors during 2016.2017.
DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017
Name(1) Fees Earned or Paid in Cash($) Stock Awards($)(2) All Other Compensation ($)(3) Total($) Fees Earned or Paid in Cash($) Stock Awards($)(2) All Other Compensation ($)(3) Total($)
Current Board:        
Neal P. Goldman 199,167
 352,560
 
 551,727
John “Brad” Juneau 154,167
 264,406
 
 418,573
David I. Rainey 154,167
 264,406
 
 418,573
Charles M. Sledge 166,667
 264,406
 
 431,073
David N. Weinstein 41,667
 264,406
 
 306,073
Prior Board:        
George R. Christmas $139,129
 $12,229
 $1,000
 $152,358
 77,305
 7,706
 
 85,011
B. J. Duplantis 138,379
 12,229
 
 150,608
 76,888
 7,706
 
 84,594
Peter D. Kinnear 131,629
 12,229
 
 143,858
 73,138
 7,706
 
 80,844
David T. Lawrence 131,629
 12,229
 697,500(4)
 841,358
 73,138
 7,706
 
 80,844
Robert S. Murley 131,629
 12,229
 
 143,858
 73,138
 7,706
 
 80,844
Richard A. Pattarozzi 150,379
 12,229
 10,000
 172,608
 83,555
 7,706
 
 91,261
Donald E. Powell 131,629
 12,229
 
 143,858
 73,138
 7,706
 10,000
 90,844
Kay G. Priestly 142,879
 12,229
 
 155,108
 79,388
 7,706
 
 87,094
Phyllis M. Taylor 138,379
 12,229
 
 150,608
 76,888
 7,706
 
 84,594

(1)David H. Welch isDuring the term of his service as Interim Chief Executive Officer and President from April 28, 2017 through December 31, 2017, Mr. Trimble did not includedreceive any additional compensation in this table as he is an officer and thus receives no compensation forconnection with his service as a director. Mr. Trimble received director fees and an award of restricted stock units in his capacity as a non-employee director for the period during which he was not also serving as our Interim Chief Executive Officer and President in 2017. The compensation received byannual cash retainer paid and restricted stock unit award granted to Mr. Welch is shownTrimble in his capacity as a non-employee director are reflected in the Summary Compensation Table. From January 1, 2017 through May 11, 2017, the date on which he resigned from our Board, Mr. Welch, our former Chief Executive Officer and President, did not receive any additional compensation in connection with his service as a director.

(2)The values shown in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of stock awards granted in fiscal 2016,2017, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, determined without regard to possible forfeitures. The value ultimately received by the director may or may not be equal to the values reflected above. See Note 1316 to our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 20162017 for a complete description of the valuation, including the assumptions used. Each director received awards during fiscal 2016 as follows: (i) 213 shares at $10.60 per share, (ii) 692 shares at $12.14 per share, and (iii) 384 shares at $4.10 per share. In addition, for services related to the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, each director received 697 shares at $6.80 per share, which are not included in the table above because such shares were granted in January 2017. None of our nonemployee directors held any unvested restricted stock at December 31, 2016.

Each member of the current board received an award of restricted stock units on March 1, 2017 as follows: (i) 13,082 shares at $26.95 per share for Mr. Goldman, Chairman of the Board and (ii) 9,811 shares at $26.95 per share for all other current board members. These restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to our annual meeting in May 2018, subject to (a) the director’s continued service on the Board through the vesting date, and (b) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to death or removal from the Board without cause. On January 31, 2017, each member of the prior board received 697 shares of fully vested common stock at $6.80 per share for services related to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, and, on February 17, 2017, each member of the prior board received 459 shares of fully vested common stock at $6.47 per share for services related to the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 through the emergence date.

(3)The valuesvalue shown in this column (other than with respect tofor Mr. Lawrence)Powell consisted solely of a matching charitable contributionscontribution of up $10,000 in the aggregate per calendar year per director to qualified charitable organizations. In fiscal 2016, the total matching contributions by our Company for all directors was $11,000, and contributions were made2017 to the following organizations: Aquia Episcopal Church, The Good Shephard School, St. Bede Academy, National WWII Museum, University of Illinois Foundation and Army War College Foundation.
(4)In April 2016, Mr. Lawrence was named Special Liaison of the independent directors to work together with the management of the Company to help with assessing strategic alternatives and restructuring alternatives for the Company. This represents the amount of compensation that Mr. Lawrence received with respect to such services provided.qualified charitable organization: West Texas A&M University.


9493

Table of Contents


ITEM 12.  SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Security Ownership of Directors, Management and Certain Beneficial Holders  
The following table sets forth certain information regarding beneficial ownership of common stock as of February 21, 2017March 7, 2018 (unless otherwise indicated) of (1) each person known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, (2) our Named Executive Officers (as defined herein), (3) each of our directors and director nominees, and (4) all of our executive officers and directors as a group. Unless otherwise indicated, each of the persons below has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned by such person.
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner(1) 
Amount and Nature of
Beneficial
Ownership(2) 
 Percent of Class(3)
Thomas A. Satterfield, Jr.(4) 459,370
 8.1%
Raymond T. Hyer(5) 401,905
 7.1%
David H. Welch 87,750
 1.5%
Kenneth H. Beer 24,660
 *
Lisa S. Jaubert 5,603
 *
Keith A. Seilhan 6,332
 *
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 6,318
 *
George R. Christmas 6,468
 *
B. J. Duplantis 6,556
 *
Peter D. Kinnear 8,958
 *
David T. Lawrence 2,592
 *
Robert S. Murley 1,156
 *
Richard A. Pattarozzi 5,970
 *
Donald E. Powell 7,279
 *
Kay G. Priestly 5,317
 *
Phyllis M. Taylor 7,700
 *
Executive officers and directors as a group (consisting of 18 persons) 205,106
 3.6%
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner(1) 
Amount and Nature of
Beneficial
Ownership(2) 
 Percent of Class(3)
Franklin Resources, Inc.(4)(6) 7,209,575
 36.1%
MacKay Shields LLC(5)(6) 3,920,351
 19.6%
BlackRock, Inc.(7) 1,169,823
 5.8%
James M. Trimble 
 *
David H. Welch 63,414
 *
Kenneth H. Beer 17,123
 *
Keith A. Seilhan 4,967
 *
Lisa S. Jaubert 4,375
 *
Thomas L. Messonnier 2,896
 *
Richard L. Toothman, Jr. 4,968
 *
Neal P. Goldman 
 *
John “Brad” Juneau 
 *
David I. Rainey 
 *
Charles M. Sledge 
 *
David N. Weinstein 
 *
Executive officers and directors as a group (consisting of 11 persons) 34,195
 *
 
*Less than 1%.

(1)Unless otherwise noted, the address for each beneficial owner is c/o Stone Energy Corporation, 625 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508.
(2)Under the regulations of the SEC, shares are deemed to be "beneficially owned"“beneficially owned” by a person if he or she directly or indirectly has or shares the power to vote or dispose of, or to direct the voting or disposition of, such shares, whether or not he or she has any pecuniary interest in such shares, or if he or she has the right to acquire the power to vote or dispose of such shares within 60 days, including any right to acquire such power through the exercise of any option, warrant or right. The shares beneficially owned by (a) Mr. Welch include 7,447 shares, (b) Mr. Beer include 3,000 shares, and (c) the executive officers and directors as a group include 10,447 shares, that may be acquired by such persons within 60 days through the exercise of stock options.
The shares beneficially owned by (a) Mr. Beer include 13,472 shares, (b) Mr. Seilhan include 3,938 shares, (c) Ms. Jaubert include 3,485 shares, (d) Mr. Messonnier include 2,277 shares and (c) the executive officers and directors as a group include 29,965 shares, that may be acquired by such persons within 60 days through the exercise of warrants.
The shares beneficially owned by Messrs. Welch and Toothman include 49,948 shares and 3,929 shares, respectively, that may be acquired by such persons within 60 days through the exercise of warrants. Shares beneficially owned by Mr. Welch and Mr. Toothman are not included in the shares reflected in the table above for the executive officers and directors as a group, as neither was employed by the Company on March 7, 2018.
The table does not include outstanding restricted stock units held by our directors, for which a maximum of 62,137 shares of Stone common stock will be issued upon vesting.
(3)
Based on total shares issued and outstanding of 5,679,76519,998,701 as of February 21, 2017. Based on theMarch 7, 2018.  


94

Table of Contents


(4)Franklin Resources, Inc.’s (“FRI”) address is One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403. The number of shares held is based on information included in a Schedule 13G/A filed on January 29, 2018 by Franklin Resources, Inc., Charles B. Johnson, Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. and Franklin Advisers, Inc. According to the Schedule 13G/A, the shares reported are beneficially owned by one or more open- or closed-end investment companies or other managed accounts that are investment management clients of investment managers that are direct and acquirable within 60 daysindirect subsidiaries of February 21, 2017.  FRI. FRI has sole voting and sole dispositive power as to 7,209,575 shares.
(4)(5)Thomas A. Satterfield, Jr.'sMacKay Shields LLC’s address is 2609 Caldwell Mill Lane, Birmingham, Alabama 35243.1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105. The number of shares held is based on information included in a Schedule 13G/A filed on January 11, 2018. According to the Schedule 13G/A, in its role as an investment adviser, MacKay Shields has sole voting power and sole dispositive power as to 3,920,351 shares. The MainStay High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, a registered investment company for which MacKay Shields acts as sub-investment adviser, may be deemed to beneficially own 10.37% of the outstanding common stock of the Company.
(6)In connection with the Transaction Agreement, each of Franklin and MacKay Shields entered into a voting agreement (the “Voting Agreements”) with Talos and Stone with respect to the Transaction Agreement. Talos does not own any shares of Stone common stock, but because of Franklin and MacKay’s obligations under the Voting Agreements, Talos may be deemed to have shared voting power to vote up to an aggregate of 10,563,263 shares of Stone common stock in favor of the adoption of the Transaction Agreement and the approval of the Transactions and the other transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement. Thus, for purposes of Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act, Talos may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of an aggregate of 10,563,263 shares of Stone common stock. The number of shares is based on information included in a Schedule 13D filed on December 1, 2017.
(7)BlackRock, Inc.’s address is 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055. The number of shares held is based on information included in a Schedule 13G filed on January 24, 2017. Thomas A. Satterfield, Jr.31, 2018. According to the Schedule 13G, BlackRock, Inc. is an institutional investment management firm, and it has sole voting power as to 23,9001,126,049 shares shared voting power as to 435,470 shares,and sole dispositive power as to 23,900 shares and shared dispositive power as to 435,4701,169,823 shares.

Equity Compensation Plan Information
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all shares of Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted stock held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for a proportionate share of the 5% of New Common Stock. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards. At December 31, 2017, there were 1,093 shares of unvested restricted stock. These restricted shares were originally granted under the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan, which was the predecessor to the 2017 LTIP. The 1,093 restricted shares became fully vested on January 15, 2018. All outstanding stock options under the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan were cancelled upon emergence from bankruptcy.
As required by applicable SEC rules, the following table provides information regarding our 2017 LTIP, which is the only equity plan under which we were able to grant equity awards as of December 31, 2017.
Plan category Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights(a) Weighted- average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights(b) Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column(a))(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders 
 $
 
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders (1) 62,137
 
 2,552,242
Total 62,137
 $
 2,552,242

(5)(1)Raymond T. Hyer's address is 4161 East 7th Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33675. The number of shares held is based2017 LTIP was adopted in connection with our reorganization and emergence from bankruptcy on information included in a Schedule 13D filed on December 19, 2016. Raymond T. Hyer has sole voting power as to 250,051 shares, shared voting power as to 151,854 shares, sole dispositive power as to 250,051 sharesFebruary 28, 2017 and shared dispositive power as to 151,854 shares.was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.


95

Table of Contents



Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table provides information regarding the shares of our common stock that may be issued under our existing equity compensation plans, with the Stock Incentive Plan being the only active equity plan under which the Company may grant equity compensation awards as of December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, there were 81,090 shares of restricted stock outstanding under to the Stock Incentive Plan.
Equity Compensation Plan Information as of December 31, 2016
Plan category Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights(a) Weighted- average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights(b) Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column(a))(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders 12,947(1)
 $245.13
 237,062
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders (2) 
 
 
Total 12,947
 $245.13
 237,062

(1)Weighted average term of outstanding options is 1.4 years.
(2)No equity compensation plans have been adopted without approval by security holders.

ITEM 13.  CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Policies and Procedures

The Nominating & Governance Committee Charter provides that the Nominating & Governance Committee periodically reviews all transactions with related persons that would require disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K (each, a "Related“Related Person Transaction"Transaction”) and makes a recommendation to the Board regarding the initial authorization or ratification of any such transaction. In accordance with such policies and procedures, each executive officer and director must complete a directors and officers questionnaire each year that solicits information concerning transactions with related persons. Additionally, at least quarterly, the Nominating & Governance Committee asks each director whether any issues have arisen concerning independence, transactions with related persons or conflicts of interest. To the extent that a transaction or a possible transaction with a related person exists, the Nominating & Governance Committee determines whether the transaction should be approved or ratified and makes its recommendation to the Board. In determining whether or not to recommend the initial approval or ratification of a Related Person Transaction, the Nominating & Governance Committee considers all of the relevant facts and circumstances available to the committee, including (if applicable) but not limited to:
whether there is an appropriate business justification for the transaction;
the benefits that accrue to Stone as a result of the transaction;
the terms available to unrelated third parties entering into similar transactions;
the impact of the transaction on a director’s independence (in the event the related person is a director, an immediate family member of a director or an entity in which a director is a partner, stockholder or executive officer);
the availability of other sources for comparable products or services;
whether it is a single transaction or a series of ongoing, related transactions; and
whether entering into the transaction would be consistent with our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.
In the event that the Board considers ratification of a Related Person Transaction and determines not to so ratify, management makes all reasonable efforts to cancel or annul such transaction.

Related Party Transactions

There were no related party transactions for the year ended December 31, 2016.

96

Table of Contents


2017.

Director Independence Determinations

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a majority of our Board will consist of independent directors. Only directors who have been determined to be independent serve on our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating & Governance Committee, Reserves Committee and ReservesSafety Committee.

Rather than adopting categorical standards, the Board assesses director independence on a case-by-case basis, in each case consistent with applicable legal requirements and the independence standards adopted by the NYSE. None of the non-management directors were disqualified from "independent"“independent” status under the objective NYSE listing standards. Based on information provided by the directors and after reviewing all relationships each director has with Stone, including charitable contributions we make to organizations where our directors serve as board members, the Board has affirmatively determined that none of its non-management directors have a material relationship with Stone and therefore each is independent as defined by the current listing standards of the NYSE. In making its independence determinations, the Board took into account the relationships and recommendations of the Nominating & Governance Committee as described below.above. Mr. Welch,Trimble, our Chairman,Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, and CEO, is not considered by the Board to be an independent director because of his employment with us.

The Nominating & Governance Committee has considered Donald E. Powell’s ownership of approximately $400,000 in aggregate principal amount of our debt securities that were acquired in the secondary market, and made a determination that such ownership did not preclude the independence of Mr. Powell because Mr. Powell does not receive any benefit with respect to such debt securities that is not shared on a pro rata basis with all other holders of our debt securities.

ITEM 14.  PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
Preapproval Policies and Procedures
The Audit Committee has the sole authority to appoint or replace the independent registered public accounting firm (subject, if applicable, to stockholder ratification), and approves all audit and non-audit engagement fees and terms and all significant non-audit engagements with the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has established policies and procedures regarding pre-approval of all services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. At the beginning of the fiscal year, the Audit Committee pre-approves the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm to provide audit services based on fee estimates. The Audit Committee also pre-approves proposed audit-related services, tax services and other permissible services, based on specified project and service details, fee estimates, and aggregate fee limits for each service category. The Audit Committee pre-approvedpre-

96

Table of Contents


approved all services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm in fiscal 2016.2017. The Audit Committee receives a report at each meeting on the status of services provided or to be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm and the related fees.
Fees paid to Independent Accounting Firm
Ernst & Young LLP has served as our independent registered public accounting firm and audited our consolidated financial statements beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002. We are advised that no member of Ernst & Young LLP has any direct or material indirect financial interest in Stone or, during the past three years, has had any connection with us in the capacity of promoter, underwriter, voting trustee, director, officer or employee. Set forth below are the aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm, for each of the last two fiscal years:
2015 20162016 2017
Audit Fees(1)$645,375
 $640,000
$640,000
 $947,500
Audit-Related Fees
 

 
Tax Fees(2)77,180
 180,204
419,834
 228,314
All Other Fees
 

 
Total$722,555
 $820,204
$1,059,834
 $1,175,814
 
(1)Audit Fees represent the aggregate fees billed for professional services provided in connection with the audit of our financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, review of our quarterly financial statements and audit services provided in connection with other statutory or regulatory filings.
(2)Tax Fees represent the aggregate fees billed for professional services provided in connection with tax return preparation and review and tax consulting.


97

Table of Contents


PART IV

ITEM 15.  EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a)  1.    Financial Statements:
The following consolidated financial statements, notes to the consolidated financial statements and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm thereon are included beginning on page F-1 of this Form 10-K:
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 20162017 and 20152016
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three years endedPeriod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, the Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the Years Ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three years endedPeriod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, the Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the Years Ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the three years endedPeriod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, the Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the Years Ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity for the three years endedPeriod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, the Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the Years Ended December 31, 2016 2015 and 20142015
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

2.    Financial Statement Schedules:
All schedules are omitted because the required information is inapplicable or the information is presented in the consolidated financial statements or the notes thereto.
3.    Exhibits:
2.1 
3.1Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No.001-12074)).
3.2Amended & Restated Bylaws of Stone Energy Corporation, dated December 19, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.1Second Supplemental Indenture, dated January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010on February 15, 2017 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.2**2.2 Senior Indenture,
4.3First Supplemental Indenture, dated January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.4**2.3 
Indenture related to the 1 34% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017, dated as of March 6, 2012, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (including form of 1 34% Senior Convertible Senior Note due 2017) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 6, 2012 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.5Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 8, 2012, to the Indenture, dated as of January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 8, 2012 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.6Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 26, 2013, to the Indenture, dated as of January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 27, 2013 (File No. 001-12074)).

98

Table of Contents


4.7First Supplemental Indenture and Guarantee, dated as of May 7, 2015, among SEO A LLC, SEO B LLC, Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.8Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 7, 2015, among SEO A LLC, SEO B LLC, Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.1Deferred Compensation and Disability Agreement between TSPC and E. J. Louviere dated July 16, 1981 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.2Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.3First Amendment to the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 20, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.4Second Amendment to the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.5Stone Energy Corporation Revised (2005) Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.6Stone Energy Corporation Amended and Restated Revised Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, dated November 14, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.7Stone Energy Corporation 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (approved March 10, 2016) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.8Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.9Adoption Agreement between Fidelity Management Trust Company and Stone Energy Corporation for the Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan dated December 1, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.10Letter Agreement dated May 19, 2005 between Stone Energy Corporation and Kenneth H. Beer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 24, 2005 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.11Letter Agreement dated December 2, 2008 between Stone Energy Corporation and David H. Welch (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.12Amendment to Employment Agreement dated December 13, 2016 between Stone Energy Corporation and David H. Welch (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.13Letter Agreement dated August 10, 2016 between Stone Energy Corporation and Richard L. Toothman, Jr. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.14Stone Energy Corporation Executive Change of Control and Severance Plan (as amended and restated effective December 31, 2008) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 8, 2009 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.15Executive Claims Settlement Agreement, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.16Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).

99

Table of Contents


†10.17Stone Energy Corporation Key Executive Incentive Plan, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.18Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan (as amended and restated) dated December 7, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 12, 2007 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.19Form of Indemnification Agreement between Stone Energy Corporation and each of its directors and executive officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 27, 2009 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.20Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent and Issuing Bank, and the financial institutions named therein, dated June 24, 2014 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 25, 2014 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.21Amendment No. 1 to Credit Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2015, among Stone Energy Corporation as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent and Issuing Bank, and the financial institutions party to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.22Amendment No. 3 to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, and the financial institutions party thereto, dated June 14, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.23Amendment No. 4 to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, and the financial institutions party thereto, dated December 9, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 9, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.24Amended and Restated Security Agreement, dated as of August 28, 2008, among Stone Energy Corporation and the other Debtors parties hereto in favor of Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.25Amended and Restated Restructuring Support Agreement, dated December 14, 2016, by and among the Stone Parties and the Consenting Noteholders (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.26Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and TH Exploration III, LLC as buyer, dated October 20, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 21, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.27First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and TH Exploration III, LLC as buyer, dated December 9, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 9, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.28Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and EQT Production Company as buyer, and EQT Corporation as buyer parent, dated February 9, 2017 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 toof the Registrant'sRegistrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 10, 2017 (File No. 001-12074)).
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
10.1
10.2

98

Table of Contents


10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
†10.10
†10.11
†10.12
†10.13
†10.14
*†10.15
*†10.16
†10.17
†10.18
*†10.19
†10.20

99

Table of Contents


†10.21
†10.22
†10.23
*†10.24
*†10.25
10.26
*21.1 
*23.1 
*23.2 
*31.1 
*31.2 
*#32.1 
*99.1 
*99.2
*101.INS XBRL Instance Document
*101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
*101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
*101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

100

Table of Contents


*101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
*101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
_________________
*Filed or furnished herewith.herewith
#Not considered to be “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.section
Identifies management contracts and compensatory plans or arrangements.arrangements
**Certain schedules, annexes and exhibits have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. The Company agrees to furnish supplementally a copy of such schedules, annexes and exhibits, or any section thereof, to the SEC upon request.

100

Table of Contents


ITEM 16.  FORM 10-K SUMMARY

None.


101

Table of Contents


SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
  STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
    
Date:February 23, 2017March 9, 2018 
By: /s/  David H. WelchJames M. Trimble            
 
   David H. WelchJames M. Trimble 
   President,
Interim Chief Executive Officer 
   and Chairman of the BoardPresident 
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
Signature Title Date
/s/ David H. WelchJames M. Trimble 
President,Interim Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman of the BoardDirector
(principal executive officer)
 February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
David H. WelchJames M. Trimble

  
     
/s/ Kenneth H. Beer 
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
 February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
Kenneth H. Beer  
     
/s/ Karl D. Meche 
Director of Accounting and Treasurer
(principal accounting officer)
 February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
Karl D. Meche  
     
/s/ George R. ChristmasNeal P. Goldman DirectorChairman February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
George R. ChristmasNeal P. Goldman  
     
/s/ B.J. DuplantisJohn “Brad” Juneau Director February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
B.J. Duplantis
/s/ Peter D. KinnearDirectorFebruary 23, 2017
Peter D. KinnearJohn “Brad” Juneau  
     
/s/ David T. LawrenceI. Rainey Director February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
David T. LawrenceI. Rainey  
     
/s/ Robert S. MurleyCharles M. Sledge Director February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
Robert S. MurleyCharles M. Sledge  
     
/s/ Richard A. PattarozziDavid N. Weinstein Director February 23, 2017March 9, 2018
Richard A. Pattarozzi
/s/ Donald E. PowellDirectorFebruary 23, 2017
Donald E. Powell
/s/ Kay G. PriestlyDirectorFebruary 23, 2017
Kay G. Priestly
/s/ Phyllis M. TaylorDirectorFebruary 23, 2017
Phyllis M. TaylorDavid N. Weinstein  

102

Table of Contents


INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
  
  
  
  
F-6
  
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders' Equity for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014F-7

F-1

Table of Contents


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Stone Energy Corporation
Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Stone Energy Corporation (the Company) as of December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2016 and 2015, and(Predecessor), the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows, and changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), and the years ended December 31, 2016. These2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements arepresent fairly, in all material respects, the responsibilityfinancial position of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.Company at December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2016 (Predecessor), and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the period March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We conducted our auditsalso have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). (PCAOB), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated March 9, 2018 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

Company Reorganization

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, on February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the plan of reorganization, which became effective on February 28, 2017. Accordingly, the accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with Accounting Standards Codification 852-10, Reorganizations, for the Successor as a new entity with assets, liabilities and a capital structure having carrying amounts not comparable with prior periods as described in Note 1.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includesmisstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An auditOur audits also includes assessingincluded evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement presentation.statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Stone Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the Company filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the "Plan"). The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan on February 15, 2017 and the Company expects the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, at which point it would emerge from bankruptcy. However, there can be no assurance that the effectiveness of the Plan will occur on such date, or at all. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters also are described in Note 3. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Stone Energy Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated February 23, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2002.

New Orleans, Louisiana
February 23, 2017March 9, 2018

F-2

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(In thousands of dollars)
Successor  Predecessor
December 31,December 31,  December 31,
Assets2016 20152017  2016
Current assets:       
Cash and cash equivalents$190,581
 $10,759
$263,495
  $190,581
Restricted cash18,742
  
Accounts receivable48,464
 48,031
39,258
  48,464
Fair value of derivative contracts
 38,576
879
  
Current income tax receivable26,086
 46,174
36,260
  26,086
Other current assets10,151
 6,881
7,138
  10,151
Total current assets275,282
 150,421
365,772
  275,282
Oil and gas properties, full cost method of accounting:       
Proved9,616,236
 9,375,898
713,157
  9,616,236
Less: accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization(9,178,442) (8,603,955)(353,462)  (9,178,442)
Net proved oil and gas properties437,794
 771,943
359,695
  437,794
Unevaluated373,720
 440,043
102,187
  373,720
Other property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $27,418 and $27,424, respectively26,213
 29,289
Other assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization of $5,360 and $4,376, respectively26,474
 18,473
Other property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $2,561 and $27,418, respectively17,275
  26,213
Other assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization of $5,360 at December 31, 201613,844
  26,474
Total assets$1,139,483
 $1,410,169
$858,773
  $1,139,483
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity       
Current liabilities:       
Accounts payable to vendors$19,981
 $82,207
$54,226
  $19,981
Undistributed oil and gas proceeds15,073
 5,992
5,142
  15,073
Accrued interest809
 9,022
1,685
  809
Fair value of derivative contracts8,969
  
Asset retirement obligations88,000
 21,291
79,300
  88,000
Current portion of long-term debt408
 
425
  408
Other current liabilities18,602
 40,712
22,579
  18,602
Total current liabilities142,873
 159,224
172,326
  142,873
Long-term debt352,376
 1,060,955
235,502
  352,376
Asset retirement obligations154,019
 204,575
133,801
  154,019
Fair value of derivative contracts3,085
  
Other long-term liabilities17,315
 25,204
5,891
  17,315
Total liabilities not subject to compromise666,583
 1,449,958
550,605
  666,583
Liabilities subject to compromise1,110,182
 

  1,110,182
Total liabilities1,776,765
 1,449,958
550,605
  1,776,765
Commitments and contingencies
 

  
Stockholders’ equity:       
Common stock, $.01 par value; authorized 30,000,000 shares;
issued 5,610,020 and 5,530,232 shares, respectively
56
 55
Treasury stock (1,658 shares, at cost)(860) (860)
Additional paid-in capital1,659,731
 1,648,687
Predecessor common stock ($.01 par value; authorized 30,000,000 shares; issued 5,610,020 shares)
  56
Predecessor treasury stock (1,658 shares, at cost)
  (860)
Predecessor additional paid-in capital
  1,659,731
Successor common stock ($.01 par value; authorized 60,000,000 shares; issued 19,998,019 shares)200
  
Successor additional paid-in capital555,607
  
Accumulated deficit(2,296,209) (1,705,623)(247,639)  (2,296,209)
Accumulated other comprehensive income
 17,952
Total stockholders’ equity(637,282) (39,789)308,168
  (637,282)
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$1,139,483
 $1,410,169
$858,773
  $1,139,483
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this balance sheet.

F-3

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014  2016 2015
Operating revenue:             
Oil production$281,246
 $416,497
 $516,104
$211,792
  $45,837
 $281,246
 $416,497
Natural gas production64,601
 83,509
 166,494
18,874
  13,476
 64,601
 83,509
Natural gas liquids production28,888
 32,322
 85,642
9,610
  8,706
 28,888
 32,322
Other operational income2,657
 4,369
 7,951
10,008
  903
 2,657
 4,369
Derivative income, net
 7,952
 19,351

  
 
 7,952
Total operating revenue377,392
 544,649
 795,542
250,284
  68,922
 377,392
 544,649
Operating expenses:             
Lease operating expenses79,650
 100,139
 176,495
49,800
  8,820
 79,650
 100,139
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses27,760
 58,847
 64,951
4,084
  6,933
 27,760
 58,847
Production taxes3,148
 6,877
 12,151
629
  682
 3,148
 6,877
Depreciation, depletion and amortization220,079
 281,688
 340,006
99,890
  37,429
 220,079
 281,688
Write-down of oil and gas properties357,431
 1,362,447
 351,192
256,435
  
 357,431
 1,362,447
Accretion expense40,229
 25,988
 28,411
21,151
  5,447
 40,229
 25,988
Salaries, general and administrative expenses58,928
 69,384
 66,451
47,817
  9,629
 58,928
 69,384
Incentive compensation expense13,475
 2,242
 10,361
8,045
  2,008
 13,475
 2,242
Restructuring fees29,597
 
 
739
  
 29,597
 
Other operational expenses55,453
 2,360
 862
3,359
  530
 55,453
 2,360
Derivative expense, net810
 
 
13,388
  1,778
 810
 
Total operating expenses886,560
 1,909,972
 1,050,880
505,337
  73,256
 886,560
 1,909,972
Loss from operations(509,168) (1,365,323) (255,338)
Other (income) expenses:     
        
Gain (loss) on Appalachia Properties divestiture(105)  213,453
 
 
        
Income (loss) from operations(255,158)  209,119
 (509,168) (1,365,323)
Other (income) expense:        
Interest expense64,458
 43,928
 38,855
11,744
  
 64,458
 43,928
Interest income(550) (580) (574)(998)  (45) (550) (580)
Other income(1,439) (1,783) (2,332)(1,156)  (315) (1,439) (1,783)
Other expense596
 434
 274
1,230
  13,336
 596
 434
Reorganization items10,947
 
 
Total other expenses74,012
 41,999
 36,223
Loss before income taxes(583,180) (1,407,322) (291,561)
Reorganization items, net
  (437,744) 10,947
 
Total other (income) expense10,820
  (424,768) 74,012
 41,999
Income (loss) before income taxes(265,978)  633,887
 (583,180) (1,407,322)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes:             
Current(5,674) (44,096) 159
(18,339)  3,570
 (5,674) (44,096)
Deferred13,080
 (272,311) (102,177)
  
 13,080
 (272,311)
Total income taxes7,406
 (316,407) (102,018)(18,339)  3,570
 7,406
 (316,407)
Net loss$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Basic loss per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95)
Diluted loss per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95)
Net income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Basic income (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45)
Diluted income (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45)
Average shares outstanding5,591
 5,525
 5,272
19,997
  5,634
 5,591
 5,525
Average shares outstanding assuming dilution5,591
 5,525
 5,272
19,997
  5,634
 5,591
 5,525
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

F-4

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
(In thousands)
Year Ended December 31,Successor  Predecessor
2016 2015 2014Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
Net loss$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 2016 2015
Net income (loss)  $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax effect:             
Derivatives(24,025) (62,758) 88,178

  
 (24,025) (62,758)
Foreign currency translation6,073
 (2,605) (2,801)
  
 6,073
 (2,605)
Comprehensive loss$(608,538) $(1,156,278) $(104,166)
Comprehensive income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(608,538) $(1,156,278)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

F-5

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWSCHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
(In thousands)
 Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
Cash flows from operating activities:     
Net loss$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided
by operating activities:
     
Depreciation, depletion and amortization220,079
 281,688
 340,006
Write-down of oil and gas properties357,431
 1,362,447
 351,192
Accretion expense40,229
 25,988
 28,411
Deferred income tax provision (benefit)13,080
 (272,311) (102,177)
Settlement of asset retirement obligations(20,514) (72,382) (56,409)
Non-cash stock compensation expense8,443
 12,324
 11,325
Excess tax benefits
 (1,586) 
Non-cash derivative expense (income)1,471
 16,440
 (18,028)
Non-cash interest expense18,404
 17,788
 16,661
Non-cash reorganization items8,332
 
 
Other non-cash expense6,248
 
 
Change in current income taxes20,088
 (37,377) 158
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable(1,412) 43,724
 51,611
(Increase) decrease in other current assets(3,493) 1,767
 (6,244)
Decrease in inventory
 1,304
 
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable1,026
 (14,582) (3,419)
Increase (decrease) in other current liabilities9,897
 (25,936) (19,152)
Other(10,135) (907) (3,251)
Net cash provided by operating activities78,588
 247,474
 401,141
Cash flows from investing activities:     
Investment in oil and gas properties(237,952) (522,047) (927,247)
Proceeds from sale of oil and gas properties, net of expenses
 22,839
 242,914
Investment in fixed and other assets(1,266) (1,549) (10,182)
Change in restricted funds1,046
 179,467
 (178,072)
Net cash used in investing activities(238,172) (321,290) (872,587)
Cash flows from financing activities:     
Proceeds from bank borrowings477,000
 5,000
 
Repayments of bank borrowings(135,500) (5,000) 
Proceeds from building loan
 11,770
 
Repayments of building loan(423) 
 
Net proceeds from issuance of common stock
 
 225,999
Deferred financing costs(900) (68) (3,371)
Excess tax benefits
 1,586
 
Net payments for share-based compensation(762) (3,127) (7,182)
Net cash provided by financing activities339,415
 10,161
 215,446
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash(9) (74) (736)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents179,822
 (63,729) (256,736)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year10,759
 74,488
 331,224
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year$190,581
 $10,759
 $74,488
Supplemental cash flow information:     
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$(32,130) $(34,394) $(14,076)
Cash (paid) refunded for income taxes25,762
 7,212
 (1)
 
Common
Stock
 
Treasury
Stock
 
Additional
Paid-In
Capital
 
Accumulated
Deficit
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Total
Stockholders’
Equity
Balance, December 31, 2014 (Predecessor)$55
 $(860) $1,633,801
 $(614,708) $83,315
 $1,101,603
Net loss
 
 
 (1,090,915) 
 (1,090,915)
Adjustment for fair value accounting of derivatives, net of tax
 
 
 
 (62,758) (62,758)
Adjustment for foreign currency translation, net of tax
 
 
 
 (2,605) (2,605)
Lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock
 
 (2,638) 
 
 (2,638)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 17,524
 
 
 17,524
Balance, December 31, 2015 (Predecessor)55
 (860) 1,648,687
 (1,705,623) 17,952
 (39,789)
Net loss
 
 
 (590,586) 
 (590,586)
Adjustment for fair value accounting of derivatives, net of tax
 
 
 
 (24,025) (24,025)
Adjustment for foreign currency translation, net of tax
 
 
 
 6,073
 6,073
Lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock and granting of stock awards1
 
 (732) 
 
 (731)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 11,776
 
 
 11,776
Balance, December 31, 2016 (Predecessor)56
 (860) 1,659,731
 (2,296,209) 
 (637,282)
Net income
 
 
 630,317
 
 630,317
Lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock and granting of stock awards
 
 (172) 
 
 (172)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 3,527
 
 
 3,527
Balance, February 28, 2017 (Predecessor)56
 (860) 1,663,086
 (1,665,892) 
 (3,610)
Cancellation of Predecessor equity(56) 860
 (1,663,086) 1,665,892
 
 3,610
Balance, February 28, 2017 (Predecessor)
 
 
 
 
 
Issuance of Successor common stock and warrants200
 
 554,537
 
 
 554,737
            
            
Balance, February 28, 2017 (Successor)200
 
 554,537
 
 
 554,737
Net loss
 
 
 (247,639) 
 (247,639)
Lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock
 
 (19) 
 
 (19)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 1,272
 
 
 1,272
Stock issuance costs - Talos combination
 
 (183)   
 (183)
Balance, December 31, 2017 (Successor)$200
 $
 $555,607
 $(247,639) $
 $308,168
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.


F-6

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITYCASH FLOWS
(In thousands)
 
Common
Stock
 
Treasury
Stock
 
Additional
Paid-In
Capital
 
Accumulated
Deficit
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Total
Stockholders’
Equity
Balance, December 31, 2013$49
 $(860) $1,398,324
 $(425,165) $(2,062) $970,286
Net loss
 
 
 (189,543) 
 (189,543)
Adjustment for fair value accounting of derivatives, net of tax
 
 
 
 88,178
 88,178
Adjustment for foreign currency translation, net of tax
 
 
 
 (2,801) (2,801)
Exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock
 
 (7,119) 
 
 (7,119)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 16,709
 
 
 16,709
Net tax impact from stock option exercises and restricted stock vesting
 
 (54) 
 
 (54)
Issuance of common stock6
 
 225,941
 
 
 225,947
Balance, December 31, 201455
 (860) 1,633,801
 (614,708) 83,315
 1,101,603
Net loss
 
 
 (1,090,915) 
 (1,090,915)
Adjustment for fair value accounting of derivatives, net of tax
 
 
 
 (62,758) (62,758)
Adjustment for foreign currency translation, net of tax
 
 
 
 (2,605) (2,605)
Exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock
 
 (2,638) 
 
 (2,638)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 17,524
 
 
 17,524
Balance, December 31, 201555
 (860) 1,648,687
 (1,705,623) 17,952
 (39,789)
Net loss
 
 
 (590,586) 
 (590,586)
Adjustment for fair value accounting of derivatives, net of tax
 
 
 
 (24,025) (24,025)
Adjustment for foreign currency translation, net of tax
 
 
 
 6,073
 6,073
Exercise of stock options, vesting of restricted stock and granting of stock awards1
 
 (732) 
 
 (731)
Amortization of stock compensation expense
 
 11,776
 
 
 11,776
Balance, December 31, 2016$56
 $(860) $1,659,731
 $(2,296,209) $
 $(637,282)
 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
Jan. 1, 2017
through
Feb. 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
    2016 2015
Cash flows from operating activities:        
Net income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:        
Depreciation, depletion and amortization99,890
  37,429
 220,079
 281,688
Write-down of oil and gas properties256,435
  
 357,431
 1,362,447
Accretion expense21,151
  5,447
 40,229
 25,988
Deferred income tax provision (benefit)
  
 13,080
 (272,311)
(Gain) loss on sale of oil and gas properties105
  (213,453) 
 
Settlement of asset retirement obligations(80,671)  (3,641) (20,514) (72,382)
Non-cash stock compensation expense1,252
  2,645
 8,443
 12,324
Excess tax benefits
  
 
 (1,586)
Non-cash derivative expense15,548
  1,778
 1,471
 16,440
Non-cash interest expense4
  
 18,404
 17,788
Non-cash reorganization items
  (458,677) 8,332
 
Other non-cash expense1,245
  172
 6,248
 
Change in current income taxes(13,744)  3,570
 20,088
 (37,377)
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable2,455
  6,354
 (1,412) 43,724
(Increase) decrease in other current assets4,648
  (2,274) (3,493) 1,767
Decrease in inventory
  
 
 1,304
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable17,113
  (4,652) 1,026
 (14,582)
Increase (decrease) in other current liabilities10,677
  (9,653) 9,897
 (25,936)
Investment in derivative contracts(2,416)  (3,736) 
 
Other3,023
  2,490
 (10,135) (907)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities89,076
  (5,884) 78,588
 247,474
Cash flows from investing activities:        
Investment in oil and gas properties(65,282)  (8,754) (237,952) (522,047)
Proceeds from sale of oil and gas properties, net of expenses20,633
  505,383
 
 22,839
Investment in fixed and other assets(163)  (61) (1,266) (1,549)
Change in restricted funds56,805
  (75,547) 1,046
 179,467
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities11,993
  421,021
 (238,172) (321,290)
Cash flows from financing activities:        
Proceeds from bank borrowings
  
 477,000
 5,000
Repayments of bank borrowings
  (341,500) (135,500) (5,000)
Proceeds from building loan
  
 
 11,770
Repayments of building loan(337)  (24) (423) 
Cash payment to noteholders
  (100,000) 
 
Stock issuance costs - Talos combination(184)  
 
 
Debt issuance costs
  (1,055) (900) (68)
Excess tax benefits
  
 
 1,586
Net payments for share-based compensation(19)  (173) (762) (3,127)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities(540)  (442,752) 339,415
 10,161
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash
  
 (9) (74)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents100,529
  (27,615) 179,822
 (63,729)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period162,966
  190,581
 10,759
 74,488
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period$263,495
  $162,966
 $190,581
 $10,759
Supplemental cash flow information:        
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized$(10,256)  
 $(32,130) $(34,394)
Cash refunded for income taxes, net of amounts paid5,420
  
 25,762
 7,212
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.


F-7

Table of Contents


STONE ENERGY CORPORATION
(Debtor-in-Possession)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(In thousands of dollars, except per share and price amounts)

NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:POLICIES
Nature of Operations
Stone Energy Corporation ("Stone"(“Stone” or the "Company"“Company”) is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development and operation of oil and gas properties. We beganhave been operating in the Gulf of Mexico (the "GOM"“GOM”) Basin since our incorporation in 1993 and have established a technical and operational expertise in this area. We have leveraged our experience in the GOM conventional shelf and expanded our reserve base into the more prolific basinsplays of the GOM deep water, Gulf Coast deep gas and the Marcellus and Utica shales in Appalachia. At December 31, 2016, we had producing properties and acreage in the Marcellus and Utica Shales in Appalachia. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we entered into a purchase andcompleted the sale agreement to sell all of ourthe Appalachia Properties (as defined in Note 2 – Chapter 11 ProceedingsReorganization) to EQT Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiary EQT Production Company (“EQT”), on February 27, 2017 for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. See Note 2 – Reorganization below). We expect to closeand Note 4 – Divestiture for additional information on the sale of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions, after which we will no longer have operations or assets in Appalachia.Properties. We were incorporated in 1993 as a Delaware corporation. Our corporate headquarters are located at 625 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508. We have an additional officesoffice in New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, TexasLouisiana.
Pending Combination with Talos

On November 21, 2017, Stone and Morgantown, West Virginia.certain of its subsidiaries entered into a series of related agreements pertaining to a business combination with Talos Energy LLC (“Talos Energy”) and its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Talos Production LLC (“Talos Production” and, together with Talos Energy, “Talos”). Talos Energy is controlled indirectly by entities controlled by Apollo Management VII, L.P. (“Apollo VII”), Apollo Commodities Management, L.P., with respect to Series I (together with Apollo VII, “Apollo Management”) and Riverstone Energy Partners V, L.P. (“Riverstone”).

Stone, Sailfish Energy Holdings Corporation (“New Talos”), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Stone, and Sailfish Merger Sub Corporation, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Talos, entered into a Transaction Agreement (the “Transaction Agreement”) with Talos on November 21, 2017, which contemplates a series of transactions (the “Transactions”) occurring on the date of closing of the Transaction Agreement (the “Closing”) that will result in such business combination. Stone and Talos will become wholly owned subsidiaries of New Talos. At the time of the Closing, the parties intend that New Talos will become a publicly traded entity named Talos Energy, Inc. The Transactions include (i) the contribution of 100% of the equity interests in Talos Production to New Talos in exchange for shares of New Talos common stock, (ii) the contribution by entities controlled by or affiliated with Apollo Management (the “Apollo Funds”) and Riverstone (the “Riverstone Funds”) of $102 million in aggregate principal amount of 9.75% Senior Notes due 2022 issued by Talos Production and Talos Production Finance Inc. (together, the “the Talos Issuers”) to New Talos in exchange for shares of New Talos common stock, (iii) the exchange of the second lien bridge loans due 2022 issued by the Talos Issuers for newly issued 11% second lien notes issued by the Talos Issuers, and (iv) the exchange of the 7.50% Senior Second Lien Notes due 2022 (the “2022 Second Lien Notes”) issued by Stone for newly issued 11% second lien notes issued by the Talos Issuers.

Under the terms of the Transaction Agreement, each outstanding share of Stone common stock will be exchanged for one share of New Talos common stock and the current Talos stakeholders (including the Apollo Funds and the Riverstone Funds) will be issued an aggregate of approximately 34.1 million common shares of New Talos. After the completion of the Transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement, holders of Stone common stock immediately prior to the combination will collectively hold 37% of the outstanding New Talos common stock and Talos Energy stakeholders will hold 63% of the outstanding New Talos common stock. Outstanding warrants to acquire Stone common stock will become warrants to acquire New Talos common stock with terms and conditions substantially identical to their existing terms and conditions.

The combination was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of Stone and Talos Energy. Completion of the combination is subject to the approval of Stone shareholders, the consummation of a tender offer and consent solicitation for Stone’s 2022 Second Lien Notes, certain regulatory approvals and other customary conditions. Franklin Advisers, Inc. and MacKay Shields LLC, as investment managers for approximately 53% of the outstanding common shares of Stone as of September 30, 2017, entered into voting agreements to vote in favor of the combination, subject to certain conditions. The Transaction Agreement contains certain termination rights for Stone and Talos Energy. Stone may be required to pay a termination fee and to reimburse transaction expenses to Talos Energy if the Transaction Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances. The combination is expected to close in the second quarter of 2018. We cannot provide any assurance that the combination will be completed on the terms or timeline currently contemplated, or at all.

F-8

Table of Contents



Reorganization and Emergence from Voluntary Chapter 11 FilingProceedings
On December 14, 2016 (the "Petition Date"“Petition Date”), the Company and its subsidiaries Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. ("(“Stone Offshore"Offshore”) and Stone Energy Holding, L.L.C. (together with the Company, the "Debtors"“Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions (the "Bankruptcy Petitions"“Bankruptcy Petitions”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"“Bankruptcy Court”) seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 11 ("(“Chapter 11"11”) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the "Plan"“Bankruptcy Code”). For additional details see Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtorsare operating as "debtors-in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court. To assure ordinary course operations, the Debtors sought approval from the Bankruptcy Court for a variety of first day motions, including authority to maintain bank accounts and other customary relief. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the "Confirmation Order"“Confirmation Order”) confirming the Second Amended Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Stone Energy Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates, dated December 28, 2016 (the “Plan”), as modified by the Confirmation Order.Order, and on February 28, 2017, the Plan became effective (the “Effective Date”) and the Debtors emerged from bankruptcy, with the bankruptcy cases then being closed by Final Decree Closing Chapter 11 Cases and Terminating Claims Agent Services entered by the Bankruptcy Court on April 20, 2017. See Note 2 – Reorganization for additional details.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Company adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 852, “Reorganizations”, which resulted in the Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes on the Effective Date. As a result of the adoption of fresh start accounting, the Company’s consolidated financial statements subsequent to February 28, 2017 will not be comparable to its financial statements prior to that date. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for further details on the impact of fresh start accounting on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
References to “Successor” or “Successor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to “Predecessor” or “Predecessor Company” relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A summary of significant accounting policies followed in the preparation of the accompanying consolidated financial statements is set forth below.
Basis of Presentation:
The financial statements include our accounts and the accounts of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Stone Offshore, Stone Energy Holding, L.L.C. and Stone Energy Canada, ULC. On August 29, 2016, our subsidiaries SEO A LLC and SEO B LLC were merged into Stone Offshore. On December 2, 2016, Stone Energy Canada, ULC was dissolved. All intercompany balances have been eliminated. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation.
On May 27, 2016, the board of directors of the Company approved a 1-for-10 reverse stock split of the Company's issuedReorganization and outstanding shares of common stock. The reverse stock split was effective upon the filing and effectiveness of a certificate of amendment to the Company's certificate of incorporation after the market closed on June 10, 2016, and the common stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis when the market opened on June 13, 2016. The effect of the reverse stock split was to combine each 10 shares of outstanding common stock prior to the reverse split into one new shareFresh Start Accounting:
For periods subsequent to the reverse split. The Company's authorized shares of common stock were proportionately decreased in connection with the reverse stock split. Additionally, the overall and per share limitations in the Company’s 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan, as amended from timeChapter 11 filing, but prior to time, and outstanding awards thereunder were also proportionately adjusted. The Company retained the current par value of $.01 per share for all shares of common stock.

All references in the financial statements and notes thereto to number of shares, per share data, restricted stock and stock option data have been retroactively adjusted to give effect to the 1-for-10 reverse stock split. Stockholders' equity reflects the

F-8

Table of Contents


reverse stock split by reclassifying from common stock to additional paid-in capital an amount equal to the par value of the reduction in the number of shares as a result of the reverse split.
Reorganization:
We have applied Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 852, "Reorganizations", in preparing the consolidated financial statements.emergence, ASC 852 requires that the financial statements for periods subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing, distinguish transactions and events that are directly associated with the reorganization from the ongoing operations of the business. Accordingly, professional fees and other expenses incurred in the Chapter 11 cases, and unamortized deferred financingdebt issuance costs, premiums and discounts associated with debt classified as liabilities subject to compromise, have been recorded as reorganization items on the consolidated statement of operations.operations for the applicable periods. In addition, pre-petition obligations that maywere to be impacted by the Chapter 11 process have beenwere classified on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016 as liabilities subject to compromise. These liabilities are reported at the amounts the Company expects will be allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, even if they may be settled for lesser amounts. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 ProceedingsReorganization and Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for more information regarding reorganization items and liabilities subject to compromise.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Company qualified for and adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of ASC 852, as (i) the holders of existing voting shares of the Predecessor Company received less than 50% of the voting shares of the Successor Company and (ii) the reorganization value of the Company’s assets immediately prior to confirmation of the Plan was less than the post-petition liabilities and allowed claims. The Company applied fresh start accounting as of February 28, 2017. Fresh start accounting required the Company to present its assets, liabilities and equity as if it were a new entity upon emergence from bankruptcy, with no beginning retained earnings or deficit as of the fresh start reporting date. The new entity is referred to as Successor or Successor Company, and includes the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to Predecessor or Predecessor Company relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.

The Chapter 11 proceedings dodid not include our former foreign subsidiary Stone Energy Canada, ULC. This subsidiary had no significant activity during 2016, except for the reclassification of approximately $6,081$6.1 million of losses related to cumulative

F-9

Table of Contents


foreign currency translation adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income into other operational expenses upon the substantial liquidation of Stone Energy Canada, ULC. Stone Energy Canada, ULC was dissolved on December 2, 2016.
Use of Estimates:
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"(“GAAP”) requires our management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various assumptions and information believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects are uncertain and, accordingly, these estimates may change as new events occur, as additional information is obtained and as the Company’s operating environment changes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Estimates are used primarily when accounting for depreciation, depletion and amortization ("(“DD&A"&A”) expense, unevaluated property costs, estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves, costs to abandon oil and gas properties, income taxes, liabilities subject to compromise versus not subject to compromise, accruals of capitalized costs, operating costs and production revenue, capitalized general and administrative costs and interest, insurance recoveries, effectiveness and estimated fair value of derivative contracts, contingencies and fair value estimates, including estimates of reorganization value, enterprise value and the fair value in business combinationsof assets and contingencies.liabilities recorded as a result of the adoption of fresh start accounting.
Fair Value Measurements:
U.S. GAAP establishes a framework for measuring fair value and requires certain disclosures about fair value measurements. As of December 31, 20162017 and 2015,2016, we held certain financial assets and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis, including our commodity derivative instruments and our investments in marketable securities.
Hybrid Debt Instruments:
In 2012, we issued $300,000On February 28, 2017, the Company emerged from bankruptcy and adopted fresh start accounting, which resulted in aggregate principal amountthe Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes. Upon the adoption of 1 34% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017 (the "2017 Convertible Notes").fresh start accounting, the Company’s assets and liabilities were recorded at their fair values as of the fresh start reporting date, February 28, 2017. See Note 113DebtFresh Start Accounting. On that same day we entered into convertible note hedging transactions which were expected to reduce the potential dilution to our common shareholders upon conversion for a detailed discussion of the notes. In accordance with ASC 480-20 and ASC 470, we accounted forfair value approaches used by the debt and equity portions of the notes in a manner that reflects our nonconvertible borrowing rate when interest is recognized in subsequent periods. This results in the separation of the debt component, classification of the remaining component in stockholders’ equity, and accretion of the resulting discount as interest expense. Additionally, the hedging transactions met the criteria for classification as equity transactions and were recorded as such. The convertible note hedging transactions have since been terminated in connection with our Chapter 11 proceedings.Company.
Cash and Cash Equivalents:
We consider all money market funds and highly liquid investments in overnight securities through our commercial bank accounts, which result in available funds on the next business day, to be cash and cash equivalents.

F-9

Table On December 31, 2017, we had $18.7 million of Contents


cash held in a restricted account to satisfy near-term plugging and abandonment liabilities, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Credit Agreement (as defined in
Note 13 – Debt).
Oil and Gas Properties:
We follow the full cost method of accounting for oil and gas properties. Under this method, all acquisition, exploration, development and estimated abandonment costs, including certain related employee and general and administrative costs (less any reimbursements for such costs) and interest incurred for the purpose of finding oil and gas are capitalized. Such amounts include the cost of drilling and equipping productive wells, dry hole costs, lease acquisition costs, delay rentals and other costs related to such activities. Employee, general and administrative costs that are capitalized include salaries and all related fringe benefits paid to employees directly engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of oil and gas properties, as well as all other directly identifiable general and administrative costs associated with such activities, such as rentals, utilities and insurance. We capitalize a portion of the interest costs incurred on our debt based upon the balance of our unevaluated property costs and our weighted-average borrowing rate. Employee, general and administrative costs associated with production operations and general corporate activities are expensed in the period incurred. Additionally, workover and maintenance costs incurred solely to maintain or increase levels of production from an existing completion interval are charged to lease operating expense in the period incurred.
U.S. GAAP allows the option of two acceptable methods for accounting for oil and gas properties. The successful efforts method is the allowable alternative to the full cost method. The primary differences between the two methods are in the treatment of exploration costs, the computation of DD&A expense and the assessment of impairment of oil and gas properties. Under the full cost method, all exploratory costs are capitalized, while under the successful efforts method, exploratory costs associated with unsuccessful exploratory wells and all geological and geophysical costs are expensed. Under the full cost method, DD&A expense is computed on cost centers represented by entire countries, while under the successful efforts method, cost centers are represented by properties, or some reasonable aggregation of properties with common geological structural features or stratigraphic condition, such as fields or reservoirs. Under the full cost method, oil and gas properties are subject to the ceiling test as discussed below while under the successful efforts method oil and gas properties are assessed for impairment in accordance with ASC 360.

F-10

Table of Contents


We amortize our investment in oil and gas properties through DD&A expense using the units of production (the "UOP"“UOP”) method. Under the UOP method, the quarterly provision for DD&A expense is computed by dividing production volumes for the period by the total proved reserves as of the beginning of the period (beginning of period reserves being determined by adding production to the end of period reserves), and applying the respective rate to the net cost of proved oil and gas properties, including future development costs.
Under the full cost method, we compare, at the end of each financial reporting period, the present value of estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves (adjusted for hedges and excluding cash flows related to estimated abandonment costs) to the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties, net of related deferred taxes. We refer to this comparison as a ceiling test. If the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties exceed the estimated discounted future net cash flows from proved reserves, we are required to write down the value of our oil and gas properties to the value of the discounted cash flows.
Sales of oil and gas properties are accounted for as adjustments to net oil and gas properties with no gain or loss recognized, unless the adjustment would significantly alter the relationship between capitalized costs and proved reserves.
Asset Retirement Obligations:
U.S. GAAP requires us to record our estimate of the fair value of liabilities related to future asset retirement obligations in the period the obligation is incurred. Asset retirement obligations relate to the removal of facilities and tangible equipment at the end of an oil and gas property’s useful life. The application of this rule requires the use of management’s estimates with respect to future abandonment costs, inflation, market risk premiums, useful lifetiming of abandonment and cost of capital. U.S. GAAP requires that our estimate of our asset retirement obligations does not give consideration to the value the related assets could have to other parties.
Other Property and Equipment:
Our office buildings in Lafayette, Louisiana are being depreciated on the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives of 39 years.
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities:
Through December 31, 2016, we designated our commodity derivatives as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes upon entering into the contracts. Accordingly, the contracts were recorded as either an asset or liability measured at fair value and subsequent changes in the derivative’s fair value were recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss), net of related taxes, to the extent the hedge was considered effective. Monthly settlements of effective hedges were reflected in revenue from oil and natural gas production. With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the net changes in the mark-to-market valuations and the monthly settlements of these derivative contracts are recorded in earnings through derivative income (expense).
Earnings Per Common Share:
Under U.S. GAAP, certain instruments granted in share-based payment transactions are considered participating securities prior to vesting and are therefore required to be included in the earnings allocation in calculating earnings per share under the two-class method. Companies are required to treat unvested share-based payment awards with a right to receive non-forfeitable dividends as a separate class of securities in calculating earnings per share.

F-10

Table of Contents


Production Revenue:
We recognize production revenue under the entitlements method of accounting. Under this method, revenue is deferred for deliveries in excess of our net revenue interest, while revenue is accrued for undelivered or underdelivered volumes. Production imbalances are generally recorded at the estimated sales price in effect at the time of production. See Recently Issued Accounting Standards below.
Income Taxes:
Provisions for income taxes include deferred taxes resulting primarily from temporary differences due to different reporting methods for oil and gas properties for financial reporting and income tax purposes. For financial reporting purposes, all exploratory and development expenditures related to evaluated projects, including future abandonment costs, are capitalized and amortized using the UOP method. For income tax purposes, only the leasehold, geological and geophysical and equipment costs relative to successful wells are capitalized and recovered through DD&A, although for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2016,2017, special provisions allowed for current deductions for the cost of certain equipment. Generally, most other exploratory and development costs are charged to

F-11

Table of Contents


expense as incurred; however, we follow certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”) that allow capitalization of intangible drilling costs where management deems appropriate. Other financial and income tax reporting differences occur as a result of statutory depletion, different reporting methods for sales of oil and gas reserves in place, different reporting methods used in the capitalization of employee, general and administrative and interest expense, and different reporting methods for employee compensation.
Derivative Instruments See Note 12 – Income Taxes for a discussion of the effects of the December 22, 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Hedging Activities:
The nature of a derivative instrument must be evaluated to determine if it qualifies as a hedging instrument. If the instrument qualifies as a hedging instrument, it is recorded as either an asset or liability measured at fair value and subsequent changes in the derivative’s fair value are recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss), net of related taxes, to the extent the hedge is considered effective. Monthly settlements of effective hedges are reflected in revenue from oil and natural gas production and cash flows from operating activities. Instruments not qualifying as hedging instruments are recorded in our balance sheet at fair value and subsequent changes in fair value are recognized in earnings through derivative expense (income). Monthly settlements of ineffective hedges and derivative instruments not qualifying as hedging instruments are recognized in earnings through derivative expense (income) and cash flows from operating activities.Jobs Act.
Share-Based Compensation:
We record share-based compensation using the grant date fair value of issued stock options, stock awards, restricted stock and restricted stock units over the vesting period of the instrument. We utilize the Black-Scholes option pricing model to measure the fair value of stock options. The fair value of stock awards, restricted stock and restricted stock units is typically determined based on the average of our high and low stock prices on the grant date.
Combination Transaction Costs:
In general, acquisition-related costs are expensed in the periods in which the costs are incurred and the services are rendered. However, some direct costs of an acquisition, such as the cost of registering and issuing equity securities to effect a business combination, are recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in-capital when incurred.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards:
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"(“FASB”) issued ASUAccounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers"Customers (Topic 606) to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue and to develop a common revenue standard and disclosure requirements. Under the new standard, revenue is recognized when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. Additional disclosures will be required to describe the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows from contracts with customers including the disaggregation of revenue and remaining performance obligations. The standard may be applied retrospectively or using a modified retrospective approach, with the cumulative effect of initially applying ASU 2014-09 recognized at the date of initial application. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, deferring the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. As a result, the standardapplication, and is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2017.
We expect to applyadopted this new standard on January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective approach uponapproach. The adoption of this standard. Although we are still evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements and related disclosures, we dodid not anticipate that the implementation of this new standard will have a material effect.
In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, "Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40)". The guidance requires management to evaluate whether there are conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the financial statements are issued on both an interim and annual basis. Additionally, management is required to provide certain footnote disclosures if it concludes that substantial doubt exists or when it concludes its plans alleviate substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. ASU 2014-15 became effective for us on December 15, 2016. The standard impacted our disclosures but had no effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, "Balance Sheet Classificationflows, but will result in increased disclosures related to revenue recognition policies and disaggregation of Deferred Taxesrevenues." to simplify the presentation of deferred income taxes. The guidance allows for the presentation of all deferred tax assets and liabilities, along with any related valuation allowance, to be classified as noncurrent on the balance sheet. We early adopted ASU 2015-17, on a

F-11

Table of Contents


retrospective basis, which affected our disclosures of deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, but had no effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, "Leases (Topic 842)" to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. The standard is effective for public entitiescompanies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, with earlier application permitted. Upon adoption the lessee will apply the new standard retrospectively to all periods presented or retrospectively using a cumulative effect adjustment in the year of adoption. We are currently evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements.statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, "Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718)" to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and forfeitures, as well as classification in the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 became effective for us on January 1, 2017. Under ASU 2016-09, we elected to not apply a forfeiture estimate and will recognize a credit in compensation expense to the extent awards are forfeited. The implementation of this new standard did not have a material effect on our financial statements or related disclosures.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815)” to improve the financial reporting of hedging relationships to better reflect an entity’s hedging strategies. The standard expands an entity’s ability to apply hedge accounting for both non-financial and financial risk components and amends the presentation and disclosure requirements. Additionally, ASU 2017-12 eliminates the need to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and generally requires the entire change in fair value of a hedging instrument to be recorded in the same income statement line as the earnings effect of the hedged item. The standard is effective for public entitiescompanies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016,2018 and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for any entity in any interim or annual period. An entity that elects early adoptionpermitted. The standard must adopt allbe adopted by applying a modified retrospective approach to existing designated hedging relationships as of the amendments in ASU 2016-09 inadoption date, with a cumulative effect adjustment recorded to opening retained earnings as of the same period.initial adoption date. We are currently evaluating the effect that this new standard may have on our financial statements but we do not anticipate the implementationand related disclosures.

F-12

Table of this new standard will have a material effect.Contents



NOTE 2 — CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDINGS:REORGANIZATION

On December 14, 2016, the Debtors filed the Bankruptcy Petitions seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.Code to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan. DuringPlan, and on February 28, 2017, the bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtorsare operating as "debtors-in-possession" in accordance with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court granted all first day motions filed byPlan became effective and the Debtors allowing the Company to operate its business in the ordinary course throughout the bankruptcy process. The first day motions included, among other things, a cash collateral motion, a motion maintaining the Company's existing cash management system and motions making various vendor payments, wage payments and tax payments in the ordinary course of business.
Subject to certain exceptions under the Bankruptcy Code, the Chapter 11 filings automatically stayed most judicial or administrative actions against the Debtors or their property to recover, collect or secure a pre-petition claim. This prohibits, for example, our lenders or noteholdersemerged from pursuing claims for defaults under our debt agreements.
Restructuring Support Agreementbankruptcy.
Prior to filing the Bankruptcy Petitions, on October 20, 2016, the Debtors entered into a restructuring support agreement (the "Original RSA") withand certain holders of the Company’s 20171¾% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017 (the “2017 Convertible Notes”) and the Company’s 7 12% Senior Notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes"“2022 Notes”) (collectively, the "Notes"“Notes” and the holders thereof, the "Noteholders"“Noteholders”) to support a restructuring on the terms of the Plan. On November 17, 2016, the Debtors commenced a solicitation to seek acceptance by a majority of those voting in each voting class of claims of the Company’s creditors under the Plan, including (a)and the lenders (the "Banks"“Banks”) under the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2014, as amended, modified, or otherwise supplemented from time to time (the "Credit Facility") among Stone as borrower, Bank of America, N.A. as administrative agent and issuing bank, and the financial institutions named therein, and (b) the Noteholders. On December 14, 2016, the Debtors, the Noteholders holding approximately 79.7% of the aggregate principal amount of Notes and the Banks holding 100% of the aggregate principal amount owing under the“Pre-Emergence Credit FacilityAgreement”), entered into an Amended and Restated Restructuring Support Agreement (the "A“A&R RSA") that amended, superseded and restated in its entirety the Original RSA. In connection with entry into the A&R RSA and the commencement of the bankruptcy cases, the Debtors amended the Plan. The solicitation period ended on December 16, 2016 and (i) of the 94.24% of Noteholders in aggregate outstanding principal amount that voted, 99.95% voted in favor of the Plan and .05% voted to reject the Plan, and (ii) 100% of the Banks voted to accept the Plan.
Additionally, on December 16, 2016, an ad hoc group of certain of the Company's stockholders (the "Stockholder Ad Hoc Group") filed a motion (the "Equity Committee Motion") to appoint an official committee of equity security holders in connection with the Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings. On December 21, 2016, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the Stockholder Ad Hoc Group (the "Settlement") and on December 28, 2016, the Plan was amended.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy by the Debtors, and pursuant to the terms of the Plan, as amended to be consistent with the terms of the A&R RSA and the term sheet annexed to the A&R RSA (the "Term Sheet") and as amended pursuant to the Settlement, Noteholders, Banks and other interest holders will receive treatment under the Plan, summarized as follows:
The Noteholders will receive their pro rata share of (a) $100,000 of cash, (b) 95% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and (c) $225,000 of new 7.5% second lien notes due 2022 (the "Second Lien Notes"RSA”).

F-12

Table of Contents



Existing common stockholders of Stone will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the common stock in reorganized Stone and warrants for ownership of up to15% of reorganized Stone's common equity exercisable upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the terms of the proposed new warrants. The warrants will have an exercise price equal to a total equity value of the reorganized Company that implies a 100% recovery of outstanding principal to the Company’s noteholders plus accrued interest through the Plan’s effective date less the face amount of the Second Lien Notes and the Prepetition Notes Cash (as defined in the Plan). The warrants may be exercised any time prior to the fourth anniversary of the Plan’s effective date, unless terminated earlier by their terms upon the consummation of certain business combinations or sale transactions involving the Company.

Banks signatory to the A&R RSA will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments and obligations under an amended credit agreement (the "Amended Credit Facility") on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash, as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25,000, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributions pursuant to the Plan and the PSA, defined below.

All claims of creditors with unsecured claims other than claims by the Noteholders, including vendors, shall be unaltered and will be paid in full in the ordinary course of business to the extent such claims are undisputed.

Each of the foregoing common equity percentages in reorganized Stone is subject to dilution from the exercise of the new warrants described above and a management incentive plan. Assuming implementation of the Plan, Stone expects that it will eliminate approximately $1,191,500 in principal amount of outstanding debt.
Purchase and Sale Agreement
The A&R RSA contained certain covenants on the part of the Company and the Noteholders and Banks who are signatories to the A&R RSA, including that such Noteholders and Banks would support the Company’s sale of Stone'sStone’s producing properties and acreage, including approximately 86,000 net acres, in the Appalachia regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia (the "Appalachia Properties"“Appalachia Properties”) to TH Exploration III, LLC, an affiliate of Tug Hill, Inc. ("(“Tug Hill"Hill”), pursuant to the terms of a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 20, 2016, as amended on December 9, 2016 (the "Tug“Tug Hill PSA"PSA”), for a purchase price of at least $350 million and otherwise facilitate the restructuring transaction, in each case subject to certain terms and conditions in the A&R RSA. The consummationapproval of the Plan is subject to customary conditions and other requirements, as well as the completion of the sale of the Appalachia Properties. Bankruptcy Court.Pursuant to the terms of the Tug Hill PSA, Stone agreed to sell the Appalachia Properties to Tug Hill for $360,000$360 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. In connection with the execution of the Tug Hill PSA, Tug Hill deposited $5,000 in escrow.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders dated January 11, 2017 and January 31, 2017, two additional bidders were allowed to participate in competitive bidding on the Appalachia Properties, and onProperties. On January 18, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved certain bidding procedures (the "Bidding Procedures"“Bidding Procedures”) in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties. In accordance with the Bidding Procedures, Stone conducted an auction for the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 8, 2017 and upon conclusion, selected the final bid submitted by EQT, Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiary EQT Production Company ("EQT"), with a final purchase price of $527,000$527 million in cash, subject to customary purchase price adjustments and approval by the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 21 – Subsequent Events. We expectCourt, with an upward adjustment to close the salepurchase price of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subjectup to customary closing conditions.
Executory Contracts
Subject$16 million in an amount equal to certain exceptions, under the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors' may assume, assign, or reject certain executory contracts and unexpired leases subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and certain other conditions. The rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease is generally treated as a pre-petition breach of such executory contract or unexpired lease and, subject to certain exceptions, relieves the Debtors of performing their future obligations under such executory contract or unexpired lease but may give rise to a pre-petition general unsecured claim for damages caused by such deemed breach. Counterparties to rejected contracts or leases may assert unsecured claims against the Debtors, as applicable, for such damages. Generally, the assumption of an executory contract or unexpired lease requires the Debtors to cure existing monetary defaults under such executory contract or unexpired lease and provide adequate assurance of future performance. Accordingly, any description of an executory contract or unexpired lease with the Debtors, including where applicable a quantification of the Company's obligations under any such executory contact or unexpired lease of the Debtors, is qualified by any overriding rejection rights the Company has under the Bankruptcy Code.


F-13

Table of Contents


Potential Claims

The Debtors have filed with the Bankruptcy Court schedules and statements setting forth, among other things, the assets and liabilities of the Debtors, subject to the assumptions filed in connection therewith. The schedules and statements may be subject to further amendment or modification after filing. Certain holders of pre-petition claims are required to file proofs of claim by the deadline for general claims (the "bar date"). Differences between amounts scheduled by the Debtors and claims by creditors will be investigated and resolved in connection with the claims resolution process. In light of the expected number of creditors, the claims resolution process may take considerable time to complete and will likely continue after our emergence from bankruptcy. Accordingly, the ultimate number and amount of allowed claims is not presently known, nor can the ultimate recovery with respect to allowed claims be presently ascertained.
Liabilities Subject to Compromise
We have applied ASC 852 in preparing our consolidated financial statements for periods subsequent to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions. The consolidated financial statements include amounts classified as "liabilities subject to compromise", which represent our current estimate of known or potential obligations to be resolved in connection with our Chapter 11 proceedings. Differences between liabilities we have estimated and the claims filed, or to be filed, will be investigated and resolved in connection with the claims resolution process. We will continue to evaluate these liabilities throughout the Chapter 11 process and adjust amounts prospectively as necessary. Suchdownward adjustments, may be material.

The following table summarizes the components of liabilities subject to compromise included in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016:
  December 31, 2016
1 3⁄4% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017 $300,000
7 1⁄2% Senior Notes due 2022 775,000
Accrued interest payable 35,182
   Liabilities subject to compromise $1,110,182
Reorganization Items

Under ASC 852, the direct and incremental costs resulting from the reorganization and restructuring of the business are reported separately as reorganization items on the statement of operations. The following table summarizes the components of reorganization items in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016:
  Twelve Months Ended
December 31, 2016
Professional fees $2,615
Write-off of unamortized deferred financing costs 4,792
Write-off of unamortized discount and premium of Notes 3,540
   Reorganization items $10,947


NOTE 3 — GOING CONCERN:
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern, which contemplates continuity of operations, realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business for the twelve month period following the date of these consolidated financial statements. As such, the accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of assets and their carrying amounts, or the amount and classification of liabilities that may result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.
The significant decline in commodity prices from mid-2014 through 2016 resulted in reduced revenue and cash flows and negatively impacted our liquidity position. Additionally, the level of our indebtedness and the depressed commodity price environment presented challenges related to our ability to comply with the covenants in the agreements governing our indebtedness. The minimum liquidity requirement and other restrictions under the Credit Facility also presented challenges with respect to our ability to meet interest payment obligations on the 2022 Notes as well as the maturity of the 2017 Convertible Notes. In order to address these issues, we worked with financial and legal advisors throughout 2016 and structured a plan of reorganization to

F-14

Table of Contents


address our liquidity and capital structure. In connection with our restructuring efforts, we entered into the Tug Hill PSA to sell all of our Appalachia Properties, and on December 14, 2016, the Debtors filed Bankruptcy Petitions seeking relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders, we conducted an auction for the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 8, 2017 and upon conclusion, selected the final bid submitted by EQT.prevailing bid. On February 9, 2017, wethe Company entered into a purchase and sale agreement with EQT (the “EQT PSA”), reflecting the EQT PSAterms of the prevailing bid and on February 10, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered a sale order approving the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT. We expectcompleted the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT on February 27, 2017 for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million. At the close of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Tug Hill PSA was terminated, and the Company used a portion of the cash consideration received to pay Tug Hill a break-up fee and expense reimbursements totaling approximately $11.5 million, which is recognized as other expense in the statement of operations for the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). See Note 4 – Divestiture for additional information on the sale of the Appalachia Properties.
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the following significant transactions occurred:
Shares of the Predecessor Company’s issued and outstanding common stock immediately prior to the Effective Date were cancelled, and on the Effective Date, reorganized Stone issued an aggregate of 20.0 million shares of new common stock (the “New Common Stock”).

The Predecessor Company’s 2022 Notes and 2017 Convertible Notes were cancelled and the holders of such notes received their pro rata share of (a) $100 million of cash, (b) 19.0 million shares of New Common Stock, representing 95% of the New Common Stock and (c) $225 million of the 2022 Second Lien Notes.

The Predecessor Company’s common stockholders received their pro rata share of 1.0 million shares of the New Common Stock, representing 5% of the New Common Stock, and warrants to purchase approximately 3.5 million shares of New Common Stock. The warrants have an exercise price of $42.04 per share and a term of four years, unless terminated earlier by their terms upon the consummation of certain business combinations or sale transactions involving the Company.

The Predecessor Company’s Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement was amended and restated as the Amended Credit Agreement (as defined in Note 13 – Debt). The obligations owed to the lenders under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement were converted to obligations under the Amended Credit Agreement.

All claims of creditors with unsecured claims, other than claims by the holders of the 2022 Notes and 2017 Convertible Notes, including vendors, were unaltered and paid in full in the ordinary course of business to the extent such claims were undisputed.


F-13

Table of Contents


For further information regarding the equity and debt instruments of the Predecessor Company and the Successor Company, see Note 5 – Stockholders’ Equity and Note 13 – Debt.

NOTE 3 — FRESH START ACCOUNTING
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Company qualified for and adopted fresh start accounting in accordance with the provisions of ASC 852, “Reorganizations” as (i) the holders of existing voting shares of the Predecessor Company received less than 50% of the voting shares of the Successor Company and (ii) the reorganization value of the Company’s assets immediately prior to confirmation of the Plan was less than the post-petition liabilities and allowed claims. See Note 2 – Reorganization for the terms of the Plan. The Company applied fresh start accounting as of February 28, 2017. Fresh start accounting required the Company to present its assets, liabilities and equity as if it were a new entity upon emergence from bankruptcy, with no beginning retained earnings or deficit as of the fresh start reporting date. As described in Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, the new entity is referred to as Successor or Successor Company, and includes the financial position and results of operations of the reorganized Company subsequent to February 28, 2017. References to Predecessor or Predecessor Company relate to the financial position and results of operations of the Company prior to, and including, February 28, 2017.

Reorganization Value

Under fresh start accounting, reorganization value represents the fair value of the Successor Company’s total assets and is intended to approximate the amount a willing buyer would pay for the assets immediately after restructuring. Upon application of fresh start accounting, the Company allocated the reorganization value to its individual assets based on their estimated fair values.

The Company’s reorganization value is derived from an estimate of enterprise value. Enterprise value represents the estimated fair value of an entity’s long-term debt and stockholders’ equity. In support of the Plan, the Company estimated the enterprise value of the core assets (as defined in the Plan) of the Successor Company to be in the range of $300 million to $450 million, which was subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court. This valuation analysis was prepared using reserve information, development schedules, other financial information and financial projections and applying standard valuation techniques, including net asset value analysis, precedent transactions analyses and public comparable company analyses. Based on the estimates and assumptions used in determining the enterprise value, the Company ultimately estimated the enterprise value of the Successor Company’s core assets to be approximately $420 million.

Valuation of Assets

The Company’s principal assets are its oil and gas properties, which the Company accounts for under the full cost accounting method. With the assistance of valuation experts, the Company determined the fair value of its oil and gas properties based on the discounted cash flows expected to be generated from these assets. The computations were based on market conditions and reserves in place as of the bankruptcy emergence date.

The fair value analysis performed by valuation experts was based on the Company’s estimates of reserves as developed internally by the Company’s reserve engineers. For purposes of estimating the fair value of the Company’s proved, probable and possible reserves, an income approach was used, which estimated fair value based on the anticipated cash flows associated with the Company’s reserves, risked by reserve category and discounted using a weighted average cost of capital of 12.5%. The discount factor was derived from a weighted average cost of capital computation which utilized a blended expected cost of debt and expected returns on equity for similar market participants.

Future revenues were based upon forward strip oil and natural gas prices as of the emergence date, adjusted for differentials realized by the Company, and adjusted for a 2% annual escalation after 2021. Development and operating costs were based on the Company’s recent cost trends adjusted for inflation. The discounted cash flow models also included estimates not typically included in proved reserves such as depreciation and income tax expenses. The proved reserve locations were limited to wells expected to be drilled in the Company’s five year development plan.

As a result of this analysis, the Company concluded the fair value of its proved reserves was $380.8 million and the fair value of its probable and possible reserves was $16.8 million as of the Effective Date. The Company also reviewed its undeveloped leasehold acreage and inventory. An analysis of comparable market transactions indicated a fair value of undeveloped acreage and inventory totaling $80.2 million. These amounts are reflected in the Fresh Start Adjustments item number 12 below. The fair value of the Company’s asset retirement obligations was estimated at $290.1 million and was based on estimated plugging and abandonment costs as of the Effective Date, adjusted for inflation and discounted at the Successor Company’s credit-adjusted risk free rate of 12%.

F-14

Table of Contents



See further discussion in Fresh Start Adjustments below for details on the specific assumptions used in the valuation of the Company’s various other assets.

The following table reconciles the enterprise value per the Plan to the estimated fair value (for fresh start accounting purposes) of the Successor Company’s common stock as of February 28, 2017 (in thousands, except per share value):
  February 28, 2017
Enterprise value $419,720
Plus: Cash and other assets 371,278
Less: Fair value of debt (236,261)
Less: Fair value of warrants (15,648)
Fair value of Successor common stock $539,089
   
Shares issued upon emergence 20,000
Per share value $26.95

The following table reconciles the enterprise value per the Plan to the estimated reorganization value as of the Effective Date (in thousands):
  February 28, 2017
Enterprise value $419,720
Plus: Cash and other assets 371,278
Plus: Asset retirement obligations (current and long-term) 290,067
Plus: Working capital and other liabilities 58,055
Reorganization value of Successor assets $1,139,120

Reorganization value and enterprise value were estimated using numerous projections and assumptions that are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and resolution of contingencies that are beyond our control. Accordingly, the estimates set forth herein are not necessarily indicative of actual outcomes, and there can be no assurance that the estimates, projections or assumptions will be realized.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

The adjustments set forth in the following condensed consolidated balance sheet reflect the effects of the transactions contemplated by the Plan and carried out by the Company (reflected in the column “Reorganization Adjustments”) as well as fair value adjustments as a result of the adoption of fresh start accounting (reflected in the column “Fresh Start Adjustments”). The explanatory notes highlight methods used to determine fair values or other amounts of the assets and liabilities as well as significant assumptions or inputs. The following table reflects the reorganization and application of ASC 852 on our consolidated balance sheet as of February 28, 2017 (in thousands):


F-15

Table of Contents


 Predecessor Company Reorganization Adjustments Fresh Start Adjustments Successor Company
Assets       
Current assets:       
Cash and cash equivalents$198,571
 $(35,605)(1)$
 $162,966
Restricted cash
 75,547
(1)
 75,547
Accounts receivable42,808
 9,301
(2)
 52,109
Fair value of derivative contracts1,267
 
 
 1,267
Current income tax receivable22,516
 
 
 22,516
Other current assets11,033
 875
(3)(124)(12)11,784
Total current assets276,195
 50,118
 (124) 326,189
Oil and gas properties, full cost method of accounting:       
Proved9,633,907
 (188,933)(1)(8,774,122)(12)670,852
Less: accumulated DD&A(9,215,679) 
 9,215,679
(12)
Net proved oil and gas properties418,228
 (188,933) 441,557
 670,852
Unevaluated371,140
 (127,838)(1)(146,292)(12)97,010
Other property and equipment, net25,586
 (101)(4)(4,423)(13)21,062
Fair value of derivative contracts1,819
 
 
 1,819
Other assets, net26,516
 (4,328)(5)
 22,188
Total assets$1,119,484
 $(271,082) $290,718
 $1,139,120
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity       
Current liabilities:       
Accounts payable to vendors$20,512
 $
 $
 $20,512
Undistributed oil and gas proceeds5,917
 (4,139)(1)
 1,778
Accrued interest266
 
 
 266
Asset retirement obligations92,597
 
 
 92,597
Fair value of derivative contracts476
 
 
 476
Current portion of long-term debt411
 
 
 411
Other current liabilities17,032
 (195)(6)
 16,837
Total current liabilities137,211
 (4,334) 
 132,877
Long-term debt352,350
 (116,500)(7)
 235,850
Asset retirement obligations151,228
 (8,672)(1)54,914
(14)197,470
Fair value of derivative contracts653
 
 
 653
Other long-term liabilities17,533
 
 
 17,533
Total liabilities not subject to compromise658,975
 (129,506) 54,914
 584,383
Liabilities subject to compromise1,110,182
 (1,110,182)(8)
 
Total liabilities1,769,157
 (1,239,688) 54,914
 584,383
Commitments and contingencies       
Stockholders’ equity:       
Common stock (Predecessor)56
 (56)(9)
 
Treasury stock (Predecessor)(860) 860
(9)
 
Additional paid-in capital (Predecessor)1,660,810
 (1,660,810)(9)
 
Common stock (Successor)
 200
(10)
 200
Additional paid-in capital (Successor)
 554,537
(10)
 554,537
Accumulated deficit(2,309,679) 2,073,875
(11)235,804
(15)
Total stockholders’ equity(649,673) 968,606
 235,804
 554,737
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$1,119,484
 $(271,082) $290,718
 $1,139,120

F-16

Table of Contents


Reorganization Adjustments

1.Reflects the net cash proceeds received from the sale of the Appalachia Properties in connection with the Plan and net cash payments made as of the Effective Date from implementation of the Plan (in thousands):
Sources:  
Net cash proceeds from sale of Appalachia Properties (a) $512,472
Total sources 512,472
Uses:  
Cash transferred to restricted account (b) 75,547
Break-up fee to Tug Hill 10,800
Repayment of outstanding borrowings under Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement 341,500
Repayment of 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes 100,000
Other fees and expenses (c) 20,230
Total uses 548,077
Net uses $(35,605)
(a) The closing of the sale of the Appalachia Properties occurred on February 27, 2017, but as emergence was contingent on such closing, the effects of the transaction are reflected as reorganization adjustments. See Note 4 – Divestiture for additional details on the sale. Total consideration received for the sale of the Appalachia Properties of $522.5 million included cash consideration of $512.5 million received at closing and a $10.0 million indemnity escrow which was released subsequent to emergence from bankruptcy (see Reorganization Adjustments item number 2 below).
(b) Reflects the movement of $75.0 million of cash held in a restricted account to satisfy near-term plugging and abandonment liabilities, pursuant to the provisions of the Amended Credit Agreement (as defined in Note 13 – Debt), and $0.5 million held in a restricted cash account for certain cure amounts in connection with the Chapter 11 proceedings.
(c)Other fees and expenses include approximately $15.2 million of emergence and success fees, $2.7 million of professional fees and $2.4 million of payments made to seismic providers in settlement of their bankruptcy claims.
2.
Reflects a receivable for a $10.0 million indemnity escrow with release delayed until emergence from bankruptcy, net of a $0.7 million reimbursement to Tug Hill in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties (see Note 4 – Divestiture).
3.Reflects the payment of a claim to a seismic provider as a prepayment/deposit.
4.Reflects the sale of vehicles in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties.
5.Reflects the write-off of $2.6 million of unamortized debt issuance costs related to the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement and the reversal of a $1.8 million prepayment made to Tug Hill in October 2016.
6.
Reflects the accrual of $2.0 million in expected bonus payments under the KEIP (as defined in Note 15 –Employee Benefit Plans) and a $0.4 million termination fee in connection with the early termination of an office lease, less the settlement of a property tax accrual of $2.6 million in connection with the sale of the Appalachia Properties.
7.Reflects the repayment of $341.5 million of outstanding borrowings under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement and the issuance of $225 million of 2022 Second Lien Notes as part of the settlement of the Predecessor Company 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes.
8.Liabilities subject to compromise were settled as follows in accordance with the Plan (in thousands):

F-17

Table of Contents


1 ¾% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017 $300,000
7 ½% Senior Notes due 2022 775,000
Accrued interest 35,182
Liabilities subject to compromise of the Predecessor Company 1,110,182
Cash payment to senior noteholders (100,000)
Issuance of 2022 Second Lien Notes to former holders of the senior notes (225,000)
Fair value of equity issued to unsecured creditors (539,089)
Fair value of warrants issued to unsecured creditors (15,648)
Gain on settlement of liabilities subject to compromise $230,445

9.Reflects the cancellation of the Predecessor Company’s common stock, treasury stock and additional paid-in capital.
10.Reflects the issuance of Successor Company equity. In accordance with the Plan, the Successor Company issued 19.0 million shares of New Common Stock to the former holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes and 1.0 million shares of New Common Stock to the Predecessor Company’s common stockholders. These amounts are subject to dilution by warrants issued to the Predecessor Company common stockholders, totaling approximately 3.5 million shares, with an exercise price of $42.04 per share and a term of four years. The fair value of the warrants was estimated at $4.43 per share using a Black-Scholes-Merton valuation model.
11.Reflects the cumulative impact of the reorganization adjustments discussed above (in thousands):
Gain on settlement of liabilities subject to compromise $230,445
Professional and other fees paid at emergence (10,648)
Write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs (2,577)
Other reorganization adjustments (1,915)
Net impact to reorganization items 215,305
Gain on sale of Appalachia Properties 213,453
Cancellation of Predecessor Company equity 1,662,282
Other adjustments to accumulated deficit (17,165)
Net impact to accumulated deficit $2,073,875

Fresh Start Adjustments

12.Fair value adjustments to oil and gas properties, associated inventory and unproved acreage. See above for a detailed discussion of the fair value methodology.
13.Fair value adjustment for an office building owned by the Company. The income and sales comparison approaches were used in determining the fair value, using anticipated future earnings and an appropriate expected rate of return, as well as relying upon recent sales or offerings of similar assets.
14.Fair value adjustments to the Company’s asset retirement obligations using estimated plugging and abandonment costs as of the Effective Date, adjusted for inflation and discounted at the Successor Company’s credit-adjusted risk free rate.
15.Reflects the cumulative effect of the fresh start accounting adjustments discussed above.
Reorganization Items

Reorganization items represent liabilities settled, net of amounts incurred subsequent to the Chapter 11 filing as a direct result of the Plan and are classified as “Reorganization items, net” in the Company’s consolidated statement of operations. The following table summarizes reorganization items, net (in thousands):

F-18

Table of Contents


    Predecessor
    Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
Gain on settlement of liabilities subject to compromise   $230,445
Fresh start valuation adjustments   235,804
Reorganization professional fees and other expenses   (20,403)
Write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs   (2,577)
Other reorganization items   (5,525)
Gain on reorganization items, net   $437,744

The cash payments for reorganization items for the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 include approximately $10.6 million of emergence and success fees and approximately $8.9 million of other reorganization professional fees and expenses paid on the Effective Date.

NOTE 4 — DIVESTITURE

On February 27, 2017, we completed the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT for net cash consideration of approximately $522.5 million, representing gross proceeds of $527.0 million adjusted downward by approximately $4.5 million for purchase price adjustments for operations related to the Appalachia Properties after June 1, 2016, the effective date of the transaction. A portion of the consideration received from the sale of the Appalachia Properties was used to fund the Company’s cash payment obligations under the Plan. See Note 2 – Reorganization.

At December 31, 2016, the estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves associated with these assets totaled 18 MMBoe (million barrels of oil equivalent), which represented approximately 34% of the Predecessor Company’s total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves, on a volume equivalent basis. We no longer have assets or operations in Appalachia. Since accounting for the sale of these oil and gas properties as a reduction of the capitalized costs of oil and gas properties would have significantly altered the relationship between capitalized costs and proved reserves, we recognized a gain on the sale of $213.5 million during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). The gain on the sale of the Appalachia Properties is computed as follows (in thousands):
Net consideration received for sale of Appalachia Properties $522,472
Add:Release of funds held in suspense 4,139
 Transfer of asset retirement obligations 8,672
 Other adjustments, net 2,597
Less:Transaction costs (7,087)
 Carrying value of properties sold (317,340)
Gain on sale $213,453

The carrying value of the properties sold was determined by allocating total capitalized costs within the U.S. full cost pool between properties sold and properties retained based on their relative fair values.

NOTE 5 — STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Common Stock

As discussed in Note 2 – Reorganization, upon emergence from bankruptcy, all existing shares of Predecessor common stock were cancelled, and the Successor Company issued an aggregate of 20.0 million shares of New Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, to the Predecessor Company’s existing common stockholders and holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes pursuant to the Plan.


F-19

Table of Contents


Warrants

As discussed in Note 2 – Reorganization, the Predecessor Company’s existing common stockholders received warrants to purchase approximately 3.5 million shares of New Common Stock. The warrants have an exercise price of $42.04 per share and a term of four years, unless terminated earlier by their terms upon the consummation of certain business combinations or sale transactions involving the Company. The Company allocated $15.6 million of the enterprise value to the warrants which is reflected in “Successor additional paid-in capital” on the audited consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2017 (Successor).

NOTE 6 — EARNINGS PER SHARE
On February 28, 2017. On February 15, 2017, upon emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirmingCompany’s Predecessor equity was cancelled and new equity was issued. Additionally, the Plan.Predecessor Company’s 2017 Convertible Notes were cancelled. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 ProceedingsReorganization. We expect the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, at which point we would emerge from bankruptcy. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we expect that we will eliminate approximately $1,191,500 in principal amount of outstanding debt, resulting in remaining debt outstanding of approximately $236,284, consisting of $225,000 of Second Lien Notes and $11,284 outstanding under the Building Loan (see Note 115DebtStockholders’ Equity). for further details.
While we expect the Plan to become effective on February 28, 2017, there can be no assurance that the effectiveness of the Plan will occur on such date, or at all. The uncertainty surrounding our Chapter 11 proceedings raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
NOTE 4 — EARNINGS PER SHARE:
The following table sets forth the calculation of basic and diluted weighted average shares outstanding and earnings per share for the indicated periods (in thousands, except per share amounts):
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014   2016 2015
Income (numerator):             
Basic:             
Net loss$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Net income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Net income attributable to participating securities
 
 

  (4,995) 
 
Net loss attributable to common stock - basic$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock - basic$(247,639)  $625,322
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Diluted:             
Net loss$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Net income (loss)$(247,639)  $630,317
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Net income attributable to participating securities
 
 

  (4,995) 
 
Net loss attributable to common stock - diluted$(590,586) $(1,090,915) $(189,543)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock - diluted$(247,639)  $625,322
 $(590,586) $(1,090,915)
Weighted average shares (denominator):             
Weighted average shares - basic5,591
 5,525
 5,272
19,997
  5,634
 5,591
 5,525
Dilutive effect of stock options
 
 

  
 
 
Dilutive effect of warrants
  
 
 
Dilutive effect of convertible notes
  
 
 
Weighted average shares - diluted5,591
 5,525
 5,272
19,997
  5,634
 5,591
 5,525
Basic loss per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95)
Diluted loss per share$(105.63) $(197.45) $(35.95)
Basic income (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45)
Diluted income (loss) per share$(12.38)  $110.99
 $(105.63) $(197.45)
All outstanding stock options were considered antidilutive during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) (10,400 shares) because the exercise price of the options exceeded the average price of our common stock for the applicable period. During the years ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) (12,900 shares), December 31, 2015 (14,400 shares) and December 31, 2014 (20,5002015 (Predecessor) (14,400 shares) all outstanding stock options were considered antidilutive because we had net losses for such years. On February 28, 2017, upon emergence from bankruptcy, all outstanding stock options were cancelled. See Note 16 – Share-Based Compensation.
DuringOn February 28, 2017, upon emergence from bankruptcy, the years endedPredecessor Company’s existing common stockholders received warrants to purchase common stock of the Successor Company. See Note 2 – Reorganization. For the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, approximately 79,621, 41,375 and 38,034 shares2017 (Successor), all outstanding warrants (approximately 3.5 million) were considered antidilutive because we had a net loss for such period.

The Predecessor Company had no outstanding restricted stock units. The board of directors of the Successor Company (the “Board”) received grants of restricted stock units on March 1, 2017. See Note 16 – Share-Based Compensation. For the period

F-20

Table of Contents


from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), all outstanding restricted stock units (62,137) were considered antidilutive because we had a net loss for such period.

For the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), the average price of our common stock respectively, were issued from authorized shares uponwas less than the lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock,effective conversion price for the granting of stock awards and2017 Convertible Notes, resulting in no dilutive effect on the exercise of stock options by employees and nonemployee directors. In May 2014, 575,000 shares of our common stock were issued in a public offering.
diluted earnings per share computation for such period. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and 2014,(Predecessor), the 2017 Convertible Notes had no dilutive effect on the diluted earnings per share computation as we had net losses for such years. ForOn February 28, 2017, upon emergence from bankruptcy, the 2017 Convertible Notes were cancelled. See Note 2 – Reorganization.

During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), 1,195 shares of common stock of the Successor Company were issued from authorized shares upon the lapsing of forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock for employees. During the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), 47,390, 79,621 and 2014, the average price41,375 shares of our common stock, was less than the strike price of the Sold Warrants (as defined in Note 11 – Debt) and therefore, such warrantsrespectively, were not dilutive for such years. Based on the terms of the Purchased Call Options (as defined in Note 11 – Debt), such call options are antidilutive and therefore were not included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.
On February 15, 2017, our Plan was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court. The Plan provides, as discussed in Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings, that the Company's currentlyissued from authorized common stock will be cancelled as of the consummation date of the Bankruptcy Proceedings. On such date, existing holders of common stock in Stone will receive their pro rata share of 5% of the

F-15

Table of Contents


common stock in reorganized Stone and warrants for ownership of up to 15% of reorganized Stone's common equity, exercisableshares upon the Company reaching certain benchmarks pursuant to the termslapsing of the proposed new warrants.forfeiture restrictions of restricted stock and granting of stock awards for employees and nonemployee directors.

NOTE 57 — ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE:RECEIVABLE
In our capacity as operator for our co-venturers, we incur drilling and other costs that we bill to the respective parties based on their working interests. We also receive payments for these billings and, in some cases, for billings in advance of incurring costs. Our accounts receivable are comprised of the following amounts:amounts (in thousands):
Successor  Predecessor
As of December 31,As of December 31,  As of December 31,
2016 20152017  2016
Other co-venturers$3,532
 $4,639
$2,656
  $3,532
Trade42,944
 26,224
34,980
  42,944
Unbilled accounts receivable591
 1,736
820
  591
Other1,397
 15,432
802
  1,397
Total accounts receivable$48,464
 $48,031
$39,258
  $48,464
NOTE 68CONCENTRATIONS:CONCENTRATIONS
Sales to Major Customers
Our production is sold on month-to-month contracts at prevailing prices. We obtain credit protections, such as parental guarantees, from certain of our purchasers. The following table identifies customers from whom we derived 10% or more of our total oil and natural gas revenue during the indicated periods:
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014  2016 2015
Phillips 66 Company68% 53% 31%74%  56% 68% 53%
Shell Trading (US) Company10% 13% 32%15%  7% 10% 13%
Williams Ohio Valley Midstream LLC%  12% 2% 9%
Conoco%  11% 5% 2%
The maximum amount of credit risk exposure at December 31, 20162017 (Successor) relating to these customers was $27,736.$30.5 million.
We believe that the loss of any of these purchasers would not result in a material adverse effect on our ability to market future oil and natural gas production.

F-21

Table of Contents


Production and Reserve Volumes – Unaudited
Approximately 66%All of our estimated proved reserve volumes at December 31, 20162017 (Successor) and 65%approximately 88% of our production during 20162017 were associated with our GOM deep water, conventional shelf and deep gas properties. Approximately 34%We closed the sale of our estimated proved reserve volumes at December 31, 2016 and 35% of our production during 2016 were associated with the Appalachia Properties.Properties on February 27, 2017 and no longer have assets or operations in Appalachia (see Note 4 – Divestiture).
Cash and Cash Equivalents
A substantial portion of our cash balances are not federally insured.

NOTE 79 — DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES:ACTIVITIES
Our hedging strategy is designed to protect our near and intermediate term cash flows from future declines in oil and natural gas prices. This protection is essential to capital budget planning, which is sensitive to expenditures that must be committed to in advance, such as rig contracts and the purchase of tubular goods. We enter into derivative transactions to secure a commodity price for a portion of our expected future production that is acceptable at the time of the transaction. These derivatives are generally designated as cash flow hedges upon entering into the contracts. We do not enter into derivative transactions for trading purposes. We have no
All derivatives are recognized as assets or liabilities on the balance sheet and are measured at fair value. At the end of each quarterly period, these derivatives are marked-to-market. If the derivative does not qualify or is not designated as a cash flow hedge, subsequent changes in the fair value hedges.
During 2016, 2015of the derivative are recognized in earnings through derivative income (expense) in the statement of operations. If the derivative qualifies and 2014,is designated as a portioncash flow hedge, subsequent changes in the fair value of ourthe derivative are recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss), net of related taxes, to the extent the hedge is considered effective. Monthly settlements of effective cash flow hedges are reflected in revenue from oil and natural gas production was hedged with fixed-price swapsproduction. Monthly settlements of ineffective hedges and collars with various counterparties.derivatives not designated or that do not qualify for hedge accounting are recognized in earnings through derivative income (expense). The resulting cash flows from all monthly settlements are reported as cash flows from operating activities.
Through December 31, 2016, we designated our commodity derivatives as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes upon entering into the contracts. A small portion of our cash flow hedges were typically determined to be ineffective because oil and natural gas price changes in the markets in which we sell our products were not 100% correlative to changes in the underlying price basis indicative in the derivative contract. We did not have anyhad no outstanding derivative contractsderivatives at December 31, 2016. In JanuaryWith respect to our 2017, 2018 and February 2017,2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the net changes in the mark-to-market valuations and the monthly settlements of these derivative contracts will be recorded in earnings through derivative income (expense).
We have entered into variousput contracts, fixed-price swaps and putcollar contracts with various counterparties for a portion of our expected 20172018 and 20182019 oil and natural gas production from

F-16

Table of Contents


the Gulf Coast Basin. As of February 23, 2017, our outstanding fixed-price swaps and put contracts are with Natixis, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, The Toronto-Dominion Bank and The Bank of Nova Scotia.

Our fixed-price oil swap settlements are based on an average of the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") closing price for West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") crude oil during the entire calendar month. Swaps typically provide for monthly payments by us if prices rise above the swap price or monthly payments to us if prices fall below the swap price. Put contracts are purchased at a rate per unit of hedged production that fluctuates with the commodity futures market. The historical cost of the put contract represents our maximum cash exposure. We are not obligated to make any further payments under the put contract regardless of future commodity price fluctuations. Under put contracts, monthly payments are made to us if the NYMEX prices fall below the agreed upon floor price, while allowing us to fully participate in commodity prices above the floor. Our put contract settlements are based on the average of the NYMEX closing price for WTI crude oil during the entire calendar month.

The following tables illustrate our derivative positions for calendar years 2017 and 2018 as of February 23, 2017:
  Put Contracts (NYMEX)
  Oil
  Cost of Put Daily Volume Price
  ($ in thousands) (Bbls/d) ($ per Bbl)
2017February - December$752
 1,000
 $50.00
2017February - December802
 1,000
 50.00
2018January - December2,183
 1,000
 54.00
  Fixed-Price Swaps (NYMEX)
  Oil
  Daily Volume Swap Price
  (Bbls/d) ($ per Bbl)
2017March - December1,000
 $53.90
2018January - December1,000
 52.50
All of our derivative transactions have been carried out in the over-the-counter market and are not typically subject to margin-deposit requirements. The use of derivative instruments involves the risk that the counterparties will be unable to meet the financial terms of such transactions. The counterparties to all of our derivative instruments have an "investment grade"“investment grade” credit rating. We monitor the credit ratings of our derivative counterparties on an ongoing basis. Although we typically enter into derivative contracts with multiple counterparties to mitigate our exposure to any individual counterparty, if any of our counterparties were to default on its obligations to us under the derivative contracts or seek bankruptcy protection, we may not realize the benefit of some of our derivative instruments and incur a loss. At February 23, 2017,March 9, 2018, our derivative instruments were with four counterparties, onetwo of which hedgedaccounted for approximately 37%64% of our total contracted volumes and three of which each hedged approximately 21% of our total contracted volumes. AllCurrently, all of our outstanding derivative instruments are with lenders under our current bank credit facility.

Put contracts are purchased at a rate per unit of hedged production that fluctuates with the commodity futures market. The historical cost of the put contract represents our maximum cash exposure. We previously discontinued hedge accountingare not obligated to make any further payments under the put contract regardless of future commodity price fluctuations. Under put contracts, monthly payments are made to us if the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) prices fall below the agreed upon floor price, while allowing us to fully participate in commodity prices above the floor. Swaps typically provide for certain 2015monthly payments by us if prices rise above the swap price or monthly payments to us if prices fall below the swap price. Collar contracts typically require payments by us if the NYMEX average closing price is above the ceiling price or payments to us if the NYMEX average closing price is below the floor price. Settlements for our oil put contracts, oil collar contracts and fixed-price oil swaps are based on an average of the NYMEX closing price for West Texas Intermediate crude oil during the entire calendar month. Settlements for our natural gas collar contracts as it became no longer probable, subsequent to the sale of our non-core GOM conventional shelf properties, that our GOMand fixed-price natural gas production would be sufficient to coverswaps are based on the GOM volumes hedged. Additionally,NYMEX price for the last day of a small portionrespective contract month.


F-22

Table of Contents


The following tables illustrate our cash flow hedges are typically determined to be ineffective because oilderivative positions for calendar years 2018 and natural gas price changes in the markets in which we sell our products are not 100% correlative to changes in the underlying price basis indicative in the derivative contract.2019 as of March 9, 2018:
  Put Contracts (NYMEX)
  Oil
  Daily Volume Price
  (Bbls/d) ($ per Bbl)
2018January - December1,000
 $54.00
2018January - December1,000
 45.00
  Fixed-Price Swaps (NYMEX)
  Oil
  Daily Volume Swap Price
  (Bbls/d) ($ per Bbl)
2018January - December1,000
 $52.50
2018January - December1,000
 51.98
2018January - December1,000
 53.67
2019January - December1,000
 51.00
2019January - December1,000
 51.57
2019January - December2,000
 56.13
  Collar Contracts (NYMEX)
  Natural Gas Oil
  Daily Volume
(MMBtus/d)
 Floor Price
($ per MMBtu)
 Ceiling Price
($ per MMBtu)
 
Daily Volume
(Bbls/d)
 Floor Price
($ per Bbl)
 Ceiling Price
($ per Bbl)
2018January - December6,000
 $2.75
 $3.24
 1,000
 $45.00
 $55.35
Derivatives not designated or not qualifying as hedging instruments:instruments
We had no outstanding hedging instruments at December 31, 2016. The following table discloses the location and fair value amounts of derivatives not designated or not qualifying as hedging instruments, as reported in our balance sheet, at December 31, 2015.2017 (Successor) (in thousands). We had no outstanding hedging instruments at December 31, 2016 (Predecessor). 
Fair Value of Derivatives Not Designated or Not Qualifying as Hedging Instruments at
December 31, 2017
(Successor)
 Asset Derivatives Liability Derivatives
DescriptionBalance Sheet Location Fair
Value
 Balance Sheet Location Fair
Value
Commodity contractsCurrent assets: Fair value of
derivative contracts
 $879
 Current liabilities: Fair value of derivative contracts $8,969
 Long-term assets: Fair value
of derivative contracts
 
 Long-term liabilities: Fair
value of derivative contracts
 3,085
   $879
   $12,054
Gains or losses related to changes in fair value and cash settlements for derivatives not designated or not qualifying as hedging instruments are recorded as derivative income (expense) in the statement of operations. The following table discloses the before tax effect of our derivatives not designated or not qualifying as hedging instruments on the statement of operations for the indicated periods (in thousands):

F-17F-23

Table of Contents


Fair Value of Derivatives Qualifying as Hedging Instruments at
December 31, 2015
  Asset Derivatives Liability Derivatives
Description Balance Sheet Location Fair Value Balance Sheet Location Fair Value
Commodity contracts Current assets: Fair value of derivative contracts $38,576
 Current liabilities: Fair value of derivative contracts $
  Long-term assets: Fair value of derivative contracts 
 Long-term liabilities: Fair value of derivative contracts 
    $38,576
   $
Gain (Loss) Recognized in Derivative Income (Expense)
  Successor  Predecessor
  Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended
Description    December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015
Commodity contracts:         
Cash settlements $2,161
  $
 $
 $17,385
Change in fair value (15,549)  (1,778) 
 (12,146)
Total gains (losses) on derivatives not designated or not qualifying as hedging instruments $(13,388)  $(1,778) $
 $5,239
Derivatives qualifying as hedging instruments
None of our derivative contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2017 (Successor) were designated as accounting hedges. We had no outstanding derivatives at December 31, 2016 (Predecessor). During 2016 and 2015, we had outstanding derivatives that were designated and qualified as hedging instruments. The following table discloses the before tax effect of derivatives qualifying as hedging instruments, as reported in the statement of operations, for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and 2014:(Predecessor) (in thousands):
Effect of Derivatives Qualifying as Hedging Instruments on the Statement of Operations
for the Years Ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014
for the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015for the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015
(Predecessor)(Predecessor)
Derivatives in Cash
Flow Hedging
Relationships
 
Amount of Gain
(Loss) Recognized
in Other
Comprehensive
Income on
Derivatives
 
Gain (Loss) Reclassified from
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
into Income
(Effective Portion) (a)
 
Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income
on Derivatives
(Ineffective Portion)
 
Amount of Gain
(Loss) Recognized
in Other
Comprehensive
Income on
Derivatives
 
Gain (Loss) Reclassified from
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
into Income
(Effective Portion) (a)
 
Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income
on Derivatives
(Ineffective Portion)
   Location   Location     Location   Location  
 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
Commodity contracts $(1,648) 
Operating revenue -
oil/natural gas production
 $35,457
 Derivative income (expense), net $(810) $(1,648) 
Operating revenue -
oil/natural gas production
 $35,457
 Derivative income (expense), net $(810)
Total $(1,648) $35,457
 $(810) $(1,648) $35,457
 $(810)
            
 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Commodity contracts $52,630
 
Operating revenue -
oil/natural gas production
 $149,955
 Derivative income (expense), net $2,713
 $52,630
 
Operating revenue -
oil/natural gas production
 $149,955
 Derivative income (expense), net $2,713
Total $52,630
 $149,955
 $2,713
 $52,630
 $149,955
 $2,713
      
 2014 2014 2014
Commodity contracts $136,097
 
Operating revenue -
oil/natural gas production
 $526
 Derivative income (expense), net $5,721
Total $136,097
 $526
 $5,721
(a)For the year ended December 31, 2016, effective hedging contracts increased oil revenue by $23,747 and increased natural gas revenue by $11,710. For the year ended December 31, 2015, effective hedging contracts increased oil revenue by $135,617 and increased natural gas revenue by $14,338. For the year ended December 31, 2014, effective hedging contracts increased oil revenue by $7,929 and decreased natural gas revenue by $7,403.
Derivatives not qualifying as hedging instruments:
Gains or losses related to changes in fair value and cash settlements for derivatives not qualifying as hedging instruments are recorded as derivative income (expense) in the statement of operations. The following table discloses the before tax effect of our derivatives not qualifying as hedging instruments on the statement of operations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Gain (Loss) Recognized in Derivative Income (Expense)
  Year Ended
Description December 31, 2016 December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014
Commodity contracts:      
Cash settlements $
 $17,385
 $1,484
Change in fair value 
 (12,146) 12,146
Total gain on non-qualifying derivatives $
 $5,239
 $13,630

F-18

Table of Contents


Offsetting of derivative assets and liabilities:liabilities
Our derivative contracts are subject to netting arrangements. It is our policy to not offset our derivative contracts in presenting the fair value of these contracts as assets and liabilities in our balance sheet. The following table presents the potential impact of the offset rights associated with our recognized assets and liabilities at December 31, 2017 (Successor) (in thousands):
  As Presented Without Netting Effects of Netting With Effects of Netting
Current assets: Fair value of derivative contracts $879
 $(879) $
Long-term assets: Fair value of derivative contracts 
 
 
Current liabilities: Fair value of derivative contracts (8,969) 879
 (8,090)
Long-term liabilities: Fair value of derivative contracts (3,085) 
 (3,085)

We had no outstanding derivative contracts as ofat December 31, 2016. As2016 (Predecessor).

F-24

Table of December 31, 2015, all of our derivative contracts were in an asset position and therefore, there was no potential impact of the rights of offset.Contents




NOTE 810 — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:MEASUREMENTS

U.S. GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that has three levels based on the reliability of the inputs used to determine the fair value. These levels include: Level 1, defined as inputs such as unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities; Level 2, defined as inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs for use when little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions.
As of December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2016 and 2015,(Predecessor), we held certain financial assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis, including our commodity derivative instruments and our investments in marketable securities. We utilize the services of an independent third party to assist us in valuing our derivative instruments. We used theThe income approach is used in determiningthis determination utilizing the fair value of our derivative instruments utilizing athird party’s proprietary pricing model. The model accounts for our credit risk and the credit risk of our counterparties in the discount rate applied to estimated future cash inflows and outflows. Our swap contracts are included within the Level 2 fair value hierarchy, and our collar and put contracts are included within the Level 3 fair value hierarchy. Significant unobservable inputs used in establishing fair value for the collars and puts wereare the volatility impacts in the pricing model as it relates to the call portion of the collar and the floor of the put. For a more detailed description of our derivative instruments, see Note 79 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. We used the market approach in determining the fair value of our investments in marketable securities, which are included within the Level 1 fair value hierarchy.
The following tables present our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2017 (Successor) (in thousands):
  Fair Value Measurements
  Successor as of
  December 31, 2017
Assets Total 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Marketable securities (Other assets) $5,081
 $5,081
 $
 $
Derivative contracts 879
 
 
 879
Total $5,960
 $5,081
 $
 $879
  Fair Value Measurements
  Successor as of
  December 31, 2017
Liabilities Total Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Liabilities
(Level 1)
 Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Derivative contracts $12,054
 $
 $10,110
 $1,944
Total $12,054
 $
 $10,110
 $1,944
We had no liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2016 and 2015.2016. The following tables presenttable presents our assets that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2016 and 2015:(Predecessor) (in thousands):
 Fair Value Measurements
 Fair Value Measurements at Predecessor as of
 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2016
Assets Total 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
 Total 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Marketable securities (Other assets) $8,746
 $8,746
 $
 $
 $8,746
 $8,746
 $
 $
Total $8,746
 $8,746
 $
 $
 $8,746
 $8,746
 $
 $

F-25

Table of Contents

  Fair Value Measurements at
  December 31, 2015
Assets Total 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Marketable securities (Other assets) $8,499
 $8,499
 $
 $
Derivative contracts 38,576
 
 36,603
 1,973
Total $47,075
 $8,499
 $36,603
 $1,973

The table below presents a reconciliation for assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) during the year endedperiod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016.

F-19

Table of Contents


2017 (Successor) and the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) (in thousands):
 Hedging Contracts, net Hedging Contracts, net
Balance as of January 1, 2016 $1,973
 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
Beginning balance $3,087
  $
Total gains/(losses) (realized or unrealized):       
Included in earnings 1,111
 (5,201)  (649)
Included in other comprehensive income (1,910) 
  
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements (1,174) 1,049
  3,736
Transfers in and out of Level 3 
 
  
Balance as of December 31, 2016 $
The amount of total gains/(losses) for the period included in earnings (derivative income) attributable to the change in unrealized gain/(losses) relating to derivatives still held at December 31, 2016 $
Ending balance $(1,065)  $3,087
The amount of total gains/(losses) for the period included in earnings (derivative income) attributable to the change in unrealized gain/(losses) relating to derivatives still held at December 31, 2017 $(4,699)   
The fair value of cash and cash equivalents approximated book value at December 31, 20162017 and 2015.2016. Upon emergence from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017, the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes were cancelled, and the Company issued the 2022 Second Lien Notes. As of December 31, 2016, and 2015, the fair value of the liability component of the 2017 Convertible Notes was approximately $293,530 and $217,117, respectively.$293.5 million. As of December 31, 2016, and 2015, the fair value of the 2022 Notes was approximately $465,000 and $271,250, respectively.
The$465.0 million. As of December 31, 2017, the fair value of the 2022 Second Lien Notes was approximately $227.3 million.
The fair values of the 2022 Notes and the 2022 Second Lien Notes were determined based on quotes obtained from brokers, which represent Level 1 inputs. We applied fair value concepts in determining the liability component of the 2017 Convertible Notes (see Note 11 – Debt) at inception and at December 31, 2016 and 2015.2016. The fair value of the liability was estimated using an income approach. The significant inputs in these determinations were market interest rates based on quotes obtained from brokers and represent Level 2 inputs.

On February 28, 2017, the Company emerged from bankruptcy and adopted fresh start accounting, which resulted in the Company becoming a new entity for financial reporting purposes. Upon the adoption of fresh start accounting, the Company’s assets and liabilities were recorded at their fair values as of the fresh start reporting date, February 28, 2017. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for a detailed discussion of the fair value approaches used by the Company. The inputs utilized in the valuation of our most significant asset, our oil and gas properties, included mostly unobservable inputs, which fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

NOTE 9 — ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS:
The change in our asset retirement obligations during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 is set forth below:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
Asset retirement obligations as of the beginning of the year, including current portion$225,866
 $316,409
 $502,513
Liabilities incurred2,338
 15,933
 28,606
Liabilities settled(19,630) (72,713) (55,839)
Divestment of properties
 (248) (137,801)
Accretion expense40,229
 25,988
 28,411
Revision of estimates(6,784) (59,503) (49,481)
Asset retirement obligations as of the end of the year, including current portion$242,019
 $225,866
 $316,409

F-20F-26

Table of Contents


NOTE 1011 — ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
Upon emergence from bankruptcy, as discussed in Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting, the Company adopted fresh start accounting which included the adjustment of asset retirement obligations to estimated fair values at February 28, 2017. The following table presents the change in our asset retirement obligations during the indicated periods (in thousands, inclusive of current portion):
  Successor  Predecessor
  Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
     2016 2015
Beginning balance $290,067
  $242,019
 $225,866
 $316,409
Liabilities incurred 2,280
  
 2,338
 15,933
Liabilities settled (81,197)  (3,641) (19,630) (72,713)
Divestment of properties 
  (8,672) 
 (248)
Accretion expense 21,151
  5,447
 40,229
 25,988
Revision of estimates (19,200)  
 (6,784) (59,503)
Fair value fresh start adjustment 
  54,914
 
 
Asset retirement obligations, end of period $213,101
  $290,067
 $242,019
 $225,866

NOTE 12 — INCOME TAXES:TAXES
An analysis of our deferred taxes follows:follows (in thousands):
Successor  Predecessor
As of December 31,As of December 31,  As of December 31,
2016 20152017  2016
Tax effect of temporary differences:       
Net operating loss carryforwards$201,557
 $31,624
$66,304
  $201,557
Oil and gas properties85,772
 76,766
12,035
  85,772
Asset retirement obligations85,312
 79,618
44,751
  85,312
Stock compensation3,294
 5,199
278
  3,294
Hedges
 (13,598)
Derivatives3,110
  
Accrued incentive compensation954
 1,234
2,269
  954
Debt issuance costs7,480
 
644
  7,480
Other441
 (722)1,600
  441
Total deferred tax assets (liabilities)384,810
 180,121
130,991
  384,810
Valuation allowance(384,810) (180,121)(130,991)  (384,810)
Net deferred tax assets (liabilities)$
 $
$
  $
Upon our emergence from bankruptcy, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, a substantial portion of the Company’s pre-petition debt was extinguished (see Note 2 – Reorganization). For tax purposes, absent an exception, a debtor recognizes cancellation of indebtedness income (“CODI”) upon discharge of its outstanding indebtedness for an amount of consideration that is less than its adjusted issue price. The IRC provides that a debtor in a bankruptcy case may exclude CODI from taxable income but must reduce certain of its tax attributes by the amount of any CODI realized as a result of the consummation of a plan of reorganization. The amount of CODI realized by a taxpayer is the adjusted issue price of any indebtedness discharged less the sum of (i) the amount of cash paid, (ii) the issue price of any new indebtedness issued and (iii) the fair market value of any other consideration, including equity, issued. After consideration of the market value of the Company’s equity upon emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the estimated amount of U.S. CODI is approximately $257 million, which will reduce the value of the Company’s U.S. net operating losses. The actual reduction in tax attributes does not occur until the first day of the Company’s tax year subsequent to the date of emergence, or January 1, 2018. The estimated results of the attribute reduction have been reflected in the Company’s ending balance of deferred tax assets for the year ended December 31, 2017 (Successor). The Successor Company

F-27

Table of Contents


also has various state net operating loss carryforwards that are subject to reduction as a result of the CODI being excluded from taxable income, however, subsequent to the sale of the Appalachia Properties, our state income tax exposure is not expected to be material.
On December 22, 2017, the U.S. government enacted comprehensive tax legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). Generally effective for tax years 2018 and beyond, the Tax Act makes broad and complex changes to the IRC, including, but not limited to, (i) reducing the U.S. federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%; (ii) eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) and changing how existing AMT credits are realized; (iii) creating a new limitation on deductible interest expense; and (iv) changing rules related to uses and limitation of net operating loss carryforwards created in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2017, we have not completed our accounting for the tax effects of enactment of the Tax Act. However, we have made a reasonable estimate of the effects on our existing deferred tax balances and recognized a provisional amount of $87.3 million to remeasure our deferred tax assets and liabilities based on the rates at which they are expected to reverse in the future, which is generally 21%. This amount is included as a component of income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations and is fully offset by the related adjustment to our valuation allowance. We are still analyzing certain aspects of the Tax Act and refining our calculations, which could potentially affect the measurement of these balances or potentially give rise to new deferred tax amounts.
We estimate that we had ($5,674), ($44,096)18.3) million and $159$3.6 million, respectively, of current federal income tax expense (benefit) for the years endedperiods of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016, 20152017 (Successor) and 2014, respectively.the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor) we had ($5.7) million and 2014, we recorded($44.1) million, respectively, of current federal income tax (benefits). There was no deferred income tax expense (benefits)(benefit) recorded for the periods of $13,080, ($272,311)March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), we recorded a deferred income tax expense (benefit) of $13.1 million and ($102,177),272.3) million, respectively. The deferred income tax benefits werebenefit in 2015 was a result of our losses before income taxes attributable primarily to ceiling test write-downs of our oil and gas properties (see Note 1722 – Supplemental Information on Oil and Natural Gas Operations – Unaudited). We had current income tax receivables of $26,086$36.3 million and $46,174$26.1 million at December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2016 and 2015,(Predecessor), respectively, both of which related to expected tax refunds from the carryback of net operating losses to previous tax years. We received $20.6 million of the tax refund subsequent to December 31, 2017.
For tax reporting purposes, our net operating loss carryforwards totaled approximately $599,144$315.7 million at December 31, 2016.2017 (net of the aforementioned CODI reduction). If not utilized, the majority of such carryforwards would begin to expire in 2035 and would fully expire in 2036. Additionally, IRC Section 382 provides an annual limitation with respect to the ability of a corporation to utilize its tax attributes, as well as certain built-in-losses, against future U.S. taxable income in the event of a change in ownership. The Company’s emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings resulted in a change in ownership for purposes of IRC Section 382. Accordingly, we estimate that approximately $127 million of our net operating loss carryforwards will be subject to the annual IRC Section 382 limitation, with the remaining $189 million of net operating loss carryforwards being unlimited.
In addition, we had approximately $1,050$1.2 million in statutory depletion deductions available for tax reporting purposes that may be carried forward indefinitely. Recognition of a deferred tax asset associated with these and other carryforwards is dependent upon our evaluation that it is more likely than not that the asset will ultimately be realized. As a result of the significant declines in commodity prices and the resulting ceiling test write-downs and net losses incurred, we determined during 2015 that it was more likely than not that a portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized in the future. Accordingly, we established a valuation allowance against a portion of our deferred tax assets. As of December 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), our valuation allowance totaled $384,810.$131.0 million. Our assessment of the realizability of our deferred tax assets is based on the weight of all available evidence, both positive and negative, including future reversals of deferred tax liabilities.
A
F-28

Table of Contents


The following table provides a reconciliation betweenof the statutory federal income tax rate and ourto the Company’s effective income tax rate as a percentage of income before income taxes follows:for the indicated periods:
Successor  Predecessor
Year Ended December 31,Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014  2016 2015
Income tax expense computed at the statutory federal income tax rate35.0% 35.0% 35.0%35.0%  35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Tax Act rate change(32.8)    
State taxes0.2 0.6 1.0(0.7)  0.3 0.2 0.6
Change in valuation allowance(35.0) (12.8) 5.3  (37.8) (35.0) (12.8)
IRC Sec. 162(m) limitation(0.3) (0.1) (0.5)0.4   (0.3) (0.1)
Tax deficits on stock compensation(0.7) (0.1) (0.2)(0.6)  0.6 (0.7) (0.1)
Reorganization fees(0.3)  0.3  2.5 (0.3) 
Other(0.2) (0.1) (0.3)   (0.2) (0.1)
Effective income tax rate(1.3)% 22.5% 35.0%6.9%  0.6% (1.3)% 22.5%

F-21

TableThere were no income taxes allocated to accumulated other comprehensive income for the periods of Contents


March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). Income taxes allocated to accumulated other comprehensive income related to oil and gas hedges amounted to ($13,080),13.1) million, ($35,737) and $49,60135.7) million for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and 2014,(Predecessor), respectively.
As of December 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), we had unrecognized tax benefits of $491.$491 thousand. If recognized, all of our unrecognized tax benefits would impact our effective tax rate. A reconciliation of the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits follows:follows (in thousands):
Total unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2015 $491
Successor  Predecessor
Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
  
Total unrecognized tax benefits, beginning balance$491
  $491
Increases (decreases) in unrecognized tax benefits as a result of:      
Tax positions taken during a prior period 

  
Tax positions taken during the current period 

  
Settlements with taxing authorities 

  
Lapse of applicable statute of limitations 

  
Total unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31, 2016 $491
Total unrecognized tax benefits, ending balance$491
  $491
Our unrecognized tax benefits pertain to a proposed state income tax audit adjustment. We believe that our unrecognized tax benefits may be reduced to zero within the next 12 months upon completion and ultimate settlement of the examination.
It is our policy to classify interest and penalties associated with underpayment of income taxes as interest expense and general and administrative expenses, respectively. We recognized $33 thousand and $7 thousand, respectively, of interest expense and no penalties related to uncertain tax positions for the periods of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). We recognized $46 thousand of interest expense and no penalties related to uncertain tax positions for the year ended December 31, 2016.2016 (Predecessor). We recognized $131 thousand of interest expense and no penalties related to uncertain tax positions for the year ended December 31, 2015. No such amounts were recognized for the year ended December 31, 2014.2015 (Predecessor). The liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits and accrued interest payable are components of other current liabilities on our balance sheet.
The tax years 20132014 through 20162017 remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions.


F-29

Table of Contents


NOTE 1113DEBT:DEBT
Our debt consistedbalances (net of the following at:related unamortized discounts and debt issuance costs) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows (in thousands):
December 31,Successor  Predecessor
2016 2015December 31,  December 31,
2017  2016
7 1⁄2% Senior Second Lien Notes due 2022
$225,000
  $
1 34% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017
$300,000
 $279,244

  300,000
7 12% Senior Notes due 2022
775,000
 770,009
Revolving credit facility341,500
 
7 1⁄2% Senior Notes due 2022

  775,000
Predecessor revolving credit facility
  341,500
4.20% Building Loan11,284
 11,702
10,927
  11,284
Total debt$1,427,784
 $1,060,955
$235,927
  $1,427,784
Less: current portion of long-term debt(408) 
(425)  (408)
Less: liabilities subject to compromise (see Note 2)(1,075,000) 
Less: liabilities subject to compromise
  (1,075,000)
Long-term debt$352,376
 $1,060,955
$235,502
  $352,376
Bankruptcy FilingReorganization
On December 14, 2016, the Debtors filed voluntary petitionsBankruptcy Petitions seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.Code to pursue a prepackaged plan of reorganization. The Bankruptcy Petitions constituted an event of default that accelerated2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes were impacted by the Company's obligations under all of its outstanding debt instruments, resultingChapter 11 process and were classified in the principal and interest due thereunder immediately due and payable. However, any efforts to enforce such payment obligations were automatically stayedaccompanying consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016 as a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, and the creditors' rights of enforcement in respect of the debt instruments wereliabilities subject to compromise under the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and orders of the Bankruptcy Court.ASC 852, “Reorganizations”. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court confirmedentered an order confirming the Plan. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings for additional informationPlan, and on February 28, 2017, the Bankruptcy Proceedings.Plan became effective and the Debtors emerged from bankruptcy. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Predecessor Company’s 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes were cancelled, the Predecessor Company’s Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement was amended and restated, and the Company issued the 2022 Second Lien Notes.
Current Portion of Long-Term Debt

As of December 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), the current portion of long-term debt of $408$0.4 million represented principal payments due within one year on the 4.20% Building Loan (the "Building Loan"“Building Loan”).

F-22

Table of Contents



Reclassification of DebtDebt

The face valuevalues of the 2017 Convertible Notes of $300,000$300 million and the 2022 Notes of $775,000 have been$775 million were reclassified as liabilities subject to compromise in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016. Additionally, we recognized a charge of approximately $8,332 to write-off the remaining unamortized deferred financing costs, discounts and premiums related to the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes and a charge of $2,615 for costs directly related to the bankruptcy proceedings, including legal and financial advisory costs for Stone, our bank group and our noteholders incurred post-bankruptcy filing, which are included in reorganization items in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.2016 (Predecessor). See Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.

Successor Revolving Credit Facility

On June 24, 2014, wethe Effective Date, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company entered into the Fifth Amended and Restated Credit FacilityAgreement with commitments totaling $900,000 (subjectthe lenders party thereto and Bank of America, N.A. (as amended from time to time, the “Amended Credit Agreement”), as administrative agent and issuing lender, which amended and replaced the Company’s Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement. The Amended Credit Agreement provides for a reserve-based revolving credit facility and matures on February 28, 2021.
The Company’s available borrowings under the Amended Credit Agreement were initially set at $150 million until the first borrowing base limitations) through a syndicated bank group, with an initial borrowing base of $500,000. The Credit Facility matures on July 1, 2019.redetermination in November 2017. On April 13, 2016, ourNovember 8, 2017, the borrowing base under the Amended Credit FacilityAgreement was reduced from $500,000redetermined to $300,000.$100 million. On that date, weDecember 31, 2017, the Company had $457,000 ofno outstanding borrowings and $18,269 of outstanding letters of credit, or $175,269 in excess of the redetermined borrowing base (referred to as a borrowing base deficiency). Our agreement with the banks provides that within 30 days after notification of a borrowing base deficiency, we must elect to cure the borrowing base deficiency through any combination of the following actions: (1) repay amounts outstanding sufficient to cure the deficiency within 10 days after our written election to do so; (2) add additional oil and gas properties acceptable to the banks to the borrowing base and take such actions necessary to grant the banks a mortgage in the properties within 30 days after our written election to do so; and/or (3) arrange to pay the deficiency in six equal monthly installments. We elected to pay the deficiency in six equal monthly installments, making the first payment of $29,212 on May 13, 2016 and the second payment of $29,212 on June 13, 2016.
On June 14, 2016, we entered into Amendment No. 3 (the "June Amendment") to the Credit Facility to (i) increase the borrowing base to $360,000 from $300,000, (ii) provide for no redetermination of the borrowing base by the lenders until January 15, 2017, other than an automatic reduction upon the sale of certain of our properties, (iii) permit second lien indebtedness to refinance the existing 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes, (iv) revise the maximum Consolidated Funded Leverage financial covenant to be 5.25 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2016, 6.50 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2016, 9.50 to 1 for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2016 and 3.75 to 1 thereafter, (v) require minimum liquidity (as defined in the June Amendment) of at least $125,000 until January 15, 2017, (vi) impose limitations on capital expenditures of $60,000 for the period of June 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, but allowing for an additional $25,000 to be expended for Appalachian drilled but uncompleted wells, (vii) grant the lenders a perfected security interest in all deposit accounts and (viii) provide for anti-hoarding cash provisions for amounts in excess of $50,000 to apply after December 10, 2016. Upon execution of the June Amendment, we repaid $56,845 in borrowings under the Credit Facility, which eliminated the borrowing base deficiency and brought the total borrowings and letters of credit outstanding under the Credit Facility in conformity with the borrowing base limitation.

As of December 31, 2016 and February 23, 2017, we had $341,500 of outstanding borrowings and $12,469$12.6 million of outstanding letters of credit, leaving $6,031$87.4 million of availability under the Amended Credit Facility. The weighted average interest rateAgreement. Interest on loans under the Amended Credit Facility was approximately 3.2%Agreement is calculated using the London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”) or the base rate, at December 31, 2016. Subjectthe election of the Company, plus, in each case, an applicable margin. The applicable margin is determined based on borrowing base utilization and ranges from 2.00% to certain exceptions, the Credit Facility is required3.00% per annum for base rate loans and 3.00% to be guaranteed by all of our material domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2016, the Credit Facility was guaranteed by our only material subsidiary, Stone Offshore. On August 29, 2016, our subsidiaries SEO A LLC and SEO B LLC were merged into Stone Offshore.4.00% per annum for LIBOR loans.
The borrowing base under the Amended Credit FacilityAgreement is redetermined semi-annually, typically in May and November, by the lenders, taking into consideration the estimated loan value of our oil and gas properties and those of our subsidiaries that guarantee the Credit Facility in accordance with the lenders’ customary practices for oil and gas loans. In addition, we and the lenders each have

F-30

Table of Contents


discretion at any time, but not more than two additional times each in any calendar year, to have the borrowing base redetermined. Subject to certain exceptions, the Amended Credit Agreement is required to be guaranteed by all of the material domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company. As of December 31, 2017, the Amended Credit Agreement is guaranteed by Stone Offshore. The Amended Credit FacilityAgreement is collateralizedsecured by substantially all of our assetsthe Company’s and its subsidiaries’ assets.
The Amended Credit Agreement provides for customary optional and mandatory prepayments, affirmative and negative covenants and events of default, including limitations on the assetsincurrence of our material subsidiaries. We are requireddebt, liens, restrictive agreements, mergers, asset sales, dividends, investments, affiliate transactions and restrictions on commodity hedging. During the continuance of certain events of default, the lenders may take a number of actions, including declaring the entire amount then outstanding under the Amended Credit Agreement due and payable (in the event of certain insolvency-related events, the entire amount then outstanding under the Amended Credit Agreement will become automatically due and payable). The Amended Credit Agreement also requires maintenance of certain financial covenants, including (i) a consolidated funded debt to mortgage,EBITDA ratio of not more than 2.75x for the test period ending March 31, 2017, 2.50x for the test period ending June 30, 2017, 3.00x for the test period ending September 30, 2017, 2.75x for the test period ending December 31, 2017, 2.50x for the test periods ending March 31, 2018, June 30, 2018, September 30, 2018 and grantDecember 31, 2018, respectively, 2.75x for the test period ending March 31, 2019, 3.00x for the test period ending June 30, 2019, 3.50x for the test periods ending September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019, respectively, 3.00x for the test period ending March 31, 2020, 2.75x for the test periods ending June 30, 2020 and September 30, 2020, respectively, and 2.50x for the test periods ending December 31, 2020 and March 31, 2021, respectively, (ii) a securityconsolidated interest in, our oilcoverage ratio of not less than 2.75 to 1.00, and natural gas reserves representing(iii) a requirement to maintain minimum liquidity of at least 86%20% of the discounted present value of the future net cash flows from our proved oil and natural gas reserves reviewed in determining the borrowing base. We were in compliance with all covenants under the Amended Credit Agreement as of December 31, 2017.
Predecessor Revolving Credit Facility
On June 24, 2014, the Predecessor Company entered into the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement with the lenders party thereto and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and issuing lender, with commitments totaling $900 million (subject to borrowing base limitations). The borrowing base under the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement prior to its amendment and restatement as the Amended Credit Agreement was $150 million. Interest on loans under the Pre-Emergence Credit Facility isAgreement was calculated using the London Interbank Offering ("LIBOR")LIBOR rate or the base rate, at our election. The margin for loans at the LIBOR rate iswas determined based on borrowing base utilization and rangesranged from 1.500% to 2.500%.
In additionPrior to emergence from bankruptcy, the covenants discussed above, the Credit Facility provides that we must maintain a ratioPredecessor Company had $341.5 million of consolidated EBITDA to consolidated Net Interest Expense, as defined in the Credit Facility, for the preceding four quarterly periodsoutstanding borrowings and $12.5 million of not less than 2.5 to 1. Asoutstanding letters of December 31, 2016, our Consolidated Funded Debt to consolidated EBITDA ratio was 6.90 to 1 and our consolidated EBITDA to consolidated Net Interest Expense ratio was approximately 3.24 to 1. The Credit Facility also includes

F-23

Table of Contents


certain customary restrictions or requirements with respect to disposition of properties, incurrence of additional debt, change of control and reporting responsibilities. These covenants may limit or prohibit us from paying cash dividends but do allow for limited stock repurchases. These covenants also restrict our ability to prepay other indebtedness under certain circumstances. We were in compliance with all covenants as of December 31, 2016, however, the Bankruptcy Petitions constituted an event of default that accelerated the Company's obligationscredit under the Pre-Emergence Credit Facility, resultingAgreement. At emergence, the outstanding borrowings were paid in the principal and interest due thereunder immediately due and payable. Any efforts to enforce such payment obligations were automatically stayed as a result of the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions,full and the lenders' rights$12.5 million of enforcement in respectoutstanding letters of such amountscredit were subjectconverted to the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
On December 14, 2016, the Debtors and the Banks holding 100% of the aggregate principal amount owing under the Credit Facility entered into the A&R RSA, pursuant to which the Banks will receive their respective pro rata share of commitments and obligations under the Amended Credit Facility on the terms set forth in Exhibit 1(a) to the Term Sheet, as well as their respective share of the Company’s unrestricted cash, as of the effective date of the Plan, in excess of $25,000, net of certain fees, payments, escrows or distributions pursuant to the Plan and the PSA. The terms of the Amended Credit Facility under the Plan are substantially consistent with the pre-petition facility, except, the borrowing base will be reduced to $200,000, subject to a $150,000 borrowing cap until the first redetermination of the borrowing base scheduled for November 1, 2017, and subject to decrease under certain circumstances. Additionally, the Consolidated Funded Leverage financial covenant will be adjusted to levels ranging from 2.50 to 1 to 3.00 to 1 for 2017 and ranging from 2.50 to 1 to 3.50 to 1 thereafter. The margin for loans at the LIBOR rate will be increased to a range of 3.00% to 4.00%.Agreement.
Building Loan
On November 20, 2015, we entered into an $11,802approximately $11.8 million term loan agreement, the Building Loan, maturing on DecemberNovember 20, 2030. There were no changes to the terms of the Building Loan pursuant to the Plan. The Building Loan bears interest at a rate of 4.20% per annum and is to be repaid in 180 equal monthly installments of $73approximately $73,000 commencing on December 20, 2015. As of December 31, 2017, the outstanding balance under the Building Loan totaled $10.9 million.
The Building Loan is collaterizedcollateralized by our two Lafayette, Louisiana office buildings. Under the financial covenants of the Building Loan, we must maintain a ratio of EBITDA to Net Interest Expense of not less than 2.00 to 1.00. As of December 31, 2016, our EBITDA to Net Interest Expense ratio was 3.24 to 1.In addition, the Building Loan contains certain customary restrictions or requirements with respect to change of control and reporting responsibilities. There will be no changesWe were in compliance with all covenants under the Building Loan as of December 31, 2017.
Successor 2022 Second Lien Notes
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the terms of the Building LoanPlan, the Successor Company entered into an indenture by and among the Company, Stone Offshore, as guarantor (the “Guarantor”), and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee and collateral agent (the “2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture”), and issued $225 million of the Company’s 2022 Second Lien Notes pursuant thereto.

Interest on the 2022 Second Lien Notes accrues at a rate of 7.50% per annum payable semi-annually in arrears on May 31 and November 30 of each year in cash, beginning November 30, 2017. At December 31, 2017, $1.4 million had been accrued in connection with the May 31, 2018 interest payment. The 2022 Second Lien Notes are secured on a second lien priority basis by the same collateral that secures the Amended Credit Agreement, including the Company’s oil and natural gas properties, and are guaranteed by the Guarantor. The 2022 Second Lien Notes mature on May 31, 2022. Pursuant to the Plan.terms of the Intercreditor Agreement (as defined below), the security interest in those assets that secure the 2022 Second Lien Notes and the related guarantee

F-31

Table of Contents


are contractually subordinated to liens thereon that secure the Company’s Amended Credit Agreement and certain other permitted obligations as set forth in the 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture. Consequently, the 2022 Second Lien Notes and the related guarantee are effectively subordinated to the Amended Credit Agreement and such other permitted secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of such assets.

At any time prior to May 31, 2020, the Company may, at its option, on any one or more occasions redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes issued under the 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture at a redemption price of 107.5% of the principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption date, with an amount of cash equal to the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings; provided that at least 65% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes as of the Effective Date remains outstanding after each such redemption. On or after May 31, 2020, the Company may redeem all or part of the 2022 Second Lien Notes at redemption prices (expressed as percentages of the principal amount) equal to (i) 105.625% for the twelve-month period beginning on May 31, 2020; (ii) 105.625% for the twelve-month period beginning on May 31, 2021; and (iii) 100.000% for the twelve-month period beginning on May 31, 2022 and at any time thereafter, in each case, plus accrued and unpaid interest at the redemption date. In addition, at any time prior to May 31, 2020, the Company may redeem all or a part of the 2022 Second Lien Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2022 Second Lien Notes to be redeemed plus a make-whole premium, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption date.

The 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture contains covenants that restrict the Company’s ability and the ability of certain of its subsidiaries to: (i) incur additional debt and issue preferred stock; (ii) make payments or distributions on account of the Company’s or its restricted subsidiaries’ capital stock; (iii) sell assets; (iv) restrict dividends or other payments of the Company’s restricted subsidiaries; (v) create liens that secure debt; (vi) enter into transactions with affiliates, and (vii) merge or consolidate with another company. These covenants are subject to a number of important exceptions and qualifications. At any time when the 2022 Second Lien Notes are rated investment grade by both Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and no Default (as defined in the 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture) has occurred and is continuing, many of these covenants will terminate.

The 2022 Second Lien Notes Indenture also provides for certain events of default. In the case of an event of default arising from certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization with respect to the Company or any of the Company’s restricted subsidiaries that is a significant subsidiary, or any group of the Company’s restricted subsidiaries that, taken as a whole, would constitute a significant subsidiary of the Company, all outstanding 2022 Second Lien Notes will become due and immediately payable without further action or notice. If any other event of default occurs and is continuing, the trustee of the 2022 Second Lien Notes or the holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding 2022 Second Lien Notes may declare all the 2022 Second Lien Notes to be due and payable immediately.

Intercreditor Agreement

On the Effective Date, Bank of America, N.A., as priority lien agent, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as second lien collateral agent, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as the 2022 Second Lien Notes trustee, entered into an intercreditor agreement, which was acknowledged and agreed to by the Company and the Guarantor (the “Intercreditor Agreement”) to govern the relationship of holders of the 2022 Second Lien Notes, the lenders under the Amended Credit Agreement and holders of other priority lien obligations, with respect to collateral and certain other matters.

Predecessor Senior Notes

2017 Convertible Notes
Notes. On March 6, 2012, wethe Predecessor Company issued in a private offering $300,000$300 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2017 Convertible Notes to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").amended. The 2017 Convertible Notes arewere convertible into cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, based on an initial conversion rate of 23.4449 shares of our common stock per $1$1,000 principal amount of 2017 Convertible Notes, which corresponded to an initial conversion price of approximately $42.65 per share of our common stock at the time of the issuance of the 2017 Convertible Notes. The conversion rate, and thus the conversion price, may be adjusted under certain circumstances as described in the indenture related to the 2017 Convertible Notes. On June 10, 2016, we completed a 1-for-10 reverse stock split with respect to our common stock (see Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies). Proportionalproportional adjustments were made to the conversion price and shares as they relate to the 2017 Convertible Notes, resulting in a conversion rate of 2.34449 shares of our common stock with a corresponding conversion price of $426.50 per share. On December 31, 2016, our closing share price was $7.15.
The 2017 Convertible Notes may be converted by the holder, in multiples of $1 principal amount, under certain circumstances, includingwere due on or after DecemberMarch 1, 2016, and prior2017. Upon emergence from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017, pursuant to the closePlan, the $300 million of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date of the 2017 Convertible Notes, which is March 1, 2017, without regard to the conditions specified in the indenture governing the 2017 Convertible Notes.
Upon conversion, we will be obligated to pay or deliver, as the case may be, cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock. If we satisfy our conversion obligation solely in cash or through payment and delivery, as the case may be, of a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, the amount of cash and shares of common stock, if any, due upon conversion will be based on a daily conversion value (as described in the indenturedebt related to the 2017 Convertible Notes) calculated on a proportionate basisNotes was cancelled. See Note 2 – Reorganization for each trading day in a 25 consecutive trading-day conversion period (as described in the indenture related to the 2017 Convertible Notes). Upon any conversion, subject to certain exceptions, holders of the 2017 Convertible Notes will not receive any cash payment representing accrued and unpaid interest. Instead, interest will be deemed to be paid by the cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock paid or delivered, as the case may be, upon conversion of a 2017 Convertible Note.additional details.

F-24F-32

Table of Contents


The 2017 Convertible Notes will be due on March 1, 2017, unless earlier converted or repurchased by us at the option of the holder(s), and interest is payable on the 2017 Convertible Notes each March 1 and September 1. On the maturity date, each holder will be entitled to receive $1 in cash for each $1 in principal amount of 2017 Convertible Notes, together with any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the maturity date.
In connection with the offering, we entered into convertible note hedge transactions with respect to our common stock (the "Purchased Call Options") with Barclays Capital Inc., acting as agent for Barclays Bank PLC and Bank of America, N.A. (the "Dealers"). We paid an aggregate amount of approximately $70,830 to the Dealers for the Purchased Call Options. The Purchased Call Options cover, subject to customary antidilution adjustments, approximately 703,347 shares of our common stock at a strike price that corresponds to the initial conversion price of the 2017 Convertible Notes (after the effectiveness of the reverse stock split of 1-for-10), also subject to adjustment, and are exercisable upon conversion of the 2017 Convertible Notes.
We also entered into separate warrant transactions whereby, in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, we sold to the Dealers warrants to acquire, subject to customary antidilution adjustments, approximately 703,347 shares of our common stock (the "Sold Warrants") at a strike price of $559.10 per share of our common stock (after the effectiveness of the reverse stock split of 1-for-10). We received aggregate proceeds of approximately $40,170 from the sale of the Sold Warrants to the Dealers. If, upon expiration of the Sold Warrants, the price per share of our common stock, as measured under the Sold Warrants, is greater than the strike price of the Sold Warrants, we will be required to issue, without further consideration, under each Sold Warrant a number of shares of our common stock with a value equal to the amount of such difference.
The filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions resulted in an event of default and the early termination of the convertible note hedge transactions. Any efforts to enforce payment obligations under the indenture governing the 2017 Convertible Notes were automatically stayed as a result of the Chapter 11 filings.
As of December 31, 2016, the principal amount of the 2017 Convertible Notes of $300,000 was classified as liabilities subject to compromise. During the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we recognized $15,407$15.4 million of interest expense for the amortization of the discount and $1,471$1.5 million of interest expense for the amortization of deferred financingdebt issuance costs related to the 2017 Convertible Notes. During the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), we recognized $15,019$15.0 million of interest expense for the amortization of the discount and $1,434$1.4 million of interest expense for the amortization of deferred financingdebt issuance costs related to the 2017 Convertible Notes. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we recognized $13,951 of interest expense for the amortization of the discount and $1,332 of interest expense for the amortization of deferred financing costs related to the 2017 Convertible
2022 Notes. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized $5,010 of interest expense and during each of the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we recognized $5,250 of interest expense related to the contractual interest coupon on the 2017 Convertible Notes.
2022 Notes
On November 8, 2012 weand November 27, 2013, respectively, the Predecessor Company completed the public offering of $300,000$300 million and $475 million aggregate principal amount of our 2022 Notes, which are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by Stone Offshore and by certain future restricted subsidiaries of Stone. The net proceeds from the offering after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions, fees and expenses totaled $293,203. On November 27, 2013, we completed the public offering of an additional $475,000 aggregate principal amount of our 2022 Notes at a 3% premium. The net proceeds from this offering after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions, fees and expenses totaled $480,195. The 2022 Notes rank equally in right of payment with all of our existing and future senior debt, and rank senior in right of payment to all of our existing and future subordinated debt. The 2022 Notes mature on November 15, 2022, and interest is payable on the 2022 Notes on each May 15 and November 15. We may redeem some or all of the 2022 Notes at any time on or after November 15, 2017 at the redemption prices specified in the indenture, and we may redeem some or all of the 2022 Notes prior to November 15, 2017 at a make-whole redemption price as specified in the indenture. If we sell certain assets and do not reinvest the proceeds or repay senior indebtedness, or we experience certain changes of control, each as described in the indenture, we must offer to repurchase the 2022 Notes. The 2022 Notes provide for certain covenants, which include, without limitation, restrictions on liens, indebtedness, asset sales, dividend payments and other restricted payments. The violation of any of these covenants could give risewere scheduled to a default, which if not cured could give the holder of the 2022 Notes a right to accelerate payment.
We had an interest payment obligation under our 2022 Notes of approximately $29,063, duemature on November 15, 2016. The indenture governing2022. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, pursuant to the 2022 Notes provides a 30-day grace period that extendedPlan, the latest date for making this cash interest payment$775 million of debt related to December 15, 2016 before an event of default occurs under the indenture, which would give the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the 2022 Notes the option to accelerate payment of the principal plus accrued and unpaid interest on the 2022 Notes. Although we had sufficient liquidity to make the interest payment by the due date, we elected to not make this interest payment on the due date and utilized the 30-day grace period provided by the indenture prior to entering into the Chapter 11 proceedings. The filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions constituted an event of default under the indenture governing

F-25

Table of Contents


the 2022 Notes, but any efforts to enforce such payment obligation were automatically stayed as a result of the Chapter 11 filings. The principal amount of $775,000 of the 2022 Notes was classified as liabilities subject to compromise at December 31, 2016.cancelled. See Note 2 – Reorganization for additional details.
Deferred Financing Cost and Interest Cost
WeIn accordance with the provisions of ASC 852, we recognized a charge of approximately $8.3 million to write-off the remaining unamortized deferred financingdebt issuance costs, premiumsdiscounts and discountspremiums related to the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes, which is included in reorganization items in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor). Additionally, we recognized a charge of approximately $2.6 million to write-off the remaining unamortized debt issuance costs related to the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement as of the Petition Date, which is included in reorganization items onin the consolidated statement of operations.operations during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). See Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. and Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for additional details.
At December 31, 2017 (Successor) and December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), approximately $59 thousand and $63 thousand, respectively, of unamortized deferred financingdebt issuance costs were deducted from the carrying amount of the Building Loan. At December 31, 2015,2016 (Predecessor), approximately $6,869$2.8 million of unamortized deferred financingdebt issuance costs premiums and discounts were included within the carrying amount of the related debt liabilities for the 2017 Convertible Notes, 2022 Notes and Building Loan. The deferred financing costs, net of accumulated amortization, of $2,761 and $2,845 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, related to the Pre-Emergence Credit Facility areAgreement were classified as other assets.
Prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Petitions, the costs associated with the 2017 Convertible Notes were being amortized over the life of the notes using a method that applied an effective interest rate of 7.51%. The costs associated with the November 2012 issuance and November 2013 issuance of the 2022 Notes were being amortized over the life of the notes using a method that applied effective interest rates of 7.75% and 7.04%, respectively.
The costs associated with the Pre-Emergence Credit Agreement were being amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the facility. The costs associated with the issuance of the Building Loan are being amortized using the effective interest method over the term of the Building Loan. The costs associated with
Total interest cost incurred, before capitalization, on all obligations for the Credit Facility are being amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the facility.
period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) was $15.7 million. Total interest cost incurred, before capitalization, on all obligations for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor) was $91.1 million and 2014 was $91,092, $85,267 and $84,577,$85.3 million, respectively. In accordance with the accounting guidance in ASC 852, we have accrued interest on the 2017 Convertible Notes and 2022 Notes only up to the Petition Date, and such amounts arewere included as liabilities subject to compromise in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2016.2016 (Predecessor). Accordingly, there was no interest expense recognized on the 2017 Convertible Notes or the 2022 Notes after the Bankruptcy Petitions were filed.

NOTE 1214 — ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS):
The following tables includeThrough December 31, 2016, we designated our commodity derivatives as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes upon entering into the contracts, and accordingly, changes in accumulatedthe fair value of the derivative were recognized in stockholders’ equity through other comprehensive income (loss) by component for, net of related taxes, to the years endedextent the hedge was considered effective. We had no outstanding derivative contracts at December 31, 2016, 20152016.

During the periods from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and 2014. January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we entered into various commodity derivative contracts (see Note 9 – Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities). With respect to our 2017, 2018 and 2019 commodity derivative contracts, we have elected to not designate these contracts as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes. Accordingly, the net changes in the mark-to-market valuations and the monthly settlements of these derivative contracts will be recorded in earnings through derivative income (expense).

During the year ended December 31, 2016, we reclassified approximately $6,081 of lossesa $6.1 million loss related to cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments from accumulated other comprehensive income into other operational expenses upon the liquidation of our former foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada, ULC. See Note 1 - Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.
 
Cash Flow
Hedges
 
Foreign
Currency
Items
 Total
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016     
Beginning balance, net of tax$24,025
 $(6,073) $17,952
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications:     
Change in fair value of derivatives(1,648) 
 (1,648)
Foreign currency translations
 (8) (8)
Income tax effect581
 
 581
Net of tax(1,067) (8) (1,075)
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income:     
Operating revenue: oil/natural gas production35,457
 
 35,457
Other operational expenses
 (6,081) (6,081)
Income tax effect(12,499) 
 (12,499)
Net of tax22,958
 (6,081) 16,877
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax(24,025) 6,073
 (17,952)
Ending balance, net of tax$
 $
 $

F-26F-33

Table of Contents


 
Cash Flow
Hedges
 
Foreign
Currency
Items
 Total
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015     
Beginning balance, net of tax$86,783
 $(3,468) $83,315
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications:     
Change in fair value of derivatives52,630
 
 52,630
Foreign currency translations
 (2,605) (2,605)
Income tax effect(19,096) 
 (19,096)
Net of tax33,534
 (2,605) 30,929
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income:     
Operating revenue: oil/natural gas production149,955
 
 149,955
Derivative income, net1,170
 
 1,170
Income tax effect(54,833) 
 (54,833)
Net of tax96,292
 
 96,292
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax(62,758) (2,605) (65,363)
Ending balance, net of tax$24,025
 $(6,073) $17,952
The following tables include the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) by component for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor) (in thousands):
Cash Flow
Hedges
 
Foreign
Currency
Items
 Total
Cash Flow
Hedges
 
Foreign
Currency
Items
 Total
For the Year Ended December 31, 2014     
For the Year Ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor)     
Beginning balance, net of tax$(1,395) $(667) $(2,062)$24,025
 $(6,073) $17,952
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications:          
Change in fair value of derivatives136,097
 
 136,097
(1,648) 
 (1,648)
Foreign currency translations
 (2,801) (2,801)
 (8) (8)
Income tax effect(48,995) 
 (48,995)581
 
 581
Net of tax87,102
 (2,801) 84,301
(1,067) (8) (1,075)
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income:          
Operating revenue: oil/natural gas production526
 
 526
35,457
 
 35,457
Derivative expense, net(2,208) 
 (2,208)
Other operational expenses
 (6,081) (6,081)
Income tax effect606
 
 606
(12,499) 
 (12,499)
Net of tax(1,076) 
 (1,076)22,958
 (6,081) 16,877
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax88,178
 (2,801) 85,377
(24,025) 6,073
 (17,952)
Ending balance, net of tax$86,783
 $(3,468) $83,315
$
 $
 $
 
Cash Flow
Hedges
 
Foreign
Currency
Items
 Total
For the Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor)     
Beginning balance, net of tax$86,783
 $(3,468) $83,315
Other comprehensive income (loss) before reclassifications:     
Change in fair value of derivatives52,630
 
 52,630
Foreign currency translations
 (2,605) (2,605)
Income tax effect(19,096) 
 (19,096)
Net of tax33,534
 (2,605) 30,929
Amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income:     
Operating revenue: oil/natural gas production149,955
 
 149,955
Derivative income, net1,170
 
 1,170
Income tax effect(54,833) 
 (54,833)
Net of tax96,292
 
 96,292
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax(62,758) (2,605) (65,363)
Ending balance, net of tax$24,025
 $(6,073) $17,952

NOTE 1315SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION:EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
We entered into deferred compensation and disability agreements with certain of our former officers. The benefits under the deferred compensation agreements vested after certain periods of employment, and at December 31, 2017 (Successor), the liability for such vested benefits was approximately $0.9 million and is recorded in current and other long-term liabilities. The deferred compensation plan is described further below.
The following is a brief description of each incentive compensation plan applicable to our employees:
Annual Incentive Cash Compensation Plans
In 2016, we replaced our historical long-term cash and equity-based incentive compensation programs with the 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2016 Annual Incentive Plan”), pursuant to which incentive cash bonuses were

F-34

Table of Contents


calculated based on the achievement of certain strategic objectives for each quarter of 2016. On July 25, 2017, the Board approved the Stone Energy Corporation 2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2017 Annual Incentive Plan”) for all salaried employees (other than the interim chief executive officer) of the Company. The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan is a performance-based short-term cash incentive program that provides award opportunities based on the Company’s annual performance in certain performance measures as defined by the Board. The 2017 Annual Incentive Plan replaced the Company’s Amended and Restated Revised Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, which was adopted in November 2007, and the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan.

PriorFor the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), Stone incurred expenses of $7.0 million, net of amounts capitalized, related to incentive compensation cash bonuses. Stone incurred expenses of $13.5 million and $2.2 million,net of amounts capitalized, for each of the years ended December 17,31, 2016 and 2015 we maintained(Predecessor), respectively, related to incentive compensation cash bonuses. These charges are reflected in incentive compensation expense on the statement of operations.

Key Executive Incentive Plan
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Claims Settlement Agreement, the Company’s executives agreed to waive their claims related to the Company’s 2016 Annual Incentive Plan, and in exchange therefor, the Company adopted the Stone Energy Corporation Key Executive Incentive Plan (“KEIP”), in which the Company’s executives were allowed to participate. Payments to the Company’s executives under the KEIP were limited to $2.0 million, or the equivalent of the target bonus under the 2016 Annual Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016. The KEIP payments of $2.0 million are reflected in incentive compensation expense on the statement of operations for the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor).

Retention Award Agreement
On July 25, 2017, the Board approved retention awards and the form of Stone Energy Corporation Retention Award Agreement (the “Retention Award Agreement”) and authorized the Company to enter into Retention Award Agreements with certain executive officers and employees of the Company. The Retention Award Agreement provides for a retention award to certain individuals to be paid in a lump sum cash payment within 30 days of the earliest to occur of (i) the first anniversary (June 1, 2018) of the effective date of the Retention Award Agreement, subject to the individual remaining employed by the Company or a subsidiary of the Company on such date, (ii) a change in control of the Company or (iii) a termination of the individual’s employment with the Company (a) due to death, (b) by the Company without “cause” or (c) by the individual for “good reason.” We recognized a charge of $1.0 million for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), representing a prorated portion of estimated retention awards through December 31, 2017. This charge is reflected in incentive compensation expense on the statement of operations.

Transaction Bonus Agreement

On November 21, 2017, the Board approved transaction bonuses and the form of Stone Energy Corporation Transaction Bonus Agreement (the “Transaction Bonus Agreement”) and authorized the Company to enter into Transaction Bonus Agreements with certain of our executive officers and other employees of the Company. The Transaction Bonus Agreements provide for a lump sum cash payment within 30 days of a “change in control” (as defined in the Transaction Bonus Agreement) if the individual remains employed with the Company through the date of the “change in control” or is terminated prior to the change in control (i) due to death, (ii) by the Company without “cause” (as defined below) (including due to disability), or (iii) by the individual for “good reason” (as defined in the Transaction Bonus Agreement). The Transaction Bonus Agreements were entered into in connection with the Talos combination.

2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the Stone Energy Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2017 LTIP”) became effective, replacing the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan as amended from time to time (the "2009 Plan"). The 2009 Plan was originally approved at the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and was an amendment and restatement of the Company’s 2004(As Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (the "2004 Plan"), and it superseded and replaced in its entiretyDecember 17, 2015). The types of awards that may be granted under the 2004 Plan. The 2009 Plan provides for the granting of (a) "incentive"2017 LTIP include stock options, as defined in Section 422 of the Code, (b) stock options that do not constitute incentive stock options ("non-statutory" stock options), (c) stock appreciation rights in conjunction with an incentive or non-statutory stock option, (d) restricted stock, (e) restricted stock units, (f) dividend equivalents (g)and other stock-basedforms of awards (h) conversion awards, and (i) cash awards, anygranted or denominated in shares of whichNew Common Stock, as well as certain cash-based awards. The maximum number of shares of New Common Stock that may be further designated as performanceissued or transferred pursuant to awards (collectively referred to as "awards"). On December 17, 2015, Stone amended and restatedunder the 2009 Plan to incorporate all prior amendments2017 LTIP is 2,614,379. As of March 9, 2018, other than the grant of 62,137 restricted stock units to the 2009 Plan and certain other non-material changes to the 2009 Plan. SeeBoard (see Note 16 – Employee Benefit Plans – Stock Incentive PlansShare-Based Compensation for more information.), there have been no other issuances or awards of stock under the 2017 LTIP.


F-27
F-35

Table of Contents


No stock options401(k) and Deferred Compensation Plans
The Stone Energy 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan provides eligible employees with the option to defer receipt of a portion of their compensation and we may, at our discretion, match a portion or all of the employee’s deferral. The amounts held under the plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each employee. An employee is 20% vested in matching contributions (if any) for each year of service and is fully vested upon five years of service. For the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), Stone contributed $0.6 million and $0.3 million, respectively, to the plan. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), Stone contributed $1.2 million and $1.6 million, respectively, to the plan.
The Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”) provides eligible executives and employees with the option to defer up to 100% of their eligible compensation for a calendar year. Historically, we could, at our discretion, match a portion or all of the participant’s deferral based upon a percentage determined by our Board. In 2016, the compensation committee of the Predecessor board adopted an amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan that removed our ability to make matching contributions under such plan. Our Board may still elect to make discretionary profit sharing contributions to the plan. To date, there have been grantedno matching or discretionary profit sharing contributions made by Stone under the Deferred Compensation Plan. The amounts held under the plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each participant. At December 31, 2017 (Successor) and December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), plan assets of $5.1 million and $8.7 million, respectively, were included in other assets. An equal amount of plan liabilities were included in other long-term liabilities.
Change of Control and Severance Plans
On July 25, 2017, the Board approved the Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan (the “Executive Severance Plan”), which provides for the payment of severance and change in control benefits to the executive officers (other than the interim chief executive officer) of the Company. The Executive Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan dated December 13, 2016. Pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan, if a covered executive officer is terminated (i) by the Company without “cause” or (ii) by the executive officer for “good reason” (each, an “Involuntary Termination”), the executive officer will receive (i) a lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to 1.0x or 1.5x the executive officer’s annual base salary, (ii) a lump sum cash payment equal to 100% of the executive officer’s annual bonus opportunity, at target, prorated by the number of days that have elapsed from January 1 of that calendar year, (iii) six months of health benefit continuation for the executive officer and the executive officer’s dependents, at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iv) accelerated vesting of any outstanding and unvested equity awards, (v) certain outplacement services and (vi) any unpaid portion of the executive officer’s annual pay as of the date of the Involuntary Termination. The Executive Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed Talos combination to provide, among other things, that if a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year.

On July 25, 2017, the Board approved the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Severance Plan (the “2017 Employee Severance Plan”). The 2017 Employee Severance Plan covers all full-time employees other than officers. Severance is triggered by an involuntary termination of employment on and during the twelve-month period following a change of control. Employees who are terminated within the scope of the 2017 Employee Severance Plan will be entitled to certain payments and benefits including the following: (i) a lump sum equal to (1) weekly pay times full years of service, plus (2) one week’s pay for each full $10 thousand of annual pay, but the sum of (1) and (2) cannot be less than 12 weeks of pay or greater than 52 weeks of pay, (ii) continued health plan coverage for 6 months at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iii) a prorated portion of the employee’s targeted bonus for the year, and (iv) reasonable outplacement services consistent with current HR practices. The 2017 Employee Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed Talos combination to provide, among other things, that if a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year. The 2017 Employee Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan, dated December 7, 2007.

NOTE 16 — SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the 2009 Plan, since its initial effective date on May 28, 2009; however, we have previouslythe 2017 LTIP became effective. As discussed in Note 15 – Employee Benefit Plans, the types of awards that may be granted options under the 2004 Plan that remain outstanding. Stock2017 LTIP include stock options, previously granted to employees vested ratably over a five-year service-vesting period and expire 10 years subsequent to award. Stock options issued to nonemployee directors vested ratably over a three-year service-vesting period and expire 10 years subsequent to award. We have granted restricted stock, restricted stock units, dividend equivalents and other forms of awards under the 2009 Plan, which awards typically vest over a one-yeargranted or three-year period.denominated in shares of New Common Stock, as well as certain cash-based awards.

F-36

Table of Contents


We record share-based compensation expense for share-based compensation awards based on the fair value on the date of grant. Compensation expense for share-based compensation awards is recognized in our financial statementsstatement of operations on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the award.
For Under the year ended December 31, 2016,full cost method of accounting, we incurred $11,562capitalize a portion of employee and general and administrative costs (including share-based compensation related to restricted stock issuances or granting of stock awards, and of which a total of approximately $3,117 was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2015, we incurred $17,917 of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $5,593 was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2014, we incurred $17,051 of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $5,797 was capitalized into oil and gas properties.compensation). Because of the non-cash nature of share-based compensation, the expensed portion of share-based compensation is added back to net income in arriving at net cash provided by operating activities in our statement of cash flows. The capitalized portion is not included in net cash used in investing activities.
The Plan, as described in Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings, provides that the Company's common stock will be cancelled and new common stock will be issued upon emergence from bankruptcy. On February 15, 2017, the Plan was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and we expect to emerge from bankruptcy on February 28, 2017. Immediately prior to emergence, the vesting of all outstanding, unvested share-based awards for non-executive employees will be accelerated. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives will be cancelled and exchanged for a proportionate share of 5% of the common stock of reorganized Stone, plus warrants for ownership of up to 15% of reorganized Stone’s common equity. Vesting will continue in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards. All other executive share-based awards will be cancelled upon emergence from bankruptcy.
Stock Options.  There were no stock option grants during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 or 2014. The following tables include stock option activity during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (amounts in tables represent actual values except where indicated otherwise).
 Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
Options outstanding, beginning of period14,447
 $269.25
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(1,500) 477.45
    
Options outstanding, end of period (1)12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
(1) Exercise prices for stock options outstanding at December 31, 2016 range from $69.70 to $446.70.

F-28

Table of Contents


 Year Ended December 31, 2015
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
Options outstanding, beginning of period20,497
 $339.36
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(6,050) 506.76
    
Options outstanding, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
 Year Ended December 31, 2014
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
Options outstanding, beginning of period33,117
 $393.74
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised(25) 462.00
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(12,595) 482.11
    
Options outstanding, end of period20,497
 339.36
 2.4 years
 $531
Options exercisable, end of period20,497
 339.36
 2.4 years
 531
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.  The fair value of restricted shares and stock awards is typically determined based on the average of our high and low stock prices on the grant date. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we issued 31,313 shares of restricted stock or stock awards valued at $280. During the year ended December 31, 2015, we issued 141,872 shares of restricted stock valued at $23,722. During the year ended December 31, 2014, we issued 67,305 shares of restricted stock valued at $24,593.
A summary of the restricted stock and stock award activity under the 2009 Plan for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 is as follows (amounts in table represent actual values):
 2016 2015 2014
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding, beginning of period180,239
 $208.17
 129,848
 $299.45
 125,334
 $239.07
Issuances31,313
 8.93
 141,872
 167.21
 67,305
 365.40
Lapse of restrictions or granting of stock awards(117,406) 158.79
 (63,745) 296.00
 (59,731) 245.73
Forfeitures(13,056) 200.06
 (27,736) 223.80
 (3,060) 301.54
Restricted stock outstanding, end of period81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
 129,848
 $299.45
As of December 31, 2016, there was $2,823 of unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based awards for non-executive employees and $3,318 of unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested restricted shares held by the Company's executives. The current weighted average remaining vesting period of such awards is approximately one year.

F-29

Table of Contents


Under U.S. GAAP, if tax deductions exceed book compensation expense, then excess tax benefits are credited to additional paid-in capital to the extent realized. If book compensation expense exceeds tax deductions, the tax deficit results in either a reduction in additional paid-in capital and/or an increase in income tax expense, depending on the pool of available excess tax benefits to offset such deficit. There were no adjustments to additional paid-in capital related to the net tax effect of stock option exercises and restricted stock vesting in 2017, 2016 or 2015. During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), respectively, $2.5 million, $2.7 million, $4.1 million and such adjustments were ($54) in 2014. Additionally, during 2016, 2015, and 2014, $4,117, $1,314 and $609$1.3 million of tax deficits were charged to income tax expense.
Predecessor Share-Based Compensation
For the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we incurred $3.5 million of share-based compensation expense, respectively.

NOTE 14 — SHARE REPURCHASE PROGRAM:
On September 24, 2007, our boardall of directors authorizedwhich related to stock awards and restricted stock issuances, and of which a share repurchase program for an aggregate amounttotal of up to $100,000. The shares may be repurchased from time to time inapproximately $0.9 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program is subject to business and market conditions and may be suspended or discontinued at any time. Throughyear ended December 31, 2016 30,000 shares had been repurchased under this program at(Predecessor), we incurred $11.6 million of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total cost of $7,071, or an average priceapproximately $3.1 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), we incurred $17.9 million of $235.70 per share (aftershare-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $5.6 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties.
Stock Options.  All outstanding stock options at December 31, 2016 related to executive share-based awards that were cancelled upon emergence from bankruptcy. There were no stock option grants during the effectiveness of the reverseperiod from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017. The following tables include Predecessor Company stock split of 1-for-10). No shares were repurchasedoption activity during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
 Year Ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period14,447
 $269.25
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(1,500) 477.45
    
Options outstanding, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 

F-37

Table of Contents


 Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period20,497
 $339.36
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(6,050) 506.76
    
Options outstanding, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.Immediately prior to emergence, the vesting of all Predecessor outstanding, unvested share-based awards for non-executive employees was accelerated and, as a result, all unrecognized compensation cost related to such awards was recognized. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for a proportionate share of the 5% of New Common Stock, plus a proportionate share of the warrants for ownership of up to 15% of the Successor Company’s common equity. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards (see Successor Share-Based Compensation below).
During the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017, 10,404 shares (valued at $69 thousand) of Predecessor Company stock were issued, representing grants of stock to the board of directors of the Predecessor Company. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we issued 31,313 shares (valued at $0.3 million) and 2014.141,872 shares (valued at $23.7 million), respectively, of Predecessor Company restricted stock or stock awards.
The following table includes Predecessor Company restricted stock and stock award activity during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
  Predecessor
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
   2016 2015
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding, beginning of period 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
 129,848
 $299.45
Issuances 10,404
 6.67
 31,313
 8.93
 141,872
 167.21
Lapse of restrictions or granting of stock awards (73,276) 186.37
 (117,406) 158.79
 (63,745) 296.00
Forfeitures (194) 169.40
 (13,056) 200.06
 (27,736) 223.80
Restricted stock outstanding, end of period 18,024
 $169.42
 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
Successor Share-Based Compensation

Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.As discussed above, upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for proportionate shares of New Common Stock. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards, with remaining compensation expense based on the fresh start fair value of $26.95 per share (see Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting).For the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $0.1 million of share-based compensation expense related to these restricted shares. The restricted stock outstanding on December 31, 2017 became fully vested on January 15, 2018. The following table includes Successor Company restricted stock and stock award activity during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017:

F-38

Table of Contents


  Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding at February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 18,024
 $169.42
Restricted stock outstanding at March 1, 2017 (Successor) 3,176
 $26.95
Issuances 
 
Lapse of restrictions (2,083) 21.78
Forfeitures 
 
Restricted stock outstanding at December 31, 2017 (Successor) 1,093
 $26.95

Restricted Stock Units. On March 1, 2017, the Board received grants of restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP. The restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders in May 2018, subject to: (i) the director’s continued service on the board through the vesting date, and (ii) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to death or removal from the board without cause. A total of 62,137 restricted stock units were granted with an aggregate grant date fair value of $1.7 million, based on a per share grant date fair value of $26.95. During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $1.2 million of share-based compensation expense related to these restricted stock units. As of December 31, 2017, there was $0.5 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to such restricted stock units, with a current weighted average remaining vesting period of approximately four months.

NOTE 1517 — REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE

During the second quarter of 2017, we implemented workforce reduction plans to better align our employee base with current business needs, resulting in a reduction of approximately 20% of our total workforce. The workforce reductions were complete as of July 31, 2017. In connection with the reductions, we recognized a charge of $5.7 million, consisting primarily of severance payments to affected employees and payment of related employer payroll taxes. This charge is reflected in SG&A expenses on the statement of operations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor).

In addition to the workforce reduction costs, during the second quarter of 2017, we recognized a charge of $3.0 million for severance costs related to the sale of the Appalachia Properties and the retirement of the prior chief executive officer of the Company. These severance costs are reflected in SG&A expenses on the statement of operations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor).

NOTE 18 — FEDERAL ROYALTY RECOVERY

In July 2017, we received a federal royalty recovery totaling $14.1 million as part of a multi-year federal royalty refund claim. Approximately $9.6 million of the refund was recognized as other operational income and $4.5 million as a reduction of lease operating expenses during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). Included in SG&A expenses for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) is a $3.9 million success-based consulting fee incurred in connection with the federal royalty recovery.

NOTE 19 — OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Other operational expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) of $3.4 million included approximately $2.1 million of stacking charges for the Pompano platform rig. For the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), other operational expenses of $55.5 million included approximately $17.7 million of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, an Appalachian drilling rig and the platform rig at Pompano, a $20.0 million charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco and $9.9 million in charges related to the terminations of offshore vessel and Appalachian drilling rig contracts. Also included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) is a $6.1 million loss on the liquidation of our former foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada, ULC, representing cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments, which were reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income. See Note 14 – Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss).


F-39

Table of Contents


NOTE 20 — COMBINATION TRANSACTION COSTS
In connection with the pending combination with Talos, we have incurred approximately $6.2 million in transaction costs, consisting primarily of legal and financial advisor costs. These costs are included in SG&A expense on our statement of operations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). Additionally, we have incurred approximately $0.2 million of direct costs for purposes of registering equity securities to effect the Talos combination. These direct costs are recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in-capital during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). See Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for more information on the pending combination.

NOTE 21 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:CONTINGENCIES
Chapter 11 Proceedings
The commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed certain actions against the Company, including actions to collect pre-petition liabilities or to exercise control over the property of the Debtors. The Plan in our Chapter 11 proceedings provides for the treatment of pre-petition liabilities that have not otherwise been satisfied or addressed during the Chapter 11 cases. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings.
Legal Proceedings
We are named as a party in certain lawsuitsChange of Control and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not expect that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
Leases
We lease office facilities in Lafayette and New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas and New Martinsville and Morgantown, West Virginia under the terms of long-term, non-cancelable leases expiring on various dates through 2021. We also lease certain equipment on our oil and gas properties typically on a month-to-month basis. The minimum net annual commitments under all leases, subleases and contracts with non-cancelable terms in excess of 12 months atDecember 31, 2016 were as follows:
2017$877
2018612
2019453
2020453
2021113
Payments related to our lease obligations for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 were approximately $676, $2,076 and $966, respectively.
Other Commitments and ContingenciesSeverance Plans
On March 21, 2016, we received notice letters fromJuly 25, 2017, the Bureau of OceanBoard approved the Stone Energy Management ("BOEM"Corporation Executive Severance Plan (the “Executive Severance Plan”) stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at such time. BOEM's notice letters indicated the amount of Stone's supplemental bonding needs could be as much as $565,000. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurances relating to our abandonment obligations,, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurancesthe payment of severance and change in favorcontrol benefits to the executive officers (other than the interim chief executive officer) of BOEM. On Maythe Company. The Executive Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan dated December 13, 2016, we received notice letters2016. Pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan, if a covered executive officer is terminated (i) by the Company without “cause” or (ii) by the executive officer for “good reason” (each, an “Involuntary Termination”), the executive officer will receive (i) a lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to 1.0x or 1.5x the executive officer’s annual base salary, (ii) a lump sum cash payment equal to 100% of the executive officer’s annual bonus opportunity, at target, prorated by the number of days that have elapsed from BOEM rescinding its demandJanuary 1 of that calendar year, (iii) six months of health benefit continuation for supplemental bondingthe executive officer and the executive officer’s dependents, at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iv) accelerated vesting of any outstanding and unvested equity awards, (v) certain outplacement services and (vi) any unpaid portion of the executive officer’s annual pay as of the date of the Involuntary Termination. The Executive Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the understandingproposed Talos combination to provide, among other things, that weif a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizingbe no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year.

On July 25, 2017, the Board approved the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Severance Plan (the “2017 Employee Severance Plan”). The 2017 Employee Severance Plan covers all full-time employees other than officers. Severance is triggered by an involuntary termination of employment on and implementing our long-term tailored plan. Currently, we have posted an aggregateduring the twelve-month period following a change of approximately $117,686 in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third party bonds and letters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations. A global updatecontrol. Employees who are terminated within the scope of the GOM decommissioning estimates2017 Employee Severance Plan will be entitled to certain payments and benefits including the following: (i) a lump sum equal to (1) weekly pay times full years of service, plus (2) one week’s pay for each full $10 thousand of annual pay, but the sum of (1) and (2) cannot be less than 12 weeks of pay or greater than 52 weeks of pay, (ii) continued health plan coverage for 6 months at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iii) a prorated portion of the employee’s targeted bonus for the year, and (iv) reasonable outplacement services consistent with current HR practices. The 2017 Employee Severance Plan was madeamended on August 29, 2016,November 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed Talos combination to provide, among other things, that if a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year. The 2017 Employee Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan, dated December 7, 2007.

NOTE 16 — SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the 2017 LTIP became effective. As discussed in Note 15 – Employee Benefit Plans, the types of awards that may be granted under the 2017 LTIP include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, dividend equivalents and BOEM requested that we resubmit our tailored plan to reflect the updated decommissioning estimates. The bonds represent guaranteesother forms of awards granted or denominated in shares of New Common Stock, as well as certain cash-based awards.

F-30F-36

Table of Contents


We record share-based compensation expense for share-based compensation awards based on the fair value on the date of grant. Compensation expense for share-based compensation awards is recognized in our statement of operations on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the award. Under the full cost method of accounting, we capitalize a portion of employee and general and administrative costs (including share-based compensation). Because of the non-cash nature of share-based compensation, the expensed portion of share-based compensation is added back to net income in arriving at net cash provided by operating activities in our statement of cash flows. The capitalized portion is not included in net cash used in investing activities.
Under U.S. GAAP, if tax deductions exceed book compensation expense, then excess tax benefits are credited to additional paid-in capital to the extent realized. If book compensation expense exceeds tax deductions, the tax deficit results in either a reduction in additional paid-in capital and/or an increase in income tax expense, depending on the pool of available excess tax benefits to offset such deficit. There were no adjustments to additional paid-in capital related to the net tax effect of stock option exercises and restricted stock vesting in 2017, 2016 or 2015. During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), respectively, $2.5 million, $2.7 million, $4.1 million and $1.3 million of tax deficits were charged to income tax expense.
Predecessor Share-Based Compensation
For the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we incurred $3.5 million of share-based compensation expense, all of which related to stock awards and restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $0.9 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we incurred $11.6 million of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $3.1 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), we incurred $17.9 million of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $5.6 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties.
Stock Options.  All outstanding stock options at December 31, 2016 related to executive share-based awards that were cancelled upon emergence from bankruptcy. There were no stock option grants during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017. The following tables include Predecessor Company stock option activity during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
 Year Ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period14,447
 $269.25
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(1,500) 477.45
    
Options outstanding, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 

F-37

Table of Contents


 Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period20,497
 $339.36
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(6,050) 506.76
    
Options outstanding, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.Immediately prior to emergence, the vesting of all Predecessor outstanding, unvested share-based awards for non-executive employees was accelerated and, as a result, all unrecognized compensation cost related to such awards was recognized. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the surety insurance companies that we will operateCompany’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for a proportionate share of the 5% of New Common Stock, plus a proportionate share of the warrants for ownership of up to 15% of the Successor Company’s common equity. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable rulesvesting provisions of the original awards (see Successor Share-Based Compensation below).
During the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017, 10,404 shares (valued at $69 thousand) of Predecessor Company stock were issued, representing grants of stock to the board of directors of the Predecessor Company. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and regulations2015, we issued 31,313 shares (valued at $0.3 million) and perform certain plugging141,872 shares (valued at $23.7 million), respectively, of Predecessor Company restricted stock or stock awards.
The following table includes Predecessor Company restricted stock and abandonment obligations as specifiedstock award activity during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
  Predecessor
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
   2016 2015
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding, beginning of period 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
 129,848
 $299.45
Issuances 10,404
 6.67
 31,313
 8.93
 141,872
 167.21
Lapse of restrictions or granting of stock awards (73,276) 186.37
 (117,406) 158.79
 (63,745) 296.00
Forfeitures (194) 169.40
 (13,056) 200.06
 (27,736) 223.80
Restricted stock outstanding, end of period 18,024
 $169.42
 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
Successor Share-Based Compensation

Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.As discussed above, upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for proportionate shares of New Common Stock. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable working interest purchasevesting provisions of the original awards, with remaining compensation expense based on the fresh start fair value of $26.95 per share (see Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting).For the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $0.1 million of share-based compensation expense related to these restricted shares. The restricted stock outstanding on December 31, 2017 became fully vested on January 15, 2018. The following table includes Successor Company restricted stock and sale agreements.stock award activity during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017:
In July 2016, BOEM issued
F-38

Table of Contents


  Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding at February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 18,024
 $169.42
Restricted stock outstanding at March 1, 2017 (Successor) 3,176
 $26.95
Issuances 
 
Lapse of restrictions (2,083) 21.78
Forfeitures 
 
Restricted stock outstanding at December 31, 2017 (Successor) 1,093
 $26.95

Restricted Stock Units. On March 1, 2017, the Board received grants of restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP. The restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders in May 2018, subject to: (i) the director’s continued service on the board through the vesting date, and (ii) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a Noticechange of control event or the termination of the director’s service due to Lessees ("NTL"),death or removal from the board without cause. A total of 62,137 restricted stock units were granted with an effectiveaggregate grant date fair value of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for$1.7 million, based on a per share grant date fair value of $26.95. During the postingperiod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $1.2 million of additional financial assurances by offshore lessees. The NTL discontinues the policyshare-based compensation expense related to these restricted stock units. As of Supplemental Bonding Waivers and allows for the abilityDecember 31, 2017, there was $0.5 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to self insure up to 10% ofsuch restricted stock units, with a company’s tangible net worth, where a company can demonstrate a certain level of financial strength. The NTL provides new procedures for how BOEM determines a lessee’s decommissioning obligations and, consistent with those procedures, BOEM has tentatively proposed an implementation timeline that offshore lessees will follow in providing additional financial assurance, including BOEM’s issuance of (i) "Self-Insurance" letters beginning September 12, 2016 (regarding a lessee’s ability to self-insure a portion of the additional financial assurance), (ii) "Proposal" letters beginning October 12, 2016 (outlining what amount of additional security a lessee will be required to provide), and (iii) "Order" letters beginning November 14, 2016 (triggering a lessee’s obligations (A) within 10 days of such letter to notify BOEM that it intends to pursue a "tailored plan" for posting additional security over a phased-incurrent weighted average remaining vesting period of time, (B) within 60 days of such letter, provide additional security for "sole liability" properties (leases or grants for which there is no other current or prior owner who is liable for decommissioning obligations), and (C) within 120 days of such letter, provide additional security for any other properties and/or submit a tailored financial plan).approximately four months.

We received a Self-Insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we are not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a Proposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required, and we are continuing to work with BOEM to adjust our previously submitted tailored plan for variances between our decommissioning estimates and that of BSEE's. In
NOTE 17 — REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE

During the firstsecond quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it will extendwe implemented workforce reduction plans to better align our employee base with current business needs, resulting in a reduction of approximately 20% of our total workforce. The workforce reductions were complete as of July 31, 2017. In connection with the implementation timelinereductions, we recognized a charge of $5.7 million, consisting primarily of severance payments to affected employees and payment of related employer payroll taxes. This charge is reflected in SG&A expenses on the statement of operations for the new NTL by an additional six months. The revised proposed plan may require approximately $7,000 to $10,000 of incremental financial assurance or bonding for sole liability properties and potentially an additional $30,000 to $60,000 of incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties by the end ofperiod from March 1, 2017 or in 2018, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with BSEE and any modifications to the NTL. Under the revised proposed plan, additional financial assurance would be required for subsequent years. There is no assurance that this tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan.through December 31, 2017 (Successor).

In connection with our exploration and development efforts, we are contractually committedaddition to the useworkforce reduction costs, during the second quarter of drilling rigs2017, we recognized a charge of $3.0 million for severance costs related to the sale of the Appalachia Properties and the acquisitionretirement of seismic datathe prior chief executive officer of the Company. These severance costs are reflected in SG&A expenses on the aggregate amountstatement of $28,030 to be incurred overoperations for the next two years.period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor).
The Oil Pollution Act (the "OPA") imposes ongoing requirements on
NOTE 18 — FEDERAL ROYALTY RECOVERY

In July 2017, we received a responsible party, includingfederal royalty recovery totaling $14.1 million as part of a multi-year federal royalty refund claim. Approximately $9.6 million of the preparationrefund was recognized as other operational income and $4.5 million as a reduction of oil spill response plans and proof of financial responsibility to cover environmental cleanup and restoration costs that could belease operating expenses during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). Included in SG&A expenses for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) is a $3.9 million success-based consulting fee incurred in connection with the federal royalty recovery.

NOTE 19 — OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Other operational expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) of $3.4 million included approximately $2.1 million of stacking charges for the Pompano platform rig. For the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), other operational expenses of $55.5 million included approximately $17.7 million of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, an oil spill. UnderAppalachian drilling rig and the OPAplatform rig at Pompano, a $20.0 million charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco and $9.9 million in charges related to the terminations of offshore vessel and Appalachian drilling rig contracts. Also included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) is a final rule adopted by$6.1 million loss on the BOEM in August 1998, responsible partiesliquidation of covered offshore facilities that have a worst case oil spill of more than 1,000 barrels must demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts rangingour former foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada, ULC, representing cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments, which were reclassified from at least $10,000 in specified state waters to at least $35,000 in Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS") waters, with higher amounts of up to $150,000 in certain limited circumstances where the BOEM believes such a level is justified by the risks posed by the operations, or if the worst case oil-spill discharge volume possible at the facility may exceed the applicable threshold volumes specified under the BOEM’s final rule. In addition, the BOEM has finalized rules that raise OPA's damages liability cap from $75,000 to $133,650.accumulated other comprehensive income. See Note 14 – Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss).


F-31F-39

Table of Contents


NOTE 1620EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS:COMBINATION TRANSACTION COSTS
WeIn connection with the pending combination with Talos, we have entered into deferred compensationincurred approximately $6.2 million in transaction costs, consisting primarily of legal and disability agreements with certainfinancial advisor costs. These costs are included in SG&A expense on our statement of our current and former officers. The benefits underoperations for the deferred compensation agreements vest after certain periods of employment, and atperiod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016, the liability for such vested benefits was2017 (Successor). Additionally, we have incurred approximately $961 and is recorded in current and other long-term liabilities. The deferred compensation plan is described further below.
The following is a brief description$0.2 million of each incentive compensation plan applicable to our employees:
Annual Cash Incentive Compensation Plans
The Amended and Restated Revised Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, which was adopted in November 2007, provided for annual cash incentive bonuses tied to the achievement of certain strategic objectives as defined by our board of directors on an annual basis. For 2016, we replaced our historical long-term cash and equity-based incentive compensation programs with the 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (the "2016 Incentive Plan"), pursuant to which incentive cash bonuses are calculated based on the achievement of certain strategic objectives for each quarter of 2016. Stone incurred expenses of $13,475, $2,242, and $10,361,net of amounts capitalized, for each of the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, related to incentive compensation cash bonuses. See "Key Executive Incentive Plan" below for additional information.
Stock Incentive Plans
During 2016, we maintained the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (as Amended and Restated December 17, 2015), as amended from time to time (the "Amended 2009 Plan"). That plan was originally approved at the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "2009 Plan") and was an amendment and restatement of the Company’s 2004 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (the "2004 Plan"), and it superseded and replaced in its entirety the 2004 Plan. The Amended 2009 Plan provides for the granting of (a) "incentive" stock options as defined in Section 422 of the Code, (b) stock options that do not constitute incentive stock options ("non-statutory" stock options), (c) stock appreciation rights in conjunction with an incentive or non-statutory stock option, (d) restricted stock, (e) restricted stock units, (f) dividend equivalents, (g) other stock-based awards, (h) conversion awards, and (i) cash awards, any of which may be further designated as performance awards (collectively referred to as "awards"). The 2009 Plan eliminated the automatic grant of stock options or restricted stock awards to nonemployee directors that was provided for in the 2004 Plan so that awards under the 2009 Plan and the Amended 2009 Plan are entirely at the discretion of our board of directors or a designated committee. All options must have an exercise price of not less than the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant and may not be re-priced without stockholder approval.
At the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the stockholders approved the Second Amendment (the "Second Amendment") to the 2009 Plan and the Third Amendment (the "Third Amendment") to the 2009 Plan. The Second Amendment provided, among other things, for an increase in the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2009 Plan by 160,000 shares, effective May 21, 2015, and for an extension of the term of the 2009 Plan to May 21, 2025. The Third Amendment set forth the material terms of the 2009 Plan (i.e., the eligible employees, business criteria and maximum annual per person compensation limits)direct costs for purposes of complying with certain requirementsregistering equity securities to effect the Talos combination. These direct costs are recorded as a reduction of Section 162(m) ofadditional paid-in-capital during the Internal Revenue Code. The Third Amendment did not change the employees eligible to receive compensation under the 2009 Plan, but did (i) allow Stone to grant cash awards (which may or may not be designated as performance awards) under the 2009 Plan, (ii) impose a fixed share number limit on stock-based awards and a fixed dollar limit on cash awards granted during any calendar year under the 2009 Plan to certain individuals, and (iii) add additional business criteria that could be utilized in setting performance goals under the 2009 Plan. The Third Amendment also became effective as of May 21, 2015. On December 17, 2015, Stone amended and restated the 2009 Plan in the form of the Amended 2009 Plan to incorporate all prior amendments to the 2009 Plan (including the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment) and certain other non-material changes to the 2009 Plan.
At the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the stockholders approved the adoption of the First Amendment (the "First Amendment") to the Amended 2009 Plan. The First Amendment increased the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the Amended 2009 Plan by 45,000 shares (as adjusted to reflect our June 2016 reverse stock split), effective May 19, 2016. The stockholders also approved the material terms of the Amended 2009 Plan, as amended by the First Amendment (i.e., the eligible employees, business criteria and maximum annual per person compensation limits) for purposes of complying with certain requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Atperiod from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2016, we had approximately 237,062 additional shares available2017 (Successor). See Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for issuance pursuant tomore information on the Stock Incentive Plan. We have adopted the Stone Energy Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, which is an omnibus equity compensation plan that will replace the Amended 2009 Plan and will become effective upon our emergence from bankruptcy.pending combination.

F-32

Table of Contents

NOTE 21 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

401(k) and Deferred Compensation Plans
The Stone Energy 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan provides eligible employees with the option to defer receipt of a portion of their compensation and we may, at our discretion, match a portion or all of the employee’s deferral. The amounts held under the plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each employee. An employee is 20% vested in matching contributions (if any) for each year of service and is fully vested upon five years of service. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, Stone contributed $1,248, $1,553 and $1,989, respectively, to the plan.
The Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan provides eligible executives and employees with the option to defer up to 100% of their eligible compensation for a calendar year and we could, at our discretion, match a portion or all of the participant’s deferral based upon a percentage determined by our board of directors. In addition, the Board may elect to make discretionary profit sharing contributions to the plan. To date there have been no matching or discretionary profit sharing contributions made by Stone, and in connection with our entry into the Settlement Agreement (defined below), we adopted an amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan that removed our ability to make matching contributions under that plan. The amounts held under the plan are invested in various investment funds maintained by a third party in accordance with the direction of each participant. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, plan assets of $8,746 and $8,499, respectively, were included in other assets. An equal amount of plan liabilities were included in other long-term liabilities.
Change of Control and Severance Plans
On April 7, 2009, we amended and restated our Executive Change of Control and Severance Plan effective as of December 31, 2008 (as so amended and restated,July 25, 2017, the "Executive Plan"). The Executive Plan also replaced and superseded our Executive Change in Control and Severance Policy that was maintained for certain designated executives (specifically, the CEO and CFO). The Executive Plan provided the Company’s officers terminated in the event of a change of control and upon certain other terminations of employment with change of control and severance benefits as defined in the Executive Plan. Although our CEO did not participate in the Executive Plan, the severance benefits provided to him under his employment agreement were substantially similar to the benefits provided under the Executive Plan. Executives terminated within the scope of the Executive Plan (or their applicable employment agreement) were entitled to certain payments and benefits including the following: (i) any unpaid base salary up to the date of termination; (ii) in the case of the CEO and CFO, a lump sum severance payment of 2.99 times the sum of the executive’s annual base salary and any target bonus at the one hundred percent level; (iii) a lump sum amount representing a pro rata share of the bonus opportunity up to the date of termination at the then projected rate of payout; (iv) in the case of officers other than the CEO and CFO and an involuntary termination occurring outside a change of control period, a lump sum severance payment in an amount equal to the executive’s annual base salary; (v) in the case of officers other than the CEO and CFO and an involuntary termination occurring during a change of control period, a lump sum severance payment in an amount equal to 2.99 times the executive’s annual base salary; and (vi) continued health plan coverage for six months and outplacement services. In the case of the CEO and CFO, if the payments would be "excess parachute payments," the CEO and CFO could receive a potential gross-up payment to reimburse them for excise taxes that might be incurred under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), as well as any additional income taxes resulting from such reimbursement, provided that if it was determined that the executive would be entitled to a gross-up payment but the total to be paid would not exceed 110% of the greatest amount (the "Reduced Amount") that could be paid such that receipt of the total would not give rise to any excise tax, then no gross-up would be paid and the total payments to the executive would be reduced to the Reduced Amount. Also, if a payment would be to a "specified employee" for purposes of Section 409A of the Code, payment would be delayed until six months after his termination if required to comply with Section 409A. Benefits paid upon a change of control, without regard to whether there is a termination of employment, included the following: (i) lapse of restrictions on restricted stock, (ii) accelerated vesting and cash-out of all in-the-money stock options, (iii) a 401(k) plan employer matching contribution at the rate of 50%, and (iv) a pro-rated portion of the projected bonus, if any, for the year of change of control.
On December 13, 2016, the Company entered into an Executive Claims Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with nine members of the Company’s senior executive team (collectively, the "Senior Executives"), subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court, which occurred on January 10, 2017. The Settlement Agreement provides for the termination of the Executive Plan and the employment agreement entered into with Kenneth H. Beer and the modification of the employment agreements with David H. Welch and Richard L. Toothman, Jr. In connection with the Settlement Agreement, we adoptedBoard approved the Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan (the "Executive“Executive Severance Plan"Plan”), which provides for the payment of severance and change in which all Senior Executives are allowed to participate. Pursuantcontrol benefits to the termsexecutive officers (other than the interim chief executive officer) of the Company. The Executive Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan dated December 13, 2016. Pursuant to the Executive Severance Plan, severance payableif a covered executive officer is terminated (i) by the Company without “cause” or (ii) by the executive officer for “good reason” (each, an “Involuntary Termination”), the executive officer will receive (i) a lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to each of1.0x or 1.5x the Senior Executives remains substantially similar to the prior arrangements, with the exception that (a) the severance amounts payable to each of David H. Welch and Kenneth H. Beer have been reduced from 2.99xexecutive officer’s annual base salary, and(ii) a lump sum cash payment equal to 100% of the executive officer’s annual bonus opportunity, at target, bonus to (i) for Mr. Welch, 1.5x annual base salary and 1.0xprorated by the bonus permitted under the Key Executive Incentive Plan ("KEIP"), and (ii) for Mr. Beer, 1.25x annual base salary and 1.0x the bonus permitted under the KEIP; (b)number of days that have elapsed from January 1 of that calendar year, (iii) six months of health benefit continuation; (c) all holderscontinuation for the executive officer and the executive officer’s dependents, at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iv) accelerated vesting of any outstanding and unvested equity awards, subject to vesting will automatically vest in(v) certain outplacement services and (vi) any unpaid portion of the next trancheexecutive officer’s annual pay as of time-based equity that would be scheduled to vest; (d) certain outplacement

F-33

Tablethe date of Contents


services; and (e) all Section 280G gross-up payments to which Senior Executives may have previously been entitled were eliminated in favor of a reduction of payments and/or benefits to each Senior Executive in whole or in part only, if by such reduction, the applicable Senior Executive’s net after-tax benefit will exceed such Senior Executive’s net after-tax benefit if such reductions were not made. Further, the Settlement Agreement amends the employment agreement entered into by the Company with David H. Welch (the "Welch Employment Agreement"), pursuant to which Mr. Welch waives any rights to severance under the Welch Employment Agreement in exchange for participation in the Executive Severance Plan. Mr. Toothman also participates in theInvoluntary Termination. The Executive Severance Plan but remains eligiblewas amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed Talos combination to receive special severance benefitsprovide, among other things, that if he incursa participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment in connection withduring the disposition oftwelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the Appalachia Properties.2017 calendar year.

On December 7, 2007, our board of directorsJuly 25, 2017, the Board approved and adopted the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan ("(the “2017 Employee Severance Plan"Plan”), as amended and restated to comply with the final regulations under Section 409A of the Code and to provide that said plan will remain in force and effect unless and until terminated by our board of directors.. The Employee Severance Plan amended and restated the Company’s previous Employee Change of Control Severance Plan dated November 16, 2006. The2017 Employee Severance Plan covers all full-time employees other than officers. Severance is triggered by an involuntary termination of employment on and during the six-monthtwelve-month period following a change of control, including a resignation by the employee relating to a change in duties.control. Employees who are terminated within the scope of the 2017 Employee Severance Plan will be entitled to certain payments and benefits including the following: (i) a lump sum equal to (1) weekly pay times full years of service, plus (2) one week’s pay for each full $10,000$10 thousand of annual pay, but the sum of (1) and (2) cannot be less than 12 weeks of pay or greater than 52 weeks of pay;pay, (ii) continued health plan coverage for 6 months;months at a cost to the participant that is equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage, (iii) a pro-ratedprorated portion of the employee’s targeted bonus for the year, and (iv) reasonable outplacement services consistent with current HR practices. Benefits paidThe 2017 Employee Severance Plan was amended on November 21, 2017 in connection with the proposed Talos combination to provide, among other things, that if a participant in the plan experiences a qualifying termination of employment during the twelve month period following Closing, such participant’s target bonus will be no less than such participant’s target bonus for the 2017 calendar year. The 2017 Employee Severance Plan replaced the Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan, dated December 7, 2007.

NOTE 16 — SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the 2017 LTIP became effective. As discussed in Note 15 – Employee Benefit Plans, the types of awards that may be granted under the 2017 LTIP include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, dividend equivalents and other forms of awards granted or denominated in shares of New Common Stock, as well as certain cash-based awards.

F-36

Table of Contents


We record share-based compensation expense for share-based compensation awards based on the fair value on the date of grant. Compensation expense for share-based compensation awards is recognized in our statement of operations on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the award. Under the full cost method of accounting, we capitalize a portion of employee and general and administrative costs (including share-based compensation). Because of the non-cash nature of share-based compensation, the expensed portion of share-based compensation is added back to net income in arriving at net cash provided by operating activities in our statement of cash flows. The capitalized portion is not included in net cash used in investing activities.
Under U.S. GAAP, if tax deductions exceed book compensation expense, then excess tax benefits are credited to additional paid-in capital to the extent realized. If book compensation expense exceeds tax deductions, the tax deficit results in either a reduction in additional paid-in capital and/or an increase in income tax expense, depending on the pool of available excess tax benefits to offset such deficit. There were no adjustments to additional paid-in capital related to the net tax effect of stock option exercises and restricted stock vesting in 2017, 2016 or 2015. During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor), respectively, $2.5 million, $2.7 million, $4.1 million and $1.3 million of tax deficits were charged to income tax expense.
Predecessor Share-Based Compensation
For the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor), we incurred $3.5 million of share-based compensation expense, all of which related to stock awards and restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $0.9 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor), we incurred $11.6 million of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $3.1 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties. For the year ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor), we incurred $17.9 million of share-based compensation, all of which related to restricted stock issuances, and of which a total of approximately $5.6 million was capitalized into oil and gas properties.
Stock Options.  All outstanding stock options at December 31, 2016 related to executive share-based awards that were cancelled upon emergence from bankruptcy. There were no stock option grants during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017. The following tables include Predecessor Company stock option activity during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
 Year Ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period14,447
 $269.25
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(1,500) 477.45
    
Options outstanding, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period12,947
 245.13
 1.4 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 

F-37

Table of Contents


 Year Ended December 31, 2015 (Predecessor)
 
Number
of
Options
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Exercise
Price
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Term
 
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Options outstanding, beginning of period20,497
 $339.36
    
Granted
 
    
Exercised
 
    
Forfeited
 
    
Expired(6,050) 506.76
    
Options outstanding, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 $
Options exercisable, end of period14,447
 269.25
 2.1 years
 
Options unvested, end of period
 
 
 
Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.Immediately prior to emergence, the vesting of all Predecessor outstanding, unvested share-based awards for non-executive employees was accelerated and, as a result, all unrecognized compensation cost related to such awards was recognized. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for a proportionate share of the 5% of New Common Stock, plus a proportionate share of the warrants for ownership of up to 15% of the Successor Company’s common equity. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards (see Successor Share-Based Compensation below).
During the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017, 10,404 shares (valued at $69 thousand) of Predecessor Company stock were issued, representing grants of stock to the board of directors of the Predecessor Company. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we issued 31,313 shares (valued at $0.3 million) and 141,872 shares (valued at $23.7 million), respectively, of Predecessor Company restricted stock or stock awards.
The following table includes Predecessor Company restricted stock and stock award activity during the period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 and the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
  Predecessor
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
   2016 2015
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
 
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding, beginning of period 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
 129,848
 $299.45
Issuances 10,404
 6.67
 31,313
 8.93
 141,872
 167.21
Lapse of restrictions or granting of stock awards (73,276) 186.37
 (117,406) 158.79
 (63,745) 296.00
Forfeitures (194) 169.40
 (13,056) 200.06
 (27,736) 223.80
Restricted stock outstanding, end of period 18,024
 $169.42
 81,090
 $205.34
 180,239
 $208.17
Successor Share-Based Compensation

Restricted Stock and Other Stock Awards.As discussed above, upon emergence from bankruptcy, all Predecessor outstanding, unvested restricted shares held by the Company’s executives were cancelled and exchanged for proportionate shares of New Common Stock. Vesting continued in accordance with the applicable vesting provisions of the original awards, with remaining compensation expense based on the fresh start fair value of $26.95 per share (see Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting).For the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $0.1 million of share-based compensation expense related to these restricted shares. The restricted stock outstanding on December 31, 2017 became fully vested on January 15, 2018. The following table includes Successor Company restricted stock and stock award activity during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017:

F-38

Table of Contents


  Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
  
Number of
Restricted
Shares
 
Wgtd.
Avg.
Fair Value
Per Share
Restricted stock outstanding at February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 18,024
 $169.42
Restricted stock outstanding at March 1, 2017 (Successor) 3,176
 $26.95
Issuances 
 
Lapse of restrictions (2,083) 21.78
Forfeitures 
 
Restricted stock outstanding at December 31, 2017 (Successor) 1,093
 $26.95

Restricted Stock Units. On March 1, 2017, the Board received grants of restricted stock units under the 2017 LTIP. The restricted stock units are scheduled to vest in full on the day prior to the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders in May 2018, subject to: (i) the director’s continued service on the board through the vesting date, and (ii) earlier vesting upon the occurrence of a change of control without regard to whether there is aevent or the termination of employment, include the following: (i) lapsedirector’s service due to death or removal from the board without cause. A total of restrictions on62,137 restricted stock (ii) cash-outunits were granted with an aggregate grant date fair value of in-the-money$1.7 million, based on a per share grant date fair value of $26.95. During the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor), we incurred approximately $1.2 million of share-based compensation expense related to these restricted stock options, (iii)units. As of December 31, 2017, there was $0.5 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to such restricted stock units, with a 401(k) plancurrent weighted average remaining vesting period of approximately four months.

NOTE 17 — REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE

During the second quarter of 2017, we implemented workforce reduction plans to better align our employee base with current business needs, resulting in a reduction of approximately 20% of our total workforce. The workforce reductions were complete as of July 31, 2017. In connection with the reductions, we recognized a charge of $5.7 million, consisting primarily of severance payments to affected employees and payment of related employer matching contribution atpayroll taxes. This charge is reflected in SG&A expenses on the ratestatement of 50%, and (iv) a lump sum cash payment equaloperations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor).

In addition to the productworkforce reduction costs, during the second quarter of (1) the number2017, we recognized a charge of "restricted shares" of company stock that the employee would have received under the company’s stock plan but did not receive$3.0 million for the time-vested portion of his long-term stock incentive award, if any, for the calendar year in which the change of control occurs times (2) the price per share of the company’s common stock utilized in effecting the change of control, provided that such amount shall be pro-rated by multiplying such amount by the number of full months that have elapsed from January 1 of that calendar year to the effective date of the change of control and then dividing the result by 12.
Key Executive Incentive Plan
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Senior Executives agreed to waive their claimsseverance costs related to the Company’s existingsale of the Appalachia Properties and the retirement of the prior chief executive officer of the Company. These severance costs are reflected in SG&A expenses on the statement of operations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor).

NOTE 18 — FEDERAL ROYALTY RECOVERY

In July 2017, we received a federal royalty recovery totaling $14.1 million as part of a multi-year federal royalty refund claim. Approximately $9.6 million of the refund was recognized as other operational income and $4.5 million as a reduction of lease operating expenses during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). Included in SG&A expenses for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) is a $3.9 million success-based consulting fee incurred in connection with the federal royalty recovery.

NOTE 19 — OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Other operational expenses for the period of March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) of $3.4 million included approximately $2.1 million of stacking charges for the Pompano platform rig. For the year ended December 31, 2016 Incentive Plan,(Predecessor), other operational expenses of $55.5 million included approximately $17.7 million of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, an Appalachian drilling rig and the platform rig at Pompano, a $20.0 million charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco and $9.9 million in exchange therefor, we adoptedcharges related to the terminations of offshore vessel and Appalachian drilling rig contracts. Also included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) is a $6.1 million loss on the liquidation of our former foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Corporation Key Executive Incentive Plan ("KEIP"), inCanada, ULC, representing cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments, which the Senior Executives are allowed to participate. The Senior Executives no longer have a fourth quarter bonus opportunity under the 2016 Incentive Plan and future payments to Senior Executives under the KEIP shall not be paid until the consummation of the Bankruptcy Cases and are limited to approximately $2,000, or the equivalent of the target bonus under the 2016 Incentive Plan for the fourth quarter of 2016. Future payments to Senior Executives under the KEIP shall be paid 50% upon consummation of the bankruptcy cases and 50% 90 days after the Company exits bankruptcy; provided, however, the Senior Executives must be employed upon consummation of the bankruptcy cases and the 90th day following the Company’s exitwere reclassified from bankruptcy or be terminated without cause in order to receive the respective bonus.accumulated other comprehensive income. See Note 14 – Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss).


F-34F-39

Table of Contents


NOTE 1720 — COMBINATION TRANSACTION COSTS
In connection with the pending combination with Talos, we have incurred approximately $6.2 million in transaction costs, consisting primarily of legal and financial advisor costs. These costs are included in SG&A expense on our statement of operations for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). Additionally, we have incurred approximately $0.2 million of direct costs for purposes of registering equity securities to effect the Talos combination. These direct costs are recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in-capital during the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor). See Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for more information on the pending combination.

NOTE 21 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Legal Proceedings
We are named as a party in certain lawsuits and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not expect that these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
Leases
We lease office facilities in Lafayette and New Orleans, Louisiana under the terms of non-cancelable leases expiring on various dates in 2018. We also lease certain equipment on our oil and gas properties typically on a month-to-month basis. The minimum net commitment for 2018 under our leases, subleases and contracts atDecember 31, 2017 totaled $0.3 million.
Payments related to our lease obligations were $0.5 million for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (Successor) and $0.1 million for the period of January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 (Predecessor). Payments related to our lease obligations for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 (Predecessor) were approximately $0.7 million and $3.1 million, respectively.
Other Commitments and Contingencies
On March 21, 2016, we received notice letters from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) stating that BOEM had determined that we no longer qualified for a supplemental bonding waiver under the financial criteria specified in BOEM’s guidance to lessees at such time. In late March 2016, we proposed a tailored plan to BOEM for financial assurances relating to our abandonment obligations, which provides for posting some incremental financial assurances in favor of BOEM. On May 13, 2016, we received notice letters from BOEM rescinding its demand for supplemental bonding with the understanding that we will continue to make progress with BOEM towards finalizing and implementing our long-term tailored plan. Currently, we have posted an aggregate of approximately $115 million in surety bonds in favor of BOEM, third-party bonds, and letters of credit, all relating to our offshore abandonment obligations. 
In July 2016, BOEM issued a Notice to Lessees (the “NTL”), with an effective date of September 12, 2016, that augments requirements for the posting of additional financial assurances by offshore lessees. The NTL details procedures to determine a lessee’s ability to carry out its lease obligations (primarily the decommissioning of OCS facilities) and whether to require lessees to furnish additional financial assurances to meet BOEM’s estimate of the lessees decommissioning obligations. The NTL supersedes the agency’s prior practice of allowing operators of a certain net worth to waive the need for supplemental bonds and provides updated criteria for determining a lessee’s ability to self-insure only a small portion of its OCS liabilities based upon the lessee’s financial capacity and financial strength. The NTL also allows lessees to meet their additional financial security requirements pursuant to an individually approved tailored plan, whereby an operator and BOEM agree to set a timeframe for the posting of additional financial assurances.
We received a self-insurance letter from BOEM dated September 30, 2016 stating that we were not eligible to self-insure any of our additional security obligations. We received a proposal letter from BOEM dated October 20, 2016 indicating that additional security may be required. The September 30, 2016 self-insurance determination letter was rescinded by BOEM on March 24, 2017.
In the first quarter of 2017, BOEM announced that it would extend the implementation timeline for the July 2016 NTL by an additional six months. Furthermore, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of the Interior to review the NTL to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure operator compliance with lease terms while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens. On June 22, 2017, BOEM announced that, pending its review of the NTL, the implementation timeline would be indefinitely extended, subject to certain exceptions. At this time, it is uncertain when, or if, the July 2016 NTL will be implemented or whether a revised NTL might be proposed. A revised tailored plan may require incremental financial assurance or bonding for non-sole liability properties, dependent on adjustments following ongoing discussions with

F-40

Table of Contents


BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and any modifications to the proposed NTL. There is no assurance that our current tailored plan will be approved by BOEM, and BOEM may require further revisions to our plan.
In connection with our exploration and development efforts, we are contractually committed to the acquisition of seismic data in the amount of $8.6 million to be incurred over the next two years.
The Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”) imposes ongoing requirements on a responsible party, including the preparation of oil spill response plans and proof of financial responsibility to cover environmental cleanup and restoration costs that could be incurred in connection with an oil spill. Under the OPA and a final rule adopted by BOEM in August 1998, responsible parties of covered offshore facilities that have a worst case oil spill of more than 1,000 barrels must demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts ranging from at least $10 million in specified state waters to at least $35 million in Outer Continental Shelf waters, with higher amounts of up to $150 million in certain limited circumstances where BOEM believes such a level is justified by the risks posed by the operations, or if the worst case oil-spill discharge volume possible at the facility may exceed the applicable threshold volumes specified under BOEM’s final rule. In addition, BOEM has finalized rules that raise OPA’s damages liability cap from $75 million to $133.7 million.

NOTE 22 — SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON OIL AND NATURAL GAS OPERATIONS – UNAUDITED:UNAUDITED
At December 31, 2016, 20152017 and 2014,2016, our oil and gas properties were located in the United States (onshore and offshore). On February 27, 2017, we completed the sale of the Appalachia Properties in connection with our restructuring (see Note 4 – Divestiture). During 2015, we discontinued our business development effort in Canada.
With the adoption of fresh start accounting, the Company recorded its oil and gas properties at fair value as of February 28, 2017. The Company’s proved, probable and possible reserves and unevaluated properties (including inventory) were assigned values of $380.8 million, $16.8 million and $80.2 million, respectively. See Note 3 – Fresh Start Accounting for a discussion of the valuation approach used.
Costs Incurred
United States. The following table discloses the total amount of capitalized costs and accumulated DD&A relative to our proved and unevaluated oil and natural gas properties located in the United States (in thousands):
 Successor  Predecessor
 December 31, 2017  December 31, 2016
Proved properties$713,157
  $9,572,082
Unevaluated properties102,187
  373,720
Total proved and unevaluated properties815,344
  9,945,802
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization(353,462)  (9,134,288)
Balance, end of year$461,882
  $811,514

The following table disclosessets forth certain financial data relative toinformation regarding the costs incurred in our oilacquisition, exploratory and gas producingdevelopment activities located onshore and offshore in the continental United States:States during the periods indicated (in thousands):

F-41

Table of Contents


 Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
Oil and gas properties – United States, proved and unevaluated:     
Balance, beginning of year$9,773,457
 $9,348,054
 $8,517,873
Costs incurred during the year (capitalized):     
Acquisition costs, net of sales of unevaluated properties3,923
 (14,158) 44,634
Exploratory costs17,891
 104,169
 270,850
Development costs (1)102,665
 266,982
 438,334
Salaries, general and administrative costs21,753
 27,984
 33,975
Interest26,634
 41,339
 45,722
Less: overhead reimbursements(521) (913) (3,334)
Total costs incurred during the year, net of divestitures172,345
 425,403
 830,181
Balance, end of year$9,945,802
 $9,773,457
 $9,348,054
Accumulated DD&A:     
Balance, beginning of year$(8,561,472) $(6,970,631) $(5,908,760)
Provision for DD&A(215,737) (277,088) (335,987)
Write-down of oil and gas properties(357,079) (1,314,817) (351,192)
Sale of proved properties
 1,064
 (374,692)
Balance, end of year$(9,134,288) $(8,561,472) $(6,970,631)
Net capitalized costs – United States, proved and unevaluated$811,514
 $1,211,985
 $2,377,423
DD&A per Mcfe$2.68
 $3.19
 $3.59
 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017  Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 Year Ended December 31,
    2016 2015
Costs incurred during the period (capitalized):        
Acquisition costs, net of sales of unevaluated properties$(8,371)  $(324) $3,923
 $(14,158)
Exploratory costs12,079
  2,055
 17,891
 104,169
Development costs (1)33,356
  12,547
 102,665
 266,982
Salaries, general and administrative costs7,495
  2,976
 21,753
 27,984
Interest3,927
  2,524
 26,634
 41,339
Less: overhead reimbursements(1,004)  
 (521) (913)
Total costs incurred during the period, net of divestitures$47,482
  $19,778
 $172,345
 $425,403
(1) Includes net changes in capitalized asset retirement costs of ($4,461)17,446), $0, ($43,901)4,461) and ($20,305)43,901), respectively.
The following table discloses operational expenses incurred during the periods indicated relative to our oil and natural gas producing activities located in the United States (in thousands):
Costs incurred during the year (expensed):     
Successor  Predecessor
Period from
March 1, 2017
through
December 31, 2017
  Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
 Year Ended December 31,
  2016 2015
Lease operating expenses$79,650
 $100,139
 $176,495
$49,800
  $8,820
 $79,650
 $100,139
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses27,760
 58,847
 64,951
4,084
  6,933
 27,760
 58,847
Production taxes3,148
 6,877
 12,151
629
  682
 3,148
 6,877
Accretion expense40,229
 25,988
 28,411
21,151
  5,447
 40,229
 25,988
Expensed costs – United States$150,787
 $191,851
 $282,008
$75,664
  $21,882
 $150,787
 $191,851
Under the full cost method of accounting, we compare, at the end of each financial reporting period, the present value of estimated future net cash flows from proved reserves (adjusted for hedges and excluding cash flows related to estimated abandonment costs)The following table sets forth certain information relative to the net capitalized costsamortization of provedour investment in oil and gas properties net of related deferred taxes. We refer to this comparison as a ceiling test. Ifand the net capitalized costs of proved oil and gas properties exceed the estimated discounted future net cash flows from proved reserves, we are required to write down the valueimpairment of our oil and gas properties toin the value ofUnited States for the discounted cash flows.periods indicated (in thousands, except per unit amounts):
 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017  Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 Year Ended December 31,
    2016 2015
Provision for DD&A$97,027
  $36,751
 $215,737
 $277,088
Write-down of oil and gas properties$256,435
  $
 $357,079
 $1,314,817
DD&A per Boe$16.61
  $17.05
 $16.10
 $19.15
At March 31, 2016,2017 (Successor), our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $128,852$256.4 million based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $46.72$45.40 per Bbl of oil, $2.01$2.24 per Mcf of natural gas and $13.65$19.18 per Bbl of NGLs. AtThe write-down at March 31, 2016,2017 is reflected in the write-downstatement of operations of the Successor Company for the period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 and was primarily due to differences between the trailing twelve-month average pricing assumption used in calculating the ceiling test and the forward prices used in fresh start accounting to estimate the fair value of our oil and gas properties also included $352 related toon the fresh start reporting date of February 28, 2017. Weighted average commodity prices used in the determination of the fair value of our Canadian oil and gas properties whichfor purposes of fresh start accounting were deemed to be fully impaired at the end$56.01 per Bbl of 2015. At June 30, 2016, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-downoil, $2.52 per Mcf of our U.S. oilnatural gas and gas properties$14.18 per Bbl of $118,649 based on twelve-month average prices,NGLs, net of applicable differentials,differentials.


F-35F-42

Table of Contents


of $43.49 per Bbl of oil, $1.93 per Mcf of natural gas and $9.33 per Bbl of NGLs. At September 30, 2016, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-downSince none of our U.S. oil and gas propertiesderivatives as of $36,484 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $40.51 per Bbl of oil, $1.99 per Mcf of natural gas and $13.88 per Bbl of NGLs. At December 31, 2016, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $73,094 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $40.15 per Bbl of oil, $1.71 per Mcf of natural gas and $9.46 per Bbl of NGLs. The March 31, June 302017 were designated as cash flow hedges (see Note 9 – Derivative Instruments and September 30,Hedging Activities), the write-down at March 31, 2017 was not affected by hedging. The 2016 and 2015 write-downs were decreased by $22,986, $18,112$50.7 million and $9,636,$143.9 million, respectively, as a result of hedges. There was no hedging impact on the December 31, 2016 write-down.

At March 31, 2015, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $491,412 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $78.99 per Bbl of oil, $2.96 per Mcf of natural gas and $28.82 per Bbl of NGLs. At June 30, 2015, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $179,125 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $68.68 per Bbl of oil, $2.47 per Mcf of natural gas and $29.13 per Bbl of NGLs. At September 30, 2015, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $295,679 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $57.76 per Bbl of oil, $2.44 per Mcf of natural gas and $23.04 per Bbl of NGLs. At December 31, 2015, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $348,601 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $51.16 per Bbl of oil, $2.19 per Mcf of natural gas and $16.40 per Bbl of NGLs. The March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31, 2015 write-downs were decreased by $28,687, $47,784, $42,652 and $24,797, respectively, as a result of hedges.

At September 30, 2014, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $47,130 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $94.94 per Bbl of oil, $4.19 per Mcf of natural gas and $41.33 per Bbl of NGLs. At December 31, 2014, our ceiling test computation resulted in a write-down of our U.S. oil and gas properties of $304,062 based on twelve-month average prices, net of applicable differentials, of $89.46 per Bbl of oil, $3.68 per Mcf of natural gas and $36.79 per Bbl of NGLs. The September 30 and December 31, 2014 write-downs were increased by $29,001 and $13,342, respectively, as a result of hedges.

The following table discloses net costs incurred (evaluated) on our unevaluated properties located in the United States for the years indicated:periods indicated (in thousands):
Year Ended December 31,Successor  Predecessor
Unevaluated oil and gas properties – United States:2016 2015 2014
Net costs incurred (evaluated) during year:     
Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017  Period from January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 Year Ended December 31,
  2016 2015
Net costs incurred (evaluated) during period:        
Acquisition costs$(71,378) $(115,767) $(42,384)$(9,155)  $959
 $(71,378) $(115,767)
Exploration costs(21,579) (16,315) (186,308)10,405
  (6,063) (21,579) (16,315)
Capitalized interest26,634
 41,339
 45,722
3,927
  2,524
 26,634
 41,339
$(66,323) $(90,743) $(182,970)$5,177
  $(2,580) $(66,323) $(90,743)
Under fresh start accounting, our oil and gas properties were recorded at fair value as of February 28, 2017. The following table discloses financial data associated with unevaluated costs (United States) for the Successor Company at December 31, 2017 (in thousands):
 Successor Net Costs Incurred During the Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 Successor
March 1, 2017 December 31, 2017
Acquisition costs$58,359
 $(9,155) $49,204
Exploration costs38,651
 10,405
 49,056
Capitalized interest
 3,927
 3,927
Total unevaluated costs$97,010
 $5,177
 $102,187
Approximately 34 specifically identified drilling projects are included in unevaluated costs at December 31, 2017 and are expected to be evaluated in the next four years. The excluded costs will be included in the amortization base as the properties are evaluated and proved reserves are established or impairment is determined.

F-43

Table of Contents


Canada. During 2013, we entered into an agreement to participate in the drilling of exploratory wells in Canada. Upon a more complete evaluation of this project and in response to the significant decline in commodity prices, we discontinued our business development effort in Canada during 2015 and recognized a full impairment of our Canadian oil and gas properties. The following table discloses certain financial data relative to our oil and gas activities located in Canada:

F-36

Table of Contents


Canada (in thousands):
 Predecessor
Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
2016 2015 2014 2016 2015
Oil and gas properties – Canada:         
Balance, beginning of year$42,484
 $36,579
 $10,583
 $42,484
 $36,579
Costs incurred during the year (capitalized):         
Acquisition costs(498) (2,862) 6,956
 (498) (2,862)
Exploratory costs2,168
 8,767
 19,040
 2,168
 8,767
Total costs incurred during the year1,670
 5,905
 25,996
 1,670
 5,905
Balance, end of year (fully evaluated at December 31, 2016 and 2015 and unevaluated at December 31, 2014)$44,154
 $42,484
 $36,579
Balance, end of year (fully evaluated at December 31, 2016 and 2015) $44,154
 $42,484
Accumulated DD&A:         
Balance, beginning of year$(42,484) $
 $
 $(42,484) $
Foreign currency translation adjustment(1,318) 5,146
 
 (1,318) 5,146
Write-down of oil and gas properties(352) (47,630) 
 (352) (47,630)
Balance, end of year$(44,154) $(42,484) $
 $(44,154) $(42,484)
Net capitalized costs – Canada$
 $
 $36,579
 $
 $
The following table discloses financial data associated with unevaluated costs (United States) at December 31, 2016:
 Balance as of 
Net Costs Incurred During the
Year Ended December 31,
December 31, 20162016 2015 2014 2013 and prior
Acquisition costs$122,589
 $8,278
 $17,308
 $47,490
 $49,513
Exploration costs153,320
 34,183
 38,686
 42,298
 38,153
Capitalized interest97,811
 24,759
 33,232
 32,287
 7,533
Total unevaluated costs$373,720
 $67,220
 $89,226
 $122,075
 $95,199
Approximately 73 specifically identified drilling projects are included in unevaluated costs at December 31, 2016 and are expected to be evaluated in the next four years. The excluded costs will be included in the amortization base as the properties are evaluated and proved reserves are established or impairment is determined. Interest costs capitalized on unevaluated properties during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 totaled $26,634, $41,339 and $45,722, respectively.
Proved Oil and Natural Gas Quantities
Our estimated net proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 20162017 have been prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"(“SEC”). Accordingly, the following reserve estimates are based upon existing economic and operating conditions at the respective dates. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved reserves and in providing the future rates of production and timing of development expenditures. The following reserve data represents estimates only and should not be construed as being exact. In addition, the present values should not be construed as the market value of the oil and gas properties or the cost that would be incurred to obtain equivalent reserves.
The following table sets forth an analysis of the estimated quantities of net proved oil (including condensate), natural gas and NGL reserves, all of which are located onshore and offshore the continental United States. Estimated proved oil, natural gas and NGL reserves at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are prepared in accordance with the SEC’s rule, "Modernization“Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting," using a historical twelve-month average pricing assumption.

F-37F-44

Table of Contents


Oil
(MBbls)
 
NGLs
(MBbls)
 
Natural
Gas
(MMcf)
 
Oil,
Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MMcfe)
 
Oil
(MBbls)
 
NGLs
(MBbls)
 
Natural
Gas
(MMcf)
 
Oil,
Natural
Gas and
NGLs
(MBoe)
Estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 201343,827
 23,297
 460,766
 863,513
Revisions of previous estimates(624) (331) (4,631) (10,362)
Extensions, discoveries and other additions9,650
 7,521
 131,617
 234,639
Sale of reserves(4,888) (556) (46,483) (79,151)
Production(5,568) (2,114) (47,426) (93,515)
Estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 201442,397
 27,817
 493,843
 915,124
Estimated proved developed and undeveloped reserves:Estimated proved developed and undeveloped reserves:       
As of December 31, 2014 (Predecessor) 42,397
 27,817
 493,843
 152,520
Revisions of previous estimates(6,818) (20,777) (362,102) (527,675) (6,818) (20,777) (362,102) (87,945)
Extensions, discoveries and other additions862
 11
 1,499
 6,738
 862
 11
 1,499
 1,123
Purchase of producing properties685
 1,808
 26,136
 41,095
 685
 1,808
 26,136
 6,849
Sale of reserves(859) 
 (1,061) (6,213) (859) 
 (1,061) (1,036)
Production(5,991) (2,401) (36,457) (86,809) (5,991) (2,401) (36,457) (14,468)
Estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 201530,276
 6,458
 121,858
 342,260
As of December 31, 2015 (Predecessor) 30,276
 6,458
 121,858
 57,043
Revisions of previous estimates(751) 6,352
 24,858
 58,465
 (751) 6,352
 24,858
 9,744
Extensions, discoveries and other additions63
 2
 45
 435
 63
 2
 45
 73
Production(6,308) (2,183) (29,441) (80,387) (6,308) (2,183) (29,441) (13,398)
Estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 201623,280
 10,629
 117,320
 320,773
As of December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) 23,280
 10,629
 117,320
 53,462
Revisions of previous estimates 730
 (2) 1,242
 935
Sale of reserves (826) (7,417) (52,992) (17,075)
Production (908) (408) (5,037) (2,156)
As of February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 22,276
 2,802
 60,533
 35,166
        
        
Revisions of previous estimates 3,769
 (94) (2,801) 3,208
Production (4,169) (403) (7,616) (5,841)
As of December 31, 2017 (Successor) 21,876
 2,305
 50,116
 32,533
        
Estimated proved developed reserves:               
as of December 31, 201422,957
 13,743
 249,924
 470,118
as of December 31, 201521,734
 4,784
 90,262
 249,366
as of December 31, 201618,269
 9,255
 90,741
 255,884
As of December 31, 2015 (Predecessor) 21,734
 4,784
 90,262
 41,562
As of December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) 18,269
 9,255
 90,741
 42,647
As of February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 18,344
 1,515
 35,865
 25,836
        
        
As of December 31, 2017 (Successor) 20,275
 1,689
 37,946
 28,288
        
Estimated proved undeveloped reserves:               
as of December 31, 201419,440
 14,074
 243,919
 445,006
as of December 31, 20158,542
 1,674
 31,596
 92,894
as of December 31, 20165,011
 1,374
 26,579
 64,889
As of December 31, 2015 (Predecessor) 8,542
 1,674
 31,596
 15,481
As of December 31, 2016 (Predecessor) 5,011
 1,374
 26,579
 10,815
As of February 28, 2017 (Predecessor) 3,932
 1,287
 24,668
 9,330
        
        
As of December 31, 2017 (Successor) 1,601
 616
 12,170
 4,245
The following narrative provides the reasons for the significant changes in the quantities of our estimated proved reserves by year.
2017 Periods. Revisions of previous estimates were primarily the result of positive well performance (4 MMBoe). The sale of reserves represents the sale of the Appalachia Properties (17 MMBoe) in connection with our restructuring (see Note 4 – Divestiture).
Year Ended December 31, 2016. Revisions of previous estimates were primarily the result of positive reserve report gas pricing changes extending the economic limits of the reservoirs (92 Bcfe)(15 MMBoe) primarily in Appalachia, slightly offset by negative well performance (35 Bcfe)(6 MMBoe).
Year Ended December 31, 2015. Revisions of previous estimates were primarily the result of the significant decline in commodity prices resulting in uneconomic reserves (570 Bcfe)(95 MMBoe) primarily in Appalachia, slightly offset by positive well performance (42 Bcfe)(7 MMBoe). Purchase of producing properties related to increases in our net revenue and working interests in multiple

F-45

Table of Contents


wells in the Mary field in Appalachia resulting from the finalization of participation elections made by partners and potential partners in certain units.
Year Ended December 31, 2014. Extensions, discoveries and other additions were primarily the result of our Appalachia (118 Bcfe) and our deep water (116 Bcfe) drilling programs. Sale of reserves primarily related to the sale of certain of our non-core GOM conventional shelf properties (63 Bcfe) and our Katie field in Appalachia (15 Bcfe).
Standardized Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash FlowFlows
The following tables present the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows related to estimated proved oil, natural gas and NGL reserves together with changes therein, including a reduction for estimated plugging and abandonment costs that are also reflected as a liability on the balance sheet at December 31, 2016.2017. You should not assume that the future net cash flows or the discounted future net cash flows, referred to in the tables below, represent the fair value of our estimated oil, natural gas and NGL reserves. Prices are based on either the historical twelve-month average price based on closing prices on the first day of each month, or prices defined by existing contractual arrangements. The 2016 average historical twelve-month oil and natural gas prices, net of applicable differentials, were $40.15 per Bbl of oil, $9.46 per Bbl of NGLs and $1.71 per Mcf of natural

F-38

Table of Contents


gas. The 2015 average twelve-month oil and natural gas prices, net of applicable differentials, were $51.16 per Bbl of oil, $16.40 per Bbl of NGLs and $2.19 per Mcf of natural gas. The 2014 average twelve-month oil and natural gas prices, net of applicable differentials, were $89.46 per Bbl of oil, $36.79 per Bbl of NGLs and $3.68 per Mcf of natural gas. Future production and development costs are based on current costs with no escalations. Estimated future cash flows net of future income taxes have been discounted to their present values based on a 10% annual discount rate. Our GOM Basin properties represented approximately 66%100% of our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves and virtually all of the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows at December 31, 2016.2017. The standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows and changes therein are as follows (in thousands, except average prices):
 
Standardized Measure
Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
Future cash inflows$1,236,097
 $1,921,329
 $6,635,751
Future production costs(480,815) (651,396) (2,413,004)
Future development costs(638,988) (679,355) (1,511,687)
Future income taxes
 
 (609,516)
Future net cash flows116,294
 590,578
 2,101,544
10% annual discount109,628
 13,259
 (682,752)
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows$225,922
 $603,837
 $1,418,792
 
Changes in Standardized Measure
Year Ended December 31,
 2016 2015 2014
Standardized measure at beginning of year$603,837
 $1,418,792
 $1,685,002
Sales and transfers of oil, natural gas and NGLs produced, net of production costs(223,948) (340,477) (486,232)
Changes in price, net of future production costs(448,861) (237,747) (864,118)
Extensions and discoveries, net of future production and development costs5,243
 1,573
 549,649
Changes in estimated future development costs, net of development costs incurred during the period54,406
 731,115
 203,026
Revisions of quantity estimates139,759
 (1,458,652) (27,495)
Accretion of discount60,384
 174,456
 222,009
Net change in income taxes
 325,768
 209,323
Purchases of reserves in-place
 3,493
 
Sales of reserves in-place
 
 (152,787)
Changes in production rates due to timing and other35,102
 (14,484) 80,415
Net decrease in standardized measure(377,915) (814,955) (266,210)
Standardized measure at end of year$225,922
 $603,837
 $1,418,792
NOTE 18 — OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES:
Included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 is a $6,081 loss on the liquidation of our former foreign subsidiary, Stone Energy Canada ULC, representing cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments, which were reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income. See Note 12 – Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss). Also included in other operational expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 are approximately $17,741 of rig subsidy and stacking charges related to the ENSCO 8503 deep water drilling rig, an Appalachian drilling rig and the platform rig at Pompano, a $20,000 charge related to the termination of our deep water drilling rig contract with Ensco and $9,889 in charges related to the terminations of the Appalachian drilling rig contract and contracts with two GOM vendors.
 Standardized Measure
 Successor  Predecessor
 December 31,  December 31,
 2017  2016 2015
Future cash inflows$1,264,809
  $1,236,097
 $1,921,329
Future production costs(497,538)  (480,815) (651,396)
Future development costs(431,752)  (638,988) (679,355)
Future income taxes
  
 
Future net cash flows335,519
  116,294
 590,578
10% annual discount57,591
  109,628
 13,259
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows$393,110
  $225,922
 $603,837
       
Average prices related to proved reserves:      
Oil (per Bbl)$50.05
  $40.15
 $51.16
NGLs (per Bbl)22.90
  9.46
 16.40
Natural gas (per Mcf)2.34
  1.71
 2.19

F-39F-46

Table of Contents


 Changes in Standardized Measure
 Successor  Predecessor
 Period from March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017  Period From January 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017 Year Ended December 31,
    2016 2015
Standardized measure at beginning of period$303,086
  $225,922
 $603,837
 $1,418,792
Sales and transfers of oil, natural gas and NGLs produced, net of production costs(164,612)  (46,137) (223,948) (340,477)
Changes in price, net of future production costs66,192
  17,455
 (448,861) (237,747)
Extensions and discoveries, net of future production and development costs
  
 5,243
 1,573
Changes in estimated future development costs, net of development costs incurred during the period88,111
  20,756
 54,406
 731,115
Revisions of quantity estimates96,454
  36,557
 139,759
 (1,458,652)
Accretion of discount30,309
  22,592
 60,384
 174,456
Net change in income taxes
  
 
 325,768
Purchases of reserves in-place
  
 
 3,493
Sales of reserves in-place
  14,584
 
 
Changes in production rates due to timing and other(26,430)  11,357
 35,102
 (14,484)
Net change in standardized measure90,024
  77,164
 (377,915) (814,955)
Standardized measure at end of period$393,110
  $303,086
 $225,922
 $603,837

NOTE 1923 — SUMMARIZED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL INFORMATION – UNAUDITED:UNAUDITED
The Company’s results of operations by quarter are as follows:follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):
 2016
 Quarter Ended
 March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31
Operating revenue$80,677
 $89,319
 $94,427
 $113,107
Loss from operations(172,150) (174,656) (72,128) (90,234)
Net loss(188,784) (195,761) (89,635) (116,406)
Basic loss per share$(33.89) $(35.05) $(16.01) $(20.76)
Diluted loss per share$(33.89) $(35.05) $(16.01) $(20.76)
        
Write-down of oil and gas properties$129,204
 $118,649
 $36,484
 $73,094
Restructuring fees$953
 $9,436
 $5,784
 $13,424
Other operational expenses (1)$12,527
 $27,680
 $9,059
 $6,187
Reorganization items
 
 
 $10,947
 Predecessor  Successor
 Period from
January 1, 2017
through
February 28, 2017
  Period from
March 1, 2017
through
March 31, 2017
 2017 Quarter Ended
   June 30 Sept. 30 Dec. 31
Operating revenue$68,922
  $25,809
 $76,722
 $79,525
 $76,327
Income (loss) from operations$209,119
  $(258,594) $(4,519) $2,653
 $5,302
Net income (loss)$630,317
  $(259,613) $(6,461) $1,297
 $17,138
Basic income (loss) per share$110.99
  $(12.98) $(0.32) $0.06
 $0.86
Diluted income (loss) per share$110.99
  $(12.98) $(0.32) $0.06
 $0.86
           
Write-down of oil and gas properties$
  $256,435
 $
 $
 $
Gain (loss) on Appalachia Properties divestiture$213,453
  $
 $27
 $(132) $
Reorganization items (1)$(437,744)  $
 $
 $
 $
Other expense$13,336
  $
 $814
 $47
 $369
(1) See Note 183 – Fresh Start Accounting for additional details.


F-47

Table of Contents


 Predecessor
 2016 Quarter Ended
 March 31 June 30 Sept. 30 Dec. 31
Operating revenue$80,677
 $89,319
 $94,427
 $113,107
Loss from operations$(172,150) $(174,656) $(72,128) $(90,234)
Net loss$(188,784) $(195,761) $(89,635) $(116,406)
Basic loss per share$(33.89) $(35.05) $(16.01) $(20.76)
Diluted loss per share$(33.89) $(35.05) $(16.01) $(20.76)
        
Write-down of oil and gas properties$129,204
 $118,649
 $36,484
 $73,094
Restructuring fees$953
 $9,436
 $5,784
 $13,424
Other operational expenses (1)$12,527
 $27,680
 $9,059
 $6,187
Reorganization items$
 $
 $
 $10,947
(1) See Note 19 – Other Operational Expenses for additional details.
 2015
 Quarter Ended
 March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31
Operating revenue$153,498
 $149,525
 $132,196
 $110,499
Loss from operations(497,194) (228,161) (297,209) (342,759)
Net loss(327,388) (152,906) (291,965) (318,656)
Basic loss per share$(59.33) $(27.68) $(52.82) $(57.63)
Diluted loss per share$(59.33) $(27.68) $(52.82) $(57.63)
        
Write-down of oil and gas properties$491,412
 $224,294
 $295,679
 $351,062

NOTE 2024 — NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE COMPLIANCE:COMPLIANCE
On April 29,May 17, 2016, we were notified by the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"(the “NYSE”) that we were not in compliance with the NYSE's continued listing requirements, as the average closing price of our shares of common stock had fallen below $1.00 per share over a period of 30 consecutive trading days, which is the minimum average share price for continued listing on the NYSE under Section 802.01C of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. On May 17, 2016, we were notified by the NYSE that our average global market capitalization had been less than $50,000$50 million over a consecutive 30 trading-day period at the same time that our stockholders'stockholders’ equity was less than $50,000,$50 million, which is non-compliant with Section 802.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.

At the close of business on June 10, 2016, we effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split (see Note 1 – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies) in order to increase the market price per share of our common stock in order to regain compliance with the NYSE's minimum share price requirement. We were notified on July 1, 2016 that we cured the minimum share price deficiency and that we were no longer considered non-compliant with the $1.00 per share average closing price requirement. We remain non-compliant with the $50,000 market capitalization and stockholders' equity requirements

On June 30, 2016, we submitted our 18-month business plan for curing the average market capitalization and stockholders'stockholders’ equity deficiencies to the NYSE. The NYSE, accepted the planand on August 4, 2016, and will continue to review the Company on a quarterly basis for compliance with the plan. Upon acceptance of the plan by the NYSE and after two consecutive quarters of sustained market capitalization above $50,000, we would no longer be non-compliant withaccepted the market capitalization and stockholders' equity requirements. During the 18-month cure period, our shares of common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE, unless we experience other circumstances that subject us to delisting, including an abnormally low market

F-40

Table of Contents


capitalization. If we fail to meet the material aspects of the plan or any of the quarterly milestones, the NYSE will review the circumstances causing the variance and determine whether such variance warrants commencement of suspension and delisting procedures. Additionally, under Section 802.01D of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, if a company that is below a continued listing standard files or announces an intent to file for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the company is subject to immediate suspension and delisting. However, if we are profitable or have positive cash flow, or if we are demonstrably in sound financial health despite the bankruptcy proceedings, the NYSE may evaluate our plan in light of the filing without immediate suspension and delistingPlan. All of our common stock. To date, and throughout the Chapter 11 filing period, we have continued to trade on the NYSE.

On September 20, 2016, we submitted our quarterly updateupdates to the business plan forwere accepted by the second quarterNYSE. Since March 1, 2017, the first day of 2016,trading subsequent to the effective date of the Company’s plan of reorganization, the Successor Company has maintained a market capitalization above $50 million.
On August 24, 2017, we were notified by the NYSE that we are back in compliance with their continued listing standards as a result of the Company’s consistent positive performance with respect to the original business plan submission and the NYSE notified us that it accepted the quarterly update on September 22, 2016. On December 22, 2016, we submitted our quarterly update to the business plan for the third quarterachievement of 2016, and the NYSE notified us that it accepted the quarterly update on January 5, 2017. We expect to submit our fourth quarter 2016 plan update to the NYSE by mid-March 2017.

NOTE 21 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS:

Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization

On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Plan. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings.

Disposition of Appalachia Properties

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court orders dated January 11, 2017 and January 31, 2017, two additional bidders were allowed to participate in competitive bidding on the Appalachia Properties. See Note 2 – Chapter 11 Proceedings. On January 18, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Bidding Procedures in connectioncompliance with the sale ofaverage global market capitalization and stockholders’ equity listing requirements over the Appalachia Properties.past two quarters. In accordance with the Bidding Procedures, Stone conducted an auction for the sale of the Appalachia Properties on February 8, 2017 and upon conclusion, selected the final bid submitted by EQT, with a final purchase price of $527,000 in cash,NYSE’s Listed Company Manual, we will be subject to customary purchase price adjustments and approval by the Bankruptcy Court, with an upward adjustment to the purchase price ofa 12-month follow up to $16,000 in an amount equal to certain downward adjustments, as the prevailing bid.
On February 9, 2017, the Company entered into a purchase and sale agreement with EQT (the "EQT PSA"), reflecting the terms of the prevailing bid. Under the EQT PSA, the sale of the Appalachia Properties has an effective date of June 1, 2016. The EQT PSA contains customary representations, warranties and covenants. From and after the closing of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Company and EQT, respectively, have agreed to indemnify each other and their respective affiliates against certain losses resulting from any breach of their representations, warranties or covenants contained in the EQT PSA, subject to certain customary limitations and survival periods. Additionally, from and after closing of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Company has agreed to indemnify EQT for certain identified retained liabilities related to the Appalachia Properties, subject to certain survival periods, and EQT has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain assumed obligations related to the Appalachia Properties. The EQT PSA may be terminated, subject to certain exceptions, (i) upon mutual written consent, (ii) if the closing has not occurred by March 1, 2017, (iii) for certain material breaches of representations and warranties or covenants that remain uncured and (iv) upon the occurrence of certain other events specified in the EQT PSA.

At the close of the sale of the Appalachia Properties, the Tug Hill PSA will terminate, andperiod within which the Company will use a portionbe reviewed to ensure that the Company does not fall below any of the cash consideration received to pay Tug Hill a break-up fee of $10,800. On February 10, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered a sale order approving the sale of the Appalachia Properties to EQT. We expect to close the sale of the Appalachia Properties by February 28, 2017, subject to customary closing conditions. At December 31, 2016, the Appalachia Properties accounted for approximately 34% of our total estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves on a volume equivalent basis.

NOTE 22 — GUARANTOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
Stone Offshore is an unconditional guarantor (the "Guarantor Subsidiary") of the 2017 Convertible Notes and the 2022 Notes. Our other subsidiaries (the "Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries") have not provided guarantees. The following presents consolidating financial information as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 on an issuer (parent company), Guarantor Subsidiary, Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries and consolidated basis. Elimination entries presented are necessary to combine the entities.

F-41

Table of Contents


CCONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2016
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Assets         
Current assets:         
Cash and cash equivalents$150,537
 $40,044
 $
 $
 $190,581
Accounts receivable18,745
 31,452
 
 (1,733) 48,464
Current income tax receivable26,086
 
 
 
 26,086
Other current assets10,151
 
 
 
 10,151
Total current assets205,519
 71,496
 
 (1,733) 275,282
Oil and gas properties, full cost method:         
Proved1,964,046
 7,608,036
 44,154
 
 9,616,236
Less: accumulated DD&A(1,964,046) (7,170,242) (44,154) 
 (9,178,442)
Net proved oil and gas properties
 437,794
 
 
 437,794
Unevaluated251,955
 121,765
 
 
 373,720
Other property and equipment, net26,213
 
 
 
 26,213
Other assets, net25,570
 904
 
 
 26,474
Investment in subsidiary389,475
 76
 
 (389,551) 
Total assets$898,732
 $632,035
 $
 $(391,284) $1,139,483
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity         
Current liabilities:         
Accounts payable to vendors$13,742
 $7,972
 $
 $(1,733) $19,981
Undistributed oil and gas proceeds14,170
 903
 
 
 15,073
Accrued interest809
 
 
 
 809
Asset retirement obligations
 88,000
 
 
 88,000
Current portion of long-term debt408
 
 
 
 408
Other current liabilities18,602
 
 
 
 18,602
Total current liabilities47,731
 96,875
 
 (1,733) 142,873
Long-term debt352,376
 
 
 
 352,376
Asset retirement obligations8,410
 145,609
 
 
 154,019
Other long-term liabilities17,315
 
 
 
 17,315
Total liabilities not subject to compromise425,832
 242,484
 
 (1,733) 666,583
Liabilities subject to compromise1,110,182
 
 
 
 1,110,182
Total liabilities1,536,014
 242,484
 
 (1,733) 1,776,765
Commitments and contingencies
 
 
 
 
Stockholders’ equity:         
Common stock56
 
 
 
 56
Treasury stock(860) 
 
 
 (860)
Additional paid-in capital1,659,731
 1,300,547
 108,198
 (1,408,745) 1,659,731
Accumulated deficit(2,296,209) (910,996) (108,198) 1,019,194
 (2,296,209)
Total stockholders’ equity(637,282) 389,551
 
 (389,551) (637,282)
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$898,732
 $632,035
 $
 $(391,284) $1,139,483
NYSE’s continued listing standards.


F-42

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2015
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Assets         
Current assets:         
Cash and cash equivalents$9,681
 $2
 $1,076
 $
 $10,759
Accounts receivable10,597
 39,190
 
 (1,756) 48,031
Fair value of derivative contracts
 38,576
 
 
 38,576
Current income tax receivable46,174
 
 
 
 46,174
Other current assets6,848
 
 33
 
 6,881
Total current assets73,300
 77,768
 1,109
 (1,756) 150,421
Oil and gas properties, full cost method:         
Proved1,875,152
 7,458,262
 42,484
 
 9,375,898
Less: accumulated DD&A(1,874,622) (6,686,849) (42,484) 
 (8,603,955)
Net proved oil and gas properties530
 771,413
 
 
 771,943
Unevaluated253,308
 186,735
 
 
 440,043
Other property and equipment, net29,289
 
 
 
 29,289
Other assets, net16,612
 826
 1,035
 
 18,473
Investment in subsidiary745,033
 
 1,088
 (746,121) 
Total assets$1,118,072
 $1,036,742
 $3,232
 $(747,877) $1,410,169
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity         
Current liabilities:         
Accounts payable to vendors$16,063
 $67,901
 $
 $(1,757) $82,207
Undistributed oil and gas proceeds5,216
 776
 
 
 5,992
Accrued interest9,022
 
 
 
 9,022
Asset retirement obligations
 20,400
 891
 
 21,291
Other current liabilities40,161
 551
 
 
 40,712
Total current liabilities70,462
 89,628
 891
 (1,757) 159,224
Long-term debt1,060,955
 
 
 
 1,060,955
Asset retirement obligations1,240
 203,335
 
 
 204,575
Other long-term liabilities25,204
 
 
 
 25,204
Total liabilities1,157,861
 292,963
 891
 (1,757) 1,449,958
Commitments and contingencies
 
 
 
 
Stockholders’ equity:         
Common stock55
 
 
 
 55
Treasury stock(860) 
 
 
 (860)
Additional paid-in capital1,648,687
 1,344,577
 109,795
 (1,454,372) 1,648,687
Accumulated deficit(1,705,623) (624,824) (95,306) 720,130
 (1,705,623)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)17,952
 24,026
 (12,148) (11,878) 17,952
Total stockholders’ equity(39,789) 743,779
 2,341
 (746,120) (39,789)
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$1,118,072
 $1,036,742
 $3,232
 $(747,877) $1,410,169


F-43

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Operating revenue:         
Oil production$9,268
 $271,978
 $
 $
 $281,246
Natural gas production25,276
 39,325
 
 
 64,601
Natural gas liquids production22,142
 6,746
 
 
 28,888
Other operational income2,657
 
 
 
 2,657
Total operating revenue59,343
 318,049
 
 
 377,392
Operating expenses:         
Lease operating expenses12,048
 67,589
 13
 
 79,650
Transportation, processing, and gathering expenses28,091
 (331) 
 
 27,760
Production taxes2,387
 761
 
 
 3,148
Depreciation, depletion, amortization67,059
 153,020
 
 
 220,079
Write-down of oil and gas properties26,706
 330,373
 352
 
 357,431
Accretion expense232
 39,997
 
 
 40,229
Salaries, general and administrative expenses59,127
 (199) 
 
 58,928
Incentive compensation expense13,475
 
 
 
 13,475
Restructuring fees29,597
 
 
 
 29,597
Other operational expenses49,247
 125
 6,081
 
 55,453
Derivative expense, net
 810
 
 
 810
Total operating expenses287,969
 592,145
 6,446
 
 886,560
Loss from operations(228,626) (274,096) (6,446) 
 (509,168)
Other (income) expenses:         
Interest expense64,458
 
 
 
 64,458
Interest income(503) (47) 
 
 (550)
Other income(482) (957) 
 
 (1,439)
Other expense596
 
 
 
 596
Reorganization items10,947
 
 
 
 10,947
Loss from investment in subsidiaries292,618
 
 6,446
 (299,064) 
Total other (income) expenses367,634
 (1,004) 6,446
 (299,064) 74,012
Loss before taxes(596,260) (273,092) (12,892) 299,064
 (583,180)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes:         
Current(5,674) 
 
 
 (5,674)
Deferred
 13,080
 
 
 13,080
Total income taxes(5,674) 13,080
 
 
 7,406
Net loss$(590,586) $(286,172) $(12,892) $299,064
 $(590,586)
Comprehensive loss$(608,538) $(286,172) $(12,892) $299,064
 $(608,538)

F-44

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Operating revenue:         
Oil production$12,804
 $403,693
 $
 $
 $416,497
Natural gas production41,646
 41,863
 
 
 83,509
Natural gas liquids production22,375
 9,947
 
 
 32,322
Other operational income4,369
 
 
 
 4,369
Derivative income, net
 7,952
 
 
 7,952
Total operating revenue81,194
 463,455
 
 
 544,649
Operating expenses:         
Lease operating expenses16,264
 83,872
 3
 
 100,139
Transportation, processing, and gathering expenses50,247
 8,600
 
 
 58,847
Production taxes5,631
 1,246
 
 
 6,877
Depreciation, depletion, amortization123,724
 157,964
 
 
 281,688
Write-down of oil and gas properties785,463
 529,354
 47,630
 
 1,362,447
Accretion expense365
 25,623
 
 
 25,988
Salaries, general and administrative expenses69,147
 201
 36
 
 69,384
Incentive compensation expense2,242
 
 
 
 2,242
Other operational expenses2,360
 
 
 
 2,360
Total operating expenses1,055,443
 806,860
 47,669
 
 1,909,972
Loss from operations(974,249) (343,405) (47,669) 
 (1,365,323)
Other (income) expenses:         
Interest expense43,907
 21
 
 
 43,928
Interest income(327) (246) (7) 
 (580)
Other income(617) (1,163) (3) 
 (1,783)
Other expense434
 
 
 
 434
Loss from investment in subsidiaries231,783
 
 47,659
 (279,442) 
Total other (income) expenses275,180
 (1,388) 47,649
 (279,442) 41,999
Loss before taxes(1,249,429) (342,017) (95,318) 279,442
 (1,407,322)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes:         
Current(44,096) 
 
 
 (44,096)
Deferred(114,418) (157,893) 
 
 (272,311)
Total income taxes(158,514) (157,893) 
 
 (316,407)
Net loss$(1,090,915) $(184,124) $(95,318) $279,442
 $(1,090,915)
Comprehensive loss$(1,156,278) $(184,124) $(95,318) $279,442
 $(1,156,278)

F-45

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Operating revenue:         
Oil production$29,701
 $486,403
 $
 $
 $516,104
Natural gas production86,812
 79,682
 
 
 166,494
Natural gas liquids production61,200
 24,442
 
 
 85,642
Other operational income7,551
 400
 
 
 7,951
Derivative income, net
 19,351
 
 
 19,351
Total operating revenue185,264
 610,278
 
 
 795,542
Operating expenses:         
Lease operating expenses18,719
 157,776
 
 
 176,495
Transportation, processing and gathering expenses53,028
 11,923
 
 
 64,951
Production taxes8,324
 3,827
 
 
 12,151
Depreciation, depletion, amortization138,313
 201,693
 
 
 340,006
Write-down of oil and gas properties351,192
 
 
 
 351,192
Accretion expense230
 28,181
 
 
 28,411
Salaries, general and administrative expenses66,430
 4
 17
 
 66,451
Incentive compensation expense10,361
 
 
 
 10,361
Other operational expenses669
 193
 
 
 862
Total operating expenses647,266
 403,597
 17
 
 1,050,880
Income (loss) from operations(462,002) 206,681
 (17) 
 (255,338)
Other (income) expenses:         
Interest expense38,810
 45
 
 
 38,855
Interest income(333) (192) (49) 
 (574)
Other income(836) (1,496) 
 
 (2,332)
Other expense274
 
 
 
 274
Income from investment in subsidiaries(133,336) 
 (32) 133,368
 
Total other (income) expenses(95,421) (1,643) (81) 133,368
 36,223
Income (loss) before taxes(366,581) 208,324
 64
 (133,368) (291,561)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes:         
Current159
 
 
 
 159
Deferred(177,197) 75,020
 
 
 (102,177)
Total income taxes(177,038) 75,020
 
 
 (102,018)
Net income (loss)$(189,543) $133,304
 $64
 $(133,368) $(189,543)
Comprehensive income (loss)$(104,166) $133,304
 $64
 $(133,368) $(104,166)

F-46

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Cash flows from operating activities:         
Net loss$(590,586) $(286,172) $(12,892) $299,064
 $(590,586)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:         
Depreciation, depletion and amortization67,059
 153,020
 
 
 220,079
Write-down of oil and gas properties26,706
 330,373
 352
 
 357,431
Accretion expense232
 39,997
 
 
 40,229
Deferred income tax benefit
 13,080
 
 
 13,080
Settlement of asset retirement obligations(85) (19,530) (899) 
 (20,514)
Non-cash stock compensation expense8,443
 
 
 
 8,443
Non-cash derivative expense
 1,471
 
 
 1,471
Non-cash interest expense18,404
 
 
 
 18,404
Non-cash reorganization items8,332
 
 
 
 8,332
Other non-cash expense168
 
 6,080
 
 6,248
Change in current income taxes20,088
 
 
 
 20,088
Non-cash loss from investment in subsidiaries292,618
 
 6,446
 (299,064) 
Change in intercompany receivables/payables43,330
 (42,449) (881) 
 
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable(7,490) 6,078
 
 
 (1,412)
(Increase) decrease in other current assets(3,526) 
 33
 
 (3,493)
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable4,313
 (3,287) 
 
 1,026
Increase (decrease) in other current liabilities10,321
 (424) 
 
 9,897
Other(9,178) (957) 
 
 (10,135)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities(110,851) 191,200
 (1,761) 
 78,588
Cash flows from investing activities:         
Investment in oil and gas properties(86,442) (151,158) (352) 
 (237,952)
Investment in fixed and other assets(1,266) 
 
 
 (1,266)
Change in restricted funds
 
 1,046
 
 1,046
Investment in subsidiaries
 
 715
 (715) 
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities(87,708) (151,158) 1,409
 (715) (238,172)
Cash flows from financing activities:         
Proceeds from bank borrowings477,000
 
 
 
 477,000
Repayments of bank borrowings(135,500) 
 
 
 (135,500)
Deferred financing costs(900) 
 
 
 (900)
Repayments of building loan(423) 
 
 
 (423)
Equity proceeds from parent
 
 (715) 715
 
Net payments for share-based compensation(762) 
 
 
 (762)
Net cash used in financing activities339,415
 
 (715) 715
 339,415
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash
 
 (9) 
 (9)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents140,856
 40,042
 (1,076) 
 179,822
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period9,681
 2
 1,076
 
 10,759
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period$150,537
 $40,044
 $
 $
 $190,581

F-47

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Cash flows from operating activities:         
Net loss$(1,090,915) $(184,124) $(95,318) $279,442
 $(1,090,915)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:         
Depreciation, depletion and amortization123,724
 157,964
 
 
 281,688
Write-down of oil and gas properties785,463
 529,354
 47,630
 
 1,362,447
Accretion expense365
 25,623
 
 
 25,988
Deferred income tax benefit(114,418) (157,893) 
 
 (272,311)
Settlement of asset retirement obligations(15) (72,367) 
 
 (72,382)
Non-cash stock compensation expense12,324
 
 
 
 12,324
Excess tax benefits(1,586) 
 
 
 (1,586)
Non-cash derivative expense
 16,440
 
 
 16,440
Non-cash interest expense17,788
 
 
 
 17,788
Change in current income taxes(37,377) 
 
 
 (37,377)
Non-cash loss from investment in subsidiaries231,783
 
 47,659
 (279,442) 
Change in intercompany receivables/payables9,744
 (19,486) 9,742
 
 
Decrease in accounts receivable34,609
 9,084
 31
 
 43,724
(Increase) decrease in other current assets1,799
 
 (32) 
 1,767
(Increase) decrease in inventory(1,394) 2,698
 
 
 1,304
Decrease in accounts payable(7,471) (7,111) 
 
 (14,582)
Increase (decrease) in other current liabilities(25,989) 53
 
 
 (25,936)
Other256
 (1,163) 
 
 (907)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities(61,310) 299,072
 9,712
 
 247,474
Cash flows from investing activities:         
Investment in oil and gas properties(188,154) (323,359) (10,534) 
 (522,047)
Proceeds from sale of oil and gas properties, net of expenses
 22,839
 
 
 22,839
Investment in fixed and other assets(1,549) 
 
 
 (1,549)
Change in restricted funds177,647
 
 1,820
 
 179,467
Investment in subsidiaries
 
 (9,714) 9,714
 
Net cash used in investing activities(12,056) (300,520) (18,428) 9,714
 (321,290)
Cash flows from financing activities:         
Proceeds from bank borrowings5,000
 
 
 
 5,000
Repayments of bank borrowings(5,000) 
 
 
 (5,000)
Deferred financing costs(68) 
 
 
 (68)
Proceeds from building loan11,770
 
 
 
 11,770
Excess tax benefits1,586
 
 
 
 1,586
Equity proceeds from parent
 
 9,714
 (9,714) 
Net payments for share-based compensation(3,127) 
 
 
 (3,127)
Net cash provided by financing activities10,161
 
 9,714
 (9,714) 10,161
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash
 
 (74) 
 (74)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents(63,205) (1,448) 924
 
 (63,729)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period72,886
 1,450
 152
 
 74,488
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period$9,681
 $2
 $1,076
 $
 $10,759

F-48

Table of Contents


CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014
(In thousands)
 Parent 
Guarantor
Subsidiary
 
Non-
Guarantor
Subsidiaries
 Eliminations Consolidated
Cash flows from operating activities:         
Net income (loss)$(189,543) $133,304
 $64
 $(133,368) $(189,543)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:         
Depreciation, depletion and amortization138,313
 201,693
 
 
 340,006
Write-down of oil and gas properties351,192
 
 
 
 351,192
Accretion expense230
 28,181
 
 
 28,411
Deferred income tax (benefit) provision(177,197) 75,020
 
 
 (102,177)
Settlement of asset retirement obligations(201) (56,208) 
 
 (56,409)
Non-cash stock compensation expense11,325
 
 
 
 11,325
Non-cash derivative income
 (18,028) 
 
 (18,028)
Non-cash interest expense16,661
 
 
 
 16,661
Change in current income taxes158
 
 
 
 158
Non-cash income from investment in subsidiaries(133,336) 
 (32) 133,368
 
Change in intercompany receivables/payables114,056
 (145,250) 31,194
 
 
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable1,131
 50,514
 (34) 
 51,611
Increase in other current assets(6,238) 
 (6) 
 (6,244)
(Increase) decrease in inventory2,415
 (2,415) 
 
 
Decrease in accounts payable(662) (2,757) 
 
 (3,419)
Decrease in other current liabilities(16,946) (2,206) 
 
 (19,152)
Other(1,755) (1,496) 
 
 (3,251)
Net cash provided by operating activities109,603
 260,352
 31,186
 
 401,141
Cash flows from investing activities:         
Investment in oil and gas properties(338,731) (558,003) (30,513) 
 (927,247)
Proceeds from sale of oil and gas properties, net of expenses28,103
 214,811
 
 
 242,914
Investment in fixed and other assets(10,182) 
 
 
 (10,182)
Change in restricted funds(177,647) 
 (425) 
 (178,072)
Investment in subsidiaries
 
 (31,696) 31,696
 
Net cash used in investing activities(498,457) (343,192) (62,634) 31,696
 (872,587)
Cash flows from financing activities:         
Proceeds from issuance of common stock225,999
 
 
 
 225,999
Deferred financing costs(3,371) 
 
 
 (3,371)
Equity proceeds from parent
 
 31,696
 (31,696) 
Net payments for share-based compensation(7,182) 
 
 
 (7,182)
Net cash provided by financing activities215,446
 
 31,696
 (31,696) 215,446
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash
 
 (736) 
 (736)
Net change in cash and cash equivalents(173,408) (82,840) (488) 
 (256,736)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period246,294
 84,290
 640
 
 331,224
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period$72,886
 $1,450
 $152
 $
 $74,488


F-49

Table of Contents


GLOSSARY OF CERTAIN INDUSTRY TERMS
The following is a description of the meanings of some of the oil and gas industry terms used in this Form 10-K. The revisions and additions to the definition section in Rule 4-10(a) of Regulation S-X contained in the SEC’s rule, "Modernization“Modernization of Oil and Gas Reporting"Reporting”, are included. The definitions of proved developed reserves, proved reserves and proved undeveloped reserves have been abbreviated from the rule.
Bbl.  One stock tank barrel, or 42 U.S. gallons of liquid volume, used herein in reference to crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons.
Bcf.  One billion cubic feet of gas.
Bcfe.Boe  One billion cubic feet. Barrels of gasoil equivalent. Determined using the ratio of six mcf of natural gas to one barrel of crude oil to six Mcf of natural gas.oil.
Btu.  British thermal unit, which is the heat required to raise the temperature of a one-pound mass of water from 58.5 to 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Development well.  A well drilled within the proved area of an oil or gas reservoir to the depth of a stratigraphic horizon known to be productive.
Exploratory well.  A well drilled to find a new field or to find a new reservoir in a field previously found to be productive of oil or gas in another reservoir.
Field.  An area consisting of a single reservoir or multiple reservoirs all grouped on or related to the same individual geological structural feature and/or stratigraphic condition. There may be two or more reservoirs in a field that are separated vertically by intervening impervious, strata, or laterally by local geologic barriers, or by both. Reservoirs that are associated by being in overlapping or adjacent fields may be treated as a single or common operational field. The geological terms structural feature and stratigraphic condition are intended to identify localized geological features as opposed to the broader terms of basins, trends, provinces, plays, areas-of-interest, etc.
Gross acreage or gross wells.  The total acres or wells, as the case may be, in which a working interest is owned.
Liquidity.  The ability to obtain cash quickly either through the conversion of assets or the incurrence of liabilities.
MBbls.  One thousand barrels of crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons.
Mcf.  One thousand cubic feet of gas.
Mcfe.  One thousand cubic feet of gas equivalent. Determined using the ratio of one barrel of crude oil to six Mcf of natural gas.
MMBbls.  One million barrels of crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons.
MMBoe. One million barrels of oil equivalent. Determined using the ratio of six mcf of natural gas to one barrel of crude oil.
MMBtu.  One million Btus.
MMcf.  One million cubic feet of gas.
MMcfe.  One million cubic feet of gas equivalent. Determined using the ratio of one barrel of crude oil to six Mcf of natural gas.
Net acres or net wells.  The sum of the fractional working interests owned in gross acres or gross wells expressed as whole numbers and fractions of whole numbers.
Primary term lease.  An oil and gas property with no existing production, in which Stone has a specific time frame to establish production without losing the rights to explore the property.
Productive well.  A well that is found to be mechanically capable of producing hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities that proceeds from the sale of such production exceeds production expenses and taxes.
Proved developed reserves.  Proved reserves that can be expected to be recovered (i) through existing wells with existing equipment and operating methods or in which the cost of the required equipment is relatively minor compared to the cost of a new well; and (ii) through installed extraction technology equipment and infrastructure operational at the time of the reserves estimate if the extraction is by means not involving a well.

G-1

Table of Contents


Proved oil and natural gas reserves.  Those quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible—from a given date forward, from known reservoirs, and under existing economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations—prior to the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the estimation. The project to extract hydrocarbons must have commenced or the operator must be reasonably certain that it will commence the project within a reasonable time. Reasonable certainty is defined as "much“much more likely to be achieved than not"not”.
Proved undeveloped reserves ("PUDs"(“PUDs”).  Proved reserves that are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage, or from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion.
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows.  The standardized measure represents value-based information about an enterprise’s proved oil and natural gas reserves based on estimates of future cash flows, including income taxes, from production of proved reserves assuming continuation of certain economic and operating conditions. Future cash flows are based on a twelve-month average price, calculated as the unweighted arithmetic average of the first-day-of-the-month price for each month within the twelve-month period prior to the end of the reporting period.
Undeveloped acreage.  Lease acreage on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of economic quantities of oil and gas regardless of whether such acreage contains proved reserves.
Working interest.  An operating interest that gives the owner the right to drill, produce and conduct operating activities on the property and to receive a share of production.

G-2

Table of Contents


EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit NumberDescription
2.1Second Amended Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Stone Energy Corporation and its Debtor Affiliates, dated December 28, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 15, 2017 (File No. 001-12074)).
3.1Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No.001-12074)).
3.2Amended & Restated Bylaws of Stone Energy Corporation, dated December 19, 2013 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.1Second Supplemental Indenture, dated January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.2Senior Indenture, dated January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.3First Supplemental Indenture, dated January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.4Indenture related to the 1 3⁄4% Senior Convertible Notes due 2017, dated as of March 6, 2012, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (including form of 1 3⁄4% Senior Convertible Senior Note due 2017) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 6, 2012 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.5Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 8, 2012, to the Indenture, dated as of January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 8, 2012 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.6Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 26, 2013, to the Indenture, dated as of January 26, 2010, among Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C., and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 27, 2013 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.7First Supplemental Indenture and Guarantee, dated as of May 7, 2015, among SEO A LLC, SEO B LLC, Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
4.8Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 7, 2015, among SEO A LLC, SEO B LLC, Stone Energy Corporation, Stone Energy Offshore, L.L.C. and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.1Deferred Compensation and Disability Agreement between TSPC and E. J. Louviere dated July 16, 1981 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.2Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.3First Amendment to the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 20, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.4Second Amendment to the Stone Energy Corporation 2009 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated December 17, 2015) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).


Table of Contents


†10.5Stone Energy Corporation Revised (2005) Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.6Stone Energy Corporation Amended and Restated Revised Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, dated November 14, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.7Stone Energy Corporation 2016 Performance Incentive Compensation Plan (approved March 10, 2016) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.8Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.9Adoption Agreement between Fidelity Management Trust Company and Stone Energy Corporation for the Stone Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan dated December 1, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.10Letter Agreement dated May 19, 2005 between Stone Energy Corporation and Kenneth H. Beer (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 24, 2005 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.11Letter Agreement dated December 2, 2008 between Stone Energy Corporation and David H. Welch (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.12Amendment to Employment Agreement dated December 13, 2016 between Stone Energy Corporation and David H. Welch (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.13Letter Agreement dated August 10, 2016 between Stone Energy Corporation and Richard L. Toothman, Jr. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.14Stone Energy Corporation Executive Change of Control and Severance Plan (as amended and restated effective December 31, 2008) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 8, 2009 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.15Executive Claims Settlement Agreement, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.16Stone Energy Corporation Executive Severance Plan, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.17Stone Energy Corporation Key Executive Incentive Plan, dated December 13, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
†10.18Stone Energy Corporation Employee Change of Control Severance Plan (as amended and restated) dated December 7, 2007 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 12, 2007 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.19Form of Indemnification Agreement between Stone Energy Corporation and each of its directors and executive officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 27, 2009 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.20Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent and Issuing Bank, and the financial institutions named therein, dated June 24, 2014 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 25, 2014 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.21Amendment No. 1 to Credit Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2015, among Stone Energy Corporation as Borrower, Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent and Issuing Bank, and the financial institutions party to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.22Amendment No. 3 to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, and the financial institutions party thereto, dated June 14, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).


Table of Contents


10.23Amendment No. 4 to the Fourth Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Stone Energy Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, and the financial institutions party thereto, dated December 9, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 9, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.24Amended and Restated Security Agreement, dated as of August 28, 2008, among Stone Energy Corporation and the other Debtors parties hereto in favor of Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.25Amended and Restated Restructuring Support Agreement, dated December 14, 2016, by and among the Stone Parties and the Consenting Noteholders (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 14, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.26Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and TH Exploration III, LLC as buyer, dated October 20, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 21, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.27First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and TH Exploration III, LLC as buyer, dated December 9, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 9, 2016 (File No. 001-12074)).
10.28Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Stone Energy Corporation as seller, and EQT Production Company as buyer, and EQT Corporation as buyer parent, dated February 9, 2017 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 10, 2017 (File No. 001-12074)).
*21.1Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
*23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
*23.2Consent of Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.
*31.1Certification of Principal Executive Officer of Stone Energy Corporation as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
*31.2Certification of Principal Financial Officer of Stone Energy Corporation as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
*#32.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Stone Energy Corporation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.
*99.1Report of Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.
*101.INSXBRL Instance Document
*101.SCHXBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
*101.CALXBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
*101.DEFXBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
*101.LABXBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
*101.PREXBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
________________
*Filed or furnished herewith.
#Not considered to be “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
Identifies management contracts and compensatory plans or arrangements.