EnerCom The Oil and Gas Conference 22 August 14, 2017 Safe Harbor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

enercom the oil and gas conference 22 august 14 2017 safe
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

EnerCom The Oil and Gas Conference 22 August 14, 2017 Safe Harbor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EnerCom The Oil and Gas Conference 22 August 14, 2017 Safe Harbor Statement Forward-Looking Statements and Non-GAAP Disclosure This communication includes certain statements that may constitute "forward-looking statements" for purposes


slide-1
SLIDE 1

EnerCom The Oil and Gas Conference 22 August 14, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Safe Harbor Statement

2

Forward-Looking Statements and Non-GAAP Disclosure

This communication includes certain statements that may constitute "forward-looking statements" for purposes of the federal securities

  • laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact included in this communication, regarding our opportunities in the

Delaware Basin, our strategy, future operations, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. When used in this communication, the words “could,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “forecast” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that our plans, intentions and expectations reflected in or suggested by the forward-looking statements we make in this communication are reasonable, we can give no assurance that these plans, intentions or expectations will be achieved or occur, and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied by the forward-looking statements. Some factors that could cause actual results to differ include: (i) changes in applicable laws or regulations; (ii) the possibility that the Company may be adversely affected by other economic, business, and/or competitive factors , including, but not limited to, future trends in energy markets and commodity prices; and (iii)

  • ther risks and uncertainties described herein, as well as those risks and uncertainties discussed under Risk Factors in our Registration

Statement on Form S-3, as amended, filed with the SEC on June 14, 2017, and in other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) by the Company. Our SEC filings are available publicly on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. These forward- looking statements are based on management's current expectations and assumptions about future events and are based on currently available information as to the outcome and timing of future events. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we disclaim any duty to update any forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this communication. PV–10 is a non-GAAP financial measures used by management, investors and analysts to estimate the present value, discounted at 10% per annum, of estimated future cash flows of the Company’s estimated proved reserves before income tax and asset retirement

  • bligations. Management believes that PV-10 provides useful information to investors because it is widely used by professional analysts

and sophisticated investors in evaluating oil and natural gas companies. Because there are many unique factors that can impact an individual company when estimating the amount of future income taxes to be paid, the Company believes the use of a pre-tax measure is valuable for evaluating the Company. PV-10 should not be considered as an alternative to the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows as computed under GAAP.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

ROSEHILL COMBINES TWO COMPANIES WITH COMPLIMENTARY VISIONS

  • Preeminent Delaware Basin small-cap

E&P company

  • Experienced technical and operations

team

  • Proficient and knowledgeable

management team

  • Focused on shareholder returns

Core Delaware Acreage Production, Reserves, & Value Growth Drilling & Completion Efficiencies Active M&A Pipeline

An Organic Growth and Acquisition Strategy Combined with Operational Excellence Makes Rosehill an Attractive Delaware Basin Small-Cap Investment

3

Rosehill Resources

§ Net Acres: 4,771 § Inventory: ~250 locations § Current Production: ~5,700 boepd(1)

Source: Company filings

  • 1. Previously disclosed March 2017 E production
slide-4
SLIDE 4

ROSEHILL STRATEGY

Deliver Strong, Profitable Growth Through Operational Excellence and Accretive Acquisitions

4

  • Continue improvements to drilling and completion techniques to improve

EUR, minimize costs and improve F&D metrics

  • Drive down cash operating costs and improve margins to grow cash flow

Optimize Operations

  • Strong balance sheet allows for organic leasing and bolt-on deals
  • Explore strategic, accretive acquisitions

Expand Delaware Footprint

  • Capital expenditures focused on highest return benches and funded within
  • perational cash flow and credit facility availability
  • Opportunistically add hedges to minimize downside exposure

Maintain Financial Discipline

  • Sustainable growth in net income and cash flow
  • Operate safely and efficiently to maximize margins

Deliver Value to Shareholders

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Gross Reservoir Thickness (ft) Estimated Locations Brushy Canyon 210 27 Upper Avalon 325 13 Lower Avalon & 1st Bone Spring Sand 315 13 2nd Bone Spring Shale 200 19 2nd Bone Spring Sand 350 34 3rd Bone Spring Shale 410 19 3rd Bone Spring Sand 825 83 Wolfcamp A (X,Y) Wolfcamp A Lower Upper and Lower Wolfcamp B 800 44 Total 3,435 252

WHAT SEPARATES THE DELAWARE CORE FROM OTHER PLAYS?

Central Delaware Basin Reservoir Thickness Wolfcamp A Porosity (PhiH)

10 5 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

Porosity-Feet (PhiH) Eddy Co. Lea Co. Loving Co. Reeves Co.

New Mexico Texas

5

Thickest and Richest Part of the Basin

  • Rosehill’s core acreage is in the thickest

part of the Delaware Basin

  • Multiple high-quality source rocks
  • 10 distinct productive benches

Superior Reservoir Quality

  • Several benches are overpressured with

good porosity and thickness

  • Natural fractures are abundant and

increase drainage efficiency

  • Strong EURs across multiple benches

Source: Company filings

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Endurance Yates 16 State #1H 348 MBoe 12 Months Brushy Canyon

PROVEN FIRST CLASS ACREAGE

EOG

Rattlesnake 21 Fed #701H

Peak Rate: 3,352 Boepd Wolfcamp A X/Y EOG State Magellan #13H Peak Rate: 1,746 Boepd 3rd Bone Spring Sand EOG State Magellan #15H Peak Rate: 1,619 Boepd 1st Bone Spring Sand Concho Coronado 35 Fed #1H Peak Rate: 1,327 Boepd Wolfcamp A X/Y EOG Excelsior 7 #8H Peak Rate: 2,874 Boepd Wolfcamp B EOG State Galileo #9H Peak Rate: 2,792 Boepd 2nd Bone Spring Sand Rosehill Kyle 24 #G1 Peak Rate: 1,318 Boepd Lower Wolfcamp A Rosehill Z&T 42 #G2 Peak Rate: 866 Boepd Upper Avalon Anadarko Tabasco Cat #1H Peak Rate: 1,458 Boepd Lower Wolfcamp A Anadarko Kingston #2H Peak Rate: 1,448 Boepd Lower Wolfcamp A Apache Falcon State #S224H Peak Rate: 1,508 Boepd 3rd Bone Spring Shale Rosehill Weber 26 #G1 Peak Rate: 1,859 Boepd Lower Wolfcamp A RSP Permian Rudd Draw 29-3 #3H Peak Rate: 1,318 Boepd Wolfcamp A (X/Y)

Loving Co. Lea Co.

  • Significant number of
  • ffset operators, enhances

knowledge

  • Highly repeatable drilling

due to close proximity to

  • ffset activity and similar

geologic features

  • Acreage has high oil

content

  • Rosehill’s well results have

improved dramatically across its footprint

  • Improving recoveries due to

refinement of drilling and completion methodology

  • Rosehill recently completed

the Kyle 26 ST-1well targeting the 2nd Bone Spring Sand flowing at over 2,000 Boepd, with 84% oil (24 hour rate), while still cleaning up

Compelling Area Results

Rosehill Kyle 26 #E4 Peak Rate: 687 Boepd Wolfcamp A (X,Y Sands) WPX Lindsay 10 #6H Peak Rate: 928 Boepd Lower Avalon Chevron Moose’s Tooth #1H Peak Rate: 592 Boepd 2nd Bone Spring Shale Anadarko Thresher #9HN Peak Rate: 928 Boepd Upper Avalon

6

Rosehill Kyle 26 ST-1 Peak Rate: 2,000 Boepd 2nd Bone Spring Sand

Source: IHS, Drilling Info

slide-7
SLIDE 7

OPTIMIZING DRILLING TECHNIQUES LEADING TO REDUCTION IN COSTS

  • Better understanding of the acreage

and refining drilling techniques has decreased drilling days and costs

  • Drilling 4600’ effective laterals
  • Changes in well design and drilling

procedures have resulted in savings of ~$0.5 million per well compared to

  • riginal estimates
  • Drilling and completing wells in

“clusters” to maximize efficiencies and minimize downtime

  • Development wells focused on the

Wolfcamp A (X/Y), A lower, & B Shale and the 2nd & 3rd Bone Spring Sand

  • Currently drilling with two contracted

rigs and one dedicated frac crew for 3rd quarter 2017

7

3.48 3.46 3.13 3.14 2.93 2.93 2.79 2.79 2.62 2.62 3.26 3.42 3.09 2.7 2.24 2.19 2.82 2.6 2.61 1.95 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10

Drill Cost ($MM)

Drilling AFE vs. Cost 2017 YTD(1)

AFE Cost Estimate 5 10 15 20 25 Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10

Days

Spud to TD 2017 YTD(1)

1. Excludes two wells, a sidetrack and a well that conducted coring and testing

slide-8
SLIDE 8

PERFORMANCE EXCEEDING TYPE CURVE

Gen-2 Lower Wolfcamp A 830 Gross MBoe Type Curve Gen-1Wolfcamp A 710 Gross MBoe Type Curve(1)

Gen-1 Completions Gen-2 Completions

Enhanced Completion Techniques Have Significantly Improved Well Performance

1. Represents a blended Wolfcamp A (X,Y) and Lower Wolfcamp A type curve

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

REFINING COMPLETION TECHNIQUES

Gen-2 Completions Gen-3 Completions

Evaluating Higher Cost Completion Techniques with Improving Production Results to Optimize Returns

Leveraging service company knowledge to improve designs and carrier fluid designs 2,000 lbs per lateral foot 200 foot stage with 50 foot spacing 36 per stage Plug & perf 2 7/8” tubing Aggressive choke management during and after flowback Internal engineering optimization using Company and offset well treatment reports and results 2,900 – 3,200 lbs per lateral foot 100 foot stage with 15 foot spacing 72-150 per stage Plug & perf 3 1/2” tubing Aggressive choke management dictated by flow characteristics of the well Completion Designs Sand Volumes Stage Spacing # Perferations per stage Fracing Technique Production Tubing Choke Management

9

Gen-1 Completions

Early designs, ramping up learning curve 1,100 lbs per lateral foot 300 foot stage with 67 foot spacing 46 per stage Sliding Sleeve 2 7/8” tubing Conservative choke management – wells were choked back during unloading and early well life

slide-10
SLIDE 10

27 13 13 19 34 19 25 26 32 44 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Loving Lea Eddy

UNDEVELOPED LOCATION INVENTORY

Brushy Canyon Upper Avalon Lower Avalon/1st Bone Spring 2nd B. Spring Shale 2nd Bone Spring Sand 3rd B. Spring Shale 3rd Bone Spring Sand Wolfcamp A X,Y Lower Wolfcamp A Upper and Lower Wolfcamp B

Base Case Spacing Pattern

Down-Spaced Pattern

= 50 Wells per Square Mile (250 total locations) = 66 Wells per Square Mile (330 total locations)

4,500’

1,320’

Contiguous Reservoir

Gross Drilling Inventory by County Ten Benches of Stacked Pay

Stacked Pay With Multiple Horizontal Targets and Downspacing Potential Across Core Acreage

Optimization Test of Well Spacing

Initial Development

880’ 660’

10

Current 5 spot wine rack well cluster, of Wolfcamp A, X/Y and 3rd Bone Spring, zipper fracing and micro seismic mapping to determine optimal spacing

Source: Company filings

slide-11
SLIDE 11

3rd Bone Spring Sand Wolfcamp A (X,Y) Lower Wolfcamp A Locations Gross Locations 25.0 20.0 24.0 Net Locations 23.4 15.7 22.4 Average Operated WI 93.5% 95.2% 93.2% Average Royalty 21.9% 19.8% 21.7% Type Curve Parameters Gross EUR (MBoe) 622 691 747 Initial rate (Bopd) 800 700 800 Initial decline (%) 74.0% 67.0% 70.0% Initial GOR 3,000 3,000 3,300 Final GOR 3,000 3,000 3,300 Final decline (%) 3.0% 3.0% 2.8% Hyperbolic coefficent 0.9 0.9 0.9 Abandonment rate (Bopd) 1.0 1.0 1.0 End of Life (Years) 23.5 28.5 34.5 Gas % 8.0% 8.0% 8.6% NGL % 18.2% 18.2% 19.6% Oil % 73.8% 73.8% 71.9% Type Curve Economics Capex ($) $6,000,000 $6,250,000 $6,250,000 IRR 55.8% 60.2% 71.1% PV-10 ($MM) $4.0 $5.2 $6.0 Net Cash Flow ($MM) $6.9 $9.1 $10.6 ROI 2.2x 2.5x 2.7x Payback (Months) 18 18 16

INDICATIVE WELL ECONOMICS & HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Shifting to Pad Development with 2 Rig Plan

Type Curve Economics(2) Commentary

  • Currently, Rosehill is running 2 rigs and 1 frac spread
  • The drilling plan calls for a focus on the following benches:
  • 2nd Bone Spring Sand
  • 3rd Bone Spring Sand
  • Wolfcamp A (X,Y)
  • Lower Wolfcamp A

Type Curve WTI Price Sensitivities(1)

51% 55% 66% 109% 109% 130% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 3rd Bone Spring Sand Wolfcamp A (X,Y) Lower Wolfcamp A IRR $50.00/Bbl $65.00/Bbl

Rosehill’s Development Program Will Target the Highest Economic Benches Based on Latest Well Results

11

1. Gas pricing held flat at $3.00/MMBtu. 2. Based on internal company type curves. NYMEX strip pricing as of 9 December 2016. Average annual NYMEX WTI strip pricing as of 9 December 2016 was $47.64 (Q4 2016), $54.19 (2017), $54.94 (2018), $54.88 (2019), $55.22 (2020), and escalating to $58.30 (2025+); average annual NYMEX HHUB strip pricing as of 9 December 2016 was $2.92 (Q4 2016), $3.52 (2017), $3.08 (2018), $2.89 (2019), $2.90 (2020), and escalating to $3.36 (2025+). NGLs priced at 27.5% of WTI.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

RESERVE PROFILE

December 31, 2016 Reserves Reserves by Category Proved Reserves by Commodity Proved Reserves by Area PV-10 by Category(1)

Net Oil Net Gas Net NGL Net Equiv. PV10(1)

(Mbbls) (MMcf) (Mbbls) (MBoe) ($MM)

PDP 3,082 9,180 1,550 6,162 83 PDN 213 2,721 475 1,141 8 PUD 4,396 6,957 1,214 6,770 52 Total Proved 7,691 18,858 3,239 14,073 143 PROB 1,839 5,683 992 3,778 15 POSS 41,332 92,069 16,069 72,746 271

7% 1% 7% 4% 80%

PDP PDN PUD

55% 22% 23%

Net Oil Net Gas Net NGL

96% 4%

Delaware Barnett

19% 2% 12% 4% 63%

PDP PDN PUD

12

Continued Drilling and Completion Successes Should Result in Significant Increases to Reserves

Note: December 31, 2016 reserve quantities audited by Ryder Scott. 1. December 31, 2016 pricing for reserves: WTI – $54.24 (2017), $54.80 (2018), $54.88 (2019), $55.37 (2020), $56.02 (2021), and $56.87 thereafter; HHUB – $3.36 (2017), $3.04 (2018), $2.89 (2019), $2.90 (2020), $2.93 (2020), and $2.98 thereafter; NGL at 27.5% of WTI. PV10 is a Non-GAAP measure

slide-13
SLIDE 13

HEDGING OVERVIEW

Three Months Ended Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 NYMEX WTI Crude Swaps: Notional volume (Bbl) 53,000 57,000 93,000 42,000 9,000 Weighted average fixed price ($/Bbl) $50.91 $54.29 $54.19 $54.20 $50.68 NYMEX WTI Crude Options: Puts: Notional volume (Bbl) 110,000 114,000 24,000

  • Weighted average fixed price ($/Bbl)

$43.41 $42.87 $40.00 $ -- $ -- Calls: Notional volume (Bbl) 55,000 15,000

  • Weighted average fixed price ($/Bbl)

$63.64 $60.00 $ -- $ -- $ -- NYMEX HH Natural Gas Swaps: Notional volume (Mcf) 300,000 390,000 390,000 630,000

  • Weighted average fixed price ($/Mcf)

$3.08 $3.12 $3.13 $3.42 $ -- NYMEX HH Natural Gas Options: Puts: Notional volume (Mcf) 580,000 660,000 420,000

  • Weighted average fixed price ($/Mcf)

$2.86 $2.87 $3.01 $ -- $ -- Calls: Notional volume (Mcf) 290,000 330,000 210,000

  • Weighted average fixed price ($/Mcf)

$3.68 $3.72 $3.84 $ -- $ --

  • Flexible approach to

hedging with both swaps and options being utilized

  • Ensure a level of

downside protection and provide exposure to upward price movements

  • Continue to
  • pportunistically add

hedges

13

As of June 30, 2017

slide-14
SLIDE 14

FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE

Increase Shareholder Value Conservative Financial Management

Maintain Strong Balance Sheet Grow Cash Flow to Support Drilling and Acquisitions Expand Liquidity and Borrowing Base

Profitable Growth

Drill and Complete Existing Inventory of 250+ Locations Organic Leasing Accretive Acquisitions

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

APPENDIX

slide-16
SLIDE 16

MANAGEMENT BIOS

  • J. A. (Alan) Townsend – President & CEO
  • Over 44 years of industry experience – with Tema since 2001
  • Former President of Equitable Resources and CEO of Camelot Oil and Gas
  • BS and Masters in Petroleum Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines
  • Craig Owen – CFO
  • Over 24 years of financial experience in the energy industry – joined Rosehill in June 2017
  • Former Senior VP and CFO of Southwestern Energy
  • BBA Accounting from Texas A&M University and Certified Public Accountant
  • Brian K. Ayers – Vice President of Geology
  • Over 35 years of industry experience – with Rosehill since 2012
  • Former CEO of Centurion Exploration and VP of Domestic Exploration at Coastal Oil & Gas
  • BA Geophysical Science from University of Chicago – MBA (Finance) from Millsaps College
  • R. Colby Williford – Vice President of Land
  • Over 28 years of petroleum land management experience – with Rosehill since 2014
  • Former VP of Land at Momentum Oil & Gas, America Capital Energy and Centurion Exploration
  • BBA in International Business from University of Houston - Downtown
  • Paul Larson – Vice President of Engineering
  • Over 25 years of petroleum engineering experience – with Rosehill since 2015
  • Former Asset Manager at SM-Energy and Sinochem, Project Manager/Team Lead at Unocal 76
  • BS and MS in Petroleum Engineering from Tulsa University – BS in Mechanical Engineering from University of New York
  • Bryan Freeman – Vice President of Operations
  • Over 15 years of petroleum engineering experience – with Rosehill since 2016
  • Former Production and Operations Manager at SM-Energy and Engineer at Chevron
  • BS of Engineering from University of Texas at Tyler – MS in Engineering from University of Texas
  • Johnnye Yearwood – Controller
  • Over 24 years of oil and gas accounting experience – with Rosehill since 2016
  • Former Controller at Gulf Coast Energy Resources and Harvest Natural resources
  • BBA in Accounting from California State University - Bakersfield

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

BOARD OF DIRECTOR BIOS

  • Gary Hanna – Chairman
  • Over 30 years of industry experience
  • Former CEO and chairman of EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. prior to sale to Energy XXI in 2014
  • Currently a member of the board of Aspire Holdings Corp.
  • Ed Kovalik – Director
  • Over 17 years of experience in the financial services industry, primarily in the energy space
  • Former head of Rodman & Renshaw’s Energy Investment Banking team
  • Currently a director on the boards of River Bend Oil and Gas as well as Marathon Patent Group
  • J. A. (Alan) Townsend – President & CEO
  • Over 44 years of industry experience – with Tema since 2001
  • Former President of Equitable Resources and CEO of Camelot Oil and Gas
  • BS and Masters in Petroleum Engineering – Colorado School of Mines
  • Frank Rosenberg – Director
  • Former President and CEO of Crown Central Petroleum Corporation; Current Co-Chair and Chief Investment Officer of Rosemore, Inc.
  • Currently Director of Tema Oil & Gas, Gateway Gathering & Marketing, and Glen Eagle Resources and Chairman of Attransco
  • Harry Quarls – Director
  • Managing Director of Global Infrastructure Partners; Former Managing Director & Practice Leader for Global Energy, Booz & Co.
  • Currently Chairman of the Board of Penn Virginia Corporation and Woodbine Holdings LLC and Director of US Oil Sands Corporation and Opal Resources
  • William Mayer – Director
  • Over 45 years of financial services experience
  • Founding Partner of Park Avenue Equity Partners; Former President and CEO of The First Boston Corporation
  • Currently a Director of Rosemore, Inc.; Lee Enterprises; BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation; Premier, Inc.; Finworx, Inc.; Hambrecht Partners Holdings; and Miller Buckfire
  • Francis Contino – Director
  • Former EVP – Strategic Planning and CFO of McCormick & Co., Inc.; Managing Partner of Baltimore office of Ernst & Young.
  • Currently Director of Mettler-Toledo International Inc.

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

CORPORATE STRUCTURE

Rosemore Inc./Tema Oil and Gas Company Public Stockholders Preferred Stock Rosehill Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: Rose) Rosehill Operating Company, LLC

Class A Common Stock 5.9 MM Shares Class B Common Stock 33.6 MM Shares Series A Preferred Stock 9.6 MM Shares

18