EFT

RESEARCH
WHITING PETROLEUM CORP (NYSE: WLL)

October 31, 2019

DISCLAIMER
All informa@on contained in this presenta@on is believed to be true by
the authors at the @me of release. However, there is no warranty,
express or implied, as to the accuracy, @meliness, or completeness of
the informa@on contained herein. As new informa@on comes to light
the authors take no responsibility for upda@ng this or other
presenta@ons. What is stated in this presenta@on is our opinion based
on our analysis and modeling, and that while we have tried to be
accurate in our analysis and modeling it is at best an es@mate and could
be incorrect. This presenta@on is for informa@onal purposes and is not
a recommenda@on to buy or sell any security. Anyone contempla@ng a
securi@es transac@on should conduct their own research and consult
with an investment professional. The authors and their affiliates have a
short posi@on in Whi@ng Petroleum Corp. as of the publica@on date of
this presenta@on. However, the authors and their affiliates may alter
that posi@on at any @me following the publica@on with no no@ce or
disclosure. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  Execu@ve summary

II.  Data set & methodology
III.  Financial model
IV.  Engineering & evalua@on
v  PDP
v  PUD type curves
v  Drilling loca@on inventory
v  Sanish
v  Summary
V.  Legal
VI.  Management & governance
VII.  Summary
VIII.  Appendix

3
ABOUT EFT RESEARCH

¢  @WillRayValen@n is a Petroleum Engineer and has worked acquisi@ons and dives@tures,

reservoir, produc@on and comple@ons engineering at various points in her career.
¢  @energycredit1 is a former hedge fund por[olio manager and analyst that has covered
and invested in energy for nearly 20 years
¢  @Oil_Gonif is a Landman and Data Analyst having worked in acquisi@ons and dives@tures.

Click here to get on the distribu@on list for future research

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINANCE & TECHNICAL FINDINGS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our analysis and modeling, we believe that:
¢  Whi@ng Petroleum ("WLL") stock is worth $0 at current strip pricing
excluding op@on value
¢  WLL has March 2020 and April 2021 maturi@es looming
¢  Exis@ng unsecured bonds trading at 14-15% create headwinds for a
refinancing
¢  Few wells will meet WLL's projected 1mm BOE EUR provided to investors
¢  Sanish infill wells are likely to show considerable degrada@on going forward
as WLL moves to DSUs with 6 +/- wells already drilled
¢  The market is underapprecia@ng Sanish infill degrada@on risk
¢  Analyzing > 2,000 individual wells suggests WLL is oversta@ng reserves
¢  Whi@ng has less than half of the ~2,000 drilling loca@ons it claims to have

6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – FINANCE
¢  The Whi@ng is on the wall. With >$1.1 billion of stub-Mar' 20 converts and looming 2021
maturity that goes current in 1Q20, WLL appears likely to tap the high yield market for a
term 1st lien bond over the next 5 months (1)
¢  WLL should have to pay 9.5-10.0% for a $1.2 billion 1st lien bond (400-600 bps inside
unsecured yields) to clean up the front-end maturi@es. The incremental interest expense
will be devasta@ng to the FCF story given WLL is refinancing 1.25% and 5.75% debt
¢  WLL equity has modeled equity value per share of ($27.94) in our base case, with a $12.00
parallel shir across the oil strip needed for the equity to be worth $0
¢  WLL oil price op@onality appears mispriced and overvalued by $2-3 (25-40%); admitedly
there is op@on-like leverage to oil prices – both ways – but in our view the stock has less
upside leverage than oil futures call op@ons
¢  There is op@on like exposure to oil in WLL stock, however the impact of G&A and
interest expense burn in the context of op@on gamma remain underappreciated
¢  Infill well degrada@on at Sanish appears to be a material financial risk perhaps not fully
understood
(1)
2020 bonds mature in April, however, it is unlikely WLL wants the March 2021 maturity to become a current liability for 1Q20 10Q; it occurs, but
rarely do CFOs take refinancing risk near or at maturity

7
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – TECHNICAL FINDINGS
¢  We believe Whi@ng Petroleum ("WLL", "Whi@ng", or the "Company") is consistently overes@ma@ng
per well reserves and type curve projec@ons
o  Oren referenced 1 million BOE type curve implies a 650 MBO EUR per well which is inaccurate based
on actual produc@on records and reasonable decline curve assump@ons
•  650 MBO assumes 65% oil at current corporate gas / oil ra@o

¢  Our PDP PV10 value is $2.25 billion at current strip pricing

¢  Back da@ng our reserve database and inpuung SEC pricing for 2018 company reserves appear to be
overes@mated by 30% and was closer to $3.5 billion
o  If you assume that reserves will con@nue to be ~30% overstated then 2019 reserves should be ~$2.9
billion, adjus@ng for pricing, which would indicate a ~$1.6 billion write down… we will anxiously be
watching for that to happen
¢  Varying degrees of “infill”
o  Ideal spacing solves for ~15% recovery factor
o  Higher recovery factors do happen, but almost always a result of over drilling (12 well / drilling spacing
unit (DSU) with modern comple@ons)
o  ~660’ or ~7-8 (depending on area) modern comple@ons / DSU results in a 15% recovery factor
¢  We see a high-risk factor for Sanish and overall well produc@on degrada@on moving forward
¢  Con@nuing historic trend of 8 - 10% per year of oil EUR degrada@on moving forward, all else being
equal, creates a cash flow squeeze and reverses FCF trends impairing the equity at strip pricing
8
 WHITING PETROLEUM CORP (NYSE: WLL)
Company Overview

Market Cap (mm): $610

Enterprise Value (mm): $3,500

Basin: Williston/Denver

2Q2019 Revenue: 426,264

Oil/Gas Revenue Split: ~

Balance Sheet Assets: 343,050

Liabili@es: 3,575,099

Long Term Debt: 2,303,864

Shares Out: 91,300,000

Outstanding Short Interest: 23,500,000

Gross Oil 2Q19: 9,417.50 Bradley J. Holly, Whi@ng’s Chairman, President and CEO:
“As you've seen in the last few quarters we struggled to make oil
Gross Gas 2Q19: 15,746.25 produc@on, and that has been forecas@ng at these wells."
2Q19 earnings call
Base Decline Rate: 41% FY

9
DATA SET & METHODOLOGY
PROCESS AND MODEL DRIVERS

10
 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW
¢  Began by crea@ng a database of per@nent public informa@on including produc@on history, well construc@on and
comple@on informa@on
¢  Used produc@on data to create individual decline curves for every Whi@ng well in North Dakota, Montana and
Colorado (all future references to "Whi@ng" or "Whi@ng produc@on" mean these three core areas)
o  The overwhelming majority of focus is Bakken and Three Forks wells in North Dakota

¢  Produc@on data was used to create proved developed producing (PDP) es@mates for Whi@ng's produc@on. This
includes es@mated ul@mate recoveries (EURs) or total volumes of oil and gas that each well is projected to make in
the future in addi@on to cumula@ve produc@on
¢  Used prior produc@on performance from recent wells (post 2016) and created type curves for each of Whi@ng's
areas
¢  Created an original oil in place (OOIP) map

¢  Allocated EURs from individual wells to sec@ons

¢  Cross referenced the allocated EURs for each sec@on with the OOIP numbers to es@mate oil recovery volumes
(recovery factors)
¢  Using these numbers created an es@mate for future volumes of oil and gas that could be recovered from addi@onal
drilling within the fields Whi@ng outlines
¢  Combined the remaining reserves es@mates with the es@mates of produc@on from type curves to determine the
number of drilling loca@ons remaining on Whi@ng's North Dakota acreage

*Authors would note that certain units in North Dakota exhibit recoveries that appear to be as high as 20%, however, we believe these higher volumes are generally atributable to high density 11
drilling spacing units that have proven uneconomic at today's oil/gas price
 OUR PDP ESTIMATION - BACKGROUND
¢  The Proved Developed Producing (PDP) Model is created to quan@fy only the value of
the current produc@on
o  This does NOT include volumes or value for future drilling
¢  Produc@on volumes for oil and gas are quan@fied by the operator (Whi@ng) or their
purchasers and reported to each state on a monthly basis
o  Latest available data at the @me of this analysis was August of 2019*
¢  Produc@on forecasted off of monthly decline trend
¢  Field type curve generated for each field and over different @me frames
¢  Noted effects on both oil and gas volumes due to curtailed gas sales in Williams and
McKenzie Coun@es and atempted to give credit to prior period decline trend when
possible
¢  Generally a difficult dataset due to oren erra@c and inconsistent oil and gas volumes,
possibly due to mul@-well tank bateries and common gas meters being allocated
back to individual wells
¢  Ran two years of “loss ok” to keep short term volumes in line with company
produc@on what appear to be wells at a loss
12
*Authors would note that public produc@on volumes can be off and based on experience tend to be less accurate within the last 6 months of the query. Some graphs on the following page shows
significant difference between WLL's 2Q19 reported in 10Q versus current state reported volumes
 CREATING FIELD TYPE CURVES

¢  Based on EUR versus Time and EUR versus

proppant/r its clear that the frac jobs improved
produc@vity drama@cally star@ng at the end of
2015
¢  Frac size in terms of ppt/r was at its peak in
2017 and has been decreasing since that @me
¢  Decided to only use wells with first produc@on
post 2016 for crea@ng type curves
¢  Each field was broken down based on WLL
designa@on
Ø  Tier 1
•  Hidden Bench
•  Polar
•  Sanish
•  East Missouri Breaks*
Ø  Tier 2
•  Pronghorn
•  West Missouri Breaks
•  Other (not evaluated)

13
*Authors found it difficult to understand the boundaries of East Missouri Break and could have been accounted for incorrectly in these type curves. Company should clarify
how they are defining the boundaries of these fields
FINANCIAL MODEL MECHANICS
¢  PDP modeled as derived and described in technical sec@on
¢  PUD type curves created from actual 2016+ results in six WLL areas
¢  715 remaining economic loca@ons derived from OOIP x RF analysis
¢  Rigs and rig days drive number of gross wells
¢  Drilling models for each of six areas roll up together with PDP,
then G&A, interest and discount factors are applied
¢  Commodity price differen@al and G&A assump@ons based off last 8 quarters avg
¢  LOE scrubbed on a per well basis – variable + fixed
¢  FCF u@lized to repay debt, if any
¢  Hedge value is marked-to-market
¢  Midstream & other value is assumed at 50% of other net PP&E
¢  No income taxes considered due to IDCs and $3B +/- NOLs

14
FINANCIAL MODEL
SUMMARY, SENSITIVITIES & VALUATION
MODEL SUMMARY & NOTES
Our analysis and modeling indicates that:
¢  High level of confidence WLL equity has no intrinsic value at today's strip
¢  Op@on value appears mispriced by 25-50% vs oil futures call op@ons
¢  PUD degrada@on reduces gamma of embedded oil op@on
¢  On our base case, the stock is worth ($27.94)
o  Assumes strip pricing
o  $1.25 billion 1st lien bond issued at 9.5% to refi' 2020 and 2021 notes between now and March 2020
o  As WLL infills Sanish on DSUs with >=7 wells, empirical data suggests PUD well produc@vity will decline at 8% per
annum

¢  WLL needs to kick the can down the road but it will come at a high expense to the equity
o  2023 & 2026 bonds yielding 14-15% at prices between 66-77 cts imply stress at the equity level of the capital
structure
o  The unsecured bond market is largely closed to Whi@ng
o  1st lien bonds likely cost 9-10%, increasing interest burden and ea@ng into the FCF story
o  $1.2 billion of 1L bonds + revolver draw do not appear covered by asset value, net of g&a + interest burn

o  Expect opportuni@es in unsecured bonds based on views of expected dura@on of current interest payments
16
o  Theore@cal unsecured bond recoveries in a jump-to-default scenario are -44% immediately arer 1L issuance
MODEL SUMMARY & NOTES
¢  Tier I PUD deple@on during low oil prices creates @me decay
¢  WLL "Tier I" acreage appears "limited" at strip pricing
¢  Sanish – ex degrada@on - comprises most of market perceived WLL PUD value
¢  Sanish infill well degrada@on arer 7 wells per DSU is a material financial risk
¢  Despite having liquidity, WLL cannot create equity value at strip pricing
¢  Posi@ve NPV PUD inventory is limited at current prices
¢  The amount of equity market capitaliza@on rela@ve to enterprise value makes any
changes in material facts or oil prices meaningful to the equity por@on of the cap
stack
¢  We believe that without a $10-15+ increase in oil WLL simply cannot outrun the
G&A and interest burn as going concerns
¢  WLL 10yr discounted G&A + interest = 96% of PDP value at strip
¢  WLL 10yr discounted G&A + interest = 87% of PDP + PUD value at strip

17

 Drilling & PUD Inventory Base Case

Sanish inventory depleted in 3 years w/ 2 rigs

18
Sanish NPV assumes 8% degrada3on from 2016-2019 type curve; HB 5%
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Oil Differen@al = ($5.00) Gas Differen@al = ($1.50)

Source: Company filings 19

MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

NGL = 25% WTI Cash G&A = $2.41/Boe

Source: Company filings 20

 Hedge Book & Value

21
Source: Company filings
 Base Case

22
Inputs & summary valua@ons
 Base Case

It would appear management recently pushed out an office lease for a year in exchange for $10mm, managing near-term earnings and G&A reduc@on op@cs; per Company filings:

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company had a contract for an addi@onal corporate office that consists of approximately $35 million of undiscounted minimum lease payments. The opera@ng lease has a ten-
year lease term. A por@on of the lease is expected to commence in July 2019, and the remaining por@on is expected to commence in June 2020."

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company had a contract for an addi@onal corporate office that consists of approximately $25 million of undiscounted minimum lease payments. The opera@ng lease is expected
to commence in July 2019 and has a ten-year lease term."
23

 Base Case

§  FCF story begins to see cracks in 2020

§  Leverage begins to rise over medium and long-term
§  +$12.25 oil move for equity to have implied value >$0
§  +$15.75 oil move for equity to have current value

24
 Base Case

25
Source: Company filings
BASE CASE

Few PUD loca@ons work at strip

26
BASE CASE

Few PUD loca@ons works at strip

27
 Op@on Framework – PF 1L Issuance

§  Sensi@vi@es show oil is the primary value driver for WLL stock price
§  WLL as an op@on on oil can be compared to listed oil futures op@ons
§  WLL equity appears to be upwards of 50% overvalued vs listed oil op@ons
§  Listed op@ons appear a cleaner trade without the the fric@on of execu@on risk
or corporate value leakage (ie management comp)

28
OIL PRICE SHIFT & SANISH DEGRADATION

§  FCF appears highly dependent on Sanish infill assump@ons

§  5yr FCF materially impaired with litle degrada@on
§  Not linear, but every 5% degrada@on impairs 5yr FCF by ~$200mm

29
OIL PRICE SHIFT & CAPEX SENSITIVITIES

§  PUD$ value > 500mm highlighted

§  Stock prices > current price and below $0 highlighted
§  10% degrada@on in well performance worth $3-$5/share
§  $375,000 well cost reduc@ons worth $1 +/- in share price
§  Corporate fric@on beyond an excel model is real
§  Few ways to win outside sustained oil upside
30
 PUD Single Well NPV Sensi@vi@es, 10%

What is Tier I acreage for Whi@ng?

> $1mm NPV highlighted, 2016-2019 derived type curves
We believe curves will overstate go-forward wells
20% +/- Is more appropriate for PUD discount factor 31


STOCK PRICE SENSITIVITIES

Oil is the only material driver of WLL stock price currently

32
BOND PRICE SENSITIVITIES

10yrs of WLL interest and/or G&A discounted

excludes accrued and/or expected interest

33
OIL CUT – LOWER WITH TIME

----- = oil % in 2027/2028

34
Source: Company filings
OIL BY AREA

the produc@on treadmill and PUD cliff

35
PDP CASH FLOW
$60 WTI $80 WTI

$40 WTI

36
 OUR FINANCIAL SUMMARY POINTS
Based on our analysis and modeling, we believe that:
¢  WLL equity has < $0 intrinsic value at strip
¢  WLL oil op@onality appears overvalued
¢  WLL equity has significant leverage to oil but needs > $10 move higher
before it is in-the-money
¢  PUD deple@on and evidence of infill degrada@on will create a highly
vola@le financial picture within 2-3 years
¢  It appears the company will have no choice but to tap the term market for
a 1L bond to refinance the 2020 and 2021 notes, which will further impair
the equity, all else being equal
¢  10yr G&A + interest burn approaches 100% of PDP

37

ENGINEERING AND EVALUATION
INDUSTRY METRIC EVALUATIONS AND PDP EVALUATION
 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW
¢  Began by crea@ng a database of per@nent public informa@on including produc@on history, well construc@on and
comple@on informa@on
¢  Used produc@on data to create individual decline curves for every Whi@ng well in North Dakota, Montana and
Colorado (all future references to "Whi@ng" or "Whi@ng produc@on" mean these three core areas)
¢  The overwhelming majority of the focus is Bakken and Three Forks wells in North Dakota

¢  Produc@on data was used to create proved developed producing (PDP) es@mates for Whi@ng's produc@on. This
includes es@mated ul@mate recoveries (EURs) or total volumes of oil and gas that each well is projected to make in
the future in addi@on to cumula@ve produc@on
¢  Used prior produc@on performance from recent wells (post 2016) and created type curves for each of Whi@ng's
areas
¢  Combined the remaining reserves es@mates with the es@mates of produc@on from type curves to determine the
number of drilling loca@ons remaining on Whi@ng's North Dakota acreage
¢  Created an original oil in place (OOIP) map

¢  Allocated EURs from individual wells to sec@ons

¢  Cross referenced the allocated EURs for each sec@on with the OOIP numbers to es@mate oil recovery volumes
(recovery factors)
¢  Using these numbers created an es@mate for future volumes of oil and gas that could be recovered from addi@onal
drilling within the fields Whi@ng outlines

*Authors would note that certain units in North Dakota exhibit recoveries that appear to be as high as 20%, however, we believe these higher volumes are generally atributable to high density 39
drilling spacing units that have proven uneconomic at today's oil/gas price
 KEY INDUSTRY METRICS

¢  Peak month rate vs

@me is decreasing
¢  Horizontal lateral
length is not changing
¢  Proppant per foot is
decreasing
¢  Infill density is
increasing
¢  Drilled / uncompleted
well count is lowest
since 2016
¢  Infill density is high
and increasing
¢  All point to EUR
contrac@on

40
OIL EUR VS PEAK MONTHLY RATE

41
WLL OIL EURS ARE DECLINING ACROSS THE BASIN

Since new frac design uplir peak in 2017 average

Bakken well produc@on has declined by 18% in 2
years.

42
WLL OIL ONLY EURS ARE DECLINING

Since new frac design uplir peak in 2017 average

well produc@on has declined by 18% in 2 years. The
main cause of this is density drilling / deple@on

43
AVG OIL EUR BY FIELD

TIER II

44
FIELD LEVEL OIL EUR VS BAKKEN POOL OOIP

TIER I TIER II

45
BOE EUR VS YEAR

WLL 1 MMBOE Type Curve

46
OIL EUR VS FRAC STAGE SPACING BY FPY

47
 OUR PDP ESTIMATION - BACKGROUND
¢  The Proved Developed Producing (PDP) Model is created to quan@fy only the value of
the current produc@on
¢  This does NOT include volumes or value for future drilling

¢  Produc@on volumes for oil and gas are quan@fied by the operator (Whi@ng) or their
purchasers and reported to each state on a monthly basis
¢  Latest available data at the @me of this analysis was August of 2019*

¢  Produc@on forecasted off monthly decline trend

¢  Field type curve generated for each field and over different @me frames
¢  Noted effects on both oil and gas volumes due to curtailed gas sales in Williams and
McKenzie Coun@es and atempted to give credit to prior period decline trend when
possible
¢  Generally a difficult dataset due to oren erra@c and inconsistent oil and gas volumes,
possibly due to mul@-well tank bateries and common gas meters being allocated
back to individual wells
¢  Ran two years of “loss ok” to keep short term volumes in line with company
producing what appear to be wells at a loss
*Authors would note that public produc@on volumes can be off and based on experience tend to be less accurate within the last 6 months of the query. The graph on the following page shows 48
significant difference between WLL's 2Q19 reported in 10Q versus current state reported volumes
PDP ASSUMPTIONS

¢  Base assump@ons across the field for PDP and PUDs

¢  Strip pricing as of 10/24/2019 Time
(months)
Amount
($/Month)

0 – 12 30,000
¢  Fixed costs assump@ons in table to the right
12 – 24 20,000
¢  Oil discount used in model -$5 / bbl
24 – 36 15,000
¢  Gas discount used in model -$1.5 / Mcf
36 – 48 10,000
¢  NGLs ~25% value of a barrel of oil $0.2 - $0.23 / gal 48 - ECL 5,000

¢  Gas shrink 35%

¢  Variable costs of $5 / bbl of oil
o  Note that water cut has been ~50% in recent history for this field, which is accounted for in this
variable cost number. Also transporta@on and gathering in addi@on to variable costs
¢  WI was assumed to be 78.75% with an assumed lease NRI of 80%
o  This WI is high, and actual operated WI is probably closer to 70%, however, the addi@on NRI
was added to account for WLL’s non-operated produc@on both in PDP and PUDs

49
PDP ESTIMATE

Key PDP Metrics

GOR Trend ¢  Oil
¢  B Factor – 1 (on average)
¢  Dmin – 6%
¢  Used exponen@al decline
when behavior was exhibited
¢  Oren higher than 6%

¢  Gas
¢  B Factor – 1 (on average)
¢  Dmin – 6%
¢  Used exponen@al decline
when behavior was exhibited
¢  Oren higher than 6%

¢  Tried to honor GOR trend

Transi@on From Actual when possible
Produc@on to Forecast on
Effec@ve Date 10/1 50
PDP ESTIMATE - CURTAILMENT

Key PDP Metrics

Curtailment
Honoring earlier ¢  Recently cited
decline before curtailment issues
curtailment hit star@ng at the beginning
wells of 2019
¢  Affec@ng McKenzie and
Williams Coun@es
¢  Atempted to honor old
curve
¢  Note that this projec@on
will become less accurate
to the downside for
es@ma@ng future
produc@on as curtailment
Curtailment?? con@nues
51
PDP ESTIMATE – SUMMARY PLOT ALL WLL PDP

2,286 Wells in 3 State Key PDP Metrics

Focus Area
¢  PV10 PDP – $2.2
billion
¢  Oil Reserves –
561 million
barrels
¢  Oil Remaining –
174 million
barrels
Transi@on From Actual ¢  Gas Reserves –
Produc@on to Forecast on 1,209 BCF
Effec@ve Date 10/1
¢  Gas Remaining –
557 BCF

52
ENGINEERING AND EVALUATION
PROVED UNDEVELOPED (PUD) TYPE CURVES
MAP OF WHITING FIELDS

Polar

Sanish

West Missouri Break

Hidden Bench

East Missouri Break

Pronghorn

54
 POST 2016 FIELD CURVE – ALL WELLS IN FIELD
¢  First produc@on per well is normalized to @me zero and averaged across the well count
¢  Projec@on placed across this data to create a type curve for the underlying data set
¢  Using this projec@on you create a type curve case, which includes cost, tax, pricing and all other
assump@ons used in the database
¢  This case was then u@lized for new drill projec@ons and wells that don’t have enough data to create
individual decline curve
¢  Case shows average oil EUR of 400 MBO and gas EUR of 1.4 BCF per well (EURs roughly in line with
probability plot on slide 38)
Actual Produc@on Overlaid with Projec@on Economic Case Created From Projec@on

Note that late life

produc@on
inconsistency is
mainly due to lower
well count

55
TYPE CURVES FOR ALL FIELDS

Pronghorn Field Type Curve West Missouri Breaks Field Type Curve
Hidden Bench Field Type Curve East Missouri Breaks Field Type Curve

Sanish Field Type Curve Polar Field Type Curve

57
ENGINEERING AND EVALUATION
DRILLING LOCATION INVENTORY
 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

¢  Created an original oil in place (OOIP) map and assigned volumes on a per sec@on
basis
¢  Allocated EURs 50/50 to sec@ons that contained either a surface or botom hole
(or effec@vely one or the other) loca@ons for all horizontal wells
¢  Cross referenced the allocated EURs for each sec@on with the OOIP numbers to
es@mate oil recovery volumes (recovery factors)
¢  Using these numbers created an es@mate for future volumes of oil and gas that
could be recovered from addi@onal drilling within the fields’ Whi@ng outlines
¢  Took prior produc@on performance from recent wells (post 2016) and created type
curves for each of Whi@ng's areas
¢  Combined the remaining reserves es@mates with the es@mates of produc@on from
type curves to determine the number of drilling loca@ons remaining on Whi@ng's
North Dakota acreage

*Authors would note that certain units in North Dakota exhibit recoveries that appear to be as high as 20%, however, we believe these higher volumes are generally atributable to high density 59
drilling spacing units that have proven uneconomic at today's oil/gas price
ORIGINAL OIL IN PLACE
BAKKEN THREE FORKS

+ =
BAKKEN POOL OOIP OOIP ALLOCATED TO SECTIONS

=
60
 BAKKEN PERMITS

THREE FORKS PERMITS

IMPLIED RECOVERY FACTOR HEAT MAP

<5% >15%

*Implied recovery factor based on OOIP of “Bakken Pool” and EURs for all wells
61
DRILLING LOCATIONS PER FIELD
Sanish
¢  Sanish OOIP calculated at ~2.1 billion barrels of oil in place

¢  Current es@mated recovery factor of 9.4%

¢  Assumed 15% recovery factor possible

¢  Assumed EUR of 508 MBO

¢  (2.1 x (15% - 9.4%)) / (508 MBO / well) ~ 240 wells

Hidden Bench
¢  Hidden Bench OOIP calculated at ~1.3 billion barrels of oil in place

¢  Current es@mates recovery factor of 8%

¢  Assumed 15% recovery factor possible

¢  Assumed EUR of 359 MBO

¢  (1.3 x (15% - 8%)) / (360 MBO / well) ~ 255 wells

62
DRILLING LOCATIONS PER FIELD
Polar
¢  Polar OOIP calculated at ~1.5 billion barrels of oil in place

¢  Current es@mated recovery factor of 14%

¢  Assumed 15% recovery factor possible

¢  Assumed EUR of 360 MBO

¢  (1.5 x (15% - 14%)) / (360 MBO / well) ~ 40 wells

Pronghorn

¢  212 exis@ng wells

¢  65 DSUs

¢  6 wells/unit

¢  Implies 180 wells ler to drill

63
SAMPLE POLAR ANALYSIS
BAKKEN

64
ENGINEERING AND EVALUATION
SANISH
 SANISH SUMMARY
¢  Whi@ng began drilling in ~2007

¢  Peak drilling ac@vity occurred in 2012

¢  Peak produc@on was March of 2013 at 53 thousand barrels of oil a day

¢  Have drilled ~480 wells since that @me

¢  ~77 drilling units means currently 6.2 wells / unit

¢  Average es@mated oil in place per DSU in Sanish is ~25 million

¢  Current es@mated recovery factor for Sanish 9.4%

¢  2 drilling rigs (half of WLL drilling program) running in Sanish

¢  Future Sanish drilling accounts for ~80% of PUD value at a NPV10 and keeping well results ~in line with past
results is required to maintain liquidity for the company

Whi@ng Drilling Ac@vity in Sanish

100
80
60
40
20
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
66
 MCNAMARA CASE STUDY
¢  Men@oned several @mes by
company as evidence that Sanish has
infill poten@al McNamara Wells
¢  Located in Sanish Field
¢  Comprised of two “standard” 1,280
acre “units” for total acreage of
2,560
¢  Original well drilled in 2007 with
older vintage addi@ons running
through 2013
¢  All wells in the unit have ~10,000’
laterals
¢  Includes McNamara, Liffrig,
Fladeland and Locken wells
¢  Total “old” well count was 7
¢  Spacing implica@on 3.5 wells per 1,280
acre DSU Sanish Field
67
 MCNAMARA RESERVES
¢  When 6 new wells were brought Oil projec@on
online in 2018 the one well / unit for old wells
had produced 2,770 MBO.
¢  Using projec@on in chart to the
right, es@mated total reserves for
the McNamara DSU was 3,826
MBO
¢  Remaining reserves were 1,056
MBO
¢  EUR / OOIP = RF
¢  3,826 / 53,152 = 7.2%
Forma@on Sw OOIP
¢  Implies oil EUR / 7 old wells ~550 Up Bakken 3.20% 13,407,969.80
MBO / well Mid Bakken 29.80% 3,663,037.36

¢  This would be highly economic at Mid Bakken 23.00% 1,685,512.00

today’s oil price Mid Bakken 33.30% 10,811,434.82

Low Bakken 5.30% 18,108,350.52
¢  Wells paid out in less than two Three Forks 1 61.80% 3,733,365.18
years Three Forks 2 82.60% 1,742,760.96

2560 OOIP 53,152,431 68
 MCNAMARA RESERVES
¢  Based on projec@on to the right,
current projected EUR for this DSU Oil projec@on
for new and old
is 8,563 MBO wells

¢  EUR / OOIP = RF
¢  8,563 / 53,152 = 16%
¢  In line with standard 15% basin
wide assump@on
¢  Implies oil EUR of 592 MBO / well
for 8 new wells.
¢  This would be highly economic at Forma@on Sw OOIP
today’s oil price Up Bakken 3.20% 13,407,969.80

¢  Wells paid out in less than two

Mid Bakken 29.80% 3,663,037.36

years
Mid Bakken 23.00% 1,685,512.00
Mid Bakken 33.30% 10,811,434.82

¢  ~8% improvement of produc@vity Low Bakken

Three Forks 1
5.30%
61.80%
18,108,350.52
3,733,365.18
from original wells in the unit Three Forks 2 82.60% 1,742,760.96

2560 OOIP 53,152,431 69
 BARTELSON FEDERAL CASE STUDY
¢  Men@oned in addi@on to
McNamara several @mes by Bartelson Federal Wells
company as evidence that
Sanish has infill poten@al
¢  Located on furthest western
extent of Whi@ng’s Sanish
Field posi@on
¢  Comprised of one 1,280 acre
unit
¢  Only one original well drilled
in 2007
¢  Original well was ~10,000’
lateral Sanish Field
70
 BARTELSON FEDERAL RESERVES

¢ When 6 new wells were brought

online in 2018 the one well unit had
produced 225 MBO
¢ The one well Bartelson 44-31H was Forma@on
Up Bakken
Sw
3.20%
OOIP
6,703,984.9

not producing at that @me Mid Bakken

Mid Bakken
29.80%
23.00%
1,831,518.68
842,756.00
Mid Bakken 33.30% 5,405,717.41

¢ EUR / OOIP = RF Low Bakken

Three Forks 1
5.30%
61.80%
9,054,175.26
1,866,682.59
Three Forks 2 82.60% 871,380.48

¢ 225 / 26,576 = 0.8% 1280 OOIP 26,576,200

¢ In essence this unit was virgin oil in

place, GOR and pressure
71
 BARTELSON FEDERAL RESERVES
¢  Based on projec@on to the right,
current projected EUR for this DSU
is 4,205 MBO
Oil projec@on
¢  EUR / OOIP = RF for new and old
wells
¢  4,205 / 26,576 = 15.8%
¢  In line with standard 15% basin
wide assump@on
¢  Implies oil EUR of 663 MBO / well
for 6 new wells.
¢  This would be highly economic at Forma@on Sw OOIP
today’s oil price Up Bakken 3.20% 6,703,984.9

¢  Wells paid out in less than two Mid Bakken 29.80% 1,831,518.68

years
Mid Bakken 23.00% 842,756.00
Mid Bakken 33.30% 5,405,717.41

¢  ~66% improvement of produc@vity Low Bakken 5.30% 9,054,175.26

from original wells in the unit

Three Forks 1 61.80% 1,866,682.59
Three Forks 2 82.60% 871,380.48

1280 OOIP 26,576,200 72

SANISH MOVING FORWARD
¢  The Bartelson and McNamara call outs
look nothing like future drilling
¢  At @me of new drilling these units were
set to recover ~7% and ~1% of OOIP
¢  At @me of new drilling these units had
3.5 and 1 well / unit
¢  Moving forward all Sanish wells are
infill wells (brown lines on map are
drilling permits)
¢  Across Sanish the average recovery
factor is already 9.4%
¢  155 operated sec@ons and 77 DSUs
with 480 wells
¢  Currently 6.2 wells / DSU

73
 OIL EUR PER WELL PROBABILITY PLOT
¢  Whi@ng adver@ses 650 MBO of oil which, in our view, appears to have a 10 – 15% probability of actually occurring

0%

WLL adver@sed EUR

10%

20%
305 Bakken/Three Forks
Wells Drilled Since ‘16
Cumulative Probability

30%

40%
Our average EUR
50%

60%
-Mean oil EUR
70%
424 MBO
80%
-Median oil EUR
90% 414 MBO
100% 74
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
 TECHNICAL SUMMARY POINTS
Our analysis and modeling indicates:
¢  Well average EUR is nowhere close to 650 MBO or 1 MBOE type curve
¢  New comple@on design created real EUR uplir at the end of 2015 – beginning
of 2016, however, has reached its technical limit
¢  Deple@on and subsquent density drilling has led to EUR degrada@on since
2017
¢  On a go forward basis the company is now dependent on Sanish results (~75%
of value add) to be able to deleverage and create equity value
¢  Most Sanish wells are Bakken and Bakken has been decreasing at ~9% a year over
last 2 years
¢  Drilling in high density and high recovery areas of Sanish will most likely lead
to degraded produc@vity over past performance
¢  Degraded produc@on leads to significant slippage in cash flow and eventually a
spike in leverage at strip pricing, all else being equal
75

LEGAL
CORPORATE STRUCTURE & RELEVANT DOCUMENT REVIEW
CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND GUARANTEES

Source: Company filings 77

8-K DATED 9/13/19

¢  8-K dated 9/13/19 seems to be seung the stage for a 1st lien transac@on for the stub 2020 and 2021 Notes
¢  We believe Whi@ng will likely issue a ~$1.2B 1L note in the near future
¢  Unclear whether WLL will refinance the recent $340mm revolver draw

htps://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312519245267/d804106d8k.htm

"On September 13, 2019, Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on (the “Company”) and its subsidiary Whi@ng Oil and Gas
Corpora@on (“Whi@ng Oil and Gas”) entered into a First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Seventh Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of April 12, 2018 (the “Credit Agreement”), among the Company, Whi@ng
Oil and Gas, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administra@ve agent.
The Amendment amends the Credit Agreement to, among other things, permit the repurchase, redemp@on,
prepayment, or other acquisi@on or re@rement for value of any Senior Notes (as defined in the Credit Agreement) if
(a) such transac@on is for a price not greater than an amount equal to par plus accrued and unpaid interest and fees
and any applicable make-whole premium, (b) immediately arer giving effect to such transac@on, there is unused
availability under the facility of not less than the greater of $100 million or 15% of the then effec@ve total
commitments, and (c) the Company’s ra@o of consolidated total debt as of the date of such transac@on (upon giving
effect thereto) to EBITDAX (as defined in the Credit Agreement) during the last four quarters is not greater than 3.25
to 1.0."

Source: Company filings 78

LIEN LOOPHOLE IS PRESENT
¢  “Credit Agreement” means that certain Sixth Amended and Restated
¢  “Permi-ed Liens” means:
Credit Agreement, dated as of August 27, 2014, as amended, among
WOGC, the Company, the other guarantors named therein, JPMorgan (1) Liens securing any Indebtedness under any Credit Facility;
Chase Bank, N.A., as administra@ve agent, the other financial ins@tu@ons
and lenders par@es thereto from @me to @me, providing for revolving (2) Liens in favor of the Company or the Guarantors;
credit borrowings, including any related notes, guarantees, collateral
documents, instruments and agreements executed in connec@on (3) Liens on property of a Person exis@ng at the @me such Person is merged
therewith, and in each case as amended, modified, supplemented, with or into or consolidated with the Company or any Restricted Subsidiary of
restated, refinanced, renewed, refunded, replaced (whether at maturity, the Company; provided that such Liens were in existence prior to the
upon early repayment and termina@on or therearer) in whole or in part contempla@on of such merger or consolida@on and do not extend to any assets
from @me to @me including by or pursuant to one or more agreements or other than those of the Person merged into or consolidated with the Company
indentures, or by means of issuance of debt securiZes to insZtuZonal or the Restricted Subsidiary;
investors, including any agreement or indenture that extends the
(4) Liens on property (including Capital Stock) exis@ng at the @me of acquisi@on
maturity of any Indebtedness thereunder, or increases the amount of
of the property by the Company or any Restricted Subsidiary of the
available borrowings thereunder (provided that any increase in amounts
Company; provided that such Liens were in existence prior to the contempla@on
drawn is otherwise permited under Sec@on 4.09 of this Firh
of such acquisi@on;
Supplemental Indenture), or adds or changes the borrower or guarantor
and whether by the same or any other agent, lender, group of lenders,
purchasers or debt holders. (5) Liens securing Indebtedness (including Capital Lease Obliga@ons) incurred in

¢  “Credit Facili3es” means one or more debt facili@es (including, without

connec@on with the acquisi@on by the Company or any Restricted Subsidiary of
limitaZon, the Credit Agreement), indentures, commercial paper assets used in the Oil and Gas Business (including the office buildings and other
faciliZes or capital markets financings, in each case with banks or other real property used by the Company or such Restricted Subsidiary in conduc@ng
insZtuZonal lenders or insZtuZonal investors providing for revolving its opera@ons); provided that (i) such Liens atach only to the assets acquired
credit loans, term loans, receivables financing (including through the sale with the proceeds of such Indebtedness, and (ii) such Indebtedness is not in
of receivables to such lenders or to special purpose en@@es formed to excess of the purchase price of such fixed assets;
borrow from (or sell receivables to) such lenders against such
(6) Liens exis@ng on the Issue Date (other than under the Credit Agreement);
receivables) or leters of credit, in each case, as amended, restated,
modified, renewed, refunded, replaced or refinanced (including
refinancing with any capital markets. transac@on or by means of sales of
debt securi@es) in whole or in part from @me to @me (and whether or not
with the original administra@ve agent, lenders or trustee or another
administra@ve agent or agents, other lenders or another trustee and
whether provided under the original Credit Agreement or any other
credit or other agreement or indenture).
79
Source: Company filings
LIMITATION ON INDEBTEDNESS
¢  SecZon 4.09 LimitaZon on Incurrence of Indebtedness and Issuance of Preferred Stock.
The Company will not, and will not permit any of its Restricted Subsidiaries to, directly or indirectly, create, incur, issue, assume, guarantee or otherwise become directly or indirectly liable,
con@ngently or otherwise, with respect to (collec@vely, “incur”) any Indebtedness (including Acquired Debt), neither the Company nor any Guarantor will issue any Disqualified Stock, and
the Company will not permit any Non-Guarantor Subsidiary to issue any shares of preferred stock; provided, however, that the Company and any Restricted Subsidiary may incur
Indebtedness (including Acquired Debt) or issue Disqualified Stock, and any Restricted Subsidiary may issue preferred stock, if the Fixed Charge Coverage RaZo for the Company’s most
recently ended four full fiscal quarters for which internal financial statements are available immediately preceding the date on which such addiZonal Indebtedness is incurred or such
Disqualified Stock or preferred stock is issued would have been at least 2.0 to 1.0, determined on a pro forma basis (including a pro forma applica@on of the net proceeds therefrom), as if
the addi@onal Indebtedness had been incurred or Disqualified Stock or preferred stock had been issued, as the case may be, at the beginning of such four-quarter period.

The first paragraph of this Sec@on 4.09 will not prohibit the incurrence of any of the following items of Indebtedness (collec@vely, “Permited Debt”):

(1) the incurrence by the Company or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries of addi@onal Indebtedness (including leters of credit) under one or more Credit Facili@es in an aggregate principal
amount at any one @me outstanding under this clause (1) (with leters of credit being deemed to have a principal amount equal to the maximum available amount thereunder) not to
exceed an amount equal to the greater of (a) $3.0 billion or (b) 30.0% of ACNTA as of the date of such incurrence;

¢  “Fixed Charge Coverage Ra7o” means with respect to any specified Person for any four-quarter reference period, the ra@o of the Consolidated Cash Flow of such Person for such
period to the Fixed Charges of such Person for such period. In the event that the specified Person or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries incurs, assumes, guarantees, repays,
repurchases or redeems any Indebtedness (other than ordinary working capital borrowings) or issues, repurchases or redeems preferred stock subsequent to the commencement of
the applicable four-quarter reference period and on or prior to the date on which the event for which the calcula@on of the Fixed Charge Coverage Ra@o is made (the “Calcula@on
Date”), then the Fixed Charge Coverage Ra@o will be calculated giving pro forma effect to such incurrence, assump@on, guarantee, repayment, repurchase or redemp@on of
Indebtedness, or such issuance, repurchase or redemp@on of preferred stock, and the use of the proceeds therefrom as if the same had occurred at the beginning of such period.

¢  “Fixed Charges” means, with respect to any specified Person for any period, the sum, without duplica@on, of:

(1) the consolidated interest expense of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period, whether paid or accrued (excluding any interest atributable to Dollar-Denominated
Produc@on Payments but including, without limita@on, amor@za@on of debt issuance costs and original issue discount, non-cash interest payments, the interest component of any deferred
payment obliga@ons, the interest component of all payments associated with Capital Lease Obliga@ons, imputed interest
with respect to Atributable Debt, commissions, discounts and other fees and charges incurred in respect of leter of credit or bankers’ acceptance financings), and net of the effect of all
payments made or received pursuant to Hedging Obliga@ons; plus
(2) the consolidated interest expense of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries that was capitalized during such period; plus

(3) any interest expense on Indebtedness of another Person that is guaranteed by such Person or one of its Restricted Subsidiaries or secured by a Lien on assets of such Person or one of its
Restricted Subsidiaries, whether or not such guarantee or Lien is called upon; plus
(4) all dividends, whether paid or accrued and whether or not in cash, on any series of preferred stock of such Person or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries, other than dividends on Equity
Interests payable solely in Equity Interests of the Company (other than Disqualified Stock) or to the Company or a Restricted Subsidiary of the Company,
in each case, on a consolidated basis and in accordance with GAAP.
80
Source: Company filings
FCC DEFINITIONS
¢  “Consolidated Cash Flow” means, with respect to any specified Person for any period, the Consolidated Net Income of such Person for such period plus, without duplica@on:

(1) an amount equal to any extraordinary loss plus any net loss realized by such Person or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries in connec@on with an Asset Sale, to the extent such losses were deducted in compu@ng such
Consolidated Net Income; plus

(2) provision for taxes based on income or profits of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period, to the extent that such provision for taxes was deducted in compu@ng such Consolidated Net
Income; plus

(3) consolidated interest expense of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period, whether paid or accrued and whether or not capitalized (excluding any interest atributable to Dollar-Denominated
Produc@on Payments and any non-cash interest on any conver@ble or exchangeable notes that exists by virtue of the bifurca@on of the debt and equity components of such conver@ble or exchangeable notes in
accordance with GAAP, but including, without limita@on, amor@za@on of debt issuance costs and original issue discount, non-cash interest payments (other than as provided above), the interest component of any
deferred payment obliga@ons, the interest component of all payments associated with Capital Lease Obliga@ons, commissions, discounts and other fees and charges incurred in respect of leter of credit or bankers’
acceptance financings), and net of the effect of all payments made or received pursuant to Hedging Obliga@ons, to the extent that any such expense was deducted in compu@ng such Consolidated Net Income; plus

(4) deprecia@on, deple@on and amor@za@on (including amor@za@on of intangibles but excluding amor@za@on of prepaid cash expenses that were paid in a prior period), impairment and other non-cash expenses
(excluding any such non-cash expense to the extent that it represents an accrual of or reserve for cash expenses in any future period or amor@za@on of a prepaid cash expense that was paid in a prior period) of such
Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period to the extent that such deprecia@on, deple@on and amor@za@on, impairment and other non-cash expenses were deducted in compu@ng such Consolidated Net
Income; plus

(5) unrealized non-cash losses resul@ng from foreign currency balance sheet adjustments required by GAAP to the extent such losses were deducted in compu@ng such Consolidated Net Income; minus..........

¢  “Consolidated Net Income” means, with respect to any specified Person for any period, the aggregate of the Net Income of such Person and its Restricted Subsidiaries for such period, on a consolidated basis,
determined in accordance with GAAP; provided that:

(1) the Net Income (but not loss) of any Person that is not a Restricted Subsidiary or that is accounted for by the equity method of accoun@ng will be included, but only to the extent of the amount of dividends or
distribu@ons paid in cash to the specified Person or a Restricted Subsidiary of the Person;

(2) the Net Income of any Restricted Subsidiary will be excluded to the extent that the declara@on or payment of dividends or similar distribu@ons by that Restricted Subsidiary of that Net Income is not at the date of
determina@on permited without any prior governmental approval (that has not been obtained) or, directly or indirectly, by opera@on of the terms of its charter or any instrument, judgment, decree, order, statute,
rule or governmental regula@on applicable to that Restricted Subsidiary or its stockholders, partners or members;

(3) the cumula@ve effect of a change in accoun@ng principles will be excluded;

(4) income resul@ng from transfers of assets (other than cash) between the Company or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries, on the one hand, and an Unrestricted Subsidiary, on the other hand, will be excluded;

(5) any write-downs of non-current assets will be excluded; provided that any ceiling limita@on write-downs under Commission guidelines shall be treated as capitalized costs, as if such write-downs had not occurred;

(6) any unrealized non-cash gains or losses or charges in respect of hedge or non-hedge deriva@ves (including those resul@ng from the applica@on of FASB Accoun@ng Standards Codifica@on Topic 815) will be
excluded.

In addi@on, notwithstanding the preceding, for the purposes of Sec@on 4.07 of this Firh Supplemental Indenture only, there shall be excluded from Consolidated Net Income any nonrecurring charges rela@ng to any
premium or penalty paid, write off of deferred finance costs or other charges in connec@on with redeeming or re@ring any Indebtedness prior to its Stated Maturity.

Source: Company filings 81

LEGAL DOCUMENTS

¢  6.625 % indenture
o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312517380119/d505619dex42.htm

¢  5.75 % indenture
o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312513365264/d596808dex41.htm

¢  1.25 % indenture
o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312515111963/d899874dex42.htm

¢  6.25 % indenture
o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312515111963/d899874dex43.htm

¢  Revolver credit agreement

o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312518116027/d569614dex41.htm

¢  Revolver amendment
o  htps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1255474/000119312519245267/d804106dex41.htm

Source: SEC 82
MANAGEMENT & GOVERNANCE
PROXY REVIEW
MANAGEMENT, BOARD & INCENTIVES
¢  CEO Brad Holly allegedly had sexual ¢  Fair to ques@on the diligence process
rela@onship with colleagues and/or the Board went through to hire Holly
those repor@ng to him – at ¢  Out of touch recent 15% Director
Anadarko compensa@on increase
o  htps://www.wsj.com/ar@cles/energy-industry-confronts-
sexual-misconduct-and-harassment- ¢  WLL should provide Rate of Return
allega@ons-11556463600
calcula@on which they mysteriously
o  htps://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/16/anadarko-
denver-sexual-harassment-claims/
exceeded last year at 42%
o  htps://www.cpr.org/2019/04/16/former-anadarko- ¢  30% of short-term compensa@on is
employees-say-denver-office-was-beset-by-culture-of-male-
sexual-gra@fica@on-bullying-and-retalia@on/ nebulous and subjec@ve

¢  Sexual misconduct allega@ons do ¢  Management con@nues to get

make us worry about ethics and compensated on produc@on growth
repor@ng despite it being value destruc@ve

¢  Board may be out of touch

84
 Proxy review

Out of touch Board with 15% compensa3on increase as stock craters?

Source: Company filings 85

 Proxy review

Source: Company filings 86

Did the 42% rate of return (d&c, wellhead only?) on drilling create value?
 KEY MANAGEMENT
¢  Bradley J. Holly has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since his appointment on November 1, 2017, as
President and Chief Execu@ve Officer. He was appointed Chairman of the Board in May 2018. Mr. Holly has more than
20 years of experience in the oil and natural gas industry. Prior to joining Whi@ng, he served at Anadarko Petroleum
Corpora@on in various roles of increasing responsibility, ul@mately leading to Execu@ve Vice President, U.S. Onshore
Explora@on and Produc@on. Mr. Holly holds a Bachelor of Science degree in petroleum engineering from Texas Tech
University, and he is a graduate of the Harvard Business School Advanced Management Program.

¢  Prior to joining Whi@ng, Charles J. “Chip” Rimer served as Senior Vice President, Global Services for Noble Energy, Inc.
He joined Samedan/Noble Energy Inc. in 2002 and served in mul@ple roles, including Senior Vice President of Global
EHSR & Opera@ons Services and Vice President of Opera@ons Services. During his tenure, he managed Noble’s world-
wide drilling and rig opera@ons and its Interna@onal West Africa, Non-Operated and New Ventures Divisions. Mr.
Rimer started his career with ARCO Oil & Gas Company in 1983, working U.S. onshore areas, and he held senior
opera@ons engineering posi@ons at Vastar Resources and Aspect Resources before joining Noble Energy, Inc. Mr.
Rimer holds a Bachelor of Science degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Texas.

¢  Correne S. Loeffler joined Whi@ng in August 2019 as Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Loeffler’s professional background
includes 14 years of financial experience in the oil and natural gas industry. Ms. Loeffler previously served as Vice
President, Finance and Treasurer for Callon Petroleum Company, an independent explora@on and produc@on
company, from April 2017 to July 2019. She also served as Interim Chief Financial Officer of Callon Petroleum
Company from June 2017 to December 2017. Prior to that, Ms. Loeffler was Execu@ve Director with JPMorgan
Securi@es, LLC where she worked in the Corporate Client Bank Group from 2006 to 2017. In addi@on, Ms. Loeffler also
worked at Bank of America’s Global Corporate & Investment Bank from 2005 to 2006 and at Accenture from 1999 to
2003. Ms. Loeffler holds a Bachelor of Arts from Indiana University and a Master of Business Administra@on from the
University of Texas.
¢  Timothy M. Sulser co-founded Salt Creek Oil and Gas, LLC in 2015, arer five years as an investment banker with
Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co (TPH), most recently heading their Denver office. While at TPH, Mr. Sulser advised
upstream clients on acquisi@ons and dives@tures and energy capital markets. Prior to joining TPH he worked as a
reservoir engineer for reserve engineering consultant Netherland, Sewell, and Associates in Houston, Texas. He
started his career with Marathon Oil Company in Lafayete, Louisiana. Mr. Sulser holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
petroleum engineering from Montana Tech and a Master of Science degree in opera@ons research from Columbia
University. 87
Source: Company website
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
¢  Michael B. Walen has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since 2013 and currently serves as Chairman of our
Nomina@ng and Governance Commitee. Mr. Walen was the Senior Vice President — Chief Opera@ng Officer of Cabot Oil
and Gas Corpora@on from 2001 un@l 2010 and served in other management and explora@on posi@ons prior to that @me. He
has 38 years of explora@on and management experience with independent oil and gas companies including PetroCorp Inc.,
Patrick Petroleum Co., TXO Produc@on Co. and Tenneco Oil Company. Mr. Walen was also a director of Vitruvian
Explora@on from 2010 to 2013. Mr. Walen holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Geology from Central Washington University and a
Master’s Degree in Geology from Western Washington University.

¢  William N. Hahne has been a director since 2007 and currently serves as our Lead Director. Mr. Hahne was Chief Opera@ng
Officer of Petrohawk Energy Corpora@on from 2006 un@l 2007. Mr. Hahne served at KCS Energy, Inc. as President, Chief
Opera@ng Officer and Director from 2003 to 2006, and as Execu@ve Vice President and Chief Opera@ng Officer from 1998 to
2003. He is a graduate of Oklahoma University with a BS in petroleum engineering and has 43 years of extensive technical
and management experience with independent oil and gas companies including Unocal, Union Texas Petroleum
Corpora@on, NERCO, The Louisiana Land and Explora@on Company (LL&E) and Burlington Resources, Inc. He is an expert in
oil and gas reserve es@ma@ng, having served as chairman for the Society of Petroleum Engineers Oil and Gas Reserve
Commitee.

¢  Thomas L. Aller has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since 2003 and currently serves as Chairman of our
Compensa@on Commitee. Mr. Aller re@red as Senior Vice President of Opera@ons Support for Alliant Energy Corpora@on in
2014. He served as Senior Vice President — Energy Resource Development of Alliant Energy Corpora@on from 2009 to 2013
and President of Interstate Power and Light Company since 2004. Prior to that, he served as President of Alliant Energy
Investments, Inc. since 1998 and interim Execu@ve Vice President — Energy Delivery of Alliant Energy Corpora@on since
2003 and Senior Vice President — Energy Delivery of Alliant Energy Corpora@on since 2004. From 1993 to 1998, he served
as Vice President of IES Investments. He received his Bachelor’s Degree in poli@cal science from Creighton University and his
Master’s Degree in municipal administra@on from the University of Iowa.

¢  Lyne B. Andrich has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since September 2019. Ms. Andrich served as
Execu@ve Vice President and Chief Opera@ng Officer since 2017 and as Chief Financial Officer since 2003 of CoBiz Financial,
Inc. un@l 2018. She served as Controller of CoBiz Financial, Inc. from 1997 un@l 2003. She previously held several posi@ons
with Key Bank of the Rocky Mountains and Bank One, Colorado, including Assistant Controller, Financial Repor@ng Manager
and internal auditor. She holds a B.S. degree in Accoun@ng from the University of Florida and is a Cer@fied Public
Accountant. 88
Source: Company website
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
¢  James E. Catlin has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since 2014. Mr. Catlin was a co-founder of
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (“Kodiak”) and served at Kodiak as a director since 2001 and Execu@ve Vice President of
Business Development since 2011 un@l we acquired Kodiak in December 2014. Mr. Catlin also previously served as
Kodiak’s Chairman of the Board from 2002 un@l 2011, Secretary from 2002 to 2008 and Chief Opera@ng Officer from
2006 un@l 2011. Mr. Catlin has nearly 40 years of geologic experience primarily in the Rocky Mountain Region. Mr.
Catlin was an owner of CP Resources LLC, an independent oil and natural gas company from 1986 to 2001. Mr. Catlin
was a Founder, Vice President and Director of Deca Energy from 1980 to 1986 and worked as a district geologist for
Petroleum Inc. and Fuelco prior to this @me. He received a Bachelor of Arts and a Master’s of Science Degree in

Geology from the University of Northern Illinois in 1973.
¢  Philip E. Doty has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since 2010 and currently serves as Chairman of
our Audit Commitee. Mr. Doty is a cer@fied public accountant. Since 2007, Mr. Doty has been counsel to EKS&H LLLP,
the largest Colorado-based accoun@ng and consul@ng firm, where he previously was a partner from 2002 to 2007.
From 1967 to 2000 he worked at Arthur Andersen & Co., where he was a partner since 1978 and served as an audit
partner and head of the Denver office oil and gas prac@ce un@l his re@rement in 2000. He is a graduate of Drake
University with a Bachelor’s degree in accoun@ng.

¢  Michael G. Hutchinson has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since September 2019. Mr. Hutchinson
began his career with Deloite & Touche in 1978 where he served as a Partner from 1989 to 2002. From 2002 un@l his
re@rement in 2012, he was the Partner-in-Charge of the Colorado Audit and Enterprise Risk prac@ce and led the
Energy and Financial Services Prac@ces for Deloite & Touche in Colorado. Mr. Hutchinson also served as Interim Chief
Execu@ve Officer at Westmoreland Coal Company from 2017 to 2019. He holds a B.S. degree in Accoun@ng from the
University of Northern Colorado and is a Cer@fied Public Accountant.

¢  Carin S. Knickel has been a director of Whi@ng Petroleum Corpora@on since 2015. Ms. Knickel’s energy industry
experience includes over three decades in opera@ons leadership in refining, marke@ng, transporta@on, explora@on,
and produc@on for ConocoPhillips. She also held roles in business development, strategic planning and commodity
trading, and led the company’s specialty products business from 2001 to 2003. She became vice president of global
human resources in 2003 and served on the company’s management commitee from that @me un@l she re@red in
May 2012. Ms. Knickel also served as assistant dean for programs and talent for the University of Colorado College of
Engineering from January 2013 through July 2014. She has a bachelor’s degree in marke@ng from the University of
Colorado and a master’s degree in management science from the Massachusets Ins@tute of Technology. 89
Source: Company website
APPENDIX
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

90
TYPE CURVE WELLS BY FIELD
SANSIH HIDDEN BENCH

E/W MISSOURI BREAK

POLAR

91