Basis of Presentation, Significant Accounting Policies, and Recently Issued Accounting Standards (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2017

Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Consolidation, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of SM Energy and its wholly-owned subsidiaries and have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and Regulation S-X. These financial statements do not include all information and notes required by GAAP for annual financial statements. However, except as disclosed herein, there has been no material change in the information disclosed in the notes to consolidated financial statements included in SM Energy’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “2016 Form 10-K”). In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation of interim financial information, have been included. Operating results for the periods presented are not necessarily indicative of expected results for the full year. In connection with the preparation of the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company evaluated events subsequent to the balance sheet date of June 30, 2017, and through the filing of this report. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation on the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

New Accounting Pronouncements, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

Effective January 1, 2017, the Company adopted, using various transition methods, Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting (“ASU 2016-09”). ASU 2016-09 is meant to simplify certain aspects of accounting for share-based arrangements, including income tax effects, accounting for forfeitures, and net share settlements. The Company adopted the various applicable amendments as summarized below:

• On January 1, 2017, a $44.3 million cumulative-effect adjustment was made to retained earnings and a corresponding deferred tax asset was recorded for previously unrecognized excess tax benefits using a modified retrospective transition method. Additionally, going forward excess tax benefits will be presented in operating activities on the statement of cash flows.

• Also on January 1, 2017, the Company elected to change its policy to account for forfeitures of share-based payment awards as they occur, rather than applying an estimated forfeiture rate. This change was made using a modified retrospective transition method and resulted in a net $0.7 million cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings with a corresponding increase in additional paid-in capital and decrease in deferred tax assets.

• As a result of adoption, excess tax benefits and deficiencies from share-based payments are expected to impact the Company’s effective tax rate between periods. Please refer to Note 4 - Income Taxes for additional discussion.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2014-09”). 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. In addition, the standard requires disclosure of the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. The FASB issued several amendments to the standard which provided additional implementation guidance and deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09. While the Company does not expect net income (loss) or cash flows to be materially impacted, the Company is currently analyzing whether changes to total revenues and total expenses will be necessary to properly reflect revenue for certain pipeline gathering, transportation and gas processing agreements. The Company continues to evaluate the expected disclosure requirements, changes to relevant business practices, accounting policies, and control activities that will occur as a result of the adoption of this ASU, and has not yet developed estimates of the quantitative impact to its consolidated statements of financial position and operations. The Company plans to adopt the guidance using the modified retrospective method on the effective date of January 1, 2018.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) which requires lessees to recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for virtually all leases currently classified as operating leases. The Company is currently analyzing the impact this standard has on the Company’s contract portfolio, including non-cancelable leases, drilling rig contracts, pipeline gathering, transportation and gas processing agreements, as well as other existing arrangements and is evaluating current accounting policies that will change as a result of this ASU. Appropriate systems, controls, and processes to support the recognition and disclosure of the new standard are also being evaluated. Based upon an initial assessment, adoption of this ASU is expected to result in: (i) an increase in assets and liabilities recorded, (ii) an increase in depreciation, depletion and amortization expense recorded, and (iii) an increase in interest expense recorded. The Company plans to adopt the guidance on the effective date of January 1, 2019.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-07, Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost (“ASU 2017-07”). This ASU requires presentation of service cost in the same line item(s) as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by employees during the period and presentation of the remaining components of net benefit cost in a separate line item, outside operating items. In addition, only the service cost component of net benefit cost is eligible for capitalization. The Company plans to adopt ASU 2017-07 on January 1, 2018, with retrospective application of the service cost component and the other components of net benefit cost in the consolidated statements of operations and prospective application for the capitalization of the service cost component of net benefit costs in assets. The Company is evaluating the impact of this ASU on its consolidated financial statements.

Other than as disclosed above or in the 2016 Form 10-K, there are no other ASUs applicable to the Company that would have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements and related disclosures that have been issued but not yet adopted by the Company as of June 30, 2017, and through the filing of this report.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments, Policy [Policy Text Block]

Derivatives

The Company uses Level 2 inputs to measure the fair value of oil, gas, and NGL commodity derivatives. Fair values are based upon interpolated data. The Company derives internal valuation estimates taking into consideration forward commodity price curves, counterparties’ credit ratings, the Company’s credit rating, and the time value of money. These valuations are then compared to the respective counterparties’ mark-to-market statements. The considered factors result in an estimated exit-price that management believes provides a reasonable and consistent methodology for valuing derivative instruments. The derivative instruments utilized by the Company are not considered by management to be complex, structured, or illiquid. The oil, gas, and NGL commodity derivative markets are highly active.

Generally, market quotes assume that all counterparties have near zero, or low, default rates and have equal credit quality. However, an adjustment may be necessary to reflect the credit quality of a specific counterparty to determine the fair value of the instrument. The Company monitors the credit ratings of its counterparties and may require counterparties to post collateral if their ratings deteriorate. In some instances, the Company will attempt to novate the trade to a more stable counterparty. All of the Company’s derivative counterparties are members of the Company’s credit facility lender group.

Valuation adjustments are necessary to reflect the effect of the Company’s credit quality on the fair value of any derivative liability position. This adjustment takes into account any credit enhancements, such as collateral margin that the Company may have posted with a counterparty, as well as any letters of credit between the parties. The methodology to determine this adjustment is consistent with how the Company evaluates counterparty credit risk, taking into account the Company’s credit rating, current credit facility margins, and any change in such margins since the last measurement date.

The methods described above may result in a fair value estimate that may not be indicative of net realizable value or may not be reflective of future fair values and cash flows. While the Company believes that the valuation methods utilized are appropriate and consistent with authoritative accounting guidance and with other marketplace participants, the Company recognizes that third parties may use different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments that could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

Refer to Note 10 - Derivative Financial Instrumentsfor more information regarding the Company’s derivative instruments.

Property, Plant and Equipment, Impairment [Policy Text Block]

Proved and Unproved Oil and Gas Properties and Other Property and Equipment

The Company did not have property and equipment measured at fair value within the accompanying balance sheets as of June 30, 2017. Property and equipment, net measured at fair value totaled $88.2 million as of December 31, 2016, and primarily consisted of the Company’s Powder River Basin assets, which were impaired at year-end as a result of downward performance reserve revisions.

Proved oil and gas properties. Proved oil and gas property costs are evaluated for impairment and reduced to fair value when there is an indication the carrying costs may not be recoverable. The Company uses Level 3 inputs and the income valuation technique, which converts future amounts to a single present value amount, to measure the fair value of proved properties through an application of discount rates and price forecasts representative of the current operating environment, as selected by the Company’s management. The calculation of the discount rates are based on the best information available and the rates used ranged from 10 percent to 15 percent based on the reservoir specific weightings of future estimated proved and unproved cash flows as of June 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016. The Company believes the discount rates are representative of current market conditions and consider estimates of future cash payments, reserve categories, expectations of possible variations in the amount and/or timing of cash flows, the risk premium, and nonperformance risk. The prices for oil and gas are forecast based on NYMEX strip pricing, adjusted for basis differentials, for the first five years, after which a flat terminal price is used for each commodity stream. The prices for NGLs are forecast using OPIS Mont Belvieu pricing, for as long as the market is actively trading, after which a flat terminal price is used. Future operating costs are also adjusted as deemed appropriate for these estimates.

The Company did not recognize any material impairment of proved properties expenses for the three or six months ended June 30, 2017, or for the three months ended June 30, 2016. The Company recorded impairment of proved properties expense of $269.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016, primarily related to the Company’s outside-operated Eagle Ford shale assets and the decline in expected cash flows driven by commodity price declines during the first quarter of 2016.

Unproved oil and gas properties. Unproved oil and gas property costs are evaluated for impairment and reduced to fair value when there is an indication that the carrying costs may not be recoverable.  To measure the fair value of unproved properties, the Company uses a market approach, which takes into account the following significant assumptions: remaining lease terms, future development plans, risk weighted potential resource recovery, estimated reserve values, and estimated acreage value based on price(s) received for similar, recent acreage transactions by the Company or other market participants.

There were no material abandonments or impairments of unproved properties expenses for the three or six months ended June 30, 2017, or 2016.

Oil and gas properties held for sale. Proved and unproved properties and other property and equipment classified as held for sale, including the corresponding asset retirement obligation liability, are valued using a market approach based on an estimated net selling price, as evidenced by the most current bid prices received from third parties, if available, or by recent, comparable market transactions. If an estimated selling price is not available, the Company utilizes the various income valuation techniques discussed above. When assets no longer meet the criteria of assets held for sale, they are measured at the lower of the carrying value of the assets before being classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depletion, depreciation, and amortization expense that would have been recognized, or the fair value at the date they are reclassified to assets held for use.

There were no assets held for sale that were recorded at fair value as of June 30, 2017. However, for the six months ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded a $526.5 million write-down on its Divide County assets previously held for sale, of which $359.6 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2017 based on an estimated fair value less selling costs and $166.9 million was recorded in the second quarter of 2017 based on market conditions that existed on the date the Company decided to retain the assets. Certain assets held for sale as of June 30, 2016, were written down by $68.3 million during the first quarter of 2016 and subsequently written up by $49.5 million in the second quarter of 2016 due to an increase in estimated selling prices, as evidenced by bid prices received from third parties. Certain of these assets were subsequently sold in the third quarter of 2016 for a small net gain due to successful marketing efforts. Please refer to Note 3 - Divestitures, Assets Held for Sale, and Acquisitionsfor additional discussion.