Basis of Presentation (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Denbury Resources Inc., a Delaware corporation, is an independent oil and natural gas company with operations focused in two key operating areas: the Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain regions. Our goal is to increase the value of our properties through a combination of exploitation, drilling and proven engineering extraction practices, with the most significant emphasis relating to CO₂ enhanced oil recovery operations.

Interim Financial Statements - Basis of Accounting, Policy

Interim Financial Statements

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Denbury Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements. These financial statements and the notes thereto should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 10-K”). Unless indicated otherwise or the context requires, the terms “we,” “our,” “us,” “Company” or “Denbury,” refer to Denbury Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Interim Financial Statements - Use of Estimates

Accounting measurements at interim dates inherently involve greater reliance on estimates than at year end, and the results of operations for the interim periods shown in this report are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the year. In management’s opinion, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments of a normal recurring nature necessary for a fair statement of our consolidated financial position as of March 31, 2017, our consolidated results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, and our consolidated cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016

Reclassifications

Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Such reclassifications had no impact on our reported net income, current assets, total assets, current liabilities, total liabilities or stockholders’ equity.

Net Income (Loss) per Common Share

Basic net income (loss) per common share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net income (loss) per common share is calculated in the same manner, but includes the impact of potentially dilutive securities. Potentially dilutive securities consist of nonvested restricted stock and nonvested performance-based equity awards. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, there were no adjustments to net income (loss) for purposes of calculating basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share.

The following is a reconciliation of the weighted average shares used in the basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share calculations for the periods indicated:



	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
In thousands	2017	2016
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding	389,397	347,235
Potentially dilutive securities
Restricted stock and performance-based equity awards	3,600	—
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding	392,997	347,235

Basic weighted average common shares exclude shares of nonvested restricted stock. As these restricted shares vest, they will be included in the shares outstanding used to calculate basic net income (loss) per common share (although time-vesting restricted stock is issued and outstanding upon grant).

The following securities could potentially dilute earnings per share in the future, but were excluded from the computation of diluted net income (loss) per share, as their effect would have been antidilutive:



	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
In thousands	2017	2016
Stock appreciation rights	5,044	7,412
Restricted stock and performance-based equity awards	1,229	5,097

Oil and Natural Gas Properties Policy

2016 Write-Down of Oil and Natural Gas Properties

Under full cost accounting rules, we are required each quarter to perform a ceiling test calculation. Under these rules, the full cost ceiling value is calculated using the average first-day-of-the-month oil and natural gas price for each month during a 12-month rolling period ended as of each quarterly reporting period. The falling prices in 2016, relative to 2015 prices, led to our recognizing a full cost pool ceiling test write-down of $256.0 million during the three months ended March 31, 2016. We did not record a ceiling test write-down during the three months ended March 31, 2017.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Business Combinations. In January 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2017-01, Business Combinations: Clarifying the Definition of a Business (“ASU 2017-01”). ASU 2017-01 clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years, and early adoption is permitted. Effective January 1, 2017, we adopted ASU 2017-01. The adoption of ASU 2017-01 did not have a material impact on our current period consolidated financial statements.

Leases. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 amends the guidance for lease accounting to require lease assets and liabilities to be recognized on the balance sheet, along with additional disclosures regarding key leasing arrangements. The amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within those fiscal years, and early adoption is permitted. Entities must adopt the standard using a modified retrospective transition and apply the guidance to the earliest comparative period presented, with certain practical expedients that entities may elect to apply. Management is currently assessing the impact the adoption of ASU 2016-02 will have on our consolidated financial statements.

Revenue Recognition. In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”). ASU 2014-09 amends the guidance for revenue recognition to replace numerous, industry-specific requirements. The core principle of the ASU is that an entity should recognize revenue for the transfer of goods or services equal to the amount that it expects to be entitled to receive for those goods or services. The ASU implements a five-step process for customer contract revenue recognition that focuses on transfer of control, as opposed to transfer of risk and rewards. The amendment also requires enhanced disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenues and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2015-14”) which amends ASU 2014-09 and delays the effective date for public companies, such that the amendments in the ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption will be permitted for periods beginning after December 15, 2016. In March, April and May 2016, the FASB issued four additional ASUs which primarily clarified the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations, performance obligations and licensing, collectibility, presentation of sales taxes and other similar taxes collected from customers, and non-cash consideration. Entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively to each period presented or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. We expect to adopt this standard using the modified retrospective method upon its effective date. Management is still evaluating this new guidance and has not yet determined the effect this standard will have on our consolidated financial statements.

Commodity Derivative Contracts

We do not apply hedge accounting treatment to our oil and natural gas derivative contracts; therefore, the changes in the fair values of these instruments are recognized in income in the period of change. These fair value changes, along with the settlements of expired contracts, are shown under “Commodity derivatives expense (income)” in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Historically, we have entered into various oil and natural gas derivative contracts to provide an economic hedge of our exposure to commodity price risk associated with anticipated future oil and natural gas production and to provide more certainty to our future cash flows. We do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. Generally, these contracts have consisted of various combinations of price floors, collars, three-way collars, fixed-price swaps and fixed-price swaps enhanced with a sold put. The production that we hedge has varied from year to year depending on our levels of debt, financial strength and expectation of future commodity prices.

We manage and control market and counterparty credit risk through established internal control procedures that are reviewed on an ongoing basis. We attempt to minimize credit risk exposure to counterparties through formal credit policies, monitoring procedures and diversification, and all of our commodity derivative contracts are with parties that are lenders under our Bank Credit Agreement (or affiliates of such lenders). As of March 31, 2017, all of our outstanding derivative contracts were subject to enforceable master netting arrangements whereby payables on those contracts can be offset against receivables from separate derivative contracts with the same counterparty. It is our policy to classify derivative assets and liabilities on a gross basis on our balance sheets, even if the contracts are subject to enforceable master netting arrangements.

Fair Value Measurements

The FASC Fair Value Measurement topic defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (often referred to as the “exit price”). We utilize market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated or generally unobservable. We primarily apply the income approach for recurring fair value measurements and endeavor to utilize the best available information. Accordingly, we utilize valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. We are able to classify fair value balances based on the observability of those inputs. The FASC establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurement). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:


•	Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date.

•

Level 2 – Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reported date. Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. Instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded oil derivatives that are based on NYMEX pricing and fixed-price swaps that are based on regional pricing other than NYMEX (e.g., Light Louisiana Sweet). Our costless collars and the sold put features of our three-way collars are valued using the Black-Scholes model, an industry standard option valuation model that takes into account inputs such as contractual prices for the underlying instruments, maturity, quoted forward prices for commodities, interest rates, volatility factors and credit worthiness, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace.

•

Level 3 – Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. At March 31, 2017, instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded three-way collars that are based on regional pricing other than NYMEX (e.g., Light Louisiana Sweet). The valuation models utilized for costless collars and three-way collars are consistent with the methodologies described above; however, the implied volatilities utilized in the valuation of Level 3 instruments are developed using a benchmark, which is considered a significant unobservable input. An increase or decrease of 100 basis points in the implied volatility inputs utilized in our fair value measurement would result in a change of approximately $2 thousand in the fair value of these instruments as of March 31, 2017.

We adjust the valuations from the valuation model for nonperformance risk, using our estimate of the counterparty’s credit quality for asset positions and our credit quality for liability positions. We use multiple sources of third-party credit data in determining counterparty nonperformance risk, including credit default swaps.